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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Show as slideshow]

[View with PicLens]

There were many advantages to having a sheltered, upper-middle class background in Charlottesville. But one thing it didn’t teach me was what the adult world is really like in America across class lines. Even following college, I still believed most of the nation’s grown men behaved like the professional-level ones from my childhood, holding jobs and raising families.

So you can imagine how shocked I was when moving to New York City at nineteen. The men there were louder than what I was used to. Many led lifestyles—as transsexuals, or black nationalists, or bohemians—that would’ve made them freaks elsewhere. And, to my surprise, many engaged in a culture of indolence that seemed to permeate the entire city. On any given block, there’d be men hanging on corners, lying on benches, and standing in streets even as cars passed. Crazy ones would sing on subways, scream at pigeons, and use sidewalks as their personal toilets. At first I found this insolence fascinating, even hilarious, given it took place alongside the financiers and intellectuals that run our modern world. And back then I figured it was just another quirk of New York culture.

But its charm faded when I began traveling America’s other cities and found the same thing. And because in these cities it wasn’t tempered, like in New York, by the far greater presence of working people, it amounted to a glaring problem. This first struck me in Atlanta, whose downtown is surrounded by some of America’s most dangerous neighborhoods, and rife with homeless people. But after further travels, I found it existed to varying degrees in every major city.

Sit at a crowded public space inside these cities’ downtowns and you’ll see what I mean. There you’ll find inebriates, drug fiends, and other men lying around. An alarming number suffer obvious mental illnesses, and are homeless due to society’s neglect.  Others, whether homeless or not, have nothing apparently wrong with them, save that they are public nuisances—by ignoring their own hygiene, taunting women, arguing loudly, and yelling racist comments. But most just sit around saying nothing at all.

This has created a particularly bizarre atmosphere inside downtown public libraries. Rather than attracting scholarly types, most mock this original purpose by serving instead as lounges for the indigent. If, like me, you wish to use them for serious research, you better be able to endure loud conversations, trashed bathrooms, snoring men, and—always my favorite when buried over work—men who sit and stare blankly ahead for hours.

Of course, libraries could reverse this by disciplining against noise, or sleeping, or pointless loitering. But in a depressing symbolism of government priorities, many have policies that do the opposite, like allowing men to openly view porn on public computers. This way, ensured one staffer at a Portland branch, patrons can enjoy their “freedoms.” And such men indeed have, not only in libraries, but in other public facilities, so that visiting them often means entering a twilight zone of glazed-over eyes and lost ambitions.

“Coming Apart”

As a libertarian—and hardly a moralizer—I’m slow to interpret such widespread torpor as a sign of impending collapse. And because I’m young, I can’t fully compare my observations of these dilemmas with past ones. But I have to say this problem of public indigence, which is familiar to most urbanites, seems to me like a demographic crisis. When the Occupiers began their bratty tirade against the rich, I at least had to agree with them on one thing: America does have a class problem. And it’s defined by a vast underclass of men, many within this public sphere, who seem to lack basic cognitive skills. How they reached these conditions is endlessly complex. But one recent book, Charles Murray’s “Coming Apart: The State of White America 1960-2010”, emits some light.

In the book Murray uses census data to document the trajectories, since 1960, of two different groups of American white males, aged 30-49. One group, which he calls “Fishtown,” after a working-class Philadelphia neighborhood, represents the portion with high school diplomas or less, who are mostly in the lower 30% of earners. The other group, nicknamed “Belmont,” after a professional-class township outside Boston, represents the portion with higher educations, mostly in the upper 20%.

Murray begins by explaining that after World War II, not only were income discrepancies between these two classes narrower, but also their cultural differences. The two often lived in the same neighborhoods, shopped in the same stores, and sent their kids to the same schools. But following Kennedy’s assassination, these classes divided, and by the turn of the century were almost fully segregated. The upper class grew numerically and by income, while lower class incomes stagnated, accounting for the wide gap that exists today.

Many have blamed structural changes in the economy for this trend, but Murray uses a mountain of statistics to emphasize how cultural values also factor in. He begins, using pop sociology, by highlighting lifestyle differences in white- and blue-collar America. These observations so closely fit my own—following years of travel around the U.S.—that they could’ve come from my pen. Within this narrative, people in Belmont drink moderately, exercise daily, eat healthily, watch little TV, and read highbrow news publications. Meanwhile people in Fishtown practice all the stereotypical degeneracies associated with poverty. A third of them smoke cigarettes; many eat fast food regularly, and thus have higher obesity rates; and on average, they watch 35 hours—35 hours!—of television a week, mainly soap operas and reality television. Indeed their habits directly refute left-wing buffoons like Paul Krugman, who, writing from his own little planet, still blames class differences strictly on economic determinism rather than lifestyle choices.

In the next section, Murray digs deeper. He explains that the nation’s social fabric was once defined by four virtues: Marriage, Industriousness, Honesty, and Religiosity. These virtues were manifested through high marriage rates; high workforce participation; low incarceration rates; and high church membership.  The statistical peak of these virtues for both Fishtown and Belmont came in the early 1960s, before being attacked during the Cultural Revolution as symbols of rigidity. And while most of these attacks came from members of the elite, they scarcely altered the virtuous underpinnings of elite culture itself. From 1960-2010, the rates of Belmont males not in the workforce stayed below 5%, while the workweeks of those within it actually got longer. Their incarceration rate remained almost non-existent. Their marriage rate dropped slightly from 94% to 84%. And their regular church attendance, which even agnostics like Murray and I agree is an important indicator of social capital, went from 65% to 53%.

But for Fishtown, the Cultural Revolution meant sweeping social changes. The Fishtown marriage rate over this same time dropped from 84% to below 50%. Men outside the workforce skyrocketed from 5% to 12%; as did incarceration fivefold, to a full 1% of this group. Regular church attendance—once essential to community life in blue-collar neighborhoods—dipped from 57% to 40%.

This hurt Fishtown’s already-tenuous social fabric, and widened the income gap. And because, Murray notes, these downward trends are not unique to whites, but consistent across racial lines for low-educated and low-income males of similar age, they suggest disturbing trends for America. It means all the more men in their primes are either imprisoned or outside the workforce, and often without basic social bonds. They surely account for a large percentage of those I’ve found sitting lifelessly in public spaces.

What Caused This?

Some will use “Coming Apart” to reaffirm previous notions that mid-20^th century America was a stark morality tale between the innocent 1950s and decadent 1960s. But I’m glad Murray doesn’t succumb to this temptation. While he acknowledges that these four virtues predominated far more before JFK’s assassination than after, he doesn’t pretend that together they produced some heaven on earth in America. He rightly notes the persecution of women and minorities during the era. And he also notes some effects these virtues, practiced to extremes, had in stifling the nation’s white men. Borrowing from stereotypes then advanced by books like “The Organization Man,” Murray describes 1950s America as one of tight-knit communities centered on church and family, but also highly conformist. So he’s no more surprised than me that when these norms loosened in the 1960s, it led to a creative explosion across the U.S.

For example, look at how popular music changed during this time. In the Fifties it had consisted mostly of buttoned-up balladeers singing corny lyrics. By 1969 it had become a tidal wave of Dionysian ecstasy put to song, defined by the guttural screams of Led Zeppelin and James Brown. But I’m convinced this never would’ve occurred had certain postwar taboos remained in place. Instead music—and pop culture—would have continued with the sterile innocence of Dean Martin.

Murray believes this loosening of formalities enabled innovation across fields even more important than music. He writes that while in the Fifties a typical young couple would’ve remained in their hometown and married early–with the woman tending house and the man becoming a policeman or small businessman—by the Sixties such couples were avoiding marriage for higher education. What resulted were breakthroughs in science, engineering, finance, and the arts. This helped form our modern meritocratic upper class; and rather than just dividing America, writes Murray, has also improved life for the lower class. In what I found to be a striking admission near the book’s end, Murray himself writes that if given a choice, he’d sooner live in the America of 2010 than 1960, despite the cultural changes. This is because, thanks to Sixties reforms, America is not only more progressive, but more prosperous.

But Murray’s concerns are that over this age of progress, we’ve erred to the point of having no standards at all. Part of this is because our “hollow elite,” as he calls them, no longer hold the lower classes accountable, but cower in the name of “tolerance.” Isn’t public library porn, funded by taxpayers, a great example? If a free-spirited traveler like me can enter Chicago’s central library, walk to a row of computers, find a dozen grown men watching sex scenes, and feel mildly disgusted, what will mothers with children think? They may not say anything right then. But they’ll probably avoid the library in the future, just as, Murray writes, the upper class now avoids much of public life because of its decadence—the decadence this same class is scared to reprimand.

Another concern, addressed by Murray elsewhere, has been the entitlement state. It too was inspired by the Cultural Revolution, which rather than remaining a cultural phenomenon, soon became a governmental one, dragged by policymakers into the vortex of bureaucratic incompetence. Ignoring the maxim that governments shouldn’t legislate morality, these policymakers legislated their own bizarre version of it, wherein newly trending principles like “sexual freedom” and “class equity” were used to justify welfare programs incentivizing single motherhood and downward mobility. Such programs shortly preceded the statistical explosion in broken families, and continue to sustain our unemployed masses.

What to do about it?

I’m not going to list a bunch of policy solutions for this crisis, or even suggest government policies can solve it. But on the cultural front, I’ll echo Murray in saying that the return of the professional class and their values into public life would be a start. I’ll repeat as much in my upcoming book, which is about how America can revitalize its cities. As bastions of what’s usually best about diversity and culture—and tolerance—such cities have for too long tolerated blatant lethargy from many of their own people. And the professional class, feeling disgusted and endangered, has fled for the suburbs. But I believe for such cities to thrive again, this class must return, not at the mandate of urban planners, but at their own doing. Because not only will their reemergence add to these cities’ public coffers, thus improving services. It will create an atmosphere of virtue—particularly in the public sphere—where virtue is often now lacking.

But any way you go about, if America is to change, it will have to begin with a change in culture. Hopefully “Coming Apart” will start that conversation.

As a friend of Dr. Nelson Lichtenstein ( former UVA Professor, Now at UCLA, union apologist, author of Jimmy Hoffa, The Most Dangerous Man In Detroit et al. and the first “ Living Wage Activist “ in my experience) I became aware of the movement a decade ago and followed its irrational screams since. A decade ago I asked Nelson why the unskilled, instead of those who rose in the ranks of producers, were constantly rewarded by social justice expounding institutions. He had no answer except it fitted the unionist agenda, it was “fair” and “don’t you think THEY need it”.  Why THEY, to the exclusion of meritorious producers, were then and now, the sole concern, is a mystery to me.  Class preference seems the only distillation of these talking point phrases used as rapid fire suppression of deeper thoughts and logical extension. As a guest on The Schilling Show, Ms. Emily Filler of UVa Living Wage brought nothing new to the “living wage” discussion. Indeed, she fit the mold precisely as Nelson Lichtenstein exhibited and taught a decade ago.

One question that has gone unexamined with respect to  the perpetual “social justice”  pay increases for beginning workers is, “Why are THEY rewarded with double digit frequent step raises while the higher production, higher service value employees are saddled with almost concomitant pay increase freezes?  It would be interesting to note the increases in starting salaries for unskilled workers versus the ACTUAL PAY RAISES skilled classified staff have received (published scales are useless for mid-level employees because the ranges and duties are so broad they approach meaningless). I believe you will find the producers have not fared as well as the starters.

So it seems the logical extension of Ms. Filler’s emotional “social justice” demand is to increase the starters and ignore the producers until each is paid what the scarcely half-learned Ms Filler and her elitist cohorts deem a “living wage.”  Mirable dictu! Oh joy! This is precisely the siren song of the wondrous Karl Marx and his minions right through the contemporaneous Noam Chomsky. The words to this ditty are “From each according to his ability; to each according to his need”! I am so delighted that Ms. Filler and her illuminati have finally crowned themselves as the dictators and implementers of Karl Marx commands for the rest of us, ignorant and unwashed as we might be!

I was simultaneously impressed, and duly dismayed, at how glibly the dogma, dictated by a thoroughly inculcated socialist ideology and practiced dialectic, flowed from the guest’s tongue in split-second response to any inquiry.  Each talking point was attuned to answer, instantly and forcefully in expression, any question only from its general context. Force in this instance seems to have been taught over substance. One should not be surprised.

I am of course saddened to see incipient civic persons joining, and apparently not unknowingly propagating, the red-sash and SOMA-satisfied Brave New World of Aldous Huxley through adherence to Marx’ instructions and DEMANDING, as a true community organizer, we all fall in either goose- or lock-step. I presume that years spent, steeped in institutional socialist indoctrination naturally leads one in this direction.

Watching this kind of ideological devotion to social fascism, I am reminded this is the TRUE BELIEVERS’ desired result—rule by the mob, sustained by the producers and enjoyed by the elite, ruling from their semi-supine positions of comfort and privilege, from their velvet dais of the self-proclaimed and self-tenured illuminati. For a more complete description of this model so common now in the United States of America, I simply point the curious to the former Soviet Union from whence a vast flood of this thinking of impotent people and a necessarily all-powerful Nanny State flowed. If one is not convinced of this model I heartily recommend reading at least one treatise on Russian history e.g. The Russian Tragedy: The Burden of History by Hugh Ragsdale.  Read this and weep, because you will see the diminution of individual thought, ability, innovation, freedom and expectations. Meanwhile the STATE rises and fills the gap as the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnivorous destroyer of that same humanity, even mankind, the self-appointed social justice administrators claim to be saving us from a world deemed evil in all aspects but their own self-defined, half-cocked, faux altruism.

Hear Emily Filler discuss UVa Living Wage on The Schilling Show, February 29, 2012.

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.

Edd Houck, a longtime legislative partner of Planned Parenthood and a reliable pro-abortion (warning: graphic link) vote in the Virginia Senate is now desperately trying to convince uninformed 17^th District voters that party labels are not important, and that conservatives should vote for him.

Fatt chance, Edd.

Read Senator Chichester’s unintended poison-pen endorsement of fellow liberal Edd Houck:

EDD HOUCK FOR STATE SENATE

For Immediate Release, October 27, 2011

Contact: Craig Bieber (804)-307-6166

John Chichester Endorses Sen. Edd Houck

REPUBLICAN CITES HOUCK’S RECORD ON JOBS, EDUCATION AND TAX RELIEF

FREDERICKSBURG—Republican John Chichester, former State Senator from the Fredericksburg area, today endorsed State Sen. Edd Houck (D-Spotsylvania) for re-election in the 17^th District.  “Senator Houck worked closely with me and other Republicans to pass common sense legislation that helped to protect and create jobs, make critical investments in core services, and cut taxes,” said Chichester.

Speaking at the University of Mary Washington, Chichester noted Houck’s consistent and influential support for UMW, Germanna Community College and K-12 education.  He praised Houck’s efforts to cut the sales tax on food and income taxes while balancing the state’s budget and maintaining Virginia’s tradition of fiscal responsibility.  “Edd Houck’s re-election is crucial for this area and the entire 17^th District, Chichester continued.  “Party labels are not as important as someone’s commitment to principle and willingness to work in a bipartisan fashion to find solutions,” he stated.  “Edd will continue to be a leader on issues important to Virginians like improving our economy and keeping taxes low.”

“I am grateful to John Chichester for his very strong endorsement,” Houck said.  “During our service together on the Senate Finance Committee, we worked to maintain Virginia’s hard-earned reputation as one of the most business friendly and lowest tax states in the nation,” he stated.

“I strongly encourage all of my fellow Republicans and other friends in the 17^th District to send Edd Houck back to the State Senate,” concluded Chichester.

Sen. Houck is third in seniority in the 40-member Senate.  The 17^th District consists of all or parts of the counties of Albemarle, Culpeper, Louisa, Orange, and Spotsylvania and the City of Fredericksburg.

###

Paid for and authorized by Friends of Senator Edd Houck

 

For the last month, I have been trying to have Narcotics Anonymous (NA) meetings in Housing Unit #1 at the Albemarle Charlottesville Regional Jail (ACRJ). I have met resistance at all levels.

The Program Activity director said point blank, no, to the use of all but a vacant classroom. Due to security reasons, inmates can’t use the classroom alone. But on the other hand, volunteers can come in for church, bible study, etc. You would think that there is more of a security risk where there is a non-inmate surrounded by inmates vs. inmates surrounded by inmates.

Nevertheless, I asked that we be allowed to use the gym. Physical recreation is allowed two hours per day, five days a week—one hour for walking, one for basketball. My request was, and is, for an hour to exercise our minds, working on recovery.

A large number of people are here for drug or alcohol related charges or convictions. What person in their right mind wouldn’t embrace people trying to help themselves with their addiction?

This problem with drug addiction is almost everywhere. Bluefield Police Chief, Harry Cundiff, stated in the Richmond Times Dispatch that 80% of crimes in his town are drug related. I would be the first to say that NA is not a cure-all for drug addicts, but NA is a non-profit fellowship of men and women for whom drugs had become a major problem. We are recovering addicts who meet regularly to help each other stay clean.

To the jail administration: What part of that don’t you understand?

You allow inmates to wax floors in this pod, why don’t you allow inmates to better themselves? And, you don’t have to pay us a $20 canteen bag at the end of the month because recovery is priceless; all we need is an opportunity.

ACRJ administrators, the ball is in your court; don’t drop it.

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]

In the first part of its June 8 work session, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors (BOS) heard reports and comments from Staff and County Executive Thomas Foley. The BOS then followed by asking questions and, on a few occasions, TJPDC Executive Director Stephen Williams rose to offer answers. The BOS asked for clarification regarding the status of the 1998 Sustainability Accords—specifically, its relation to the HUD Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant application and the Livable Communities Planning Project. In his answer, Mr. Williams called the Accords merely a “historic document” (echoing a phrase previously coined by Supervisor Dennis Rooker), and added that the Accords was submitted to HUD only as an “advisory” piece. I interpreted this statement to imply that, in current function and relevance, the Accords was an antiquated document bearing little to no consequence on current or future comprehensive plans.

I disagreed with this characterization because it is incongruous with the documentation of the grant application posted on the “Many Plans, One Community” web site (the informational hub for the Livable Communities Planning Project operated by the TJPDC itself). There, the Accords are NOT simply a “historic document” but identified on the first page of the application in the Application Abstract as follows:

“The existing Regional Plan for Sustainable Development in the Charlottesville/Albemarle metro area is the Sustainability Accords.” (http://1-community.org/PDF/application/1-Applicant%20Abstract.pdf)

The existing Regional Plan IS the Sustainability Accords.

Furthermore, as reported in an article written by Sean Tubbs in the November 24, 2010 edition of Charlottesville Tomorrow:

“Stephen Williams, the TJPDC’s executive director, said the money will be used to implement the Sustainability Accords which were developed by the Thomas Jefferson Sustainability Council and signed by regional governments in 1998.” (http://cvilletomorrow.typepad.com/charlottesville_tomorrow_/2010/11/mpo-november2010.html)

Stephen Williams said the money will be used to implement the Sustainability Accords.

So during the first break, I walked up to Mr. Williams in a cordial manner and extended my hand to shake his while introducing myself. We exchanged pleasantries—I told him I regretted not meeting him in person until now, and that I had heard him speak at a few of the BOS meetings I attended in the last few months. He acknowledged seeing me and listening to me there as well.

Then I proceeded to tell him what prompted me to approach him was the characterization of the Accords he gave to the BOS. I explained how the Accords is not just an “historic document” because it was clearly presented to HUD in the grant application as the existing plan…that the Accords along with the Charlottesville Regional Sustainability Implementation Plan (which employs ICLEI’s “Five Milestone Process”) were the foundational documents submitted to HUD as criteria to be judged in consideration for the grant request…and that HUD has every reason to expect that its $999,000.00 grant will be spent by the consortium to build upon and implement what was depicted in the foundational documents.

I said that many of the Jefferson Area Tea Party’s concerns for the Livable Communities Planning Project are rooted in the language in the Accords—especially regarding, but not limited to, human population—and what it commits our community to implementing per HUD’s expectations. In conclusion, I asked that if I prompted his recollection of the description of the Accords as the existing plan in the Application Abstract, would he please amend his previous statement to the BOS about its status after the break.

At this point, he conceded that I may be correct about the status of the Accords as stated in the Application Abstract (as referenced in the first sentence of the audio file transcript below)—but then he abruptly switched his argument in an effort to trump my contention by other means.

[Unbeknownst to me, a recording device belonging to a WCHV radio reporter picked up the next part of our conversation (see below for full audio clip). The following is a transcript of that audio file.  Italics and underlines are added in an effort to depict vocal emphasis]:

Williams: ….that may also be true, Ms. Thorpe.

Thorpe: Good.

Williams: But there is no legal standing for a Sustainability Plan because there is no legal requirement for one.

Thorpe: Perhaps not, sir,

Thorpe: but when you submitted that to the Federal government

Williams: It is simply advisory to these folks…

Thorpe: and said this is our current plan, this is what we want to implement or build on -

Williams: …advisory document

Thorpe:—that’s what you said to the Federal government.

Williams: …advisory document, Ms. Thorpe

Thorpe: Well, that’s your interpretation.

Williams: …advisory document only, it’s not my interpretation, that’s the LAW.

Thorpe: I know word for word what TG (a “G” that I incorrectly spoke for a “J” in TJPDC as I became flustered by his tone)—

Williams: I’m sorry that you don’t understand the law, Ms. Thorpe,

Thorpe: I’m reading the document that’s on your web site, sir.

Williams: and that’s been demonstrated on a number of the other things you’ve said (then unintelligible)

Thorpe: Well, I’m—no, I’m, I’m speaking about one specific item. It says it on your web site—that was sent to HUD. Folks, “this document is our current plan”, so HUD looks at it and says this is the current plan—very good, I guess this is what you’re wanting money to implement and build on…that’s why they, that’s why they’re cutting the million dollar check. Anyway…

Williams: No, I’m afraid that’s not true.

Thorpe: No, I’m afraid it is. I’m afraid it is. We can agree to disagree -

Williams: I’m afraid that’s YOUR interpretation, Ms. Thorpe

Thorpe: We can agree to disagree, and I’m looking at the documentation on your web site.

Williams: — and I’ve got to say, I understand this quite a bit better than you do.

Thorpe: Oh, really?

Williams: Yes.

Thorpe: Very good. Then why is it you said that ICLEI, you didn’t know anything about ICLEI, and yet this six—you know, these ”Products”—have you compared it to the “Five Milestone Plan” in ICLEI, sir?

Williams: Ah, you know, I looked at the “Five Milestones”

Thorpe: You don’t know where the language comes from, you don’t even know what you’re talking about, you don’t know where the language comes from. You keep (saying) – ICLEI never went to TJPDC

Williams: No.

Thorpe: But it’s language -

Williams: No.

Thorpe:—and the implementation of it’s “Five Milestone Process” is in the County document which has seeped into your grant application.

Williams: You know why that is, Ms. Thorpe? Because those are basic planning principles, any grad student in planning at any school from the country could tell you that stuff, that’s in the basic curriculum.

Thorpe: You can — sir, you can speak, you can try to demean and speak that way if you like. All I can tell you is what I see

Williams: Ms. Thorpe…

Thorpe: on your web site, what’s in those documents.

Williams: You…

[End of audio file]

Unfortunately, the audio file ends here because the WCHV reporter took the recording device away for the impending resumption of the meeting. During this exchange, Mr. Williams stepped in toward me, stood intrusively close (I estimate there were no more than eight inches of space between our torsos), and used his significant height advantage to bend over the top of me then lower his face only four or five inches from mine, positioning us nose to nose.

By anyone’s definition of physically “getting in one’s face”, that’s exactly what he did. It made me, as it would make anyone, extremely uncomfortable. But I held my ground there for quite a while, not wanting to concede to him the satisfaction of intimidating me.

However, as he continued speaking I eventually lifted my right hand up in between our faces with my palm facing (but not touching) him. I looked into his eyes over the tops of my fingertips and when he finished speaking, I told him he was making me uncomfortable and invading my personal space. I asked him to please step back, but he didn’t budge from his position and asked “Why?” in an intense, snide tone. I told him again he was invading my space and I asked him a second time to please step back. Mockingly, he said, ”Why should I do that? I like talking to you this way!” To break the physical stalemate, I took a big step backward then we resumed verbal sparring about the Accords as we backed away from each other towards our seats.

When I returned to my seat, I told some of the people sitting around me about the unprovoked, physical imposition I had just received from Mr. Williams. I then quieted down as the meeting resumed. During the next break, I told Supervisor Ken Boyd about the incident—and I was also prompted by one of my friends to tell it to Supervisor Rodney Thomas when he came over to speak to a group of us at the end of the meeting.

After 9:00 a.m. the next morning (Thursday), I received an e-mail from a member of the JATP steering committee who had left the meeting shortly following the end of the first break. She wrote to tell me her attention was drawn to Mr. Williams’ confrontation of me and she walked over to stand behind me about halfway through the incident and witnessed it from then to the end. While the confrontation was going on, I didn’t realize anyone I knew had come over to observe because in the heat of the moment, the only thing that had my attention was his face in mine. Later that afternoon, I called her to elaborate on what she witnessed without my input and she recounted the incident to me just as it happened.

Also early that morning, Rob Schilling called me in response to a mass E-mail I sent out a few hours earlier announcing the JATP victory in getting ICLEI kicked out of Albemarle County. He wanted more information about the meeting, knowing that I stated in my letter I had stayed there from beginning to end. Among everything else, I told him what happened with Mr. Williams. Rob offered to contact him to ask for his side of the story with an invitation to appear on his radio show with or without me to discuss it. I told Rob that I did not object to his inquiry.

Roughly an hour later, Rob advised me that Mr. Williams wrote him to deny my allegations. By doing so, Mr. Williams unfairly impugned my integrity by suggesting I was a liar. And as someone who is honest and has demonstrated her seriousness for responsible leadership of the JATP, I decided was not going to allow him to do this without my response.

On Friday, I proceeded to report this incident to the TJPDC Planning Commission Board. I left phone messages with Supervisors Ann Mallek and Dennis Rooker to call me because I could not locate contact information for the Chairman of the Board (they are both the BOS representatives on the Planning Commission Board). Supervisor Rooker called me back first and I told him what happened. He gave me the name and phone number of the TJPDC Board Chairman, with whom I spoke later that evening.

So why should all of this matter to anyone?

Of course, this incident is yet another example of the rude behavior displayed by Sustainability advocates towards Sustainability opponents at the BOS work session as I described in Part I of my Guest Editorial. And in honesty, I want to defend my honor and get the apology from Mr. Williams that I feel I deserve. But it is about substantially more than this. Mr. Williams’ position and responsibility as a public official elevates this incident to being one of potential interest and concern to the public and the TJPDC.

After consideration, I decided that both should be made aware of the disturbing behavior I experienced from Mr. Williams. I know that he does not have a positive opinion of me and the JATP because he told me so. We are a source of frustration for him because our continuing opposition to the Livable Communities Planning Project has not made his job any easier. That is understandable.

But during his disagreement with me, Mr. Williams went well beyond the standard voice raising and benign changes in posture (such as hands placed on hip or pointed fingers) that usually occurs when two people are engaged in a dispute. In my opinion, he grossly crossed the line of typical response when he deliberately and menacingly imposed his physical stature in a posture intended to demean, intimidate, and bully a woman. This is reprehensible and inexcusable behavior, which not only oversteps the bounds of civil discourse and common courtesy, but unforgivably breaches the professionalism we should all expect from a public official. While Mr. Williams may not have liked the information I brought to discuss with him, I brought it to him in a respectful manner and I did nothing to instigate nor merit what I consider his unconscionable treatment of me.

I am completely confident in my interpretation of his actions and his intent behind them. I cannot abide a bully and I believe the best way to discourage bullying behavior is to confront it and seek proper punishment for the offender. It is my intention to file a formal complaint with the Planning District Commission and bring this matter before the TJPDC at their next Board meeting in August. I will be seeking a public apology from Mr. Williams and ask the Planning Commission Board to take disciplinary action against Mr. Williams commensurate with the seriousness of his actions.

Listen to Carole Thorpe’s interaction with TJPDC Executive Director, Stephen Williams:

Neff, whose stated credentials primarily focus on social justice “philanthropy,” is a current board member of Advocates for a Sustainable Albemarle Population (ASAP), an extremist, zero-population-growth “environmental” organization. She also is a co-chair of the “gender transformative,” web-based, TrueChild, whose stated vision is, “a world where every child can break through gender stereotypes, so they can be their true selves and reach their full potential.”

No stranger to controversy, Neff was accused by multiple sources of ethics breaches in her unsuccessful 2009 campaign for the Virginia House of Delegates 58^th District seat.

The announcement is scheduled for 10:00 AM at the Albemarle County Office Building.

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]

 

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.