Frederick, apparently not satisfied with TJPDC’s million-dollar, taxpayer-funded assault on private property rights (under the guise of regional “planning”), now is dispensing advice on how to squelch the speech of climate change “deniers.”

In a February 4 New York Times article about Tea Party activism and United Nations’ Agenda 21, “counterorganizer” Frederick openly presents her contra-constitutional game plan envisioned to mute citizen “critics” of the globalist green agenda:

Summer Frederick, the project manager for the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission in Charlottesville, Va., which withdrew its dues to Iclei and its support from a national mayors’ agreement on climate change late last year after a campaign by protesters, now conducts seminars on how to deal with Agenda 21 critics. (Among her tips: remove the podium and microphones, which can make it “very easy for a critic to hijack a meeting.”) [emphasis added]

While such a diabolical scheme could be effective if implemented covertly, Frederick’s hubris in brazenly discussing methods of disabling community dialogue at public meetings displays either abject arrogance or abject stupidity—or perhaps both.

As stated on its web site, the TJPDC has a noble purpose:

The mission of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission is to serve our local governments by providing regional vision, collaborative leadership and professional service to develop effective solutions.

Yet the TJPDC’s promised mission of “service” is perverted beyond reclamation when a $52,000 per year government employee (Summer Frederick), supervised by a $110,000 per year government employee (Stephen Williams), flagrantly works to promote an anti-American personal agenda while proposing the undermining of foundational American rights—all in the name of “planning.”

Mr. Williams, maybe it’s time to remove Ms. Frederick’s microphone, podium, and employment contract.

We had a night to remember at the abortuary on Commonwealth Drive…just around the corner from the Pregnancy Centers of Central Virginia.

Normally one or two pro lifers show up with their signs and their prayers. Today the parking lot was already half filled by the time the first pro lifer arrived. It’s easy to get discouraged and today looked like it was going to be another long night… but that is not what God had planned. Today was going to be different because the silent cries of the unborn were not only heard by God, but there was a response by his faithful servants.

Their names are not as important as their mission, but maybe you know them? Chaney, Avery, Martha, Christina, Steve, Katarina, and Lauren all gave up their evening to serve God on a very special night. A night that would reveal the weakness of men and the strength of God.

It started when Martha walked up the abortion clinic driveway which is shared by an accountant’s office next door and stood on the edge of the accountant’s grass. She invited the others to join her and quickly they formed what appeared to my eyes to be a pro life line of defense. The previous week the accountant had given Martha permission to stand on his land to reach out to mothers and fathers considering abortion. The clinic staff were furious and had been complaining about the presence of persistent pro lifers who refused to walk away or give ground.

And today was no different. The clinic staff came out and Martha told them they had permission to be there, but the permission wasn’t simply from the accountant.  Pro lifers had answered the call long before that accountant knew of their existence. Their permission was of a spiritual nature — they had permission from God who calls us to serve in Him a fallen world on the sidewalk and driveway of an abortion clinic that to the untrained eye looks like an ordinary house.

The staff didn’t take matters into their own hands just yet… instead they decided to call the police.

And soon four police cruisers were on site, but those courageous pro lifers didn’t surrender. Instead they all knelt and began to pray. It was beautiful to see courage in the face of conflict. The headlights of one of the police cars was shining on them as passersby in cars craned their necks to see what was going on in the abortuary parking lot, but those police headlights did not shine nearly as brightly as the light of God’s spirit in that parking lot.

That spiritual light burned so bright that not even the abortionist could ignore it. And we’re not talking about just any abortionist.

The abortuary is owned by Dr. William Fitzhugh who has been performing abortions across the state of Virginia for decades and has been a leading advocate for partial birth abortion, even going so far as to be a named plaintiff in a federal lawsuit to keep partial birth abortion legal.  Last year his clinics stole the lives of 3,733 innocent Virginians … 415 were babies from the Charlottesville community.

The clinic staff were hoping the police would solve their problem and remove these pro lifers from the premises.

The police called the accountant to confirm that he had given the pro lifers permission to stand on his property — not only did they have permission to stand on the grass but according to the police the dividing line was the middle of the driveway! The pro lifers could now stand even closer than they had imagined. As time wore on post abortive mothers and fathers began to walk toward their cars with pro lifers praying and holding signs closer than they had ever been in the history of the spiritual battle for life in Charlottesville. They were so close they could see the pain and the shame in the eyes of the mothers and fathers.

Those moms and dads were told that God loved them and could heal them. They were told about ministries that were waiting for them such as Rachel’s Vineyard.

This would have been a miraculous night if nothing else happened, but God was just getting warmed up. The doctor who had ignored too many pro lifers to count was suddenly acutely aware of their presence outside of his clinic. He walked out of the abortuary in scrubs and stood on the back porch of the house where thousands upon thousands of innocent lives have been stolen and looked at the pro lifers who could be seen from the back porch for the first time in his career aborting babies in Charlottesville.

And then Dr. Fitzhugh heard the same words he’d been hearing for weeks, “It’s not too late to change!”

But unlike all of those other days when he dismissed the pro lifers and went about his grisly work, today he responded to those words and walked toward them. “I’m sorry, I didn’t catch that?”

“It’s not too late too change!”

He shook his head and walked closer still, “I didn’t catch that?”

“It’s not too late to change!”

Closer and closer… and the words were repeated over and over until he was face-to-face with the pro lifers who were still standing there late into the night.

“You shouldn’t be bullying people out here!” Dr. Fitzhugh said with as much courage as he could muster, but he wasn’t dealing with his office staff or lukewarm Christians. He was standing nose-to-nose with servants of God who were sent to rescue the unborn, their parents, and him.

He was shown the picture of a baby in the womb and reminded that his job is to dismember babies who are defenseless against him and that is the definition of a bully. “I’m not a bully! I’m here to help women.” He retorted.

Dr. Fitzhugh, like so many other misguided physicians, has deluded himself into believing that abortion is good for women. Even when it was pointed out that a woman had left his clinic five minutes ago who was obviously in great pain and suffering he didn’t break from the script. A few moments later he was presented with another more powerful example when he was asked about a young Muslim man who was in his clinic last week begging and pleading with his girlfriend to spare their baby. That young man had come out three times to talk to the pro lifers who did their best to encourage him and told him to go in back in and rescue his child and tell his girlfriend that God loved her and that he loved her too.

We never shared that story because it was so painful.

When that young man drove into the clinic parking lot the look in his eyes are forever etched in my memory. I don’t know if words can adequately capture it, but I imagine it’s how I would look if I were lost at sea and drifting on an old piece of wood after giving up any hope of rescue — and then opening my eyes and seeing the distant outline of land. Hope… that is what I saw in his eyes.

He didn’t even bother to go into the clinic — he went straight to the pro lifers who were standing on the sidewalk and in tears he asked if they thought he was going to hell. He stated that he knew his girlfriend was going to hell, but he wasn’t sure if he would go there since he had tried everything to save his baby. He took all of the pro lifers literature and listened to their suggestions and went into clinic three times to save his baby.

And three times he came out unsuccessful and frustrated. I remember the sound of the abortuary door slamming shut after his third attempt and the look of disgust on his face as he sat on the steps and pondered the impending death of his baby. I was also feeling frustrated that nothing was working. Earlier in the day a pro lifer said with 100% confidence, “We don’t have to worry… God has this one under control. I don’t know why… but he does… it’s going to work out.”

I wanted to believe it, but after the third time I was running out of words. To be honest, I was running out of hope.  I thought about risking getting arrested and going into the abortuary myself and talking to his girlfriend directly. Maybe if I could look into her eyes she would know that her baby would be cared for even if it was a complete stranger. I asked God for a special intervention… even though I knew that God loves all of his children equally and is no respecter of persons.

I wanted to tell the world about the miracle of a young man who had friends he had never met waiting for him at the abortuary. I wanted to see the smile on his face and her face… but that’s not what happened. He went in a fourth time and we waited, and waited, but he never came out again. Finally we went home disappointed that we didn’t get to see a miracle that night, but we knew there would be other nights — even if we would never be able to erase the memory of a young man desperately trying to save his baby with the help of pro lifers who were praying and advocating with every gift God had given them.

I walked away that night convinced that somehow we had failed that Muslim boy. The last words I heard him say was that he wanted her to suffer for what she was about to do to their child.

And now we were staring at the doctor who stole that child’s life and played a role in destroying the relationship of a mother and father. I wanted to hear his justification for hurting a man who was powerless to save his child, but I wasn’t prepared for his answer.

“I know exactly who you’re talking about… she didn’t have an abortion that night. She changed her mind.”

Dr. Fitzhugh had no idea what he had just told us. Long after we had given up and gone home to begin the grieving process and question our inability to win the victory — God was still there fighting. And God was victorious.

This abortion story captures the weakness of men. Even when we’re told God has it under control we still manage to see the all ways that it cannot happen. How it’s just not possible. But God is faithful to the very last possible moment even after every human effort up to that point has failed.

The spiritual battle surrounding abortion is just another shining example of how God is triumphant.

“But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.” – Matt. 19:26

In a desperate attempt to justify his abominable pro-abortion, pro-Planned-Parenthood voting record, Houck invoked Thomas Jefferson as one who would support a woman’s right to “make her own decisions,” as reported by the Daily Progress:

“As we stand here in front of Mr. Jefferson’s Rotunda, one of the principles that Jefferson always espoused was individual liberties and individual freedom,” Houck said. “Well guess what, my opponent made it very clear in a debate last night that he stands squarely opposite of what I believe and what Mr. Jefferson believes: that a woman has the personal freedom to make her own decisions.” [emphasis added]

Principled men of Jefferson’s day never would have supported abortion on demand as Houck does. They recognized that children were a gift from God—not a “punishment” and not to be bodily sacrificed at the altar of personal convenience.

But Houck also got it wrong in attributing to Jefferson a favorable outlook on women’s “personal freedom.” In fact, Jefferson pictured a woman’s place as in the home caring for her children. He also opposed American women taking an active role in politics as he’d observed French women doing in their homeland. A letter to George Washington made clear Jefferson’s position on women in politics:

The manners of the nation allow them to visit, alone, all persons in office, to solicit the affairs of the husband, family, or friends, and their solicitations bid defiance to laws and regulation . . . [Few Americans] can possibly understand the desperate state which things are reduced in this country from the omnipotence of an influence which, fortunately for the happiness of the sex itself, does not endeavor to extend itself in our country beyond the domestic line.

Professor Edd’s historical ignorance does not end with Jefferson, however. In an October 4 Daily Progress story, Houck implies that the Bible can be interpreted to support abortion. He further states that morality and God’s word is not absolute, but rather, relative:

“I think [pro-life theology] is one interpretation of what the holy scriptures say. I think it is an abomination to pull the Bible and to use churches in the way that my opponent is doing in this campaign. It’s way over the top. The holy scriptures are something that each person finds their own way of understanding and believing in…” [emphasis added]

So much for Edd’s historical grasp—such wildly inaccurate statements indicate an extreme level of desperation in Houck’s flailing re-election campaign as well as his dangerous ignorance of Jeffersonian history and Biblically based Christianity.

Edd Houck: Desperate. Ignorant.

Desperately ignorant.

Mr. and Mrs. Smith, of Rose Hill Drive, were threatened by Zoning Administrator, Read Brodhead, with “legal proceedings” and fines of up to $5,000 if they did not remove the disputed sign from their property. The story was first reported by The Schilling Show Blog and later picked up by Newsplex. In addition, the Rutherford Institute, a nationally renowned civil liberties organization, was preparing a First-Amendment-based legal defense of the Smith’s right to free expression.

The city, unable to justify selective enforcement of its own sign ordinance, relented by placing an unstamped letter of retraction (text copied below) in the Smith’s mailbox after normal mail-delivery hours.

Congratulations to Mr. and Mrs. Smith for standing up against unjust government persecution, and shame on Zoning Administrator Brodhead and his department for their abuse of regulatory power.

October 4, 2011

Mr. and Mrs. Smith
Charlottesville VA

Re: Rose Hill Drive

Dear Mr. & Mrs. Smith

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that I have reversed my decision on the legality of the sign that is in excess of one (1) square foot, located on your property. After further reviewing the sign ordinance, it is my belief that the code section referred to is erroneous and thus inapplicable to your sign. You may keep your sign and still be in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.

I apologize for any inconvenience that my earlier letter may have caused you.

Sincerely,

 

Read Brodhead
Zoning Administrator

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]

__________________________

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)

Censor Sherlock Holmes, are they kidding?  The School Board is poised to ban Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes novel, A Study In Scarlet.  The Nazi’s burned books, is that next?  Check out en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_book_burnings.  I can see it now; soon nothing will be available for our children to read.  Just because one Albemarle County parent did not want her sixth grader, or any other student for that matter, to read the terrible connotations made in the novel, it will be removed from classes unless we act to stop this group of zealots.  Tell us, who are the parents making this claim?  We have a right to know.

As an active and heavily involved Mormon, I’m deeply embarrassed by this action and deeply ashamed that any Mormon parent would ask for this book to be banned.  I think it is a wonderful opportunity for teaching students about controversial viewpoints in classical literature, of which they will be exposed to over the course of their education.  We can’t let this happen. When are the citizens of this country going to respect the Constitutional rights that we have been given?

School Board Chairman, Steve Koleszar was part of the committee that recommended the book be removed.  But we aren’t even told anything about the others deciding the future of our schools.  Just who is on the committee?  Surely they’re not “anonymous”.  Rather than embrace a teaching opportunity, these parents would rather ignore history.

I’m embarrassed by the ignorance expressed by both the parents and the committee; banning books is not the answer.

The words above, even the title, are not mine.  But after reading them, do we need to find out more about these out of control book burning zealots?  Should we demand they show their faces?  Should we approach the only known person on the committee, School Board Chairman Steve Kolezar, and demand answers?  No.

Despite being quoted as a committee member Steve Koleszar wasn’t there.[i] There was no discussion of banning books.  Despite some peoples imagined frenzy, there were no calls for mob justice, no anger, no hidden agendas; there was not even a raised voice in the committee meeting that day.  I know because I was a member of that review committee.  My name is Jim Stern and I was there.  Much of what has been reported is inaccurate and all of it is incomplete; most public comments are even less a reflection of reality.

I hoped the opening paragraphs would catch your attention. But the words above are not mine and come from many sources.[ii] Sentences are combined to read as if written by one person but are the comments of many different people from local news reports, newspaper articles, blogs and the comments people have posted in response.[iii]

Most people in our community are likely unaware, unconcerned or apathetic to the School Board’s vote this Thursday on the future of A Study in Scarlet; others loudly voice opinions on the matter.  Local citizens on the right accuse the committee of impinging on the Constitution and forgetting freedom while those on the left compare us to past book banners and burners. Some local Mormons and a vast majority of the Mormon community outside of Charlottesville do not support the Mormon complainant and express firm, but polite concerns. They worry the Mormon complainant will cause harm to their community not just because they could be labeled as ‘book banners’ but realizing that shielding students may lead to ‘repeating the past’.

I can state with confidence that what has happened in the process of reviewing Doyle’s A Study in Scarlet should cause no alarm.   I am proud of the committee and both the complainant and the teacher who presented their positions on the text.

The committee did the right thing within the confines of our abilities.  That being said, I realize making the right decision is the not the entire story and the committee did not make the best decision.  I am confident that The School Board will make follow the committees lead and are unlikely to reach to achieve the best solution.  Let me explain and I hope together the entire community can come together, support and implement the best decision.

First, the committee was led by Dr. Haas and several other ACPS educators and community members.  One complainant presented the case for removal from the 6^th grade reading list, with a friend there for support who spoke little, if at all.  One teacher presented the case to retain the text on the 6^th grade reading list.  [iv]

We identified several problems as a committee, but only two are worth noting.  Years ago, the educator who approved this text was not as thorough as the Albemarle County Public Schools (ACPS) process required then and now. If the process in place had been followed to the letter back then, I think it would have prevented what has happened now, but there was no malice or agenda.  Secondly, ACPS staff interactions with the student of the complainant (not by the teacher who addressed the committee) were guided by the best of intentions but were not what we would desire in our diverse and accepting school system.  But no blame should be assigned.  Without a comprehensive lesson plan that provided the required knowledge of the treatment of Mormons in this book, adequate guidance was unavailable.

The committee recommended the book be removed from the classroom and remain off the reading list until an adequate lesson plan is developed and in place.  We also stated clearly the book will remain in middle and high school libraries with unfettered student access. It was the lack of the comprehensive lesson plan that compelled this conclusion.

The parent who filed the complaint was well prepared, articulate and reasonable.  She was passionate about her faith and clearly acted on behalf of a child she loved dearly.  The teacher who spoke in response was just as well prepared, articulate and reasonable.  She was passionate about the novel, Sherlock Holmes and her students and clearly acted on behalf of a love of student knowledge.  And all discussion was held without a moment of contention during the entire meeting.

The committee did not ‘ban’ the book and never discussed such an action because the complainant  did not ask for the book to be banned.  Her compliant specifically stated she thought the book was appropriate for high school students. Everyone in and out of the Mormon community expressing fears over this book review does not realize the expert detail of the complainant’s presentation and that she started from the position that no book should be kept from our students.

ACPS does not shy away from tough material but the committee is not in a position to create and implement comprehensive lesson plans.  Faced with hurting the Mormon student and community it was the RIGHT decision to recommend removal from the reading list.

But it was clearly not the BEST decision either.

We hurt one teacher deeply.  The teacher who spoke to the committee loved teaching students this material.  We also hurt all the students who will not get to read this book under her tutelage. We talk about teaching tolerance and understanding but are we willing to do the work required to use this opportunity to demonstrate we stand behind our words?

The committee’s decision means that we will not allow students to read the book with the guidance of a teacher, but we will allow the same student to read the book with no guidance at all.

The BEST solution would be to join together as a community and commit to having this text available to teachers that want to use it by writing the needed comprehensive lesson plans.  Individually, a comprehensive lesson plan cannot be created by the committee, by ACPS, or by the Mormon community.  Alone it is impossible.  But it could be done together.  The entire text contains only a handful of sentences that are an issue.  Still the job would be difficult, but no more so than other texts.  Many controversial texts are already in the hands of our students because of the difficult work done by others before us who did what was required to stop books from moving from the classroom to library shelf and forgotten.

The best solution is not within the reach of the committee or the School Board.  The BEST solution requires us to step up to the task of creating a comprehensive lesson plan.  I believe the parent and teacher that presented to the committee would be among the first to sign on to help.  There must be others willing to save Sherlock Holmes.  But in addition to mystery we can teach values with a proper lesson plan.  There is great power in learning that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle realized later in life that he needed to apologize for his actions and that the Mormons responded with forgiveness.

What happens from here is not under the control of a nameless and faceless committee.  It depends on the face in the mirror. Do you see a face willing to let Sherlock Holmes’ first appearance in text disappear from classrooms just to sidestep difficult issues?  Will you be one of the voices that criticizes the committee and School Board, rather than to get personally involved?   A Study In Scarlet will not be removed from the library shelf but it will sit their moldering unless together we explore the more difficult path.  From Charlottesville to Utah, many argue the book is not ‘good enough’ to expend effort on saving when other Doyle books are available.  The value of a piece of literature may not just be in the text itself.  Greater value may be in the dialogue it compels.  So many Mormon voices have pointed out that if we remove A Study In Scarlet from the classroom, we have squandered the opportunity to teach something special to our students, regardless of religion.

I am hope someone sees a face in the mirror of someone who has been called upon to save this piece of literature, bring communities together and set an example for our students and children that will be remembered throughout their lives.

Sincerely,

Jim Stern (parent of four ACPS children, each an avid and contemplative reader)

End Notes:

I hope no one reads this in haste.  Even if I have a similar viewpoint, nothing in the opening three paragraphs should be taken as my words, feelings or opinion or attributed to me.  The remainder contains my thoughts and mine alone.  I believe that everyone on the committee either would agree with the majority of my comments, but I do not represent my comments as created or approved by the committee.

Malcontent with their city’s ongoing participation in liberty-stealing $1,000,000 central planning exercises—hosted by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC)— Charlottesville Democrats seek assurance that Albemarle County will continue with them in folly.

In an email (full copy below) obtained by The Schilling Show, city Democrat operative, Jason Halbert, encourages Charlottesville progressives’ electronic and physical infiltration of the Albemarle County process through an unprecedented, cross-jurisdictional invasion:

Here’s what you can do:

1. Whether you live in the County or not, you can write to the Board: bos@albemarle.org If you live in or pay taxes in the County, please say so.
2. Attend the June 8th meeting at the Albemarle County office building. WE NEED TO PACK THE PLACE!

Halbert’s missive goes on to praise “Sustainability” as a “good thing,” and the Soviet-styled 1998 Sustainability Accords—the backbone of the TJPDC’s central planning efforts—as “a home-grown result of hundreds of hours by local citizens.”

But which citizens?

Among the “gang of 34” (Sustainability Council members):

• Sally Thomas—Leftist, former member Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
• Al Weed— Enviro-socialist, former Democrat candidate for Virginia’s 5^th Congressional District
• Francis Fife—“Godfather” of Charlottesville’s Progressive movement, former mayor of Charlottesville

What was on their agenda?

• Human population
• Basic human needs
• Economic development
• Transportation
• Land development
• Waste
• Values/ethics
• Community awareness
• Interdependence/balance
• Government
• Natural environment
• Ariculture/forestry

And who else was involved?

Primarily, the 1998 Accords were funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency—an entity now recognized as one of the most formidable internal threats to Americans’ Constitutionally delineated property rights.

While local Democrats rush headlong to embrace local government control over previously ungoverned aspects of citizens’ personal lives (i.e. fertility analysis, population distribution by demographic, nutrition regulation, etc.) they are seemingly unaware of or unconcerned with appurtenant loss of individual liberty. Or maybe—contrary to their “founding” father—they truly believe these things are better handled by government than by individuals.

Thomas Jefferson must be spinning.

“The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property and in their management.” –Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816.

“Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now.” —Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XVII, 1782. ME 2:222

Read Jason Halbert’s entire “Sustainability is good” email:

The local Jefferson Area Tea Party has launched an attack on anything labeled “sustainable” associated with local government. They have convinced at least two or three Albemarle County Supervisors that there is “an international agenda” trying to “infiltrate local government” in a “power grab” exemplary of the “Stalin era.” These are quotes from Supervisor Ken Boyd and members of the local Tea Party (source:http://cvilletomorrow.typepad.com/charlottesville_tomorrow_/2011/05/boyd-iclei.html). They allege that any effort to address climate change, encourage sustainability, reduce carbon emissions, etc. is part of an international UN conspiracy to control local government. While this may make you laugh, it’s not a joke.

On Wednesday June 8th at 6pm in the Albemarle County Office building (on McIntire Rd) main auditorium, there will be a Board of Supervisors work session on this issue and a vote. They will hear a proposal from Ken Boyd and Rodney Thomas to withdraw from the Cool Counties Program and rescind the pledge to reduce carbon emissions 80% below 2008 levels by 2050. They want to cancel the County’s membership with ICLEI, a non-profit created by local governments in 1990 to champion and accelerate local government success in achieving their own energy, climate and sustainability goals. Finally, they want to cancel a $999,000 grant from the Federal government to the Thomas Jefferson Planning District designed to help UVA, the City and the County coordinate our comprehensive planning documents and create a more sustainable and livable community. A vote to proceed with the grant must take place by June 30th or the grant is in jeopardy.

Here’s what you can do:

1. Whether you live in the County or not, you can write to the Board: bos@albemarle.org If you live in or pay taxes in the County, please say so.

2. Attend the June 8th meeting at the Albemarle County office building. WE NEED TO PACK THE PLACE!

3. Forward this to friends, especially those in the County.

Here are some talking/writing points:

• Surveys of Albemarle County residents show that residents overwhelmingly support spending tax dollars on environmental protection.(http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms_center/departments/county_executive/forms/2006-citizen-survey-report.pdf — 98.2% said it is important to protect natural resources and environment, 96.7% said it’s important to manage growth)
• Sustainability is a good thing. It means we will not deplete natural resources and will leave a healthy planet for future generations Living sustainably protects our air, water, and natural areas. The Sustainability Accords are a home-grown result of hundreds of hours by local citizens. (http://www.tjpdc.org/home/sustainability.asp) The Livability project continues this home-grown effort.
• Coordinated planning by the county, the city and U.Va. through the Livable Communities Planning Project is a good thing. The TJPDC Livability program, funded by a HUD grant, assists our local comprehensive plan updates, especially welcome now that County budget cuts have reduced Planning staff. The County retains the ability to make its own decisions. Common sense tells us that the three entities should plan together for the future of our community. (Project description: http://www.1-community.org/ ). Sign the contract to accept the grant.
• We are proud that the Albemarle County Board unanimously joined Cool Counties and agreed to the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 80% by 2050. (Fairfax County page regarding the Cool Counties program: http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/news/2007/178.htm) It is intelligent for the County to set goals by which to measure progress. If this is not your goal, what is? The County has been an environmental leader for decades, and now is no time to stop.
• ICLEI provides the County the means to measure progress, learning from other counties and using a computer software program to estimate and track its CO2 emissions. We can take or reject any advice on how we can reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas pollution. ICLEI is a valuable tool, and eliminating it will handicap the County’s ability to achieve its environmental goals. (The ICLEI home page: http://iclei.org/). It is hard for citizens to believe the County seriously values the environment if it rejects such a useful tool.
• Americans rise to face challenges like climate change, and we are at our best when we confront them rather than denying or hiding from them. For the past 30 years Albemarle County has made progress in protection of our environment. This is no time to cease or restrict those efforts by refusing to set goals (through the Cool Counties resolution) or rejecting an inexpensive, irreplaceable tool (ICLEI) or refusing a grant to help up-date our Comprehensive Plan (updating is required by state law).

I know you are all super busy! This is a big deal for our community. Please do what you can! Let me know if you have questions.

Thanks for your time,

Jason [Halbert]

 

Providence occasioned me to be in Washington, D.C., the night of Osama Bin Laden’s demise. It was admittedly; an almost surreal experience, as the streets were typically quiet for a Sunday night, then a trickle of people turned quickly into a flood, as the streets almost organically became energized with the city wide chants of “USA, USA, USA!!!” One of the few times I was disadvantaged, temporarily in the technological dark, lacking phone, radio and internet, I was unsure of what was happening. When I learned of the reason for all of the exuberance, I must honestly say, I was not moved to such a rambunctious and misplaced emotional outburst. While I can understand the emotion, I found the outbursts distasteful and misplaced

Do I consider OBL to be a monstrous evil, whose deeds warranted his demise? Most certainly. Do I agree with the logic that OBL would have created a legal precedent and a nightmare, had he been taken alive to stand trial?  Given today’s twisted legal system and attorneys desiring more to make history, than to do what is right, absolutely. However, that having been said, I still take issue with the overall response of the American public.  I was not moved towards the fist pumping, beer bottle toting, athletic style chanting of the moment; I was however filled with a sober sense of appreciation. An appreciation to God, who allowed the circumstance to OBL’s capture. An appreciation of the situation, understanding that though we have rightfully found the man responsible for the deaths of thousands, and pronounced a deservedly quick and just sentence; we also have taken a whole new step in this contest with terror, and I pray that we have the fortitude and the resolve to go the distance.  I was simultaneously hit with the somber realization that while yes, justice has been served, and was a decade in coming, and while there was a degree of relief in knowing that this monster was no longer able to roam the earth, I  am also acutely aware that our citizens are tragically in possession of a short attention span. “WE THE PEOPLE” need to remember what happens when you step on a hot coal to extinguish it. You may put out the large coal, but twenty embers will spray out from beneath your heel. OBL may be gone, but he has had ten years to establish, organize and train multiple franchises of his evil. Will we maintain the alert vanguard required to go the distance? Or will we repeat our pattern of using OBL’s death, as an excuse to cut back now on our military?

Personally, I was most unimpressed in viewing the entire fist pumping and raised beer bottles toasting this news. I was forced to ask myself a piercing question, one whose answer is troubling, that being, what is the difference in how “WE THE PEOPLE” are acting, and how the citizens of Somalia were celebrating in the streets, as the nude bodies of the downed Blackhawk helicopter personnel were dragged throughout the city? How about the manner in which beheadings are celebrated on the internet, etc? As Americans, are we not supposed to be better than this?  Have we been successful at having transformed the unfortunate activity of war into some sort of a sport?  If so, then we must confront the following question, are we  at the core of our being, both personally and as a nation, any different than the foes we are at odds against. One may attempt to make the comparison that our collective jubilation was no different than the emotions displayed at the end of WWII.  That comparison would be flawed. This was not the celebration as it was in WWII. That conflict touched every single person. There was universal suffering and sacrifice, on a planetary scale, over seas and for the families at home. In some fashion, that conflict negatively touched the lives of every person. That celebration was for the end of a war, not the death of a man, and therein lies the biggest difference. By comparison, this conflict is almost a side show, not in the bravery and willingness to sacrifice by our service men, but in the manner it displays itself in the everyday life of the average American citizen. Seldom thought of until, through six degrees of separation, or a note on Face Book, one is touched by the death of a soldier, or as a news bit, scrolling across the screen at the local department store or mall, where the people go to practice their religion of materialism.

How we should respond as a nation, is with a humble spirit, giving thanks to God for allowing the capture and eradication of an evil monster asking for continued blessings and protection of our soldiers and our nation, as we enter into a new phase of history for our country. Not as our enemy rejoices in our demise, come on America, “WE THE PEOPLE” can be, and must be, better than this.

There has been much debate and discussion recently, regarding the definition of liberalism and conservatism. It would seem that many would choose to accept the current Roget’s Thesaurus definition of both, self-evident in it’s employ in the current media dialogue, and media spun sound bites. However, being “Old School”, I find that as a conservative, defining my socio-political ideology falls in line with the following definition:

Conservatism: The practice of preserving what is established; disposition to oppose change in established institutions and methods.  This definition taken from the Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, Second Edition.

As I comprehend this definition, it very accurately explains my thought processes and disciplines, which dictate the manner in which I have endeavored to live my life. As a conservative, I cherish and defend the founding documents that created this nation of “WE THE PEOPLE”. This, our great experiment, our American Republic. Those foundational documents that serve as the ideological pillars of our nation, prescribed and set forth by our founding fathers in the form of The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. Writings that affirm the idea that rights are given to man by God, the Creator Himself, and confirmed to each and every human being, by the shed blood of His Son, Jesus Christ, at Calvary.

Accordingly, as a conservative, I defend free expression, in speech, the press, and assembly. A right guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution. Additionally, as a conservative, I insist upon due process and protection of the individual from excesses and abuses of law enforcement. In particular, I, as a conservative, oppose “unreasonable searches and seizures” (The Fourth Amendment), double jeopardy, and self incrimination (The Fifth Amendment), and “cruel and unusual punishment, of which I do not consider the death penalty as such, (The Eighth Amendment).  In addition, as a conservative, I believe in “the right to a speedy and public trial” and the right to confront accusers and “to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation” (The Sixth Amendment). That having been said, I oppose the willful abuse of those rights, which distorts our judicial system. I oppose extraneous procedures that retard, at considerable taxpayer expense, the quick actions of pronounced judgments, allowing criminals to waste time, money and human energy, in petty appeals, etc. I am opposed to allowing the perversion of the system that no longer renders “Justice” blind, but allows her a peak under the blindfold, making true the old axiom of “He, who has the gold, makes the rules.” I oppose the seeming distortion of the system that creates an environment where the victim seems to possess far fewer rights than the criminal. A system that wastes taxpayer dollars, warehousing child molesters, rapists, and murderers’, rather than eradicating them from our system through the death penalty.

While recognizing the many doctrinal differences amongst religions, as a conservative, I endorse those historically proven and recorded “traditional values” that have been inculcated by the Judeo-Christian religion. The religion of revealed truth, which served as the primary philosophy and inspired the vast majority of the founders to create this nation. The Judeo-Christian faith that has produced an atmosphere of tolerance, mercy, charity, compassion, moderation, and peacemaking, which has allowed for the safe haven of all other religions to exist in this country,  as in no other anywhere in the world.

My conservative position also applies to my attitude of economics. As a conservative I understand and believe in the free market and free enterprise system. I therefore possess tremendous disdain for “government interference” in the corporate economic world.  I prefer “free enterprise” over monopolies; however, I do not favor the rights of business owners to be subjugated to the historically corrupt power appropriated to governmental agencies, at local, state and most certainly, federal levels, which feel themselves charged with “leveling the playing field.” Too many times, the enforcement of “equal opportunity” mutates into the activity of attempting to coerce “equal outcome.” There can not nor should there exist, the notion of an umbrella of “Equivalent Success” in the free market environment. Success will be determined by “WE THE PEOPLE” voting with our pocket books. If the product or service is found to be of value, then “WE THE PEOPLE” will continue to fund its operation. If the service is not of value, then “WE THE PEOPLE” will not pay for it. The market will speak for itself, and no individual, corporation or even government, is ever to big to fail.

As a conservative, I believe in maximum personal liberty, but that liberty ceases upon the infringement of another’s. I believe that the notion of personal liberty is protected by the rule of law. That being through the right to vote, which is the “consent of the governed”, and by legitimate popular government, again whose laws are based upon the precepts of the Judeo-Christian philosophy, and whose laws are not in violation of, nor attempting to render legal decisions on matters out of the realm of human authority.

As a conservative, I am opposed to the use of taxpayer funds, to propagate policies and programs that are in direct opposition to the commonly ideals of the Judeo-Christian ethics regarding the sanctity of innocent unborn life, as well as those activities which would serve to undermine or attempt to redefine such time honored traditions as marriage and family.

As a conservative, I am naturally and profoundly suspicious of the philosophical idea and current exercise in the notion of “big government”. I understandably am highly desirous of the institution of separation of powers, as designed by our founder’s. A system created to provide the required checks and balances that keep our Republic as a governmental system and body created to represent the interests of the public rather than campaign contributors, and lobbyists, and one that restrains government assaults upon the personal liberties of “WE THE PEOPLE” as set forth in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Therefore accordingly, while as a conservative, I believe in the notion, that it is not the business of government to promote any particular religion, I equally believe that government can not use it’s legislative or judicial power to obstruct any one particular religion, the subjugation of one being by default, the promotion of all others, or to interfere in the private lives of citizens.

As a conservative, I believe that it is the function of the various courts of our judicial system, to interpret established law with due regard for legal precedent, based upon the original intent of the Constitution.

As a conservative, I expect the simple yet required discipline of responsibility and accountability. This applies to persons, to corporations, institutions, and most certainly, to government. There can be no exceptions allowed for “well-placed individuals” (e.g., Ben Bernanke, Timothy Geithner, Rahm Emanuel, etc), or firms (The Federal Reserve, Lehman Brothers, General Motors), or governing administrations (ACORN, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, etc).

As a conservative, I believe in the idea of national sovereignty, and the active protection and projection thereof. I support the idea of secure boarders, able to identify, apprehend, and remove from our soil, all those who are here illegally. I am opposed to the abuse of constitutional amendments which allow for illegal aliens access to our socio-economic infrastructure, by simply giving birth on American soil. I support the rights of all citizens who have obeyed and complied with the laws regarding American citizenship, but wish to see all others who are not in compliance treated as the criminal outlaws that they are. National sovereignty also demands the need for national independence from other countries for the material needs of our citizens. I therefore am in favor of taking any and all actions required, to utilize the available resources to which the United States has at its disposal. I am in favor of eradicating the various governmental policies which currently render impotent, our ability to be energy self-sufficient. I am in favor of the exploration, location, and harnessing of natural resources such as coal, natural gas, and oil. I am in favor of the design and construction of nuclear power facilities which will continue to allow for the majority of American families to have access to the energy they require for the heating, cooling and carrying on the activity of living, in their homes.

As a conservative, I am cognitively aware of time, and my position, as well as the position of my generation within its realm. I am aware of and appreciative of history. I am acutely aware of those generations upon whose shoulders I stand. Those men whose blood was spilled in order to grant me the blessings of liberty in which I have had the opportunity to live, and which imparts me the awesome and transcendent responsibility I have to bestow those same ideals and opportunities, to future generations. Therefore, as a conservative, I can not support the idea of the instruction of anti-Americanism that has taken root in too many of our public institutions of education. I am naturally diametrically opposed to budget deficits, and other unconstitutional policies, which will have dire consequences for our progeny. Those activities and ideologies currently being exercised, that foresee the mortgaging and perverting of the future for the “millions yet unborn” that will follow me, which will find them existing in a nation so unlike the one we have heretofore enjoyed, that their only exposure to it, will be through history texts and oral recitations of the few still alive who can recall it.

I believe this to be a more complete definition, which this is a far more detailed and representative definition of “Conservative” and better explains the spirit that currently propels the many who now find themselves actively engaged in the political system that is our Republic.