The lead story for today is another example of liberal agendas. This time in a public library. For years, the Hudson Falls Free Library, NY, had a summer reading program. It was limited to school children. The one who read the most books won. It was a competition.
Tyler Weaver, age 9, won this year by reading 63 books in six weeks. The library director decided that instead of awarding the prize to Tyler, the winner would be drawn from a hat, “to make it fair.” You see, Tyler had won five years in a row. That unset the library director.
Lita Casey, who worked as an aide at the Hudson Falls Free Library for 28 years, said she was “stunned” after a library board member called her with the bad news on Monday night. — New York Daily News.
The news of the rule change was leaked and the controversy began.
Library Director Marie Gandron, wanted to change the rules to end the child’s winning streak. Gandron reportedly said the boy “hogs” the contest and should “step aside.” — New York Daily News.
Casey objected. When TV news crews and international reporters arrived. The library board acted. Gandron was suddenly gone after 41 years at the library. But that wasn’t all. Lita Casey was told she was fired too, after 28 years as a reading aid. When Casey asked why she was fired, she was ignored. I suspect Casey was fired because she objected when Gandron tried to implement her “redistribution of achievement.” Gandron created the controversy and was rightly fired. Casey objected to Gandron’s act of tyranny and the library board could not allow that.
Just another day in a liberal paradise.
What goes around, comes around. In this case, it’s to come to Chief Justice Roberts.
Exclusive: Rand Paul wants Chief Justice Roberts, all federal workers, to enroll in Obamacare
12:40 AM 09/23/2013
Arguing federal workers should not get special treatment, Rand Paul says he does not want taxpayers subsidizing the personal health-care plans of any federal employee — including Chief Justice John Roberts — anymore.
With some in Congress arguing lawmakers and their staff should not get subsidies to cover their health insurance as President Obama’s health-care law goes into effect, the Republican senator from Kentucky told The Daily Caller on Sunday that he’s going to start pushing a constitutional amendment that goes even further.
Paul’s proposal — outlawing any special exemptions for government employees — would mean all federal workers would have to purchase health insurance on the new Obamacare exchanges instead of getting taxpayer-funded subsidies. Some critics say those subsidies amount to special treatment. The Obamacare health insurance exchange opens Oct 1.
“My amendment says basically that everybody including Justice Roberts — who seems to be such a fan of Obamacare — gets it too,” Paul told TheDC by phone on Sunday from Mackinac Island in Michigan, where he won a straw poll of potential Republican candidates for president in 2016.
“See, right now, Justice Roberts is still continuing to have federal employee health insurance subsidized by the taxpayer,” Paul said. “And if he likes Obamacare so much, I’m going to give him an amendment that gives Obamacare to Justice Roberts.”
Roberts famously voted to uphold the constitutionality of Obama’s unpopular health-care law when it went before the Supreme Court last year.
Paul’s constitutional amendment says no federal employees should get special exemptions from laws. The senator also plans to push a proposal requiring that Congress and all federal employees rely on Obamacare for their insurance.
His proposal comes after outrage from conservatives about a so-called “exemption” for members of Congress and their staff from Obamacare.
There’s much more at the Daily Caller website, go and read the rest of the story…like the ‘Pub Senator who created the exemption.
Abuses of power. We seem to see more and more examples, a ground-swell of political, prosecutorial and judicial abuses of power. The article below fell into my email box this morning. It was triggered by the news of Tom DeLay’s acquittal. There there were other instances where federal prosecutors abused their authority as well.
High-profile cases show a pattern of misuse of prosecutorial powers
By Jeffrey Scott Shapiro — Special to The Washington Times
Sunday, September 22, 2013
Despite the Fifth Amendment’s double jeopardy prohibition, federal civil rights statutes enable U.S. prosecutors to pursue felony charges against a defendant in limited instances even if they have been acquitted of underlying state crimes.
Evidence in the New Orleans case was compelling, and the officers were convicted, but U.S. District Court Judge Kurt Engelhardt ordered a new trial last week, saying the government “engaged in a secret public relations campaign” by anonymously making extrajudicial statements against the defendants on a New Orleans news site.
“This case started as one featuring allegations of brazen abuse of authority, violation of the law and corruption of the criminal justice system,” he wrote in his order. “Unfortunately the focus has switched from the accused to the accusers. The government’s actions, and initial lack of candor and credibility thereafter, is like scar tissue that will long evidence infidelity to the principles of ethics, professionalism and basic fairness and common sense necessary to every criminal prosecutor, wherever it should occur in this country.”
The Duke University lacrosse players’ case is one of the most notorious of selective prosecution designed for political gain. North Carolina prosecutor Michael Nifong made numerous public statements incriminating the team and turning the media against the defendants.
Despite the accuser’s history of falsely reporting incidents and lack of evidence, Mr. Nifong pushed the politically popular case in the midst of his re-election campaign. State officials took over the case, dismissing all charges, taking the unusual step of declaring the defendants innocent — not merely “not guilty” — and Mr. Nifong was ultimately disbarred.
Russian author Fyodor Dostoyevsky once said that “you can judge a society by how well it treats its prisoners.” The same could be said of how fairly a judicial system prosecutes its accused defendants. Arrogance, not ethics, is emerging as criteria for prosecutorial discretion, and the result is a society based on fear, not freedom.
• Jeffrey Scott Shapiro is a former prosecutor in Washington, D.C.
I suppose it is a stretch to call governmental abuses liberalism. It’s pure corruption and has been present whenever government seizes too much power—and immunity. In these instances, the abusive acts have rebounded on their perpetrators. It’s a good start.