To wit, meet Lilly C. Lund, a prize-winning pet dachshund. The politically far-left VPC—an organization with direct ties to George Soros and other prominent Democrats—sent Miss Lilly a voter registration form, encouraging her to submit sensitive information under the guise of voter registration. And this is not the only certified instance of the Voter Participation Center attempting to register a dog to vote.

The Mitt Romney campaign has requested investigation of the VPC’s underhanded election-grabbing tactics, calling upon Virginia Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli, to intervene.

In the mean time, it’s all too apparent that Democrats, and Democrat-affiliated organizations like the Voter Participation Center, are working overtime to steal not only voter’s identities, but the upcoming 2012 elections, as well.

Click below to see photographic evidence of the Voter Participation Center’s attempted registration of a dog:

[Show as slideshow]

[View with PicLens]

The noxious effects of racial profiling
By Dr. M. Rick Turner

Thanks to the proliferation of social media and the motivation and concern of the black press, the biggest news story in the country on March 26 was the killing of unarmed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin by a self-appointed guardian of public safety on Feb. 26 in Sanford, Fla.

The NAACP and other civil and human rights organizations throughout the United States held massive protests to condemn this killing. New York Times columnist Charles Blow wrote during the week of the disclosure of Trayvon Martin’s death, “Trayvon’s death and the public outcry about the case … shined a harsh light on the plight of young black men in America and the shadow of suspicion that hangs over them. It has also renewed the debate about racial profiling — which is completely incongruous to any basic concept of fairness.”

Stemming from this outcry over injustice, the Albemarle-Charlottesville Branch of the NAACP convened a town hall meeting on April 11 at First Baptist Church, where approximately 200 community members and representatives of the city, county and University of Virginia police departments met to discuss issues of urgency regarding police and community relations. The focus of the evening discussion was to open public dialogue and to re-examine and challenge the issue of racial profiling that — until the death of Trayvon Martin — had fallen out of the public mind.

Contrary to the belief of many Americans, racial profiling is inadequate policing. Extensive study done after racial profiling incidents on the New Jersey Turnpike shows that racial profiling is neither an efficient nor an effective tool for fighting crime.

At a 1999 conference in Washington, “Strengthening Police-Community Relationship,” former President Bill Clinton called racial profiling a “morally indefensible, deeply corrosive practice.” He added that “racial profiling is in fact the opposite of good police work, where actions are based on hard facts, not stereotypes. It is wrong, it is destructive, and it must be stopped.”

Law professor and author David A. Harris states: “As a society, we look for equal justice under the law; instead, we get a concentrated focus on black and other people of color. We look for the Fourth Amendment to restrain police behavior; instead we have a free-for-all, unrestrained by the Constitution in any practical sense.”

At our recent town meeting, in two hours of needed discussion, some community members related incidents regarding their experience being racially profiled on the street and in their homes. As the discussion continued, police department personnel seemed attentive and eager to participate in the dialogue. I came away from the discussion somewhat encouraged, but nevertheless still wondering how we can avoid a Trayvon Martin incident in Charlottesville.

One way is for the police to explicitly ban racial profiling and remove race from their policing. Professor David A. Harris, the author of “Profile in Injustice: Why Racial Profiling Cannot Work,” states: “When we use race as a way to predict who might be a criminal, because we believe the statistics bear this out, a funny thing happens. The prophecy is fulfilled and the theory works. We arrest more blacks and Latinos, convict more blacks and Latinos. As we go round and round this circle, we never notice facts that lie just outside our vision. And we never ask ourselves questions … because we have the answers we need already.”

According to many Charlottesville community residents, racial profiling is dangerous, damaging and humiliating; causes community antagonism, and in essence is an ineffective way to fight crime and apprehend criminals.

The police chief from Portland, Ore., recently said that “all of modern policing must confront a central issue as it moves into the 21st century, and that is not just to confront racial profiling; rather, it is to remove race from police decision making altogether.”

Many African-American men and women that I have talked with in Charlottesville, Albemarle and the University of Virginia communities have made it clear that when stopped by the police, it is often the nature of the interaction with the police that they feel most deeply aggrieved about, not the stop itself. The way events unfold after the stop has everything to do with the perception they carry away from these encounters.

Racial profiling and the dubious tactics of many police impose substantial costs on innocent citizens of color, who as a result must bear the burden of public humiliation and personal degradation at a level unimaginable to whites. One University of Virginia student explained, “The problem began outside the classroom. As African-American students, once you’re stopped outside the classroom, your humanity was attacked on a weekly, if not daily basis, while I was at UVa.” Victims often feel emptiness due to the lack of a meaningful relationship between the police and members of the African-American community.

Many of us have followed the issue of racial profiling — especially since events in New Jersey in the 1990s where it was acknowledged that racial profiling was rampant on Interstate 95 by state troopers. One of the primary recommendations following this revelation was for police departments to have mandatory diversity training and other cultural-competency-building experiences that would help officers better understand the correct and civil ways to police all communities.

According to the National Black Police Association, diversity training is not enough, whether in university policing or in the general population. The organization further states that diversity training is not taken seriously enough, nor is it updated to adequately address profiling. It is concerned that too many officers and employees see this practice as an enforcement tool rather than a tool to assist them in becoming more racially sensitive.

For this reason, racial profiling must be confronted directly. A well-thought-out, intentional program must be put in place, not just as part of racial and cultural awareness, but as an issue of whether profiling is morally right and/or the best way to fight crime.

Limited time at our town hall meeting did not afford us the opportunity to discuss at length the issue of police accountability, but this does not negate its importance. We must be ever so diligent and persistent in seeing to it that the system of justice and the police in the city, county and the university are accountable. In a democracy, accountability is a bedrock principle for every organization and institution.

In Charlottesville and other places, there seem to be some questions regarding the transparency of data. I was happy to hear police officials from all of the departments recognize that any plan to address racial profiling must include an organized plan to collect data. The systematic collection of basic information on each and every encounter between police and citizens must happen. The importance of collecting data, including information on race and ethnicity, on traffic, pedestrian, and other police encounters, cannot be overestimated.

The stop-and-frisk policy in New York City has been highly criticized by the NAACP and Civil Liberties Union for its over-inclusiveness and noxious effects on blacks and Latinos. In 2011 it was found that the NYPD conducted 688,000 stop-and-frisks, with blacks and Latinos accounting for more than 86 percent of those targeted by police.

The form that police officers have the option to fill out after each confrontation is being questioned for its lack of emphasis on accountability of officers who draw complaints regarding their brash behavior.

A possible proposal of reform is being considered that would replicate the policy of stop-and-frisk in France, where racial profiling of immigrants is massive. The French proposal would require officers to issue receipts to those they stop that include their own identification. The logic behind this proposal is that officers might think twice about why they select certain people, and treat those they do stop with more respect. In Charlottesville and surrounding communities, police departments might want to consider this innovative approach to promote more accountability.

As it is, the stop-and-frisk policies in many areas are highly questioned because of blatant patterns of racial profiling and because most law enforcement agencies do not document or count the stops and searches unless they result in finding evidence. Consequently, we have very little information about the impact these policies have on innocent citizens.

The NAACP and other community organizations look forward to continuing this most important dialogue with police officials regarding ending discriminatory policing and improving police accountability in Charlottesville, Albemarle and at the University of Virginia.

M. Rick Turner is president of the Albemarle-Charlottesville NAACP.

Who would tell community stories? Who would spin news to the best advantage of city hall? Who would shield high-ranking government officials from direct questioning by media?

For several months, those chores were handled by a small team of city hall backbenchers, each of whom had hoped to ascend to the DOC. But now, after an extensive nationwide search, Charlottesville City Hall has hired an outsider to permanently assume Barrick’s duties.

Incoming Charlottesville DOC, Miriam Dickler, leaves a similar position in Harrisonburg, where since 2005 she has functioned as that city’s Public Information Officer.

What could entice a former radio news reporter to leave a relatively cushy position she’s held for nearly seven years in order to work in Charlottesville?

a) The allure of working for Charlottesville’s corrupt, Democrat City Hall cabal

b) Filling the small shoes of a crooked predecessor

c) An offer she couldn’t refuse

The correct answer is “c”

Dickler’s PIO position in Harrisonburg paid her $47,403 annually—a nice salary for a job requiring minimal experience and only moderate skills. But in Charlottesville, they do things big. And the city known for unduly overcompensating its mid- and upper-level management has not failed Ms. Dickler or its own reputation for internal generosity. Her starting salary, effective August 7, 2012 is $84,000 per year, a raise of nearly $40,000 (and a $32,000 premium over the average public relations salary in Charlottesville).

Why would a central Virginia city of 43,475 (Charlottesville) pay 77% more for the same job than a roughly comparable central Virginia city of 48,914 (Harrisonburg)?

Because it can.

Because it buys political loyalty.

Because Democrats have no problem being liberal with other people’s money.

Because it lends an air of superiority to a town with an already overinflated sense of self-worth.

Because no elected official is minding the store.

And ultimately, because Charlottesville’s chief government executive—City Manager, Maurice Jones—is himself grossly overpaid. High salaries for underlings helps to normalize city hall’s inclined pay scale, providing prima facie justification for Jones’ own outlandish $173,400 annual salary.

The lucky beneficiary of government (i.e. taxpayer) largesse need only be moderately qualified and must meet the following minimum standards:

Education: Graduation from high school or GED equivalency is required

Experience: Minimum requirements include an equivalent combination of education and experience which provides the required knowledge, skills, and abilities to perform the job. Minimum of 3 months of teaching in said specialty area. [emphasis added]

Skills: Must have a background in specified area of instruction. Must be able to demonstrate positive customer service skills when communicating with participants, parents and staff.

Special Requirements: Must be at least 18 years old.

With the ability to earn a higher FTE salary than most local school teachers, police officers—or even the city’s disgraced, former Director of Communications, Ric Barrick—skateboarding instruction should be the new rage in post-GED employment. No student loans, no college education expenses, and no wasted time studying make this the ideal gig for anyone who doesn’t mind a little sun and prefers to dress casually.

While $66,560 (FTE) per year may seem excessive for an 18-year-old with virtually no education, consider the source. Under-qualified Charlottesville City Manager, Maurice Jones, who presumably oversees the salaries of all city employees, now earns north of $173,000 per year, exclusive of his platinum benefit package. That salary exceeds the compensation of the governors of forty-three states. And, it might explain the outrageous salaries paid to just about everyone—including skateboarding instructors—in the employ of Charlottesville city government.

Not long ago, the Grand Old Party was know as the party of small—or at least, smaller—government. Notable Republicans worked, by and large, to reduce State spending and to corral expanding central government. Today’s Republican Party, in word, advocates much of the same.

The national GOP statement of belief says:

 Small government is a better government for the people

The Republican Party, like our nation’s founders, believes that government must be limited so that it never becomes powerful enough to infringe on the rights of individuals.

and,

You know what to do with your money better than government

The Republican Party supports low taxes because individuals know best how to make their own economic and charitable choices.

The Republican Party of Virginia’s creed advocates clearly for fiscal moderation:

We believe that fiscal responsibility and budgetary restraints must be exercised at all levels of government.

Those are admirable goals, in principle, under which Republicans coalesce and upon which America has built her greatness. But history’s harsh economic lessons and the Founders’ stern admonitions against over taxation seem lost on the College Republican Federation of Virginia (CRFV)—who appear to favor greater, not lesser redistribution of wealth in America.

In a June 23, 2012 press release signed by CRFV chairman, Michael Cogar, the Federation argues passionately for policies that will increase confiscation of taxpayer dollars in order to fund higher education:

While education in Virginia saw a boost in funding while George Allen was Governor, a 2010 report by the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia shows that from budget years 2006 and 2007 to budget years 2010 and 2011, funding for each full-time in-state student in the Commonwealth fell from $8,709 to $6,500- a 25.4 percent drop. In the same period, state funding for community colleges fell by 36 percent.

Cogar concludes:

As they go to the ballot box this November, Virginia’s students should bear in mind which of the two former governors running for US Senate stood by them, and which one left them out to dry.

In other words, the College Republican Federation of Virginia is saying: “Vote for our guy, he’ll give you (college students) more of other people’s money than the other guy will.” Incidentally, Cogar does not mention the source of the increased funding (i.e. Virginia taxpayers) that will be used to further underwrite his cohorts’ education costs.

N.B. Michael Cogar and the free-spending Virginia College Republicans:  Study hard, and some day you may learn that money does not grow on trees, is not found in troughs, and does not come in pots. That every cent you take through the force of government is the product of another person’s labor and will in some way diminish the liberty of both “donor” and recipient.

Does the pro-collectivist CRFV position accurately represent the political inclinations of college-aged Virginia Republicans? If so, the elephant of liberty is so tarnished, its vision so clouded, its message so muddled that in many ways it has become nearly indistinguishable from the jackass of Socialism—the modern-day Democrat Party.

Jones, who began his current managerial tenure on December 6, 2010, was obligated by city code, immediately upon his appointment (i.e. election), to reside in Charlottesville proper:

Sec. 6. – Officers and clerks elected by council.

There may be elected by the council such officers and clerks as said council deems proper and necessary, who shall serve at the pleasure of council, and any one or more of said offices may be held and exercised by the same person. It may be competent for the council, in order to secure the services of a suitable person, to elect nonresidents, but such officer, other than the clerk of the council, shall reside in the city during his tenure of office. [emphasis added]

(Acts 1972, Ch. 184; Acts 2010, Ch. 217)

and:

Sec. 5. – Elective officers; qualifications and terms of certain officers; form of government; corporate powers vested in city council; salaries of councilmen and mayor; city manager; director of finance.

(e) It shall be the duty of the said council of five members to elect a city manager, at the salary to be fixed by them, who shall serve at the pleasure of the council.

Through a series of extralegal maneuverings and slight-of-hand manipulations—in collusion with his corrupt all-Democrat City Council—Manager Jones has flouted the law for nearly 18 months, to date, by his ongoing residence in Albemarle County.

Adding taxpayer insult to taxpayer injury, in addition to his now $173,400 annual salary, Jones is scheduled to receive “moving assistance” from city taxpayers in the form of a $90,000 interest-free loan and complete coverage of “moving costs.”

Not known for his strict adherence to legal or ethical standards, Maurice Jones should feel right at home in his new digs on Holly Road, just two doors down from another paragon of civic virtue—Charlottesville Mayor Satyendra Huja.

You heard it first on The Schilling Show.

Neither President Obama nor Speaker John Boehner have said a word about hundreds of billions of dollars that China owes America.  Don’t they know about it? They arm-wrestle over the budget, the deficit and the national debt ceiling, but they ignore a quick fix: get communist China to pay its debt to American citizens and the U.S. Treasury. What Chinese debt, you ask?

From 1900 to 1938, the government of China, like many other governments including our own, took on sovereign debt and issued bonds based on their full faith and credit. The American Bondholders Foundation (ABF) has testified before Congress that thousands of American families bought and still hold those bonds, relying on the fact that the U.S. Treasury bought them too. But then, when Mao ran Chiang Kia-shek off to Taiwan in 1949, the communists refused to pay interest or principal on the bonds issued earlier by their enemy, the “reactionary” Kuomintang administration. For over 60 years,  American families have been bilked by communist China.

In 2001, the ABF was founded by Jonna Bianco after the Department of State, the Treasury, and the National Security Council told her they had decided not to pursue China’s default on its sovereign debt since it was a “private citizen’s matter” and besides, they had more important things to do. But what about the Chinese bonds held by the U.S. Treasury? It is one thing for China to stiff 20,000 low to middle-income U.S. citizens, and an entirely different thing to stiff 325 million Americans whose tax dollars were used to buy those sovereign bonds. What we are talking about, says Ms. Bianco, is $750 billion!

Nobody knows how many of those bonds are in U.S. Treasury vaults, so on March 13th, ten congressional legislators asked Mr. Gene Dodaro, Comptroller General of the United States, to conduct a survey and find out. Those signing the letter were congressmen Ken Calvert, Edward Royce, Lynn Westmoreland, Jeff Miller, Frank Wolf, Steve Pearce, Paul Gosar, and congresswomen Ann Buerkle and Marsha Blackburn, plus Senator James Inhofe. Then on April 6th, Congressman Gary Miller wrote to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to ask the same questions. No replies yet. Perhaps Mitt Romney should ask President Obama if he knows where those bonds are hidden.

Communist China, it appears, owes the United States three quarters of a trillion dollars. Unfortunately, these days the word “trillion” has become rather commonplace. How many citizens flinched on July 31st last year, when President Obama and Speaker Boehner raised the national debt ceiling by $2.4 trillion? The following Sunday, President Obama said, “We are not done yet,” and he is doing his best to make good on his promise.

After that, on August 5th, the vastly liberal economist Paul Krugman wrote in the New York Times, “… a couple of trillion more or less barely signifies in the long term.” He did not say what would happen in the short term.

Then this year, on June 7th, Senator Jim DeMint asked Ben Bernanke, President Obama’s Federal Reserve Chairman, about ballooning interest payments on the runaway national debt. Mr. Bernanke replied, “A trillion there, a trillion here… doesn’t make that much difference.”

Let’s put it in perspective. A trillion barrels of oil would fuel the whole world for over 30 years. One trillion seconds equals 32,000 years, which means if you spend a dollar every second, 24/7, for 30,000 years you still have $53 billion left. A trillion is a big number even to communist China, which holds $1.4 trillion in U.S. Treasuries. Unlike China, we have never defaulted on those Treasuries. So, since China has seen fit to officially say in August of last year that the U.S. “should cure its addiction to debts,” it seems only fair President Obama should say ask the Chinese to help cure our addiction by paying their debts?

But what if communist China simply continues to refuse to honor its sovereign debt, and tells us to get lost? That attitude did not sit well with the British. (China did not sell bonds just to America. China sold bonds worldwide, and estimates put that total debt at several trillion dollars.) When the Brits asked the communist Chinese to honor their debts in 1987 they refused, of course. Then the British government made it clear that if payment was not forthcoming, China would be barred British financial markets. China suddenly found it prudent to pay British bondholders. There are now rumors that China is making a deal with France, too.

Wouldn’t it be grand if President Obama asked the Security and Exchange Commission to suspend all Chinese companies listed on all U.S. exchanges pending an audit? Think that would that have an effect on Beijing’s attitude? Remember, it is communist China, and most of those companies are owned by the Chinese government, one way or another.

And wouldn’t it be grand if Mitt Romney asked President Obama to do it?

 Chet Nagle is a former Pentagon official and CIA agent, and is the author of Iran Covenant.

Stand Up for Religious Freedom Charlottesville – Albemarle sought a permit to hold a one-hour rally in Charlottesville’s Jackson Park and in doing so, were not afforded the same offer of fee, deposit, and insurance waivers as Occupy Charlottesville had been during their violence-plagued “occupation” of the city’s Lee Park last fall.

In his letter, Rutherford president, John W. Whitehead, accuses the city of “fundamental unfairness” and “discriminatory” behavior in its differing treatment of groups based on expressed political philosophies. The letter concludes with a demand that Charlottesville City government “refund the fees paid for the Stand Up for Religious Freedom rally in Jackson Square Park.”

Read or download The Rutherford Institute’s letter to Charlottesville Mayor Satyendra Huja:

 June 7, 2012

Mayor Satyendra Singh Huja
City of Charlottesville
605 E. Main Street
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902

Dear Mayor Huja:

The Rutherford Institute has become aware of a fundamental unfairness in the City of Charlottesville’s practices for granting permits for use of City parks for theexercise of First Amendment free speech activities. Although the City has in the past waived the fees required to be paid for permits to conduct rallies in City parks, no similar waiver was granted to a religious freedom organization which sought and obtained a permit to hold a rally tomorrow. The City’s practice in this regard is discriminatory and is a system whereby the City inhibits what it considers disfavored speech. To remedy this injustice and remove any doubts that the City is creating obstacles for speech it disfavors, it should refund the fees paid for the permit to conduct tomorrow’s rally.

We became aware of this situation after being contacted by Harold Koenig, who is an organizer of the Stand Up for Religious Freedom Rally that is to take place in Jackson Square Park tomorrow, June 8. The rally is clearly activity protected by the First Amendment’s guarantees to freedom of speech and assembly in that it is a protest against federal government health insurance policies that infringe upon the religious freedom of churches. In seeking a permit to conduct the rally, Mr. Koenig was required not only to pay a permit fee of $25.00, but also to pay $332.32 for insurance to protect the City and to provide a $250.00 deposit for the benefit of the City.

It is our understanding that the City has waived some or all of these fees for other groups seeking to hold organized First Amendment activities in City parks. We believe that last Fall when the Occupy Charlottesville movement began its long-running rally in the City’s Lee Park, the City waived fees on the basis of the importance of the First Amendment activities of the Occupy movement. Additionally, we believe a similar waiver was offered to the Jefferson Area Tea Party for a rally in the City’s McGuffey Park in opposition to the Occupy demonstration. Yet no similar waiver of fees was offered to Mr. Koenig for the religious freedom rally.

It is plainly unfair and discriminatory for the City to selectively offer waivers of fees for the use of City parks for First Amendment activities. If the City believes that the importance of fostering political speech justifies removing financial barriers that exist for public park rallies, it should remove those barriers for all groups engaging in political speech. The fact that the City arbitrarily chooses which groups are to be offered a waiver poses the threat that the City will use such fees as a tool for engaging in discrimination against viewpoints with which it does not agree. Indeed, it is a fundamental principle of First Amendment law that governmental agencies must have established standards for granting permits to engage in public assemblies on public property. Allowing government officials to exercise unfettered discretion inevitably leads to discrimination against unpopular voices and undermines those values protected by the First Amendment.

In order to remove this inequity and demonstrate that it is not using park fees to suppress certain disfavored speech, the City must refund the fees paid for the Stand Up for Religious Freedom rally in Jackson Square Park. Doing so will treat this assembly on equal terms with other groups and demonstrate that the City truly seeks to foster all political speech, not simply speech of which it approves.

Sincerely yours,

John W. Whitehead
President

Cc: Charlottesville City Council

In contrast, last fall’s Occupy Charlottesville (OC) law-bending takeover of Lee Park—which lasted for 45 days, presented far greater liability exposure to the city, and was a major public safety and health threat to participants and citizens alike— cost that group nothing. All fees were waived in the name of “First Amendment Rights,” according to City Manager Maurice Jones, who in collusion with OC leaders and Charlottesville Parks and Recreation Director, Brian Daly, worked to make Occupy Charlottesville’s “free speech” demonstration, truly free to the protestors; although, Charlottesville citizens and taxpayers paid dearly for the incessant occupation.

Despite the dangerous and ultimately violent nature of their long-term seizure of Lee Park, OC was not required to purchase the standard $1,000,000 indemnity insurance which was demanded of SURF, and which would have protected Charlottesville taxpayers from liability for Occupier’s misdeeds. Adding insult to injury, in spite of a written promise to “clean” the park upon their departure, OC left behind a filthy hodgepodge of fetid refuse, which—because City Manager Jones waived Occupy’s “deposit” requirement—taxpayers remediated in toto.

When conducting “First Amendment” protests in Charlottesville, the message is loud and clear: if your cause is progressive, you can count on preferential treatment; if your cause is conservative, you will strictly be held to the letter of the law. Although such “unequal protection” explicitly is precluded by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, Maurice Jones and Charlottesville’s all-Democrat, City Hall cabal, will continue their ongoing politically-based legal favoritism unless and until they are forcibly, legally impeded.

 No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. — from Section 1, Fourteenth Amendment

Middle East turmoil is growing. Against the backdrop of the so-called Arab Spring that is bringing Islamic fundamentalists to power in Egypt, there is a civil war in Syria and bombs in Afghanistan. But the worst failure of President Obama’s foreign policy is the attempt to stop Iran’s race to build nuclear weapons — because that failure directly threatens the safety of the American homeland. Let us look at some pertinent facts.

• The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) now has “serious concerns” that Iran is building nuclear warheads. Their report of 8 Nov 2011 is long and complex, but contains startling information that does not seem to have startled the White House. It says it has information from 10 UN member states that Iran is:

• building new advanced underground enrichment facilities and a reactor to produce plutonium, all against UN rules to which it has agreed.
• not cooperating with inspections and is untruthful when questioned.
• developing a nuclear warhead for the Shahab missile.
• simulating detonation of nuclear weapons with non-fissile materials.
• preparing devices to enable an underground nuclear test.

For its part, Iran says it does not understand the IAEA questions and the reports about nuclear weapon development are lies.

Renowned American expert Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) agrees with the IAEA and adds that is may be too late to stop Iran’s race to a bomb, even if the enrichment plants are bombed.

• The meeting just concluded in Baghdad between Iran and the 5+1 (five permanent members of the security council, plus Germany) was a failure. Iran refused to stop enrichment or agree to inspections, and demanded that sanctions be lifted before those things can be discussed.

• Iran threatened the US and the West. Three days after the failed Baghdad meetings, Iranian Gen. Hossein Salami said all “enemy” bases in the region are vulnerable to Iranian attack. “Wherever you imagine these bases are, they are within the reach of Iranian missiles,” and half of Iran’s missile capability is still unknown to the West.

• Last month Iranian Admiral Ali Fadavi said, “… we have a presence in all the waters of the world and, if needed, we can move to within 3 miles of New York.” The IRGC has already practiced launching ballistic missiles from naval vessels.

• The next talks with Iran this month in Moscow will fail, too.After the Baghdad meeting the Iranian regime’s newpaper, Keyhan, said “It can be assumed the upcoming negotiations to be held in Moscow will also not result in much and our presence will only secure the need of the enemy, therefore, it’s best that Iran does not participate in any future negotiation, be it in Moscow or elsewhere.” During the meetings themselves, Dr. Saeed Jalili, secretary of the Supreme National Security Council of Iran, said in reference to the Iran-Iraq War, “…we did not surrender to the West and East’s illogical demands then. And so do not expect us to surrender now to the current illogical demands.”

The next talks will fail, unless the White House gives Iran what it wants: an end to sanctions, and no IAEA interference in its nuclear programs. Obama said that the military option is still on the table. Will it stay on the table? Will Israel strike Iran? Will we support Israel?

It seems that the White House has no burning desire to safeguard the Middle East and American interests with force. It has not even reacted to the news that Iran now has elite troops in Syria. Ismail Gha’ani, the deputy head of Iran’s Quds force, the external arm of the Revolutionary Guards, said, “If the Islamic republic was not present in Syria, the massacre of people would have happened in a much larger scale.” Why does the White House allow Iran to send troops to Syria to kill Syrians who oppose Assad’s rule?

As for Iran itself, the White House has election worries, and military action risks losing votes of peace-at-all-costs liberals if we strike Iran before November. Does Israel have such fears?

In May 1967, Egypt threw UN peacekeepers out of Sinai, put 120,000 troops on Israel’s border, blockaded the Straits of Tiran (Israel’s southern outlet to the oceans), and signed a pact with Jordan and Syria, vowing to destroy Israel. The Israelis then buried their domestic political squabbles, and the sitting government brought the Menachem Begin opposition into the government to be sure there was full participation of all Israelis in a united front. The rest is history. Four days later Israel made preemptive strikes and fought a war on three battlefields, winning the famous Six Day War.

Little noticed in the press, and not mentioned by the White House, on May 7th and 8th, Prime Minister Netanyahu brought Kadima, the main opposition party, into his government. He could have waited until the September elections and won four more years in power. But  he did not wait. Instead he recognized Israel faces the greatest threat to her existence — nuclear weapons in the  hands of the mullahs that promise to wipe Israel off the map. September is too long too wait. So Netanyahu is now the most powerful Israeli leader in thirty years, with an amazing 94 Knesset seats, out of 120. A 78% majority! It appears Secretary of Defense Panetta was right to estimate Israel would strike Iran this summer — this month or next.

Can they do it? Sure. Will Israel suffer? Sure — and Netanyahu now knows all Israelis are prepared and willing to suffer. They will again fight and suffer together, as a nation.

Will we suffer? Sure. It is doubtful that Iran would dare attack US military bases or ships, since that would invite a devastating response. Instead, they will use Hezbollah sleeper agents to attack us with explosives, chemicals, and biological weapons. We know they are here amongst us — they came across the undefended southern border the White House refuses to close.

Would Iran dare to order their proxy agents to attack us? The Washington Post reported just last Sunday that US diplomats are among the targets in an Iranian assassination plot that has been brewing for 13 months. Iran is planning to kill foreign diplomats in at least seven nations.

So what should we do? The White House should stop telling Israel to wait. They will not wait for whatever Obama says. Instead, the White House should alert Americans to the threat to our homeland and encourage all citizens to be alert, and to be prepared to help one another in an emergency. The White House should then join Israel in a military strike to remove nuclear weapons from the hands of the Iranian mullahs.

Failing that, the White House should just get out of Israel’s way, and let them get on with defending us.

Naval Academy graduate and Cold War carrier pilot, Chet Nagle flew in the Cuban Missile Crisis. After a stint as a navy research officer, he joined International Security Affairs as a Pentagon civilian — then came defense and intelligence work, life abroad for 12 years as an agent for the CIA, and extensive time in Iran, Oman, and many other countries. Along the way, he graduated from the Georgetown University Law School and was the founding publisher of a geo-political magazine, The Journal of Defense & Diplomacy, read in over 20 countries and with a circulation of 26,000. At the end of his work in the Middle East, he was awarded the Order of Oman in that allied nation’s victory over communist Yemen; now, he writes and consults.

In early March the Cable TV provider in our area, Comcast, initiated a broadcast signal change that has had tragic affects on its subscribers in the City and in the surrounding areas as well. This change converted a previous Analog/Digital broadcast signal that was compatible with all area TVs and VCR/DVD recorders, to an all-digital broadcast signal that is not compatible with any TVs and VCR/DVD recorders in the area. Not compatible that is unless you rent a “Converter Box” from Comcast, to make the signal again compatible with your TVs and VCR/DVD recorders. Comcast advises its subscribers that the change from the previous analog/digital broadcast signal to their new all-digital signal was mandated by the Federal Government (the FCC). That claim is not substantiated by the FCC document downloaded from the FCC websites. The FCC suggests that this signal change is motivated for business reasons.

The change in Comcast’s broadcast signal has adversely affected subscribers TVs, both older analog and the newer digital TVs, and every VCR/DVD recorder in use in the City and surrounding areas. The ones most significantly affected are those that have subscribed to one of Comcast’s Basic Tier Service packages. Nearly all of the basic tier channels in these packages are now denied to paying subscribers, unless you pay Comcast more money for the use of this new “Converter Box”, a new electronic signal de-coding device.

Access to Higher Tier Channel Packages such as movie and pay-per-view channels, and paid sporting events, have always required a converter box (Set Top Box), and that may well be perfectly reasonable.  But the requirement for that set top box, associated with that level of entertainment, was selected by those subscribers. The new requirement for this new restrictive, intrusive and costly Converter Box, on Basic Tier Channels, was not selected by subscribers and is being imposed upon subscribers for “business reasons”.

The root of the problem is that when Comcast changed its broadcast signal it selected for use an all-digital signal that requires subscribers to use this new piece of Comcast’s custom equipment, the Converter Box. In lieu of selecting a compatible digital signal that digital TVs or VCR/DVD recorders could access, without a costly Converter Box, Comcast elected to broadcast on a non-compatible signal that now REQUIRES that all subscribers, regardless of their Channel Tier selection, to pay Comcast more money.  This new Converter Box is COSTLY to Comcast’s subscribers in many ways, not just in dollars. More about those costs below.

Comcast did give subscribers 2 or 3 Converter Boxes for free, and that was nice, maybe. But there are many homes with larger families that have more than 2 or 3 connected TVs. Now, every TV you have in use in your home over the 2 or 3 allowed by Comcast, is costing subscribers more money. And even if we do not have a large family, a functional TV in various rooms as we choose is our right, not subject to Comcast’s benevolence.

In the first place, the very notion of additional costs to your family for the number of TVs you use in your home is unconscionable! As subscribers we are entitled to the use of cable TV service TO our homes, using as many TVs as we feel appropriate for our family and entertainment likes. To now pay for cable TV service to your home, PLUS now an additional cost for the number of TVs in use (for more than Comcast thinks you should have) in your home, is septic. I am concerned that next there may well be a cost to the subscriber based on the size of the TVs you use in your homes. I mean why not, if Comcast can charge you more for each TV over a certain number that they decide, why not charge you more for larger TVs? The new cost-of-service model (cost to the home Plus Cost per TV) changes the very fabric and concept of cable TV service costs in our area and the State as this writer sees it. Anything even resembling  charging subscribers for the number of TVs in use in your homes should be vigorously resisted by everyone that has Cable TV service from this provider, regardless of how many TVs you have in use.

And in the second place, the above cost issue IS NOT EVEN THE WORST PART  …………… The worst part is that even if you agree to pay Comcast more money for the excessive number of TVs you use in your homes, or even if you have fewer than 3 TVs, you still can not freely access the Basic Tier TV channels for which you are already paying. Not without this new Converter Box now required by Comcast, specifically because Comcast elected to now broadcast its Cable TV service on a non-compatible signal for its Basic Tier Channels. The purpose of this Converter Box is twofold; 1. To un-scramble the new all-digital broadcast signal such that your TV can use that signal, and 2. Worse yet, to restrict your channel access to one channel at a time out of the Box, not the multi-channel access you need for your digital TVs Picture-in-Picture (PIP) feature and VCR/DVD recorders programming features to work as they are designed. You bought these TVs and VCR/DVDs for those features.

At this point I have to explain how your VCR/DVDs and digital TVs work.

• Digital TVs, especially those with the Picture-in-Picture (PIP) feature, requires multi-channel (more than one at a time) access to function as designed. One channel for the main viewing screen and another channel for the smaller inset screen. That feature of your digital TVs will not function without access to any two or more of the channels, which you are paying to receive. Comcast’s “Converter (RESTRICTION) Box”, prevents and denies you the use of this feature on your TV.
• VCR/DVD recorders are a bit more complicated, but the same principle applies. All VCR/DVD recorders are designed to 1. Record a program you are currently watching (needing only one channel access), and 2. Record a program on one channel while you watch a program on another channel (needing at least two-channel access), and 3. Program and record multiple programs on different days and on different channels (requiring access to all of your Tier Channels).

Comcast is denying you the right to access and use all of the channels that you are already paying for, either one at a time or more than one simultaneously as you may choose. Comcast’s Converter (RESTRICTION) Box denies subscribers the use the programming features of your VCR or DVD recorders, almost completely destroying their functionality, and denies you the use of your digital TVs Picture-in-Picture feature. This writer does not believe that Comcast has the right to deny us that access, but has done so by the new all-digital broadcast frequency that they selected, for business reasons ?

There may be some that would argue that customers could switch to using a DVR or TiVo to record programs for viewing later, but not so fast here. Those devices record on a hard drive, a computer-like system, and not on a “hard-medium” such as a VCR tape or DVD disk, as VCR/DVD recorders do. And while these DVR/TiVo devices have a lot of features and a lot of storage space, they eventually run out of storage space. Eventually you will have to delete something to record something else. Not an even comparison to those who enjoy recording and saving programs they particularly like on a permanent disk or tape. Not an option for VCR/DVD owners.

One more cost issue here. DVRs and TiVo’s that will work on Comcast’s digital signal can only be rented from guess who, Comcast! More money for Comcast, less rights for you.

It should be again noted here that the original cable channel broadcast signal before March 2012 included two components. One component was an ANALOG signal that was used to broadcast primarily the Basic Tier channels, such as TNT, AMC, HIST, USA, TCM, Bravo, Golf, DISC, Food, BET, ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX and many others, and a DIGITAL signal component that broadcast the digital versions of some of the preceding channels. Our TVs were able to scan the incoming cable signals, analog or digital, isolate and use channels within our specific Tier of Service either one channel at a time if we choose or more than one channel simultaneously if our TVs or VCR/DVD recorders needed them. Access and use of either the previous ANALOG or DIGITAL signals carrying these Basic Tier channels did not require a Converter Box.

And today as well, at this very moment, Comcast broadcasts many digital channel signals for such channels as FOX, CBS, NBC, ESPN, or ABC and others, which do not need a Converter box to access and view. We are free to access and use the PIP feature on our digital TVs and full programming features on our VCR/DVD recorders, without a restrictive Converter Box, but only on these digital channel signals! We are denied free access and unrestricted use of other Basic Tier channels like TNT, AMC, HIST, USA, TCM, Bravo, Golf, DISC, Food, BET as previously noted. Again, for business reasons??

The above then begs the question; If there were unrestrictive and perfectly compatible digital channel signals available for subscribers use in Comcast’s pre-March 2012 broadcast (with no Converter Box requirement), and if there are unrestrictive and perfectly compatible digital channel signals available for subscribers use in Comcast’s broadcast at this time, today, (with no Converter Box requirement), then why is Comcast denying unrestricted access and use of certain Basic Tier channels, that we are paying for already?  Why did Comcast select a restrictive digital broadcast signal that would require a restrictive and costly Converter Box, when non-restrictive signals are available? For business reasons?

ADDITIONAL ISSUES:

In addition to the restrictive characteristics of Comcast’s new broadcast signal and Converter Box, we have to now use two Remote Control devices. Using two remotes, one to operate the new Converter Box / TV sound and channel functions and one to operate the other advanced features of digital TVs, is only an unnecessary inconvenience to some. But to the handicapped, impaired and to seniors, this new “two remote” requirement is confusing and a serious burden. It will cause most to abandon the use of the special digital TV features they paid for and enjoy, or try to find someone that can manipulate these devices for them. Really unfair to this interest group !!

And finally, the new digital signal change and the new required Converter box costs subscribers more in electrical use.  While this new box is small and relatively innocuous on its own, it is plugged-in and operational 24/7 and drawing power. This increases your energy usage regardless of how little the additional use might cost. When multiplied by the number of boxes you have in your home, which you would not need if Comcast had selected a compatible broadcast signal that needed no Converter Box, multiplied by the number of homes that have these boxes (virtually every home in the area)? This additional power drain on our electrical grid may not be a significant cost issue, but it is the unnecessary energy use that is the issue, not the cost. This new requirement is not Green and is not good for our environment. For Comcast’s business reasons ??

SUMMARY:

As noted above, the cost of the change imposed on its subscribers by their signal broadcast changes is far more than just dollars. The cost to you is in your being denied your right to use your cable TV service, your channels that you pay for, as you choose to use them. You are being denied the right to use your TV or VCR or DVD recorders features as they are designed to be used. Our seniors and the impaired are being required to use two remote control devices to access any of the advanced features of their digital TVs, and Comcast’s new Converter Box costs you more in electrical use. AS stated above, the additional use of electricity for these new boxes, and the additional drain on our energy grid, may not a major cost issue, but that is not the point. The additional and unwarranted energy use is the point. This is bad.

In our area Cable Television and other cable services (Internet and Phone) are provided to the City of Charlottesville under the terms of a Franchise Agreement with the City  This Franchise Agreement gives Comcast something closely akin to a monopoly over cable TV service to our residents, as there is no other ground-line (non-satellite, non-fiber) cable provider available to us. This is good for Comcast but not so good for the residents of the City and other surrounding areas. In other conventional competitive business situations when a consumer does not like the service from one provider, they simply find another service provider. No so in the case of Cable TV Services. There is no other Cable TV (non-satellite, non-fiber optic) provider available to us. We have “Comcast”.

As I read the terms of that Franchise Agreement, provision FA 5.01.F says Grantee shall, to the extent reasonably possible, engineer its system so as to provide all off-air broadcast, satellite-delivered, optically delivered, digital, analog and other signals such that signal impairments, degradation or other problems (are) not noticeable to Subscribers. The broadcast signal change that Comcast has implemented, with the requirement for this new piece of custom equipment, is far beyond “noticeable”. It is restrictive, intrusive, and burdensome and denies access to use TV channels that we pay for, either all at once or one at a time as we would choose. With other digital signals available for use that do not require a Converter Box, the part about “to the extent reasonably possible” was ignored.

The referenced Franchise Agreement (FA) permits subscribers to file COMPLAINTs with the City concerning our cable TV service, and this writer has filed such a complaint, with no response yet from the City. And, following are the addresses at which you need to file your own COMPLAINT as you see necessary:

Mr. Maurice Jones
City Manager
City of Charlottesville
Room 214, City Hall
605 E. Main Street
Charlottesville, VA 22901

 

Mr. Craig Brown
City Attorney
City of Charlottesville
City Hall
605 E. Main Street
Charlottesville, VA 22901

If you object to the changes that Comcast has implemented and feel those changes to be intrusive and burdensome, say that to the City. If you object to being denied access to channels that your pay for, either one at a time or more than one at a time as needed for your PIPs and VCR/DVD recorders to function as designed, say that to the City. If you object to the additional energy use on our grid brought about by the new Converter Box, say that to the City. If you feel the need to use two remote control devices to operate your TVs and recorders to be burdensome to you, your elderly family members or others, advise the City.

If you care to communicate with others that also object to this intrusive change, you can use wethepeople.2012@aol.com, but do not let this dissuade you from filing your own COMPLAINT and let the City know how you are impacted if they allow this intrusion to continue and escalate.

Thanks for your attention and for getting involved. To paraphrase what Edmund Burke said in 1770:  “all that is needed for bad things to succeed is that good people do or say nothing”. So, say and do something, or our Cable TV Provider gets to do as it pleases.

Agnor-Hurt Elementary School, under the governance of Principal Michele Del Gallo Castner, has posted what could be construed as a Barack Obama campaign poster at the entrance of the school’s library.

The highly stylized placard bears striking resemblance to the famous Obama “Hope” poster, and features:

• President Barack Obama’s posterized likeness
• The President’s signature
• The President’s name, campaign logo and inauguration date
• The Obama Re-Election Campaign’s official web site, www.BarackObama.com

Students visiting the referenced web site will see a picture of the president, a video link in which the president announces his support for “same-sex” marriage, and the following quote:

“Same-sex couples should be able to get married.” —Barack Obama

Site visitors (under this circumstance, presumably students) are then encouraged to “stand up with the president” by submitting their email and zip code information.

The Albemarle County School Board directly addresses the topic of student indoctrination in an internal policy guideline entitled, Teaching About Controversial Issues:

The Albemarle County School Board accepts training for effective citizenship as one of the major purposes of education.  This includes, in part, recognizing that many important areas of study involve issues on which differing positions are held by individuals or groups.

In considering such issues, it shall be the purpose of the Albemarle County Public Schools to allow the student to do the following:

1. Study any controversial issue which has political, economic, or social significance and which is within the range, knowledge, maturity and competence of the students, and which does not conflict with State Board of Education regulations and the Albemarle County School Board Policies and regulations.
2. Provide resources containing a wide range of views on controversial issues so that students may develop the practice of critical reading and thinking.
3. Study under competent instruction in an atmosphere of freedom from bias and prejudice.
4. Form and express opinions on controversial issues without jeopardizing his position with the school.

The role of the teacher in the presentation of controversial issues is vitally important.  All sides of the issue should be given the students in a balanced manner.  The goal is for the students to be taught to think clearly on all matters of importance, and to make their own decisions in the light of all the material that has been presented or can be secured on the issues.  Indoctrination is not a policy of the Albemarle County Public Schools.

Although the instructional program of the school division includes many facets of the political party system in the United States, the School Board does not sanction as a part of the school program the involvement of students in activities that imply school endorsement of an individual political party or candidate.  Individual class assignments and volunteer work involving students in political activities are permissible. [emphasis added]

In contrast to the division’s written policy on indoctrination, the overt display of Obama campaign-oriented material at the school’s library entrance in the main hallway may indicate that:

1. A “wide range of views” is not presented obviously at Agnor-Hurt Elementary
2. Agnor-Hurt Elementary’s “atmosphere” does not appear to be free from “bias”
3. “All sides of the issue” are not presented to the students in a “balanced manner” at Agnor-Hurt Elementary
4. Political “indoctrination” does seem to be the policy at Agnor-Hurt Elementary
5. Agnor-Hurt Elementary appears to be endorsing a political party (Democrat) and their presidential candidate (Barack Obama)

In the midst of a United States presidential election campaign, Albemarle County Schools Administration, the Albemarle County School Board, and Agnor-Hurt Principal Castner should endeavor for strict compliance with the division’s own written policies regarding political indoctrination of students. While the posting of a formal portrait of the United States chief executive in government schools may be considered acceptable if done consistently, the one-sided display of a campaign-type poster along with a link to a campaign web site which promotes a controversial social policy, has no place in a taxpayer-funded American elementary school.

UPDATE 5/17/2012 9:49 AM: Controversial Obama poster now removed and replaced with appropriate portrait of the president, per Principal Castner.

View pictures of Agnor-Hurt Elementary and the President Barack Obama poster:

[Show as slideshow]

[View with PicLens]