Early last week, someone wrote in to our website asking about a survey they’d received in the mail, claiming to be official government business. Participation in this questionnaire was mandatory, under penalty of fine. The survey was reported to be long, comprehensive, and made up of questions most of us would consider to be of a very personal nature.

RTP Board member Dale Grgurich started looking into this survey, first to verify it’s authenticity, and secondly to determine whether participation was in fact, mandatory. He quickly began to realize not only is it real and mandatory, it reveals a very troubling, but not surprising pattern of our Federal Government using the U.S. Census Bureau as a tool for what can only be described as social engineering. For good or bad, that’s exactly what it is. Turns out we’re not secure in our persons, houses, papers, or effects as guaranteed by the 4th Amendment. So much for protection from illegal searches and seizures.

The ACS, described as an extension of the Census, beginning in 1996, is distributed annually (rather than every ten years) to approximately 3 million households. So statistically, your chances of getting one are pretty low, but by the time you finish reading this post, I suspect you’ll be thankful you didn’t.

Before we go on, here is a link to the Census Bureau’s website.

And here is a link to a sample of the form itself, found within the website.

If you read it, you saw the questions in this survey range from an innocuous count of household occupants, to detailed disclosure of much more personal information, involving marital status and even marital history. One section requires annual salary disclosure. Another section asks for your total mortgage payments. Then your power bill. How many vehicles you have. How many miles you drive to work. And on… and on. Did I mention this disclosure is mandatory? Did I mention there are fines for non-compliance?

Article 1, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution establishes the decennial census, which is the proper means by which the U.S. population is determined, so that representation in Congress may be apportioned. It is our duty as citizens to participate – no question or argument there. But I fail to find any basis for any additional surveys for collecting such personal information.

Nevertheless, the Census Bureau by extension of the Commerce Dept. doesn’t see things that way… They cite Title 13 of the U.S. Code:

(a) Whoever, being over eighteen years of age, refuses or willfully neglects, when requested by the Secretary, or by any other authorized officer or employee of the Department of Commerce or bureau or agency thereof acting under the instructions of the Secretary or authorized officer, to answer, to the best of his knowledge, any of the questions on any schedule submitted to him in connection with any census or survey provided for by subchapters I, II, IV, and V of chapter 5 of this title, applying to himself or to the family to which he belongs or is related, or to the farm or farms of which he or his family is the occupant, shall be fined not more than $100. (b) Whoever, when answering questions described in subsection (a) of this section, and under the conditions or circumstances described in such subsection, willfully gives any answer that is false, shall be fined not more than $500. (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, no person shall be compelled to disclose information relative to his religious beliefs or to membership in a religious body.

So, who’s up for some civil disobedience? Quite honestly, for $100, I’d like to tell the Census Bureau to roll that thing up real tight, and shove it somewhere… And for a $500 fund-raiser, I’ll even do the shoving.

But before we get too carried away, Congressman Morgan Griffith (who as has been noted, is quite the buff on matters of legal minutia) tells me there is a piece of legislation which could provide some relief. H.R. 931, proposed by Cong. Ted Poe (R-TX), and would make participation in the American Community Survey optional rather than mandatory, except for the portions regarding name, address, date, and number of occupants. (Basically, what the census does!) This bill has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee, and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, where it is currently under review.

As Tea Partiers, we’ve been described as “first-year law students” more than a few times. In fairness, I’ll take criticism where needed; I’m not a lawyer. But I’m not stupid either, and to be perfectly honest, I’m not that easily convinced that somehow we need another Act of Congress to shield us from something we shouldn’t be forced to do in the first place! I don’t see any problem applying Title 13 to the Census, (the real one) but the fact remains – the ACS is NOT the Census. It is exactly as Dale described – the official U.S. Government tool for social engineering.

All members are encouraged to write or call their representatives and voice their thoughts. Be assured, we will be following this issue closely.

Gregory Honeycutt
President, Roanoke Tea Party

Read this memo in it’s entirety, and PLEASE call/email these Senators FIRST THING TOMORROW MORNING to let them know you want this amendment voted on, not shuffled off to a committee to die.

It’s also very important to note that all of the State Senators local to the Roanoke area are on this list.

Come join us at our monthly meeting, 6:30 Thursday evening, Holiday Inn Tanglewood. We’ll have updates on all the latest developments in Roanoke County, Richmond, and Washington.

We’ll hear a presentation from our own Caleb Coulter, who chairs Roanokers for Ron Paul. The Republican primary race for the 2012 Presidential election is down to two candidates in Virginia now, Dr. Ron Paul is one of them. Caleb is the guy with answers to your questions for Ron Paul.

There are always some lively discussions before and after the meetings – great opportunity to connect with other like-minded folks, and Mr. Tickle’s bean pot, as ever, will be on a low boil. There is a lot to cover this month, so come early for a good seat!

Greg Honeycutt

President

Roanoke Tea Party

Last week, we posted this article, which questioned Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s statement on the legal standing of HB66. After calling on him to explain this perplexing opinion; that under the law as written, the Federal Government did in fact have the authority to ban the manufacture and sale of incandescent light bulbs, Brian Gottstein, the A.G.’s spokesman responded. His entire response is below in italics.

 Our response follows:

[FYI - The attorney general, as part of his job, has to review every bill before the General Assembly (except budget bills and a few others) to see if it comports with the Virginia and U.S. constitutions and current law. It's his job to tell legislators when their bills may have legal issues, and that's exactly what he did in this case.]

“While the attorney general does not support the federal light bulb ban as a matter of policy and hopes that Congress will repeal it, the primary job of the Office of the Attorney General is to make legal judgments on the law as it is, as opposed to how one might wish it to be. Based on the law as it currently stands, the federal light bulb ban is constitutional, and therefore, it would preempt HB66 under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.

“Under cases dating back 70 years, the Supreme Court has consistently held that the Commerce Clause, when coupled with the Necessary and Proper Clause, allows Congress to regulate the production of commodities that, in the aggregate, have substantial effects on interstate commerce. Whether or not one agrees that those cases were correctly decided, they are presently the law. Because there is no question that light bulbs are a commodity for which there is a national market, the federal light bulb ban falls squarely within Congress’ powers as recognized by the Supreme Court. 

“Recognizing that this is the current state of the law does not, in any way, undermine the commonwealth’s suit to overturn the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Unlike prior attempts to regulate the manufacture or sale of commodities for which there was a national market, Congress did something truly unprecedented with the individual mandate. It sought, for the very first time, to force citizens into commerce for the sole purpose of then being able to impose regulations. That is very different from the light bulb ban.

“We have stressed from the beginning that the Commonwealth’s challenge to the individual mandate was modest and that it did not seek to overturn any prior decisions of the Supreme Court, including Gonzalez v. Raich. In fact, in the Commonwealth’s complaint in the health care suit, we quote Justice Scalia’s concurring opinion in Gonzalez v. Raich, a case finding that the federal government could regulate a locally grown product that was never sold across state lines.

Accordingly, anyone who says that recognizing the current state of the law as recognized by the Supreme Court undermines the health care suit is simply mistaken.”

– In other words, under current law — which in our system includes previous Supreme Court decisions — there’s not a lot that can be done. It would require a change in the law by Congress or more likely, a constitutional amendment.

The bottom line is that Ken Cuccinelli has not changed his position on federal overreach and continues to fight it on a daily basis, oftentimes in ways that the office can’t disclose for legal reasons. But in reviews of bills like this, he is required to give his best legal assessment of whether or not a bill comports with the law and can be defended in court if it’s challenged.”

With appreciation for your response, and apologies for truncation of your statement, Mr. Gottstein, your full statement still leaves us with the same unanswered question…

Where is the Constitutional authority for the federal government to outlaw lightbulbs?

The sheer absurdity of the subject (of HB66) having to be discussed at all should make anyone pause to question whether Federal over-reach can be stemmed at all. It’s not about light bulbs, and it’s not about an individual mandate. It’s not even about firearms, as in a recently passed Montana law that is constructed on the same basic grounds as HB66. It’s about what the States are commanded to cede next. Mr. Cuccinelli himself, championing States’ rights, introduced this 2009 bill, which passed that year and effectively nullified the Federal “Real ID” bill within Virginia borders. These examples serve to illustrate why the one sentence pulled from your statement was so confounding, as to warrant being singled out.

In fact the Real ID is the law today. Yet the Federal government has delayed implemetation of this law 4 times because so many states have taken similar steps to nullify Real ID. This shows that nullification and state action can work if states have the courage to stand up to the Federal government when they overstep their authority.

We understand that judges have issued rulings using combinations of the Supremacy, Commerce, and Necessary & Proper Clauses at various points, but that doesn’t change that there is no such enumerated power for many of these rulings. But when the Federal government is ignoring the enumerated powers of the Constitution, we simply cannot accept those decisions as settled law, especially considering what lies ahead for the Court to decide

You have said, “In other words, under current law — which in our system includes previous Supreme Court decisions — there’s not a lot that can be done. It would require a change in the law by Congress or more likely, a constitutional amendment.”

We know that’s not true. We think the federal ban on light bulbs is another blatantly unconstitutional act further assaulting the 9th and 10th Amendments, in a Country where the States are barely clinging to autonomy. We think it’s time that decision was revisited in the courts and by legislators who can use the power of nullification like the Commonwealth used for Real ID and the Health Care Freedom Act.

We think this bill (HB66) is a good way to continue our fight against federal overreach. We’d like to believe Ken Cuccinelli is the guy to take that fight up, so naturally, when we see a seemingly contradictory statement, we asked (and continue to ask) why?

Gregory Honeycutt

President, Roanoke Tea Party

Good News!

HB 27 Residential energy efficiency standards; exempts certain homes from federal cap & trade legislation.

floor: 01/25/12  House: VOTE: PASSAGE (71-Y 28-N)

On to the GOP controlled Senate. No excuses

Pnone Calls Needed

Support  HJ 3 and  SJ 3
HJ 3 Constitutional amendment; taking or damaging of private property for public use (second reference).
SJ 3 Constitutional amendment; taking or damaging of private property for public use (second reference).
 
Property Rights at Stake!  These bills will be heard Monday, January 30.  Local Governments are lobbying against these bills and your property rights.  You must act!  These were passed last year but must pass again to be put on the ballot for a vote by citizens.  We have a local delegation heading to Richmond Monday to fight for this. Please give your support.

Find your delegates here….http://conview.state.va.us/whosmy.nsf/main?openform

Oppose SB 493
SB 493 Electric and natural gas utilities; energy efficiency programs. This is more Agenda 21!  To be voted on Monday, January 30.
·        “Utilities shall be authorized to install and operate such advanced metering technology and equipment on a customer’s premises” (smart meters)
·        “Curtailment” (brown outs; electric companies shutting down you’re a/c)
·        “to reduce electricity consumption”
The quoted language above comes directly from the bill below!
To Call Senators:
Senator John S. Edwards  (804) 698-7521  district21@senate.virginia.gov
Senator Stephen D. Newman  (804) 698-7523  district23@senate.virginia.gov

Stop All Virginia Con-Con Calls

Currently referred and assigned to the House Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments and the Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections are five bills –- HB 619, HJR 100, HJR 102, HJR 135, and SJR 91, the first three of which are sponsored by State Delegate Jim LeMunyon, the fourth by State Delegate Richard L. Anderson, and the fifth by State Senator Charles W. Carrico. All five of these bills call upon the Congress of the United States to convene a constitutional convention (Con-Con). The first bill is in regard to sending state delegates to a constitutional convention, the remaining four bills call upon the Congress of the United States to convene a constitutional convention (Con-Con) for the purposes of adding a balanced budget amendment (BBA) and also prohibiting unfunded federal mandates to the states, adding a term limits amendment (TLA), adding an amendment that permits a repeal of any federal law or regulation that requires the appropriation of money, and another amendment to balance the federal budget and prohibit unfunded mandates to the states.

However noble these proposed amendments to the U.S. Constitution may be, the calling of a general Article V convention is not the proper route that should be taken to make or propose such amendments to the Constitution.

The last time that such a convention was convened was in Philadelphia in 1787 when General George Washington, James Madison, and the various delegates from the thirteen United States assembled to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation — the law of the land at the time.

Although called to strengthen and centralize the national government, the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 was convened to amend the Articles of Confederation rather than replace them. We were lucky then, seeing as the convention resulted in such an excellent Constitution. We were also fortunate to have had enlightened statesmen and drafters, such as James Madison, who understood the Lockean virtues and principles of individual liberty and limited government. Looking back, who among us today comes close to exemplifying the virtues of our Founding Fathers?

The answer is too few and far between, if any at all. The proposal for a second Constitutional Convention (Con-Con) promoted by so-called conservatives, would likely result in a runaway convention in which extremist or revolutionary elements could highjack the convention and alter the Constitution to include harmful amendments, such as “second generation” or “positive” socialist rights while curtailing our nation’s traditional negative rights that protect our liberties from the government.

What we need is not for the States to revise the Constitution, but rather to restore and enforce it as our Founding Fathers originally intended (For more information, click here for a free PDF article download.).

Go to our “Choose Freedom — STOP A Con-Con” action project web page to learn more about the reasons why a Con-Con is a bad idea.

Although pending in the House Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments and the Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections, we should not risk the passage of a Con-Con call no matter how appealing it may be. You now have the ability to help stop Virginia from calling upon Congress to authorize such a convention. Contact your State Delegate and Senator now and urge him or her to oppose the passage of the five Con-Con bills listed in the first paragraph above, and if they do come to a vote on the floor to vote NAY on these bills.

Thank You.

Your Friends at The John Birch Society

Cathy is without question, one of Virginia’s most ardent Tea Party activists, particularly with regard to tracking various legislation in the VA General Assembly. She writes:

SUMMARY AS INTRODUCED:

Unlawful detention of United States citizens. Prevents any agency, political subdivision, employee, or member of the military of Virginia from assisting an agency or the armed forces of the United States in the investigation, prosecution, or detainment of a United States citizen in violation of the Constitution of Virginia.

It’s short, sweet and one paragraph long. And it asserts that US citizens stand safe under the protection Article 1 of the US and Virginia Constitutions. Safe from our government.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

1. Notwithstanding any contrary provision of law, no agency of the Commonwealth as defined in 8.01-385 of the Code of Virginia, political subdivision of the Commonwealth as defined in 8.01-385 of the Code of Virginia, employee of either acting in his official capacity, or any member of the Virginia National Guard or Virginia Defense Force, when such a member is serving in the Virginia National Guard or the Virginia Defense Force on official state duty, may engage in any activity that aids an agency of or the armed forces of the United States in the execution of 50 U.S.C. 1541 as provided by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (P.L. 112-18, 1021) in the investigation, prosecution, or detainment of any citizen of the United States in violation of Article I, Section 8 or 11 of the Constitution of Virginia.

The National Defense Authorization Act rocked the red-white-and-blue back on our heels. At first, it was shuck, jive and dodge a really ugly question.

Senator Rand Paul: ”My question would be under the provisions would it be possible that an American citizen then could be declared an enemy combatant and sent to Guantanamo Bay and detained indefinitely?”

Senator John McCain: ”I think that as long as that individual, no matter who they are, if they pose a threat to the security of the United States of America, should not be allowed to continue that threat.”

Let the games begin. With that exchange on the floor of the Senate, it was on. Just a couple of lone voices were relentlessly audible in the media, with Judge Napolitano of Freedom Watch chief among them. To paraphrase, bye bye Bill of Rights.

Herein lies the rub: Sections 1031, 1032 and 1033-35, indefinitely declaring the United States a battlefield and authorizing use of military force that would allow detention of previously identified perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks, the countries harboring them and anyone substantially supporting Al Qaeda, the Taliban or “associated forces.”

Delegate Bob Marshall’s bill (R, Mannasas) simply reinstates what we as a free people are guaranteed twice, under both the US and Virginia Constitutions. It begs the question: Why would anyone vote against it? Don’t all of our representatives swear an oath to uphold it? Don’t they want that for themselves?

On Wednesday, January 25th, a House Courts of Justice Sub-Committee voted 6:3 in favor of passage. Here’s a question: why wasn’t it unanimous?

YEAS–Iaquinto, Kilgore, Habeeb, Farrell, Minchew, Johnson–6.

NAYS–Loupassi, Toscano, McClellan–3.

SWVA Republican Greg Habeeb voted in favor. (8th District /Counties of Craig, Montgomery (part), and Roanoke (part); City of Salem) So did Joe Johnson, Democrat. (Counties of Dickenson, Russell (part), Washington (part), and Wise (part). Manoli Loupassi (R), 68th District, Counties of Chesterfield (part) and Henrico (part); City of Richmond (part) voted against the bill. Questioned as to why he took a position against the bill, Delegate Loupassi responded that he had “since yesterday,” had a chance to talk to the sponsor and learn more about the bill….it was one of those things where it was a complex decision that had to be made on the fly.” Loupassi also stated that he wanted to “make sure that it didn’t violate state law or was un-Constitutional.” He now states that he is in favor of the bill.

Hmmm….a one-paragraph bill that reasserts our rights as citizens put forth in our founding documents, the very same ones to which Delegate Loupassi gave his oath. Questions, anyone?

One more time, Class….

It’s not about PARTY. IT’S ABOUT PRINCIPLES.

Thank You, and well said, Cathy. We need to let Mr. Habeeb know our thoughts on this… As Cathy reports, he has voted for passage in the sub-committee, and we would like to see him repeat that action in full committee.

Contact him at: DelGHabeeb@house.virginia.gov

In this session of the Virginia General Assembly, Delegate Robert “Bob” Marshall has introduced a bill to allow the manufacture and sale of incandescent light bulbs within Virginia’s borders, even as new Federal energy standard provisions in a 2007 law take effect. Marshall has stated this is a 10th Amendment issue, and is based on the fact that the U.S. Constitution has not given this authority to the Federal Government, therefore the authority falls to the States; hence the light bulb ban is unconstitutional.

Based on A.G. Cuccinelli’s previous support of State sovereignty, and numerous campaign statements about the need for the States to fight back against the Federal Government having taken actions outside of its authority, and given his additional support for Virginia’s Health Care Freedom Act, which passed Virginia’s legislature in a bi-partisan fashion, and was subsequently signed by Governor McDonnell, one might logically conclude that the Attorney General would be supportive of Marshall’s bill. That conclusion would be wrong.

Mr. Cuccinelli’s spokesman, Brian Gottstein, said in an email, “Based on the law as it currently stands, the federal light bulb ban is constitutional, and therefore, it would pre-empt HB66 under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.”

Really? So, are we expected to believe that Cuccinelli thinks the authority to regulate health care is not in the Constitution as is stated in his lawsuit concerning Obamacare, but the authority to regulate light bulbs is? Other than citing the Supremacy Clause, which only applies to Constitutional laws, neither A.G. Cuccinelli, nor his spokesman offered any language in the U.S. Constitution that would support this assertion. How could they? There is none.

This situation begs the question: Where has the real Ken Cuccinelli gone?

Stopping short of assigning political motive to this apparent lean towards moderation of principle, we call on the Attorney General to explain his statement more fully. Ultimately, if his answer proves unsatisfactory, the patriot movement is going to miss it’s favored son, and Ken may eventually realize the loss of support from the very people who put him in the Attorney General’s office. That would indeed be a regrettable circumstance.

That discussion aside, there is a legitimate reason to be against HB66. Under the U.S. Constitution, Virginia already has the sole authority to regulate the manufacture, sale, and use of light bulbs.

Delegate Marshall, of all people should realize this. While we support HB66, we would prefer a delegate that would assert the right of nullification that we already have. Unfortunately, in the current State House, Marshall’s assertions of State sovereignty are the best defensive measure we have available right now.

Isn’t it time we just stopped the charade and supported full fledged state nullification? Don’t understand it…? You can read all about it on our site here.

Help us spread the word, this is a good opportunity to support our Nullify Now Tour effort and educate our neighbors on what Thomas Jefferson called “the rightful remedy” for Federal overreach; Nullification. Click here to pledge today.

Gregory Honeycutt
President, Roanoke Tea Party

If you attended the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors evening meeting on January 24^th, or possibly watched it on TV, you should have come away with a sense of disgust with Roanoke County government. At issue was continued membership in ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability, and local government failed miserably in a 3 – 2 vote to keep ICLEI. By bowing down to the neo-environmentalists, the Board of Supervisors betrayed every resident of not just Roanoke County, but the whole valley.

A Roanoker with considerable foresight stated twenty years ago that “environmentalism is the new communism” and that warning couldn’t be more apparent than at that meeting. Watching the queue of indoctrinated ‘Greenies’ speak was humorous to some degree given the propaganda they spew so fluidly. I use the word propaganda because most of it is so patently false. Their talking points such as 99% of climate scientists agree that global warming is man-made, that ICLEI has no affiliation with the United Nations or U.N. Agenda 21, that the terminology change from ‘man-made global warming’ to ‘climate change’ for marketing purposes has all been thoroughly debunked. It could be said that you aren’t a liar if you believe the lies, so the intelligence level of those speakers could be in question or they do know they are spreading falsehoods. Either way, those ‘useful idiots’ are a danger to society in general and our liberty in particular. 

Much more worrisome are a few ‘useful idiots’ sitting on the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, who through ignorance or some illusion of their power, think they can ignore the concerns of those who elect them. This BOS has been presented with six months of facts and evidence about the dangers of involvement with ICLEI. Only two of the five have bothered to pay attention to their constituency: Ed Elswick and Butch Church.

What happened with the other three Supervisors? It was fairly obvious that those three wasted the time of every speaker and the audience attending as a decision had already been made. It was doubtless business as usual and again ignoring their constituencies (us). There is room for speculation as to what backroom deals were made for what, but for the two Republicans on the Board to disregard a resolution put forth by the Roanoke County Republican Committee decrying membership in ICLEI is surprising. The Republican National Committee just passed a resolution warning of U.N. Agenda 21 and ICLEI, so what is up with Mike Altizer and Richard Flora that they think they can ignore those they represent locally and the committee that got them elected?

 I smell a rat or two and will speculate based on watching Altizer and Flora over the past year. Altizer has made several comments along the lines of ‘we make the decisions’ or something like ‘the buck stops here’ at BOS meetings recently. Stating that he was in violation of the Virginia Constitution on his vote to ignore the Virginia UDA mandate last July, later amended to defer the vote on the recommendation by Richard Flora, appears to indicate an inflated ego that I find dangerous in any elected official. While many did applaud that decision, the fact is that Altizer admits he violated his Oath of Office. Well, he just did it again on a local level which is much more personal. His platitudes about ICLEI doing no harm or providing good tools for County personnel are another violation of his Oath and our trust. He is fully aware of Agenda 21 and the role ICLEI plays. I call him treacherous if not traitor. 

Current BOS Chairman Richard Flora is of the same ilk. Maybe a bit smoother in delivery, but when you hear him say there is no relation (conspiracy) between the U.N. and ICLEI that is ample evidence that he does know that there is. Flora mentioned the Rio conference the first time that speakers opposed the UDA mandate on July 27, 2011, so he knows what the program is. Citing his experience as a planner and attempting to explain that it is only the terms that have changed is deliberately misleading. I preferred Altizer’s defiance of the state UDA mandate to Flora’s deferment, though any collusion between the two for show wouldn’t surprise me. Treacherous if not traitor. 

Charlotte Moore has also been indoctrinated and believes the lie, so not much to say there except that she also has no concern for any that do not adhere to her ‘Green’ agenda. “Useful.” 

Roanoke County residents need to demand responsive government from our five supervisors. They fail when we allow them to.

Terry Franklin

The Battle Indeed Rages On

As you know if you’ve been keeping up with our site, we had a major showdown tonight on Roanoke Couny’s relationship with ICLEI. We want the county to sever ties with the United Nations partner group that is promoting an agenda that is antithetical to property rights.

It was looking pretty good.

After a rather contentious night of back and forth with our sustainable development “friends,” two of the three Independent member (Ed Elswick and Butch Church) voted to sever ties with ICLEI. Ed in particular was effective when he talked about  information on the bogus report submitted by ICLEI on carbon dioxide reductions in Roanoke County. This information was provided to the board by our Green Menace team. They gathered this information through Freedom of Information Act Requests and presented it to the Board at the January 10 meeting.

Charlotte Moore voted to stay in ICLEI which was totally expected. Charlotte, if nothing else is consistent. She has bought the nonsense spewed by the environmental crowd. She is a proud useful idiot and at least she stands for something.

Even if it is nonsense.

With two Republicans left you would think it was in the bag. The County Chair of the Republican Party in Roanoke County, Mike Bailey got up and read a resolution, passed by the Republican Committee, requesting the board sever ties with ICLEI. Several other prominent local Republicans like Mickey Mixon, Susan Edwards and Max Beyer also spoke eloquently about the need to end the county’s relationship with ICLEI. Not to mention the Republican National Committee this week passed a resolution in opposition to ICLEI and Agenda 21.

A lot of long and painstaking lobbying and consensus building with local Republican leaders seemed poised to pay off for the citizens of Roanoke County.

So you would have thought this vote was in the bag.

Not so fast.

Each board member spoke about why they voted the way they did….

Mike Altizer (R) and Richard Flora (R) both proceeded to discuss this matter in similar terms as they rambled through an often incoherent mix of plattitudes, a history of  planning ideas and other blather Seinfeld characters would have described as…

Yada, yada, yada

It soon became apparent that the two Republican board members were going to vote to keep ICLEI. Dan Casey asked me at our January Tea Party meeting to predict the outcome of this vote. I told him them that I don’t do that sort of thing because politicians have a tendency to let you down.

Unfortunately I was right. So the vote went 3-2 to maintain the relationship with ICLEI. What a bummer.

A few random thoughts before I collapse.

• Thanks to all of our members and friends that showed up. We had more folks in the room than the greenies did…but they were out in full force. We could have used a few more folks.
• Thanks to the Green Menace team. If they aren’t doing the work they do this vote wouldn’t have even happened.
• Thanks to the Roanoke County GOP folks for their support.
• The county’s ICLEI membership is good through October of 2012. We will be asking for another vote prior to that date.
• Altizer and Flora bragged about breaking the state Constitution to reject UDA mandates in 2011. So let me get this straight. You will violate the state Constitution, but you won’t sever ties with a United Nations proxy group? Really?!?
• One reason Altizer and Flora cited for their decision was that there was no immediate threat to property rights. That is sort of kinda true…in that these measures being placed in the comprehensive plan are not imperilling property rights yet….
• But the stage is set for future mischief as ICLEI and their proxies in RCCLEAR and Roanoke Cool Cities Coalition continue to push for additional resolutions that will encourage the “right kind of behavior” (according to them) by regulation.
• The comprehensive plan already states the county should encourage and discourage certain behaviors. They just don’t say how yet.
• We will be coming back to upcoming meetings to hammer home the potential problems and current issues caused by this relationship including wasted tax dollars and unscientific claims.
• Flora and Altizer reinforced they would never let anything happen to imperil property rights as long as they were there. I am not reassured.
• Lets make sure that time they are not there after next year’s election.
• Local members were really mad after the meeting.  I mean fit to be tied angry. The sense of betrayal they felt towards Altizer and Flora was palpable.
• I had a heated conversation with Diana Christopulos (queen bee of the local Green Menace crowd) during a break as she accused our group of getting funding from energy groups.
• I confronted her. She denied it. Anyone that speaks out against any of her junk science claims is now (in her mind) being funded by some energy lobby group. As if the scientists in the IPCC and other global warming supporters aren’t subsidizing their income by supporting the global warming Ponzi Scheme. Her holier than thou attitude is especially irritating to me. 
• Based on her reaction to me, I would say I have a similar impact on her.
• Bottom line for you Greenies: Renewable energy is fine as long as it isn’t being funded by the government. We oppose (for seemingly the 1246th time) all Federal subsidies of all industries. Including energy companies that supposedly pay my nonexistent tea party salary.
• I came to the realization that having a meaningful conversation with a green energy zealot is about as useful as sawing off your arm with a steak knife…and almost as painful.

I am disappointed. But not deterred. When I take on a battle I don’t consider the difficulty of the fight. I focus on the rightness of the cause. And we are right.

To quote my favorite Rock band,Deep Purple.

The Battle Rages On.

We will be looking hard at both Flora and Altizer. What could explain their behavior? Could it be they cooked up a back room deal with Charlotte Moore to ensure Flora was the Board Chairperson? Is there some other issues that drove this behavior?

We will be on the case. Hell hath no fury like a tea party scorned.

Chip Tarbutton

Members of the local GOP will be speaking out against the ICLEI relationship as well. Supporters of ICLEI will also likely be in attendance and are planning to use false information to support their positions.

ICLEI is a proud supporter of United Nations Agenda 21, which we has an undeniable agenda that imperils freedom and property rights in the name of sustainable development. While ICLEI supported efforts in Roanoke County have centered around propaganda and volunteer activities, the Comprehensive Plan of Roanoke and other resolutions developed by ICLEI partners have a clear agenda to infringe on the property rights of county citizens to “encourage” them to live in sustainable urban villages. This encouragement will ultimately and necessarily infringe on property rights to be effective.

Agenda 21 (that ICLEI is a major supporter of) makes it clear that property rights cannot be a hindrance to their sustainable development goals.

Supporters of ICLEI will likely be in attendance to defend this relationship.The Roanoke Tea Party has become aware of some of the information they plan on dispensing at the meeting. These plans include spreading false information regarding the Roanoke Tea Party.

Roanoke Tea Party Board member Chip Tarbutton states, “it has come to our attention that supporters of ICLEI are circulating information that the Roanoke Tea Party is funded by a consortium of wealthy energy interests. I would challenge anyone to find a shred of evidence to support these libelous accusations.” Tarbutton went on to say that “considering the shoe string, all volunteer efforts of the Roanoke Tea Party, the assertion that we have outside funding is laughable.”

For in-depth information on ICLEI, please visit RoanokeTeaParty.com or the VirginiaGreenMenace.com.