News from the front…

Democrats, liberals and ‘moderate’ republicans (AKA, RINOs), are backing Paul Davis for Kansas governor against Sam Brownback. They received a surprise over the weekend about Davis. Their fair-haired boy, isn’t as clean-cut as they had presented to the political public.

Davis tangled in 1998 drug raid at Kansas strip club

By Tim Carpenter, Saturday, Sept. 20, 2014, timothy.carpenter@cjonline.com
http://m.cjonline.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/mobile_story_full/13717054_2.jpg

Paul Davis, democrat candidate for Kansas Governor.

Democratic governor nominee Paul Davis was swept up 16 years ago in a law enforcement raid on a Coffeyville strip club based on an informant’s tip about alleged drug dealing, documents showed Saturday.

Davis, a single 26-year-old rookie attorney not yet elected to public office, was briefly detained with others inside the club by officers of the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Department. Davis wasn’t accused of wrongdoing, but the raid resulted in arrest of nightclub owner Marvin Jones in connection with trafficking methamphetamine.

In a story initially reported by the Coffeyville Journal, a series of documents obtained under the Kansas Open Records Act placed Davis at a venue called Secrets in August 1998.

“I was taken to a club by my boss — the club owner was one of our legal clients,” Davis said in a statement. “While we were in the building, the police showed up. I was never accused of having done anything wrong, but rather I was in the wrong place at the wrong time.”

Confirmation of the incident emerged as statewide polling affirmed Davis maintained a 4-point lead over Republican incumbent Sam Brownback in a three-person race that includes Libertarian Keen Umbehr.

The Brownback campaign declined comment on disclosures published by the Coffeyville newspaper, but an official with the Kansas Republican Party condemned Davis.

“Davis’ behavior, whatever he was doing to or with that woman in the ‘VIP room’ while his client was dealing meth in the bar, demonstrates a total lack of judgment and is the kind of behavior that Kansans will find totally unacceptable in someone who wants to be governor,” said Clay Barker, the party’s executive director.

Law enforcement documents containing narratives of the raid indicated Davis had been found by an officer in a back room with a topless woman. Both were ordered to the floor while officers secured the building. Davis, according to the reports, told the officer he was an attorney for the club’s owner.

Davis, elected to the Kansas House a dozen years ago, had apparently traveled to the southeast Kansas club in 1998 with a law firm colleague James Chappell.

The Davis campaign distributed a statement Saturday from Independence Police Chief Harry Smith, who helped lead the raid at Coffeyville. He said Davis had been “questioned briefly and released.”

“At the time of my encounter with Paul, he was totally cooperative and was not involved in any wrong doing,” Smith said. “Paul was only one of 20 or more people present in the club when the raid was conducted.”

In addition, Davis accused the Brownback campaign of raising public awareness of the 1998 episode to distract voters.

“I’m not at all surprised Sam Brownback and his allies are digging up all they can to distract Kansans from the fact they remain down in the polls,” Davis said. “Kansans deserve better than a desperate smear campaign.”

Davis used the standard liberal tactic when caught with their pants down—blame their opponent. But, it the shoe had been on the other foot, Davis and his backers would have been screaming through the root about Brownback.

Erick Erickson’s Red State website dug a bit deeper into the incident. When the drug bust started, the cops found Davis alone with a stripper, who wore only a g-string, receiving a lap-dance. You can read about the incident here.

Regardless, it’s all Brownback’s fault. Sound familiar?

Hypocrites!

***

An end of franchises? Maybe.

A story appeared this week about the federal government’s attack on small business owners. Unions, particularly the SEIU, is supporting the government in this attack.

Earlier in the summer, the NLRB, as part of an attack against McDonald’s, declared that franchise employees were to be considered employees of the McDonald’s parent company, not of the franchise holder. When the unions were pressuring McDonald’s to raise their minimum wage to $15/hr, the franchises were not affected. They were employees of separate, small businesses, not employed by McDonald’s.

Not so, said the NLRB!

Sorry, Unions: Franchises Are Real Small Businesses, Too

If the Obama Administration has its way, Ronald McDonald may soon have to wipe that grin off his face as he stands beneath the Golden Arches. One of the most successful models for expanding small-business ownership in America is under full-scale attack from unions and the White House.

The political strategy is to fundamentally change the legal relationship between locally owned stores like McDonald’s (NYSE:MCD), Popeyes (NASDAQ:PLKI), Taco Bell (NYSE:YUM) and their multibillion-dollar parent companies.

No longer would franchisees be legally classified as independent contractors to the parent company. The left wants the employees of each of the hundreds of thousands of independently owned franchise restaurants, hotels, retail stores and others to be considered jointly employed by both the independent franchisee and parent.

 This change would overturn a 30-year legal precedent for how the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) deals with franchisees.

As of now, entrepreneurs can purchase and run their own stores. Likewise, the parent company is sheltered from legal risks associated with the actions on the part of the independent franchisees. Furthermore, regulations such as ObamaCare that apply to large businesses do not affect smaller franchise operations.

With this change, parent companies with deep pockets could also be targets for shakedowns and lawsuits any time that there’s a grievance with a locally operated store.

Legal experts worry that the franchising model could become extinct. The stakes are huge because by the end of this year, the more than 770,000 of these independently owned franchise stores nationwide are expected to employ more than 8 million workers.

More than 31,000 automotive businesses, more than 155,000 fast-food restaurants and nearly 90,000 real estate businesses are part of this model.

The first serious assault against franchising came in June, when the city of Seattle, at the urging of the Service Employees International Union, enacted a $15-an-hour minimum-wage law applying to businesses with more than 500 employees.

The catch here is that the law applies to franchise businesses if the parent company and all its stores employ more than 500 workers. So a local Wendy’s (NASDAQ:WEN) restaurant with only 20 or 30 employees is considered a big business.

Venture capitalist Nick Hanauer, a member of the mayor’s minimum-wage committee, explained the reasoning in an email: “The truth is that franchises like Subway and McDonald’s really are not very good for our local economy.”

He blasted franchise agreements as “economically extractive, civically corrosive and culturally dilutive.”

Then in July, the franchise model took another hit when the National Labor Relations Board’s general counsel ruled that McDonald’s. can be held legally liable for labor violations because the parent company is a “joint employer” in all its thousands of stores. If this rule, now under legal challenge, were to stand, it would have huge consequences. The parent company could be liable if a McDonald’s store in, say, Rockford, Ill., violated overtime pay or workplace discrimination laws.

The column continues for several more paragraphs at the Daily Signal website. Former US Solicitor General Paul D. Clements Is representing the industry and claims the NLRB is vacating decades of settled labor law in their declaration against franchise owners.

If you are a franchise owner, would you be surprised to find yourself declared a “big business” by the feds? Your 20-employee operation would have to stand side-by-side with companies like GM, AT&T, or Apple. Suddenly, you would have to compete with them in the tax, regulation, and financial arena. Want to guess how long you’d last?

No, I didn’t think so. It’s another federal, statist-sponsored attack against capitalism.

The Crazy Years

Robert A Heinlein’s ‘Future History’ had a period during the latter half of the 20th Century called the Crazy Years. From a late 1940s, 1950s viewpoint, Heinlein, in some of his books, included headlines that would seem farcial when viewed through the lenses of the common culture at that time.

One definition of ‘Crazy Years’ was proposed by writer John C. Wright.

The main sign of when madness has possessed a crowd, or a civilization, is when the people are fearful of imaginary or trivial dangers but nonchalant about real and deep dangers. When that happens, there is gradual deterioration of mores, orientation, and social institutions—the Crazy Years have arrived. — John C. Wright.

How accurate! People up in arms about being offended at common words while ignoring the infusion of our enemies through their ‘open border’ policies.

Heinlein’s future history has been documented in his novels and short stories. While the fictional time period of the Crazy Years, as viewed by Heinlein’s timeline, was in the past century, if you use Wright’s definition above, the Crazy Years are now.

http://www.baenebooks.com/chapters/1439133417/143913341701.jpg

One technique used by Heinlein was to include fictional headlines in his stories, headlines that may have appeared on some tabloid of the time. One such headline, if I remember it correctly, was, “Two-headed boy born to…” We only need to view the headlines on Drudge to see the parallels of our current condition to the Crazy Years Heinlein foresaw over half a century ago. Below is a random sampling from Drudge. If you read them as if they appeared in one of Heinlein’s stories, a viewpoint of the early 1960s, no one would believe they were real.

State Department hires firm to coach witnesses on Congressional testimony...

Mystery 'Water Vigilante' Cuts Flow to Homes...

Border Patrol: Feds Releasing Murderers Into USA...

School District Defends 9th Grade Sex-Ed Book Detailing Bondage...

Heinlein would have been astounded…well perhaps not. He had a cynical view of people. Writer Sarah A Hoyt has a more descriptive view of our current times. She calls them the, “fracking insane years.”

I’m here to tell you these are not the crazy years, these are the fracking insane years.  Yesterday I went for a long walk and because I didn’t have my son – he was volunteering at the hospital – and therefore had to stay off the more interesting parts of downtown, I took an audio book to keep me company.  The book, because I’m writing space opera and trying to internalize his rhythms (and also because I really am trying to avoid using his terminology, etc, by reminding myself what it is.  I grew up with it, and to me it just means “science fiction” but of course it’s more than that), was Methuselah’s Children by Robert A. Heinlein.

When he hits the description of the Crazy years – you know, kids striking for less homework, more pay (for going to school) and eating clay sandwiches and such, I thought “Brother, you didn’t know from crazy.” — Sarah A. Hoyt.

Sarah Hoyt is right! Look at the mess along our southern border. Obama has created an environment where our country is actually being invaded, not by armed troops, although some of the drug gangs will substitute nicely for that, but by teenagers and younger children sent here on a false promise of prosperity. A horde of potential, and some actual, parasites with no skills, no education, nothing to allow them to actually build an independent life within the United States.

The libs say the invasion is irresistible. Others say it’s not but it would be disruptive from the infiltrators already in the country. The inflow can be halted. We’ve done it before. But the disloyal opposition, the libs and open border advocates, is ably abetted by the establishment politicians of all parties in Washington.

How, do you ask, could be end the invasion? It’s simple—enforce the laws currently on the books, deploy troops along the border to combat the armed incursions from Mexico and the cartels, end all benefits and assistance to illegals in the US regardless of their method of entry, and finally, cut ALL federal money to any city, county and state that refuses to enforce those immigration laws, i.e., the Sanctuary Cities.

I would bet, when the federal funding ends, San Francisco and the other Sanctuary Cities, and states like California, would quickly change—or succumb to chaos. On second thought, the libs and their Marxist supporters would probably welcome chaos believing they could win a coup—at least at the state level. Considering California, I’m not sure if that would be any different from the current state of the state’s politics.

The bottom line is that we could reverse the influx of illegal aliens if we had the desire and backbone. Unfortunately, we have neither in the federal government. We truly live in “fracking insane years!”

Property: What do we own?

I read an interesting article today in The American Thinker. It asks a question, “Do we own ourselves?” Now, many people would consider this a rhetorical question. “Of course we ourselves,” they’d say. It’s obvious.

Personally, I agree with them. But not all do. Statists, as Mark Levin and others like to call them, don’t—and they have historical examples to prove their point. The examples they use, people as subjects (UK), as citizens (FR), as serfs (RU), as peons (MX/SP), are examples that drove us and our forefathers, to create this nation, the United States.

Those who would agree with me—those who believe we own ourselves, have historical examples, historical heritages to support our views as well. We have our Judeo-Christian heritage. The Bible and the Talmud document Man’s relationship with God—a personal relationship, not a collective one. If we concede ownership of ourselves to anyone, it is to God, not a secular state.

Timothy Birdnow, writing in The American Thinker, has an article in the most recent issue that demonstrates the divergence of views on people as property. Too many believe the Civil War and the 13th Amendment, Article I, ended slavery. That Amendment may have ended “legal” slavery, but not the philosophy nor the concept of people as property supported by centuries of European thought and writings from Rousseau to Marx to Benito Mussolini, to more modern writers of the Progressive movement.

The Individual as Property

By Timothy Birdnow, May 1, 2013

What is the nature of the relationship between the citizen and the State? America was founded on principles found in the Bible and in the writings of 17th century philosophers such as John Locke.

John Locke pointed out in his First Treatise on Government:

Though the Earth… be common to all Men, yet every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself.

So, all men have first and foremost the right to own themselves.

This is of critical importance because it is this most fundamental principle that the modern Left and Right part company over. Liberals do not believe this basic assertion, preferring to believe that we as a collective own each other. This distinction is absolutely critical, because it informs our beliefs in terms of actions.

The English Philosophers Hobbes and Hume argued that property was a creation of the State, and were not held in high regard by the Founders of the United States. If property is a creation of the State, then one can argue that the State has sovereignty over the individual.

As in communism and fascism, the entire undercurrent of modern liberalism is anti-individualism. Even the Anarchists, though they may seem to be radical individualists, ultimately seek the collectivization of property as a means to grant themselves the individualism they seem to believe in — making them as statist as any other leftist branch. Without property rights one cannot have individual rights.

It is no surprise that the general degradation of property rights should coincide with the rise of statism and the devaluing of the individual. Either we own property — including ourselves – or we do not.

Rousseau, Marx, Mussolini all disdained the concept of personal ownership or personal sovereignty. To them and modern progressives, the individual must be subordinate to the state. 

This is the concept that allows Mayor Bloomberg to issue his edicts to govern our personal lives, what we eat, how much, what we do, and may or may not own. Bloomberg believes he can issue those orders because the “citizens” of New York City are property of the state, in this case New York City. The City (State), therefore, can impose its collective will on their property, the residents of the city.

A more recent example was the Siege of Boston and pillaging of personal rights from the residents of Watertown. In their search for the Marathon Bombers, the State, ignored the 1st and 4th Amendment rights of the residents of Watertown because as property of the state, those residents had no rights not allowed by the state. History shows us that what the state has given, the state can take away. View those photos of people being rousted from their homes at gunpoint, look at them being forced from their homes, hands raised, helpless before armed troops.

Do we own ourselves or do we not? The progressives say no. That is why they wish to disarm us. An armed populace has the ability to resist the state’s effort to make us their property.

I invite you to read Birdnow’s article. It does invoke thought.

Words fail me

I’m sitting here cruising for a blog topic and what do I find? This.

Calif. bill would let non-citizens serve on juries

By JUDY LIN, Associated Press, Apr 25, 8:09 PM EDT

SACRAMENTO, California (AP) — The California Assembly passed a bill on Thursday that would make the state the first in the nation to allow non-citizens who are in the country legally to serve on jury duty.

Assemblyman Bob Wieckowski, D-Fremont, said his bill, AB1401, would help California widen the pool of prospective jurors and help integrate immigrants into the community.

It does not change other criteria for being eligible to serve on a jury, such as being at least 18, living in the county that is making the summons, and being proficient in English.

The bill passed 45-25 largely on a party-line vote in the Democratic-controlled Assembly and will move on to the Senate. One Democrat – Assemblyman Adam Gray, of Merced – voted no, while some other Democrats did not vote.

Democratic lawmakers who voted for the bill said there is no correlation between being a citizen and a juror, and they noted that there is no citizenship requirement to be an attorney or a judge. Republican lawmakers who opposed Wieckowski’s bill called it misguided and premature.

Assemblywoman Diane Harkey, R-Dana Point, said there is no shortage of jurors.

What this bill does is to make citizenship worthless and irrelevant. Citizenship grants an individual certain privileges, rights and duties. Paying taxes, voting, serving on juries are a few of those duties. Apparently, in California, illegal aliens can now do the same. Therefore, what is the worth of actual citizenship? In California, nothing.

 

The Return of the Vigilantes

California has a history matched by few states. It has a history of dealing justice when the “official” law enforcement organs can’t or won’t meet their obligations. The Vigilantes of San Francisco first appeared in 1851 and a few years later in 1856.

The San Francisco Committee of Vigilance was a popular ad hoc organization formed in 1851 and revived in 1856 in response to rampant crime and corruption in the municipal government of San Francisco, California. It was one of the most successful organizations in the vigilante tradition of the American Old West.

These militias hanged eight people and forced several elected officials to resign. Each Committee of Vigilance formally relinquished power after three months. — Wiki

Now, move forward 157 years. The Vigilantes have returned for the same reasons, unconstrained criminality and the refusal of law enforcement to perform their function.

Oakland Neighbors Policing Their Own Streets As They Lose Faith In Cops

February 26, 2013 11:22 AM
This surveillance image shows three men preparing to break into an Arcadia Park neighborhood home in Oakland. (CBS)

This surveillance image shows three men preparing to break into an Arcadia Park neighborhood home in Oakland. (CBS)

OAKLAND (KPIX 5) – Oakland’s crime problems have gotten so bad that some people aren’t even bothering to call the cops anymore; instead, they’re trying to solve and prevent crimes themselves.

KPIX 5 cameras caught up with a half dozen neighbors in East Oakland’s Arcadia Park neighborhood Monday as they walked the streets on the lookout for crime. The vigilance has never seemed more necessary than now; 25 homes in the neighborhood have been burglarized over the last two months alone.

In a neighborhood that has started to feel like the wild west, people have even started posting “wanted” signs.

“You have to walk around in your house with a gun to feel safe here,” said Alaska Tarvins of the Arcadia Park Board of Directors.

Over the weekend, one home was burglarized twice in a 24 hour period, once while a resident’s nephew was inside.

“He was on with 911 when those men tried to kick into his room. That was very frightening,” said the woman, identified only as Inca.

Now, Arcadia park neighbors are taking the detective work into their own hands.

KPIX 5 found a woman who identified herself as L.E. patrolling her neighborhood by car. She said she recently chased down a couple of robbers herself.

“There was an armed robbery in progress and the owner yelled ‘help me’ and I ended up going after them,” L.E. recalled.

The people who live in the area are nothing if not gutsy, but they need help. A plan to gate their community has been stalled. With the police force stretched painfully thin, they may be forced to follow other Oakland neighborhoods and hire private guards.

“We don’t have a choice. Either die or we hire some security ourselves, because we can’t depend on the police department,” said Tarvins.

Remember the adage loved by 2nd Amendment supporters, “When seconds count, the cops are minutes away.” In Oakland, they just don’t come at all.

Some lefties like to boast that California leads the nation. I surely hope not. I don’t want anarchy to come to Missouri like it is, increasingly, in California. Decades of overspending, higher unsupported debt, massive influx of unrestrained illegal immigration and infiltration of gangs and the drug cartels, all the failed and frankly unworkable liberal policies are coming home.

The cities in California pay their elected officials multi-hundreds of dollars salary all while cutting the budgets of their police and fire departments. This is leading to some innovative solutions by Californians—by individuals, not the municipalities. The article below leads with events in New Jersey and continues with similar activities in California.

Alana Semuels,  February 21, 2013

Roles once held by police are now becoming commonplace for private detectives and security firms.

CAMDEN, N.J. — In an office in a sleepy town in southern New Jersey, Harry Glemser’s phone rang. With no buxom secretary to take a message, he answered it himself.

It was a dame, looking to hire a private eye.

But this was no scene from a noir novel. The woman was calling because someone in a car kept lurking in her driveway, the engine running, when her husband wasn’t home. She’d called the police, but they couldn’t help. She hoped Glemser could.

Detectives like Glemser across cash-strapped states have been getting more calls like these as cities and towns cut their police forces to contend with deep budget cuts. New Jersey alone lost 4,200 officers from 2008 to 2011, according to the Policemen’s Benevolent Assn., which tracks the state’s most recent data. As police focus more on responding to crime rather than preventing it, private detectives and security firms are often taking on the roles that police once did, investigating robberies, checking out alibis, looking into threats.

“The public is frustrated by the police,” said Glemser, a retired cop of 63 whose gold chains, white hair and bulky body might make a stranger worry he’s on the wrong side of the law. “The citizenry is quick to say that the police don’t do anything for them. They should be saying the police can’t do anything for them because of this budgetary issue, this manpower problem, this directive we have that came down from the chief.”

In California, where many cash-strapped cities cut police budgets during the recession, residents are turning to detectives, security firms and even the Internet.

After police cuts in Oakland, resident Dabney Lawless encouraged 400 neighbors to sign up on a website so they could send alerts to one another when they noticed suspicious people around; she also pays extra to an alarm company to drive through the neighborhood. Ron Cancio, the manager of a Stockton security firm, said that since the city’s budget battles, residents often have called his firm for minor complaints, because they know he’ll respond more quickly than the police.

Roger Arrella, the owner of TSInvestigations in Corona, said he’s getting a lot more calls from people who say police won’t help them in investigating burglaries, suspicious suicides or identity theft. But once they hear his rates, which are around $150 an hour, they usually balk.

“We get the phone calls — people are upset that someone broke into their house, or stole their car, and the police aren’t doing what they should be doing,” he said. “But then you tell them the price, and they say, well, maybe it’s not worth it to me.”

It’s another facet of how income inequality is playing out in America — as cities are forced to cut their budgets, even police protection is more accessible to those with cash.

“Wealthy neighborhoods are buying themselves more police protection than poor neighborhoods,” said Samuel Walker, emeritus professor of criminal justice at the University of Nebraska at Omaha and the author of 13 books on policing.

Those who can afford it use private police—retired officers, detectives and security firms. Those who cannot afford that price are left with themselves to prevent crimes…and dispense justice. We call them Vigilantes.

We, here in Cass County, are fortunate to have a Sheriff who understands duty and commitment. It’s too bad, Californian elected officials aren’t like him.

Welcome to the Progressives’ world.

Monday Moments

It is bright outside here near KC. That won’t last. According to which track you’re following and which model your local forecaster is using, we’ll get between 8″ to over 12″ of snow in the next 36 hours. One local station estimates up to 18″. My wife teaches on Tuesday nights. She is expecting a snow day.

KC Storm Watch February 25, 2013

KC Storm Watch February 25, 2013

***

South Carolina democrats are planning to hire private detectives to “discover” dirt on their ‘Pub opponents. It’s not an new tactic. In South Carolina, the purpose is to “cripple” the  legislative agenda of the ‘Pub state leadership and Governor Pat McCrory.

Liberal groups lay out blueprint for attack on state leaders

By Mark Binker

Raleigh, N.C. — A strategy memo circulated recently among liberal-leaning groups prescribes “crippling” legislative leaders and Gov. Pat McCrory with bad press and pressure tactics.

The memo, which was first reported by The Charlotte Observer, details communications strategy, political tactics and polling data that progressive groups can use to push the policy agenda in Raleigh, where Republicans control both the governor’s mansion and the legislature. 

According to documents included with the memo and interviews, the strategy outline was produced by Myers Research and Strategic Services for Project New America. It was originally provided to Progress North Carolina, a liberal nonprofit that has aggressively attacked McCrory during the 2012 campaign and his early term in office. Progress North Carolina shared the memo with Blueprint NC, a nonprofit that coordinates the activities of liberal-leaning nonprofits. In turn, Blueprint NC distributed it to its member organizations.

An electronic version of the memo appears to contain at least three separate documents. One is an email from outgoing Blueprint NC Communications Director Stephanie Bass describing the material and emphasizing that it is “CONFIDENTIAL to Blueprint, so please be careful – share with your boards and appropriate staff, but not the whole world.”

Sean Kosofsky, Blueprint NC’s director, said his group did not pay for or commission the research. “We were just forwarding it on,” he said.

On Saturday, two days after this post originally published, Kosofsky distanced his group from most inflammatory parts of the document, although acknowledged it was distributed at a meeting organized by Blueprint NC. Click here to read more about what Kosofsky says about the controversial memo.

The second document is a “talking points memo” that outlines strategies for progressive groups. Policy wins for the political left, the memo said, would likely be defined as “mitigating” legislation, rather than pushing their own agenda items.

“The most effective way to mitigate the worst legislation is to weaken our opponents’ ability to govern by crippling their leaders (McCrory, Tillis, Berger, etc…)” the memo reads, referring to the governor, House Speaker Thom Tillis and Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger.

The memo goes on to describe a “potential two-year vision” during which the groups would “eviscerate the leadership and weaken their ability to govern.”

***

Need a job? Get paid to be a Gun Control supporter. Progressive USA Voters can’t get enough members to make an impact in Chicago’s ongoing battle against guns and the 2nd Amendment. They’ve found a solution. If there isn’t enough support, buy some!

Liberal astroturf group offering $9 to $11 per hour to join its gun-control campaign

10:12 AM 02/24/2013

The liberal organization Progressive USA Voters, which is housed in the same progressive Denver office building as a chapter of the infamous left-wing astroturf group ProgressNow, is offering an hourly wage of between $9 and $11 to join its gun-control campaign in Chicago, according to a flyer that was photographed and posted to Reddit Friday.

“Join the Campaign to Stop Gun Violence” reads the flyer, which also notes, “Hourly Wage: $9-11/hr.”

Progressive USA Voters is specifically focused on the April 2013 special election for Jesse Jackson Jr.’s vacated House seat in Illinois’ Second Congressional District. The group is targeting Democratic primary candidate Debbie Halvorson, who accepted more than $10,000 from the National Rifle Association, according to the Progressive USA Voters website.

Halvorson is running against former state representative Robin Kelly, who has received the endorsement of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s super PAC, Independence USA, which is also attacking Halverson on the issue of .

“Progressive USA will be going door-to-door in this important race in the coming weeks in order to educate voters about Halvorson’s record,” according to the group’s website.

Progressive USA Voters is a project of Progressive USA, which claims to “advocate for sensible policy solutions, hold our nation’s elected officials accountable for their actions and take head-on the flawed policies and hypocrisy of the radical right.” The group does not list its staff or directors on its website, and does not disclose its donors to the Federal Election Commission.

I don’t contribute to democrat politicians…but I’m tempted to send a few pennies to Debbie Halvorson.

***

Greed!

Chicago Teacher Union Prez Karen Lewis led a strike against Chicago Schools and Rahm Emanuel’s education reforms. Lewis won pay raises of 17.6 percent and now she’s under pressure—because she didn’t extort enough concessions and money. If I were the editor of the Chicago Tribune, I’d title this article as “Feeding on their own.”

Union boss who led Chicago teachers strike faces leadership challenge

6:19 PM 02/24/2013
Karen Lewis, the tough-talking boss of the Chicago teachers union who led the strike last September that derailed many of Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s education reform plans, will face a leadership challenge in May.

Some members of the Chicago Teachers Union are dissatisfied with Lewis’s leadership. They think she should have won more concessions from the city.

We struck, we fought, we gave Karen Lewis all the power she needed, but she didn’t deliver at the bargaining table,” said Tanya Saunders-Wolffe, a school counselor who plans to run for CTU president, in an interview with the Chicago Tribune.

As a result of the strike, Lewis was able to win teacher salary increases of 17.6 percent over the next four years. The compromise also gutted Emanuel’s proposal to tie teacher evaluations to students’ performances, and kept in place benefits and job protection for teachers with seniority.

Emanuel came away with his sought-after extension of the school day. He also turned the situation into an opportunity to push for school choice reforms.

Lewis wasn’t entirely happy with the deal and called it an “austerity contract.”

Evidently, some teachers agree with her. Saunders-Wolffe will run as part of a slate of candidates opposing Lewis’s leadership.

Lewis previously faced criticism for joking about the underclass murdering rich people.

Lewis is a nasty piece of work as is Rahm Emanuel. On one hand, it’s great to see two parasites fight one another. On the other hand if Lewis loses her re-election, Chicago will be saddled with a worse union goon boss.

***

My final topic today is an ad the NRA is running in some states. They acquired some DoJ documents that prove Obama really is planning to confiscate guns from US citizens.

NRA uses Justice memo to accuse Obama admin of wanting to confiscate guns

By Associated Press, Saturday, February 23, 2013

WASHINGTON — The National Rifle Association is using a Justice Department memo it obtained to argue in ads that the Obama administration believes its gun control plans won’t work unless the government seizes firearms and requires national gun registration — ideas the White House has not proposed and does not support.

The NRA’s assertion and its obtaining of the memo in the first place underscore the no-holds-barred battle under way as Washington’s fight over gun restrictions heats up.

The memo, under the name of one of the Justice Department’s leading crime researchers, critiques the effectiveness of gun control proposals, including some of President Obama’s. A Justice Department official called the memo an unfinished review of gun violence research and said it does not represent administration policy.

The memo says requiring background checks for more gun purchases could help, but also could lead to more illicit weapons sales. It says banning assault weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines produced in the future but exempting those already owned by the public, as Obama has proposed, would have limited impact because people now own so many of those items.

It also says that even total elimination of assault weapons would have little overall effect on gun killings because assault weapons account for a limited proportion of those crimes.

The nine-page document says the success of universal background checks would depend in part on “requiring gun registration,” and says gun buybacks would not be effective “unless massive and coupled with a ban.”

The administration has not proposed gun registration, buybacks or banning all firearms. But gun registration and ownership curbs are hot-button issues for the NRA and other gun-rights groups, which strenuously oppose the ideas.

Justice Department and White House officials declined to provide much information about the memo or answer questions about it on the record.

The memo has the look of a preliminary document and calls itself “a cursory summary” and assessment of gun curb initiatives. The administration has not released it officially.

But the NRA has posted the memo on one of its websites and cites it in advertising aimed at whipping up opposition to Obama’s efforts to contain gun violence. The ad says the paper shows that the administration “believes that a gun ban will not work without mandatory gun confiscation” and thinks universal background checks “won’t work without requiring national gun registration” — ideas the president has not proposed or expressed support for.

“Still think President Obama’s proposals sound reasonable?” Chris W. Cox, the NRA’s chief Washington lobbyist, says in the ad.

Last month, White House spokesman Jay Carney said none of Obama’s proposals “would take away a gun from a single law-abiding American.” Other administration officials have said their plans would not result in gun seizures or a national gun registry.

A Justice Department official who would only discuss the issue on condition of anonymity said the NRA ad misrepresents Obama’s gun proposals and that the administration has never backed a gun registry or gun confiscation.

While the memo’s analysis of gun curb proposals presents no new findings, it is unusual for a federal agency document to surface that raises questions about a president’s plans during debate on a high-profile issue such as restricting firearms.

Obama wants to ban assault weapons and ammunition magazines exceeding 10 rounds that are produced in the future. He wants universal background checks for nearly all gun purchases. Today, checks are only mandatory on sales by federally licensed gun dealers, not transactions at gun shows or other private sales.

His plan also includes tougher federal laws against gun trafficking and straw purchases, which occur when a person legally buys a firearm but sells it to a criminal or someone else barred from owning a weapon.

Interest in the gun issue has intensified since the December shootings in Newtown, Conn., that killed 20 first-graders and six staffers at an elementary school. The Democratic-led Senate Judiciary Committee plans to write legislation addressing some of Obama’s proposals in the next week or two.

The NRA’s Cox declined to say how his organization obtained the memo.

He said the commercial is running online in 15 states, including many Republican-leaning states where Democrats will defend Senate seats next year, such as Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana, Montana, North Carolina, South Dakota and West Virginia. There are also ads in papers in five states.

The memo was written under the name of Greg Ridgeway, acting director of the National Institute of Justice, the Justice Department’s research arm. It is dated Jan. 4, nearly two weeks before Obama announced his plan for restricting guns, and Ridgeway’s first day as acting chief.

The article is long and I included only a portion. Please follow the link and read the entire column. Obama may not get the legislation that he wants but we’ve already seen that he ignores congressional and constitutional constraints whenever they obstruct his goals.

The Crazy Years

No, the title isn’t about the years of Obama’s tyranny. It is taken from Robert A. Heinlein’s future history. In his timeline, the period of the Crazy Years started in the 1960s and continued through 2000. Heinlein was correct when this period started. He was incorrect stopping it in 2000. The Crazy Years are still with us.

RAH_Future_History

Today’s post isn’t about Heinlein…although he is always a good topic, being a “neighbor” and all. He lived in Nevada, MO. I met him twice in the years just before his death, but that’s another story.

There are two stories in the news today that illustrate today’s post title.

HURT: Anti-gun zealots going ‘cuckoo’ from coast to coast

By Charles Hurt, Tuesday, February 19, 2013

In New York, they are rounding up the crazies. In Seattle, they want armed police invading the homes of law-abiding gun owners for annual “inspections.” In Denver, plans are under way to levy new taxes on gun owners to raise millions for the state’s strained coffers.

If this sounds like science fiction from the Cold War era or grainy reels of the Gestapo in the run-up to World War II, then you have not been reading the papers.

The column continues at the website and I urge you to read it. It appears the liberal group-think follows wherever they go. The Colorado metro areas have been receiving California and Westcoast refugees for a couple of decades, more since the liberal policies there has been dragging those state down into the sewer.  When they migrated to Colorado, they brought their groupthink with them thinking the policies that failed in their former states would work in Colorado.

They don’t.

Now, the metro clusters around Denver, Boulder and Ft Collins down to Colorado Springs, controls the entire state. The 2012 election placed libs in control of both state houses and the Governor’s mansion. Those same libs immediately began their march to “enlighten” Colorado, to do a make-over of the state into California’s image. They’ve legalized marijuana and this week voted to enact a series of infringements on gun-owners.

In Washington state, liberal democrats proposed new gun-control laws that violated the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution as well Article 1, Section 7 of their own state constitution. In essence, the proposed bill would grant Law Enforcement Officers the right to enter any domicile, at will and without warrants, to “inspect the storage of firearms.” The law would eliminate the protections granted citizens by both Constitutions.

The second example of craziness is the article below. It documents the craziness occurring nation-wide in our schools. The concept of “Zero-tolerance” is the epitome of stupidity. On one hand, progressives preach moral relevance while claiming moral decision based on our Christian-Judeo heritage corrupt, mean-spirited, irrelevant and hateful.

The column below appeared in The American Thinker today. It documents events occurring in schools that would have been unthinkable fifty years ago before the progressive infestation in education. What was morally valid fifty years ago is still valid today. These occurrences of “Zero-tolerance” simply provides educators an out, an escape when difficult situations arise. Zero-tolerance removes risk when administrators enforce their own moral equivalences—agendas contrary to the morality and desires of those they supposedly serve.

The article below is written by a home/private school advocate. That, however, doesn’t invalidate his premise.

Schools Jump the Shark

By Michael Geer, February 20, 2013

Around the ranch we usually mutter and shake our heads, but now they’ve gone too far.

Public school officials at Heritage Middle School in Meridian, Idaho put the school on ‘lockdown’ because a teenage boy was seen ‘roaming the halls’ with a … ready? … a folding military style … shovel.

A shovel.

No report filed on whether it was a high capacity shovel. Might have been high capacity in the hands of Big John, loading sixteen tons. Certainly not in the soft un-calloused hands of a school bureaucrat.

A middle school teenage boy was spotted in the halls with a ‘suspicious’ object and the school “resource officer” leapt into action. Only trouble was the boy was on an errand for a teacher who had forgotten the folding entrenching tool, meaning shovel. A prop for a history lesson on WWII.

Local police said no charges would be filed. So the kid’s got that going for him, which is nice.

Meanwhile, quoting the KTVB article:

 … Nearby Rocky Mountain High School, Paramount Elementary, Prospect Elementary, Sawtooth Middle School were put in “shelter in place” mode, which means students weren’t allowed to leave those schools while police responded to Heritage Middle School. Exline says those schools took the measure as a precaution.

Dear God. Whatever happened to a proud and resilient people who took pride in the phrase “One Riot. One Ranger“? Are our public schools really captained by idiots and Peter Principle bureaucrats? Has it really come to this, that a boy with a shovel is a threat to the community?

Yes.

There’s the boy who brought kombucha tea to school in his own lunchbox.

The six year old Maryland boy suspend for making gun-hand gesture and saying … gasp … Pow!

The Hyannis School District’s threat to rid themselves of a boy, age five, who made a gun out of Legos!

The Arizona high school freshman suspended for being in possession a blankety blank picture of a gun.

A Loveland, Colorado 2nd Grader playing at being hero during recess in a make believe game of saving his friends by throwing an imaginary grenade into a box.

(take the blood pressure pill, Geer)

The five year old suspended in Mount Carmel, Pennsylvania and actually accused of being a terrorist for playing with her ‘Hello Kitty Bubble Gun’. No, I did not make that up. Wait, I typed that wrong. Suspended for talking about playing with her bubble gun.

Melody Valentin was searched, harassed, interrogated, chastised, yelled at by school officials, ridiculed by her classmates and suspended for the crime of having a piece of paper with her that sorta kinda resembled a gun. Quote: “He [school official] yelled at me and said I shouldn’t have brought the gun to school and I kept telling him it was a paper gun, but he wouldn’t listen.” She was even called a murderer.

Paper bullets, anyone? A grown man yelling at a little girl, making her cry in public? He needs to meet Trace Adkins.

A Waco, Texas four year old boy suspended for hugging a teacher’s aide.

A San Diego teen suspended for bringing his Bible to school, and the horror of sharing his faith while at school.

Alyssa McKinley thought her Monument, Colorado friend was having an asthma attack and shared her asthma inhaler with her. That’s how they got thrown out of school. For an act of kindness.

Suspended for taking a picture of a teacher napping on the job. Yep, Mustang, Oklahoma. Not the teacher. The student.

And the infamous Jello suspension. Don’t do Jello, kids. Not in school anyway.

Yes, being employed in the teaching professions is hard work, and Lord knows these brave men and women get little to no help from parents who treat school like a Government Baby Sitting Entitlement Program. But c’mon. Be serious.

A West Michigan school district is seriously considering raising teacher salaries to $100,000 in order … and I quote … “attract the best talent”.

How about we start with school administrators and their minions on down to the teacher being tested for common sense, traditional values and hard headed character? You know, like the Rev. Martin Luther King wanted? Content of character? Instead of The Indomitable Fortress of Rule-Gods and their Holy Book of Ever Expanding Rules? 

For pity’s sake, even Wikipedia now has an entry for The War On Kids. You can go here to see what Wiki is referencing.

Here is my analysis. Not American Thinker’s analysis. My analysis. The war on kids, authoritarian bullies sucking up massive paychecks on our dime, the impenetrable wall of ideological ignorance married to an intensely juvenile and callow state of mind fostered and nurtured by American Higher Education has produced a hell children must not be exposed to. The active propaganda and literal Pavlovian behavioral training that goes on in public schools to force and reinforce a Progressive agenda is disgusting at best and terrifying in reality. If they know how to rewire a child’s brain in pursuit of reading skills, do I need posit the next obvious postulate?

Expelling a child for supposed gun related issues at 4, 5 even 6 years old is behavioral modification taken to the level of brainwashing.

Get your children out of public schools. Do not sacrifice your children. Get out now. Because John D. Rockefeller meant it when he said “I don’t want a nation of thinkers. I want a nation of workers.”

Why do I mention John D.? Because it was John D.’s money through the Trust that founded the National Education Association. The largest labor union in America.

In 1936, the National Education Association stated its position, from which they have never wavered; “We stand for socializing the individual.”

The NEA in its “Policy For American Education” stated,

“The major problem of education in our times arises out of the fact that we live in a period of fundamental social change. In the new democracy [we were a Republic] education must share in the responsibility of giving purpose and direction to social change. The major function of the school is the social orientation of the individual. Education must operate according to a well-formulated social policy.”

Paul Haubner, specialist for the NEA, tells us,

“The schools cannot allow parents to influence the kind of values-education their children receive in school; that is what is wrong with those who say there is a universal system of values. Our goals are incompatible with theirs. We must change their values.”

“Education for international understanding involves the use of education as a force for conditioning the will of the people.” – National Education Association, Education for International Understanding in American Schools, page 33 (1948)

“Schools will become clinics whose purpose is to provide individualized, psycho-social treatment for the student, and teachers must become psycho-social therapists.”- National Education Association, “Education for the ’70s,” Today’s Education, January 1969

“Far too many people in America, both in and out of education, look upon the elementary school as a place to learn reading, writing and arithmetic.” – Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, National Education Association Yearbook, 1947

“The NEA’s ultimate goal is to tap the legal, political and economic powers of the U.S. Congress. We want leaders and staff with sufficient clout that they may roam the halls of Congress and collect votes to re-order the priorities of the United States of America.” – Terry Herndon, NEA Executive Director, 1973

“We are the biggest potential political striking force [union] in this country, and we are determined to control the direction of [public] education.” – NEA President Catherine Barrett (1972)

“In the struggle to establish an adequate world government, the teacher can do much to prepare the hearts & minds of children for global understanding and cooperation…. At the very heart of all the agencies which will assure the coming of world government must stand the school, the teacher, and the organized profession.” – The Teacher & World Government by former editor of the NEA Journal, Joy Elmer Morgan, 1946

“NEA and its affiliates are effective advocates because we have power, and we have power because there are more than 3.2 million people who are willing to pay us hundreds of millions of dollars in dues each year.” – Bob Chanin, NEA General Counsel

“I don’t want a nation of thinkers. I want a nation of workers.” – John D. Rockefeller, created the General Education Board (GEB) in 1903 to dispense Rockefeller funds to the National Education Association.

You serve up your child to a godlessness always roaming  in the world since the days of child sacrifice to Moloch. I beg you, get your children out of public schools.

I cannot say more. When our local schools attempt idiocies as those above, it’s time for heads to roll. The first heads MUST be the administrators who allow such retaliation against students, the second are those teachers who report and initiate the retaliation and the third set of heads to roll are school boards who allow such acts or when reported, refuse to remove those teachers and administrators. School boards are the representatives of the parents—those whose taxes finance the schools, and through those parents the children. School boards are not rubber-stamps of the NEA/AFT nor any education union.

It is our right, as voters and taxpayers, to insure the education of our children—education, not political, progressive indoctrination.