Psycho Terrorists

(UPDATE BELOW - Update II)

The World and its people are facing an ever expanding and never ending War on Terrorism. That War is fought, according to some, against ideological, religious extremists, sometimes these are governments or regimes, but mostly against people. All it takes to be guilty of being a terrorist is for someone to make the accusation. These people are held in a cage indefinitely, some for nearly a decade, psychologically, emotionally and physically tortured. Even when ordered by the Courts they continue to hold them. Most astounding in all of this is that these lawless criminals do all of this with impunity.

There are many forms of terrorism. To name a few, there are Civil Disorders, Political Terrorism, Non-Political Terrorism, Quasi-Terrorism, Limited Political Terrorism, Official or State Terrorism, and Structural Terrorism. There is Democratic and domestic terrorism, Islamic Terrorism. Add to this: Christian Terrorism, Communist Terrorism, Counter-terrorism, Cyber-terrorism, Domestic terrorist (United States), Eco-terrorism, Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, Islamic Terrorism Jewish Terrorism, Narcoterrorism, the Patriot Act and that's just from Wikipedia.

Add to this list the latest from the Huffington Post: Christian Fundamentalist Terrorism -- Shanny Moore concludes her article by saying:

The "war on terror" needs to include domestic religious, fundamentalist terrorists.

You can add to that list Socio and Psycho Terrorism.

It's time for people to recognized terrorism for what it is in all of its insidious forms. Terrorists, by their very nature, exist in the dark. They hide behind good and decent people and appear normal, average and common. They talk the good talk, they put on a good facade. In truth, however, they are the worst of the worst; they are traitors in the fullest meaning of the word. They are deviant, lying, murderous cowards. They butcher innocent women and children to get at the men. They attack people where they live without remorse or conscience.

A good definition of Social Terrorism by Louis Komzsik in his book of the same name is:

Social terrorism is a subversive activity in which a small segment of the society, in order to gain or retain control, arrogates its philosophy onto the majority of the society, while completely disregarding the good of the society as a whole.

Socio Terrorists are a new breed. They attack society at its most fundamental framework and legitimate reasons for existence. They preach freedom, but practice discrimination, prejudice, bigotry and terrorize by lies, false accusations, slander and all kinds of innuendo. They demand the right to protection of law, but at heart they are lawless anarchists that assault the law in every way possible.

In many ways Socio Terrorism is like Psycho Terrorism and Psycho Terrorism is like Psychological Warfare.

The U.S. Department of Defense defines psychological warfare (PSYWAR) as: "The planned use of propaganda and other psychological actions having the primary purpose of influencing the opinions, emotions, attitudes, and behavior of hostile foreign groups in such a way as to support the achievement of national objectives."

During World War II the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff defined psychological warfare more broadly stating "Psychological warfare employs any weapon to influence the mind of the enemy. The weapons are psychological only in the effect they produce and not because of the weapons themselves." (Emphasis added) [Wikipedia]

Frankly, this article on Psycho Terrorists is mandated by what resulted from the Report article titled, “Trolls and the Thought Police” based upon the Time-Standard newspaper article written by Dave Stancliff in his Sunday, May 31, 2009, “As It Stands” column. When he was unsuccessful bullying us into doing what he wanted, he personally attacked and vilified us on his Blog. You can read what he accused us of being and of doing here. It seems there is a certain class of people in this country that have the right to say these kinds of things and worse in public, on the TV, in Internet Blogs, Newspapers and magazines whereas if this was someone from the Ku Klux Klan, some Nazi militia talking about the Jews or one of any other radical extremist Believer they'd be arrested and thrown in jail in a heartbeat for hate crimes under old laws and terrorism under the Patriot Act.

Yet, they are not. The question is, why not?

That very question was asked by Dr. Warren Hern in his Democracy Now interview today. In fact, he makes the very point of our observations discussed in the Report about “Trolls and the Thought Police.” This is just one of his comments:

But I think that it’s—the glee expressed by the anti-abortion fanatics is just grotesque. It’s ghoulish. These people—this is a violent terrorist movement in this country, and the American people need to understand that there’s a great deal more at stake here than the activities of one doctor, of the services of one doctor. Of course, this is a great loss for women, but this means that we have a very highly organized, active, well-armed and well-funded terrorist movement in the country that opposes the basic premises of American society. These people are opposed to constitutional democracy. They’re opposed to the rule of law. They’re opposed to a democratic government, representative government. They’re opposed to basic personal freedom. They’re opposed to thought. And this is a tremendous step backwards. [Emphasis added]

Louis Komzsik says these terrorists, "in order to gain or retain control, arrogates its philosophy onto the majority of the society." Arrogate is an interesting word. It means, "to claim unwarrantably or presumptuously; assume or appropriate to oneself without right" the authority to make one's worthless opinions fact. This is done by repeating the same lies over and over until everyone accepts it as truth. In other words just "BS" propaganda. While Blog articles and commentary are a dime-a-dozen, the problem is when posted, they become or have the potential to become volatile.

Real terrorism is a lot closer to home in America than most of us would want to believe. Our article on the Thought Police touched a real nerve. As, perhaps, it should.

UPDATE: Thursday, June 11, 2009
A good article by Joan Walsh, "Can right-wing hate talk lead to murder?"
Some think it already has.

UPDATE: Monday, June 22, 2009
Racism, Hate Speech, Extremism, bigotry, worthless opinions and lies are self-defining. Whether or not the person or persons making these statements are racist, hate mongers, bigots, or worthless liars is probably a personal judgment. Or is it? When you see a duck do you say, "there goes a turkey"?

Dave Stancliff has posted two "As It Stands" blogs accusing me of "spewing hate" in my May 31, 2009, "Troll's versus Thought Police" article about one of his Time-Standard, "As It Stands" columns. You can read that article and make up your own mind. When you find that "hate" I'd like someone to point it out. Or you can read what he said and tell me if it's a turkey?

Monday, June 15, 2009

Joe Blow (conspiracy) Report staff bawl like babies!

Well readers, this is what I have to contend with sometimes. Extremists tend to attack anything that doesn't fit their world view. There's a group at the Joe Blow Report blog that decided to attack me on May 31st and who posted a hate-filled rant about a column I did on trolls (of all the ironies!) This is a group that has the mind-set of a steel trap.

Now they have their crying towels (it took them two weeks to think of a reply) out and are blubbering to all that will read their raving. I'm not going to be intimidated by a bunch of cowards who are whining about a conspiracy between me and the Times-Standard to attack trolls! Good grief! Get a life you blowhards.

I don't know who you think you are, but I do know that you seek to impose your will upon others by reading your past posts. Now you think you can silence me by making outrageous accusations and trying to get the newspaper to drop my column. Guess again gang. You'll never be able to silence me. You best bet is to change your soiled diapers and to find someone else to pick on

Posted by Dave Stancliff at 3:37 PM

--Joe

Hate What Is Evil

“Hate What Is Evil. Hold on to what is good.” These are the Biblical words of a great student of Jesus Christ. Many people believe Jesus Christ to be the savior of all mankind. As such, Jesus said, “Blessed are you when people hate you, when they exclude you, insult you, and slander your name as evil, because of the Son of Man.”

The Joe Blow Report, as is the writer, is dedicated to the above commandment. Hate what is bad, wicked and evil. The Bible defines these words in great length and proficiency. Jesus Christ once said, “But evil words come from an evil heart and defile the person who says them. For from the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, all other sexual immorality, theft, lying, and slander.” Jesus equates lying and hatred of brother with murder.

So, if the Joe Blow Report was to hate anything, it would be malicious lying and slander. Notice I did not say “malicious liars and slanderers.” Realize, however, that you cannot have malicious lying without malicious liars. If a person is proven to tell a lie, then that person is a proven liar. One of the purposes of this blog is to ferret out the truth of issues, not people. However, sometimes it is rather hard to separate the two when people insist upon enforcing their own personal opinions as fact or truth on others. Even so, identifying a proven liar is not “name calling.”

It is for this reason that the two Joe Blow Reports stand on their own merits and speak in behalf of themselves and not for or in behalf of the writer. In other words, what is written is the subject and the writer is the object. The Joe Blow Report is written by Joe Blow, an essential John Doe, and is totally about the subject. The legitimacy and credibility of these Reports are garnered or earned in and of themselves, and bear no basis on who or what the writer might be. This is similar to newspaper editorials. Most people, I'm sure don't know who wrote the editorial, probably don't even care; I don't. All they know is that the newspaper says it. Thus it doesn't take readers long to understand where the “newspaper” stands on relevant issues. Whether we agree or disagree is irrelevant to our continued reading of the newspaper. As long as that paper continues to meet the standard by which we purchased that paper, we shall continue to read it. That standard, by the way, is what the paper says it is committed to doing as a paper and then actually does.

What is needed to know about Joe Blow is put forth for all to read. Suffice to know that he and his family have a vested interest in this community and in this country that is generational. Members of my family fought honorably and some died defending the rights expect of all Americans. To demean this Constitutional inheritance is to denigrate the value of their sacrifices. Strong words and powerful ideas do not equate anger, threats, hostility, paranoia, or even hatred. Neither do words of truth. Yet, in conclusion, the history of Jesus Christ tells a different story: “The Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We observed His glory, the glory as the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.”

That didn't seem to stop members of his peers from trying to personally denigrate and insult him, or try to murder him because truth assaulted their lies and malicious intent. The Joe Blow Report and it's writer hardly meet the standard of Jesus Christ. We do, however, attest to the fact that what he said is the truth.

--Joe

Trolls versus The Thought Police

(Updated below - Update II)

It seems innocent enough -- the latest Dave Stancliff tirade against Internet TROLLS!

If you don't know what an Internet Troll is, you can read what he says about this aberrations on his blog, in the Sunday, May 31, 2009 Time Standard newspaper and on the Internet. What you'll find there is a good example of the "Thought Police" at work.

By the way, this is Wikipedia's definition:

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

Everyone with a blog, at one time or another, has run afoul of these blessed critters. You can't write about anything relevant and meaningful that you don't attract someone trying to muddy the waters. Nor can you make intelligent, meaningful and relevant comments that some moron doesn't take exception. Mr. Stancliff's description of these aberrant souls, however, really doesn't do them justice. What he fails to note is that not all "Trolls" are online commentators. I encountered several bloggers (blogs) that are nothing less then TROLLS disguised as normal folk. I guess you'd call these blogs (Humbug Blogs?) Troll Lairs. Or is it Troll Liars? Sometimes it's hard to keep it straight.

I was reminded, as I read through his definition of online trolls, that he was speaking of just about everyone that ever made a comment on someone's blog. The fact is, especially with most of the Humbug Bloggers, that if you can't read their minds and don't meet their "standards" -- the kind of thinking that they consider to be stereotypically acceptable you immediately run afoul of the Humbug Trolls, a good example, to wit: Mr. Stancliff. Most of these bloggers run what has revealed to be nothing more than Blog Whorehouses. These are blogs that invite everyone in for fun, pleasure and a good time. Come in, speak your piece, have fun, enjoy yourself, talk to everyone; you know, get to "know" everyone. Never you mind that there is absolutely no mention or nothing posted in big bright letter about how to think and how to talk to everyone. You know, like don't get too rough, too radical, too physical, get emotional (NEVER ANGRY) or violate any of their unposted rules. Should you happen to tweak any of these bloggers fragile sensibilities or any of their clientele naughtily yapping merrily away, you not only DON'T GET FED, (talked to or accepted [bedded]) you get beaten mercilessly, without any way to defend yourself, thrown out into the streets of blogger hell and ostracized forever from all their blog whorehouses.

All this foofaraw about trolls and the Thought Police might be funny except for on thing: Two Thousand years of Dark Age thinking. That World and religious empire ruled with such draconian contempt for humanity, one wonders how anyone survived until today. Today we have people only "accused" of thinking like "terrorists," held and tortured indefinitely, coupled with the deliberate annihilation of the civilian populations because "someone that might think like a terrorist" might be hiding somewhere within all that population. Anyone wonder where and how it all got started?

It got started with simpleminded people like Dave Stancliff and compatriot people that are willing to believe his kind of dogma and impose their thoughts on others all in the name of freedom.

Trolls and the Thought Police? Really! They're one and the same. So, be aware! Watch Out For The Trolls! None of us want to become Troll Bait.

UPDATE :: Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Not everyone gets a free pass to write lengthy columns several times every week in newspapers. Dave Stancliff does. For one thing, he brings a certain value or credibility to what he writes for the simple reason he's being published. That ability comes with a double-edged reality; responsibility and accountability. Furthermore, most bloggers and their commentary, with few exception, rarely meet the same standard-producing credibility. As far as the Report is concerned all we know about or rather we should say, knew about him, was what we read in the newspaper. The questions we ask now, is Dave Stancliff a member of the Thought Police? Or, is he actually revealed to be a simpleminded troll trying to divert attention?

So, was his newspaper column as innocent as he claims where he says, “I advocated ignoring a pest”? We suggest you read our conversation and make up your own minds. Was it all as simple as trying to advocate ways to deal with an online “pest”? Or, was he overtly and covertly trying to justify controlling free speech by personally attacking those “HE” defines as “Internet Trolls,” some aberrant species of "pest"? Too bad Mr. Dave Stancliff didn't leave matters there. He certainly would have revealed a whole lot less about himself if he had only practiced what he preaches. More importantly, however, when you have the right to lock away in a two-by-four box forever anyone you merely “believe” thinks in unacceptable ways, whether they be so-called “troll” or “terrorist,” the deprivation of such tyranny has reached a point of corruption no decent person can withstand. Mr. Stancliff concludes his demagogic tirade with the following comment:

“This Thought Police stuff you're talking about makes it sound like your group is real paranoid about something.

Opinion aside...by the way.”

To that the Report concludes by saying: “The first thing all totalitarian, fascist, Nazi, communistic, extremist fundamental religious, regressive and repressive thinking people do is accuse ANYONE and EVERYONE that doesn't meet their socially acceptable standards of being paranoid or mentally ill. When he accused me or "my group" of being mentally ill he changed the rules from simple Internet conversation to a full-blown personal assault.

If he honestly thought I or any of us were actually paranoid and hostile as he claimed, I doubt he would have had the temerity, let alone the courage to say it directly to me. Why it is he thinks he can come into my Internet home and post his bile on my blog with impunity is beyond any of us. Problem is, he doesn't have a clue who he is talking to. I or we, on the other hand, have his face plastered all over the Internet and news media.

If that's not simpleminded, I don't know what is!”

UPDATE II:
It should be first noted that I am not in Mr. Stancliff's blog or at his home ranting and raving and making all kinds of wild unsubstantiated and abusive accusations for all his neighbor's to hear. He's in my home. And frankly, he won't leave.

Second, there is a difference between accepting someone's worthless opinions as fact and truth just because they say so or seeing what those facts and truths are for yourself. The reader can accept his angry, hate-filled demagoguery about me or you can accept him for what he is, and that according to his own definition about people who do what he has clearly come into and done on my blog. Truth is self-revealing. All I did was give Dave Stancliff opportunity to reveal his true nature.

It should also be noted that this blog is not written to garner anyone's agreement or make converts. Neither are we interested in anyone's worthless opinions or personal beliefs, for whatever that's worth. Whether we agree or disagree is irrelevant. Whatever you choose to believe, think or hallucinate about and make public is your problem. To hate, show hostility, be angry, be offended or manifest any other emotional response presupposes that person takes everything personally. We do not. We realize that what others do, and in this particular case Dave Stancliff, has nothing to do with either Joe Blow or the person writing this blog for him. We understand that what others say and do is a projection of their own reality, their own dream. Dave Stancliff has clearly demonstrated this manifest truth in his continuing foolish tirade.

To conclude, despite answering his question, Dave Stancliff continues to assert and repeat his accusation that my blog article was a personal attack in hypocritical contravention to our own posted wishes, to wit: “Diatribe personally attacking the messenger, is not welcome.” Our written observations were about the messenger, of which he is one, and freedom of speech versus prejudice, bigotry and selective censorship. He identified himself when he wrote that article, “Trolls Exposed: What kind of troll is disrupting your online community”? He sets forth the definition, in part: “They repeat themselves and say stupid off-focus things to disrupt conversations.” Which is exactly what is revealed for all to see. Rather than confront the thesis of our article, he tried to change the focus and tried to get personal. Unfortunately, Dave Stancliff was writing about himself.

--Joe

Defecating Dogs and Worthless Leash Laws

Defecating Dogs with their superior, arrogant masters together with the Editorial: "Honoring the fallen" seems appropriate, right?

I live in a fairly nice neighborhood, in a fairly nice home with mostly manicured lawns and nicely landscaped flower gardens. Since there isn't a lot of motor traffic, people love to walk and walk their dogs in the neighborhood. I rarely see a dog that is not leashed. What I do see are lots of piles of dog crap on my lawns. Wondering why, I began to pay attention. First, I noticed some of my neighbors turn their dogs loose at night and early morning. Other people, with leashed dogs let them use my laws for toilets and just walk away.

I've debated several options for dealing with this abuse. I figure deliberately letting your dog crap on my property is like spitting on me. You can't ignore the fact of what someone thinks of you when they do that, now can you? After rejecting most of my options, because they were probably illegal, I decided upon installing an automatic water system that would come on whenever there was a toilet call in progress. That way I could get both the human defecator and the dog defecator.

What's appropriate about the cartoon? Change the caption in the cartoon from, "My dog can go any where he wants." to "My army can go anywhere it wants." and I think you get my point.

Letting your dog crap on my property tells me exactly what you think of me and you don't even know me! But, I sure know you. If you ever wondered how people could live together for generations and then when they get the chance become genocidal to one another like they have in Iraq, well you don't have to look very far for reasons why.

Like leash laws there are littering and other appropriate laws dealing with unwanted dog crap and crappers, but that would require some law enforcement and I'm sure they've got more important things to do than cite people for dumping their garbage wherever the urge takes them.

--Joe

Organic Food Growers Get the Marijuana Treatment

You won’t believe how far some authorities will go to stifle your right to make healthy choices for your family.

Unconscionable Police Raid on Family's Home and Organic Food Co-Op

Violating Constitutional Rights in the Name of… What?

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and Section 14, Article 1 of the Ohio Constitution, guarantees the right of peaceful citizens to be free from paramilitary police raids, searches and seizures.

The price we pay for freedom!

--Joe

California's NEW Stop Law

Does STOP mean s t o p ?

Based upon my observations of an intersection containing two stop signs and one bad blind corner on the right that has no stop sign, in other words through traffic with the right of way, at the most 25% actually stop. All others blow through the intersection as if they had the absolute right of way, most never slow to 15 MPH. Some treat it as an open intersection without any stop signs, but most just keep on rolling.

What's my point? The general scofflaw public has ALREADY VOTED IN CALIFORNIA!

They've made stop signs yield signs and probably for the same reasons as bike riders, save on gas, energy, or no laudable reason for actually stopping. Now is several states their thinking about making rolling stops actually legal for bike riders. Here's good explanation of what their talking about doing, thanks to Green Wheels. Here's another good link and discussion on the bike legislation.

---

So what's next? Build roundabouts where no one (mostly) pays any attention to "Yield" signs and slows to 15 MPH in major intersections? Turn all the traffic lights to flashing amber and call it a free for all? In a society where everyone (mostly everyone) thinks they're above the law it might save a few people from getting hurt or killed, in particular pedestrians, thinking the law will protect them. Considering the present state on our streets and highways where these highbinders rule, I'm not real sure any of these new laws protect bikers, old or young.

Of course, it isn't any wonder why people believe they can act above the law with impunity in this country. At one time not too long ago, this country executed criminals for crimes President George Bush and Barack Obama committed. Aside from that, the criminal bankers get rewarded while while the same bankers foreclose on thousands of families on a trumped up economic disaster they caused. Closer to home we've got classic examples of the "Law" protecting and defending the rights criminal killers. One was the poor fellow crossing the street by the North Coast Eureka Co-op and the other was Roger Rodoni just to name a couple. When was the last time you actually saw a police officer enforce a stop sign?

--Joe

Shock and Awe Law

Updated Below - Update II

---

I picked up my Saturday, April 18, 2009, Times-Standard Newspaper this morning and was greeted with this brilliant piece of news: Eureka discussing implementation of citywide rental home inspection. "Citizen task force aims to target crime"

Where do they plan on targeting crime? "Rental home inspections" that's where! It seems some person by the name of Lisa Ollivier wants to ratchet up the police powers in Eureka. Donna Tam of the Times-Standard says about Ollivier:

After years of neighborhood watch, putting pressure on overcrowded houses riddled with drug abuse and cockroaches, and being a part of a citizens' task force to target slum housing and crime in their neighborhoods, Ollivier is looking forward to presenting an ordinance to the Eureka City Council on Tuesday that will help to address those problems one rental property at a time.

This is the commentary of some simple self-serving do-gooder's knee-jerk reaction to problems either not being taken care of by the Eureka Police Department and other responsible agencies or deliberately allowed to exist and fester so as to produce this response for a community that was too gutless to personally deal with their own problems.

First, it's extra judicial police roadblocks to check for drunk drivers, random stops and searches on the highways, then its random stops to check and identify people just walking down the street, now it's "overcrowded houses"! What's next? Our guns? One house at a time? Why not? Constitutional legal protection doesn't mean anything when problems are allowed to fester and grow until we need a "Shock and Awe" solution.

Ollivier says:

When Lisa Ollivier was pregnant with her son three years ago, the late-night activities of neighbors in her Clark District home kept her from getting much sleep.

"There were times when I would be on the living room floor because of gunfire going on," she said.

This it pure NONSENSE! This statement, if factual, is an indictment of the police. Which doesn't surprise me one bit. When my wife and I moved into our new home here in Eureka we had one outlaw neighbor that, when they refused to stop constantly harassing us, I was forced to call the Eureka Police Department for help. All we got for our effort was royally shined on. The police officer politely listened to us, could see we were really upset, but did nothing. All the police did was make the problem worse than before. The neighbor figured they had a green light now that the police couldn't even be bothered to speak to them. In the end I took the problem to the Police Chief to help descalate the situation, for all that was worth; a total waste of time. After exhausting considerable resources in life, health, time and money I was forced to deal with the matter personally. It was either that or move. Dealing with me and my solution was not something either the police nor the neighbor wanted, so the problem abated, but not after considerable unnecessary rancor and visceral anger at everyone involved.

Well, I didn't get this posted Saturday, and Sunday I was greeted with "Growing violence: Marijuana gardens are robbery targets throughout Humboldt County" - frontpage, Times-Standard:

Home-invasion robberies at houses with pot gardens occur with disconcerting regularity in Humboldt County, law enforcement officials say. And the potential for violence in any robbery is high. Within the past six months, at least three people have been shot during suspected grow house robberies in Humboldt County.

"I can't think of a home invasion robbery in the last two years in Humboldt County that hasn't had a drug connection to it," said Eureka Police Chief Garr Nielsen. In every case, "it's almost exclusively marijuana."

What do you expect when a major portion of society believes everyone should have the right to grow and sell marijuana regardless the law or harm and threat to their community? Criminals breed crime and crime breeds violence!

So, what's the solution? Punish (Nuke the innocent women and children.) the people that are the victims of both the criminals and the complicit community?

UPDATE :: Thursday, April 23, 2009
Glass pulls rental home ordinance off the agenda

"Glass said he believes in maximum public input, so he hopes to meet with the task force next week to decide what to do next. He thinks they may set up a public meeting in the future."

That "maximum public input" is the City of Eureka's new public representative, Lisa Ollivier (task force), speaking for the majority? Talk about a classic example of political whoring!

UPDATE II :: Friday, April 24, 2009

His latest bull run on law was published today Friday, April 24, 2009, Times-Standard

Eureka suspends cell tower construction, arranges Verizon hearing

Now Larry Glass has teamed-up with Linda Atkins to push their political "BS" agendas to circumvent the law when not politically expedient. Classic! Atkins says:

Councilwoman Linda Atkins reiterated her opinion that Verizon acted in bad faith when it started construction before obtaining all its permits.

”It's the city's conditional use permit,” she said, adding that the council has the jurisdiction to say whether the cell phone company violated it.

According to Atkins, Verizon acted on bad faith, but apparently the permits aren't worth the paper their written on when the city "council has the jurisdiction to say whether the cell phone company violated it" after the fact. As bad as that is, this statement tells the whole story about these two worthless representatives.

Atkins and Glass both stated that it is important for the council to represent its citizens and listen to their concerns, even if the matter goes to court.

Since when has the "council" listened to the concerns of the people they are supposed to represent? If they had there never would have been a problem to start with. I wouldn't want a cell tower near my home either, but at some point this slap-stick comedy needs some serious truth-telling. Property owner's deep pockets are finite and it's about time these ideological knot heads come to terms with that reality. Frank Jager, the lone dissenting councilman, who by the way received on a fraction of consideration in this lopsided report, was the only one to show some sense of propriety.

Councilman Frank Jager said that while he, too, wants to ensure that the council protects the residents of Henderson Center, he reminded them that in order to fight a lawsuit for them, the council would be putting the other residents of the city at risk.

”We're also required to protect all the residents in this city,” he said.

The concerned people of Henderson Center and others, like yours truly, were sold out, plain and simple. We can either get used to it or take those responsible to task. Maybe next time they'll think about the people they represent when dealing with the Planning Commission before trying to make all land and property owners pay for their sins.

[Source]

--Joe