Coralville Courier

Jim Mondanaro advocates kicking people out of homes to relocate Hancher

University of Iowa officials remain undecided about the future site for Hancher Auditorium. 

Devastated by the 2008 flood, the U of I has identified a two-block downtown site as a possible location to rebuild Hancher, a plan that is being pushed by local restauranteur Jim Mondanaro.

Mondanaro's vision for a downtown Hancher would financially benefit him, as the owner of Joseph's Steakhouse (downtown), The Bread Garden Market (downtown), Givanni's (yep, downtown), Bonehead's, (you guessed it, downtown) and Mickey's Pub (downtown - imagine that!).

There's a problem with that plan however, a large portion of that land is occupied by the Pentacrest Apartments and owner Jim Clark has no intention of selling.  Other properties standing in the way of Mondanaro's self-serving influence include a convenience store, two banks and an auto repair shop. 

Mondanaro has advocated the use of eminent domain.

In an interview with the Iowa City Press-Citizen, the man seemingly bent on greed said the following about Pentacrest Apartment owner Jim Clark and the use of eminent domain:   "I am not sure if he is going to have any choice in whether they sell or not."

It seems Mondanaro wants to displace people to get what he wants. 

So Jim, you want to displace some long-standing businesses in the Iowa City community, those entreprenuers don't have a right to ownership free of your unjust influence?  Employees don't need jobs?  People don't need a place to live?

Mondanaro's urging for displacement hardly seems like a liberal thing to do.....  Ironic then, how he's such a supporter of the Shelter House.  Emotional guilt trip?

Newsflash:  Eminent domain exists to serve the public good, i.e., the building of highways, provide utilities, or redevelop a blighted area.  It is NOT to be used to serve the needs of a restauranteur and Jim Mondanaro's urging to move Hancher downtown completely fails to meet legitimate eminent domain criteria.

Does Mondanaro deserve your business? 

Time to reverse Democrat government spending spree and it can start right here in the county

By Mike Thayer

Spending at all levels is out of control, it's GOT to stop. 

FEDERAL LEVEL:  

• $700 billion bailout that was supposed to keep credit flowing to Main Street, but ended up in Detroit, Wall Street, and Europe
• $787 billion stimulus package that was supposed to jump-start the economy but left us with record unemployment
• $410 billion appropriations bill signed by the President in March
•  The U.S. budget faced a $1.4 trillion shortfall in fiscal 2009
• Federal spending soared above 25 percent of our national income while revenues fell below 15 percent
• Nonpartisan budget forecasters say the national debt is projected to reach $20 trillion in a decade.

STATE LEVEL:

• Governor Culver has had to borrow money to pay the state’s bills
• In 2007 the state budget was $5.3 BILLION.  The budget ballooned to $6.55 BILLION in 2009.  That’s a 20 percent increase.  Put another way, that’s over $1 BILLION more leaving taxpayer pockets!

COUNTY LEVEL:

• Note the following from Supervisor Rod Sullivan's liberal newsletter, Sullivan's Salvos (Feb 2009):

"The budget the Supervisors are bringing to the public hearing is for approximately $84,100,000 dollars. The total budget is $125,000 less than last year, which translates to an overall decrease of -.001%."

Johnson County government isn't serious at all about making real cuts during these lean economic times.  They're set on continuing their bad habit of taking more of your money.  What Sullivan FAILED to tell mention in his newsletter is that the fiscal 2009 budget was originally certified at $75.9 million, but actual expenditures were about $84.2 million.  That's called spending more than budgeted for.  That's either poor management, or Supervisors are managing our money with irresponsible arrogance.  Either way, it's bad.  And now Sullivan tries to pull the wool over our eyes in pretending to be serious with a very misleading claim of decrease? 

FY 2007--Expenditures $53.8 million
FY 2008--Expenditures $66.8 million
FY 2009--Certified Budget $75.9 million (but actual expenditures were $84.2 million)
FY 2010--Certified Budget $84.08 million

The Johnson County Supervisors have increased their budget 56% in this time frame!   Believe that budget for 2010 will stay at $84.08 do you?  I can see Supervisor Sullivan in the near future, playing to the camera with crocodile tears and saying something like, "We really tried to make cuts, but current conditions have forced us to increase expenditures another $8.3 million."

No society has ever taxed itself into prosperity.  Are you OK with sending $1 of your hard-earned money off to Washington, only to get 2 cents back in the form of some government program that causes more problems than it solves?  Are you OK with sending another $1 of your hard-earned money to Des Moines, only to see a broken promise in a state economy that continues to struggle?  Are you OK with sending another $1 to county government, only to see that officials continue their bad spending habits like building a skywalk so they won't get wet on a rainy day?  Are you OK with sending another $1 to your local government, only to see that it gets spent on a failing theatre instead of on needed public safety?  And government has the gall to ask for more?

Liberal government is stealing from you.  While they're picking your pocket, they tell you where the nearest bread line is, doing so under the guise of how "the government provides."

Are you OK with that?

My guess is no.  So here we have an opportunity to put someone on the county board to hold liberal spending in check.  It’s time to reverse the Democrat government spending spree, and we can start right here in Johnson County.

What does annointed County Supervisor Janelle Rettig bring to the table?

Higher property taxes and bigger government.

Background: 

Of fairly recent note, Rettig was the co-chair for the Citizens For Our Land, Water, Future group that promoted the $20 million Conservation Bond in last year's general election (November '08 for those of you who live in University Heights).  That issue authorized county government to buy up unspecified lands for unspecified uses with taxpayer money.  The bond passed.  Rettig was instrumental in the county taking more money out of your bank account.  Rettig is also the chair of the Johnson County Trails Advisory Committee (JCTAC).  She likes to take land off the property tax rolls, and build trails. 

As a result of the Conservation Bond issue passing by a very slim margin, a recount was petioned for.  As the go-to 'yes' person, she was involved in the recount process, but behaved more like an obstruction to due process.  There was not a signifcant change in the vote count but the process didn't have to be as difficult as it was made to be by Rettig - the passage of the bond was confirmed.

During the course of the following months and as a chair and/or member of numerous committees and commissions, Rettig provided input and helped set agendas on how to spend taxpayer money.  This is not at all to be confused with how to spend money wisely, let alone considering cutting back on things due to the sour economy.

A lobbyist for LGBT rights, Rettig announced her intent to run for County Supervisor in June.  County Recorder Kim Painter was on her steering committee, County Supervisor Rod Sullivan (who worked with Rettig on the Conservation Bond) is a big supporter as is County Auditor Tom Slockett.  It's that local Democrat machine thing....  As her campaign developed, Rettig continued her *work* on commissions and committees.  Money continued to be spent not just needs as is reasonable, but on nice to have projects as well.

Sadly, County Supervisor Larry Meyers passed away in September, losing his battle with cancer. 

That event resulted in three liberal members of the Democrat machine annointing Rettig to the vacant seat.  Was it all legal?  Yep.  Was it a sham of a process?  You decide.

As a result of the Rettig annointment, a special election was petioned for by the people.  Nearly 8,000 Johnson County residents signed that petition, far exceeding the 7,299 required to make the special election happen.  The date is set for January 19.

So just when Rettig had temporarily put the brakes on her Supervisor 2010 campaign, she has to get back behind the wheel.  

On her campaign website, she clearly mentions that she's a Democrat and a progressive one at that. 

Kudos for being upfront.  Sort of.....  Snippets from her campaign are below highlighted in blue, the Real View translation is in Red.

"For nearly 20 years, I’ve been active in many aspects of our county.  I’ve been involved in issues such as land use, conservation, civil and human rights, fiscally responsible government, open and good government practices."

That's all happened with quite a price tag and intrusion.  You see, Rettig is a typical liberal, who believes that the government knows how to run your life better than you do.  Rettig was instumental in getting the $20 Conservation Bond issue passed.  That's the measure that authorized the government to buy unspecified lands for unspecified uses.  Not exactly open, not exactly fiscally responsible and good government is defined as liberal.  In fact, the first land purchase under that bond issue was made jsut recently, with an acquisition of 87 acres west of Tiffin for $420,280.68.  What's it for?  We don't know.  Who sold it to the county?  We don't yet know.  Was this some kind of sweet deal for land that the federal government wouldn't allow development on without a lot of strings attached due to the 2008 flooding?  This story is developing.

Also on the Rettig campaign website, some bullet points.  Again, her points in blue, translation in red. 

· Efficient and accountable County Government

Efficient and accountable to liberal standards, which means expansion of government, efficient and accountable as in the government being all things to all people.  None of that is to be confused with fiscal responsibility or transparent policy making, see secretive Conservation Bond information, minus publicly disseminated details of course!

· Livable communities with high quality of life and strong human services

Individual responsibility is not encouraged, in fact, it's held in disdain.  It takes a village and we liberals in charge make the rules in how to run the village and define its needs.  And responsible individuals will be giving more of their paycheck to the county for more government provided human services.   

· Protecting our natural heritage, our environment, our rural landscape, and our family farm culture

We'll buy land, so you can't.  

· Honoring our diverse population with a progressive and visionary County Government

Liberal vision, no other perspectives need apply.

That's why kudos were 'sort of' given to Rettig for being up front.  She may state that she is a Democrat and a progressive on her website, but that's where the being upfront ends and the read between the lines bigger government and more intrusion into our daily lives begins.

Current Issue

Johnson County Supervisor Vacancy: Reasons to request a special election

There is a vacancy for a Johnson County Supervisor seat.  A committee formed to fill that seat had the following options at their disposal:

• Fill by appointment
• Hold a special election

The committee chose to make an appointment.  The reason given for making an appointment instead of holding a special election was cost, which according to County Auditor Slockett would be about $75,000.

Below are some reasons why a special election is in the best interest of the people of Johnson County:

1. $75,000 of taxpayer money spent on a special election is how taxpayer money is SUPPOSED to be spent.  We pay taxes to have police and fire protection, clean water, good roads and yes, the exercise of our rights.  Taxpayer money spent on art instead of public safety is not proper management of our money by officials.  Taxpayer money spent on a special election and NOT on numerous but pointless 'surveys' telling us nothing at $15,000 a pop is how it SHOULD be. 
2. All members of the committee tasked with filling the vacant supervisor seat are liberal Democrats.  Comprised of county auditor Tom "DUI" Slockett, county recorder Kim "Was-on-steering-committee-of-the-Janelle-Rettig-campaign-for-supervisor" Painter and county treasurer Tom "Conflict? What Conflict" Kriz, conventional wisdom indicates they'll select liberal cohort Janelle Rettig to fill the seat.  Selecting Rettig puts another liberal Democrat on the board of supervisors, a local liberal Democrat machine decision.
3. The committee wanted to hold their first meeting regarding the vacancy before Larry Meyers was even memorialized.
4. When they put their eagerness in check and realized how bad that would look, they put the meeting off until the day after the memorial (the memorial was on a Thursday, they met Friday) - still curiously over-eager, but not so tasteless.  Then they met again the following Monday to formally announce their decision to appoint.  One could question if they had already decided on the appointment but didn't make if official at the first 'official' meeting because of how bad that would look in the public eye.  What do you bet there were some cell phone calls going on back-and-forth between committee members Slockett, Painter, Kriz and other local party elites.....  In violation of open meetings laws.....?  And just what was the hurry to announce appointment anyway? By law they had 14 days to make the decision on whether to appoint or have an election.  If the committee were truly interested in public input of appointment vs. election, they would have taken the full 14 days.  Did the committee even consider, "What do the people of Johnson County want?"  No, it appears they didn't. They rushed to an announcement of appointment in just six days and would have only taken five had it not been so obviously tasteless to do so.  And the key word here is 'announcement', not decided.  The decision to appoint was made much earlier.
5. County Recorder Kim Painter was on the steering committee to elect Janelle Rettig for county supervisor, whose campaign for 2010 was launched back in May.  For appearance sake, Painter's name was removed from the steering committee list once Rettig submitted her name for the vacant seat, but Painter has not recused herself from the appointment committee.
6. The annointment committee has used some very subjective and arbitrary rules in 'selecting' candidates to interview.  Sixteen people applied and the field was narrowed down to 8 for interviews.  If you've run for office before but lost, you were tossed out of the selection process so no interview for you.....  What kind of criteria is that?  That 'rule' eliminated five people and should have eliminated six, but the committee made an exception to include another Democrat and former county supervisor in the interview phase.  The other reason given by the annointment committee for rejection was:  If the appointment candidate had expressed they would only serve out Meyer's term and not run for re-election.  Two people were ousted based on that 'rule.'  Again, what kind of criteria is that?  And of course, Rettig made the cut and will be interviewed.  Three out of four Republicans applying for the seat were eliminated in the committee's *process.*
7. Do you trust an all liberal Democrat committee to do the right thing?
8. Demonstrating the Democrat machine impact, auditor Slockett has a personal Twitter account on the county auditor website pushing his personal political in advocating government-run healthcare.   He arrogantly refuses to take that link down despite public objection and requests to take it off the taxpayer funded county government website.
9. Do you trust an all liberal Democrat committee to do the right thing?
10. If public pressure gets to the committee and Rettig doesn't end up being 'The Choice', they'll simply choose another Democrat and then throw their support towards the effort of getting Rettig elected in 2010.  It's a get two for the price of one deal.  Put a Democrat other than Rettig in now to fill the vacant Meyers seat, which is up for election in 2010.  So is Sally Stutsman's seat, she is retiring.  So what you have is Rettig AND an appointee-turned-incumbent running in 2010 for two open seats.  From a liberal Democrat perspective, selecting option #1 (choose Rettig) puts another liberal on the board, but option #2 (choose another Democrat now, support Rettig in 2010) offers an opportunity to put TWO liberals on the board.  For some, this is the better strategy and you KNOW this has been discussed in the power circle.  Don't forget, all members of the committee are a part of that circle.
11. Do you trust an all liberal Democrat committee to do the right thing?   Will they do what's in the best interests of the people of Johnson County, or what's in the best interests for their party building?  
12. Rod Sullivan, a liberal Democrat, is a sitting member of the Johnson County Board of Supervisors.  If you disagree with Rod, he swears at you, talks down to you and heck, he might even call you at your home to berate you.  He has worked with Rettig on a number of issues, to include taking $20 million out of Johnson County households and authorizing the government to buy unspecified lands for unspecified uses. During his turn as chairman of the board, the county budget skyrocketed and taxes went up all stemming in wants, not needs.  We don't need another tax and spender on the board and Rettig and Sullivan are two taxpayer spending peas in a pod.
13.  Do you trust an all liberal Democrat committee to do the right thing?
    
    If you have a problem with how things are being handled by an all liberal Democrat selection committee, then stop by at 421 Tenth Ave., Suite B in Coralville to sign a petition calling for a special election.

Local government thinks its omnipetent, Part I

Make no mistake, a Democrat machine has been built in Johnson County.  Everywhere you look, city leaders, city offices, county leaders, county offices - they're everywhere.

That's a problem.  Why?  Because our so-called leaders have gotten all too comfortable in their captains chairs, they've gotten used to being in office, they've become omnipetent.

Their mission has stopped being about serving the needs of the people of the community (and for some it never was), their mission has become one of exclusively serving the party that orchestrated their election.  Johnson County has become a Little Chicago of politics.

That's a big problem.

In a series of looks into the elected officials of Johnson County and area communities, here's one on County Auditor Tom Slockett.

Tom has been the county's auditor for over 30 years.  Talk about being 'established' and set in your ways.....  Oh, and what about that Founding Father desire of serving the public for a bit but NOT being a career elected official?  Who cares about the wisdom in that right?  Ladies and gentlemen, Tom has been arrested for drunk driving twice.  His party co-horts shrug that off and look the other way.   Change Slockett's party affiliation from a 'D' to a 'R' and he would have literally been tossed out of office.  Can you say, "Double-standard?"  Yes you can.... 

His office has had a number of election day snafus over the years.  Ask the question, 'at a rate higher than other counties?'  Hmmmmm?  Such snafus have not negatively affected Democrats, so it's shrug off and look the other way by the party in control - Democrats.  Gee, what a surprise. 

Tom has faced a number of grievances filed by employees for office conduct.  It's been shrugged off, look the other way by the party....  It's no coincidence that the turnover rate for employment in his office is curiously high.

Slockett has a prominent link to his personal Twitter account on the Johnson County Auditor website, condoned by members of the party.  That's right, a personal link on an official county government website. Appearance of partisanship?  Who cares! Listed right there on the front page along with links to voter registration information, county supervisor vacancy updates, various county election returns and other data, is Slockett's PERSONAL Twitter account spewing liberal Democrat points of view.  As of this writing, Slockett tweeted about his support for government-run healthcare.  Such commentary does NOT belong on a county government website.  Sheer arrogance is what keeps that online.  Email him, remind him that he is an employee of the people and demand that he take his liberal ideology off a county website.

As part of a county supervisor vacancy, Slockett is a member of a committee tasked with finding someone to replace the late Larry Meyers, who passed away recently after a battle with cancer.  That 'committee' includes County Recorder Kim Painter - liberal Democrat, and county Treasurer Tom Kriz - Democrat.  Those liberals-in-charge could have chosen to hold a special election, but Slockett pushed for the appointment option under the guise of saving taxpayers $75,000.  Funny, liberal officials have never been fiscally conservative before.......  Today the 'annointment' committee held a meeting and narrowed a field of 16 candidates for the supervisor seat down to eight.  In rejecting eight of the candidates, Slockett pushed to eliminate all people who had run for office before but lost, and eliminate those who indicated they would not run for re-election once the Meyers term was fulfilled.  How about that criteria huh?   Slockett's push eliminated possible representation on the board for North Liberty, rural West Branch, Penn Township and Tiffin.  Their voices on county affairs were silenced.  So much for having VALID selection criteria huh?

Your Democrat leadership at work......

Johnson County Supervisor appointment smells of impropriety

So a committee of county officials - all Democrats - decided to appoint someone instead of holding an election to fill the vacant seat on the Johnson County Board of Supervisors.

The committee, comprised of county auditor Tom "DUI" Slockett, county recorder Kim "Was-on-steering-committee-of-the-Janelle-Rettig-campaign-for-supervisor" Painter and Tom "Conflict? What Conflict" Kriz opted to appoint someone to the Supervisor seat vacated by Larry Meyers who died on September 22 after a battle with cancer.  The committee will make a final decision on the appointee on October 28.  The reason given for making an appointment instead of holding a special election was cost, which according to Auditor Slockett would be about $75,000.

Sixteen people have applied for the vacancy.

Has county government become a "Little Chicago" of politics?  Evidence exists of one party, their way or no way rule.  Do we have a machine in place?  Here are some reasons to reject what appears to be a tainted appointment process and demand a special election for the Johnson County Supervisor vacancy.

County Auditor Tom Slockett - Longtime Johnson County Democrat/Auditor and on the appointment committee.  Arrested twice for being drunk and getting behind the wheel, the most recent in 2007.  Often has 'issues' on election day.

John Deeth - He has become influential in Johnson County's voting process.  An employee of the Auditor's office, liberal Democrat, blogger and party activist, Deeth's bio is a concern with some incidents dating back to 2003 which we're currently investigating.  

Janelle Rettig - Longtime Democrat party activist, announced a bid to run for county supervisor 2010 earlier this year and has applied for the supervisor vacancy.

County Supervisor Rod Sullivan - Longtime Johnson County Democrat, activist, and former county party chair.  If your point of view is different than his, he sends you vulgar emails, calls you at home and threatens physical violence.  Has worked closely with Janelle Rettig on a number of projects/issues.

County Attorney Janet Lyness - Should Painter have some intellectual honesty and recuse herself from this appointment process, Lyness would step in on the committee.  She's a concern because she excused Johnson County officials from having a conflict of interest in the Conservation Bond issue in being members of the Johnson County Heritage Trust pushing an agenda of green space.

County Treasurer Tom Kriz - A do whatever the party machine says to do kind of guy......  Longtime party member and on the appointment committee.

All these people are part of the local Democrat machine.  It can be argued that these people in positions of power and authority do things how they want, as in party before the people's interests.  Are you OK with that?

A petition is being circulated requesting a special election be held. 

This story is developing......

Obama wins nobel prize for campaign talk

In an "unexpected" announcement, King Obama has won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.

But what has Obama actually accomplished?

Never mind that the deadline for submitting a nobel nominee ended two weeks after Obama took office.  So what's the deal, are we to believe that Obama won based on campaign trail talk?

Gee, what an accomplishment! 

The award has truly lost its prestige, as Obama really hasn't contributed anything to global peace yet.  Can you say, "Rigged?"  Yes you can.

And peace?  Obama said he would end the Iraq war but he hasn't delivered as he promised on the campaign trail.  In Afghanistan, the president is seriously considering ramping up the U.S. troop presence there - a surge.  He's authorized predator drone strikes in Pakistan and helicopter attacks in Somalia. 

How is that different than Bush policy? The Nobel committee harshly criticized Bush when he was Commander In Chief, but apparently a different man using the very same strategy is OK huh?  Let's just call this the "Nobel-because-he's-not-Bush" prize.  Or how about the "Nobel-substance-free" prize?   It's an award based on campaign talk, not accomplishment.  The Nobel folks are a bunch of hypocrites and this 'award' is a total sham.

Obama is the third sitting U.S. president to win the award: President Theodore Roosevelt won in 1906 and President Woodrow Wilson was awarded the prize in 1919.

Johnson County Supervisor Rod Sullivan needs to step down

Johnson County supervisor and staunch liberal Rod Sullivan used vulgarities and threatened physical violence during an e-mail exchange with an Iowa City man according to reports in the Iowa City Press-Citizen.  He has apologized for his use of vulgarity in this instance, but it was a shallow apology and his behavior should continue to be questioned.  Why?  Because he's done this kind of thing before.  It's a habit, a very troubling one.  And if his email exchanges would not have become public knowledge, then it could easily be said that he wouldn't have apologized at all.  Links to the articles covering this issue are listed below.  It's an important story because:

1.  Rod Sullivan is an elected official, serving the people of Johnson County on the Board of Supervisors
2.  His conduct was extremely unprofessional
3.  Most importantly, he threatened physical violence

Background information before you read the articles

For many of you who frequent the Press-Citizen commentary boards, Rod Sullivan's behavior, his use of vulgarity and the threat he issued comes as no surprise.  Sullivan's comments are frequently pulled by the Press-Citizen comment board moderators, for abusing the publication's terms of service.  Violations would include use of vulgarity, hate speech, writing something libelous or slanderous, that kind of thing.

Having an online personality on the Press-Citizen allows you to respond to various articles, letters to the editor, opinion pieces and so forth on the online PC publication.  Enabling an online personality is free and you can make your online profile public or private. 

If a profile is checked as public, anyone visiting the article comment boards can click on a poster's icon, go to their page and review all the posts - reponses to articles, etc. - a person has written. The story title the poster responded to is listed and linked and a snippet of the comment made is displayed and clickable to read in full. 

If a profile is checked private however, then you cannot review that particular poster's comments from that person's profile page.  The posting activity of someone who has chosen to have a private profile is withheld from public viewing.  This is what Rod Sullivan did with his online personality.  He doesn't want you to see his responses all neatly packaged on his page. It should be noted that not only can you not see the summary of the various stories and related comments Rod Sullivan has responded to under the activity list, it also means you cannot see how often the line, "Rod Sullivan's comment has been removed for violating the terms of service," where the Rod's comment snippet would be if the profile were public.   It would be nice if the Press-Citizen would provide us a tally of just how often the Johnson County Supervisor's comments have had to be pulled.  Without question the number is high. 

Mr. Sullivan has a history of getting inflammatory online with those who challenge his stances and oppose his point of view.  You would be able to see some examples of that if Sullivan's profile page was public......

As a side note, Mr. Sullivan chastises people who use anonymous online personalities, how ironic given the man has a posting history he wants hidden from public view.  And gee, with people like Sullivan - a public official - issuing physical threats, it's no wonder people feel a need to have an anonymous online personality. 

This is not the first time Mr. Sullivan has treated a constituent who disagrees with him as he did as outlined in the stories below.  This isn't the first time Sullivan has called a constituent who disagrees with him at home.  His fellow members of the board know this. 

Mr. Sullivan needs to step down, his conduct is unbecoming of a Johnson County Supervisor.   Email vulgarity, angry telephone calls made to constituents at home, a threat of violence....  Do you see a pattern here?  To switch from using your county government email address to your own personal account when you want to get vulgar in correspondence is calculated.  What's next?  Do we wait and find out?

Resident says official sent vulgar e-mail
http://www.press-citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009909230311

Official sent second vulgar e-mail
http://www.press-citizen.com/article/20090924/NEWS01/909240322/Official-sent-second-vulgar-e-mail

Rod Sullivan's e-mails to David Dowell
http://www.press-citizen.com/article/20090924/NEWS01/90923005/1079/Rod-Sullivan-s-e-mails-to-David-Dowell

Sullivan apologizes for foul language
http://www.press-citizen.com/article/20090924/NEWS01/90924005/Sullivan-apologizes-for-foul-language

Download F_bomb_promo_from_rod_sullivan

 

A call to all patriotic lawyers

By Eric Blake

Are you passionate about the Constitution?  Do you believe that government is too big, out-of-control and in violation of our Founding Father's intent?

Then your pro-bono services are needed.  I'm sure the good folks of reason can pass the hat to cover some expenses.

We need to start contesting the intrusive legislation passed by our government at the local, state, and federal levels of what is sadly considered governance these days, or should I say Nanny-state governance?

Take the issue of 'public housing' for example.  Where in the Constitution does it authorize the government to buy housing?  It doesn't.  Why does government "OWN" houses?  It shouldn't.   

Government officials have conned us into allowing them to use OUR money to buy housing.  As well-intended as housing legislation might be, what government is doing is simply not authorized.   We've been duped.

Does this mean some doing what's right in terms of the Constitution people want less fortunate folks out in the street?  Absolutely not, but that's what we'll be accused of.  No, it simply means that government needs to be shown its proper focus and has no business being in the housing business. 

Forcing a hard working person to involuntarily cough up money to give to another person who may not be so hard working is unconstitutional.  It's a slap in the face to what our Founding Fathers laid out for us.  Robbing money from Peter's house to buy a house for Paul is a twisted notion.

People rightfully own houses and apartments, not government.  Businesses rightfully own houses and apartments, not government.  Churches, charitable organizations and non-profits rightfully own houses, shelter facilities and apartments, not government.  There, you were just given a handful of reasons why government has no need to be in the housing business.  Then there's that Constitutionality thing.....

Never mind the fraud, waste, abuse and con-artist laziness exercised by many government hand-out program recipients.  Never mind the lack of oversight and the too much on the government plate to efficiently handle case loads with any real sense of fiscal responsibility reality.......  Government truly has no business being in the housing business.  Government owned and managed housing is not something that is productive, it's an abuse.

Should the government help protect your home?  Sure.

Should the government provide access to clean water and sanitation?  OK.

Should the government own homes that belong in the hands of the people?  No.

So pick up the proverbial ball all you patriotic lawyers out there and run with it.  You took an oath right?  You know there's some unconstitutional stuff going on out there and our own government is doing the stuffing.  C'mon, make some phone calls, send out some emails, let's put our heads together and get to work!

Summing up that Obama speech to our kids.....

So President Obama did some lights, camera, action in the name of education.  Fine, he seems to like hamming it up for the camera.  Why he seeks so much face time is another story for another day.

As far as speeches go, it was on-topic and run-of-the-mill.  Nobody should have any objection to the speech itself.  If anything, one could object to how Obama wasted class time by telling students things they already know.

Prior to its delivery, the speech received a lot of criticism about the lesson plan and materials that accompanied it.  The original version of the plan distributed to schools recommended that students draft letters to themselves discussing "what they can do to help the president."  Those letters were then to be "collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals," according to the plan.  Keep in mind that a presidential speech to school kids is not unprecedented, but a lesson plan - let alone a plan asking kids how they can serve the president - is.

Hmmmmm.....

As a result of that backlash, the Department of Education re-wrote the plan, scrubbing it of the 'how best to serve Obama' mantra.

Interesting.

With that original lesson plan in mind, parents expressed concerns with school officials across the nation as to whether or not schools were going to mandate students to watch the speech.

Other parents were justifiably concerned with the possibility that Obama would stray from the topic of education and get into issues such as health care reform or the economy. 

So in review, did area schools mandate the viewing of the speech?  All reports indicate, No.

Did the president stay on topic?  Yes

All-in-all the speech turned out to be harmless.  But the questions, concerns and criticisms of its production and need for it were many and for the most part valid.   It's no coincidence that the Department of Education changed the lesson plan and given Obama's history, whatever he does deserves some scrutiny.  Van Jones anyone?  Jeremiah Wright anyone?  And the list of questions but no answers from the White House gets longer......