In Byers' Eagle Forum answers, she says that she has received no campaign funds from the Friends, and as an organization, that's true. The Eagle Forum might have more accurately asked about her connections to the people comprising the Stewardship Network. In the spirit of fairness, let's look at a summary of who is donating to Byers campaign.
- 1 Board member of the Friends plus her husband (largest donors to Byers campaign)
- 1 Board member of Kwiaht who is also a Planning Commissioner
- 2 members of the Charter Review Commission
- 2 Land Bank Commissioners plus the Head of the Land Bank
- 3 members of the MRC, one of whom is also an employee of the Friends, and another who is also the County's Salmon Lead Entity Coordinator
- 3 local Democratic Party officials, one of whom is (simultaneously) also the Head of the Madrona Institute, the Stewardship Network fiscal agent, and President of the Conservation District
- 4 members of the League of Women Voters, one of whom is also a Planning Commissioner
- 6 people associated with one or more of our Island Land Trusts, and
- 14 Byers campaign donors have also donated to Pratt
Remember, this is on top of the expansive connections already described in one of our earlier posts regarding Byers' (and Pratt's) Campaign Committee. Is there anything wrong with active citizens playing multiple roles in our community? Well ... sometimes yes. When the same people become entrenched for years as a virtual ascendancy, then there can be potential problems.
But many ordinary citizens are wondering if something more fundamental is going on. It looks for all the world like the eco/conservation crowd is hooking up with the Community Land Trust crowd to re-engineer our entire economy and island way of life. Are we crazy for having those suspicions? Maybe not. Consider the following.
Most Community Land Trusts are 501(c)(3)s ... for those of us who believe that this is actually the right way to ... that this is part of a larger Land Reform Movement ... it would be great if we weren't constrained by 501(c)(3)s ... but in terms of replicating this model and actually getting it on the ground, the place where it has had the most traction has been in the affordable housing world and therefore having that 501(c)(3) status has provided a way to work within the existing economy to implement this alternative economy. There are a number of Conservation Land Trusts and Community Land Trusts that work collaboratively. There are a few that I know of in the same organization ... my specific experience has been that, again, it takes relationships and specific projects to coalesce around. - Lisa Byers, June 2012 -- New Economics Institute Conference Q&AAlternative economy? ... relationships and specific projects to coalesce around? ... seems like one more thing in this county that makes you go "hmmm."
In addition to being Executive Director of OPAL, Byers is the President of the National Community Land Trust, and she is part of the New Economics Institute, which is a heterodox economics organization. We're not talking Keynes versus Hayek ... we're talking Schumacher and people who believe in degrowth -- and as appealing as some aspects of that philosophy may sound to some, most of it is simply an anti-capitalistic power grab disguised as eco wholesomeness.
We'll have more about that in future posts, but to get rolling, have a look at an excerpt of Byers from a New Economics Institute Conference in New York from last June. By the way, Byers starts off with a quote by Thomas Paine that (we believe) she misconstrues. We'll have more about that too in later posts.
(34) Excerpt from Lisa Byers - Indian Line Farm: Conservation, Affordable Access, Sustainability from New Economics Institute on Vimeo
"It looks for all the world like the eco/conservation crowd is hooking up with the Community Land Trust crowd to re-engineer our entire economy and island way of life."
ReplyDeleteAgenda 21
Wake up America. Do your homework.
Lisa is truly terrifying. The "alternative economy" crap just reeks of East Coast Progressive Marxist Social Justice Enviro-Utopian dreck!
ReplyDeleteMore terrifying is the realization that apparently some large portion of our population will vote for her becauce of party identification. Even worse, maybe 3 out of 4 people who will vote really buy into all her crap.
Somebody talk us down from the ledge!
3 out of 4 people believe in something?
ReplyDeleteIs it crap?
I need guidance from my Living ECK Master:
ReplyDeleteMaster, what did you mean by your reference to the "1 Percent"?
Very curious.
"...further adequate governance..." That's the problem for me. Giving all our authority to some sort of higher power. Ultimately ... the police?
ReplyDeleteIt's like the new park ranger on San Juan a couple years ago. He spoiled American Camp for me. Overzealous, power trippy, rude...and gun wielding. He RULED because he could. It was no longer ours. It was his. You only need a couple of those people to create a world where nature is like a picture postcard. Something beautiful and far far away....
It was a reference to an earlier post that had mentioned that, if you believe in the 1% vs the 99%, the supporters of Byers and Pratt make up about 1% of our population. The 153 donors of Pratt constitute about 1% of our county. Rather than referring to a corporate elite, the 1% for us seems to be a small percentage of perennial insiders that seem to run this place.
ReplyDeleteThat's all I meant :-)
She even mentions the UN Agenda in her talk, and says that the New Economics Institute and other alternative economic organizations are "kissing cousins" which I guess is where the post title comes from.
ReplyDeleteWow. This is really interesting and disturbing at the same time. She is clearly not interested in affordable housing so much as using affordable housing to push an entirely different economic system. That is so ironic given that she has local respect as a sensible business woman, but OMG, she wants a whole different economy based around land trusts rather than people.
What I don't understand is how someone can take an oath to uphold and protect the US and Washington State Constitutions. If you believe the right to private property should be eliminated in order to meet larger but somewhat abstract notions of social, economic and environmental justice ...
ReplyDeleteHow can someone reconcile that? You can't have it both ways. I like Lisa I respect her intelligence and passion. I disagree with her philosophy of governance.
It does not well for the San Juan Islands, for Washington State or the United States.
Perhaps Venezuela. But those folks are starting to wake up I think.
For these East Coast out of touch New Economists and Land Reformers. Please leave us alone. You're out west now. Folks, please wake up before its too late. Just Vote No.
ReplyDeleteIF YOU GO DOWN ROUND THE BEND IN THE RIVER
YOU’RE GONNA FIND A FEW CHANGES
BEEN GOING DOWN THERE
‘CAUSE THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE
ROUND THE BEND IN THE RIVER
HAVE FORGOTTEN THEIR DREAMS
AND THEY’VE CUT OFF THEIR HAIR
CHORUS:
AND TAKE A LAST, FLYING LOOK
AT THE LAST LONELY EAGLE
HE’S SOARING THE LENGTH OF THE LAND
SHED A TEAR FOR THE FATE
OF THE LAST LONELY EAGLE
FOR YOU KNOW THAT HE NEVER WILL LAND
IF YOU GO DOWN WHERE THE LIGHTS
PUSH THE NIGHTTIME
BACK FAR ENOUGH SO YOU CAN’T FEEL THE FEAR
REMEMBER THE BOY WHO YOU LEFT ON THE MOUNTAIN
WHO’S SITTING ALONE WITH THE STARS AND HIS TEARS
IF YOU GO DOWN TO THE GAS-POWERED FLATLAND
WHERE MOST OF THE PEOPLE JUST THINK
THAT THEY’RE FREE
REMEMBER THE PEACE THAT YOU HAD
ON THE MOUNTAIN
COME BACK TO THE LOVE THAT YOU HAD HERE WITH ME
AND TAKE A LAST, FLYING LOOK
AT THE LAST LONELY EAGLE
HE’S SOARING THE LENGTH OF THE LAND
SHED A TEAR FOR THE FATE
OF THE LAST LONELY EAGLE
FOR YOU KNOW THAT HE NEVER WILL LAND
New Riders of the Purple Sage
Last Lonely Eagle
by John Dawson
Never thought I'd say this, but I may have to make a special "song" comment section :-)
ReplyDeleteWell isn't this just dandy. Overt socialism financed by the local democratic party machine, and networked to boot. Just what we need.
ReplyDeleteI just want to remind commenters that this (whatever "this" is) is more "Network" than "Democratic" and many Democrats like me are upset by this, but at the same time, we're not about to become Republicans either.
ReplyDeleteWe can find common ground on local issues involving transparency, accountability, access, and fiscal responsibility. Don't blame Democrats for these candidates though. I don't like what is happening either, and I am disgusted that my party's officials are involved.
Lisa also mentions the Kibbutz Movement. For those of you not familiar with the term, here is a shortened definition from Wikipedia:
ReplyDeleteA kibbutz (Hebrew: קיבוץ, קִבּוּץ, lit. "gathering, clustering"; plural kibbutzim) is a collective community in Israel that was traditionally based on agriculture. The kibbutz is a form of communal living that combines socialism and Zionism. Kibbutzim began as utopian communities, but have gradually embraced a more "scientific" Socialist approach.
Israeli author Daniel Gavron explains, "For seventy years, the kibbutz as an institution exerted unprecedented influence over its members. No totalitarian regime ever exercised such absolute control over its citizens as a free, voluntary, democratic kibbutz exercises over its members... It organized every facet of their lives:their accommodations, their work, their health, their leisure, their culture, their food, clothing, vacations, hobbies, and above all--the education and upbringing of their children"
Read Joshua Muravchik's book Heaven on Earth to find out the disaster these communes ended in.
I guess Lisa is willing to do her share to "fundamentally change America". One thing is for sure. She does not believe in one of our founding principles that the self owning autonomous individual, is the basic foundation of society. To her the Collective is all. Other people on this blog keep saying how smart she is, but how smart can she be if she hasn't even studied the historical outcomes of any and all of these "Collectivist" experiments? I know. The answer is that the Ideas are not flawed, just the wrong people have tried to implement them.
Go ahead. Vote for her if you want. Maybe the Socialists can finally get it right.
Ah yes! "Socialism cannot fail, it can only be failed!"
ReplyDelete"It has never really been implemented correctly"
But Lisa can sneak it in under the cover of diversity and vibrancy.
Maybe we need to hire the Goodyear Blimp and run it over the Islands with TH postings scrolling down the message board. Anyone who still pushes the "Lisa smart, works well with others" mantra, but ignores the underlying ideology is voting for a Commisar or a Hugo Chavez wannabe! The Democratic Socialist People's Republic of San Juan - a private property free zone!
If "3 out of 4 people believe in something? Is it crap?".
ReplyDeleteWell yes it can be. What if 3 out of 4 people believed in slavery or legalizing rape. Would that still not be crap?
As EB White said, "Democracy is the belief that more than half the people are right more than half the time."
ReplyDeleteI appreciate Lisa's concern about the disparity of wealth in society. As I understand her argument, money = power, and inequality of wealth = disproportionate distribution of power. Given that these are the assumptions she operates from, I can as her understand her desire to redistribute wealth in order to rectify this inequality.
ReplyDeleteSo given that Lisa's motivation is to bring about economic justice and increase fairness, I look forward to her sharing the wealth of her disproportionately large campaign kitty with the other candidates, in order to level the playing field.
Microcosm of the macrocosm and all that...right Lisa?
This is a bit of divergence, but has to do with a whole lot of the campaign finance conversation:
ReplyDeleteFirst- the two leading campaign spenders are Byers and Ayers- not Byers and Pratt.
Second- the campaign with the biggest war chest is Ayers. His total campaign cash is over $24k. 1/2 of his campaign is being financed out of debt.
Third- the PDC filings for most of these candidates are a horrible example of accounting. In fact, by PDC rules, most of the campaigns are guilty of failure to follow disclosure laws.
On Orcas The Hughes Campaign for instance lists 7 donors with a total of $800 donated, but then lists $4800 raised. An it's not just the Hughes campaign tht is mis-reported. The same issue exists for the Ayers campaign which is off by over $10,000 in their accounting. The Byers Campaign looks to be very close to balanced in their contribution reporting.
On San juan The Jarman campaign is closer to correct, but still off by several thousand. The Florenza and Pratt campaigns look to be very close in their accounting with deviations not worth mentioning.
I did not take any time to analyze Stephens and McClearan, but can say that Brian's amounts do add up--- 0 across the board.
All of this is information that I believe is worth knowing as I believe it says alot about the organization and transparency of the various candidates. It may not be the most important factor, but if we are going to make a big deal out of find raising we should make sure we are looking at all the facts - and at this point, most of the candidates are not giving them to us.
I believe you are misreading the PDC information. Ayers has raised cash of $12K and it is almost all debt. The debt isn't added to the "cash raised" total but is part of it.
ReplyDeleteBut the point you raise brings home the point about Byers and Pratt. Those candidates have raised so much money that, to keep up, the other candidates have had to go into debt.
That is not how it works, and in fact if you tried to read it that way, then Ayers has accrued more debt than money he has raised? The math for that equation makes even less sense!
DeleteThe PDC finance columns are not inclusive of one another.
No matter how you read it, the reporting by these candidates is severly flawed and needs to be called to attention.
Candidates: if you cannot even manage your campaign finances, how can you be trusted with our county finances?
As long as we're talking PDC curiosities, did anyone else notice that Stephens is reporting individual contribution amounts for his two largest donors that appear to be PDC violations? He received $1,000 from Peter Currie (VC and ex-Netscape CFO) and his wife, but the limit on personal contributions is $900 each for general election. We will have to see if/how that gets cleared up.
ReplyDeleteI show each of them with $900 contributions?
DeleteWhere is the $1000?
Wow. Lisa came right out and said it. She doesn't believe in private property beyond being able to own your house but not the land it sits on. Amazing. Isn't this the reason many of us have a problem with the whole direction of the CAOs? The CAOs start out letting you own your land, with use provisions granted by our wise collectivists. This I believe is the reason the Friends are challenging the CAOs. They want to skip right to the end game of non land ownership. Of course it's for the environment though.
ReplyDeleteIt must have gotten fixed. It was there yesterday, prior to the update. I can only presume that the $100 was refunded. The candidates have a certain amount of time where they can correct a contribution error (within 5 business days, I think) before they are liable for the error.
ReplyDeleteNot sure how other reporting errors work, but I agree that the candidates need to make their PDC reports easier to understand. Ayers is reporting $1300 in cash contributions to Byers $20K, with about $8K for in-kind contributions. The "loans" amount doesn't match the "debt" amount, so there are some obvious problems there.
The Washington Debt Clock
ReplyDeletehttp://www.usdebtclock.org/state-debt-clocks/state-of-washington-debt-clock.html
As to that land thing. Remember the Depression? Remember the Oklahoma Land Run, 40 acres and a mule. Even in Oregon, staking claim was still possible in the '70s and was part of the back-to-the-land movement.
Just too many "little people" building stake out there. A good Depression creates a fire sale for property acquisition by the 1%. And the foreclosed pack up the old truck and head to the cities.
You don't think that's happening again? But this time the oligarchs are calling it sustainable development. They have their marketing pitch down cold. And people are fooled into believing they are populist, green Democrats. Not so much.
ReplyDeleteIf you "own" the home ,and the land is in a nonprofit trust, you don't pay taxes to the county or state on the land part. How doe's the county make up the difference? Raise everybody else's taxes?
Not all Democrats are in the Network. But all those in the Network are Democrats, or new converts to Independent to hide the connection.
ReplyDeleteIf you go by the "expenditures" PDC information, then Byers and Ayers have spent about the same ($12K), but Ayers has mostly funded his own campaign so far. Byers has taken in $20K in contributions and spent $12K. Pratt has taken in $19K and spent $11K, and her closest opponent, expenditure-wise, is Forlenza who has taken in $8K and spent $7K. Looks like Forlenza has about 20 contributors to Pratt's 150+.
ReplyDeleteI agree the "debt" and "loan" info for Ayers is messed up, but there's nothing in the PDC report to suggest that he has spent $24K.
This isn't about Democrats and Republicans. (For the most part they are all the same now, neither party being what it was 50 years ago.) This is about Progressives and Libertarians. Very much like what I see happening in Congress these days.
ReplyDeleteOk. But 99.9% of Progressives vote Democrat. How many Libertarians paying attention to what's going on vote Democrat? I stopped calling myself a Democrat when it became obvious the overwhelming connection of the Democrat party with the "Progressive", Socialist, anti- American world view. But if it helps to alleviate the discomfort some Democrats are starting to feel, then right, it's not about Democrat vs. Republican. Sorry. How can you not concede that all of this nonsense is coming from people who vote Democrat? We know many of the players at this point. Name one Republican or Libertarian in the Network.
ReplyDeletePDC "Mini-Reporting" is a great benefit for a new candidate without an organized campaign crew.
ReplyDeleteAs stated earlier, most of the folks donating to my campaign are concerned about their privacy. This is not because of their association with political power or parties. It is because they don't want to cause cause any rifts with friends, coworkers, and bosses.
Brian has currently raised $1850 from 34 individuals. He has spent $1400 including the filing fee. When the campaign exceeds $5000 in contributions, full reporting will commence. Thank you for your understanding in this matter.
A Board member of Kwiaht is ALSO a Planning Commissioner? Why, that's outrageous. I assumed that no one on the Planning Commission had any ties outside it.
ReplyDeleteFrom the "Rate my proffesors" website. Janet Aldertons husband and big contributer to the Lovell Pratt and Lisa Byers campaigns. Is this who we want deciding our future?
ReplyDeleteRichard Steinhardt
School: University of California Berkeley
Location: Berkeley, CA
Department: Biology
2.6
Overall Quality2.7
Helpfulness2.5
Clarity3.1
Easiness0HotnessNumber of ratings 14
ClassRatingComment8/9/06mcb130Poor Quality
Easiness2
Helpfulness1
Clarity1
Rater Interest5
notes very disorganized. test unfair. creepy and made lots of INAPPROPRIATE comments during lecture and office hours.
Report this rating
4/23/06mcb 130Poor Quality
Easiness2
Helpfulness1
Clarity1
Rater Interest2
awful professor. Boring lectures occasionally interrupted by creepy stories. His test was way too short and only covered a few topics. Have to wonder about a prof whose stories include an old man who goes after a young woman, the time he was an EMT and some old lady's bathrobe fell open and whose viagra lecture constantly refered to hard d***s
Report this rating
12/24/05MCB 130Good Quality
Easiness4
Helpfulness3
Clarity4
Rater Interest5
He's a funny professor...talks about the harmful effects of viagra in graphic detail and makes fun of LA people. although his lectures aren't spectacular, his jokes made them go faster. His tests were pretty easy, but he was pretty cocky in office hours.
As other candidates have responded, I wish to provide a clear and concise statement with respect to campaign finances and special interests.
ReplyDeleteFirst, and foremost, I will represent each and every citizen of San Juan County, not special interests from within or let alone outside the County. It is not just my intention, it is my firm commitment and promise to represent only the citizens of our County. While I will consider data and opinions from any and all citizens or organizations, I will only and always use un-biased data, and not just opinions, to make decisions that are fair, reasoned, and consistent. I have not asked for nor accepted any endorsements from any party or organization.
My contributors are all County residents who are making contributions to my campaign based on their belief that I will serve the County well as a Council Member. With respect to finances, I have not actually or aggressively participated in any fundraising efforts to date. Rather, through the primary, I have focused on getting out into the community, meeting people, listening to their concerns and sharing my vision.
Please feel free to contact me directly at gregayers@ayers2013.com if you want further information.
At 1:57 in the video Lisa quotes Henry George. Here is what she is advocating.
ReplyDeleteIn "Progress and Poverty" (1879) on page 295, Henry George wrote the following:
"We have traced the unequal distribution of wealth which is the curse and menace of modern civilization to the institution of private property in land. We have seen that so long as this institution exists no increase in productive power can permanently benefit the masses; but, on the contrary, must tend still further to depress their condition. We have examined all the remedies, short of the abolition of private property in land, which are currently relied on or proposed for the relief of poverty and the better distribution of wealth, and have found them all inefficacious or impracticable.
There is but one way to remove an evil—and that is to remove its cause. Poverty deepens as wealth increases, and wages are forced down while productive power grows, because land, which is the source of all wealth and the field of all labor, is monopolized. To extirpate poverty, to make wages what justice commands they should be, the full earnings of the laborer, we must therefore substitute for the individual ownership of land a common ownership. Nothing else will go to the cause of the evil—in nothing else is there the slightest hope.
This, then, is the remedy for the unjust and unequal distribution of wealth apparent in modern civilization, and for all the evils which flow from it:
We must make land common property."
The Democrats of this county will likely put this avowed redistributionist
into power. What a nightmare!
Now we know what these candidates want, what their contributors want, what their Party wants.
ReplyDeleteNow they can give us all their money and land. Stand and deliver, the People Hath Spoken.
Uh, oh wait. That little hitch. First, the State will take it. Then we will get grants. "New Revenues for a New Economy"
Mr. Howard Howie Rosenfeld, (Island Guardian Letters today) seems to think property owners are a political party.
ReplyDeleteTherefore he says they are just as "partisan" as members and advocates of the two main political parties.
Accordingly, Mr. Rosenfeld contends there are no non-partisan beings in San Juan County.
Mr. Rosenfeld you are just flat wrong.
Many, many people who live here asked for and got the non-partisan appellation for themselves and their government representatives because they were sick to death of political hacks whose only interest is in power tripping across every resident's daily life. People like you, Mr. Rosenfeld.
Note: To the poster who dredged up a husband's professorship critics. If this person, the professor, has thrust himself into the public eye and you can show that, then it's fair game, if not, then you gotta back off.
If a person is running for public office or if a person thrusts themselves into the public eye you can darn near say anything about them. They must prove you knew what you said was false when you said it, and they must prove you had malice. These are almost impossible proofs.
This is an important reason, I think, to retain the anonymity of comments on the TH to maintain each writer's right of privacy. (If you wrote lots of comments and identified yourself, others eventually would have the right to provide personal information about you or even make entirely false statements about you and get away with it.)
This boring diatribe about journalism law is only to remind folks that there is a privacy line that should be respected regardless of how sorely deserving of criticism you feel a person might be.
Well lets not just talk...what can be done to let the greater public know what stands for and is working hard to bring about as a County Council member?
ReplyDeleteThat last comment was about Lisa....her name went missing...
ReplyDeleteSo a person has berated me a bit. "Who are you to tell people what they should say about someone.!"
ReplyDeleteTo be clear, my only concern is the TH. The TH is up against a very formidable force, I call em the Brethren. These people have had things just the way they want em for a long time. (Not that they even know what they really want.)
So if a post gets greedy with TH freedom that could get the TH in trouble. Give the Brethren an opening and they will take you down.
We have been taken down ,up and around for quite a time now. That is why the TH exists, enough is enough. It's a long time wondering by many of us that this doesn't seem right. What's happened in this county in a short period of time. Did it start when Ranker got on the council and went grant -commitee crazy on his way passing through and left this lingering residue. There is nothing to fear, except fear itself. It's true some groups are trying to intimidate us, we fold they win.
ReplyDeleteJust remember we are basically dealing with cowards and bullies. They'll steal your lunch money but if you slap them a bit they'll usually cry and blame you for being mean to them.
ReplyDeleteThe point about privacy a few posts back is absolutely essential on a number of levels. Remember that a tenant of free speech is that some things are best said through pseudonyms. Samuel Clemens was Mark Twain and so on. The law recognizes that free expression is dependent upon being able to speak without fear.
Besides, to the Friends and their shills in county government. Stop your divisive practice of encouraging neighbors to rat each other out anonymously. You know this is true. Stop that and there won't be a need for the Trojan Heron.
Finally, Privacy = Property. They are two sides of the same coin. Property is the cornerstone of all individual liberty. Private property is the right to be left alone, to enjoy the privacy one's property affords. If you have to sleep in the back of your car, that's enough for starters.
As long as we have people in this county who are "true believers" in Marxism, Socialism, The New Economy Institute, Schumacher Society, "social justice" and unicorns and rainbows, there will ALWAYS be the need for the TH.
ReplyDeleteOh, and throw in any brand of Eco-whatever!
ALL of these are different descriptions of Coercive Utopianism. The believers deeply hate some or all aspects of current society. Their solution to implementing Heaven on Earth is to utterly control the power of Government and regulate ALL spheres of YOUR life. Because YOUR FREEDOM results in "unwise" outcomes for the collective.
Imagine if Bill McKibben of 350.org could simply dictate the solution to Climate Change. Within one year, we would all be living a lifestyle somewhere between Waldron Island at the best, and pre-Industrial America in little communes as the more preferable state.
Make no mistake. This is not a rant or a delusional conspiracy theory. Just spend a few weeks reading the true believers websites. Start with dailykos.com if you have the stomach to see what these people think of you and want to do to you.
TH is the Voice of Freedom for San Juan County.
Interesting thought. Property = Privacy?
ReplyDeleteSo, your land is your land. Your hat is your hat. Your body is your body. Hands off. A lot of us keep saying please just leave us alone.
“The right to be left alone—the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by a free people.”—Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis
"Please just leave us alone"
ReplyDeleteLisa: "property must be made common"
property=privacy
"privacy must be made common"
There you have it. They WILL NEVER leave us alone!
"The Interstate Highway system was a terrible societal mistake. It allowed those with the means to escape the common obligations of the city. It allowed the privileged to move to suburbs, and distance themselves from their neighbors, thus destroying community and responsibility for the commons."
ReplyDeleteYou, living on 5 acres of forest near Olga, are no more than an escapee from the social contract. A despoiler of an environment that should be returned to a pristine state and put back into the commons for those in the cities, man's natural state of living and social organization, to enjoy..
Lisa: "property must be made common"
I believe the above quote is from Barak Obama. If not, he has basically said the same thing.
DeleteIn this light it all comes together. The CAO is the tool to get it done. Now that I have seen behind the curtain I realise this has been here a long time and is nation wide. How could this big of an idea been such a well kept secret? How do I hit the unknow button?
ReplyDelete"How do I hit the unknow button?"
ReplyDeleteOh, if there was such a thing!
It is hidden because it is very incremental. And because those of us who try to bring it to light are branded as CT freaks who fear the "black helicopters". Because to oppose any of the "obvious improvements" is to be called a racist, classicist, ageist, ableist, sexist, and any other post-modern appellation you care to use.
I had no idea how widespread and entrenched The Network was in San Juan County. It is like the mythical Hydra. Each head can bite, the whole is dangerous, and you never know which head is in command.
We need to dig deeper, get this out in public. Challenge the monster which is dedicated to devouring our freedom in the name of fuzzy concepts.
The quote being from post at 8:32am
ReplyDeleteSeems to me that Ms. Byers and her many outspoken supporters should simply walk the talk, lead by example, and each donate their private land holdings to a land trust for the common good. Or are they talking only about your land and mine, and not theirs? Somehow I think it is the former and not the latter but hey, ante up folks and prove me wrong.
ReplyDeleteThis is a great idea!
DeleteHowever, "Insufficient voluntary real estate donations, as expected, has resulted in a shortfall in our goal of 90% common propert ownership. In fact, after our first "Your property is our property" campaign, we only had three parcels donated. Each one turned out to have significant environmental remediation required. Therefore, the People's Council has introduced a Property Justice Now resolution, where we will examine the use of Emiment Domain powers to accelerate the transition to an Alternative Economy. For further information, see www.sanjuanmimistryofimformation.gov"