Where are the statesmen? Where in current America would one search to find an illustration of a “good statesman”? I thoroughly reject former President Bill Clinton’s axiom that states “it depends on how you define good.” Finding a good statesman also depends on a distinct comprehension of the difference between a politician and a statesman.

Elected officials are human beings who are predisposed to spend far more capital to win elected position than they will ever obtain in salary from said elected office. This fact alone causes taxpayers, who are forced to pay for the services of elected officials, to challenge the motive of those seeking elected office. Upon appropriate deliberation on that issue, there can only be two motives;

1. The person seeking elected office is ready to expend more than he will ever get back by reason of the fact, he is community spirited, philanthropic, a spirit who voluntarily pours out his life in the service of a higher calling or
2. The individual seeking office is an ingenious, parasitical, businessperson, who seeks civic office to use the authority, rewards and privileges analogous with elected office to ameliorate himself and those with close connections to the office holder. “Those with close connections” are generally those persons and businesses that provided the colossal sums of cash essential to “win” election and once “their man” wins, they anticipate pay back for their investment.

If the first inducement describes the individual seeking elected office, then he would be better described not as a politician but as a statesman. Due to the simple unpleasant reality that  “money is the mother’s milk of American politics” even those who would be statesmen must compromise in order to get the money necessary to run a successful political campaign. It is not unattainable to elect statesmen but the feasibility of doing so is exceedingly small. Even if a “good” person is elected it is unlikely he will retain his characteristics when surrounded by those who use the political status quo to enrich themselves and those with close connections to the political status quo.

Consider this. A “good” conservative, family values candidate is elected, from a conservative, Bible Belt state. What happens when that “family values” office seeker becomes immersed in the corrupt and corrupting political status quo of Washington, D.C.? He begins to “ear mark” pet legislation. Just like the liberals, he begins to ignore moral values issues, and he becomes intoxicated with the arrogance of power and eventually gets caught up in a whore house scandal! Our “good” elected official now becomes a poster boy for the secular humanist left to demonstrate how hypocritical people are who claim to hold “Christian” moral values. Political power is corrupting, therefore to protect liberty we the people must keep political power as small as possible. The more power we grant government the more corrupted our society becomes. As government gets larger our tax burden get larger until we are reduced to tax serfs. Basic rule: More politicians, more political power, more government, more taxes—less freedom.

This explains the TEA Party, and its almost simultaneous, seemingly inherent, birth into today’s governmental atmosphere. In the truest sense of the word, as our founders fathomed the philosophy and the ideology of these suddenly verbal citizens, the TEA Party could best be described as Anti-Federalists. They are the 21^st century version of Patrick Henry and his political clan. They rightfully seek an end-run around the political status quo. As Anti-Federalist they pursue the right of “we the people” within each distinctive Sovereign State to nullify onerous acts of Federal politicians. They seek an option to “politics as usual.” Even “good” politicians will not control themselves, if it is to be done “we the people” of the Sovereign States must do it! Why? Because politicians have a vested concern in presuming the perks, privileges, and authority intrinsic in the political status quo. They will never essentially transform the status quo. If it is to be done, those of us who must pay the tax bill will have to do it. The chore will not be done using conventional party (or even third party) political science. Only the Anti-Federalist Revolution, as currently expressed in the TEA Party type political action groups, has the solution to an out of control, tax, borrow and spend government.

The United States has been here before, and not that long ago. As I understand our history, I see us rapidly reapproaching two important dates from our past. Yes, of course, 1776, that goes without saying. However, I also see us rapidly approaching 1860. Now, before I continue, I will openly admit that my family roots come out of North Carolina. Many men in my family fought under the flag of the Confederacy. None of these men owned slaves; indeed, many were barely lucky to own shoes, a rifle and a shack. However, they were like the other 94% of the non-slaveholding residents of the south, who fought for states rights. They could not afford to own slaves, and their own sense of Christian Duty to their Savior, would not have allowed them to if they did. They did however see the threat to their lives, and the lives of their children, given the acts of the Federal Government at the time. For their courage, for their spirit and for their sacrifice, I will not apologize. For we can all now see they were right, for we are all about to become slaves to a tyrannical government.

Most Americans presume the War for Southern Independence was over slavery. They have to a tremendous degree been miseducated. The method and timing of treatment of the slavery issue were at issue, although not in the overly simplified moral sense that exists in postwar and modern day politically correct propaganda. Had there been no Morrill Tariff, it is highly probable, there may never have been a conflict that cost of the lives of 650,000 Union and Confederate soldiers and as many as 50,000 Southern civilians and rendered poverty-stricken many millions for generations.  A smoldering issue of unjust taxation that enriched Northern manufacturing states and exploited the farming South was fanned to a frenzied flame in 1860. It was the Morrill Tariff that stirred the smoldering red-hot coals of regional skepticism and ignited the fires of Secession in the South. This hastened a Northern reaction and call to arms that would engulf the nation in the flames of war for four years. Prior to the War for Southern Independence, there was no U. S. income tax. Notably, more than 90% of U. S. government income was made by a tariff on imported goods. Placing such a high, protective tariff on imported goods makes them more expensive to buy than the same domestic goods. Allowing domestic industries to charge more elevated prices and making more money on sales that would have otherwise been lost to foreign competition due to cheaper prices (without the tariff) or superior quality. This, causes domestic consumers to pay higher prices creating a lower standard of living. Tariffs on some industrial products also hurt other domestic industries that must pay higher prices for goods they need to make their products. Because the nature and products of regional economies vary widely, high tariffs are sometimes beneficial for one section of the country, but destructive to another. High tariffs are especially hard on exporters since they must cope with higher domestic costs and vindictive foreign tariffs that put them at a pricing disability. This has a depressing effect on both export volume and profit margins. High tariffs have been a frequent cause of economic disruption, strife and war.

Prior to 1824, the typical tariff level in the U. S. had been in the 15 to 20 % range. This was believed to be sufficient to meet federal revenue needs and not exceedingly burdensome to any one particular section of the country. The increase of the tariff to a 20% average in 1816 was officially to help pay for the War of 1812. It also represented a 26% net profit increase to Northern manufacturers. In 1824, Northern production states and the Whig Party under the leadership of Henry Clay began to drive for high, protective tariffs. These were strongly at cross-purposes with the South. The Southern economy was largely agricultural and geared to exporting a large portion of its cotton and tobacco crops to Europe. In the 1850’s, the South accounted for anywhere from 72 to 82% of U. S. exports. They were largely dependent, however, on Europe or the North for the manufactured goods needed for both agricultural production and consumer needs. Northern states received about 20% of the South’s agricultural production. The vast majority of export volume went to Europe. A protective tariff was then a substantial benefit to Northern manufacturing states, but meant considerable economic hardship for the agricultural South.

Northern political dominance enabled Clay and his allies in Congress to pass a tariff averaging 35% late in 1824. This was the cause of economic boom in the North, but economic hardship and political agitation in the South. South Carolina was hardest hit, the State’s exports falling 25% over the next two years. In 1828 in a demonstration of unabashed partisanship and unashamed greed the Northern dominated Congress raised the average tariff level to 50%. Despite strong Southern agitation for lower tariffs the Tariff of 1832 only nominally reduced the effective tariff rate and brought no relief to the South. These last two tariffs are usually termed in history as the Tariffs of Abomination. Does anyone recall the Intolerable Acts of the American Revolution?

This led to the Nullification Crisis of 1832 when South Carolina called a state convention and “nullified” the 1828 and 1832 tariffs as unjust and unconstitutional. The subsequent constitutional crisis came very near inspiring armed conflict at that time. Through the efforts of former U. S. Vice President and U. S. Senator from South Carolina, John C. Calhoun, a concession was effected in 1833 which over a few years reduced the tariff back to a normal level of about 15%. Henry Clay and the Whigs were not contented, however, to have been forced into a compromise by Calhoun and South Carolina’s Nullification threat. The tariff, however, remained at a level near 15% until 1860. An  instruction in financial affairs, regional sensitivity, and simple decency should have been experienced from this dispute, but if it was learned, it was disregarded by ambitious political and business factions and personalities that would come on the scene of American history in the late 1850’s as well as being ignored by aspiring governmental, business and globalist factions today.

High protective tariffs were always the policy of the old Whig Party and had become the policy of the new Republican Party that replaced it. A recession beginning around 1857 gave the cause of protectionism an additional political boost in the Northern industrial states. In May of 1860 the U. S. Congress passed the Morrill Tariff Bill (named for Republican Congressman and steel manufacturer, Justin S. Morrill of Vermont) raising the average tariff from about 15% to 37% with increases to 47% within three years. Although this was distinctively suggestive of the Tariffs of Abomination, which had led in 1832 to a constitutional crisis and threats of secession and armed force, the U. S. House of Representatives passed the Bill 105 to 64. Out of 40 Southern Congressmen, only one Tennessee Congressman voted for it. Am I the only one to think that this sounds a lot like the health care bill today? U. S. tariff revenues already fell disproportionately on the South, accounting for 87% of the total. While the tariff protected Northern industrial interests, it raised the cost of living and commerce in the South substantially. It also reduced the trade value of their agricultural exports to Europe. These combined to place a severe economic hardship on many Southern states. Even more galling was that 80% or more of these tax revenues were expended on Northern public works and industrial subsidies, thus further enriching the North at the expense of the South. Just as today’s government, through lack of border control and the attempt to forcibly move money from those who work hard to reward those who do not, do so at the expense of workers. Welcome to the New South, no longer a geographical region, but those possessing an Anti-Federalist attitude.

In the 1860 election, Lincoln, a former Whig and great admirer of Henry Clay, campaigned for the high protective tariff provisions of the Morrill Tariff, which had also been incorporated into the Republican Party Platform. Lincoln further endorsed the Morrill Tariff and its concepts in his first inaugural speech and signed the Act into law a few days after taking office in March of 1861. Southern leaders had seen it coming. Southern protests had been of no avail. Now the South was inflamed with righteous indignation, and Southern leaders began to call for Secession. At first Northern public opinion as reflected in Northern newspapers of both parties recognized the right of the Southern States to secede and favored peaceful separation. A November 21, 1860, editorial in the Cincinnati Daily Press said this:

“We believe that the right of any member of this Confederacy to dissolve its political relations with the others and assume an independent position is absolute.”

The New York Times on March 21, 1861, reflecting the great majority of editorial opinion in the North summarized in an editorial:

“There is a growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go.”

Northern industrialists became nervous, however, when they realized a tariff dependent North would be competing against a free trade South. They feared not only loss of tax revenue, but considerable loss of trade. Newspaper editorials began to reflect this nervousness. Lincoln had promised in his inaugural speech that he would preserve the Union and the tariff. Three days after manipulating the South into firing on the tariff collection facility of Fort Sumter in volatile South Carolina, on April 15, 1861, Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to put down the Southern rebellion.  Border States, like Virginia, were philosophically and ideologically compelled to secede along with the Gulf States. Lincoln doubtlessly intended for the mere threat of force, backed by a more unified Northern public opinion would quickly put down secession. However, his gambit was a spectacular failure and would burst forth into a dreadful and expensive war for four years. The Union Army’s lack of success early in the war, along with the need to keep anti-slavery England from coming into the war on the side of the South, as well as Lincoln’s need to appease the radical abolitionists in the North ultimately led to the propaganda of the freeing the slaves as a noble cause to justify what was really a dispute over just taxation and States Rights. Remember, The Emancipation Proclamation did not come until after the conflict had been going on for eighteen months. Even then, it only dealt with those individuals no longer under the control of the Federal Government! Writing in December of 1861, in a London weekly publication, the English author, Charles Dickens, who was a strong opponent of slavery, said these things about the war going on in America:

“The Northern onslaught upon slavery is no more than a piece of specious humbug disguised to conceal its desire for economic control of the United States. Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as many, many other evils. (Emphasis Mine). The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel.”

A horrific example of the damage that protective tariffs can exact was also seen in later history. One of the causes of the Great Depression of 1930-1939 was the Hawley-Smoot Act, a high tariff passed in 1930 that Congress mistakenly thought would help the country. While attempting to protect domestic industry from foreign imports, the unanticipated effect was to reduce the nation’s exports and thereby help increase unemployment to the devastating figure of 25%. It is fairly well known by competent and honest economists now that protective tariffs usually do more harm than good, often considerably more harm than good. However, economic ignorance and political expediency often combine to overrule longer-term public good. As the War for Southern Independence 1861-5 proves, the human and economic costs for such shortsighted political expediency and partisan greed can be enormous.

The Morrill Tariff illustrates very well one of the problems associated with majoritarian democracy: A majority can easily exploit a regional, economic, ethnic, or religious minority (or any other minority) unmercifully unless they have strong constitutional guarantees that can be enforced, e. g., States Rights, Nullification, etc.

Our founding fathers knew and understood this. This is why we were designed to be a Democratic Republic, NOT a democracy. This is what the Confederate leaders knew and understood. They knew the need to limit centralized government power to counter this natural depravity in men was recognized by the founding fathers. They knew and observed well the tantalizing tendencies in both monarchy and democracy, for both civil magistrates and the constituents to succumb to the temptations of avarice, opportunism, and the passion for power. Thus they incorporated into the Constitution such provisions as the separation of powers and very important provisions enumerating and delegating only certain functions and powers to the federal government and retaining others at the state level and lower. Such constitutional provisions including the very specific guaranty of States Rights and limits to the power of the Federal Government in the 10^th Amendment are unfortunately now largely ignored by all three branches of the Federal Government, and their constant infringement seldom contested by the States. The Tariff question and the States Rights question were therefore strongly linked.  Just as how states are to handle illegal aliens and BP are today. All are in solidarity to the broader issues of limited government and a strong Constitution. The Morrill Tariff dealt the South a flagrant political injustice and impending economic hardship and crisis. Just as today, the proposed solutions to health care and government-controlled industry, and lack of National Border Control, threaten to deal a flagrant injustice against middle America. What therefore made Secession a very compelling alternative to an exploited and unequal union with the North is the EXACT same passion that is now fueling the debates regarding the role of our Federal Government all across the country today.

Just as how to deal with the slavery question was an underlying tension between North and South in 1860, it was but one of many tensions. It cannot be said to be the cause of the war. Fully understanding the slavery question and its relations to those tensions is beyond the scope of time and space available here, but numerous historical facts demolish the propagandistic morality play that a virtuous North invaded the evil South to free the slaves. Five years after the end of the War, prominent Northern abolitionist, attorney and legal scholar, Lysander Spooner, put it this way:

“All these cries of having ‘abolished slavery,’ of having ‘saved the country,’ of having ‘preserved the Union,’ of establishing a ‘government of consent,’ and of ‘maintaining the national honor’ are all gross, shameless, transparent cheats—so transparent that they ought to deceive no one.”

Yet apparently many today are still deceived, are deliberately deceived, and even prefer to be deceived. What deceptions that are allowed to stand and take root in our American culture today, will have to be dealt with and suffered through by our children and our children’s children. That is the kinetic energy of the TEA Party, and the need for honest statesmen to again be elected to rule. Unjust taxation has been the cause of many tensions and much bloodshed throughout history and around the world. The Morrill Tariff was certainly a powerful factor predisposing the South to seek its independence and determine its own destiny. As outrageous and unjust as the Morrill Tariff was, its importance has been largely ignored and even purposely obscured. It does not fit the politically correct images and myths of popular American history. Truth, however, is always stationed upon the high ground and it will have the inevitable victory.

One last point: The war of 1861-65 was not a “civil” war. To call it the “Civil War” is not a historically accurate and honest use of language.  Few Southerners had any interest in overthrowing their own or anyone else’s state governments. The Southern states had seen that continued union with the North would jeopardize their liberties and economic wellbeing. Through the proper constitutional means of state conventions and referendums they sought to withdraw from the Union and establish their independence just as the American Colonies had sought their independence from Great Britain in 1776 and for very similar reasons. The Northern industrialists, however, were not willing to give up their Southern Colonies. A more appropriate name for the uncivil war of 1861-65 would be “The War for Southern Independence”, and that is how I have chosen to name this period throughout my lifetime. The running theory in my family had always been, that had it not been for the Morrill Tariff there would have been no rush to Secession by Southern states and very probably no war. The Morrill Tariff of 1860, so unabashed and unashamed in its shortsighted, partisan greed, stands as an astonishing monument to the self-centered depravity of man and to its consequences. A monument that may soon be germinating multiple seeds in a garden of stones, as we all bear witness to the tidal wave of tyranny that is about to spew forth from the pond of passionate greed damned within the beltway of Washington.

In a closed meeting, the Albemarle County School Board amended their previously stated plan. The updated protocol will include a more open interview process, in which each of the 15 applicants will publicly address a common set of questions posed by the board.

The question and answer session will be held at a September 8 special meeting of the board.

Details are explained in this notification email from board clerk, Jennifer Johnston:

From: Jennifer Johnston <jjohnston@k12albemarle.org>

Subject: School Board Vacancy Process Change

Date: Thursday, September 2, 2010, 7:29 PM

Good evening.

The School Board met tonight in closed session and decided that they would like to follow the following process in gaining more information from the applicants for the At-Large vacancy on the School Board.  There will be a special meeting held on Wednesday, September 8 beginning at 5 p.m. at a location to be determined to allow each applicant the opportunity to publicly present before the Board and community.

Instructions for Candidates About the September 8th Special Meeting

• All candidates are strongly encouraged to give a brief oral presentation at the special meeting to the School Board and the public which addresses the following three questions:

1.      What is the most important key to improving education/student performance in Albemarle County?

2.      What motivated you to apply for the School Board?

3.      What are your thoughts concerning funding for the Schools?

• Candidates should strive to be as concise as possible, keeping their presentations to no more than 10 minutes.
• The purpose of these presentations is to allow candidates the chance to supplement their letters of interest and resumes, and for the School Board and the public to hear from all candidates in person.
• Candidates who cannot be physically present at the special meeting may submit a prepared video recording of their presentation (10 minutes or less) by making arrangements with the School Board Clerk no later than 4 p.m. on September 7.  In the alternative, candidates may submit a written statement responding to the three questions.
• Please contact me at jjohnston@k12albemarle.org or 434.972.4055 to schedule a time for your presentation by Noon on Tuesday, September 7.  Priority will be given to candidates who observe Rosh Hashanah, as well as to candidates with scheduling conflicts.

Should you have further question, please let me know.

Jennifer

Jennifer Johnston

Clerk, Albemarle County School Board

401 McIntire Road, Room 345

Charlottesville, VA 22902

EMAIL: jjohnston@k12albemarle.org

PHONE: 434.972.4055

FAX: 434.296-5869

Consider CAT’s (Charlottesville Area Transit) “new green facility” (aka the green goddess)—a modern marvel of LEED-certified energy efficiency goodness. So esteemed is this advanced edifice, it has its own web page, and its grand opening was attended by numerous environmentally revered dignitaries.

However, a recent trip to the CAT’s new den yielded a scandalous brown surprise in the midst of the city’s latest green mecca: Scores of dead junipers ring the Avon Street facility!

At a replacement cost of approximately $20 per, the perishing plants represent not only extreme environmental hypocrisy but also an audacious squandering of taxpayer green—to the tune of thousands of dollars considering labor, replacement, and disposal.

While Mayor Norris and his city hall greenies trifle their time worshiping at the footer of the deified  “green goddess,” they appear utterly oblivious to man’s destruction of the natural-born environment surrounding them.

Such hypocrisy is not unexpected in the Democratic Socialist Republic of Charlottesville, where appearance is everything and substance is secondary—this is a liberal hallmark.

Environmental chicanery aside, those responsible for this dissipative foliage folly should be held accountable for their benign neglect. And from the neglectors’ private purses, should the Charlottesville taxpayer be made whole.

See the brown bushes at Charlottesville’s “green” transit facility:

[View with PicLens]

In an interview with U.S. News and World Report’s Linda Killian, Perriello was interrogated about his then lack of an official, public “Geithner must go” statement.

The boy Congressman responded with crass four-letter candor:

“How f***ing out of touch do you have to be as an economic team?” Perriello asked rhetorically about Geithner and Summers.

There was a time in America when that sort of rhetoric was considered unacceptable from a public servant, “F-bomb Tom.”

It is vulgar.

It is demeaning.

It is churlish.

It is beneath you.

You owe your constituents an apology.

In the bigger picture, it is clear that you are hemorrhaging from a self-inflicted wound­—a tangled web of attempted deception. Maybe it’s time, “F-bomb Tom,” to forgo your Congressional spoils (and your dream for publicly funded subsistence) and join Tim Geithner on his way out the back door.

It’s obvious that the “embattled” congressman did not intend for his remarks to extend beyond the Ruckersville Town Hall at which they were infamously uttered. Otherwise, Perriello would have issued his own press release on the subject rather than waiting for the Jefferson Area Tea Party (JATP) to do so.

While “Truthful Tom” hoped the whole incident would evaporate into the digital ether, instead it was intensified at last Thursday’s JATP Q & A session with the boy Congressman.

In this exclusive video, produced by Perriello Watch’s Keith Drake, JATP Chair, Carole Thorpe beckons and receives commitment from Tom Perriello, to make an “official statement” regarding Geithner’s firing.

Will Tom Perriello keep his word?

See Perriello’s promise to Carole Thorpe:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKu01l_b-hI

www.youtube.com/watch?v=bc2XuvvMsEw

In a rare moment of “accidental honesty affliction” or “AHA,” Congressman Tom Perriello told a group of constituents last March: “If you don’t tie our hands, we will keep stealing.” (emphasis added).

Video of the event produced and posted by The Schilling Show made the national news. While many chided Congressman Perriello for the embarrassment of his AHA moment, others applauded him for his honesty.

And rightfully so, on both counts.

But now he’s campaigning for reelection, and it’s hard to run from an AHA moment when the YouTube video has over 30,000 hits.

Instead, Perriello tries to spin his remarks to his advantage. At a town meeting he hosted last Friday, he deftly rephrased his initial AHA remark to:

“Congress will continue to steal from people unless they’re given no other option.”

and

“Congress will keep stealing unless they’re given no other choice.” (again, emphasis added)

He even refers to it as one of his “favorite quotes.”  Indeed.

He goes on to talk about how “corrupt” Congress is, how we need to fix things in Washington, and yes, he even throws in the obligatory “blame Bush” reference.

It is not insignificant that Congressman Perriello attempts to distance himself from the corruption in Washington by now referring to “Congress” and “they” instead of his original “our” and “we.”

But his original AHA remark was on the mark.  Despite his attempts to pretend he is not part of congressional corruption, it is apparent from his voting record that he is part of the problem, for sure.

During the town hall meeting, another constituent asked him what he would tell our children about the national debt we’re leaving them, due in large part to the failed and so-called “stimulus” spending, national health care, and other major initiatives that spend money we don’t have.

His response: “I think we will … get rid of it — that’s what we gotta do.”

Simple as that. No explanation as to “how” we’ll get rid of it--other than a weak reference to “making tough decisions.” Perriello’s lack of specificity in dealing with our national debt — coupled with his appetite to spend other people’s money — clearly indicates he is part of the corruption, not the solution.

As much as he tries to hide from his record, it is there, and his constituents know it. The profound effect of his tax-and-spend votes on the course of our nation is not lost on voters in Virginia’s 5th District.

An attendee at the meeting gave the best response: “I am not going to accept that from any of our representatives. They should, on their own, be trying to do what’s best for the taxpayers … because I’m not going to accept that I need to tie their hands so that they’re not going to keep stealing our taxpayer money.”

Amen.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpiMTXvvQBI

My name is Steve Peters, a United States citizen and a disenfranchised constituent of Virginia Democrat Congressman Tom Perriello (VA-05).

On August 7, 2010, in Fork Union, Virginia, I was barred from exercising my right to free speech—a right endowed to me by my Creator and guaranteed to me by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. This travesty was perpetrated by a representative of Congressman Perriello, with the Congressman’s full knowledge and consent.

If Congressman Perriello’s name sounds familiar, you are not imagining things. This is the very same Democrat who arrogantly stated, “If you don’t tie our hands, we will keep stealing,” some months back. Now, I’m doubly incensed, as Perriello has graduated from stealing my money to stealing my rights.

This video footage shows the exchange that took place when a young man (Joe Topham) approached our group as we were gathered in the parking lot, prepping our signs for display in Congressman Perriello’s town hall meeting that morning. Topham did not identify himself beforehand, acting as though he was an official associated with the building’s management. During the initial conversation he firmly stated that NO SIGNS would be allowed inside the building.

Several minutes into the discussion Mr. Topham reluctantly conceded that he was actually employed by Tom Perriello as the manager of Perriello’s Farmville field office. Upon this revelation, I became upset over not only the sign ban, but also over the manner in which Topham attempted to conceal his direct relationship with Congressman Perriello.

In an attempt to mitigate Perriello’s breach of my rights, I appealed to his district director, Ridge Schuyler, to drop the sign-ban. He summarily dismissed my concerns.

After attending another town hall meeting in which signs were prohibited, I contacted the Rutherford Institute, a civil rights organization specializing in First Amendment issues. Through Rutherford’s intervention, Perriello immediately rescinded the sign ban.

But, the story did not die. Instead, it went “national” as information outlets across America covered Perriello’s attempted end-run around the Constitution.

Here, for the first time, you can actually witness the Congressman’s underhanded efforts to silence dissent. Let this videotaped confrontation serve as a record of Democrat Congressman Tom Perriello’s union-inspired attempt to steal my (and many others’) right to freedom of speech.

Don’t think it can’t happen to you. It happened to me.

Perriello’s explicit demand was voiced in response to a constituent-posed question at the August 20, 2010 Ruckersville, Virginia town hall meeting:

Constituent: “Which of the President’s policies do you like the least”?

Perriello: “You know, I’ve called for Secretary Geithner to be fired…”

Well, that settles it.

Tom Perriello has spoken! Are you listening, President Obama?

P.S. Regarding your answer, Congressman Perriello, nice dodge. Tim Geithner may be an easy target, but he’s certainly not a “policy.” He is a person.

P.P.S. We’re anxiously awaiting your press release regarding your “call to fire” Secretary Geithner. Please forward at your earliest convenience.

See exclusive video of Tom Perriello’s call to fire Timothy Geithner:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoZU74pIfyY

For over ten years, the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority (CRHA) has struggled with issues involving finance, management and maintenance of the city’s current 376 public housing units. Over two years ago, the Board of Commissioners of the CRHA decided to hire a consultant, Wallace, Roberts & Todd, LLC (WRT), to help it come up with solutions to address these three desired outcomes:

1. to improve the quality of life for residents served by our apartments and programs;
2. to become more financially sustainable and less reliant upon federal HUD funding; and
3. to create thriving, energy-efficient, mixed-income communities to help de-concentrate poverty in the city.

The Board decided that a combination of remodeling and redevelopment of existing structures may be a solution and appointed a redevelopment committee to work with the consultant, community and Board to oversee the future redevelopment process of the existing seven public housing sites and the possible development of a vacant lot on Levy Avenue near Avon Street owned by CRHA. WRT presented a series of scenarios in Design Scenarios to the Board that included a possible substantial build-out on three existing sites and on the Levy Avenue site. Westhaven on Hardy Drive could go from 126 units to 180, Sixth Street Southeast from 25 units to 40, South First Street from 58 to 90 units and Levy Avenue could receive up to 80 new units.

There was a great deal of discussion surrounding the scenarios between the committee, Board, staff, WRT, and the residents of the sites. Adjustments were made by WRT to take into consideration those comments and a Draft Master Plan was produced. The board hoped that this phase would finish up in time for it to adopt a Final Master Plan for Redevelopment this summer. During this process, I was accurately quoted in an article by the Cville Weekly as saying, “My first impression was a bunch of chickens in crates on the back of a truck,” referring to the marked increase in density by stacking units one on top of another at several of the sites.

Later, it was announced that some of the members of the redevelopment committee wanted to see what even higher densities would look like in spite of previous indications by most residents on certain sites of disfavor and WRT was set to the task. It seems the process was devolving to a process of seeing just how many people could be crammed in. I immediately thought of the trade ships that sailed from Britain, to Africa, and then on to the Americas several centuries ago and the changing process for maximizing income. First, put a few slaves in the empty space in the cargo hole and sell them in England for an extra cash bonus. Then, put in a lot more and sell them in the colonies. Last, give the majority of cargo space to pack the slaves in as tightly as possible to maximize profits.

Why have I brought in the element of race? Public housing in Charlottesville has been predominantly black ever since it was built, still is, and there is evidence that it will remain so. This passage, taken from the Consolidated Plan for the City of Charlottesville and the Thomas Jefferson HOME Consortium, Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, 2008, p. CP – 25 provides the evidence.

“The region’s minority population is almost exclusively black or African American, with 22.2% in the City of Charlottesville, 21.6% in Louisa County, 18.4% in Fluvanna County, 14.9% in Nelson County, 9.7% in Albemarle County, and 6.4% in Greene County. Other minorities are greatest in the City of Charlottesville, with 4.9% Asian, 2.4% of Hispanic or Latino origin, 0.1% American Indian, and 3.1% responding as “some other race” or “two or more races,” according to the 2000 Census. In Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson counties, other minorities made up between 2-7% of the population, with the greatest percentage (6.7%) in Albemarle County.

“The region’s minority populations, with a higher incidence of poverty, are in need of safe, decent and affordable housing at a rate higher than the overall population. As a result, the housing programs detailed in this Consolidated Plan emphasize service to the region’s minority citizens.”

To me, the mental process of cramming people into such density today is no different than the process that led to the move to dedicated slave ships. When I showed the revised-for-density scenarios to other blacks, they immediately saw my point and encouraged me to make my opinion public.

A broader look should be taken of the area that lies east of Second Street SE and west of Avon Street and between Garrett Street and Monticello Avenue. In this area, in addition to the 150 subsidized housing units at Friendship Court, it is proposed to have 105 units at Crescent Hall, 108 units at Sixth Street and at least 36 units at Levy Avenue. What Charlottesville is inadvertently creating physically is economic and racial pseudo-townships.

Although the new housing is supposed to include “mixed income” and “market rate” housing, none of these units are earmarked for what is termed “moderate income” which is considered by TJPDC as having household incomes of between 81% to 95% of the Area Medium Income (AMI). Three levels of “low income” are recognized in the Consolidated Plan: extremely low income ( 0 – 30% of AMI), very low income (51 – 80% of AMI), and low income (51 – 80% of AMI). It appears that the housing are for people earning 60% of AMI or less which is considered “low income.” Low-income families can not afford “market-rate” housing without subsidy. And, too, the proposed population explosion and resulting congestion at Westhaven is mentally gagging. The Plan will have exactly the opposite effect of goal 3 (de-concentrating poverty) of the redevelopment process as outlined in the first paragraph. It appears it will increase the concentration of poverty and race.

The new higher density scenarios, called Alternative #6, take Westhaven from 126 to 255 units, Sixth Street Southwest from 25 to 108 units, and South First Street from 58 to 116 units. Building with such densities in neighborhoods that are characterized mainly by single-family detached structures will cause public housing sites to stick out like a sore thumb. Can we really say that the quality of life for public housing residents and their surrounding neighbors will improve as the density increases? HUD has not thought so since it adopted the scattered-site philosophy. The woes of Westhaven, for example, have been chronicled in the press for forty years. Does anyone really believe that increasing the density at Westhaven will have a positive effect on the residents’ quality of life? Without these solutions devised, goal 1 (quality of life) of the redevelopment process outlined in the first paragraph can not possibly be attained and will get lost in the excitement of proceeding with the project.

Its time for the general public to take notice. This expansive build-out of low income housing in the city will bring forth issues related to the concentration of poverty and race, neighborhood design compatibility, school population and student achievement, and social stratification, among a host of others. These issues have been acknowledged by the redevelopment committee but have not been addressed yet by the committee or CRHA. They should be before any final master plan is adopted by the city. The time to deal with these issues is now, not later. After all, we are dealing with people, not chickens.

In the 8/22/10 edition of the Daily Perriello, McNeill pens a feature story on Virginia’s three 5^th District Congressional candidates and their respective positions on the 14^th Amendment. Amazingly, the slanted spread includes extensive quotes from every candidate—except Tom Perriello.

In fact, “Timid Tom” is cited only indirectly while the exact words of independent Jeff Clark and (especially) Republican Robert Hurt are referenced repeatedly by Lefty McNeill.

McNeill mostly hides the Congressman behind the skirt of his spokesman, Jessica Barba, who primarily attacks Hurt and provides no position of substance for incumbent Perriello.

Lefty further bolsters his boy, Tom, by portraying Perriello as being tough on illegal immigration because of a recent vote he took:

Perriello, for his part, voted last week in favor of a major border security bill that will generate $600 million to boost the number of border patrol officers and unmanned aerial vehicles patrolling the border in an effort to curtail illegal immigration.

“Timid Tom” may well have cast an “aye,” but for the record, Lefty, HR 6080—to which you refer—was passed by “voice vote” according to govtrack.us; there is no record of individual votes.

But where are Tom’s actual words? As a former “national security consultant,” surely, he must have something to say on the subject of America’s illegal alien invasion—a dire threat to U.S. national security.

And, what is “Timid Tom’s” actual record on illegal immigration-related issues. He has been in office since January of 2009 and should have staked a position (or two) somewhere along the way.

More astounding, though, than “Timid Tom’s” silence on the subject, is the lack of editorial oversight at the Daily Perriello.

How can the incumbent repetitively receive such favorable treatment while the challengers are heavily scrutinized?

Where is managing editor, McGregor McCance, when the reading public needs him to insure non-biased reporting in the midst of a critical election?

It’s time to clean house, Daily Perriello. Lefty may love Tom, but your “news” columns are the last place he should be expressing his affections.