Pack'n'Stack, Baby, Yeah!

Sustainability, regionalization, carbon footprint claptrap... The government, the regime, wants to control where you live. Do we really want this?



Pack'n'Stack, baby, yeah! That's how we humans want to live.

Tragic, Unhealthy and Completely Predictable

Author Brian Sussman interviews a victim of our public indoctrination system:

Her conclusion is tragic, unhealthy, and completely predictable.

Obama's Kill List, And Mine

Barack Hussein Obama has a kill list. Kill lists are for tyrants. That is all I have to say about that.

I too, have a kill list, but it is predicated on time travel, so I probably don't fit the description of a common tyrant. I would use time travel to go back and kill the following people at birth, or at least before they became powerful enough to defeat me. Using advanced technology, I would locate them in time and space, and dispatch them with weapons not available in their time:

• Mohammed - dictator, tyrant, warrior, pedophile, false prophet. Invented a religion as a form of crowd control. He and his religion are responsible for much death and destruction since its inception. 
• Vladimir Lenin - political theorist, revolutionary, tyrant, dictator, communist, father of the USSR. He and his ideology and regime are responsible for much death and destruction since its inception. 
• Josef Stalin - politician, dictator, bureaucrat, communist, successor of Lenin as premier of the USSR.  He and his ideology and regime are responsible for 20,000,000 deaths since its inception. 
• Adolph Hitler - politician, dictator, tyrant, national socialist (Nazi), fuhrer of Nazi Germany. He and his ideology are responsible for much death and destruction during World War II. His regime killed 6,000,000 Jews. But WWII claimed approximately 66,000,000 lives. Hitler was responsible. 
• Mao tse Tung - politician, dictator, tyrant, communist, premier of Communist China. He and his ideology and regime are responsible for 40,000,000 deaths since its inception. 
• Pol Pot - terrorist, dictator, tyrant, communist, leader of Kmer Rouge in Cambodia. He and his ideology are responsible for approximately 1,650,000 deaths during his reign of terror from 1975 ~ 1978.

I saved the worst for last:

• Karl Marx - political theorist, invented communism (and communist lite -- socialism), he and his ideology is responsible for much death and destruction since its inception (61,650,000 deaths, if you add up the deaths from all major communist regimes -- double that if you include Hitler's "contribution"). Also responsible for much pain and suffering in this country from around 1913 to the present time, due to the perversion of our constitutional government by his socialist followers in the US. 

Oh, and if I had a time machine, I'd stop and see if I could get Beethoven to play me a piano sonata if I gave him a ride in my time machine.

Did You Have a Happy Earth Day?

I hope you all had a good weekend, celebrating Vladimir Lenin's birthday Earth Day. Here's an alternate agenda:

Let's make this video go viral.

Earth Day is April 22

Our Hero

Earth Day was first launched nationally on the 100th birthday of Vladimir Lenin, founder of the Soviet Union. It is not a coincidence.

Scratch an environmentalist, and in most cases you’ll find a collectivist (communist) just beneath the surface. They’re watermelons: Green on the outside, and red on the inside. They don’t trust the free market or individual citizens to do The Right Thing™. Only by central planning and coercion will The Right Thing™ be done, on earth, as it is, um, on earth. Who gets to determine what The Right Thing™ is? Why the dictators, of course!

So, let's celebrate! (And there was much rejoicing!) Yaay.

The New Dark Ages

The tea parties might be the last gasp for liberty for another 1000 years, during which time human numbers and mobility might drop sufficiently that another small group of rebels could found a new republic on some isolated continent, based on Classical Liberalism, which will again over a couple of centuries grow, thrive, prosper and flame out.

It's weird... animals and other constantly changing natural conditions drive species to extinction all the time. But when we humans do it, it's somehow different. I'm not saying that we should deliberately set out to drive species to extinction (although we have, and failed: anopheles mosquitoes, smallpox virus...). Many species boom and bust, and humans are no exception. We may think we're invincible with all our technology, but we're not so great. We're just having a bloom. The irony is we might bring about our own demise in the name of sustainability. I’m convinced that it is no exaggeration to say that if successful, the watermelons will usher in a new dark age.

The Watermelons Are Onto the Fact That We're Onto Them

I know you think, you think you know, but I think you don't. ~ Zaphod Beeblebrox

The watermelons are onto us. Lloyd Alter, at treehugger (a discovery company), writes,

This past summer I think about twelve people read my post Agenda 21: The United Nations Threat To Control Our Lightbulbs, Our Lifestyles and Our Lives, where I wrote about how historic preservation, formerly the preserve of conservative types, has morphed into socialist control of private property, a tool of Agenda 21. I called it a Tea Party Theory of Everything:

It ties it all together into one neat package, making climate change, light bulbs, transit, smart growth, fuel economy, everything a plot...It is a spreading conspiracy theory that is becoming the underlying ideology of the crazy right and that has serious legs. It is no joke.

(Continue reading Agenda 21 Wackos On The Move to Stop Smart Growth)

Lloyd concludes with,

Almost every battle over historic preservation is now becoming a property rights battle, and almost every property rights battle now has an Agenda 21 tint to it. We really have to wake up to this threat.

No, Lloyd, Americans have to wake up to this threat to their natural rights. It might not be a conspiracy, but it certainly is an agenda. Agenda 21 uses environmental bait-and-switch to up-sell its illiberal collectivist schemes.

This is no idle threat: We've had multiple executive orders, from George H. W. Bush, William H. Clinton and now Barack H. Obama (constitutional illiterates all, apparently), invoking federal agencies such as the EPA and BLM to implement key elements of the Rio Earth Summit and Kyoto Protocol (even though Congress refused to ratify it). It's called "soft law". Then, flying in below the constitutional radar, ICLEI organizes local governments to implement Agenda 21. Warm fuzzy euphemisms such as Smart Growth and Sustainable Development mislead otherwise skeptical community leaders, businessmen and citizens who ask, essentially, "where do I line up to surrender my civil liberties and right to self-determination?" "Non profit", non-government organizations (NGOs) with names like Sustainable Connections, ReSources, and FutureWise, take government grants (your tax dollars) to "educate" you in the ways of sustainability, and sue you if you don't get in line. You're paying for your own oppression.

Don't just take my word for it, go to their websites and explore for yourself what they have planned for us. I provided the links. Remember, these websites are selling their agenda in glowing terms. You might need some translation. "Smart Growth" is already being implemented in your cities, counties and towns, probably without your awareness or consent -- this is intentional. In the halls of government for Bellingham and Whatcom County where I live, the saying goes, "if it isn't permitted, it isn't permitted". Meaning that if you don't have a permit, you can't do it. Say what?! Hello, commissioner! Government derives its just power from the consent of the governed, not the other way around! These very expensive permits are required to ensure that any development or construction complies with very expensive requirements to satisfy environmental extremist and scientifically unverified measures to protect watershed, airshed (!), habitat and whatever other arbitrary barriers may be erected by planning and zoning ordinances to control normal human activities.

Don't think it's not happening in your town: After you've familiarized yourself with Agenda 21 and ICLEI, a.k.a., Sustainable Development or Smart Growth, start attending your city and county council meetings, and planning and zoning commission meetings. Read the ordinances. Listen for the buzzwords -- they're all over the place. Then, start asking yourself, and others, these questions:

• What does Agenda 21 say, exactly?
• What do Smart Growth and Sustainable Development actually mean?
• What is ICLEI really trying to implement?
• What are the EPA, BLM, parks and recreation, planning and zoning, etc., trying to implement?
• Do you notice any similarities?
• Do you think they're a just a coincidence?
• Does the logical outcome have anything significant to do with the environment?
• Wouldn't it be preferable to protect our natural resources without forfeiting our natural rights?

And then ask,

• Have you ever tried remodeling a place you were renting?
• How much permission and input did your landlord require?
• Have you tried remodeling your own property lately?
• How much permission and input did your government require?
• Do you want to be a mere tenant on your own property?
• Have you ever wanted to own your own property?
• Why invest most of your life's work to purchase something that you have few rights to use for your own purposes?

Now that they know we're onto them, the watermelons are going to start squalling like hammered cats, calling us conspiracy theorists, paranoid nut jobs, and whatever else they can think of. They'll start renaming things -- picking new words to describe their tired old designs. Don't be deterred, because this is important: It is preferable to preserve our natural resources without forfeiting our natural rights!

They'll tell you capitalism, free enterprise, self-determination cannot be trusted to save the planet. What they're saying, in essence, is that government has to force us to go where free people would not go voluntarily. Is that not the definition of tyranny and oppression? I think we can do better than that.

Public Comment – Concerns Regarding Birch Bay Watershed Action Plan

Yesterday, I sent the following letter to the Whatcom County Planning Commission:

---

December 9, 2011

Karl A. Uppiano
5988 Malloy Ave.
Ferndale, WA 98248

File Copy – Whatcom County Planning Commission
5280 Northwest Drive
Bellingham, WA 98226

Subject: Public Comment – Concerns Regarding Birch Bay Watershed Action Plan

Dear Planning Commissioners:

I want to share my impressions of the public hearing last night. You may remember me; I was the only one who spoke on the principles of good government.

All through the meeting, I kept thinking of a quote by Ian Malcolm from Jurassic Park: “[they] were so preoccupied with whether they could that they didn't stop to think if they should.” A lot of the second part of the proceedings was devoted to how many angels could dance on the head of a pin, but no one questioned the forgone conclusion about whether the Birch Bay watershed actually needs fixing, and if so, whether the government should do it. Where does this authority come from?

• One commissioner noted that there was “overwhelming support” for this measure.

No, there was the predictable parade of NIMBYs, environmental extremists, vested interests (e.g., Sustainable Connections, contractors, consultants, etc., whose job it is to promote these measures), and only a smattering of people, including me, who questioned the fundamental premise – whether the proper role of government is controlling individual behavior.

• Several commissioners expressed concern about the size and complexity of the measure.
• At least one commissioner was concerned about the likelihood that the regulations would change over time.

James Madison addressed both concerns 230 some odd years ago, in The Federalist:

The internal effects of a mutable policy are still more calamitous. It poisons the blessing of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?

• One commissioner noted (as justification?) that if the county does nothing (or even if it does something), ever more stringent state regulations will follow.
• More than one commissioner was concerned that what is now voluntary will become mandatory.

Thomas Jefferson: “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.” As citizens, it is our duty to resist “the natural progress of things”. The natural progress of things is to deteriorate without maintenance. We the People must maintain our liberty at all levels of government. Government won’t restrain itself – that much is obvious, or should be.

• One commissioner mentioned that the county wants to help the people of Birch Bay, who want this.
• One commissioner suggested CAPR testimony should be disregarded. (Seriously?!)

Jefferson again: “The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits.”

• One commissioner suggested that if this is voluntary, why not simply publish the LID materials, and leave it at that?

Why not indeed? Instead of collecting government grants, and lobbying for the government to force people to go where they would not go voluntarily, why don’t the ReSources and Sustainable Connections people (and all the rest of the ICLEI/Smart Growth/Sustainable Development crowd) manufacture environmentally friendly LID products and educational materials that they can sell for a profit, in order to purchase buffers and offsets with their own money, and fund their own environmental public awareness campaigns and how-to programs? For the answer to that question, you need to understand that for many, the environment is nothing more than a convenient tool used shamelessly to promote a collectivist, illiberal agenda.

• Several commissioners expressed concern for the amount of time, effort and expense already spent for research and development on this project and the potential waste if it fails.

That’s a valid concern, but two wrongs don’t make a right. Again, we have to question the fundamental premise: Is this necessary? Is it proper?

I realize that quoting our dusty old founders might seem quaint, except for one thing: They had a lot invested in the American form of government, and the principles that they established as necessary for good government are still the official specification for the United States: the federal, state, and local constitutions and charters. These supreme laws have not been rescinded, but merely disregarded in recent years.

Once government becomes activist, picking winners and losers, working on behalf of one special interest or another, it becomes a fraud magnet – susceptible to lobbying, special interests, waste. Those problems are much less severe when government sticks to its affirmed purpose: that of protecting the civil liberties of all citizens, equally. I believe it is possible – preferable – to protect our natural resources without forfeiting our natural rights.

Respectfully Submitted,

Karl A. Uppiano

---

You may not feel that this is relevant to you if you live outside Whatcom County. If that is the case, then I would encourage you to Google "Sustainable Development", "Smart Growth", "ICLEI" and "Agenda 21". Then, attend your city and county council meetings. Be prepared for a shock. You might discover that, at the behest of environmental extremists, the government has made you a mere tenant on your own property. You can still develop and use your land, but only in very special ways, after paying the government exorbitant fees for the permission to do so. Tried any remodeling lately?

Am I Anti-Environment?

Am I anti-environment? No, I'm anti environmentalist. I don't like watermelons. I want to leave to my children a planet that is cleaner than I found it, with scenic places and fresh air and water. However, I also want to leave to my children a world that is freer than I found it, with liberty and justice for all.

There has to be a balance. The definition of an extremist is someone who prioritizes their cause above everything else at any cost. The cost for environmentalism, is liberty. Environmentalists want government to force everyone to do what environmentalists think should be done to protect the planet. The trouble is, government bureaucracy is much harder to adapt to new conditions and new information than free markets, private enterprise and individual liberty. Private property, vested interest, individual stewardship, are the keys to a better environment. Just look at the evidence: a quick scan of the planet shows that the environment is cleaner where people are freer.

The Truth Will Set You Free!

The truth will set you free -- literally -- if you can find it. Canada is reported to be planning to announce it is leaving the Kyoto Protocols. If that isn't a huge blow for freedom, then I don't know what is. There isn't much of anything more oppressive than the government policies (Kyoto, Agenda 21) intended to reduce "global warming", or "climate change" as they now unfalsifiably call it.

The truth is, there is no experiment that you could run that can verify that humans cause global warming, global cooling, or anything in between. All good scientists are skeptics, in search of the truth.

This could be the best news of the year (read more...). I wonder how long before my own country comes to its senses. Although we never ratified the Kyoto treaty, we've been implementing it like mad.

My Letter to Puget Sound Energy

Dear PSE,

About six months ago, I started receiving "energy report cards" in the mail, telling me that I'm using significantly more energy than my neighbors. Several of my friends and co-workers have received similar notices. I understand the desire and the need to save energy, but I find this comparison to be intrusive and sanctimonious. I'm not in some contest to see who can be more "green". I'm trying to live my life as frugally and responsibly as practical, and I don't need unsolicited advice about how I should do it.

It isn't my concern how much energy my neighbors are using, or vice-versa. If I can afford to pay my electric bill according to our terms of service, then the issue should end there. We happen to have four active adults and one teen-ager living in this household. People are here all day. Some of us work from home, saving on transportation! I believe our energy consumption is legitimate.

I do not appreciate the "big brother" approach being employed here. I believe that you are being pressured by agents of Agenda 21 -- Sustainable Development/ICLEI to do this kind of thing, and I think that it is a diminishing matter of time before we lose yet another civil liberty, ushering in government control over our energy use with so-called "smart meters" and similar technology. Sure, it will start out voluntary, but the historical, natural progress of things is for it to become mandatory. This country used to be based on economic liberty, but increasingly it is based on government mandates and centralized control.

If you think this is conspiracy theory, you need look no further than Community Energy Challenge, shown on your Home Energy Report letterhead. This is conspiracy fact! Community Energy Challenge is supported by Sustainable Connections, ReSources, BALLE, and many others. These are NGOs and non-profits, using my tax dollars and the force of government to promote "sustainable development" all wrapped in a pretty green bow, in direct opposition to our property rights, economic freedom, free markets, capitalism, national sovereignty -- in short, our civil liberties -- and I strongly resent it! The website indicates that it is paid for in part by a grant from the U.S. Department of Energy. Thanks a heap, DOE. Which article of the Constitution gives government the authority to do that?

In a free market, I could simply say, "if you persist in this Orwellian scheme, I'll just take my business elsewhere", but of course we both know I can't do that.

Sincerely,
Karl Uppiano

Which article of the Constitution gives government the authority to do that?
www.antikakistocrat.blogspot.com

Why I Deny Global Warming | Western Journalism.com

I'm not a denier, I'm a heretic, but News Editor over at Western Journalism reiterates what I have been saying since day one:

I’m a denier for several reasons. There is no substantive evidence that the planet has warmed significantly or that any significant warming will occur in the future. If any warming does occur, it likely will be concentrated at higher latitudes and therefore be beneficial. Climate research has largely degenerated into pathological science, and the coverage of global warming in the media is tendentious to the point of being fraudulent. Anyone who is an honest and competent scientist must be a denier.

(Continue reading...)

The alleged degree of global warming over the past 150 years is less than 1 deg C. Yet even in a technologically advanced country like the US, the inherent error in over 90 percent of the surveyed meteorological stations is greater than the putative signal. And these errors are not random, but systematically reflect a warming bias related to urbanization.

Urbanization, as in Agenda 21's "pack & stack". He continues:

Watts has documented countless instances of air temperature sensors located next to air conditioning vents or in the middle of asphalt parking lots. A typical scenario is that a temperature sensor that was in the middle of a pasture a hundred years ago is now surrounded by a concrete jungle. Urbanization has been a unidirectional process. It is entirely plausible – even likely – that all of the temperature rise that has been inferred from the data is an artifact that reflects the growth of urban heat islands.

The thermometers at KCID AM 1490, where I worked as an engineer just out of college was one of those reporting stations that started out in a field of grass. Don’t even get me started on the poor practices of the operators responsible for reading those thermometers. At least half the time, the temperature wasn’t taken at the right time, or wasn’t taken at all, but filled in from memory based on what the announcers were reading off the indoor/outdoor thermometer mounted above the mixing console.

Hilarious Global Warming Song Parodies

I don't know if these guys paid the license fees to perform these songs in public, so they might be pulled soon. Get 'em while they're hot!

Government Mandated Compact Fluorescent Lights

I don't mind using CFLs where dimmability doesn't matter; where instant brightness doesn't matter; where a balanced, continuous spectrum doesn't matter; where operating cost is important; where longevity is important. Hey, EPA, I am quite capable of making the appropriate illumination choices for myself, thank you very much. And if someone can convince me that using these devices will be beneficial for the environment, I'll support that too -- voluntarily. But government mandates are usually a clear indication that there is no other sufficiently compelling reason for people to do something.

Resisting the Natural Progress of Things

Are biodegradable plastic shopping bags the biggest problem Bellingham faces? I think not, because few people were talking about it until a few days before the city council shoved the shopping bag ban down our throats. If it isn’t high on the Bellinghamsters’ agenda, then whose agenda is it? And why is it being imposed on us?

In a free country, when consumers identify a problem, they demand solutions from their producers. Then consumers vote with their dollars for the preferred solution. But no, here we use the force of government to compel everyone to adopt The Agenda, and implement the prescribed solution – under penalty of law.

Mind you, this is not about the bags. This is about freedom. Thomas Jefferson said, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." To preserve our freedom, we must resist "the natural progress of things", even over silly things, such as bag bans.

Retailers supporting the ban include Fred Meyer, Albertsons, Haggen, Village Books, Paper Dreams, Terra Organica… maybe others. Please vote with your dollars to let them know, they can promote environmental awareness without disrespecting your freedom so trivially.

The Green Thing

From an email circulating the Internet:

In the line at the store, the cashier told the older woman that she should bring her own grocery bags because plastic bags weren't good for the environment. The woman apologized to him and explained, "We didn't have the green thing back in my day." The clerk responded, "That's our problem today. The former generation did not care enough to save our environment."

He was right, that generation didn't have the green thing in its day. Back then, they returned their milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were recycled. But they didn't have the green thing back in that customer's day. In her day, they walked up stairs, because they didn't have an escalator in every store and office building. They walked to the grocery store and didn't climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time they had to go two blocks.

But she was right. They didn't have the green thing in her day. Back then, they washed the baby's diapers because they didn't have the throw-away kind. They dried clothes on a line, not in an energy gobbling machine burning up 220 volts - wind and solar power really did dry the clothes. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing.

But that old lady is right; they didn't have the green thing back in her day. Back then, they had one TV or radio, in the house - not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief, not a screen the size of the state of Montana. In the kitchen, they blended and stirred by hand because they didn't have electric machines to do everything for you. When they packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, they used a wadded up old newspaper to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap. Back then, they didn't fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. They used a push mower that ran on human power. They exercised by working so they didn't need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity.

But she's right; they didn't have the green thing back then. They drank from a fountain when they were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time they had a drink of water. They refilled their writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and they replaced the razor blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull.

But they didn't have the green thing back then. Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus and kids rode their bikes to school or rode the school bus instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service. They had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And they didn't need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 2,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest pizza joint. But isn't it sad the current generation laments how wasteful the old folks were, just because they didn't have the green thing back then?

We might be more "wasteful" in some sense, today than we were 40 years ago, but our environment is actually cleaner than it was back then. Don't be fooled; the environment is not a cause, it's a tool -- used by watermelons to destroy the American way of life. The free market, with millions of people voting with their dollars in their own personal best interest, will converge on the best solutions for the environment -- but it won't grant political power to sanctimonious elites who want to control the situation. And therein lies the problem.

I Don't Like Watermelons

If you scratch an environmentalist, more often than not, you'll find a 'progressive' (illiberal control freak) just beneath the surface. These are the sanctimonious Agenda 21 buttinskis with visions of Godhood, who want to trample my property rights, and use the force of government to compel me to join their religion.

I call them "watermelons": green on the outside, and red on the inside. I'm not an environmentalist, but I am a preservative (formerly a conservative). The roots of both of those words are "preserve" and "conserve". Environmentally speaking, I'm a conservationist. I just don't believe in using the force of government to compel others to do what I happen to think is right. I only wish I could get the same consideration in return.