Charlottesville, Virginia, a political stronghold of Marxist-leaning Democrat elected officials, has a serious white-on-black racial discrimination problem.

Charlottesville, Virginia, home to a concentration of socially evolved progressives (e.g. pro “marriage rights” and abortion on-demand), has a serious white-on-black racial discrimination problem.

Charlottesville, Virginia, a politically enlightened community, which voted 80% Democrat in the most recent State and Federal elections, has a serious white-on-black racial discrimination problem.

Charlottesville, Virginia is a community apparently populated with liberal white racists. Or so implies University of Virginia Professor Walt Heinecke’s recent proposal to Charlottesville City Council: Charlottesville Commission on Human Rights, Diversity, and Race Relations

According to Heinecke’s report, Charlottesville, Virginia’s serious white-on-black racial discrimination problem is manifested in racially prejudicial hiring practices in private employment—practices that cannot effectively be addressed by existing State and Federal equal-employment laws.

According to Heinecke’s report, Charlottesville, Virginia’s serious white-on-black racial discrimination problem is manifested in racially prejudicial rental practices in private housing—practices that cannot effectively be addressed by existing State and Federal fair-housing laws.

And, most surprisingly (to some), community conversations suggest that Charlottesville, Virginia’s serious white-on-black racial discrimination problem is manifested in racially prejudicial employment practices inside Charlottesville City Hall—an institution run by Democrats and for Democrats essentially since its inception.

Professor Heinecke envisions the proposed Human Rights Commission as a government-appointed body endowed with investigative, prosecutorial, and judicial powers—a body empowered to impose fines and condemn with public consternation “convicted” transgressors deemed “guilty” by Commission appointees.

While Charlottesville City Hall was the only named violator of existing equal-opportunity statutes during a recent City Council discussion on racism, that avowedly racist institution apparently is exempt from prosecution under Heinecke’s plan:

To engage in anti-discrimination enforcement activities including the investigation and resolution of claims of discrimination in private employment and housing as defined by a new City Ordinance. The Commission would have the power to hold hearings, conduct investigations, issue reports, impose fines and remedies. We recommend that the Commission should be structured to be eligible for designation as a Fair Employment Practices Agency (FEPA) in a contract with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). That means it would receive and process complaints of discrimination in private employment from residents of Charlottesville. [emphasis added]

How could Charlottesville City Hall, arguably the City’s most egregious and prodigious racial offender—an organization that allegedly has institutionalized racist employment practices—be exempt from the Commission’s mandate?

According to Mayor Satyendra Huja, it will not. In January 23 interview on WINA’s The Schilling Show, Huja categorically stated that he would not support Heinecke’s proposal if the Commission exempted government from its purview:

SCHILLING: Why would we exempt the government [from Charlottesville Human Rights Commission oversight] when they are acknowledged as a problem by at least several councilors? Or do you disagree with that?

HUJA: I don’t think, uh, I was unaware that the government was exempt from any consternation…

SCHILLING: Oh, they were. Go read, uh, go read Mr. Heinecke’s proposal. It exempts the government; it is only…

HUJA: I see no reason…

SCHILLING: It is only for private landlords and private businesses

HUJA: I see no reason if you’re going to have commission, uh, the government should be exempt. Uh, no reason for it.

SCHILLING: So you wouldn’t support it under any circumstances if the government was exempt?

HUJA: Well, uh, shouldn’t be exempt.

SCHILLING: So you wouldn’t support it under any circumstances if the government was exempt? In this final proposal, if it came before you, you wouldn’t do that.

HUJA: I, I don’t understand why government is exempt; I don’t see any reason.

SCHILLING: Okay, so you wouldn’t support it.

HUJA: No.

Hear the Huja/Schilling exchange on the proposed exclusion of government from Human Rights Commission purview:

Given Mayor Huja’s additional stated concerns about the $200,000-$300,000 annual cost of the Commission on Human Rights and the lack of data to support its necessity, Heinecke’s current proposal may be DOA before Charlottesville City Council without significant modification.

Regardless of Council’s ultimate action on Heinecke’s remedial proposition, the question remains: Why would Professor Heinecke and his Community Dialogue on Race “working group” champion a proposal that exempts Charlottesville City Hall, purportedly the city’s most notorious racial malefactor?

(Satyendra Huja photo courtesy of Charlottesville Tomorrow.)

Schilling Show Exclusive: Click to play Part of the 99 as sung by Ms. Murray’s 3^rd grade class

Initially, after becoming embroiled in a national school-indoctrination scandal, KPA along with Albemarle County School Administration insisted that the children in Ms. Murray’s third-grade classroom at Woodbrook Elementary wrote all of the lyrics to the controversial song themselves.

Phrases like, “Then the bubble burst” and “Though I lost my yacht and plane” raised suspicions that such lines likely were beyond the intellectual purview of contemporary eight-year-olds enrolled in a government school.

Still, in a January 3 Daily Progress story on the controversy, the group’s Executive Director, Pat Rogers said that KPA’s “sole mission has been and continues to be to inspire and empower children to work together to become creators of their own music.” [emphasis added]

Rogers also denied any political influence of children by KPA facilitators:

“Kid Pan Alley does not promote nor condone any personal or political agenda.”

In the same article, Albemarle County Schools’ spokesman Phil Giaramita stood by the apolitical claims of KPA:

“There’s no question in my mind that [Kid Pan Alley is] firmly committed to teaching kids, and they are not interested in a political agenda.”

The paper’s story continues with supportive remarks from Albemarle County School Board chair, Steve Koleszar, who confirmed his belief that the lyrics in dispute were, in fact, the sole composition of Woodbrook third graders:

“Sometimes, when kids are writing things, they say things that are controversial. I don’t think we need to be censoring what the kids are writing.”

And, in a January 3 Schilling Show debate with J. Christian Adams, Koleszar doubled down on his authorship claims:

“You have underestimate the breadth and knowledge of experience that children have these days when they have cable TV, uh, when they listen to the news, they are up on current events, you underestimate what our kids can do.” [sic]

Today’s KPA press release tells a different story.

In the dispatch, KPA’s Founder and Artistic Director, Paul Reisler, “takes full responsibility for the songwriting process that resulted in the song titled ‘Part of the 99.’”

The release confirms Reisler’s political and lyrical contributions to the song:

“Reisler acknowledges that he should have avoided the introduction of these phrases into the songwriting process.” [emphasis added]

And, KPA’s claim to be a politically unbiased organization has been debunked by newsbusters.org, who detail the left leaning politics of several “Alley” board members and leaders.

Aside from Koleszar, the majority of the board has been strangely silent on the Kid Pan Alley controversy, with the exception of newly elected Jason Buyaki, who during the Schilling Show debate called in to express his concern over the situation.

It remains to be seen when or if Albemarle County Schools’ administration will issue a statement acknowledging the falsehoods promulgated in previous communications regarding Kid Pan Alley vis a vis the charges of student indoctrination and songwriting process manipulation.

Read full transcription of lyrics from Kid Pan Alley’s “Part of the 99”

Some people have it all,
but they still don’t think that they have enough
They want more money
A faster ride
They’re not content
Never satisfied
Yes-  they are the 1 percent

I used to be one of the 1 percent
I worked all the time
Never saw my family
Couldn’t make life rhyme
Then the bubble burst
It really, really hurt
I lost my money
I Lost my pride
I Lost my home
Now I’m part of the 99

Some people have it all,
but they still don’t think that they have enough
They want more money
A faster ride
They’re not content
Never satisfied
Yes-  they are the 1 percentI used to be sad now I’m satisfied
Cause I really have enough
Though I lost my yacht and plane
Didn’t need that extra stuff
Could have been much worse
You don’t need to be first
I’ve got my friends
Here by my side
I don’t need it all
I’m happy to be part of the 99.

Some people have it all,
but they still don’t think that they have enough
They want more money
A faster ride
They’re not content
Never satisfied
Yes-  they are the 1 percent
They’re the 1 percent
They’re the 1 percent

Recent discussion threads on OC’s Facebook page (see below) show only limited tolerance for “offensive” free speech, especially when it involves criticism of President Obama or “name calling.” In this instance, not only was a member silenced for contrarian expression, but also all vestiges of her posts were eradicated from the digital discourse without notice or warning.

When challenged on the muzzling by a concerned Occupier, several of the group’s Facebook participants defended the censorship citing violation of OC’s “core values” and the poster’s promulgation of “personal attacks” on “active” group members.

Suppression of speech? From the same group that portrayed the First Amendment as the cornerstone of its existence?

A distaste for invective? From the same group whose members dubbed Dave Norris, the Mayor of Charlottesville, “Dave F*cking Norris,” both online and in public?

Violation of “core values”? From the same group whose members gleefully screamed at a female Charlottesville Police Officer: “I heard pigs has 30-minute orgasms; is that true?” and “Show me your t*ts, pig”?

Confronted with a relatively mild free speech paradox, Occupy Charlottesville has failed miserably. Primarily because this group was never truly about “free speech”— although, many members deluded themselves into believing theirs was a First Amendment fight. The “Seinfeld” of protest movements, Occupy Charlottesville was and is all about nothing—or perhaps, more accurately, all about doing nothing. Witness able-bodied Occupiers bemoaning lack of financial opportunity while simultaneously forgoing local employment solicitations in order to lounge in Lee Park for nearly two months.

Signs in the group’s former encampment warned Occupiers that if approached by the media, no one speaks for the group and that everyone speaks only for himself. Under this systemic non-accountability, no individual could be held responsible for an action or statement of any associate. Where order, doctrine, structure, and responsibility are absent, anarchy reigns. Such was, and is the case with Occupy Charlottesville—a movement born of and continuing in lawlessness.

Occupiers, enamored with Kristin Szakos’ pro-Occupy maxim that “Free Speech doesn’t end at 11:00,” have mired themselves in a self-created First Amendment quagmire by squelching rights the group claimed to champion. And in doing so, Occupy Charlottesville has exposed itself as a hypocritical and fraudulent crusade—like all Marxist movements before it—preoccupied not with precepts of freedom, but with the imposition of veiled autocracy and the suppression of free expression.

It’s 11 PM Occupy Charlottesville: do you know where your principles are?

Read Occupy Charlottesville’s Facebook “free speech” exchange:

Senna August Beall
last week, I posted something that got a response by a girl named Meganne. Some found it argumentative, called her a “troll”, and suggested she be “blocked” for simply stating her opinions about Occupy and why she thought we should concentrate on dismantling the Fed and impeaching Obama. Later, her comments disappeared and I said “I hope no one blocked her”. I got an email from her that she was indeed blocked from Occupy Charlottesville facebook page and could no longer see, post or comment. So much for free speech? Admin of this page, why block somebody who doesn’t agree?

An October 24 “Indemnity Release” and “Special Event Application” signed by Occupy Charlottesville representative, Bailee Elizabeth Hampton, definitively states that there will be no alcoholic beverages involved in this activity and that:

“We are not allowing alcohol or other substances”

In addition to ongoing “substance” abuse issues, personal safety of participants is of great concern. Today, Occupiers are asking, through a centrally posted “Camp Needs” bulletin board, for donation of 100 “rape whisles” [sic]. Connection between the arrests and the request is unclear, but the surprisingly frank appeal certainly signals a looming sense of danger in the Occupy encampment.

Prior to OC’s sanctioned occupation of Lee Park, Charlottesville City Council members lauded the organization as peaceful and well mannered. Public requests for “rape whisles,” however, seem incongruous with initial characterizations of Occupy Charlottesville, and perhaps belie the city’s stated trust in the Occupiers to “self-police.”

See Occupy Charlottesville’s “Rape Whistles” wanted posting:

Concurrently, Albemarle County Supervisor Dennis Rooker has scoffed at suggestions that United Nations ideology—promoted by homegrown internationalists and foreign agents—is infiltrating local government with a goal of undermining foundational American principles.

Despite being presented with incontrovertible evidence of such, Rooker has kept his head firmly planted beneath the comfortable sands of self-imposed ignorance. But facts affirm the accusation, and now, additional evidence is surfacing that dangerous infiltration is ongoing locally.

Over the objections of Rooker and Board of Supervisors’ chair, Ann Mallek, the International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) recently was ejected from Albemarle County. Rooker pleaded for the County to retain ICLEI membership, touting numerous benefits without strings attached:

“It’s not a part of the United Nations. It’s not supported by the U.N. and it’s not governed by the U.N.,” Rooker said. “We have a tool that staff says is helpful, is inexpensive and that cannot be replaced by anything else that’s out there.”

Provably, Rooker was dead wrong about the lack of relationship between the two entities. Perhaps he might have been swayed on the ICLEI/Sustainability threat had he known that Jie Wu (aka Megan Wu)—the former ICLEI representative to Albemarle County—was (or is) a government official of the People’s Republic of (Communist) China. Her online biography lists her service to the PRC in their Ministry of Environmental Protection, and Wu was trained as a linguist at a university subordinate to the PRC’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. There is no evidence that Wu has renounced her Communist Chinese citizenship or forsworn her allegiance to the PRC, and yet, through Albemarle County’s ICLEI membership, Wu received carte blanch access to sensitive, local government operational information and data.

Wu and ICLEI may be gone (for now), but Koren Manning remains. Hired by TJPDC Executive Director, Stephen Williams, Manning is a paid employee of the organization, responsible for Livability Partnership website maintenance, social media outreach, and data analysis among other duties.

Manning holds or has held membership in a secretive, subversive group known as Planners Network: The Organization of Progressive Planning. In their mission statement, Planners Network (PN) advocates undermining America’s present political and economic underpinnings:

Planners Network is an association of professionals, activists, academics, and students involved in physical, social, economic, and environmental planning in urban and rural areas, who promote fundamental change in our political and economic systems.

The Network’s stated goals and objectives read like a page from Marx’s Communist Manifesto (or Charlottesville/Albemarle’s 1998 Sustainability Accords):

We believe that planning should be a tool for allocating resources and developing the environment to eliminate the great inequalities of wealth and power in our society, rather than to maintain and justify the status quo. We are committed to opposing racial, economic, and environmental injustice and discrimination by gender and sexual orientation. We believe that planning should be used to assure adequate food, clothing, housing, medical care, jobs, safe working conditions, and a healthful environment. We advocate public responsibility for meeting these needs, because the private market has proven incapable of doing so.

We seek to be an effective political and social force, working with other progressive organizations to inform public opinion and public policy and to provide assistance to those seeking to understand, control, and change the forces which affect their lives. [emphasis added]

But their utopian, socialist aspiration does not end there. The current PN mission statement has been sanitized from the original. The version found in Network newsletters from the 1980s and 1990s includes the following additional self-descriptive language:

We oppose the economic structure of our society, which values profit and property rights over human rights and needs. This system perpetuates the inequalities of class, race, sex and age which distort human relationships and limit the potential for a decent quality of life. We advocate a shift in current national budgetary priorities to favor human services, social production and environmental protection over military and other nonproductive expenditures. [emphasis added]

A Communist Chinese national and a neo-Marxist planning-activist inside Albemarle County Government—each bought and paid for with taxpayer dollars—should raise red flags to even casual observers. But instead, there is deafening silence.

Albemarle County Government, through ICLEI membership and affiliation with the TJPCD has entrusted confidential and sensitive information to a representative of a government hostile to United States’ interests and to a member of a group that seeks to remake America into a socialist gulag. And, Koren Manning and Jie Wu may be just the tip of a melting iceberg.

If Marxists and Communists infiltrate local government establishment and Dennis Rooker doesn’t acknowledge their presence, do the infill-traitors still pose a threat?

Almost worse than the concept of vote-purchasing with “free” government food, is that the monies expended for this boondoggle are siphoned from the city’s Capital Improvements Program, which is described as follows:

The Capital Improvement Program Fund (CIP) provides funding for streets, public buildings, land and other capital assets, which generally have a useful life of 5 years or more and cost more than $50,000. City Council, in their Adopted Budget Guidelines, has set a policy to allocate an amount no less than 3% of the General Fund budget for capital improvements.

The bizarre proposal for misappropriation of public “capital” tax dollars to sponsor neighborhood “celebrations” was brought forward last fall by Neighborhood Development Services Director, Jim Tolbert. In a pitch to City Council, Tolbert described his vision for the program:

Also, included would be funding for neighborhood based events and celebrations and for capacity building initiatives to help increase participation in neighborhoods or to get information out to help citizens become more involved in our government. We would anticipate that most grant requests would be between $250 and $5,000. [emphasis added]

Sensing opportunity to buy—with taxpayer dollars—additional votes for Democrats in upcoming elections as well as to increase general affection towards government, Tolbert’s scheme unanimously was approved by council through the body’s consent agenda.

The bureaucracy involved in gaining grant approval is mindboggling, requiring a convoluted seven-page process explanation and untold staff hours in submission review, evaluation, and scoring.

In keeping with the city’s Marxist sustainability agenda, brownie points are awarded to applications that promote delineated “Sustainability Values”:

• Project contributes to environmental health or our ability to effectively address climate change.
• Project will have a positive effect on the local economy and minimizes costs to the community, now and over the long term.
• Project supports responsible stewardship of public resources.
• Project contributes to social equity by meeting basic needs, benefiting vulnerable populations, promoting community safety and cultural awareness, or building community relationships and neighborhood cohesion.

Flummery aside, in spite of the stringent application process, profligacy is rampant in the solicitation and awarding of Neighborhood Grant funds. An evaluation of the Greenbrier Neighborhood Association’s (GNA) application to fund an October 9 Neighborhood Social, shows five tubs of ice cream (12.5 gallons) to be purchased at a cost of $300.00, or $24.00 per gallon. Several local grocery stores offer ice cream at less than $5.00 per gallon, a savings of nearly 80% over the city-paid price. And in the spirit of benevolence, Charlottesville City Government agreed to pick up the cost of a “bounce house” in order to enliven the soiree, even though the neighborhood’s application listed that expense as being covered by their association as a grant “match.” All told, this neighborhood’s “free” ice cream social set back Charlottesville taxpayers a cold $716—that’s $237 more than was requested by GNA. Predictably, the grant was approved (and possibly aggrandized) by Tolbert’s Neighborhood Development Services Department.

All of this is taking place concurrent with a Charlottesville School Board discussion on permanently banning ice cream from division grounds in order to combat a childhood “obesity epidemic.” So, while on the one hand, the State (city government) plies youth (and adults) with free ice cream at a neighborhood soiree (ironically held at Greenbrier Elementary), on the other hand, the State (city schools)—under funding governance and supposed oversight of Charlottesville City Hall— is classifying the frozen concoction as a dangerous substance not to be served on school property.

In a city with widespread crumbling infrastructure and millions in unmet capital needs—both exacerbated by years of executive mismanagement—it makes little sense to hand out capital improvement funds as if they were…ice cream. That is, of course, unless the city is Charlottesville, the mayor is Norrishood, and the governing body is totally devoid of common sense.

On September 23, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, of Rose Hill Drive, were issued a Notice of Violation / Order of Correction by Zoning Administrator, Read Brodhead. The transgression? Erecting a sign in their yard, which reads: “Worship your faith, not your politics.”

Brodhead cites, in his notice, Zoning Ordinance Section 34-1047(1): “signs within residential zones shall not be greater than one (1) square foot.” The letter continues by threatening the Smiths with “legal proceedings” and “civil penalties” of up to $5,000 if they do not take “corrective action” (i.e. remove the sign).

Unreferenced by the Zoning Administrator is Section 34-1027(11), which allows “political signs” to be displayed in all districts without obtaining a permit.

Currently and recently, scores of Charlottesville neighborhood homes have donned signs bearing political and quasi-political messages including:

• End this War
• Save McIntire Park
• Support our Troops
• Wage Peace
• Attack Iraq, NO!
• Build the Parkway

Each of these exceeded code limitations for size, and most were up for months—if not years—without citation from government zoning administrators.

In past weeks, City employees have made multiple surveillance visits to the Smith residence in order to monitor the state of this infraction. But during this course, Brodhead, et al somehow managed to overlook a badly decomposed, city-owned curb and storm drain on the same Rose Hill property (photos below). These important infrastructure deficiencies previously have been brought to the city’s attention, but to date, there has been no remedial action taken or maintenance scheduled.

Read Brodhead and his City Hall co-conspirators unnecessarily have created a conundrum in deciding that this particular sign doesn’t qualify for Charlottesville’s vague “political sign” exemption. While the sign police may end up reversing course in this instance, someday soon, the city may be facing “legal proceedings” of its own.

[Show as slideshow]

[View with PicLens]

Recently:

• Vice President Joe Biden reportedly referred to Congressional tea party negotiators as “terrorists.”
• U.S. Representative Maxine Waters (D-CA) said the tea party “can go straight to hell.”
• U.S. Representative Andre Carson (D-IN) said some congressional tea party members “would love to see you and me…hanging on a tree.”
• Charlottesville Mayor Dave “Norrishood” Norris characterized the tea party movement as solely interested in promoting personal wealth.
• Albemarle County Supervisor Dennis Rooker demeaned the tea party by accusing them of “infiltrating” local government and celebrating another “notch on the gun” in the tea party’s fight against institutionalized globalism.

And now Delegate David Toscano (D-57 VA) has entered the fray, advising circumstantial interdiction for contrarian tea party speech. The elitist Democrat—certain that climate change science is settled—accused Jefferson Area Tea Party members of “distortions of the truth” in recent statements they offered on the topics of global warming and sustainability.

But, unlike his fellow traducers, Toscano stepped beyond ignominy. Emboldened by a demographically statist district, Delegate Dave contrived a sinister proposition: a government-enforced suspension of First Amendment rights for tea party climate change “deniers.”

From a June 20 “General Assembly Update” on Toscano’s web site:

…Similar claims about the United Nations, property rights, and climate science were made during the Albemarle public hearing on the planning grant. In the view of those who argued against accepting the grant, the threat of climate change, as a human-made and highly threatening phenomenon, is at best an exaggeration and, at worst, an utter hoax. Fortunately, the County Board rejected the climate change deniers and reaffirmed its support for efforts to jointly plan with the City and University, though they voted to withdraw from ICLEI.

Allowing these claims into these local policy debates is counterproductive. There is broad scientific consensus, both in this country and around the world, that climate change is real and is enhanced by human activities. [emphasis added]

And who could disallow such “objectionable” speech? Conceivably, Toscano is asking Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Chair, Ann Mallek, to silence people with whom the Delegate disagrees—a thinly veiled request for prohibition of tea party members’ free expression at public meetings of local governing bodies.

An ardent, political opponent of Fifth Amendment private property rights, Democrat Toscano surreptitiously has found a new Amendment to abridge. But unlike eminent domain abuse, which presumably targets left and right alike, Toscano’s new bullseye is placed squarely on the backs of constitutional patriots with an overtly pro-liberty (and anti-internationalist) political agenda—one which threatens Toscano’s career-long efforts to empower and enlarge government at the expense of individual liberty.

Local media—complicit in advancing Toscano’s brand of statism—predictably has remained silent on this outrageous call to abrogate First Amendment rights of so-called “skeptics” and “conspiracy theorists.”

While Toscano despises conservatives’ use of terms like Marxist and socialist in describing America’s political left, in word and in deed, he is advocating for a ruling class that operates free from inconvenient constraints of the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution. Government subjugation of private property rights and government-imposed speech-limits are derived straight from the totalitarian playbook as embraced by contemporary Marxists and socialists worldwide. Denials of such are without merit. If the muzzle fits, Delegate Toscano, wear it.

__________________________

Of all the things that Americans could be doing to commemorate the September 11, 2001 radical-Islamic-inspired attacks on the citizens of United States, what might come to mind:

• Petitioning God for the healing and restoration of America (2 Chronicles 7:14)
• Teaching your children about the evil perpetrated on this day
• Remembering the blessings God bestowed upon America throughout her history
• Watching video of the 9/11 attacks in order to strengthen your resolve in the fight for liberty
• Visiting a church or synagogue for quiet reflection
• Face painting

Face painting? Yes, face painting.

For the third consecutive year, the City of Charlottesville, led by City Manager, Gary O’Connell and Mayor David Norris, are using City tax payer dollars to provide face painting for your kids, and to propagate a dangerous myth: September 11 is a time for frivolity and a day to celebrate “peace.”

Charlottesville’s ongoing participation in the “September Concert” events demonstrates utmost disrespect toward the direct and indirect victims of the 9/11/01 attacks, as well as toward all freedom-loving Americans.

Instead of this day being about remembering the victims of September 11th, it’s now about “the party,” as described in the City’s “September Concert 2009″ press release:

On Friday, September 11, 2009, across America and around the world, the skies will come alive with music as The September Concert Foundation organizes its eighth annual global day of music for peace. On that day professional and amateur musicians will perform classical music, jazz, rock & roll — all kinds of music in all kinds of venues — from parks and squares, schools, libraries, and senior centers.

The City of Charlottesville is proud to announce that they will be joining this global effort along with Monticello Media and Unity Church to promote peace and understanding on the 8th anniversary of September 11th with a concert to be held at Central Place on the Downtown Mall.

The concert will take place on Friday, September 11th from 4:00pm – 7:00pm and will feature the talents of The John Wyant Band, Laurence Elder and the Music Resource Center. Plus special performances by the Wordsmith Poets and the AHS Vocal Jazz Choir. There will also be free face-painting for the kids and participation by local dignitaries.

This is the third year that the City of Charlottesville has participated in this international event to form the largest free concert offered across the world.

The public is encouraged to join members of City Council and the rest of the community for the free concert of diverse music to promote peace through mutual respect, understanding and cooperation… one individual, one community at a time.

Seating will be available and the event will be held rain or shine.

For Charlottesville Communications Director, Ric Barrick, and his City Hall cohorts to reference this day as a day when “the skies will come alive with music,” is nothing short of vulgar.

Do they not comprehend that the skies were filled with death on that 2^nd date of American historical infamy? That the weapons of attack were fuel-laden, airborne American jetliners—filled with innocent men, women and children—purposefully directed into buildings filled with additional innocent men, women and children?

For the city’s press release to promulgate the idea that this concert will “promote peace through mutual respect, understanding and cooperation,” implies that the United States deserved the September 11^th attacks, because we did not mutually respect the attackers’ origins and their faith—that if we would just try to “understand” and “cooperate” with those who attacked us, we all could live side-by-side in “peace.”

The appropriate “understanding” for this day and beyond is that almost 3,000 innocent people were murdered in cold-blood on American soil in the name of radical Islam.

The appropriate “cooperation” for this day and beyond is not a superficial, externally-oriented global “pageant,” but rather, an internal resolve on the part of all those who love America and the freedoms for which it stands. As a nation, we all must be courageous enough to recognize and call out evil when we see it and to cooperate internally in fomenting its destruction.

Don’t be fooled by cheap advertising ploys, cute sound bites and “feel good” gimmicks. Don’t drink the peacenik Kool-Aid. Don’t trivialize the slaughter of your fellow citizens through attendance at events such as the city’s concert for “global peace.”

September 11 is not about peace, music, balloons, face painting, ice cream, or the like. Whether we are able to face it or not, September 11th is about murder, mayhem, destruction, chaos and evil. And all of us were the intended victims.

The downtown mall has weathered its share of controversy—pedophiles congregating at the children’s museum, violent teen-mob assaults, and reportedly random mayhem (reluctantly) have been covered by local media—yet the area remains “vibrant” and continues to attract core, teen and young adult constituencies.

What is the real image problem of the city’s “urban park,” a problem conveniently overlooked despite ongoing patent offense? Charlottesville’s Community Chalkboard: A Monument to the First Amendment.

A joint project of the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression and the City of Charlottesville, the controversial slate slab, touted as an homage to free speech, instead has become an unmolested harbor for vile invective, personal threats, base profanity, and ugly racial epithets. The wall’s unfortunate proximity to the Virginia Discovery Museum compounds the city’s quandary.

While such problems were foreseen by project critics, objections fell on deaf ears. Star struck city councilors who coveted a nationally recognized “monument” for their downtown pedestrian experiment, enthusiastically embraced the concept, simultaneously dismissing detractors’ fears. Years later, the critics have been vindicated, but there are no winners here.

Most recently, Charlottesville City Manager Maurice Jones faced harsh criticism for ordering city work crews to remove “lewd” images from the monument. Instead of public scorn being heaped on those who profane the public square, the city’s self-designated gatekeeper himself has been profaned by guardians of “free expression.”

Has Charlottesville City Government ceded its vaunted downtown mall to purveyors of free speech pornography? Is the Charlottesville downtown mall now appropriate only for NC-17 audiences? Can a family safely walk young children past the Community Chalkboard without facing embarrassing questions or risking loss of innocence?

How will we deal, if at all, with Charlottesville’s dirty downtown mall?

See the photo essay of graphic pictures taken at or near Charlottesville’s Free Speech Monument on the downtown mall (photos courtesy of Kevin Cox). Warning: contains adult content; no children, please.

[Show as slideshow]

[View with PicLens]

But things can always be worse, and now they are. Introducing the internationalist City Councilor, Satyendra Huja!

Perhaps in attempt to out America-hate fellow travelers at Charlottesville’s August 20 Democrat Firehouse Primary, the self-described “Urban Turban”—a candidate for reelection to Charlottesville’s City Council—featured a disturbing display on his literature table: the United States and United Nations flags entwined in a quotidian vase of semi-fresh flowers.

Huja, known for his promotion of international relationships between Charlottesville and her “Sister Cities,” apparently was successful with his one-world, one-people campaign theme. His pandering, flippant dismissal of American sovereignty played well with assembled Democrats, rendering him the second highest vote getter among seven leftist contenders.

While most of his council cohorts have expressed admiration for the United Nations either verbally or in vote, none has so brazenly embraced the subversive, anti-American organization.

A sworn oath to uphold the United States Constitution (which Huja took) is not compatible with personal or professional veneration of the United Nations. Divided allegiance, especially among elected officials, is a treacherous position to maintain.

Click to see Satyendra Huja’s “international” table display:

[Show as slideshow]

[View with PicLens]

Photo courtesy of Steven Latimer

The United Nations Pledge of Allegiance (with apologies to Francis Bellamy)

I pledge allegiance to the flag

Of the hallowed United Nations

And to the one-world Government

For which it stands

One organization, under Mother Gaia

With bondage and servitude for all

(© 2011 The Schilling Show)

With three available seats, and seven contending candidates, Mayor Dave Norris is looking to establish a council majority to forward his progressive agenda. To that end, he publicly—and not without scorn—has endorsed the slate of Dede Smith, Brevy Cannon, and Colette Blount.

Democrat party bosses and establishment stalwarts, Jim Nix and Tom Vandever, tacitly have supported a competing roster of Paul Beyer, Kathy Galvin, and Satyendra Huja, in order to counter ascendancy of the Norris wing.

At stake is control of council, but further, the community water supply plan hangs in the balance of the upcoming primary results: the Smith faction opposing the current plan; and the Huja faction supporting it.

Interestingly, in the past week, former Charlottesville Mayor, Kay Slaughter, and current City Councilor, Kristen Szakos, “independently” have chosen to endorse the same two candidates, Satyendra Huja and Kathy Galvin, in an attempt to countermand the Norris slate.

But what of Paul Beyer, who is philosophically conjoined with Galvin and Huja on major issues of the campaign? He has fallen victim to racial politics and back room dirty dealing.

Why endorse only two, when there are three seats open?

1. Those two seats are all that is necessary to give Szakos controlling majority of council.
2. More importantly, Colette Blount is black.

Why is Ms. Blount’s race a factor: because, for decades Charlottesville Democrats have held an unholy alliance with influential elements of the city’s black community. The unspoken agreement guarantees one black seat on the five-member council, roughly mirroring Charlottesville’s 20% black population. But the “black seat,” historically, has been beholden to the wiles of Charlottesville’s white Democrat machine. Blacks may serve, but only singly, and at the pleasure of party hierarchy. The quid pro quo for nomination is the understanding that blacks will vote in the manner instructed.

Szakos and Slaughter are well aware of the implicit bargain, but this year, they are entangled in competing interests. Colette Blount is the only black Democrat running. In order to fulfill the ongoing racial arrangement, Democrats know that they must support Colette. But to endorse her would be giving Norris an edge in securing one of the other open seats, and Szakos-Slaughter (representing the party establishment) cannot afford such a costly error. Conversely, were the dynamic duo to have endorsed Paul Beyer, whom they like and agree with, they may be seen as racial agitators and possible upenders of Charlottesville’s longstanding, but fragile black/Democrat accord.

What to do? The answer is simple, but Machiavellian in its cunning. Openly endorse two candidates. Hopefully, the black community will not take offense, as their representative has not been excluded by a full-slate (three person) recommendation. These sly advocates know that if Colette Blount is not selected, Huja’s presence as the “minority” on council will not placate the masses. So, they carefully have engineered a plan to elect their preferred candidates, while not imputing approval on the wayward inheritor of the “black seat.” Blount’s potential council presence is beneficial to all central-party Democrats, but only if the other open seats swing toward Szakos.

In the mean time, Paul Beyer—who has invested a great deal of time, thought, and money into his campaign—has been backstabbed by those he thought friends. His chances of electoral victory slim by the day.

It’s a tough lesson to learn, but poor Paul has been schooled. Democrat politics in Charlottesville is blood sport, and Beyer has been sacrificed at the altar of political correctness.

Et tu, Kristen, Jim, Tom, and Kay?