+menu-


  • Category Archives A time to PROTEST
  • Go Find Your Park? Is it Under United Nations Control?

    Go Find Your Park? Is it Under United Nations AGENDA 21 Control?

    HOW DO YOU FIND YOUR PARK IN JAN 22, 2016?

    Find Your Park – Centennial (U.S. National Park Service)

    www.nps.gov/subjects/centennial/findyourpark.htm
    National Park Service

    Go to FindYourPark.com to share your heritage. Find Your Park logo … Find Your Park is about more than just national parks! It’s about the National Park Service …

    HOW DO YOU FIND YOUR PARK IN JAN 22, 2016?

    MANY PARKS, MANY STORIES. Everyone finds their park in a different place and in a different way. These stories just might inspire you to find yours.

    —————–

    Find Your Park

    findyourpark.com/find

    There are many ways to find your park, and many places you can find it. Want to know where to start your journey? Browse by State or Search. Close. Search …

    Find A Park Experience

    IN 1995 THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE PLACED YELLOW STONE NATIONAL PARK 2,219,789 ACRES OF PUBLIC NATIONAL PARK LAND ON “THE WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN DANGER LIST” (continued below)

    BELOW IS A COMPLETE LIST OF AMERICA’S NATIONAL PARKS AND SITES THAT HAVE BEEN PLACED UNDER AGENDA 21 UNITED NATIONS GLOBAL CONTROL, SIMPLY BY BEING DESIGNATED UNDER UNESCO, AS UNESCO WORLD HERITAGE, MAN AND THE BIOSPHERE SITES . 

    THE LATEST ADDITION? San Antonio Missions

    IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT, THE ALAMO AND THE  MISSIONS OF SAN ANTONIO WERE ALREADY PROTECTED BY A PLETHORA OF LAWS, FEDERAL LAWS AND DESIGNATIONS, TEXAS STATE LAWS AND DESIGNATIONS, CITY OF SAN ANTONIO ORDINANCES, AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS, EASEMENTS, AND DEED RESTRICTIONS.

    ———————
    THE SAN ANTONIO MISSIONS INCLUDING “THE ALAMO” WAS AWARDED WORLD HERITAGE STATUS FROM UNESCO ON JULY 5, 2015?

    ————————–
    THE DESIGNATIONS, ANNOUNCED SUNDAY, MARK THE FIRST TIME THAT A TEXAS SITE HAS BEEN DEEMED OF “OUTSTANDING CULTURAL OR NATURAL IMPORTANCE TO THE COMMON HERITAGE OF HUMANITY” BY UNESCO, THE UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION.

    IN JANUARY 2015 IN RESPONSE TO THE UNESCO NOMINATION, REPUBLICAN STATE SEN. DONNA CAMPBELL INTRODUCED LEGISLATION BANNING ANY FOREIGN ENTITY FROM OWNING, CONTROLLING OR MANAGING THE ALAMO COMPLEX.

    ———————————
    UNESCO OFFICIALS HAVE SAID THE (WORLD HERITAGE) DESIGNATION San Antonio Missions DOES NOT OPEN UP THE ALAMO TO ANY KIND OF FOREIGN CONTROL.
    ————————————————————————

    REFRESH YOUR MEMORY ON FOREIGN CONTROL..

    Heritage Area Designations | Another Land Grab U.N. …

    securetherepublic.com/…/heritage-area-designations-another-land-grab-u…

    Aug 29, 2013 –Heritage Area Designations Another U.N. Agenda 21 Land GrabWorld Heritage Area Sites – are under United Nations Educational, …

    —————————————————————————

    SEPTEMBER 8, 1978. YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK AN AREA OF 2,219,789 ACRES OF PUBLIC PARK LAND BECAME A UNESCO WORLD HERITAGE SITE

    IN 1995 THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE PLACED YELLOW STONE NATIONAL PARK 2,219,789 ACRES OF PUBLIC NATIONAL PARK LAND ON “THE WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN DANGER LIST”

    YELLOWSTONE’S ADDITION TO THE ENDANGERED LIST WAS PRIMARILY A RESULT OF THE CONCERN OVER THE PRIVATE LAND USE OF THE NEW WORLD MINE.

    A UNITED NATIONS “BUFFER ZONE SCHEME” WAS PROPOSED PLACING A BUFFER ZONE AROUND, OUTSIDE OF, AND BEYOND YELLOW STONE 2,219,789 ACRES OF PUBLIC NATIONAL PARK LAND…

    A UNITED NATIONS UNESCO WORLD HERITAGE CREATED BUFFER ZONE DID TAKE THE PRIVATE PROPERTY, OF NORANDA, INC. CROWN BUTTE MINES BY AFTER BEING DESIGNATED AS A WORLD HERITAGE SITE.
    WOW.. BE ADVISED,  HOW DO YOU FIND YOUR PARK IN 2016? IS IT ON THE WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN DANGER LIST? IS YOUR PUBLIC PARK LAND AND PRIVATE PROPERTY IN DANGER OF BEING SUCKED IN TO AND BEING CONFISCATED BY A BUFFER ZONE OUTSIDE OF YOUR PARK?

    ———————-

    Find Your Park

    findyourpark.com/

    A park can be many different things to many different people. Watch the … MANY PARKS, MANY STORIES … Share your story to inspire others to find theirs.

    Share Your Story …
    MANY PARKS, MANY STORIES. Everyone finds their park in a different place and in a different way. These stories just might inspire you to find yours.
    HOW DO YOU FIND YOUR PARK IN JAN 22, 2016?

    Find Your Park

    findyourpark.com/find

    There are many ways to find your park, and many places you can find it. Want to know where to start your journey? Browse by State or Search. Close. Search …

    Find A Park Experience?

    THE NEARLY ONE MILLION ACRES OF OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK
    HUGE SWATHS OF WORLD HERITAGE UN AGENDA 21, UNESCO BUFFER ZONES FOR TAKING PRIVATE PROPERTY HAVE BEEN PROPOSED AROUND AND IN ADDITION TO THE NEARLY ONE MILLION ACRES OF OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK
    IS YOUR AMERICAN NATIONAL PARK PUBLIC LAND AND ADDITIONAL PRIVATE LAND UNDER UNESCO GLOBAL UNITED NATIONS “WORLD HERITAGE” CONTROL?

    ———————————————————-

    Olympic Park Associates push forward UN Agenda 21 in …

    www.citizenreviewonline.org/2010/Jun/olympic_park.html

    Citizen Review Online features news and commentary to people who believe … Olympic Park Associates push forward UN Agenda 21 in closing off more land and water … June 16, 2010 … This is straight out of the United Nations Agenda 21.Olympic Park Associates push forward UN Agenda 21 in …
    www.citizenreviewonline.org/2010/Jun/olympic_park.html
    Jun 16, 2010 – This is not surprising, since the Olympic National Park holds two UN … Interestingly, THE OLYMPIC PENINSULA IS LOCATED RIGHT WITHIN THE BUFFER ZONE of this biosphere … In addition to the proposed enlargement of the Olympic National Park, … tens of thousands of acres around Lake Ozette, Richmond reported.
    ——————————————————————————–
    BUFFER ZONES? MORE LIKE THE NEW WORLD ORDER OF TH UN AGENDA 21?

    [PDF]Yellowstone National Park v. the New World Mine – Berkeley …

    scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1539…elq
    by P Dykstra – ‎1997 – ‎Cited by 17 – ‎Related articles

    contact jcera@law.berkeley.edu. Recommended Citation. Peter Dykstra, Defining the Mother Lode: Yellowstone National Park v. the New World Mine, …
    BUFFER ZONES: A Method To Defend Yellowstone from the New W orld M ine … In 1872, the creation of Yellowstone National Park (hereinafter. Yellowstone, or the …
    BUFFER ZONES: The authors of this definition emphasized that the first priority was the protected area, and the interests of the local citizens should be secondary.

    Part II proposes A BUFFER ZONE management scheme to help protect Yellowstone.
    Part III examines how buffer zones might be implemented near Yellowstone under existing law.

    Part IV discusses THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION AND YELLOWSTONE’S STATUS ASA WORLD HERITAGE SITE IN DANGER as an incentive for buffer zone protection.

    A GLOBAL BUFFER ZONE ONBOTH PUBLIC PAK LAND AND PRIVATE PROPERTY Noranda, Inc. Crown Butte Mines? Along with President Clinton, members of both Houses of Congress spoke out against the New World Mine.

    Find Your Park – Centennial (U.S. National Park Service)
    www.nps.gov/subjects/centennial/findyourpark.htm
    National Park Service
    The National Park Service invites you to find your park! In celebration of the 100th birthday of the National Park Service in 2016, we are launching a movement to …
    IF YOU SEE SOMETHING SAY SOMETHING
    SINCE THE BEGINNING 1872, AMERICA’S NATIONAL PARK LANDS WERE ENACTED AND CREATED FOR THE USE BENEFIT AND ENJOYMENT OF WE THE PEOPLE. OUR NATIONAL PARKS LANDS ARE OUR AMERICAN HERITAGE.
    1872 Yellowstone National Park By the Act of March 1, 1872, Congress established Yellowstone National Park in the Territories of Montana and Wyoming “AS A PUBLIC PARK OR PLEASURING-GROUND FOR THE BENEFIT AND ENJOYMENT OF THE PEOPLE” and national parks can be created only through such acts.
    100 YEARS LATER AFTER, DECADES-OLD CONFLICT OVER THE U.S. GOVERNMENT’S CONTROL OF MILLIONS ACRES OF LAND IN THE WEST.
    ———————————————————————————-
    100 YEARS LATER….SINCE 1972 CONTINUING IN 2016
    AMERICA’S PROMISED LANDS HAVE BEEN GIVEN, BY THE US GOVERNMENT, TO THE GLOBAL CONTROL OF UNITED NATIONS
    BY FAR THE WORST GOVERNMENT TAKING OF AMERICAN’S PROMISED PUBLIC LAND IS, AND CONTINUES TO BE, TO AND FOR THE UNITED NATIONS GLOBAL UNESCO, AGENDA 21, WORLD HERITAGE SITES AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT SINCE 1972
    BY HOOK OR BY CROOK, ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT AT EVERY LEVEL, HAS CONTINUED TO TAKE AMERICAN’S DESIGNATED PUBLIC LAND RIGHTS AWAY FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
    IN SPITE OF…
    Behind My Back | The ENABLING ACT February 22, 1889
    www.behindmyback.org/2014/03/…/the-enabling-act-february-22-1889/
    Mar 9, 2014 – Way back then, the Federal Government and the elected representative gave to and enabled American citizens, they made donations of public …
    Moving forward 125 years, “We the People” of Washington State, are in a battle with the Federal and state Governments and our elected representative struggling to preserve, protect, maintain the use of, intent and purpose of the public lands that were given to us in TRUST.
    —————————————————————————————-
    DECADES-OLD CONFLICT OVER THE U.S. GOVERNMENT’S CONTROL OF MILLIONS ACRES OF LAND IN THE WEST.

    The Bundy Family and Armed Resistance to ‘Government …
    www.breitbart.com/…/the-bundy-family-and-armed-resistance-t…
    Breitbart
    Jan 3, 2016 – Bundy Standoff in Nevada … BUNKERVILLE, NEVADA—The Bundy Ranch roundup has …. The Bundy ranch has filled that role for many.
    THE TAKEOVER AT MALHEUR WAS THE LATEST FLARE-UP IN THE SO-CALLED SAGEBRUSH REBELLION, A DECADES-OLD CONFLICT OVER THE U.S. GOVERNMENT’S CONTROL OF MILLIONS ACRES OF LAND IN THE WEST.
    ——————————————————————————————
    THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, REQUESTING, FUNDING, ALLOWING AND GIVING OUR AMERICAN NATIONAL PARKS AND OTHER AMERICAN HERITAGE SITES TO THE UNITED NATIONS, FOR THE UNITED NATION WORLD HERITAGE SITES, FOR THE UNITED NATIONS MAN AND THE BIOSPHERE, PUTTING OUR AMERICAN HERITAGE PUBLIC LAND AND PRIVATE PROPERTY UNDER THE GLOBAL CONTROL OF UNESCO.
    —————————————————————————————
    WOW, AND EXACTLY WHO IS FUNDING THE UNITED NATIONS WORLD HERITAGE SITES?
    Most of its income from COMPULSORY CONTRIBUTIONS from countries
    INDEED, THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS IS LEGISLATING AND AMERICAN TAXPAYERS ARE PAYING FOR THE COMPULSORY CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE UNITED NATIONS WORLD HERITAGE SITES
    MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF AMERICAN TAXPAYER MONEY PAYING FOR COMPULSORY CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE UNITED NATION UNESCO, FOR WORLD HERITAGE SITES AS REQUIRED BY LAW OR A RULE; OBLIGATORY. INVOLVING OR EXERCISING COMPULSION; COERCIVE.
    ——————————————————————————–
    THE CONSERVATION AND PROTECTION OF WORLD HERITAGE SITES wouldn’t be possible without the financial resources to meet World Heritage needs. Sources of income include the World Heritage Fund, WHICH RECEIVES MOST OF ITS INCOME FROM COMPULSORY CONTRIBUTIONS FROM COUNTRIES (States Parties) and from voluntary contributions. Other sources of income include profits derived from sales of World Heritage publications, or funds-in-trust that are donated by countries for specific purposes.
    ——————————————————————————-
    AMERICA’S WORLD HERITAGE SITES UNDER THE GLOBAL CONTROL OF UNITED NATIONS UNESCO
    DESIGNATED U.S. WORLD HERITAGE SITES BY THE UNITED NATIONS, JOINING OTHER KEY LANDMARKS SUCH AS THE STATUE OF LIBERTY, PHILADELPHIA’S INDEPENDENCE HALL, YELLOWSTONE AND GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARKS AND MONTICELLO, THOMAS JEFFERSON’S VIRGINIA HOME……

    THE LATEST? San Antonio Missions
    THE SAN ANTONIO MISSIONS INCLUDING “THE ALAMO” WAS AWARDED WORLD HERITAGE STATUS FROM UNESCO ON JULY 5, 2015.
    In addition to the Alamo, the newly designated “world heritage” shrines include missions at Concepción, San Jose, San Juan and Espada, all in San Antonio.
    THE DESIGNATIONS, ANNOUNCED SUNDAY, MARK THE FIRST TIME THAT A TEXAS SITE HAS BEEN DEEMED OF “OUTSTANDING CULTURAL OR NATURAL IMPORTANCE TO THE COMMON HERITAGE OF HUMANITY” BY UNESCO, THE UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION.

    United States of America

    ———————————————————————————–
    WORLD HERITAGE San Antonio Missions
    THE SITE ENCOMPASSES
    A GROUP OF FIVE FRONTIER MISSION COMPLEXES SITUATED ALONG A STRETCH OF THE SAN ANTONIO RIVER BASIN IN SOUTHERN TEXAS,
    AS WELL AS A RANCH LOCATED 37 KILOMETRES TO THE SOUTH.
    IT INCLUDES ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STRUCTURES,
    FARMLANDS, RESIDENCIES, CHURCHES AND GRANARIES,
    AS WELL AS WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS.
    ——————————————————————————-
    THE MISSIONS’ PHYSICAL REMAINS COMPRISE A RANGE OF ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STRUCTURES INCLUDING FARMLANDS (LABORES), CATTLE GROUNDS (RANCHOS), RESIDENCES, CHURCHES, GRANARIES, WORKSHOPS, KILNS, WELLS, PERIMETER WALLS AND WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS.
    ——————————————————————————–
    THE MISSIONS OF SAN ANTONIO WERE ALREADY PROTECTED BY A PLETHORA OF LAWS, FEDERAL LAWS AND DESIGNATIONS, TEXAS STATE LAWS AND DESIGNATIONS, CITY OF SAN ANTONIO ORDINANCES, AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS, EASEMENTS, AND DEED RESTRICTIONS.
    IN JANUARY 2015 IN RESPONSE TO THE UNESCO NOMINATION, REPUBLICAN STATE SEN. DONNA CAMPBELL INTRODUCED LEGISLATION BANNING ANY FOREIGN ENTITY FROM OWNING, CONTROLLING OR MANAGING THE ALAMO COMPLEX.
    UNESCO OFFICIALS HAVE SAID THE (WORLD HERITAGE) DESIGNATION DOES NOT OPEN UP THE ALAMO TO ANY KIND OF FOREIGN CONTROL.
    HOW STUPID DO THE UNESCO OFFICIALS THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IN TEXAS ARE?
    WORD GETS AROUND IN CYBERSPACE
    AND, YOU CAN KEEP YOUR DOCTOR?
    ——————————————————————
    HOW STUPID DO WA DC ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE THINK WE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE?
    2015 UNESCO OFFICIALS HAVE SAID THE (WORLD HERITAGE) DESIGNATION DOES NOT OPEN UP THE ALAMO TO ANY KIND OF FOREIGN CONTROL?
    WHY EVERY AMERICAN TAXPAYING CITIZEN SHOULD OBJECT TO EVERY SQUARE INCH OF AMERICA’S PROMISED PUBLIC LAND BEING GIVEN TO THE UNITED NATIONS
    PERHAPS THIS WILL REFRESH OUR WA DC ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE MEMORY…
    OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK WAS GIVEN TO THE UNITED NATIONS IN 1976
    AS A WILD UNESCO, UN WORLD HERITAGE SITES AND A U.N. MAN AND THE BIOSPHERE.
    IN 1988, CONGRESS DESIGNATED 95% OF OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK AS WILDERNESS. …

    —————————–

    The Wild Olympics Scam

    www.wildolympicsscam.com/

    stop the wild olympics, agenda 21, land grabs; will devastate rural communities.
    —————————————————————–
    REPUBLICAN STATE SEN. DONNA CAMPBELL INTRODUCED LEGISLATION BANNING ANY FOREIGN ENTITY FROM OWNING, CONTROLLING OR MANAGING THE ALAMO COMPLEX.
    WHY WOULD ANY ONE INTRODUCED LEGISLATION TO BAN ANY FOREIGN ENTITY FROM OWNING, CONTROLLING OR MANAGING PUBLIC LAND BEING GIVEN TO THE UNITED NATIONS UNESCO WORLD HERITAGE SITE?
    WORD ABOUT FOREIGN GLOBAL CONTROL GETS AROUND IN CYBERSPACE
    ————————————————————————————
    THE 2016 UNESCO EDITION OF AGENDA 21, WILL FOCUS MAINLY ON ISSUES DEALING WITH SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, PARTICULARLY IN URBAN AREAS. THIS EVENT WILL GATHER MORE THAN 800 PARTICIPANTS FROM THE FIELDS OF “HERITAGE CONSERVATION”, archaeology, architecture and urban planning, engineering, social sciences, AS WELL AS FIELDS RELATED TO LOCAL SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND CRISIS INTERVENTION.

    THE UNESCO CONGRESS IS ORGANISED UNDER THE AEGIS OF THE ISCEAH COMMITTEE OF ICOMOS INTERNATIONAL, IN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE UNESCO WORLD HERITAGE EARTHEN ARCHITECTURE PROGRAMME (WHEAP).
    ——————————————————————————————————


  • The US Declaration for Complete Disarmament

    The US Declaration for Complete Disarmament

    Freedom from War (1961)

    dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/arms/freedom_war.html

    THE FULL TEXT OF THE …
    THE UNITED STATES PROGRAM FOR GENERAL AND COMPLETE DISARMAMENT IN A PEACEFUL WORLD

    ————————————
    THE NATIONS OF THE WORLD,
    Conscious of the crisis in human history produced by the revolutionary development of modern weapons within a world divided by serious ideological differences;

    —————–
    Determined to save present and succeeding generations from the scourge of war and the dangers and burdens of the arms race and to create conditions in which all peoples can strive freely and peacefully to fulfill their basic aspirations;

    —————————-
    Declare their goal to be: A free, secure, and peaceful world of independent states adhering to common standards of justice and international conduct and subjecting the use of force to the rule of law; a world where adjustment to change takes place in accordance with the principles of the United Nations; a world where there shall be a permanent state of general and complete disarmament under effective international control and where the resources of nations shall be devoted of man’s material, cultural, and spiritual advance;
    Set forth as the objectives of a program of general and complete disarmament in a peaceful world:

    —————————————————————–
    (a) The disbanding of all national armed forces and the prohibition of their reestablishment in any form whatsoever other than those required of preserve internal order and for contributions to a United Nations Peace Force;
    (b) the elimination from national arsenals of all armaments, including all weapons of mass destruction and the means for their delivery, other than those required for a United Nations Peace Force and for maintaining internal order;
    Nations to ensure compliance at all times with all disarmament obligations;
    (d) The institution of effective means for the enforcement of international agreements, for the settlement of disputes, and for the maintenance of peace in accordance with the principles of the United Nations.
    Call on the negotiating states:
    (a) To develop the outline program set forth below into an agreed plan for general and complete disarmament and to continue their efforts without interruption until the whole program has been achieved;
    (b) To this end to seek to attain the widest possible area of agreement at the earliest possible date;
    (c) Also to seek – without prejudice to progress on the disarmament program – agreement on those immediate measures that would contribute to the common security of nations and that could facilitate and form a part of that program.
    Affirm that disarmament negotiations should be guided by the following principles:
    (a) Disarmament shall take place as rapidly as possible until it is completed in stages containing balanced, phased and safe-guarded measures, with each measure and stage to be carried out in an agreed period of time.
    (b) Compliance with all disarmament obligations shall be effectively verified from their entry into force. Verification arrangements shall be instituted progressively and in such a manner as to verify not only that agreed limitations or reductions take place but also that retained armed forces and armaments do not exceed agreed levels at any stage.
    (c) Disarmament shall take place in a manner that will not affect adversely the security of any state, whether or not a party to an international agreement or treaty.
    (d) As stated relinquish their arms, the United Nations shall be progressively strengthened in order to improve its capacity to assure international security and the peaceful settlement of differences as well as to facilitate the development of international cooperation an common tasks for the benefit of mankind.
    (e) Transition from one stage of disarmament to the next shall take place as soon as all the measures in the preceding stage have been carried out and effective verification is continuing and as soon as the arrangements that have been agreed to be necessary for the next stage have been instituted.
    Agree upon the following outline program for achieving general and complete disarmament:
    STAGE I
    A. To Establish an International Disarmament Organization:
    (a) An International Disarmament Organization (IDO) shall be established within the framework of the United Nations upon entry into force of the agreement. Its functions shall be expanded progressively as required for the effective verification of the disarmament program.
    (b) The IDO shall have: (1) a General Conference of all the parties; (2) a Commission consisting of representatives of all the major powers as permanent members as permanent members and certain other states on a rotating basis; and (3) an Administrator who will administer the Organization subject to the direction of the Commission and who will have the authority, staff, and finances adequate to assure effective impartial implementation of the functions of the Organization.
    (c) The IDO shall: (1) ensure compliance with the obligations undertaken by verifying the execution of measures agreed upon; (2) assist the states in developing the details of agreed further verification and disarmament measures; (3) provide for the establishment of such bodies as may be necessary for working out the details of further measures provided for in the program and for such other expert study groups as may be required to give continuous study to the problems of disarmament; (4) receive reports on the progress of disarmament and verification arrangements and determine the transition from one stage to the next.
    B. To Reduce Armed Forces and Armaments:
    (a) Force levels shall be limited to 2.1 million each for the U.S. and U.S.S.R. and to appropriate levels not exceeding 2.1 million each for all other militarily significant states. Reductions to the agreed levels will proceed by equitable, proportionate, and verified steps.
    (b) Levels of armaments of prescribed types shall be reduced by equitable and balanced steps. The reductions shall be accomplished by transfers of armaments to depots supervised by the IDO. When, at specified periods during the Stage I reduction process, the states party to the agreement have agreed that the armaments and armed forces are at prescribed levels, the armaments in depots shall be destroyed or converted to peaceful uses.
    (c) The production of agreed types of armaments shall be limited.
    (d) A Chemical, Biological, Radiological (CBR) Experts Commission shall be established within the IDO for the purpose of examining and reporting on the feasibility and means for accomplishing the verifiable reduction and eventual elimination of CBR weapons stockpiles and the halting of their production.
    C. To Contain and Reduce the Nuclear Threat:
    (a) States that have not acceded to a treaty effectively prohibiting the testing of nuclear weapons shall do so.
    (b) The production of fissionable materials for use in weapons shall be stopped.
    (c) Upon the cessation of production of fissionable materials for use in weapons, agreed initial quantities of fissionable materials from past production shall be transferred to non-weapons purposes.
    (d) Any fissionable materials transferred between countries for peaceful uses of nuclear energy shall be subject to appropriate safeguards to be developed in agreement with the IAEA.
    (e) States owning nuclear weapons shall not relinquish control of such weapons to any nation not owning them and shall not transmit to any such nation information or material necessary for their manufacture. States not owning nuclear weapons shall not manufacture such weapons, attempt to obtain control of such weapons belonging to other states, or seek or receive information or materials necessary for their manufacture.
    (f) A Nuclear Experts Commission consisting of representatives of the nuclear states shall be established within the IDO for the purpose of examining and reporting on the feasibility and means for accomplishing the verified reduction and eventual elimination of nuclear weapons stockpiles.
    D. To Reduce Strategic Nuclear Weapons Delivery Vehicles:
    (a) Strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles in specified categories and agreed types of weapons designed to counter such vehicles shall be reduced to agreed levels by equitable and balanced steps. The reduction shall be accomplished in each step by transfer to depots supervised by the IDO of vehicles that are in excess of levels agreed upon for each step. At specified periods during the Stage I reduction process, the vehicles that have been placed under supervision of the IDO shall be destroyed or converted to peaceful uses.
    (b) Production of agreed categories of strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles and agreed types of weapons designed to counter such vehicles shall be discontinued or limited.
    (c) Testing of agreed categories of strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles and agreed types of weapons designed to counter such vehicles shall be limited or halted.
    E. To Promote the Peaceful Use of Outer Space:
    (a) The placing into orbit or stationing in outer space of weapons capable of producing mass destruction shall be prohibited.
    (b) States shall give advance notification to participating states and to the IDO of launchings of space vehicles and missiles, together with the track of the vehicle. F. To reduce the Risks of War by Accident, Miscalculation, and Surprise Attack: (a) States shall give advance notification to the participating states and to the IDO of major military movements and maneuvers, on a scale as may be agreed, which might give rise to misinterpretation or cause alarm and induce countermeasures. The notification shall include the geographic areas to be used and the nature, scale and time span of the event.
    (b) There shall be established observation posts at such locations as major ports, railway centers, motor highways, and air bases to report on concentrations and movements of military forces.
    (c) There shall also be established such additional inspection arrangements to reduce the danger of surprise attack as may be agreed.
    (d) An international commission shall be established immediately within the IDO to examine and make recommendations of the possibility of further measures to reduce the risks of nuclear war by accident, miscalculation, or failure of communication.
    G. To Keep the Peace:
    (a) States shall reaffirm their obligations under the U.N. Charter to refrain from the threat or use of any type of armed force – including nuclear, conventional, or CBR – contrary to the principles of the U.N. Charter.
    (b) States shall agree to refrain from indirect aggression and subversion against any country.
    (c) States shall use all appropriate processes for the peaceful settlement of disputes and shall seek within the United Nations further arrangements for the peaceful settlement of international disputes and for the codification and progressive development of international law.
    (d) States shall develop arrangements in Stage I for the establishment in Stage II of a U.N. Peace Force.
    (e) A U.N. peace observation group shall be staffed with a standing cadre of observers who could be despatched to investigate any situation which might constitute a threat to or breach of the peace.
    STAGE II
    A. International Disarmament Organization:
    The powers and responsibilities of the IDO shall be progressively enlarged in order to give it the capabilities to verify the measures undertaken in Stage II.
    B. To Further Reduce Armed Forces and Armaments:
    (a) Levels of forces for the U.S., U.S.S.R., and other militarily significant states shall be further reduced by substantial amounts to agreed levels in equitable and balanced steps.
    (b) Levels of armaments of prescribed types shall be further reduced by equitable and balanced steps. The reduction shall be accomplished by transfers of armaments to depots supervised by the IDO. When, at specified periods during the Stage II reduction process, the parties have agreed that the armaments and armed forces are at prescribed levels, the armaments in depots shall be destroyed or converted to peaceful uses.
    (c) There shall be further agreed restrictions on the production of armaments.
    (d) Agreed military bases and facilities wherever they are located shall be dismantled or converted to peaceful uses.
    (e) Depending upon the findings of the Experts Commission on CBR weapons, the production of CBR weapons shall be halted, existing stocks progressively reduced, and the resulting excess quantities destroyed or converted to peaceful uses.
    C. To Further Reduce the Nuclear Threat:
    Stocks of nuclear weapons shall be progressively reduced to the minimum levels which can be agreed upon as a result of the findings of the nuclear Experts Commission; the resulting excess of fissionable material shall be transferred to peaceful purposes.
    D. To Further Reduce Strategic Nuclear Weapons Delivery Vehicles:
    Further reductions in the stocks of strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles and agreed types of weapons designed to counter such vehicles shall be carried out in accordance with the procedure outlined in Stage I.
    E. To Keep the Peace:
    During Stage II, states shall develop further the peace-keeping processes of the united Nations, to the end that the United Nations can effectively in Stage III deter or suppress any threat or use of force in violation of the purposes and principles of the united Nations:
    (a) States shall agree upon strengthening the structure, authority, and operation of the united Nations so as to assure that the United Nations will be able effectively to protect states against threats to or breaches of the peace.
    (b) The U.N. Peace Force shall be established and progressively strengthened.
    (c) States shall also agree upon further improvements and developments in rules of international conduct and in processes for peaceful settlement of disputes and differences.
    STAGE III
    By the time Stage II has been completed, the confidence produced through a verified disarmament program, the acceptance of rules of peaceful international behavior, and the development of strengthened international peace-keeping processes within the framework of the U.N. should have reached a point where the states of the world can move forward to Stage III. In Stage III progressive controlled disarmament and continuously developing principles and procedures of international law would proceed to a point where no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force (emphasis added) and all international disputes would be settled according to the agreed principles of international conduct.
    The progressive steps to be taken during the final phase of the disarmament program would be directed toward the attainment of a world in which:
    (a) States would retain only those forces, non-nuclear armaments, and establishments required for the purpose of maintaining internal order; they would also support and provide agreed manpower for a U.N. Peace Force.
    (b) The U.N. Peace Force, equipped with agreed types and quantities of armaments, would be fully functioning.
    (c) The manufacture of armaments would be prohibited except for those of agreed types and quantities to be used by the U.N. Peace Force and those required to maintain internal order. All other armaments would be destroyed or converted to peaceful purposes.
    (d) The peace-keeping capabilities of the United Nations would be sufficiently strong and the obligations of all states under such arrangements sufficiently far-reaching as to assure peace and the just settlement of differences in a disarmed world.
    The end of Publication 7277


  • Complete Disarmament Public Law 87-297

    Complete Disarmament Public Law 87-297

    Do you want to know why public officials are voting to take away your firearms?

    Freedom from War (1961)

    dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/arms/freedom_war.html

    There follows a summary of the principal provisions of the United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World. The full text of the …
    INDEED, THE UNITED STATES INTRODUCED IT
    AT THE SIXTEENTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE UNITED NATIONS
    A PROGRAM FOR GENERAL AND COMPLETE DISARMAMENT IN A PEACEFUL WORLD.

    This law was signed for the United States in 1961. John F. Kennedy signed it and every president since has worked to enact its provisions. (The government knows you will not approve which is why they want to take away your firearms.)  (This is Title 22 USC section 2551)

    —————————————————–
    DEPARTMENT OF STATE
    PUBLICATION 7277
    Disarmament Series 5
    Released September 1961
    ———————————————————–
    Title 22 USC 2552
    HERE YOU WILL FIND IT STATED AS ITEM (A) “CONTROL, REDUCTION AND ELIMINATION OF ARMED FORCES…” AND AS ITEM (D)” …ELIMINATION OF ARMED FORCES….”

    ——————–
    WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW IS THAT YOUR ARMED FORCES ARE BEING ELIMINATED AND RELINQUISHED FROM NATIONAL CONTROL

    ————————
    WHICH, IN TURN, WIPES OUT OUR SOVEREIGNTY AS A NATION.

    ————————
    IN TWO STAGES, WE WILL HAVE NO MORE ARMY, NO MORE NAVY, NO MORE AIR FORCE.

    ———————————
    IN THE THIRD STAGE, WE SHALL HAVE A “ZERO” MILITARY.

    ————————————
    BEFORE STAGE I CLOSES, ALL CITIZEN OWNED GUNS ARE TO BE BANNED.
    —————————————————————————–
    FREEDOM FROM WAR:

    ‘UNITED STATES CODE BOOKS’ OPEN VOLUME 9.
    TURN TO PAGE 651. HERE YOU WILL FIND PUBLIC LAW 87-297 which calls for the United States to eliminate its armed forces. This law was signed for the United States in 1961. John F. Kennedy signed it and every president since has worked to enact its provisions. The government knows you will not approve which is why they want to take away your firearms. (This is Title 22 USC section 2551)
    TURN TO PAGE 652. Here you will find the definition of what the government means by “disarmament.” THE DISARMAMENT CALLS FOR THE ELIMINATION OF OUR ARMED FORCES. It also calls for the elimination of weapons of all kinds.
    (This is Title 22 USC 2552 (a).
    TURN TO PAGE 654.
    HERE YOU WILL FIND IT STATED AS ITEM (A) “CONTROL, REDUCTION AND ELIMINATION OF ARMED FORCES…” AND AS ITEM (D)” …ELIMINATION OF ARMED FORCES….” WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW IS THAT YOUR ARMED FORCES ARE BEING ELIMINATED AND RELINQUISHED FROM NATIONAL CONTROL WHICH, IN TURN, WIPES OUT OUR SOVEREIGNTY AS A NATION. IN TWO STAGES, WE WILL HAVE NO MORE ARMY, NO MORE NAVY, NO MORE AIR FORCE. IN THE THIRD STAGE,
    WE SHALL HAVE A “ZERO” MILITARY.
    BEFORE STAGE I CLOSES, ALL CITIZEN OWNED GUNS ARE TO BE BANNED.
    —————————————————————————————
    The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World
    DEPARTMENT OF STATE
    PUBLICATION 7277
    Disarmament Series 5
    Released September 1961
    Office of Public Services
    BUREAU OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
    INTRODUCTION
    The revolutionary development of modern weapons within a world divided by serious ideological differences has produced a crisis in human history. In order to overcome the danger of nuclear war now confronting mankind,
    THE UNITED STATES
    HAS INTRODUCED AT THE SIXTEENTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE UNITED NATIONS A PROGRAM FOR GENERAL AND COMPLETE DISARMAMENT IN A PEACEFUL WORLD.
    This new program provides for the progressive reduction of the war-making capabilities of nations and the simultaneous STRENGTHENING OF INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS to settle disputes and maintain the peace. It sets forth a series of comprehensive measures which can and should be taken in order to bring about a world in which there will be freedom from war and security for all states. It is based on three principles deemed essential to the achievement of practical progress in the disarmament field:
    FIRST, THERE MUST BE IMMEDIATE DISARMAMENT ACTION:
    A STRENUOUS AND UNINTERRUPTED EFFORT MUST BE MADE TOWARD THE GOAL OF GENERAL AND COMPLETE DISARMAMENT; at the same time, it is important that specific measures be put into effect as soon as possible.
    Second, ALL DISARMAMENT OBLIGATIONS MUST BE SUBJECT TO EFFECTIVE INTERNATIONAL CONTROLS:
    The control organization must have the manpower, facilities, and effectiveness to assure that limitations or reductions take place as agreed. It must also be able to certify to all states that retained forces and armaments do not exceed those permitted at any stage of the disarmament process.
    Third, adequate peace-keeping machinery must be established:
    There is an inseparable relationship between the scaling down of national armaments on the one hand AND THE BUILDING UP OF INTERNATIONAL PEACE-KEEPING MACHINERY AND INSTITUTIONS ON THE OTHER. NATIONS ARE UNLIKELY TO SHED THEIR MEANS OF SELF-PROTECTION IN THE ABSENCE OF ALTERNATIVE WAYS TO SAFEGUARD THEIR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS.
    THIS CAN ONLY BE ACHIEVED THROUGH THE PROGRESSIVE STRENGTHENING OF INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS
    UNDER THE UNITED NATIONS
    AND BY CREATING A UNITED NATIONS PEACE FORCE TO ENFORCE THE PEACE AS THE DISARMAMENT PROCESS PROCEEDS.
    ________________________________________
    There follows a summary of the principal provisions of the United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World. The full text of the program is contained in an appendix to this pamphlet.

    ————————————————
    THIS IS A SUMMARY… full text shall be posted next

    ——————————————————
    DISARMAMENT GOAL AND OBJECTIVES
    The over-all goal of the United States is a free, secure, and peaceful world of independent states adhering to common standards of justice and international conduct and subjecting the use of force to the rule of law; a world which has achieved general and complete disarmament under effective international control; and a world in which adjustment to change takes place in accordance with the principles of the United Nations.
    In order to make possible the achievement of that goal, the program sets forth the following specific objectives toward which nations should direct their efforts:
    THE DISBANDING OF ALL NATIONAL ARMED FORCES AND THE PROHIBITION OF THEIR REESTABLISHMENT IN ANY FORM WHATSOEVER OTHER THAN THOSE REQUIRED TO PRESERVE INTERNAL ORDER AND FOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO A UNITED NATIONS PEACE FORCE;
    The elimination from national arsenals of all armaments, including all weapons of mass destruction and the means for their delivery, OTHER THAN THOSE REQUIRED FOR A UNITED NATIONS PEACE FORCE AND FOR MAINTAINING INTERNAL ORDER;
    The institution of effective means for the enforcement of international agreements, and for the maintenance of peace IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS;
    The establishment and effective operation of an International Disarmament Organization within the framework of the United Nations to insure compliance at all times with all disarmament obligations.
    TASK OF NEGOTIATING STATES
    The negotiating states are called upon to develop the program into a detailed plan for general and complete disarmament and to continue their efforts without interruption until the whole program has been achieved. To this end, they are to seek the widest possible area of agreement at the earliest possible date. At the same time, and without prejudice to progress on the disarmament program, they are to seek agreement on those immediate measures that would contribute to the common security of nations and that could facilitate and form port of the total program.
    GOVERNING PRINCIPLES
    The program sets forth a series of general principles to guide the negotiating states in their work. These make clear that:
    AS STATES RELINQUISH THEIR ARMS, THE UNITED NATIONS MUST BE PROGRESSIVELY STRENGTHENED IN ORDER TO IMPROVE ITS CAPACITY TO ASSURE INTERNATIONAL SECURITY AND THE PEACEFUL SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES;
    Disarmament must proceed as rapidly as possible, until it is completed, in stages containing balanced, phased, and safeguarded measures;
    Each measure and stage should be carried out in an agreed period of time, with transition from one stage to the next to take place as soon as all measures in the preceding stage have been carried out and verified and as soon as necessary arrangements for verification of the next stage have been made;
    Inspection and verification must establish both that nations carry out scheduled limitations or reductions and that they do not retain armed forces and armaments in excess of those permitted at any stage of the disarmament process; and
    Disarmament must take place in a manner that will not affect adversely the security of any state.
    DISARMAMENT STAGES
    The program provides for progressive disarmament steps to take place in three stages and FOR THE SIMULTANEOUS STRENGTHENING OF INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTION.
    FIRST STAGE
    The first stage contains measures which would significantly reduce the capabilities of nations to wage aggressive war. Implementation of this stage would mean that:
    The nuclear threat would be reduced:
    All states would have adhered to a treaty effectively prohibiting the testing of nuclear weapons.
    The production of fissionable materials for use in weapons would be stopped and quantities of such materials from past production would be converted to non-weapons uses.
    States owning nuclear weapons would not relinquish control of such weapons to any nation not owning them and would not transmit to any such nation information or material necessary for their manufacture.
    States not owning nuclear weapons would not manufacture them or attempt to obtain control of such weapons belonging to other states.
    A Commission of Experts would be established to report on the feasibility and means for the verified reduction and eventual elimination of nuclear weapons stockpiles.
    Strategic delivery vehicles would be reduced:
    Strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles of specified categories and weapons designed to counter such vehicles would be reduced to agreed levels by equitable and balanced steps; THEIR PRODUCTION WOULD BE DISCONTINUED OR LIMITED; THEIR TESTING WOULD BE LIMITED OR HALTED.
    Arms and armed forces would be reduced:
    The armed forces of the United States and the Soviet Union would be limited to 2.1 million men each (with appropriate levels not exceeding that amount for other militarily significant states); levels of armaments would be correspondingly reduced and their production would be limited.
    An Experts Commission would be established to examine and report on the feasibility and means of accomplishing verifiable reduction and eventual elimination of all chemical, biological and radiological weapons.
    Peaceful use of outer space would be promoted:
    The placing in orbit or stationing in outer space of weapons of mass destruction would be prohibited.
    States would give advance notification of space vehicle and military launchings.
    U.N. peace-keeping powers would be strengthened:
    MEASURES WOULD BE TAKEN TO DEVELOP AND STRENGTHEN UNITED NATIONS ARRANGEMENTS FOR ARBITRATION, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, AND FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT IN STAGE II OF A PERMANENT U.N. PEACE FORCE.
    AN INTERNATIONAL DISARMAMENT ORGANIZATION would be established for effective verification of the disarmament program:
    Its functions would be expanded progressively as disarmament proceeds.
    It would certify to all states that agreed reductions have taken place and that retained forces and armaments do not exceed permitted levels.
    It would determine the transition from one stage to the next.
    States would be committed to measures to reduce international tension and to protect against the chance of war by accident, miscalculation, or surprise attack:
    States would be committed to refrain from the threat or use of any type of armed force contrary to the principles of the U.N. Charter and to refrain from indirect aggression and subversion against any country.
    A U.N. PEACE OBSERVATION GROUP would be available to investigate any situation which might constitute a threat to or breach of the peace.
    STATES WOULD BE COMMITTED TO GIVE ADVANCE NOTICE OF MAJOR MILITARY MOVEMENTS which might cause alarm, observation posts would be established to report on concentrations and movements of military forces.
    SECOND STAGE
    The second stage contains a series of measures which would bring within sight a world in which there would be freedom from war. Implementation of all measures in the second stage would mean:
    Further substantial reductions in the armed forces, armaments, and military establishments of states, including strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles and countering weapons;
    Further development of methods for the peaceful settlement of disputes UNDER THE UNITED NATIONS;
    Establishment of a permanent international peace force WITHIN THE UNITED NATIONS;
    Depending on the findings of an Experts Commission, a halt in the production of chemical, bacteriological, and radiological weapons and a reduction of existing stocks or their conversion to peaceful uses;
    On the basis of the findings of an Experts Commission, a reduction of stocks of nuclear weapons;
    The dismantling or the conversion to peaceful uses of certain military bases and facilities wherever located; and
    The strengthening and enlargement of the International Disarmament Organization to enable it to verify the steps taken in Stage II and to determine the transition to Stage III.
    THIRD STAGE
    During the third stage of the program, the states of the world, building on the experience and confidence gained in successfully implementing the measures of the first two stages, would take final steps toward the goal of a world in which:
    States would retain only those forces, non-nuclear armaments, and establishments required for the purpose of maintaining internal order; they would also support and provide agreed manpower for a U.N. Peace Force.
    The U.N. Peace Force, equipped with agreed types and quantities of armaments, would be fully functioning.
    The peace keeping capabilities of the United nations would be sufficiently strong and the obligations of all states under such arrangements sufficiently far-reaching as to assure peace and the just settlement of differences in a disarmed world.
    ________________________________________
    APPENDIX


  • Have You Got My Back?

    A question for my elected representatives, Rep. Derek Kilmer and Senators Patty Murray,  Maria Cantwell, and WA State Governor Jay Inslee.

    Have You Got My Back?

    Seattle FBI monitors long list of potential terror threats – Kiro TV

    www.kirotv.com › News
    KIRO‑TV

    16 hours ago – Seattle’s FBI office said Friday it is monitoring somewhere between 70 and 100 people for potential terrorist threats. … that cause us great concern when it comes to ISIL or ISIS or Daesh, whatever you want to call them.”.

    Radical Islamic Extremists

    ————————————————————–

    It is very seldom, that American Citizens, are truthfully and fully informed about what goes on behind our backs in  both WA D.C. and WA State.

    We the People have been frequently, been intentionally misled and misinformed by the President of the United States of America, WA State Governor Jay Inslee. and the Liberally biased news media.

    Terrorists attacks, the slaughter of innocent people world wide, by Radical Islamic Extremists are the biggest globally threat NOT GLOBAL WARMING.

    Gov. Inslee takes climate-change campaign to Paris …

    Inslee… Fiddling while Rome burns?

    To occupy oneself with unimportant matters and neglect priorities during a crisis.

    FBI — War on Terrorism

    https://www.fbi.gov/…/war-on-terrorism
    Federal Bureau of Investigation

    IN SEATTLE,  where Earnest James Ujaama (aka Bilal Ahmed) has been charged with … and conducting 70 investigations, 23 of which have resulted in convictions. …. We are also concerned about terrorist organizations with direct ties to …

    ——————————————————————-

    Now, that the TRUTH IS OUT…

    Potential terrorist threats. … that cause us great concern when it comes to ISIL or ISIS or Daesh, whatever you want to call them.”.

    Radical Islamic Extremists

    I repeat my question to our elected representatives

    Regarding what causes CITIZENS GREAT FEAR AND CONCERN IN WA STATE …..

    Have You Got our Back?

    ——————————————————————

    I spent over four hours watching these C-SPAN (Radical Islamic Extremists) RELATED PROGRAMS on Dec. 10, 2015

    Another question to our elected representatives,

    HAVE YOU WATCHED THESE C-SPAN PROGRAMS?

    Defense Secretary Ashton Carter Testimony US … – C-Span

    www.cspan.org/video/?401781-1/defense…testimony-us…
    C‑SPAN

    Congress. December 9, 2015 … SECRETARY, ON THE 1st OF DECEMBER BEFORE THE HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE CONGRESSMAN… 00:41: …

    Hearing Visa Waiver Program | Video | C-SPAN.org

    www.cspan.org/video/?401797-1/hearing-visa-waiver…
    C‑SPAN

    The Senate Homeland Security Committee hears testimony from former and current State Department and Homeland Security Department … December 9, 2015 …

    FBI Director James Comey Oversight Hearing … – C-Span

    www.cspan.org/video/?401606-1/fbi-director…testimony
    C‑SPAN

    Congress. December 9, 2015 … EDNCRYPTED USE TESTIMONY. THE F BI I HOPE I HAVE THE …. Extension of FBI Director’s Term, Legal Experts Testimony.

    I am just asking? I am just saying…

    If you bothered to watch C-SPAN (Radical Islamic Extremists) RELATED PROGRAMS, you would realize that Radical Islamic Extremists terror attacks  are the the biggest globally threat. period.

    ————————————————–

    Speaking of Radical Islamic Extremists ONLINE RADICALIZATION

    HOW DELIGHTED THEY MUST BE   TO POST THIS ON LINE..

    ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS ARE ADVISED AND BEING TRAINED  BY THE

    FBI — Run, Hide, Fight Video

    https://www.fbi.gov/…/runhide-fight-vid…
    Federal Bureau of Investigation

    Run, Hide, Fight Video. Video: Run. Hide. Fight. Surviving an Active Shooter Event …. She looks out the door, but quickly ducks back into the room. Narrator: If …

    THE TERRORISTS MUST LOVE IT, THOSE STUPID AMERICANS, ARE UNARMED OR HAVE  BEEN DISARMED BY GOVERNMENT GUN CONTROL.

    DON’T WORRY ABOUT GETTING SHOT…THEY WILL BE  RUNNING AND HIDING TO SURVIVE, WHILE WE ARE SLAUGHTERING THEM,  WITH OUR ACTIVE SHOOTING EVENT.

    —————————————————————

    My last question to my elected representatives, Rep. Derek Kilmer and Senators Patty Murray,  Maria Cantwell, and WA State Governor Jay Inslee.

    WHY  HAVE YOU HUMILIATED AMERICAN’S  BY  ADVERTISING TO  THE WORLD AND, the Radical Islamic Extremists, THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS  WILL  RUN AND HID… TO SURVIVE AN ACTIVE SHOOTER EVENT?

    Have You Got our Back?


  • Earth Day Message to Congress

    Earth Day Message to Congress

    I am asking for an email response from our Federal and State Elected Representative with the RESULTS/scientific finding  of the US Climate Change Study Explores Weather Modification.

    US Climate Change Study Explores Weather Modification

    The U.S. study was expected to be finished in the fall of 2014.

    Demand accountability.. WA State RCW 42.30.010

    The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.

    Demand accountability… you have an email list..use it.

     IT IS GLOBAL AND IT IS LOCAL

    Besides the United States, forty-two other nations have weather modification programs, according to a report released in July by the EXPERT Team on Weather Modification Research of the World Meteorological Organization.

    WINTER PROGRAMS GENERALLY HAVE SNOW PACK CRITERIA BY WHICH SEEDING MAY BE SUSPENDED?

    What is known about regional effects?

    Washington Drought 2015 | Washington State Department …

    www.ecy.wa.gov/drought/ 3 days ago – Washington State  Governor Inslee declares more areas in drought– Ecology in drought … Jay Inslee declared a drought in 13 river basins in Washington state.

    Demand accountability… you have an email list..use it.

    ——————————————————

    Email sent to Rep. Derek Kilmer including my other elected Representatives

    Earth Day is April 22, 2015.

    Take some time to read more about climate change.

    Please share this with my other elected Representatives. This includes “US Climate Change Study Explores Weather Modification” I am sending it as a public comment on Clallam County SMP Update. The US Climate Change Study was expected to be finished in the fall of 2014?

    I am asking for an email response with the results of the US Climate Change Study Explores Weather Modification. I would like to take, some more of my time, reading some more about climate change. Please share this comment and question with my other elected Representatives.

    ————————————————————————————–

    This includes

    US Climate Change Study Explores Weather Modification 

    I am sending it as a public comment on Clallam County SMP Update.

    Weather Balance By God

    Posted on April 20, 2015 11:03 am by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment

    US Climate Change Study Explores Weather Modification

    Aug 15, 2013 – The Chinese government used its weather modification branch to work … WINTER PROGRAMS GENERALLY HAVE SNOWPACK CRITERIA BY WHICH SEEDING MAY BE SUSPENDED, based on … “Because global warming may impact the security of other countries … The U.S. study is expected to be finished in the fall of 2014.

    Mark Leberfinger, AccuWeather.com Staff Writer

    A U.S. STUDY is under way to evaluate several possible ways TO LIMIT CLIMATE CHANGE including solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal.and solar radiation management,

    TO DETERMINE WHAT WE KNOW AND DON’T KNOW ABOUT THEIR PHYSICAL CAPABILITIES, TECHNICAL FEASIBILITIES, KNOWN RISKS, AND INTENDED OR UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES,” Rugani said.


  • Forget About Draining the Swamp

    Forget About Draining the SWAMP

    The Government alligators have taken over WA STATE WETLANDS

    When you’re up to your butt in alligators, it’s easy to forget that the initial objective was to drain the swamp.

    (idiomatic) When performing a long and complex task, and when you’ve gotten utterly immersed in secondary and tertiary unexpected tangential subtasks, it’s easy to lose sight of the initial objective. This sort of distraction can be particularly problematic if the all-consuming subtask or sub-subtask is not, after all, particularly vital to the original, primary goal, but ends up sucking up time and resources (out of all proportion to its actual importance) only because it seems so urgent.
    ————————————————————————–

    Wetland Program Plan (WPP)

    Final WPP Now Available

    In March 2015, Ecology and the Interagency Work Group finalized the state’s Wetland Program Plan. The plan is a strategic tool, developed and implemented by the state, to articulate what the state seeks to accomplish with the wetland program over time. A strategy is necessary for an effective program that protects wetlands and strives to meet the state’s goal of no net loss and an overall net gain in wetland resources.

    This plan is organized around six core elements: regulation, monitoring and assessment, voluntary restoration and protection, water quality standards, education and outreach, and sustainable financing. These elements are critical to the success of the program. This plan outlines work for a six-year timeframe and sets a longer-term vision for future actions.

    >More background information

    Download the Plan

    State Interagency Work Group

    Many agencies play a role in the protection and management of wetland resources in Washington State, in coordination with local governments and federal partners. Current state partners include the:

    Program Matrix

    During the development of the draft WPP, state agencies on the Interagency Work Group, as well as other agencies with a role in protecting and managing wetlands, were asked to identify aspects of their existing programs that fell within each of the EPA core elements.  The information was compiled into a wetland program matrix.  This matrix served as the baseline from which this plan was developed.

    >Download the Program Matrix

    If you have questions about an agency program, please contact the agency. If you have questions about the matrix in general or the Washington Wetland Program Plan, please contact the plan coordinator (see below).

    Update on Past Planning Efforts

    State Wetland Integration Strategy and Mitigation that Works Forum Report

    There were two major planning efforts in the past that provided direction and context for developing this plan: the State Wetland Integration Strategy (SWIS, 1994) and the Mitigation that Works Forum report (2008). These guiding documents have shaped the state’s wetland program and demonstrate the importance and value of long-term planning and agency coordination. We will be posting an overview of the recommendations and implementation actions of SWIS and the Making Mitigation Work Report on this web page. For each action, we will include an update on the status, current priority, and if and where it is included in the Wetland Program Plan action tables. In progress, please check back.

    Contact

    Susan Buis
    (360) 407-7653
    susan.buis@ecy.wa.gov

    ————————————————————————————————-

    This is a major policy change especially with the NEW “all wet areas are connected” science synthesis proposed by EPA.

    ————————————————————————————————–

    Meanwhile, the ABSOLUTE WETTEST PLACES IN THE CONTINENTAL United States are located in the Pacific Northwest, with Washington State’s Aberdeen Reservoir taking the top spot with an average yearly precipitation of 130.6 inches (3317mm).

    http://usatravel.about.com/od/Weather/ss/Wettest-Places-in-the-USA.htm

    SO? IF YOU LIVE IN WA STATE, THE  ABSOLUTELY WETTEST PLACES IN THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES? AND  YOU’VE GOT ALL OF YOUR MUD PUDDLES, CONNECTED TO ALL OF YOUR WETLANDS AND THEY ARE ALL CONNECTED TO ALL OF THE WET AREAS ON YOUR PRIVATE PROPERTY?

    WHEN ARE OUR WA STATE  ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES GOING TO START ACTING, REACTING AND OBJECTING TO THE FAIRNESS OF THE EPA WASHINGTON WETLAND PLAN FOR THE  ABSOLUTELY WETTEST PLACES IN THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES?

    Washington State Senate

    APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS DOCTRINE — LIMITATIONS … 42.36.080, Disqualification based on doctrine — Time limitation for raising challenge. 42.36.

    • Municipal Research and Services Center

      Feb 5, 2015 – Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine in Washington State, MRSC Report no.11 Rev., April 2011.

    ————————————————————————————————————–

    SO? THE EPA FUNDED/GRANTED (taxpayer money) FOR THE WASHINGTON WETLAND PLAN?
    WHO IS GOING TO FUND THE ECONOMIC DISASTER THAT FOLLOWS?

    Washington State Wetland Program Plan – Access Washington

    https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/…/1406005.html
    WorkSource

    Washington State Wetland Program Plan … VIEW NOW: Acrobat PDF format (Number of pages: 115) (Publication Size: 4391KB) Core Elements Action Tables

    ———————————————————————————-

    Summary of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Quick Links

    2 USC §1501 et seq (1995)

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) was enacted to avoid imposing unfunded federal mandates on state, local, and tribal governments (SLTG), or the private sector. Most of UMRA’s provisions apply to proposed and final rules:

    • for which a general notice of proposed rule making was published, and
    • that include a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure of funds by state, local, or tribal governments (SLTG), in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year.

    If a rule meets these conditions, the agency must:

    • Prepare a written statement that includes:
      • the legal authority for the rule,
      • a cost-benefit assessment,
      • a description of the macro-economic effects, and
      • a summary of SLTG concerns and how they were addressed.
    • Consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and select the least costly, least burdensome, or most cost-effective option that achieves the objectives of the rule, or explain why the agency did not make such a choice.
    • Consult with elected officers of SLTG (or their designated employees with authority to act on their behalf) to provide meaningful and timely input in the development of proposed rules containing significant federal intergovernmental mandates.

    Section 203 of UMRA applies to all regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Before establishing a requirement that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments, §203 requires federal agencies to develop a plan to:

    • provide notice of the requirements to potentially affected small governments;
    • enable officials of small governments to provide meaningful and timely input for any proposal containing significant federal intergovernmental mandates; and
    • inform, educate, and advise small governments on compliance with the requirements.

     


  • SB 5916 A New “FEE” for All

    SB  5916 A New WA State Legislated “FEE” for All PRIVATE BUSINESSES

    Senate Bill 5916: Enacting the tourism marketing act
    Substitute offered in the Senate on April 2, 2015, replaces the North American Industry Classification System codes with specific descriptions of the businesses that comprise the tourism sectors that will be assessed annual fees.
    http://www.washingtonvotes.org/Legislation.aspx?ID=168233

    THIS IS A ISSUE OF STATEWIDE CONCERN.

    IF YOU HAVE, OWN OR  RUN A PRIVATE BUSINESS IN WA STATE? 

    —————————————————————————-

    The program, SENATE WAYS & MEANS for purposes of this subsection,

    “TAXABLE AMOUNT” MEANS THE GROSS INCOME OF THE BUSINESS as defined in  RCW 82.04.080 and GROSS INCOME as defined in RCW 82.16.010

    REMEMBER THIS NEW WA STATE  “FEE” FOR ALL BUSINESS’S IS NOT A TAX

    It’s just another RUSE  by WA State Legislators to take more local money from our local business’s, remove more money from our local economy  and give it to the WE’S WHO WANT

    THE FEES AND CHARGES IMPOSED IN THIS CHAPTER

    WILL BRING DIRECT BENEFITS TO THOSE PAYING THE FEES AND CHARGES?

     BY BRINGING MORE TOURISTS INTO THE STATE WHO WILL PATRONIZE THE PARTICIPATING BUSINESSES.

    —————————————————————–

    LOCAL BUSINESSES SUBJECT TO THE FEES? GET A PROMISE OF MORE TOURIST INCOME?

     ———————————————————-

    WHAT WA STATE LEGISLATION SB 5916  REALLY DOES WITH THE INCOME FROM THE LOCAL BUSINESS FEES $$$?

    THE WE’S WHO WANT MUST-SHALL GET THEIR SHARE  OF ALL INCOME RECEIVED.

     Please take the time to read the entire SB 5916.

    What WA state does with the $$$ is way down at the bottom. (it is an outrage)

     WITH WA STATE GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE?  ( A LEGISLATED ACT SB 5916) IN COLLECTING THESE FUNDS

     BY ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES SENATE BILL 5916: ENACTING THE TOURISM MARKETING ACT

    BY THE “AUTHORITY” MEANS THE “NEW”WASHINGTON TOURISM MARKETING AUTHORITY

     ALL INCOME RECEIVED from investment of the treasurer’s trust fund must be set aside in an account IN THE TREASURY TRUST FUND TO BE KNOWN AS THE INVESTMENT INCOME ACCOUNT.

    THE FOLLOWING ACCOUNTS AND FUNDS “MUST RECEIVE” THEIR PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF EARNINGS BASED UPON EACH ACCOUNT’S OR FUND’S.

    THE WE’S WHO WANT MUST-SHALL GET THEIR SHARE  OF ALL INCOME RECEIVED.

    ————————————————————————————–

    SPECIFIC DESCRIPTIONS OF THE BUSINESSES THAT COMPRISE THE TOURISM SECTORS THAT WILL BE ASSESSED ANNUAL FEES. based on their  “TAXABLE AMOUNT” MEANS THE GROSS INCOME OF THE BUSINESS

    “ASSESSED SECTORS” MEANS BUSINESSES IN ANY OF THE FOLLOWING INDUSTRY SECTORS:

    (a)LODGING;

     (b) FOOD SERVICE, ATTRACTIONS AND ENTERTAINMENT, RETAIL, TRANSPORTATION.

     “Attractions and entertainment” means businesses whose primary business activity in this state is

    (a)Producing LIVE PRESENTATIONS INVOLVING THE PERFORMANCE OF ACTORS, ACTRESSES, SINGERS, DANCERS, MUSICAL GROUPS, OR OTHER PERFORMING ARTISTS;

    (b) Operating a professional or SEMIPROFESSIONAL TEAM OR CLUB PRIMARILY ENGAGED IN PARTICIPATING IN LIVE SPORTING EVENTS before a paying audience;

    (c)  Operating any kind of RACETRACK or the presenting or promoting of RACING EVENTS HELD AT A RACETRACK;

    (d) Organizing, promoting, or managing PERFORMING ARTS PRODUCTIONS; SPORTING EVENTS; and similar events, such as FAIRS, CONCERTS, AND FESTIVALS;

    (e) Representing or managing creative and PERFORMING ARTISTS, ATHLETES, ENTERTAINERS, or other public figures;

    (f) The preservation and EXHIBITION OF OBJECTS of historical, cultural, or educational value

     (g) The preservation and EXHIBITION OF SITES, BUILDINGS, FORTS, or communities that describe events or persons of particular historical Interest;

     (h)The preservation and EXHIBITION OF live plant or animal life displays;

     (i)The preservation and EXHIBITION OF natural areas or settings;

     (j)Operating an AMUSEMENT PARK, THEME PARK, WATER PARK, or similar facility;

     (k) Operating an AMUSEMENT ARCADE OR PARLOR, INCLUDING A BILLIARDS PARLOR;

     (l) Operating A GOLF COURSE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC;

     (m)Operating a DRIVING RANGE OR MINIATURE GOLF FACILITY;

     (n)Operating a DOWNHILL OR CROSS-COUNTRY SKIING AREA, INCLUDING OPERATING EQUIPMENT SUCH AS SKI LIFTS AND TOWS;

     (o) Acting as A TRAVEL AGENT OR TOUR OPERATOR taxable under RCW 82.04.260(5);

     (p) Engaging in the business of OPERATING CONTESTS OF CHANCE taxable under RCW 82.04.285;

     (q) OPERATING A “MARINA,” WHICH MEANS PROVIDING DOCKING OR STORAGE FACILITIES PRIMARILY OR EXCLUSIVELY FOR PLEASURE CRAFT OWNERS, WITH OR WITHOUT ANY RELATED ACTIVITIES, SUCH AS RETAILING FUEL AND MARINE SUPPLIES, AND REPAIRING, MAINTAINING, OR RENTING PLEASURE CRAFT.

    ————————————————————————————–

    THE PURPOSE OF THIS NEW WA STATE  “FEE” FOR ALL ON BUSINESS’S?

    THE PURPOSE OF THIS ACT IS TO ESTABLISH THE FRAMEWORK AND FUNDING FOR A STATEWIDE TOURISM MARKETING PROGRAM. 2SSB 5916 to have a structure that includes significant, stable, LONG-TERM FUNDING, and it should be implemented and managed by the tourism industry.

    THE SOURCE OF FUNDS SHOULD BE FROM MAJOR SECTORS OF THE TOURISM INDUSTRY WITH GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE IN COLLECTING THESE FUNDS IMPLEMENTED IN AN EXPEDITIOUS MANNER BY TOURISM PROFESSIONALS IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR.

    —————————————————————————————-

    SENATE BILL 5916 FUNDING FOR A STATEWIDE TOURISM MARKETING PROGRAM?

     

    BASED ON THE “MYTH” OF CLALLAM COUNTY INCREASED TOURISM?

    IS A widely held but MISTAKEN belief,
    IT IS Something that is fictitious or NONEXISTENT, but whose existence is widely believed in.
    IT IS A set of idealized or glamorized ideas and stories surrounding a particular phenomenon or CONCEPT.

    Behind My Back | Clallam County $$$ Prospectus

    www.behindmyback.org/2013/05/19/clallam-county-prospectus/

    May 19, 2013 – THE “MYTH” OF CLALLAM COUNTY INCREASED TOURISM When GAS and FERRY cost is OVER $100.

    ———————————————————————————————-

    Senate Bill 5916: Enacting the tourism marketing act
    Substitute offered in the Senate on April 2, 2015, replaces the North American Industry Classification System codes with specific descriptions of the businesses that comprise the tourism sectors that will be assessed annual fees.
    http://www.washingtonvotes.org/Legislation.aspx?ID=168233

    AN ACT Relating to tourism marketing; reenacting and amending RCW 43.79A.040; adding a new section to chapter 82.04 RCW; adding a new section to chapter 44.28 RCW; adding a new chapter to Title 43 RCW; adding a new chapter to Title 82 RCW; providing an effective date; providing an expiration date; and declaring an emergency.

    —————————————————————————————

    IT’S COMPLICATED, YOU HAVE TO READ IT TO BELIEVE IT.

    ————————————————————————–

    BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:

    NEW SECTION.

    Sec. 1. FINDINGS

    PURPOSE. (1)The legislature finds that the tourism industry is the fourth largest economic sector in the state of Washington. Since 2011 there have been no general funds committed to statewide tourism marketing and Washington is the only state without a state tourism office. Before 2011, the amount of funds appropriated to statewide tourism marketing were not significant and in fact, Washington ranked forty-eighth in state tourism funding. Washington has significant attractions and activities for tourists, including many natural outdoor assets that draw visitors to mountains, waterways, parks, and open spaces. THERE SHOULD BE A PROGRAM TO PUBLICIZE THESE ASSETS AND ACTIVITIES THAT IS IMPLEMENTED IN AN EXPEDITIOUS MANNER BY TOURISM PROFESSIONALS IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR.

    (2) The purpose of this act is to establish the framework and FUNDING FOR A STATEWIDE TOURISM MARKETING PROGRAM. The program needs S-2906.2

    SECOND SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL 5916

    State of Washington

    64th Legislature

    2015 Regular Session

    By Senate Ways & Means (originally sponsored by Senators Brown,

    Chase, Angel, Kohl-Welles, Hatfield, Benton, and McAuliffe)

    READ FIRST TIME 04/02/15.

    p. 1 2SSB 5916 to have a structure that includes significant, stable, long-term funding, and it should be implemented and managed by the tourism industry.

    The source of funds should be from major sectors of the tourism industry WITH GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE IN COLLECTING THESE FUNDS and providing accountability for their expenditure.

    THE FEES AND CHARGES IMPOSED IN THIS CHAPTER WILL BRING DIRECT BENEFITS TO THOSE PAYING THE FEES AND CHARGES BY BRINGING MORE TOURISTS INTO THE STATE WHO WILL PATRONIZE THE PARTICIPATING BUSINESSES.

    —————————————————————————————————————

    The bottom line

    REMEMBER THIS NEW WA STATE  “FEE” FOR ALL PRIVATE BUSINESS’S IS NOT A TAX

    It’s just another RUSE  by WA State Legislators to take more local money from our local business’s, remove more money from our local economy  and GIVE IT TO THE WE’S WHO WANT

    ——————————————————————-

    Behind My Back | Fee Fie Foe Fum

    www.behindmyback.org/2013/10/26/fee-fie-foe-fum/

    Oct 26, 2013 – “Fee-fifofum” is the first line of a historical quatrain famous for its use in the classic English fairy … http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee-fie-foe-fum.

    REMEMBER A “FEE” IS NOT A TAX
    AND, A TOLL IS JUST A FEE
    AND, A SERVICE IS JUST ANOTHER FEE
    AND, A CHARGE IS JUST ANOTHER FEE
    AND, A FARE IS JUST ANOTHER FEE

    FEE FEE FIE FIE FOE FOE FUM…..

     


  • SMP Public Comment #162

    SMP PUBLIC COMMENT #162

    A FEDERAL  INTERFERENCE IN A LOCAL PROCESS?

    SMP PUBLIC COMMENT #584   022415 – DeptOfInterior

    DEPT. OF THE INTERIOR (DOI), the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the  maritime national wildlife refuge complex (NWRC)

    RED FLAG WARNING

    WHY ARE THESE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, DEPT. OF THE INTERIOR (DOI)  the US Fish and Wildlife Service, WA  maritime national wildlife refuge complex (NWRC)

    INTERFERING IN OUR LOCAL CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE DUE PROCESS?

    INTERFERENCE  BY DEFINITION to come into opposition, as one thing with another, ESPECIALLY with the effect of hampering action or procedure involvement in the activities and concerns of other people when your involvement is not wanted.

    The Planning Commission extended the written comment period until Friday, February 27, 2015.

    This SMP PUBLIC COMMENT #584   022415 – DeptOfInterior shall be included in consideration by the Planning Commission.

    Any comments received after February 27 will still  be part of the record that will go to the Board of County Commissioners.

    —————————————————————————————————–

    bottom line

    How fortunate I am, to have my website behindmyback.org to post this SMP Public  comment #162  dated Feb. 28, 2015

    ————————————————————————————————

    Direct Quote

    SMP PUBLIC COMMENT #584   022415 – DeptOfInterior

    We the US Fish and Wildlife Service, WA  maritime national wildlife refuge complex (NWRC)

    snippet

    “UNLIKE MANY OTHER AREAS OF PUGET SOUND CLALLAM COUNTY HAS PRISTINE  AQUATIC  AREAS AND SHORELINES THAT ARE IN GREAT CONDITION OR HAVE BEEN RESTORED AND PROVIDE MANY BENEFITS TO THE PEOPLE AND THE WILDLIFE IN THE AREA

    RECOGNIZING THIS FACT, WE SUGGEST THAT THE SMP FOLLOW A HIGHER STANDARD  THAN IS REQUIRED BY THE WA STATE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT’S MIMIMUM PROTECTION REQUIREMENT”

    ——————————————————————————————–

    DO THE FED’S RECOGNIZE THE FACT that that they have PROFILED AND TARGETED ONLY THE 3300 VESTED PRIVATE SHORELINE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS IN CLALLAM COUNTY?

    THE FEDS  WANT A  HIGHER STANDARD FOR THE 3300 AFFECTED?  THAN IS REQUIRED BY WA STATE LAW? Ch. 90.58 RCW – Shoreline Management Act

    ————————————————————————–

    THE FEDERAL WE’S WHO WANT?

    I have been consistently protecting private property rights. Hence,  my #162 Public SMP comment, as a taxpaying American citizen, born in and a  resident of Clallam County and the trustee of 800 acres of PRIVATE pristine forest land that has been owned by and under the stewardship of our family for over 65 years. Indeed, I have been consistently protecting private property rights in Clallam County since Jan. 26,2011.

    ——————————————————————————————-

    DOES THE FEDERAL DOI RECOGNIZE THE FACT  that 89% of Clallam County land is public and tribal land?  that those OTHER 89% of property owners are  exempt from and not affected, by the SMP Update?

    WHAT FACTS ABOUT CLALLAM COUNTY DOES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THE  DOI, RECOGNIZE?

    CLALLAM COUNTY HAS A TAX BASIS OF 11%

    DOES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT , THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

    (DOI) RECOGNIZES THE FACT? That Clallam County’s 3300 vested private shoreline private property owners have maintained, protected and kept their  private pristine  aquatic  areas and shorelines in great condition at their own expense forever?

    ————————————————————————————

    We  the Clallam County’s 3300 vested private shoreline private property owners RECOGNIZING THESE FACTS, including but not limited to all of the above….

    ———————————————————————–

    THE CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE IS A LOCAL PROCESS

    The primary RESPONSIBILITY for administering this regulatory program is assigned to LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENTS have done so through the mechanism of shoreline master programs, adopted under rules established by the Department of Ecology (DOE)

    ——————————————————————————–

    WHY ARE THESE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, DEPT. OF THE INTERIOR the US Fish and Wildlife Service, WA  maritime national wildlife refuge complex (NWRC)

     INTERFERING IN OUR LOCAL CLALLAM COUNTY DUE PROCESS?

    With their SMP PUBLIC COMMENT #584   022415 – DeptOfInterior

    With all due respect, may I suggest that THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, DEPT. OF THE INTERIOR the US Fish and Wildlife Service, WA  maritime national wildlife refuge complex (NWRC) ETC.

    take their big federal noses and stick them  into their own government federal public business, that being, the other 89% of public land and tribal land in Clallam County.

    ——————————————————————————————–

    And, an additional comment and suggestion for the DOI, by a Clallam County taxpaying citizen.  the federal government, the Department Of the Interior etc. HAS FAILED TO MANAGE THE CITIZENS PUBLIC TRUST TIMBER LAND, in the best interest of the people in Clallam County.

    INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, the tribes sued the federal government for failing to manage their tribal trust land and they won.

    Indian Trust Fund Mess – Salazar class-action lawsuit. The case is sometimes reported as the largest class-action lawsuit against the … 1 Early Federal Indian trust law; 2 Fruit of a failed policy;

    Vol. 37, No. 1 – Native American Rights Fund

    www.narf.org/pubs/nlr/nlr37-1.pdf

    Native American Rights Fund

    (and why are some tribes still) suing the govern- ment over … almost 56 million acres of trust land for tribes. Hundreds of … government’s management of tribal trust assets date back to …. hadn’t fixed what they’d done or failed to do in the past.”.

    —————————————————————————————

    The Planning Commission has extended the written comment period until Friday, February 27, 2015. To ensure consideration by the Planning Commission, comments should be received by February 27, 2015. 

    Any comments received after February 27 will still  be part of the record that will go to the Board of County Commissioners.

    bottom line

    How fortunate I am, to have my website behindmyback.org to post this SMP Public  #162 dated Feb. 28, 2015

     

     


  • SMP Public Comment #161

    SMP Public Comment #161

    To Clallam County Planning Commission

    And, Commissioners’ McEntire,  Chapman and Peach

    Concerning fatal errors in due process, not posting SMP public comments

    Omitting SMP public comments and a failure to provide  complete and accurate

    summaries of  SMP Public Meetings during the entire SMP process of

    the Nov. 2014 proposed SMP Update Draft

     

    Failure to notify interested parties (WRIA 20 shoreline property owners  and members of the advisory committee on SMP meetings)

    Failure of CLALLAM COUNTY government to provide  critical early and continuous public participation in to the SMP Update

    The purpose and intent of nearly a year of inactivity on SMP public meetings and  participation on the SMP Update? A cooling off period, if  we ignore them for a year maybe they will just go away?

    ———————————————————————–

    FAILURE  TO POST AND RESPOND TO SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Jo Anne Estes

    To: Merrill, Hannah ; Gray, Steve

    Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 12:07 PM

    Subject: WHAT IS NO NET LOSS WORKGROUP?

    —————————————————————————-

    SMP PUBLIC COMMENT #440 posted 10/4/13

    Failure to provide public outreach  and participation to WRIA 20  throughout the process.

    This is an SMP Public comment
    WA STATE RCW 42.56.030
    Pearl Rains Hewett

    SMP UPDATE EXCLUSION AND OMISSION

    WRIA 20 private property owners are PART OF CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE

    There were no private property owners representing WRIA 20 seated at the table for the Clallam County SMP Update Committee.
    Shall we question why the WRIA 20 private property owners were and are IN MANY CASES, being treated like SECOND CLASS CITIZENS and were not informed, not invited, not selected, not appointed, not allowed to actively participate in SMP  Public Meetings?
    Failure to make a special effort to reach the under-represented WRIA 20  throughout the process communities/stakeholders.

    —————————————————————————————————-

    AND,  Failure to  ENCOURAGE PARTICIPATION

    Sent: Tuesday,  8:48 AM

    THEY want us to be upset and discouraged, Commissioner Mike Chapman suggested I should/could  QUIT.

    Ironically, Commissioner Mike Chapman suggested just weeks earlier, somewhat sarcastically, that if I did not like the way things were going I should participate by volunteering to be on the SMP Update Citizens Advisory Committee.

    Hmmm? May 10, 2011 Commissioner Mike Chapman suggests that  if I do not like the way things are  going

    I should/could  QUIT.

    Don’t let life discourage you; everyone who got where she is had to begin where she was.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    ———————————————————————————————————————–

    FAILURE?

    Chapter 42.30 RCW

    OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT

    This is the Legislative declaration on RCW 42.30.010

    The legislature finds and declares that all public commissions, boards, councils, committees, subcommittees, departments, divisions, offices, and all other public agencies of this state and subdivisions thereof exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business. It is the intent of this chapter that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.

    The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.

    [1971 ex.s. c 250 § 1.]

    Notes:

         Reviser’s note: Throughout this chapter, the phrases “this act” and “this 1971 amendatory act” have been changed to “this chapter.” “This act” [1971 ex.s. c 250] consists of this chapter, the amendment to RCW 34.04.025, and the repeal of RCW 42.32.010 and 42.32.020.

     

    FAILURE ? As related to the Washington State Shoreline Management Act, RCW 90.58

    RCW 90.58.130

    Involvement of all persons and entities having interest means.

    To insure that all persons and entities having an interest in the guidelines and master programs developed under this chapter are provided with a full opportunity for involvement in both their development and implementation, the department and local governments shall:

    (1) Make reasonable efforts to inform the people of the state about the shoreline management program of this chapter and in the performance of the responsibilities provided in this chapter, shall not only invite but actively encourage participation by all persons and private groups and entities showing an interest in shoreline management programs of this chapter; and

    (2) Invite and encourage participation by all agencies of federal, state, and local government, including municipal and public corporations, having interests or responsibilities relating to the shorelines of the state. State and local agencies are directed to participate fully to insure that their interests are fully considered by the department and local governments.

    [1971 ex.s. c 286 § 13.]

    ——————————————————————

    Shoreline Master Program Update

    FAILURE?  THE CLALLAM COUNTY SMP PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY

    March 2010 Revised March 2011

    4.1 Phase I ‐ Public Participation Program

    Clallam County will incorporate public participation in all phases of the SMP process ,document public participation efforts (e.g., public meetings, community events)

    AND KEEP A RECORD OF PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED.

    —————————————————————————-

    FAILURE?

    UNPOSTED SMP COMMENTS

    Citizens Advisory Committee on the update of the SMP

     —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: sgray@co.clallam.wa.us

    Cc: earnest spees

    Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 2:07 PM

    Subject: Clallam County Shoreline Management Plan 1976 and Citizens Advisory Committee 2011

    Steve

    Re: Clallam County Shoreline Management Plan 1976

    I read the 1976 SMP

    My biggest concern would be Page 8 Section 8.

    Lake Sutherland Private property owners have every reason to be fearful.

    Is it history repeating itself? Like the National Park take over of all private property on Lake Crescent?

    I was just a girl when it happened, but I have living memory of the grief it caused.

     

    Citizens Advisory Committee 2011

    While the WA State law about participation does NOT specify private property owners.

    Our Family Trusts own 900 acres of land in Clallam County, we have paid tax on our private property for over 60 years.

    We have property in water sheds, including the Sol Duc River, Elwha River and Bagley Creek, legal water rights, hundreds of acres of designated Forest land, logging concerns, a gravel pit, property for development and a rock quarry.

    With 60 percent of Clallam County under Private ownership;

    I ask you?

    Has anyone (as as private property owner) EVER had a right to, or been entitled to, or had a position on the CCDCD Citizens Advisory Committee on the update of the SMP?

    Pearl Rains Hewett PR-Trustee

    George C. Rains Sr. Trust

    ————————————————————————–

    THIS IS POSTED #50 SMP PUBLIC COMMENT

    FAILURE? Omitting public comments and a failure to provide a complete and accurate

    summary of a Public Meeting

     —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: SMP@co.clallam.wa.us

    Cc: Gray, Steve

    Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 9:53 AM

    Subject: ESA Adolfson’s focus study groups

    I read the focus study groups report prepared by ESA Adolfson.

    It was not representative of the meeting I attended on Jan. 26, 2011.

    There was no mention of Lake Sutherland and the outpour of concern by the private property owners. State boats taking pictures of their docks and homes etc. The fear of what the update of the SMP would mean to their private property by making all of them non-conforming.

    I feel that the report was biased, it did not address the issues proportionately, that in their reporting they did misrepresent and not report private property owner’s spoken grievances.

    In ESA Adolfoson’s compliance attempt, they placed far more emphasis on the state take over of private property beach’s and the impute from agencies and business’s  then the concerns of the 60% of private property owners in Clallam County.

    I find it very disappointing  that our Clallam County Commissioners have allowed a totally self serving group of conservationists to publish biased findings and facts as the result of these public focus groups.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    ————————————————————————————–

     UNPOSTED SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS

     —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: Gray, Steve

    Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 8:32 AM

    Subject: Fw: STATE DIRECTIVE BY WAC 173-26-191

    Steve,

    Jim Kramer asked for  a copy of this WAC.

    I would also like to add this as my comment on the Advisory meeting on 4/11/11.

    Has a direct link for advisory comments been established?

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Advisory Committee Member

    ———————————————————————————–

    FAILURE TO POST  SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: Lear, Cathy

    Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2011 12:00 PM

    Subject: RCW’S FOR PROTECTION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY

    Cathy and Margaret,

    After listening to the questions asked by concerned citizens at both public and the advisory SMP update meetings,

    I would like to submit, as my comments, the following RCW’S to educate, inform and clarify private property owners of their rights and protection under WA State law.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Advisory Committee Member

    PROTECTION FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY

    Protection of single family residences

    RCW 90.58.100

    (6) Each master program shall contain standards governing the protection of single family residences and appurtenant structures against damage or loss due to shoreline erosion. The standards shall govern the issuance of substantial development permits for shoreline protection, including structural methods such as construction of bulkheads, and nonstructural methods of protection. The standards shall provide for methods which achieve effective and timely protection against loss or damage to single family residences and appurtenant structures due to shoreline erosion. The standards shall provide a preference for permit issuance for measures to protect single family residences occupied prior to January 1, 1992, where the proposed measure is designed to minimize harm to the shoreline natural environment.

    PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION

     Unintentionally created “Wetlands”

    RCW 90.58.030

    Definitions and concepts.

    (h) “Wetlands” means areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway. Wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland areas to mitigate the conversion of wetlands.

    PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION

    LAKE SUTHERLAND

     

    RCW 90.24.010Petition to regulate flow — Order — Exceptions.

    Ten or more owners of real property abutting on a lake may petition the superior court of the county in which the lake is situated, for an order to provide for the regulation of the outflow of the lake in order to maintain a certain water level therein. If there are fewer than ten owners, a majority of the owners abutting on a lake may petition the superior court for such an order. The court, after notice to the department of fish and wildlife and a hearing, is authorized to make an order fixing the water level thereof and directing the department of ecology to regulate the outflow therefrom in accordance with the purposes described in the petition. This section shall not apply to any lake or reservoir used for the storage of water for irrigation or other beneficial purposes, or to lakes navigable from the sea.

    [1999 c 162 § 1; 1985 c 398 § 28; 1959 c 258 § 1; 1939 c 107 § 2; RRS § 7388-1.]

    Notes:

         Effective date — 1985 c 398: “Sections 28 through 30 of this act shall take effect January 1, 1986.” [1985 c 398 § 31.]Lake and beach management districts: Chapter 36.61 RCW.

     

     

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: earnest spees ; Jo Anne Estes

    Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 9:21 AM

    Subject: STATE DIRECTIVE BY WAC 173-26-191

    All,

    I find this unacceptable.

    Directing and identifying how our Clallam County Officials can withhold permits to private property owner’s because the State can not legally or constitutionally regulate our private property at a state level.

    We must question every addition into our revised Clallam County SMP that goes beyond State SMP requirement.

    FYI

    Pearl

    WAC 173-26-191

    Agency filings affecting this section

    Master program contents.

    The results of shoreline planning are summarized in shoreline master program policies that establish broad shoreline management directives. The policies are the basis for regulations that govern use and development along the shoreline. Some master program policies may not be fully attainable by regulatory means due to the constitutional and other legal limitations on the regulation of private property. The policies may be pursued by other means as provided in RCW 90.58.240. Some development requires a shoreline permit prior to construction. A local government evaluates a permit application with respect to the shoreline master program policies and regulations and approves a permit only after determining that the development conforms to them. Except where specifically provided in statute, the regulations apply to all uses and development within shoreline jurisdiction, whether or not a shoreline permit is required, and are implemented through an administrative process established by local government pursuant to RCW 90.58.050 and 90.58.140 and enforcement pursuant to RCW 90.58.210 through 90.58.230.

     ——————————————————————-

     FAILURE TO POST SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS

    —– Original Message —–

    From: earnest spees

    To: Sheila Roark Miller – DCD Director 2010 ; Steve Gray

    Cc: Karl Spees ; pearl hewett ; Kaj Ahlburg

    Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2011 11:28 AM

    Subject: Shoreline Advisory Committee Minutes.

     

    Please forward to:

    Margaret Clancy & Jim Kramer

    1.  We would like a copy of the minutes of the first Clallam County Shoreline Advisory Committee.  We need to know if our comments were recorded to our satisfaction or whether we need to resubmit them.

    2.  We were told that we would be given a website with your slides and material used in your presentation. Also a site to submit additional comments.

    It will be good to see the half million +dollars the County has paid ESA Adolfson for the public input and the representation of the Citizens of Clallam County to be well spent.

    Karl Spees – Representative of the CAPR

    Advisory Committee Member

    ———————————————————————-

    FAILURE TO POST SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: Jo Anne Estes ; earnest spees

    Cc: Gray, Steve

    Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 7:39 AM

    Subject: Fw: Shoreline Advisory Committee Minutes.

    JoAnne,

    See below,

    I agree with Karl

    I have emailed comments to Cathy Lear and Margaret Clancy.

    I have questions. The consultants pie charts indicate 65% of Clallam County shorelines are private property?

    When less than 17.1% (or less) of the entire County is private property?

    We have no link to an Advisory Committee comment site.

    We have no link to a public comment site.

    I read the 25 page report of Jefferson County’s public comments on their SMP update, after the fact.

    I want to know what comments are being made about Clallam County’s SMP update and I want to know before the fact.

    Pearl

    Advisory Committee Member

    ————————————————————————————————

    As Members of the Clallam County Shoreline Advisory Committee.

    WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY RESPONSE Sheila Roark Miller – DCD Director 2010 ; Steve Gray

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: earnest spees ; pat tenhulzen ; Jo Anne Estes

    Cc: marv chastain

    Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 9:35 AM

    Subject: All SMP public comments PRIVATE?

    All

    I am working on comments and recommendation to the SMP update.

     Since, all of the SMP public comments are being held private?

     I guess we will have to find a way to make our privatized, public comments PUBLIC?

     Were all of Jefferson County public comments held private until after the fact?

     How can we get a public web site so public comments are made PUBLIC?

     Perhaps we could use WA State Full Disclosure law?

    Pearl

    Advisory Committee Member

    ———————————————————————-

    I guess we will have to find a way to make our privatized, public comments PUBLIC?

    SO…  I ended up sending this  SMP comments to Jim Jones??

    I had his email address

    UNPOSTED SMP COMMENT

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: jim jones

    Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 1:23 PM

    Subject: TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS

    1. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE

    Jim,

    Because you are in a position to influence the outcome of the SMP update and I am both on the Advisory Committee and a private property owner I feel compelled to inform you on issues of concern, not what is spoken at meetings, like last night, but as written comment.

    As Commissioner Doherty  mentioned last night, times are changing.

    I have spent the last three months on line researching, complying and analyzing, statistics, laws, Port Townsend’s SMP update, the 7th revised addition of the WRIA, trespass by WFDW, Pacific Legal foundation, Jefferson County 25 page public comments on their SMP update, noxious weed control and attending public meeting, just to mention a few.

    I felt that both Commissioner Doherty and Shelia we unprepared  for public comment last night.

    The trespass discussed by WDFW was on 4 parcels of Rains Sr. Trust Land.

    The fear of the people on Lake Sutherland was my comment at a Commissioners meeting.

    I found and have been circulating the Oregon taking of property value.

    I will  provide only documented information to you.

    I am passionate about private property and Constitutional rights.

    1. TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS

    Statistics taken from

    Clallam County future land use map

    79.2 % of Clallam County is PUBLIC LAND

    17.1% of Clallam County is PRIVATE PROPERTY

    3.7% other

    79.2%  (or more) of Clallam County is PUBLIC LAND and it’s SHORELINES

    are available for PUBLIC ACCESS.

    My public comment and recommendation  for the SMP update is that no additional private property be taken for PUBLIC SHORELINE  ACCESS.

     Any additional PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS on private property shall be strictly on a volunteer basis and not as a requirement for permits.

    Owning 79.2% of Clallam County, the Olympic National Park, National Forest Lands and the Dept of Natural Resources should be encouraged to provide PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    As Trustee of the George C. Rains Trust

    Private property owner

    Advisory Committee Member

    ————————————————————–

    AND…  I ended up sending this  SMP comments to Jim Jones??

    I had his email address

    ANOTHER UN-POSTED SMP COMMENT

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: jim jones

    Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 1:36 PM

    Subject: WA RCW’S THAT PROTECT PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS

    Jim,

    DCD Sheila Miller suggested that fear of the government may be dispelled by educating.

    Instead of educating fearful Lake Sutherland private property owners, why not help them?

    I researched and found three laws that  protect private property owner.

    3. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE

    Any WA State RCW’s that are beneficial to the rights and protection of private property owners should be included in the Clallam County SMP update.

    PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION

    LAKE SUTHERLAND

    RCW 90.24.010

    Petition to regulate flow — Order — Exceptions.

    Ten or more owners of real property abutting on a lake may petition the superior court of the county in which the lake is situated, for an order to provide for the regulation of the outflow of the lake in order to maintain a certain water level therein. If there are fewer than ten owners, a majority of the owners abutting on a lake may petition the superior court for such an order. The court, after notice to the department of fish and wildlife and a hearing, is authorized to make an order fixing the water level thereof and directing the department of ecology to regulate the outflow therefrom in accordance with the purposes described in the petition. This section shall not apply to any lake or reservoir used for the storage of water for irrigation or other beneficial purposes, or to lakes navigable from the sea.

    [1999 c 162 § 1; 1985 c 398 § 28; 1959 c 258 § 1; 1939 c 107 § 2; RRS § 7388-1.]Notes:

         Effective date — 1985 c 398: “Sections 28 through 30 of this act shall take effect January 1, 1986.” [1985 c 398 § 31.]Lake and beach management districts: Chapter 36.61 RCW.  

    PROTECTION FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY

    Protection of single family residences

    RCW 90.58.100

     (6) Each master program shall contain standards governing the protection of single family residences and appurtenant structures against damage or loss due to shoreline erosion. The standards shall govern the issuance of substantial development permits for shoreline protection, including structural methods such as construction of bulkheads, and nonstructural methods of protection. The standards shall provide for methods which achieve effective and timely protection against loss or damage to single family residences and appurtenant structures due to shoreline erosion. The standards shall provide a preference for permit issuance for measures to protect single family residences occupied prior to January 1, 1992, where the proposed measure is designed to minimize harm to the shoreline natural environment.

    PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION

     Unintentionally created “Wetlands”

    RCW 90.58.030

    Definitions and concepts.

     (h) “Wetlands” means areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway. Wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland areas to mitigate the conversion of wetlands.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    AS Trustee of the George C. Rains Trust

    Private property owner

    Advisory Committee member

    —————————————————————————

    FAILURE TO INFORM INTERESTED PARTIES  SMP Advisory Committee members

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Jo Anne Estes

    Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2011 10:31 AM

    Subject: Public Meeting on SMP tomorrow

    Hello, everyone~

    As a fellow conservative and defender of property rights, I am calling on you with an urgent request to attend the Clallam County Commissioners meeting tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. when the Shoreline Master Program update will be discussed.  Meeting information can be found at

    http://www.clallam.net/board/assets/applets/monwork.pdf.  This agenda item is planned for 9:45 a.m.

    Any public comment you are willing to provide is greatly appreciated.  Make your voice heard!  Even if you do not wish to comment, plan to attend the meeting to get a first hand view of our county government.

    Thanks for your consideration.

    Jo Anne Estes

    An Advisory Committee member

    FAILURE TO INFORM INTERESTED PARTIES  SMP Advisory Committee members

    —– Original Message —–

    From: earnest spees

    To: Karl Spees

    Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2011 9:17 AM

    Subject: Public Meeting on SMP tomorrow!!!!!!!!

    Defenders of Property Rights (Article on A8 in today’s PDN)

    Tomorrow, Monday 2/28/11, there will be a meeting in the commissioners meeting room, Clallam County Courthouse, on the Shoreline Master Program, SMP, Update.

    The meeting is at 0900 (AM) and will allow public input.  Unfortunately this is when most people have jobs and will be working.

    They may be just probing, checking our body temperature, the strength of their opposition to the draconian new rules restricting and regulating use of our private property.  (This may be a classic battle of the  citizens, ‘we the people’ against the big government agenda.)

    Please attend and participate.

    Karl Spees – Pres CAPR 13

    An Advisory Committee member

    —————————————————————————

    FAILURE TO INFORM INTERESTED PARTIES  SMP Advisory Committee members

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: earnest spees

    Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2011 11:08 AM

    Subject: Re: Public Meeting on SMP tomorrow!!!!!!!!

    Yes, I will be there.

    How did you find out?

    They sure as hell didn’t let me know!

    imagine that?

    Pearl

    An Advisory Committee member

     ————————————————————–

    WE WERE INVITED TO BE ON THE Shoreline Advisory Committee?

    May 05, 2011 10:19 AM, Per Steve Gray we are “NOT” an Advisory Committee we just an “Important work group to provide input”.

    SO WE BECAME THE CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE Shoreline”Important work group to provide input” Committee.

    FAILURE? Omitting public comments and a failure to provide a complete and accurate

    summary of a Public Meeting

    —– Original Message —–

    Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 10:19 AM
    Subject: Responsible party
    —————————————–
    TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
    Regarding the 30 members of  the invited Shoreline Advisory Committee.
    Per Steve Gray we are “NOT” an Advisory Committee we just an “Important work group to provide input”.
    ————————————————
    Am I confused? No, I am insulted.
    ——————————————-
    After reading Hannah’s documented, selectively summarized outcome of the first Advisory Committee meeting,
    ———————————————————–
    it is my personal opinion that we, as a committee are not there to give input, constructive comment, or recommendation,
    we are there to be indoctrinated on compliance, based on misleading pie charts and statistics compiled and presented by ESA Adolfson..
    ——————————————————————–
    Comment by Carol Johnson regarding forest management and a new regulation on the SMP compliance report, she questioned why? The forest Act regulates forestry.
    ———————————————————————
    Comment the  “Reading out loud” by Pearl Hewett of the follow WAC 173-26-191.
    ———————————————————————-

    WAC 173-26-191 Some master program policies may not be fully attainable by regulatory means due to the constitutional and other legal limitations on the regulation of private property. The policies may be pursued by other means as provided in RCW 90.58.240. Some development requires a shoreline permit prior to construction. A local government evaluates a permit application with respect to the shoreline master program policies and regulations and approves a permit only after determining that the development conforms to them.

    Comment by Pearl Hewett, If regulation of private property is unconstitutional or illegal by WA State law Clallam County should NOT use it.


    Comment by Kaj Ahlburg, the WAC’s are more stringent then WA State law.

    The selective summary of the “Our Important work group to provide input” at the first meeting, did not mention any of these comments.
    I called Commissioner Mike Chapman.
    Who is responsible? The elected DCD Sheila Rourk Miller.
    Sheila went on vacation on April 26, 2011 the day after the 4C public meeting and will not be back in her office until Monday May 9, 2011.
    I called today and left a message, asking for a meeting with her.
    Pearl
    —————————————————————————-

    UNPOSTED SMP   PUBLIC COMMENTS on NO NET LOSS

     —– Original Message —–

    From: Jo Anne Estes

    To: Merrill, Hannah ; Gray, Steve

    Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 12:07 PM

    Subject: What is No Net Loss Workgroup?

    Hello Hannah and Steve:

    I saw this Notice on the Clallam County Website:

    Thursday:  August 18, 2011 – No Net Loss Work Group , Clallam County BOCC Room 160, 223 East Fourth Street, Port Angeles, 10a.m.-2:00 p.m.

    Is this something either of you are leading?  If not, please forward my email to the correct person. I could not make the meeting yesterday.

    Could you please forward me all copies of the meeting agendas and minutes to date for this group?  I would like to gather this as soon as possible so I can get up to speed.

    Do you know if the Shoreline Advisory Committee been tasked with participating with the No Net Loss workgroup?  If so, I do not recall getting notice.  Please add my email address to the distribution list for all minutes and agendas of the No Net Loss workgroup.

    Thanks very much.  Have a great weekend!

    Jo Anne Estes

    —————————————————————————————————–

    As Members of the Clallam County Shoreline Advisory Committee.

    WE WERE NOT RECEIVING ANY RESPONSES FROM

    Sheila Roark Miller – DCD Director 2010 ; Steve Gray

    SO,  I did respond to Jo Anne Estes (a member of the Shoreline Advisory Committee)

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: Jo Anne Estes

    Cc: earnest spees

    Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 12:54 PM

    Subject: Re: What is No Net Loss Workgroup?

    Jo Anne,

    When people asked about the NO NET LOSS at the public SMP meeting after our Aug.committee meeting (only 16 people showed up) I asked about the no net loss committee? Who are they? They have had only 1 meeting?  Steve Grey admitted, they had only had one meeting. I fear they are from the appointed 9 in the Planning Dept.? Steve did not identify them.

    Your letter to the PDN was good. Unfortunately too many people have taken the “Wait and see what they do attitude”

    Then, they will start screaming and yelling, after the fact!

    You are correct when you say we, as private property owners, are not represented proportionally on the SMP update committee. In fact we are not represented PERIOD.  Remember the meeting we attended at the Audubon.

    I have emailed, questioned, complained, bitched, requested info, made comments, spoken out at public meetings, been ignored when I raised my hand at the John Wayne Marina Public Forum, sent many DOE, Clallam County maps with their statistics  documenting their errors and omissions

     (August 19, 2011)  AND have yet to received a single response from the Planning Dept, Sheila, Hannah and Steve Grey do not respond.

    The committee members comments are not put on line as we were told they would be?

    Are we just, the required by LAW invited?

     Does anything we do have any effect on the outcome?

     Are our comments even given to the Appointed 9?

    FYI

    ESA Adolfson completed a report on Puget Sound for the National Fish and Wildlife Federation in WA DC prior to our Jan 26, 2011 SMP meeting.

    Keep up the good work,

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Disappointed member of the Clallam County Invited SMP

    Update NOT Citizens Advisory Committee.

    ———————————————————————–

    The bottom line

    AND,  Failure to  ENCOURAGE PARTICIPATION

    Sent: Tuesday,  8:48 AM 2011

    THEY want us to be upset and discouraged, Commissioner Mike Chapman suggested I should/could  QUIT.

    Ironically, Commissioner Mike Chapman suggested just weeks earlier, somewhat sarcastically, that if I did not like the way things were going I should participate by volunteering to be on the SMP Update Citizens Advisory Committee.

    Hmmm? May 10, 2011 Commissioner Mike Chapman suggests that  if I do not like the way things are  going

    I should/could  QUIT.

    Don’t let life discourage you; everyone who got where she is had to begin where she was.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

     


  • Living in Law-Law Land?

    Living in Law- Law Land?

    LIVING IN WA STATE LAW-LAW,  LA-LA LAND?

    Definition of LA-LA LAND from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, a euphoric dreamlike mental state DETACHED FROM THE HARSHER REALITIES OF LIFE.

    ——————————————————————————————

    WHO’S? LEGISLATING IN WA STATE  LAW- LAW, LA-LA  LAND?

    WOW, 107 LEGISLATORS /LAWMAKERS HAVE INTRODUCED 2,200 LAWMAKING MEASURES?

    The Washington State Legislature is a bicameral body with 49 members in the Senate and 98 members in the House of Representatives.

    ——————————————–

    From: WashingtonVotes.org News <wavotes@wavotes.org>
    Date: Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 3:32 PM

    On this 33rd day of this year’s 105-day legislative session, lawmakers have introduced more than 2,200 measures

    ———————————————————————————————————–

    WHO’S VOTING on more than 2,200 measures  IN LAW- LAW, LA-LA LAND?

    our  147 WA State elected representative (aka our 147 public servants)

    How many of the 147 legislators are  detached from the harsher realities of life, and legislating in a euphoric dreamlike mental state?

    ————————————————————————————————————-

    These 147 legislators took an oath of office, to UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION,

     NOT TO “HOLD US UP”  

    by legislating and dumping more taxes and 2200 more lawmaking measures  on the already beleaguered WA STATE AMERICAN TAXPAYING CITIZENS.

    —————————————————————————

    How Stupid do these WA STATE  LAW- LAW, LA-LA  legislators  think we are?

    Do they think, American Citizens ARE SO Stupid, WE LACK COMPREHENSION  AND WE ARE TOO DUMB TO FIGURE OUT WHAT’S GOING ON?

    Behind My Back | By Hook or By Crook

    www.behindmyback.org/2013/10/16/by-hook-or-by-crook/

    Oct 16, 2013 – Suggestion number one is that ‘by hook or by crook‘ derives from the custom in mediaeval England of ALLOWING PEASANTS TO TAKE FROM …

    ————————————————————————-

    Behind My Back | Fee Fie Foe Fum

    www.behindmyback.org/2013/10/26/feefiefoe-fum/

    Oct 26, 2013 – FEE, FEE? FIE, FIE? FOE, FOE? FUM? (By archaic definition and word origin) EVEN IN ARCHAIC … http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feefiefoe-fum.

    ————————————————————————

    ONE EXAMPLE (from an email)

    To a WA State Representative,

    You went on air and essentially referred to taxpayers of this state as children who need you to make decisions for them; that even when those decisions were unpopular, they were still the right decision.

    Your ill-spoken comments are offensive.  How dare you insinuate that you know better than the hard-working people of this state, what they need.  How dare you insinuate these people are children who need your guidance on what is best.  How insulting, how offensive, how demeaning.  You are obviously on a power trip that serves not one taxpayer of this state well.

    —————————————————————————————-

    How Stupid do these WA STATE  LAW- LAW, LA-LA  legislators  think we are?

    Do they think, American Citizens ARE SO Stupid, WE LACK COMPREHENSION  AND WE ARE TOO DUMB TO FIGURE OUT WHAT’S GOING ON?

    How Stupid ARE THESE WA STATE  LAW- LAW, LA-LA  legislators?  

    Full Definition of STUPID

    from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

    slow of mind

    given to unintelligent decisions or acts

    acting in an unintelligent or careless manner

    lacking intelligence or reason

    dulled in feeling or sensation

    marked by or resulting from unreasoned thinking or acting

    lacking interest or point

    —————————————————————————

    How uninformed are the voters that voted for them, and elected them?

    HOW STUPID ARE THE WA STATE VOTERS THAT ELECTED THEM?

    —————————————————————————————-

    A full Synonym Discussion of STUPID

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stupid

    stupid, dull, dense, crass, dumb, mean lacking in power to absorb ideas or impressions stupid implies a slow-witted or dazed state of mind that may be either congenital or temporary <stupid students just keeping the seats warm> <stupid with drink>.dull, suggests a slow or sluggish mind such as results from disease, depression, or shock <monotonous work that leaves the mind dull>. dense implies a thickheaded imperviousness to ideas <too dense to take a hint>. crass suggests a grossness of mind precluding discrimination or delicacy <a crass, materialistic people>. dumb, applies to an exasperating obtuseness or LACK OF COMPREHENSION <TOO DUMB TO FIGURE OUT WHAT’S GOING ON>.