Lodinews.com

default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
||
Logout|My Dashboard

International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives proof the U.N. is in our government

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 12:00 am | Updated: 6:27 am, Tue Aug 21, 2012.

The main function of our government is the protection, preservation and/or restoration of individual rights and private property of its citizenry, not to usurp them with eminent domain, “social justice” and all forms of “communitarianism” for the public good.

The globalist scheme to control resources and the masses through use of local planning and development policy is the United Nations Agenda 21, which under the guise of “sustainable smart growth,” “environmental sensitivity” and “social justice” for “all” seeks the greater good for “all.” Just this mere conversation and mention of the U.N. conjures up visions of hysterical conspiratorial intrigue that is indeed intriguing. Could it be true?

To find out the answer, go to www.iclei.com. On the top bar menu of the website click on “Members,” then on the left side column click on “Global Members.” After that, you will be redirected to a web page of all the local government global members of International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives listed in alphabetical order by country. Scroll down to U.S.A. and see if we’re listed.

San Joaquin County, Lodi and Stockton aren’t listed, but that doesn’t mean our federal, state and local governments haven’t bought into this scheme and don’t already have in place active redevelopment agencies promoting and advancing U.N. Agenda 21.

ICLEI is the U.N. in our government, and for proof go to www.iclei.com and select “Programs.” Scroll down and click on Agenda 21; all just part of the program.

Agenda 21 Sustainable Development, coming to a Delta Twin Tunnel Bypass near you.

William Van Amber Fields

Morada

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Use your real name. You must register with your full first and last name before you can comment. (And don't pretend you're someone else.)
  • 2 Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language.
  • 3 Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 4 Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.
  • 5 Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 6 Stay on topic. Make sure your comments are about the story. Don't insult each other.
  • 7 Tell us if the discussion is getting out of hand. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 8 Share what you know, and ask about what you don't.

Welcome to the discussion.

37 comments:

  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 10:02 pm on Wed, Aug 22, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    Mr Chang stated...His poorly written drevil is totally bereft of meaning or importance

    Since I was simply making a comment about Mr Schmidt and his antics, not much meaning is possible. No need to try again as nothing more needs to be said.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 8:45 pm on Wed, Aug 22, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2689

    Do you have anything of meaning or importance to say about Agenda 21 or ICLEI Walter?
    [sleeping]

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 8:33 pm on Wed, Aug 22, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2689

    I don't think Mr. Schmidt's mind is capable of absorbing truth...

    http://youtu.be/OCAbgKfrBFw

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 8:17 pm on Wed, Aug 22, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2689

    Obviously the Constitution matters much more or I wouldn't be concerned that the United States of America has become subservient to and takes its marching orders from the United Nations and NATO.
    [sleeping]

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 8:09 pm on Wed, Aug 22, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2689

    I have not denied any of your above statements.

    If you seek denial...simply look in a mirror. [sleeping]

    The North Atlantic Treaty clearly states that an actual or imminent threat to our nation must exist. Libya posed no such threat.
    [sleeping]

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 6:23 pm on Wed, Aug 22, 2012.

    Walt Posts: 992

    "I think I disagree. I am convinced"

    Typical Darrell...

    Falsely assumes he's a reasonable person.

    His poorly written drevil is totally bereft of meaning or importance.

    Please Mr. Baumbach don't bother to try again!!


    [tongue]

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 6:09 pm on Wed, Aug 22, 2012.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2238

    Andrew, in the end, which matters more to you, the comments of a politician (be they Barack Obama, George W. Bush or George H.W.Bush) or the text of the US Constitution (Article 6 in this case)?

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 5:59 pm on Wed, Aug 22, 2012.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2238

    Andrew, do YOU deny that the President of the United States, as the Chief Executive, is in charge of executing the provisions of those treaties that have been ratified by the Senate? Furthermore, do YOU deny that the North Atlantic Treaty was ratified by the US Senate in a vote of 82 to 13 on July 21,1949?

    These are simple, easy to understand yes or no questions Andrew.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 4:57 pm on Wed, Aug 22, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    Andrew stated...THAT's MY POINT YOU BLITHERING IDIOT...
    (in reference to Mr Schmidt)

    Even though on the surface, a reasonable person would draw the conclusion Mr Liebich did, I think I disagree. I am convinced Mr Schmidt is simply acting the class clown and could care less about truth.It simply enthusiasticly enjoys such behavior.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 4:50 pm on Wed, Aug 22, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2689

    I'll try to dumb it down for you Mr. Schmidt...

    Libya didn't present an actual or imminent threat to our nation.

    “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” -Barack Obama

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 2:56 pm on Wed, Aug 22, 2012.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2238

    Article 6: .....This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all TREATIES made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 2:54 pm on Wed, Aug 22, 2012.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2238

    Andrew, while you are tossing around terms like "idiot" I think this might be a good time to remind you that it was you who started this particular conversation.

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 2:53 pm on Wed, Aug 22, 2012.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2238

    Andrew wrote: "YOU BLITHERING IDIOT!"

    Chuckle.... that's what we like to call "irony" folks.

    Andrew, you are comparing apples and winnebagos. The power of the United States to unilaterally declare war does, indeed, lie with Congress. The DUTY to execute treaties that have been duly approved by the Senate, however, rests with the Chief Executive.

    For the Chief Executive to fail to carry out the terms of a duly approved treaty would be a grave dereliction of duty.

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 2:48 pm on Wed, Aug 22, 2012.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2238

    Statements, be they by Presidents, Senators or tin foil hat wearing loonies, do not change the Constitution.

    The President was executing his obligations as defined by Article 6 of the US Constitution to honor the terms of the NATO Treaty which was properly ratified more than half a century ago.

    End of story.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 12:30 pm on Wed, Aug 22, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2689

    Non-binding resolutions DO NOT trump the US Constitution. THAT's MY POINT YOU BLITHERING IDIOT! Senate resolution S.RES.85 was NON-BINDING! Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution reads: “Congress shall have power to … declare War.” Congress did not declare war on Libya Mr. Schmidt. If you refuse to listen to me at least listen to your own beloved Constitutional eviscerator Barack Obama.

    “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” -Barack Obama 2008

    P.S. think it's past time I pointed out to you that the topic of this thread is Agenda 21.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 12:18 pm on Wed, Aug 22, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2689

    Contesting ignorance is not just the civic duty of the informed, it is also an act of compassion towards those who are not. Your willingness to confirm you are not informed never ceases to amaze...

    During the 2008 campaign, the president himself said the following:

    “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

    Now I haven’t heard anyone even attempt to claim that Libya presented an actual or imminent threat to our nation. The floor is yours. State your case Mr. Schmidt...
    [sleeping]

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 10:30 am on Wed, Aug 22, 2012.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2238

    Look Andrew, I understand your embarrassment. Like too many Americans, you have never read the Constitution but you pretended that you had. You got caught up in an untruth and now you have to pay the piper.

    That said, now that everything has been subjected to the light of day, I am more than willing to accept your humble apology and move on.

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 10:25 am on Wed, Aug 22, 2012.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2238

    Andrew, you evidently think "non binding resolutions" trump the US Constitution. Given your other posts on this site, what in any other man would be an astounding display of ignorance does not really surprise me.

    The President did not "declare war" he carried out America's obligations under a binding treaty that was ratified by the US Senate half a century ago, thus fulfilling his duty as our countries chief executive.

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 10:24 am on Wed, Aug 22, 2012.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2238

    Andrew, you evidently think "non binding resolutions" trump the US Constitution. Given your other posts on this site, what in any other man would be an astounding display of ignorance does not really surprise me.

    The President did not "declare war" he carried out America's obligations under a binding treaty that was ratified by the US Senate half a century ago, thus fulfilling his duty as our countries chief executive.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 10:03 pm on Tue, Aug 21, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2689

    Obama has used word games and mental gymnastics to claim he hasn’t violated the War Powers Resolution. You are attempting, rather pathetically I might add, to do the same.

    Yes, the US Senate unanimously passed non-binding Senate resolution S.RES.85. Do you know what a non-binding resolution is Mr. Schmidt? Obviously you do not. Look it up.

    F.Y.I. In response to a question regarding war powers during the 2008 campaign, the president himself said the following: “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

    Now I haven’t heard anyone even attempt to claim that Libya presented an actual or imminent threat to our nation, and I’m pretty sure the Constitution hasn’t been amended to change the reality of the above comment since Obama made it.

    The only way for Congress to legally transfer their war making power to the president would be via a constitutional amendment, which not only must be passed by the House and Senate, but also ratified by a three-fourths majority of state legislatures!

    The claim that no congressional approval is required because the attack on Libya doesn’t amount to “hostilities” is an embarrassingly amateurish attempt to avoid accountability. Every day millions of grade school kids have better excuses for not doing their homework.

    Congress recognizes no claimed power of the president to wage war outside of the War Powers Resolution.

    Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution reads: “Congress shall have power to … declare War.” Congress did not declare war on Libya Mr. Schmidt. The globalist sock puppet Obama did.
    [sleeping]

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 7:30 pm on Tue, Aug 21, 2012.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2238

    Again Andrew, find a copy of the Constitution that has not had Article 6 expunged from it and read it.

    A Treaty that has been ratified by the Senate is the "Law of the Land".

    The President doesn't have to seek approval from Congress if he, as the Chief Executive, is simply executing the provisions of the NATO treaty which Congress has already ratified.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 6:11 pm on Tue, Aug 21, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2689

    [sleeping]...IGNORE

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 6:10 pm on Tue, Aug 21, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2689

    To clarify, the War Powers Act gives the President the authority to send troops into combat situations, without the immediate granting by Congress for 30-60 days, ONLY in a national emergency.

    Not the same at all. ][sleeping]

    Were you asleep when Panetta co-chaired an initiative to regulate U.S. oceans and cede them to United Nations-based international law?

    Panetta’s oceans initiative was a key partner of an organization that promotes world government, Citizens for Global Solutions. Also, the group’s parent organization, the World Federalist Movement, promotes democratized global institutions with plenary constitutional power. It is a coordinator and member of Responsibility to Protect, the controversial United Nations military doctrine used by Obama as the main justification for U.S. and international airstrikes against Libya and possibly Syria.

    I'm not certain you will continue to sleepwalk through life but these are the facts you choose to ignore...

    [sleeping]

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 5:24 pm on Tue, Aug 21, 2012.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2238

    The length of the hypotenuse of a right triangle can be found using the Pythagorean theorem, which states that the square of the length of the hypotenuse equals the sum of the squares of the lengths of the other two sides.

    Another fact you choose to ignore... [huh]

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 5:21 pm on Tue, Aug 21, 2012.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2238

    Same treaty, essentially the same deal. You are probably right though, most likely, I was asleep when they showed that bit of testimony on C-Span.

    Lucky for us that you were up at 3:30AM adjusting the tinfoil on your Omega Helmet.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 5:12 pm on Tue, Aug 21, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2689

    The comment concerned Libya Mr. Schmidt. [sleeping]

    http://youtu.be/ovuWJQrwpIw

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 4:44 pm on Tue, Aug 21, 2012.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2238

    Their authority in Afghanistan?

    Of course it comes through NATO, that because the United States activated the NATO treaty after 9/11, a treaty that was ratified by the US Senate per the Constitution.

    Apparently the Teabagger copy of the Constitution is missing Article 6. Was that the one Paul Ryan used for toilet paper?

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 3:12 pm on Tue, Aug 21, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2689

    During a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing March 7th Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey brazenly admitted that their authority comes not from the U.S. Constitution, but that the United States is subservient to and takes its marching orders from the United Nations and NATO, international bodies over which the American people have no democratic influence.

    Another fact you choose to ignore... [sleeping]

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 2:58 pm on Tue, Aug 21, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2689

    If, according to your own website, “SJCOG also fosters intergovernmental coordination, within San Joaquin County and with neighboring jurisdictions, the state and various federal agencies.” Why does this “coordination” not include our “neighboring” Sierra Business Council?

    You said, “The source you cited (Sierra Business Council) says in some cases maintenance is not provided. Which therefore also means that in some cases maintenance IS provided.”

    You proved my point when you agreed that maintenance is NOT always provided in ALL cases.

    In California, the Mitigation Fee Act includes numerous requirements for public agencies that wish to establish a mitigation fee, but does not specify the manner in which the impact fee must be derived. When maintenance and ongoing stewardship are not part of the fee program and must be planned for with other funding where does the "other" funding come from I asked?

    You replied, “I know exactly how fees can and cannot be derived.” I believe you do.

    I don’t feel there is anything convoluted in regards to my question Mr. Beckman.

    I do however find your answer, “grants from environmental and government agencies” convoluted.

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 1:35 pm on Tue, Aug 21, 2012.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2238

    No one said that you were crazy for believing that Agenda 21 existed. People think you are crazy because you have interpreted a non binding voluntary international action plan as some sort of tin foil hat conspiracy to fly black helicopters under your bed and contaminate our precious bodily fluids.

     
  • Laurie Wallace posted at 1:33 pm on Tue, Aug 21, 2012.

    WallyWorld Posts: 7

    William! Thank you for the great article. It seems that more and more people are realizing this is a real threat, and it does exist, and yes, Stockton used to be a member until it got too expensive. ICLEI (aka the UN NGO) comes in and helps the cities measure their greenhouse gases. The only thing good about this down economy is that the utopian green agenda has not been fully funded to run over us and reduce our entire standard of living, out of guilt for the environment. It is still happening slowly, though. We must remain vigilant and attend as many meetings locally as we can to tell them what this language means, like Prop 31, which will now measure each cities performance against the 3 E's of Agenda 21's goals, meaning Environment, Economy, and Equity. "Equity" means social justice, which means wealth redistribution. No on Prop 31.

     
  • Kim Parigoris posted at 11:52 am on Tue, Aug 21, 2012.

    Kim Parigoris Posts: 469

    "Developer fees" are not just big developer fees...It's the family that wants to put up a covered arena on their property, the person that wants to expand their winery business, it's the family that wants to build a barn for their enjoyment. So it is not just big box stores and housing developments that are footing the bill. It's anyone that wants to do anything with their "used- to- be- private" property that is now under scrutiny of your government agencies.

     
  • Kim Parigoris posted at 9:29 am on Tue, Aug 21, 2012.

    Kim Parigoris Posts: 469

    Well, one thing I do know is that the SJCOG INC has acquired a grant from the USDA to go in to their acquistion fund. To the tune of 756,000.00. Look at their finanacial records- money is invested all over the world. This is a very very sophisticated organization- not just a little ol' county agency trying to preserve our farmland. The Council of Governments was only supposed to be formed to act as a liason for local governments to streamline tranportation issues- not turn in to a land grabbing environmental conglomorate

     
  • John Beckman posted at 9:28 am on Tue, Aug 21, 2012.

    John Beckman Posts: 6

    Andrew, your arguments are becoming convoluted. I'm not sure which point of yours I "made" for you. Please explain.

    I don't know what you are asking for when you question the Mitigation Fee Act and the alleged ambiguity of how a fee is "derived". I've spent the last eight years working with and against local governments who use the Mitigation Fee Act as justification for setting fees. In some cases we have sued cities and won our arguments in court. There is no mystery to the Mitigation Fee Act. I know exactly how fees can and cannot be derived. Your confusion may be in the wording you cited that "the Mitigation Fee Act does not specify the manner in which the fee MUST be derived". (Getting all legalistic here) by using the word MUST instead of MAY changes the meaning of the sentence. A better way to have said this would be to say the Mitigation Fee Act describes different ways in which a fee may be derived and the local agency gets to choose which way it will use.

    I'm happy to discuss "other funding" if you can tell me which fee it is that has the "other funding" you are asking about. If your question is specific to the SJCOG Habitat fee I am extremely well versed in that fee program but if you are asking about the generic other funding referenced by the Sierra Business Council I cannot speculate as to what sources they envisioned when they wrote the statement.

    The SJCOG Habitat fee program does receive "other funding" but during the 10 years or so of the existence of this Habitat Plan the "other funding" has amounted to less than 1% and developer fees have been more than 99% of the funding for the plan. The less than 1% of other funds received have come from grants from environmental and government agencies. Is this the smoking gun you've been looking for?

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 8:39 am on Tue, Aug 21, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2689

    SJCOG, Inc. charges Habitat Mitigation Fees on acreage being developed in order to fund the acquisition and management of land and conservation easements for habitat mitigation purposes. In California, the Mitigation Fee Act includes numerous requirements for public agencies that wish to establish a mitigation fee, but does not specify the manner in which the impact fee must be derived. Why? Considering that maintenance and ongoing stewardship are not part of the fee program and must be planned for with other funding where does the "other" funding come from?

    Link Reply by John Beckman posted at 9:57 am on Thu, Aug 9, 2012.

    "Andrew, you are incorrect in your statement "that maintenance and ongoing stewardship are not part of the fee program". The fee program DOES include a large component for ongoing maintenance and stewardship.
    Please gather the facts before you post."

    Link Reply by Andrew Liebich posted at 12:48 pm on Thu, Aug 9, 2012.

    "Apparently Mr. Beckman disagrees with the Sierra Business Council as to whether or not maintainance and ongoing stewardship are part of the fee program." http://www.sbcouncil.org/Mitigation-Fees

    Link Reply by John Beckman posted at 8:12 am on Fri, Aug 10, 2012.

    "Mr. Liebich, thank you for siting your source. I have read the comments from your source. Here is a direct quote "In some cases, maintenance and ongoing stewardship are not part of the fee program and must be planned for with other funding."
    "The source you cited says in some cases maintenance is not provided. Which therefore also means that in some cases maintenance IS provided. Which is true for the SJCOG habitat easement."
    "Thank you for proving my point for me."

    Link Reply by Andrew Liebich posted at 5:00 pm on Friday, Aug10, 2012.

    "You are welcome Mr. Beckman and I thank you for confrming my point as well.
    Will you now be willing to tell me where the "other funding" for Mitigation Fees comes from?"

    "I'm also still very curious as to why the Mitigation Fee Act includes numerous requirements for public agencies that wish to establish a mitigation fee, but does not specify the manner in which the impact fee must be derived."

    "Why is the manner in which the fee was derived not specified?"

    Please answer my questions Mr. Beckman.

     
  • Kim Parigoris posted at 6:38 am on Tue, Aug 21, 2012.

    Kim Parigoris Posts: 469

    I believe San JOaquin County or Stockton used to be a member but decided they could not afford the software they were selling. Amador County was a member but quit last year. If I may Cut and paste some information and facts..."In the past 18 months, 138 Cities and Counties have seen the light and that number will likely grow by 19 more to 157 as laws in Tennessee, Arizona and Alabama go into effect outlawing Agenda 21 / ICLEI in those states. Sadly, 63 new members have signed up for the stealth anti-property group that uses pretty words and phrases like “Smart Growth” and Sustainability to trick localities into giving up these rights and submitting to Agenda 21 and the will and law of the United Nations."

     
  • Kim Parigoris posted at 6:21 am on Tue, Aug 21, 2012.

    Kim Parigoris Posts: 469

    First when people would talk about Agenda 21, they were told they were crazy- that it didn't exist. Then when it was proven to be a fact that DID exist, they were told "Yes, it exists, but it isn't affecting anything in our local governments" Ah, quite the contraire. It has permeated every City Council, every County government, Every "Regional government" such as the Council of Governments. Councils and Board of Supervisors are run by "Staff Recommendations" and might as well be bobbleheads sitting up on the dais, agreeing to every Staff recommendation that is presented. And if you look at the resumes of most staff members, they have bought in to the Global Warming/ Habitat Preservation Ponzi scheme hook, line and sinker. Want to see Agenda 21 in real life, in our state and backed by the Federal Government? Just go to http://www.dfg.ca.gov/habcon/connectivity/ click on Final Reports (in the Product section) about halfway down the page and see what these environmental zealots have in store for all of us. We will be crowded in to the cities (Smart Growth and Sustainable Development) so as not to collide with the animals who will have their own connected corridors. And if you look on tha report you will find Steve Mayo, Habitat director from the SJCOG, INC. (San Joaquin Council of Governments) listed as a member of the Technical Advisory Group for it, and now he is in charge of using development fees to buy up conservation easements locally. But I am sure that is all coincidence.

     

Recent Comments

Posted 20 hours ago by jeffreyrinek.

article: San Joaquin County supervisors approve …

Mr. Chang, from your latest comment concerning out of county comments I presume you are referring to me, at the least. Thank you for partic…

More...

Posted 21 hours ago by Frank Gayaldo.

article: San Joaquin County supervisors approve …

My passion is promoting our local economy. When the sheriff does things like waste $9 million dollars on jail design plans, that has a dire…

More...

Posted 21 hours ago by Eric Barrow.

article: Letter: Pastor Frank Nolton forgets abo…

Left wing political propaganda nonsense? I thought you weren't caught up in the left right paradigm.

More...

Posted 22 hours ago by nth degree wise.

article: Letter: Pastor Frank Nolton forgets abo…

Now who is promoting political (right wing) propaganda nonsense? That a sign on a school building (Gun-Free School Zone) is the cause of sc…

More...

Posted 22 hours ago by Ron Werner.

article: Chris Piombo: Life can be hard for a Do…

The Dodgers, just like the federal government. They think that if you throw enough money at something you can buy what you want. With the …

More...

Video

Popular Stories

Poll

Should graduations return to the Grape Bowl?

Lodi Unified leaders are moving Lodi and Tokay high school graduations from the Grape Bowl to the Spanos Center at UOP in Stockton. They cite limited seating, costs and unpredictable weather at the Grape Bowl. But others say graduations at the Grape Bowl are an important Lodi tradition, and one reason many supported renovating the stadium. What do you think?

Total Votes: 50

Loading…

Mailing List

Subscribe to a mailing list to have daily news sent directly to your inbox.

  • Breaking News

    Would you like to receive breaking news alerts? Sign up now!

  • News Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily news headlines? Sign up now!

  • Sports Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily sports headlines? Sign up now!

Manage Your Lists