News Release
Homer CCSD 33C
Goodings Grove Luther J. Schilling William E. Young William J. Butler
Hadley Middle Homer Jr. High
Contact: Charla Brautigam, Communications/Public Relations Manager
cbrautigam@homerschools.org | 708-226-7628
For Immediate Release:
Aug. 23, 2016
Homer 33C introduces new community newsletter: 33C Connections
Catching up on your Homer School District 33C news is easier than ever.
The district has created a quick, easy-to-read synopsis of news called 33C Connections.
The quarterly update, which will be shared with parents via Virtual Backpack, is also available on the district’s website. Just click on the “News” tab at the top of the page and look for the green Connections Newsletter box on the right side of the page.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B_7VzF-U4oUTMEswTFhUVDRlOHc
If you would like to receive the newsletter electronically, please send your email address to Communications/Public Relations Manager Charla Brautigam at cbrautigam@homerschools.org
In the meantime, here’s a direct link to the latest issue of 33C Connections: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_7VzF-U4oUTa3k3RllmbGU0WlU/view?usp=sharing
Like us on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/homer33c?fref=ts&ref=br_tf
Homer 33C introduces new community newsletter: 33C Connections
BILL CLINTON'S LOVING WIFE
BILL CLINTON’S LOVING WIFE — by DICK MORRIS
If you happen to see the Bill Clinton five minute TV ad for Hillary in which he introduces the commercial by saying he wants to share some things we may not know about Hillary’s background, beware as I was there for most of their presidency and know them better than just about anyone. I offer a few corrections:
Bill says: “In law school Hillary worked on legal services for the poor.”
Facts are: Hillary’s main extra-curricular activity in ‘Law School’ was helping the Black Panthers, on trial in Connecticut for torturing and killing a ‘Federal Agent.’ She went to Court every day as part of a Law student monitoring committee trying to spot civil rights violations and develop grounds for appeal.
Bill says: “Hillary spent a year after graduation working on a Children’s rights project for poor kids.”
Facts are: Hillary interned with Bob Truehaft, the head of the California Communist Party. She met Bob when he represented the Panthers and traveled all the way to San Francisco to take an internship with him.
Bill says: “Hillary could have written her own job ticket, but she turned down all the lucrative job offers.”
Facts are: She flunked the D.C. bar exam, ‘Yes’, flunked it, it is a matter of record, and only passed the Arkansas bar. She had no job offers in Arkansas, ‘None’, and only got hired by the University of Arkansas Law School at Fayetteville because Bill was already teaching there. She did not join the prestigious Rose Law Firm until Bill became Arkansas Attorney General and was made a partner only after he was elected Arkansas Governor.
Bill says: “President Carter appointed Hillary to the Legal Services Board of Directors and she became its Chairman.”
Facts are: The appointment was in exchange for Bill’s support for Carter in his 1980 primary against Ted Kennedy. Hillary then became chairman in a coup in which she won a majority away from Carter’s choice to be chairman.
Bill says: “She served on the board of the Arkansas Children’s Hospital.”
Facts are: Yes she did. But her main board activity, not mentioned by Bill, was to sit on the Wal-Mart Board of Directors, for a substantial fee. She was silent about their labor and health care practices.
Bill says: “Hillary didn’t succeed at getting health care for all Americans in 1994 but she kept working at it and helped to create the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) that provides five million children with health insurance.”
Facts are: Hillary had nothing to do with creating CHIP. It was included in the budget deal between Clinton and Republican Majority Leader Senator Trent Lott. I know; I helped to negotiate the deal. The money came half from the budget deal and half from the Attorney Generals’ tobacco settlement. Hillary had nothing to do with either source of funds.
Bill says: “Hillary was the face of America all over the World.”(LOL)
Facts are: Her visits were part of a program to get her out of town so that Bill would not appear weak by feeding stories that Hillary was running the White House. Her visits abroad were entirely touristic and symbolic and there was no substantive diplomacy on any of them.
Bill says: “Hillary was an excellent Senator who kept fighting for Children’s and Women’s issues.”
Facts are: Other than totally meaningless legislation like changing the names on courthouses and post offices, she has passed only four substantive pieces of legislation. One set up a national park in Puerto Rico. A second provided respite care for family members helping their relatives through Alzheimer’s or other conditions. And two were routine bills to aid 911 victims and responders which were sponsored by the entire N.Y. delegation. Presently she is trying to have the US memorialize Woodstock.
Here is what bothers me more than anything else about Hillary Clinton. She has done everything possible to weaken the President and our Country (that’s you and me) when it comes to the ‘War on Terror’.
1. She wants to close GITMO and move the combatants to the USA where they would have access to our legal system.
2. She wants to eliminate the monitoring of suspected Al Qaeda phone calls to/from the USA.
3. She wants to grant constitutional rights to enemy combatants captured on the battlefield.
4. She wants to eliminate the monitoring of money transfers between suspected Al Qaeda cells and supporters in the USA.
5. She wants to eliminate the type of interrogation tactics used by the Military & CIA where coercion might be used when questioning known terrorists even though such tactics might save American lives.
One cannot think of a single ‘Bill’, Hillary has introduced or a single comment she has made that would tend to strengthen our Country in the ‘War on Terror’. But, one can think of a lot of comments she has made that weaken our Country and makes it a more dangerous situation for all of us. Bottom line: She goes hand in hand with the ACLU on far too many issues where common sense is abandoned.
Share this with everyone you know, ask them to prove Dick Morris wrong. Think about it – he’s (Dick Morris) said all of this openly, thus if he were not truthful he’d be liable for ‘Defamation of Character’ !
And you better believe Hillary would sue him.
Her winning in 2016 means the final death knell for America! Her whole public life has been a LIE.
By Dick Morris, former political advisor to President Bill Clinton Release Date: 05/23/16
This is how the Obamacare story ends
Posted on August 19, 2016 by Special To Personal Liberty Views:
This piece, written by Cathy Reisenwitz, was originally published by the Foundation for Economic Education.
The Affordable Care Aact was supposed to guarantee that every American could afford health insurance. Not only has it failed to do so, but a more spectacular failure is imminent.
It’s about to get a whole lot harder to be sick and poor in America.
Health insurance company Aetna is pulling out of Obamacare in most states. After announcing a $300 million loss, the company joins UnitedHealth Group Inc. and Humana Inc. which also lost hundreds of millions of dollars by participating in Obamacare exchanges. Anthem and Cigna have also complained about losses from participation.
Why are they leaving?
The ACA only helps the very poor and very sick. To make insurance affordable for those people, the ACA subsidizes their insurance premiums.
To do this, the poor and sick buy their insurance on state-run exchanges. Obamacare made state governments act as insurance brokers.
It also forced every American to become a customer of a health insurance company, though they could choose which one. In exchange for this tremendous handout from the federal government, insurance companies agreed to sell Obamacare through the state governments.
Obamacare’s subsidies made very generous insurance affordable for poor, sick Americans. The subsidies meant that millions of Americans were insured for the first time in decades. But the ACA didn’t make insuring poor, sick Americans profitable for insurance companies. The ACA doesn’t force companies to sell insurance to poor, sick Americans. So you have to buy it, but the companies don’t have to sell it to you.
The vast majority of the people who are buying insurance from Aetna, UnitedHealth Group Inc., and Humana Inc. on the exchanges are very sick. Very sick people cost a lot more to insure but don’t bring in any more revenue because Obamacare outlaws that.
That leaves Aetna with two choices. It cannot continue to insure these people until they bleed the company dry and then declare bankruptcy even if they wanted to because they’re obligated to shareholders. Their only options are to raise premiums significantly or dump most of their 850,000 exchange customers.
What’s next?
Nearly a million people will have to buy a new plan next year because their insurer left the market. Likely more the year after next. But they’re not going to have many options to choose from.
Most ACA exchange buyers didn’t have many options to begin with. Government made sure of that by mandating coverage requirements and banning selling insurance across state lines. Companies dropping out left and right exacerbates the problem.
Right now buyers in many areas can only choose from two insurers. In a growing number of counties, that number is dwindling to one. In 2017 residents of 664 counties will get to choose between one insurer according to a Kaiser Family Foundation report. That’s up from 225 counties in 2016. And that’s before Aetna dropping out. One county, Arizona’s Pinal County, has no insurers.
What does that mean? It means that the ACA greatly increased demand for health insurance while simultaneously limiting supply.
Higher demand and lower supply always has one of two outcomes: Higher prices or shortages.
Most of the companies staying in the exchanges are asking for permission to raise prices. Again, they can only afford to stay on the exchanges if state governments approve their proposed rate hikes. One estimate puts the weighted average for the requested rate hike at 23.3 percent across all 50 states and D.C.
Turns out you still can’t just overturn the law of supply and demand.
President Obama, when selling the Affordable Care Act, promised Americans that if they liked their health insurance plan, they had nothing to worry about. But Obama knew that was impossible. The ACA forced insurers to cover more medications and procedures, effectively outlawing all low-cost plans. The ACA forced millions of middle-class Americans to pay more for more insurance than they wanted or needed.
That wasn’t fun for anyone, but most families simply lowered their standard of living to help pay for everyone else’s insurance.
That’s not going to happen for low-income Americans, who can’t afford the hit.
If state governments decline the rate hikes, more insurers will leave the exchanges. If state governments approve the rate hikes, millions of low-income Americans lose their insurance unless states also ramp up subsidies.
This, my friend, is a giant, and growing, unfunded liability that most states simply cannot afford. They can’t afford to pay people’s medical bills (Medicare) and they can’t afford to pay people’s insurance premiums under Obamacare. The money isn’t there.
There is only one way to lower the cost of healthcare and insurance: Competition.
Obamacare’s coverage mandates force insurance companies to stop being insurers and start being cost-pools. That means we all pay for our healthcare with other people’s money. The result is entirely predictable: Higher prices. You can’t have higher prices on the same incomes indefinitely.
Unfortunately, taking money from some people and giving it to others doesn’t make more of it. The people who were supposed to make the system work, the young and healthy, have refused to pay for insurance they can’t afford and don’t need.
The ACA was supposed to guarantee that every American could afford health insurance.
Instead, it made healthcare and insurance more expensive. The people who were supposed to pay for that increased expense aren’t doing it.
The ACA doesn’t have a greedy insurers or stingy states problem. It has a math problem. Neither states nor insurance companies can afford to make up the difference between what everyone newly covered under Obamacare earns and what it costs to insure them. And the gap is only widening.
The only possible outcomes for Obamacare are extremely onerous taxes, healthcare rationing, or both. There is no other way for this to end.
This entry was posted in Hot Topics. Bookmark the permalink.
Hijrah is means moving to a new land in order to bring Islam there/ It is working
Are we witnessing a worldwide “Hijrah” (i.e., jihad by emigration)?
I got an interesting email. I cleaned up the formatting, but otherwise replicate it here precisely as I received it:
What is a Hijrah? (Why do I keep hearing “connect the dots”?)
Large scale mass migrations become invasions and this actually appears to be a hijrah as he describes it ………this is NOT going to end well.
It appears the policies of the liberal socialist leaders in Europe and the US do not want to keep these lands from being overrun. Why???
I couldn’t figure out why other Arab countries (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Oman, etc.) weren’t taking in refugees, so I started digging.
Hijrah is jihad band is considered in Islam to be a holy and revered action. “And whoever emigrates for the cause of Allah will find on the earth many locations and abundance, and whoever leaves his home as an emigrant to Allah and His Messenger and then death overtakes him, his reward has already become incumbent upon Allah.” (4:100)
So if a Muslim dies in the process, that’s essentially the same as being a suicide bomber, his reward is automatic. This explains the great eagerness to undertake such a perilous journey.
Muhammad and his followers emigrated from Mecca to Yathrib/Medina in 622 CE. It was there that he became a military leader.
This is where all the commands to commit violence against unbelievers originate from. It’s important to note that the Islamic calendar marks this as the beginning of Islam. This current massive hijrah was announced last January although few paid the announcement much attention.
A supporter (or member) of ISIS uploaded a document in Arabic that urged Muslims to get to Lybia for its proximity to southern Europe and for the important tactical value of its illegal immigration circuits to facilitate infiltration of European cities (“It has a long coast and looks upon the southern Crusader states, which can be reached with ease by even a rudimentary boat”).
In February, transcripts of telephone intercepts published in Italy said ISIS was threatening to send 500,000 migrants as a “psychological weapon” against Europe. The Italian Minister for the Interior, Angelino Alfano, said at the time, “If the militias of the Caliphate advance faster than the decisions of the international community how can we put out the fire in Libya and stem the migration flows?
We are at risk of an exodus without precedent.”
Also in February, the Turkish intelligence service warned police that up to 3,000 trained jihadists were seeking to cross into Turkey from Syria and Iraq and then travel through Bulgaria and Hungary into western Europe.
From Syria, to Hungary, then into the rest of Europe. Sound familiar?
In May, a Libyan government adviser warned that Islamic State operatives were being “smuggled to Europe in migrant boats.”
ISIS is profiting from the human trafficking trade, forcing boat owners to hand over their profits or be killed.
Some ISIS operatives are already sheltered in safe houses in the south of the Europe. Groups of men, 17 to 25, from Palestine and Syria, cross into Bulgaria and from there move into the rest of the EU. A former Al Qaeda double agent told the BBC that he knew of two Egyptian brothers who reached Italy from Libya, accompanied by men who were “deeply religious and fluent in Italian and French.”
Go watch the videos of those “refugees” again. How many of the “refugees” are 17-25 year old men?
If that doesn’t convince you, we already know terrorists are coming through with the waves of refugees: a week ago five men were arrested attempting to cross the Bulgarian-Macedonian border with Islamic State propaganda, specific Jihadists prayers, and decapitation videos on their phones.
They had been posing as refugees. UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage warned: “I fear we face a direct threat to our civilization if we allow large numbers of people from that war torn region into Europe.”
Other Muslim countries are not “taking in” these “refugees” because this is a hijrah into Europe. This is no humanitarian crisis. It is an invasion. Its goal is to transform Europe: overtax its economies, tear down its wealthiest nations, re-draw the demographics and, of course, the culture.
Sources:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/isis-milita…dviser-1501692
https://www.rt.com/news/233839-isis-…ck-diplomatic/
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/09/ro…ah-into-europe
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/09/is…ng-as-refugees
http://www.independentsentinel.com/i… byan-refugees/
http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/wp…for-the-is.pdf
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti…on-bombed.html
Take Granny’s Gun
Professor: Take Granny’s Gun
FRIDAY, AUGUST 19, 2016
Gun ban advocates, knowing their goals aren’t especially popular with the American people, have in recent years tried to couch their agenda in more innocuous-sounding terms. They don’t want to ban all guns, they’ll say, they just want to keep them out of the wrong hands. But once you start paying close attention to their claims, you realize that the “wrong hands” might be closer and more numerous than you think … and might even include the more senior members of your family.
Breitbart News recently pointed out that an “expert” who works at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health (BSPH) is sounding the alarm about firearm possession amongst the elderly. Perhaps not coincidentally, that “expert” also claims that firearm ownership is most common in America for those aged 50 or older.
Dr. Shannon Frattaroli of the Bloomberg School told New America Media that the typical gun control focus on crime and mass shootings leaves out the risks of firearm possession among older Americans. “[A]ny conversation about guns has to include a conversation [about] gun ownership among older adults,” she said. “There’s definitely more to be done on that issue in the United States.”
Frattaroli believes depression, frailty, dementia, grandchildren, and the risks of accidental shootings all counsel against senior citizens keeping firearms in their homes, as she claims, “they would harm someone coming into the home who’s not there for a home invasion, someone there for a legitimate purpose like a caretaker.”
One solution, the New America Media article suggests, is “competency tests for gun owners,” which would be similar to “requiring motorists to prove their proficiency behind the wheel as they grow older.” Another, according to Frattaroli, is allowing a concerned “loved one or neighbor” to obtain a court order to disarm gun owners whom the petitioner considers a risk to themselves or others.
It takes a true gun control extremist to paint Grandma with the same brush as others who are categorically prohibited from possessing firearms, such as felons or those who are addicted to illegal drugs like heroin or methamphetamine.
And while Dr. Frattaroli’s views may seem extreme, she is far from alone in suggesting the aged have a dark side that weighs against trusting them with firearms. Even the Social Security Administration, as we’ve reported, is looking to get into the gun control business by reporting certain of its beneficiaries to the FBI as “mental defectives.”
But lest gun control advocates like Dr. Frattaroli be accused of age discrimination, college students fair no better in their eyes. A spirited classroom discussion is likely to provoke murderous rage, they insist. And if academic debate doesn’t lead to homicide, they argue, binge drinking or other degenerate behavior surely will.
What about adults with children? Shouldn’t someone responsible enough to oversee the well-being of another human being be responsible enough for possessing an inanimate object like a firearm? No, gun control advocates argue. The safest course is for them to forgo guns as well, because the children will find them.
Perhaps single women, then? No, gun controllers will tell you, because they’re too weak to hold onto the gun and too incapable to use it if they do. They’d be better off with whistles to summon help.
Even in an age of advanced political correctness, apparently no stereotype is too offensive to be employed in the pursuit of banning guns. And when it comes to keeping firearms out of the hands of “dangerous people,” even the Bridge Club or the Shuffleboard League could prove just a little too high-risk to exercise their Second Amendment rights.
Judiciary Committee sent a letter to Justice Department this week detailing where they believe Clinton lied to Congress.
Liar, Liar: More bad news for Clinton
Posted on August 19, 2016 by Sam Rolley
Senate Foreign Relations Committee holds a hearing on Benghazi in Washington, DC
As Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton continues making excuses about her private email server at the State Department, House Republicans are prepping a perjury case against her for lying to the Select Committee on Benghazi last year.
According to reports, the GOP lawmakers are planning to make Clinton’s Benghazi testimony a central part of a hearing scheduled next month.
Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte and House oversight committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz sent a letter to the Justice Department this week detailing several instances where they believe Clinton lied to Congress.
From the letter: “During a House Select Committee on Benghazi hearing on October 22, 2015, Secretary Clinton testified with respect to whether she sent or received emails that were marked classified at the time; whether her attorneys reviewed each of the emails on her personal email system; whether there was one or more servers that stored work-related emails during her time as secretary of state; and whether she provided all her work-related emails to the Department of State.”
Observers note that the GOP lawmakers will have a tough time convincing the Justice Department to make a case against Clinton, but does keep her trustworthiness on the minds of voters. That’s good news for the GOP nominee as polls continue to show that voters have serious doubts about Clinton’s honesty.
Meanwhile, The New York Times on Friday revealed that Clinton told the FBI she was advised to use a secret private email server by former Secretary of State Colin Powell. No joke.
From the report:
Pressed by the F.B.I. about her email practices at the State Department, Hillary Clinton told investigators that former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell had advised her to use a personal email account … Separately, in a 2009 email exchange that also emerged during the F.B.I. questioning, Mrs. Clinton, who had already decided to use private email, asked Mr. Powell about his email practices when he was the nation’s top diplomat under George W. Bush, according to a person with direct knowledge of Mr. Powell’s appearance in the documents, who would not speak for attribution.
Powell, of course, has no recollection of giving Clinton that advice.
A spokesperson for the official said in a statement: “He did write former Secretary Clinton an email memo describing his use of his personal AOL email account for unclassified messages and how it vastly improved communications within the State Department.”
“At the time there was no equivalent system within the Department. He used a secure State computer on his desk to manage classified information,” the statement continued. “The General no longer has the email he sent to former Secretary Clinton. It may exist in State or FBI files.”
This entry was posted in Hillary Files and tagged Hillary Clinton. Bookmark the permalink.
Principles are principal
Anyone who follows the misadventures and machinations of Obummercare must chuckle at reports about it. Leftists inevitably praise the system as successful, however obvious its failures, while those on the right regularly laud its impending demise. Yet federal programs seldom if ever die.Indeed, politics rather than fact shapes most Americans’ opinions of nationalized medical insurance—even in cases pertaining strictly to numbers. For example, on July 28, the conservatives at Forbes.com declared “that the ACA significantly increased premiums, ” while a day later, the more liberal shills at “healthinsurance.org” insisted that “Health premiums after Obamacare” are “lower.”
Obummercare has become a sort of political Rorschach Test, in which observers see what they please. No doubt that’s a function of size and complexity: “healthcare” accounted for 16% of the country’s economy in 2008, and experts predict its share will rise to 20% by 2021. So gargantuan a universe enables partisans to isolate “evidence” substantiating all claims, however preposterous.
But that malleability also emphasizes the value of principles. Obummercare can and will fail; it must, according to economic principles, and it should, according to moral ones. Whether it temporarily flourishes or even “lowers health premiums” doesn’t matter: principle alone should inform our view of and hopes for the (Un)Affordable Care Act’s future. Even the brutal Soviet Union succumbed to economic principles after menacing the world for seventy years.
Yet most Americans long ago ceded the political field to pragmatism. They agree with politicians and bureaucrats that if a governmental program “succeeds” or promises some great benefit, it thereby becomes not only acceptable but desirable. They no longer ask, “Is it moral and Constitutional for government to provide medical insurance (or education, or mortgages, or food, etc., ad infinitum)?” Rather, the question shifts to, “How many freebies can I get? How many of my expenses can I push onto my neighbors?” As the debate over Obummercare showed, few Americans care whether the (Un)ACA is Constitutional; even fewer worry about its morality. Nor does anyone recommend abolishing Medicare and Medicaid over these same concerns; heck, politicians refused to repeal even aportion of Medicare—the “drug benefit”—thanks to its immense popularity.
But principles triumph in the end; ergo, the wise man heeds them. And the first principle of politics is this: “Government is force.”
In other words, the State’s essence consists of brute, physical force. And not only when it goes to war: it regularly threatens all of us, its golden geese and victims, with violence. The marble monuments politicians erect to themselves, the flags and bunting, the elections in which we supposedly choose our rulers, the cant about democracy—all disguise government’s ferocity. Nonetheless, the State is nothing more than the organized violence its minions legally initiate against everyone living within a geographical area. Force has ever been government’s hallmark throughout history and around the world.
Indeed, government’s compulsion so permeates our lives that most folks take it for granted. Until recently, the American State kidnapped children each day, forcing parents to relinquish their kids to public schools; now, government allows families to teach their offspring at home—but they must still seek the State’s permission before doing so. We drive cars we buy on roads we pay for in the manner bureaucrats decree and only with their approval; cops enforcing the government’s whims arrest and even kill anyone defying these strictures.
We could multiply these mundane examples by the thousands. Yet the only time most people notice the State’s violence is when it attacks an elderly, sick or otherwise vulnerable citizen for ordinary behavior it has not yet criminalized. For instance, a “secretive Court of Protection” in Britain compelled a young girl to leave her family and live instead in a “supervised care home” after her “father verbally reprimand[ed] his daughter in public for bad behaviour.” Judges prohibited the family from contact with her—but her grandmother hugged her when the two met by chance on the street. For that, the court imprisoned Grandma. And it’s about to remand her to the pokey for a second offense: when the girl ran away from the “care home” and phoned her granny for help, the lady took her in. “What grandmother would turn her back on their grandchild in those circumstances?” she rhetorically asked.
Recall this woman’s plight the next time politicians or bureaucrats propose an extension of their authority in the hope of using even more physical constraints against even more people. Of course, they won’t phrase their ambition so honestly; they will instead prattle about how many constituents die from lack of medical care and how the State should impel us to buy insurance for our own good. Yet none of their lies alter the precept that government is force. And though politicians pretend to help us, overriding our decisions infantilizes and harms us.
Our second principle builds on the first. We deplore violence that forces us to act against our will. (In fact, when people the State doesn’t employ so oppress us, we call them “criminals.”) Ergo, we don’t treat others that way, whether we honor the Golden Rule, Kant’s Categorical Imperative, or simple human dignity. Initiating violence is always evil, however vehemently the assailant contends that he acts for his victim’s own good. Only savages and sociopaths attack peaceful people.
Nor do we out–source violence: no entity operating in our name should compel others to act against their wishes. Yet that is precisely what government does with each of its positive laws and regulations. Obummercare obliges us (or our employers) to buy medical insurance. It compels doctors and hospitals to treat patients as bureaucrats dictate. It restricts competitors from selling insurance as they see fit. Its myriad sanctions threaten all who do not comply with its endless rules. By its very nature, it is utterly immoral.
However grandiose or compassionate a political goal may seem, government is force. And civilized adults never initiate violence against each other.
— Becky Akers
Big Government/You can’t be trusted to rent to your family
Nanny State of the Week: You can’t be trusted to rent to your family
Property owners in the small resort town are learning that no amount of regulation is ever too much for local bureaucrats.
Despite already having some of the strictest rules about vacation rentals in the state, the city council is considering new ordinances that would require residents who rent out their homes to register, pay hundreds of dollars in fees and acquiesce to a government-approved inspection.
RESTRICTIVE RESORT: The city council in Cannon Beach, Oregon, which already has some of the toughest rules in the state, is considering increased restrictions on vacation rentals.
The rules are being considered by the city council without being put to the residents for a vote. And residents are not happy.
“Cannon Beach already has the most restrictive short-term rental rules on the coast,” said Alaina Giguiere at a Planning Commission meeting, as reported by the Daily Astorian. “The plan is working, our neighborhoods are protected.”
The city runs a lottery program to allow residents to participate in the rental economy. Only 92 permits are granted in a town with a population of about 1,600 residents. Taxes for these kinds of short-term rentals bring in more than $288,000 in income for the city. But the city wants more.
New rules would require a $600 fee from those wishing to rent out their homes, generating even more money for the local bureaucrats. The newly required inspection would cost an additional $125 per resident.
Residents say the rules should be eased, not toughened. “If anything, make it more lenient so the city can be enjoyed more and more,” Steve Crane, a Cannon Beach resident, told the Planning Commission.
It appears there was no particular inciting incident that provoked the changes. Just a desire to be even more of a nanny on the part of the city council.
For a resort town predicated on tourism, the possibility of putting clamps on the stock of available units could put a dent in tourist activity. The local officials in charge, however, are intent on charging ahead with minimal public input — with a plan that forces residents to submit to government inspections and pay more in fees.
Tourism? Or just renting to a couple family members in town for the summer? It doesn’t matter: the Cannon Beach city council is looking to jack up the price of summer vacation.
Letter by a parent on the way their child will be taught/ refusal of numerous programs
NATIONAL REFUSAL LETTER.
Dear Board of Education, Superintendent, Principals, and Teachers of ________________ school district:
I am writing to inform you that I am using my Federal Parental Rights, as per the “Federal Parental Rights Doctrine”, ruled by the Supreme Court, to enforce the following…
We are writing today to formally inform the __________ school district of our decision to refuse to allow our child _____________ to participate in any local assessments, tied toCollege and Career Ready Performance Index , Teacher Keys Effectiveness System or Leader Keys Effectiveness System, for the 2016-2017 school year. My child will be scored as a “refusal” on all state and local testing.
Our refusal should in no way reflect on the teachers, administration, or school board. This was not an easy decision for us, but we feel that we have no other choice. We simply see these tests as harmful, expensive, unfair, and a waste of time and valuable resources.
This year we will show effort to eliminate unnecessary and harmful assessments in our public schools. Our child will not participate in any assessments other than those solely for the use of the individual classroom teacher.
We refuse to allow any data to be used for purposes other than the individual teacher’s own formative or cumulative assessment. Any assessment whose data is used to determine school ranking, teacher effectiveness, state or federal longitudinal studies or any other purpose other than for the individual classroom teacher’s own use to improve his or her instruction will not be presented to our child.
To be clear, our children will not participate in the following:
• Any so-called “benchmark” exams whether they are teacher-designed or not, since these exams are imposed by entities other than the individual teacher.
• Pre and post assessments connected to “Student Learning Objectives” or any other assessments mandated by the Governor’s office.
• Any milestone testing.
• Any progress-monitoring or RTI assessments.
• Any OAS or adaptive testing done in computer/tablet labs.
• Any exam used to formulate an evaluation or score for our children’s teachers or their school.
• Any survey, electronic or paper, not designed by my child’s teacher to be used in classroom instruction.
• Any fitness or nutrition information that includes my child’s height, weight and/or BMI.
• Any online programs or applications that require any personal information or that maintain student data in any form.
• Any “confidentiality” agreements or coerced silence about testing or test content.
**Furthermore, our child, _____________is not receive any curriculum teaching religion. Islam or any other. My child is to receive alternate assignments.
***In addition, my child is to be taken “off the grid”, so to speak, at school, which includes school computers and my child is to be given assignments, in paper form.
****Lastly, my child, _______________is not to participate in any “National Sexuality Standards” http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/01/18/17sexed.h31.html lessons, which I deem improper. Please note, I am refusing any lesson, which has to do with the “The Reproductive System”.
We believe in and trust our highly qualified and dedicated teachers and administrators. We believe in the high quality of teaching and learning that occurs at _____________ School. We hope our efforts will be understood in the context in which they are intended: to support the quality of instruction promoted by the school, and to advocate for what is best for all children. Our school will not suffer when these tests are finally gone, they will flourish as they have in the years previous. ________ school should have a unified policy in place to address children who are refusing these assessments.
Additionally, we are requesting that the school make accommodations for meaningful alternative activities or assignments that will continue to promote [his or her] academic and intellectual growth. Our child will not be in attendance if academically viable alternatives are not available on days when testing occurs. Furthermore, we must be guaranteed in writing that whatever option is taken, either alternative assignments or absence, our child will not face any negative consequences to, for example, course grades, social or behavioral evaluations, workload, promotion, or future classroom assignments.
We do apologize in advance for the inconvenience this decision may cause the administration, the school, and staff.
Sincerely,
Pork the grease that keeps the government working ends with Trump
Why the Republican Neo-Conservatives Really Support Hillary
QUESTION: Marty; It is clear that the Republican elite support Hillary over Trump and of course the press with every story is negative. This is really strange with the GOP leaders who claim to be conservative. Obviously the press has become a propaganda machine to only destroy the country to maintain the status quo. Is this all because they fear an outsider?
Thanks. You are a breath of fresh air.
HB
ANSWER: The press from CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS and countless newspapers all want a Hillary coronation and could care less about the direction of the world no less the nation as long as they keep the money flowing in their direction. This election will destroy their own credibility as people turn to the internet for the truth. Welcome the American version of PRAVDA. The press go into hyper-analysis of every single word Trump now speaks, but there is never a word that Hillary sold influence approving contracts to foreign governments who donated to her pretend charity. The press attacked Nixon for 18.5 minutes of tapes being erased. Hillary gets a crown for her coronation and a get-out-of-jail-free card for treason.When it comes to the GOP leaders, you MUST understand that the neoconservatives are originally the old Democrats of the South who jumped ship when the Democratic Party began turning more socialist and liberal in their view. There was a large evangelical element to this group and that is why they initially supported Jimmy Carter’s evangelical liberalism. However, their hard line agenda on ruling the world led them to abandoned Carter and voted for an outsider named Ronald Reagan who the “traditional” Republicans feared because he was not a Washington boy. Most of these neoconservatives, like Strom Thurman, were outright racist.
These neoconservatives began to fear ‘liberals’ who they saw as surrendering in the Cold War. To them, foreign policy was all about nation-building abroad to defeat communism. They really were against political correctness so the Republicans were reshaped according to their views. I was personally a close friend of someone high up in Reagan’s campaign. I had a discussion about these neoconservatives back then and warned that embracing their agenda would alter the Party. I was told that I should not worry for the Party would temper and control these rebels. But in the end, the Party needed them to win the election and in the process the heads of almost every committee became a Southern neoconservative.
Even since the 1980s, this group of neoconservatives has constituted the elite of their newly adopted party. These are the very same people in revolt today and refuse to support Trump. Yes, the career politicians fear Trump will not grease their palms with the usual corruption that has consumed Washington. God forbid if Trump began cutting pork from Washington’s diet. How would a politician run for office if he did not deliver pork to get votes? That is the grease that keeps the government working.
However, you have to examine closely what is really happening. Pick up the rug and you will see that there is far more to the mere statement of Trump building a wall to prevent Mexicans from coming in. Trump is against the core of the neoconservative agenda, which has always been nation-building and ruling the world. When Mit Romney and others say Trump is “no conservative” this is what they are really saying. Trump does not want to rule the world like them. Why do you think they put together a letter of 50 former national security advisers to say Trump is dangerous? You will not hear the Truth from Wolf Blitzer. What they are saying is Trump is against their agenda to engage in nation-building anddominating the world at the expense of our young boys as if it worked so well in Iraq and Libya not to mention Syria and of course Vietnam. When Trump says Obama is the founder of ISIS, he may be sarcastic, but Obama, after getting the Nobel Peace Prize, agreed to try to muster support to invade Syria. Only the American people rejected another nation-buildingscheme. The whole idea of a wall between the USA and Mexico means to them isolationist and Trump has criticized nation-building. Trump has stated that we should not be nation-building any more.Of course CNN will not tell you this point blank for they are a covert Democratic propaganda machine that benefits from war coverage. Why would they explain this deep rift between Trump and the neoconservatives. They aired the letter from 50 former national security advisers saying Trump is dangerous. But they would never explain why they think he is dangerous. Most people ASSUME that means he would get us into war by insulting people. That’s a real fool’s perspective. The truth is precisely the opposite. These elite neoconservative security advisers fear Trump would stop the neoconservative agenda of ruling the world. The danger to these 50 questionable advisers is if the USA would no longer be engaged in nation-building such as Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, and Ukraine just in recent memories, they could not rule the world. This is why so many people in the Republican Party are against Trump. He is changing the dynamics driving war and in so doing reshaping the Republican Party sending these neoconservatives back to the Democrats from where they originally emerged. The very war machine President Eisenhower (January 17, 1961) warned about when before he left office is here championed by the neoconservatives who are the most dangerous group of all for they will create World War III.
Consequently, the Republican neoconservatives are turning to Hillary for they know she will not dismantle the war machine and Obama is expanding the cold war against Russia and China. After getting the Nobel Peace Prize, this man has done more than any former recipient to reignite international war. When I say I often feel I should just go to some island and wait for the mushroom cloud to know it is safe to come out, this is what I am referring to. These are the people who want to rule the world.
Therefore, the neoconservatives are reinventing themselves once more and are quietly abandoning the Republican Party of economic conservatism for their real goal of nation-building and dominating the world political scene. The Republican elite are silently returning to the Democrats to support Hillary Clinton. They know she will do their bidding for everything is negotiable with Hillary for her only goal is to be the first woman president. Nothing else matters to Hillary. I believe they will rig the vote and the press will be backing this takeover of America making the view ahead anything but stable.
Ironically, Bernie Sanders made the hard-left Clinton appear as a centrist. They have reasoned that they need to attack Trump to keep the game of nation-building in play. This aligns with our war model. Sorry, but Hillary will create the war, not Trump who is an isolationist, which they fear.
Being behind the curtain and working with many people globally, I have just come to know far more than I ever really wanted to know. The neoconservatives are anti-Trump for the primary reason of their desire for world domination and nation-building. They are a bunch of sick people who will more likely than not lead us into World War III under Hillary. That is their goal and make no mistake about it. They do not understand that war in the old fashion way is dead. Neither Russia nor China want to occupy the United States with troops. Inevitably, the people always revolt. Modern war is now on the economic table. Only primitive regions are still trying to wage war but not to occupy, rather to even old scores and destroy cultures such as Europe to impose their culture upon the world. That is neither the goal of China or Russia. It is the rising threat of ISIS that poses the greatest danger moving forward to civilization as a whole. It was this neoconservative nation-building that removed the dictators who kept that extremism in check. We topple governments with no plan for the future destabilizing everything we touch.
The agenda of CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS along with countless newspapers, is to paint Trump as crazy and unfit for office distorting everything he says because they are secretly supporting the status quo in particular the nation-building and dominating the world political scene. This makes news for the mainstream media and keeps them in business. This is not about explaining what this very issue is all about and how it is the core of this national election. They have no problem spilling the blood of our young boys washing their hands in it before counting their money. You will NEVER hear one word of this in that media – not one. This is the real secret agenda. This is why they simply say Trump is no conservative without explaining what they mean.
