Duke Energy Power Lines In Polk County

District 113:

Duke Energy Transmission Lines

 Ever increasing frustrations over the proposed Duke Energy transmission line continue to garner attention from those possibly affected by this endeavor.

Those wishing to voice their constructive thoughts and concerns over the transmission line should attend a meeting on Thursday, September 3rd.   The North Carolina Utilities Commission Public Staff has received numerous inquiries from the general public and elected officials regarding the Foothills Transmission Line project. Due to the extraordinarily high level of interest in this project, the Public Staff will facilitate an informational meeting concerning Duke Energy’s proposed Foothills Transmission Line project on September 3, 2015 from 6:00 – 9:00 p.m. at the Blue Ridge Community College Auditorium.  During the meeting, the Public Staff will pose questions to Duke Energy representatives concerning the process, criteria, and timeline used when siting transmission lines and the specific process Duke is using for the Foothills project.  Members of the public will have an opportunity to speak for the purpose of raising relevant issues for consideration in the process.  Organized groups are encouraged to designate speakers to provide comment so that as many communities and interests as possible can be heard.  As this informational meeting pertains only to the portion of the project impacting Western North Carolina, speakers will be limited to North Carolina residents only. This informational meeting will serve to more fully educate both the public and the Public Staff.  While this is not an official hearing, this exchange of information will address many questions and help bring greater clarity and transparency to the process.  The Public Staff has an informational webpage providing links to information of interest related to the project: http://www.pubstaff.commerce.state.nc.us/pselec/Duke-Energy%20Foothills%20Project.html

Duke Energy is seeking public input through August 31st (today!) and I encourage you to visit the link below and share your thoughts: http://dukeenergyfoothillsproject.power-viz.com/map_comment.php

There is NO 14th Amendment to the Constitution

There is No “Fourteenth Amendment”!
David Lawrence
U.S. News & World Report
September 27, 1957

A MISTAKEN BELIEF — that there is a valid article in the Constitution known as the “Fourteenth Amendment” — is responsible for the Supreme Court decision of 1954 and the ensuing controversy over desegregation in the public schools of America. No such amendment was ever legally ratified by three fourths of the States of the Union as required by the Constitution itself. The so-called “Fourteenth Amendment” was dubiously proclaimed by the Secretary of State on July 20, 1868. The President shared that doubt. There were 37 States in the Union at the time, so ratification by at least 28 was necessary to make the amendment an integral part of the Constitution. Actually, only 21 States legally ratified it. So it failed of ratification.

The undisputed record, attested by official journals and the unanimous writings of historians, establishes these events as occurring in 1867 and 1868:

  1. Outside the South, six States — New Jersey, Ohio, Kentucky, California, Delaware and Maryland — failed to ratify the proposed amendment.
  2. In the South, ten States — Texas, Arkansas, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi and Louisiana — by formal action of their legislatures, rejected it under the normal processes of civil law.
  3. A total of 16 legislatures out of 37 failed legally to ratify the “Fourteenth Amendment.”
  4. Congress — which had deprived the Southern States of their seats in the Senate — did not lawfully pass the resolution of submission in the first instance.
  5. The Southern States which had rejected the amendment were coerced by a federal statute passed in 1867 that took away the right to vote or hold office from all citizens who had served in the Confederate Army. Military governors were appointed and instructed to prepare the roll of voters. All this happened in spite of the presidential proclamation of amnesty previously issued by the President. New legislatures were thereupon chosen and forced to “ratify” under penalty of continued exile from the Union. In Louisiana, a General sent down from the North presided over the State legislature.
  6. Abraham Lincoln had declared many times that the Union was “inseparable” and “indivisible.” After his death, and when the war was over, the ratification by the Southern States of the Thirteenth Amendment, abolishing slavery, had been accepted as legal. But Congress in the 1867 law imposed the specific conditions under which the Southern States would be “entitled to representation in Congress.”
  7. Congress, in passing the 1867 law that declared the Southern States could not have their seats in either the Senate or House in the next session unless they ratified the “Fourteenth Amendment,” took an unprecedented step. No such right — to compel a State by an act of Congress to ratify a constitutional amendment — is to be found anywhere in the Constitution. Nor has this procedure ever been sanctioned by the Supreme Court of the United States.
  8. President Andrew Johnson publicly denounced this law as unconstitutional. But it was passed over his veto.
  9. Secretary of State Seward was on the spot in July 1868 when the various “ratifications” of a spurious nature were placed before him. The legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey had notified him that they rescinded their earlier action of ratification. He said in his official proclamation that he was not authorized as Secretary of State “to determine and decide doubtful questions as to the authenticity of the organization of State legislatures or as to the power of any State legislature to recall a previous act or resolution of ratification.” He added that the amendment was valid “if the resolutions of the legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey, ratifying the aforesaid amendment, are to be deemed as remaining of full force and effect, notwithstanding the subsequent resolutions of the legislatures of these States.” This was a very big “if.” It will be noted that the real issue, therefore, is not only whether the forced “ratification” by the ten Southern States was lawful, but whether the withdrawal by the legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey — two Northern States — was legal. The right of a State, by action of its legislature, to change its mind at any time before the final proclamation of ratification is issued by the Secretary of State has been confirmed in connection with other constitutional amendments.
  10. The Oregon Legislature in October 1868 — three months after the Secretary’s proclamation was issued — passed a rescinding resolution, which argued that the “Fourteenth Amendment” had not been ratified by three fourths of the States and that the “ratifications” in the Southern States were “usurpations, unconstitutional, revolutionary and void” and that, “until such ratification is completed, any State has a right to withdraw its assent to any proposed amendment.”

What do the historians say about all this? The Encyclopedia Americana states:

“Reconstruction added humiliation to suffering…. Eight years of crime, fraud, and corruption followed and it was State legislatures composed of Negroes, carpetbaggers and scalawags who obeyed the orders of the generals and ratified the amendment.”

W. E. Woodward, in his famous work, “A New American History?” published in 1936, says:

“To get a clear idea of the succession of events let us review [President Andrew] Johnson’s actions in respect to the ex-Confederate States.

“In May, 1865, he issued a Proclamation of Amnesty to former rebels. Then he established provisional governments in all the Southern States. They were instructed to call Constitutional Conventions. They did. New State governments were elected. White men only had the suffrage the Fifteenth Amendment establishing equal voting rights had not yet been passed]. Senators and Representatives were chosen, but when they appeared at the opening of Congress they were refused admission. The State governments, however, continued to function during 1866.

“Now we are in 1867. In the early days of that year [Thaddeus] Stevens brought in, as chairman of the House Reconstruction Committee, a bill that proposed to sweep all the Southern State governments into the wastebasket. The South was to be put under military rule.

“The bill passed. It was vetoed by Johnson and passed again over his veto. In the Senate it was amended in such fashion that any State could escape from military rule and be restored to its full rights by ratifying the Fourteenth Amendment and admitting black as well as white men to the polls.”

In challenging its constitutionality, President Andrew Johnson said in his veto message:

“I submit to Congress whether this measure is not in its whole character, scope and object without precedent and without authority, in palpable conflict with the plainest provisions of the Constitution, and utterly destructive of those great principles of liberty and humanity for which our ancestors on both sides of the Atlantic have shed so much blood and expended so much treasure.”

Many historians have applauded Johnson’s words. Samuel Eliot Morison and Henry Steele Commager, known today as “liberals,” wrote in their book, “The Growth of the American Republic”:

“Johnson returned the bill with a scorching message arguing the unconstitutionality of the whole thing, and most impartial students have agreed with his reasoning.”

James Truslow Adams, another noted historian, writes in his “History of the United States”:

“The Supreme Court had decided three months earlier, in the Milligan case, … that military courts were unconstitutional except under such war conditions as might make the operation of civil courts impossible, but the President pointed out in vain that practically the whole of the new legislation was unconstitutional. … There was even talk in Congress of impeaching the Supreme Court for its decisions! The legislature had run amok and was threatening both the Executive and the Judiciary.”

Actually, President Johnson was impeached, but the move failed by one vote in the Senate.

The Supreme Court, in case after case, refused to pass on the illegal activities involved in “ratification.” It said simply that they were acts of the “political departments of the Government.” This, of course, was a convenient device of avoidance. The Court has adhered to that position ever since Reconstruction Days.

Andrew C. McLaughlin, whose “Constitutional History of the United States” is a standard work, writes:

“Can a State which is not a State and not recognized as such by Congress, perform the supreme duty of ratifying an amendment to the fundamental law? Or does a State — by congressional thinking — cease to be a State for some purposes but not for others?”

This is the tragic history of the so-called “Fourteenth Amendment” — a record that is a disgrace to free government and a “government of law.”

Isn’t the use of military force to override local government what we deplored in Hungary?

It is never too late to correct injustice. The people of America should have an opportunity to pass on an amendment to the Constitution that sets forth the right of the Federal Government to control education and regulate attendance at public schools either with federal power alone or concurrently with the States.

That’s the honest way, the just way to deal with the problem of segregation or integration in the schools. Until such an amendment is adopted, the “Fourteenth Amendment” should be considered as null and void.

There is only one supreme tribunal — it is the people themselves. Their sovereign will is expressed through the procedures set forth in the Constitution itself.


[OCR’d text from U.S. News & World Report, September 27, 1957, page 140 et seq.]

You will NOT BELIEVE who was best man at John Kerry’s daughter’s wedding


You not might be aware that in 2009, the daughter of Secretary of State John Kerry, Dr. Vanessa Bradford Kerry, John Kerry’s younger daughter by his first wife, married an Iranian-American physician named Dr. Brian (Behrooz) Vala Nahed.

Of course you’re not aware of it.

Brian (Behrooz) Nahed is son of Nooshin and Reza Vala Nahid of Los Angeles. Brian’s Persian birth name is “Behrooz Vala Nahid” but it is now shortened and Americanized in the media to “Brian Nahed.” At the time his engagement to Bradford Kerry, there was rarely any mention of Nahed’s Persian/Iranian ancestry, and even the official wedding announcement in the October 2009 issue of New York Times carefully avoids any reference to Dr. Nahed (Nahid)’s birthplace (which is uncommon in wedding announcements) and starts his biography from his college years.

Gosh, I wonder why??

Gee, do you think Secretary Kerry should have recused himself from the negotiations with Iran at the very outset because of his long-standing relationship to his Iranian counter-part, Mohammad Javad Zarif? Let me explain.

Zarif is the current minister of foreign affairs in the Rouhani administration and has held various significant diplomatic and cabinet posts since the 1990s. He was Kerry’s chief counterpart in the nuclear deal negotiations.

Secretary Kerry and Zarif first met over a decade ago at a dinner party hosted by George Soros at his Manhattan penthouse. What a surprise. I have to say, connecting the dots gets more and more frightening.

But it gets even worse. Guess who was the best man at the 2009 wedding between Kerry’s daughter Vanessa and Behrouz Vala Nahed? Javad Zarif’s son.

Does this bother anyone at all?

Apparently Kerry only revealed his daughter’s marriage to an Iranian-American once he had taken over as Secretary of State. But the subject never came up in his Senate confirmation hearing, either because Kerry never disclosed it, or because his former colleagues were “too polite” to bring it up.

As Front Page Magazine pointed out several months ago, the nuclear talks with Iran were a tragic farce, choreographed and orchestrated by Iran.

And unfortunately, we’re going to have to live with the consequences. At least, I hope we live.


This is what the Polk County Democrats are concerned about

This is on their website:

 From Tom Friedman of the NYT: 

Sure, there are center-right candidates — like Jeb Bush and John Kasich. But can they run, win and govern from the center-right when the base of their party and so many of its billionaire donors reflect the angry anti-science, anti-tax, anti-government, anti-minorities, anti-gay rights and anti-immigration views of the Tea Party and its media enforcer, Fox News?


Here is a contributor’s take on the current status:

We’ve got people on the Left side of the political spectrum, crushing babies skulls; harvesting babies body parts to sell

 Illegal aliens in sanctuary cities – run by Liberals – being protected from deportation, while those same illegal aliens rape, murder or in some instances Rape & Murder U.S. citizens

 Liberals waging war on police officers; promoting violent uprisings!

 Liberals trying to say that only black lives matter – not all lives (we can see that they actually believe that, given how they treat the smallest, most vulnerable of all – babies)

 Liberals screaming about the use of that terrible coal, until they realize that this will mean power lines going thru their neighborhood in reaction to the closing of those coal powered plants… then they are up in arms and have the audacity to point out the hundreds if not thousands of birds being killed by their “Green” alternatives

 Hillary and Obama fly all around the Country to lament the “science” of manmade global climate change – all the while ignoring what their private jets are doing to get them to and from these events. The irony is lost on these “scientific” geniuses!

 And “anti-minorities”,,, really?  Let’s look at the field of candidates running for President…. which side has more minorities involved? Which side is more diverse?  I guess you could point out that the GOP does not have a self avowed Socialist running for President, that would be true,,,,, but the rest of the post below is pure dribble – coming from folks that know they are on the wrong side of history!


Schedule of Upcoming Debates

Wednesday, September 16, 2015

CNN/Salem Republican Debate

Aired On: CNN and Salem Radio (Press Release)
Location: Reagan Library in Simi Valley, CA
Sponsors: Reagan Library Foundation, CNN, Salem Media Group
Moderators: Jake Tapper, Hugh Hewitt,
Rules: Split field into Segment B (top 10 candidates) and Segment A (remaining candidates getting at least 1% in polls) (Details)
Candidates: To be determined



Wednesday, October 28, 2015
CNBC Republican Debate

Aired On: CNBC
Location: University of Colorado in Boulder (Press Release)
Sponsors: CNBC (Press Release)
Candidates: To be determined



November, 2015*
Fox Business/WSJ Republican Debate

Aired On: Fox Business Network
Location: Wisconsin
Sponsors: Fox Business Network, Wall Street Journal
Candidates: To be determined



December 15, 2015
CNN/Salem Republican Debate

Aired On: CNN
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
Sponsors: CNN, Salem Media Group
Candidates: To be determined




January, 2016*
Fox News Republican Debate

Aired On: Fox News Channel
Location: Iowa
Sponsors: Fox News
Candidates: To be determined



February 6, 2016
ABC/IJReview Republican Debate

Aired On: ABC
Location: St. Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire
Sponsors: ABC News, IJReview.com (Press Release)
Candidates: To be determined



February 13, 2016
CBS News Republican Debate

Aired On: CBS
Location: South Carolina
Sponsors: CBS News
Candidates: To be determined



February 26, 2016
NBC/Telemundo Republican Debate

Aired On: NBC and Telemundo
Location: Texas
Sponsors: NBC/Telemundo, National Review
Candidates: To be determined



March, 2016*
Fox News Republican Debate

Aired On: Fox News Channel
Location: TBD
Sponsors: Fox News
Candidates: To be determined



March 10, 2016
CNN/Salem Republican Debate

Aired On: CNN
Location: Florida
Sponsors: CNN, Salem Media Group
Candidates: To be determined

Heads Up – Take the survey

91% of 281 current votes “strongly disagree”….The poll can be found on the lower right hand side of the main page for the Tryon Daily Bulletin.  Below is the message from the TDB webpage.
There is an important poll on TDB’s page:  http://www.tryondailybulletin.com/

It is on the right side of the page, about half way down, under POLLS.

The question is:

The Polk County Board of Commissioners is proceeding with the Inman Campobello Water District contract in a manner that is in the best interest of Polk County and its citizens.  ???

Please let you voice be heard by voting and passing this on to everyone.


This email is in no way associated with the Lake Adger Property Owners Association nor the Lake Adger Board of Directors. It does not reflect views from the POA nor the BOD.

The First Debate Round Is Over

Trump – President

Ted Cruz – VP

Carly Fiorina – Sec State

Trey Goudy – Attny General

Marco Rubio – Amnesty (Regardless of what he says, he’d roll over)

Did you see how they all thought  Rubio did such a great job.  Bull.   He is not up to the task.

Also, don’t forget that all, and I mean all, including the media, are owned by the bankers.  Trump is not owned.

Do you think Jeb Bush would go against his  many millionaire supporters?  When the supporters call on the phone, Jeb will say “Yes, Sir.”

The whole debate was a circus.  My used to be “fav”, Megan Kelly, really disappointed me.  She started the debate with a “I’m going to get you Trump.” question.  That was pretty low, but she hates Trump.  Most of the Fox News commentators except O’Reilly and Hannity hate Trump and are afraid of them.  They know that Trump uses intimidation to put people back on their heels, and they don’t like that.

The real question that people need to have answered is: Who is capable of turning this country around and making it great again?  Who is strong enough to tell the behind the scenes puppet masters to go to hell?

Now we are going to have to hear how Donald Trump is all washed up.  Not with me, he’s not.