Today the Alabama Republican Party unveiled their 2010 “Republican Handshake with Alabama” (shown below). The Handshake is a wordy homage to the Democrats’ wildly successful 2006 “Covenant with Alabama.” Not to be outdone, Alabama Democrats quickly developed their own hand gesture that builds upon the hard work they put into the Covenant. They call it “The Finger for Alabama.” It is a slimmed down, refined statement pledging continued political patronage for legislators and their families and a slot machine on every corner.
Here’s the text of the Handshake:
Among the goals and specific agenda items included in the Republican Handshake are:
Creating Jobs and Economic Opportunities – Alabama Republicans understand that creating jobs and putting our state on the right economic track is our top priority, and we are prepared to implement proven, conservative incentives and pro-business reforms to accomplish that goal.
We will work with the administration to build upon and expand the job-creation tax incentives that our gubernatorial nominee, Dr. Robert Bentley, successfully passed during the last legislative session. Those incentives will be targeted to both new and existing businesses alike.
In order to provide more capital needed to add new jobs Republicans will also push to expand the small business health insurance tax credit from 150% to 200% of the amount that both employers and employees pay for coverage premiums.
Similarly, the Bentley plan to create a cabinet-level Office of Small Business Creation and Development has been embraced by Republican legislative candidates who will work to dedicate the resources needed for its success. The office will be tasked with reducing regulations and red tape, unifying small-business orientated state programs under one roof and advocating on behalf of both new and existing small businesses.
We will fight to ensure that Alabama remains a right-to-work state in order to keep employment costs low and demand legislation that protects the right to a secret ballot in union elections so that no worker may be harassed or intimidated for voting his or her heart and conscience.
A Republican Legislature will work to put roadblocks in the way of the job-killing “Cap and Tax” legislation being pushed by liberal Congressional Democrats. If passed, such legislation will cause energy costs in Alabama to skyrocket and crash our economy. Businesses from our largest industrial employers to our smallest mom-and-pop operations rely upon affordable energy costs to keep doors open and workers employed in Alabama.
Controlling Wasteful Spending – Many of our national economic problems have been caused by a Democrat Congress and liberal president who are spending like drunken sailors. Alabama Republicans want to prevent that from happening on the state level. Our Legislature has traditionally budgeted based on political convenience and unsustainable revenue estimates. When those estimates prove too conservative for the Democrats’ tastes, they simply increase them to accommodate additional spending. The result is devastating proration.
Alabama Republicans believe that the Legislature, like families and individuals across the state, should live within its means, and we propose passage of the Responsible Budgeting and Spending Act. Under this bill, state revenue estimates would be based upon a 15-year rolling average rather than unsupported projections, which will rein in spending and allow the budgets to more easily absorb changes in a cyclical economy.
Ending Corruption in Montgomery – Democrats have held the majority in Montgomery for 136 years, and during that time, they created an atmosphere that breeds corruption and encourages graft. The recent criminal convictions of numerous Democrat legislators and other Democrat officials provide ample evidence of that fact.
Republicans understand that we must limit the influence of special interests and other lobbyists who control much of what happens in Montgomery. Under existing law, lobbyists are allowed to spend up to $250 a day on each public official without having to file an ethics report. A Republican majority will introduce legislation to require all spending by lobbyists is reported – even down to a cup of coffee.
Alabama is one of only three states that do not provide subpoena power to its ethics watchdog agency, which makes it easy for public officials and others to hamstring investigations. Republicans not only support subpoena power for the Alabama Ethics Commission, they want to provide the agency with a statutorily defined level of appropriation that can be cut only by a two-thirds vote of both houses. That way, no legislator can retaliate against the agency and its work by cutting its annual budget.
Too many legislators and other public officials have been caught double-dipping or holding questionable contracts with government agencies and those wishing to do business with the state. Republicans will work to ban double-dipping and require public officials and their spouses to disclose any contracts they hold with government entities.
Combating Illegal Immigration – Because illegal immigration threatens our homeland security, reduces the quality of life for taxpaying citizens and places our schools, hospitals and other resources under tremendous burden, Alabama Republicans believe we must take immediate action. Politicians in Washington refuse to act, so we must bring the fight to the home front.
A Republican legislative majority will push an illegal immigration bill similar to the recently approved Arizona law. The Alabama bill will create a new state criminal trespass statute that allows local law enforcement to arrest illegal immigrants for simply setting foot in Alabama. Another provision will make it a crime to provide an illegal immigrant transportation anywhere in Alabama, whether it is a trip across the state or simply to the corner store.
Proof of citizenship or legal residency in order to access government services will also be required, and, because illegal immigrants and their allies are working to gather political power and influence, any illegal immigrant who registers to vote, or attempts to, or casts a ballot will be convicted of a Class C felony as will anyone aiding in those efforts.
Blocking the Washington, D.C. Power Grab – Many rights and freedoms previously reserved to the states and to individuals are under an unprecedented attack from D.C. liberals, and Alabama Republicans are prepared to take strong actions to repel their assault. It is important that the voices of the frustrated majority of Alabamians be heard, especially in the area of socialized health care programs recently implemented against our wishes by Obama and his allies.
An Alabama House and Senate controlled by Republicans will immediately introduce and work to pass a constitutional amendment that would “prohibit any person, employer or health care provider from being compelled to participate in any health care system.” This amendment would be similar to measures introduced or passed in at least 30 other state legislatures across the country, and it is believed that such state amendments will assist in court cases questioning federal authority to force citizens to purchase something they do not wish to purchase, a mandate never previously forced on the populace.
Why a handshake, you ask? According to Mike Hubbard, “In Alabama, a handshake means something.” Of course a handshake doesn’t sound as binding as a covenant and we see how well that worked out for Alabama.
On August 24th I’ll be voting for Jonathan Hitt for Huntsville City Council District 3.
Hitt brings a good mixture of qualities that separate him from a packed field of candidates. The attribute he most frequently cites is fiscal accountability. Hitt’s experience in financial analysis and auditing equip him to grapple with what is almost always one of the top areas of concern for elected officials. Just ask taxpayers in Jefferson County how it feels to have elected officials who didn’t understand or question complex bond deals that ultimately left them on the precipice of bankruptcy.
While on the topic of the Jeff Co bond deals let’s talk about integrity. I’ve known Jonathan for a few years now and can say with confidence that he is a man of strong moral character who will not be compromised by the nectar of power (like what happened in Jeff Co). I frequently say that trust is the most valuable commodity in politics. All too often citizens don’t get an accurate understanding of how trustworthy a candidate is until the election is in the distant past. Voters can rest assured that above all Hitt is an honest man who can be counted on to follow through on his word and represent us with integrity.
As for the HHA… All the candidates are pretty uniform in their public statements on the topic. Hitt has a couple of advantages, though. I don’t think there is another candidate who lives closer to “ground zero” of the HHA fight (the Stone Manor Luxury Apartment complex) than Hitt. That proximity provides Hitt with the personal motive to remedy the situation and empathy to work to prevent similar situations in other neighborhoods. Which leads to the tough part of the problem. There is very little that a city councilperson can do about the HHA. Sure, the council members can work to expose what the HHA is doing and keep a spotlight on them but that is about the extent. The state legislature does have some legal authority to limit the power of the HHA and Hitt has developed good relationships with legislators who can help in that capacity.
The other candidates…
Barry Pendergraft is a good guy and is my second choice. I’d be comfortable with him representing me on the city council.
James Lomax could be a great elected official one day. He’s a smart, charismatic, conservative, and has good leadership traits. But he’s 19 years young. Simply can’t get past that. He needs to experience things like a career, home ownership, and maybe even marriage before being on the Huntsville City Council. I suspect I’ll be voting for him in the future.
Kelly Sims started out strong, but seemed uneven in her approach. At one point during the candidate forum at Grissom HS I couldn’t help but think she wanted to pave the streets with gold so that we could all ride the bus to the planetarium at Ditto Landing.
Moore, Henley, and Sobczak get a pat on the back for showing the courage to run.
Which leaves us with James Olshefski. He is the best choice for this seat for people who don’t live in District 3. The retired full-bird Army colonel hit the campaign trail with what can only be described as arrogance. I got the impression that he felt it was beneath his considerable stature to have to ask lowly District 3 residents for their votes. He simply deserves to sit on the city council. Maybe it was because of bad advice from an adviser who suggested he dazzle us with the accomplishments of his “awesome career.” I am leery of Olshefski’s relationships with those who yearn to see downtown teeming with DINKs sashaying around slurping foamy coffee drinks with a hint of mint and walking their sweater-wearing teacup chihuahuas. He is a member of the Committee of 100 and has received substantial financial backing from fellow members. That group eagerly wants to move public housing out of the downtown area and south Huntsville has been made the target. I’m sorry, but I don’t think that Olshefski will sufficiently empathize with District 3 residents as he looks down upon them from his home on Mathis Mountain, buffered from having to worry about his neighborhood being targeted.
Also for your consideration, The Huntsville Times Editorial Board chose (surprise!) John Olshefski and Barry Pendergraft. You can also watch video of the candidates in forums at Chaffee and Grissom HS.
Oh, maybe that headline is too hyperbolic. Maybe it should read Democratic Socialists in Congress. Hat tip to Gateway Pundit for posting “American Socialists Release names of 70 Congressional Democrats in their ranks”. There are a whole lot of nasty people on this list:
Co-Chairs
Hon. Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ-07)
Hon. Lynn Woolsey (CA-06)
Vice Chairs
Hon. Diane Watson (CA-33)
Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18)
Hon. Mazie Hirono (HI-02)
Hon. Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)
Senate Members
Hon. Bernie Sanders (VT)
House Members
Hon. Neil Abercrombie (HI-01)
Hon. Tammy Baldwin (WI-02)
Hon. Xavier Becerra (CA-31)
Hon. Madeleine Bordallo (GU-AL)
Hon. Robert Brady (PA-01)
Hon. Corrine Brown (FL-03)
Hon. Michael Capuano (MA-08)
Hon. André Carson (IN-07)
Hon. Donna Christensen (VI-AL)
Hon. Yvette Clarke (NY-11)
Hon. William “Lacy” Clay (MO-01)
Hon. Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05)
Hon. Steve Cohen (TN-09)
Hon. John Conyers (MI-14)
Hon. Elijah Cummings (MD-07)
Hon. Danny Davis (IL-07)
Hon. Peter DeFazio (OR-04)
Hon. Rosa DeLauro (CT-03)
Rep. Donna F. Edwards (MD-04)
Hon. Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Hon. Sam Farr (CA-17)
Hon. Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
Hon. Bob Filner (CA-51)
Hon. Barney Frank (MA-04)
Hon. Marcia L. Fudge (OH-11)
Hon. Alan Grayson (FL-08)
Hon. Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)
Hon. John Hall (NY-19)
Hon. Phil Hare (IL-17)
Hon. Maurice Hinchey (NY-22)
Hon. Michael Honda (CA-15)
Hon. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-02)
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30)
Hon. Hank Johnson (GA-04)
Hon. Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Hon. Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13)
Hon. Barbara Lee (CA-09)
Hon. John Lewis (GA-05)
Hon. David Loebsack (IA-02)
Hon. Ben R. Lujan (NM-3)
Hon. Carolyn Maloney (NY-14)
Hon. Ed Markey (MA-07)
Hon. Jim McDermott (WA-07)
Hon. James McGovern (MA-03)
Hon. George Miller (CA-07)
Hon. Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Hon. Jerrold Nadler (NY-08)
Hon. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (DC-AL)
Hon. John Olver (MA-01)
Hon. Ed Pastor (AZ-04)
Hon. Donald Payne (NJ-10)
Hon. Chellie Pingree (ME-01)
Hon. Charles Rangel (NY-15)
Hon. Laura Richardson (CA-37)
Hon. Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34)
Hon. Bobby Rush (IL-01)
Hon. Linda Sánchez (CA-47)
Hon. Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
Hon. José Serrano (NY-16)
Hon. Louise Slaughter (NY-28)
Hon. Pete Stark (CA-13)
Hon. Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
Hon. John Tierney (MA-06)
Hon. Nydia Velazquez (NY-12)
Hon. Maxine Waters (CA-35)
Hon. Mel Watt (NC-12)
Hon. Henry Waxman (CA-30)
Hon. Peter Welch (VT-AL)
Hon. Robert Wexler (FL-19)
The list includes (alleged) crooks like Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters to useful idiots like ‘Baghdad Jim’ McDermott to FARC’s best friend James McGovern.
You all know the long running joke about how the media won’t name a corrupt official’s political affiliation if they’re a Democrat, but how the media finds it relevant enough to put it in the headline if they’re a Republican. Here they go again:
There have been hundreds of news stories about Bell city officials’ jaw-dropping salaries. In this poor city on the outskirts of Los Angeles, where the per capita annual income is $24,800 a year, the city manager, Robert Rizzo, had a salary of $787,637… With benefits, his total annual compensation, according to the Los Angeles Times, came to $1.5 million a year… Not only that, but Rizzo was entitled to 28 weeks off a year for vacation and sick leave.
According to Nexis, there have been more than 300 news stories reporting on the Bell scandal. Guess how many mentioned the party affiliation of the corrupt government bureaucrats?
One. Yes, just one. Now guess if the government officials were Democrats or Republicans? Yes, that is correct…
The one newspaper to cough up party affiliations, The Orange County Register, admitted that the corrupt officials were all Democrats only in response to reader complaints about the peculiar omission.
Lots of news stories on the scandal in Bell used the word “Democrat” or “Democratic.” But that was only to say that the DEMOCRATIC attorney general of California, Jerry Brown, who is running on the DEMOCRATIC ticket for governor, is investigating the Bell officials’ salaries.
So we know the media are aware of party affiliations. They just chose not to mention it when it would require them to identify shockingly corrupt government officials as Democrats.
I found this at Ace of Spades, who adds:
…this is the clearest, most inarguable example of media bias there is. There should be a simple rule — a stylebook rule — dictating that a politician caught in corruption should have his party affiliation noted in the first paragraph…
But the MFM refuses to impose such a stringent rule. They want to keep the freedom to only note the party affiliation of corrupt Republicans while not mentioning it at all with regard to corrupt Democrats.
They want, as they call it, the freedom to apply their judgment and examine context. In their judgment and in context, they always find that the party affiliation of corrupt Republicans is relevant, but the party affiliation of corrupt Democrats never is.
‘Guess which party’ is a game you can play at home, too!
As one of many examples, here is a story from The Huntsville Times on convicted Democrat Sue Schmitz. BTW, I didn’t have to search hard for an example – I went through our archives and picked a random news-based Schmitz post – it linked to The Times. No mention of Schmitz’ Democratic Party affiliation. To double-check, I found a post from Brian on Schmitz’ conviction for stealing from children. Again, no mention in The Times about Schmitz’ being a Democrat legislator.
| August 29, 2010 | ||
| 3:00 pm | to | 6:00 pm |
From MCYR…
The MCYR’s will hold their 4th Annual Picnic on Sunday, Aug. 29, 2010 at Monte Sano State Park from 3:00pm to 6:00pm. Everyone is welcome to come out and meet the MCYRs and state and local Republican representatives and candidates. MCYR will provide free food and refreshments. There will be informational booths from state and local Republican groups as well as issues-based organizations. This is a great opportunity to meet and connect with people from the local community.
In the Dunking Booth this year !!!….
- Mo Brooks: candidate U.S. House of Representatives
- Bill Holtzclaw: candidate State Senate District 2
- Dale Jackson: WVNN News Talk Host, 770AM/92.5FM
There is a $1.00 per person entrance fee to the park.
We look forward to seeing everyone there!
Current list of organizations that will have booths:
- Conservative Messenger
- Eagle Forum of Alabama
- Fair Tax
- Madison County Young Republicans
- Republican Women of Huntsville
- South Huntsville Civic Association
- Tennessee Valley Republican Club
Intolerance in Monrovia – An update to the story of a liberal trying to suppress political speech
I found myself in Madison today with time to kill so I decided to take a drive through Monrovia in order to follow up on the story about the person who wanted the government to force one of her neighbors to take down political signs she found disagreeable. I was expecting to find at least a modicum of justification to the complaint. As I drove down Douglass Road I was overwhelmed by the harmony of my surroundings. I saw bluebirds splashing delightfully in a puddle and unicorns prancing in a field. All the while I waited in earnest to be confronted by a very large, tacky sign. I never came across such a sign.
What I did find is a house positioned alongside Douglass Rd. with a short fence and hedge approximately eight feet tall – roughly equivalent to the ubiquitous privacy fence. Spaced equally along the length of the hedge are three small signs positioned at the top of the hedge and mounted to posts. Each sign is about the size of a standard political sign that adorn homes across the fruited plain. None of the signs are lighted despite the claim of the offended liberal.
I stopped and walked along the road taking pictures with my cell phone (sorry ’bout the quality!). Moving from west to east and then east to west the signs read:
- Stop spending our children’s money
- Patriotism: Rejecting socialism is not racism
- We elected a president, but got a dictator
- [Paraphrasing] Read and abide by the constitution
- ObamaCare makes me sick

We elected a president, but got a dictator

ObamaCare makes me sick
I think the west-most sign had the same message on both sides, but I don’t recall and didn’t take a picture.
Personally I think the dictator sign is rhetorically over the top. I firmly believe that in 2016 or (hopefully) 2012 Obama will hand over the keys to the White House in the customary manner. But an eight word sign doesn’t give one a lot of room to provide context and nuance.
Those of you who are familiar with Monrovia know that it is an area absolutely littered with signs. Hundreds and hundreds of signs point towards former cotton patches that have been transformed into subdivisions. Just down the road from the anti-Obama signs, and plainly visible from there, is a Bill Holtzclaw sign the size of a Volkswagen Beetle. That is what REALLY bothered me once I saw the source of this complaint in person. The physical presence of the anti-Obama signs is so minuscule in comparison to the throngs of signs located throughout the harmonious area. Seeing the three small signs laid naked the political basis of the complaint. The author didn’t complain about all of the other far more intrusive signs. She only complained about the ones whose message she disagrees with.
As I was snapping my pictures, the owner’s Doberman was all too eager to make his presence known. The barking prompted the owner of the property to see what was causing all the commotion and we had a nice chat. He is an older gentleman who said he wasn’t a particularly political fellow for much of his life, but that he’s really concerned about the path our country is on and what it will mean for future generations. He said that he thought about the Burma-Shave signs that used to grace roadsides and decided to put up his own signs in order to make people think and talk about the situation. He succeeded there! I’m also guessing that the number of people who are “disturbed” by the signs is much fewer than the author of the letter to the Times suggests. I asked the property owner if he had an idea who wrote the letter since, you know, so many people were reported to be offended. He said he knows exactly who it is. That it could only be the one person. Seems like there IS a person in the neighborhood shattering the harmony, but it isn’t the man with the anti-Obama signs.
Seeing the signs also caused a portion of the Times’ response to rub me the wrong way.
The issue goes to the heart of the county’s lack of home rule. It does not have the ability to adopt zoning and other laws without approval by the state Legislature.
It isn’t clear if the Times is paraphrasing Madison County attorney Julian Butler or offering their own thought. Regardless, to claim that home rule would possibly apply here implies that the zoning authority might choose to explicitly restrict political speech since the physical appearance of the signs do not put public safety at risk and are not gaudy.
Fortunately signs supporting candidates or political positions are usually given a wide berth in zoning ordinances compared to other types of signs. For example, even if the offended liberal in this case had her way and the property in unincorporated Monrovia were subject to the Huntsville sign ordinances they would still be legal. [There is Ordinance 72.6.3 which states, "No more than two such signs shall be maintained on any lot at any one time." However, I can comfortably say that it is either never enforced or enforced quite unevenly. My wife imposes her own ordinance on me restricting us to one sign at a time, but that is another matter!]
It bears stating that there is a place for local governments to have and enforce sign ordinances. I tend to find the laws to be overly restrictive, but I don’t write the laws. And if someone is violating an ordinance then citizens are within their rights to alert authorities and encourage them to enforce the law. Rules are rules after all. But it is incredibly unseemly for someone to seek out laws strictly to silence opposing viewpoints. The lady who wrote the complaint equates “harmony” with the government restricting the free speech of others so as to not offend her. If she ever becomes president we might have a dictator after all.
baldilocks, newly-published author of Tale of the Tigers, posted an essay about racism and how it is used by the left. It’s in two parts (so far – more to come), The Herding, Part One and The Herding, Part Two - I encourage you to read the whole thing and here’s an excerpt to get you interested (hat tip – Ace of Spades):
…when the Civil Rights Movement began to achieve success in garnering true freedom for Americans who are black, many of the governmental programs designed to “help” black Americans were implemented. What such programs and policies have actually done: almost succeeded in destroying the black family, created a sense of endless entitlement and stoked continued resentment among blacks for any group that is perceived to have any social and/or economic advantage over them.
This Leftist-indoctrinated mindset–very efficiently put forth by the NEA-controlled public education systems–has created the notion in black Americans that government can and should take the place of family; that dependence on government is our right. And it has inculcated the twin notions that any white American who want his fellow citizen who are black to be free from government is a racist and that any black American who wants to be free from government is a self-hating Uncle Tom (sic)/Aunt Jemima and is a traitor to all “real” blacks…
The repeated stoking of racial anger and vengeance is a tool—a tactic–of the organized Left…
If the Left has been successful at keeping racial grievance in the forefront of black American agenda—in indoctrinating black Americans into believing that retaining racial anger at whites is inherent in being black and essential for black survival–it has also been successful in later years of producing a certain mindset in white Americans. Actually this seems to be two mindsets, but it is really a singular one—a two-headed beast. The first is guilt-fear and the second is unproductive anger…
The Left sows and inflames Racial Discord in order to eventually style itself and its chosen representatives as the solution to the Discord it continues to sow.
The Huntsville Times has a regular feature called “Ask Us” where readers submit questions they are too lazy to find the answers to themselves and the paper dutifully does their level best to address the inquiry. On Wednesday the paper ran a simply fascinating complaint that merits analysis. Here is the question in whole, which was printed anonymously.
I live in a very nice neighborhood in Madison County (Monrovia area) where for the most part neighbors take good care of their property and live in harmony.
We have one neighbor who lives at the entrance to our development who has taken it upon himself to build a large lighted sign post from which he has hung a political sign blasting the president (Obama) and making his personal political viewpoints known.
It is quite disturbing to many of us who live near this home, and the sign can be seen from both our development roadway as well as the main road that travels along side of this person’s property.
Everyone who travels in and out of our neighborhood is confronted with this sign. Are there laws that would prevent this person from displaying such a sign or are we forced to endure this political rant whether we agree with his belief system or not?
The most obvious conclusion to be drawn is that the author is not offended by the sign itself, but rather the message. A simple “Hey, this guy has a erected a big, ugly sign on his property, is that legal?” would have sufficed. Instead the author interjected a healthy dose of overwrought angst because of the words on the sign. Unsurprisingly, the liberal author seeks to use the force of government to tamp down an opinion she finds offensive solely because it is different from hers. [I'm going to assume the author is a woman since the tone strikes me as rather feminine.]
Let’s step through this diatribe line by line…
I live in a very nice neighborhood in Madison County (Monrovia area) where for the most part neighbors take good care of their property and live in harmony.
She leads off demonstrating her elitism by boasting about the “very nice neighborhood” she lives in. We’re all really, really impressed. It is a magical place where people live in harmony – and that harmony must be preserved by ensuring no one publicly expresses views that she disagrees with. Otherwise we have conflict and that is unacceptable.
We have one neighbor who lives at the entrance to our development who has taken it upon himself to build a large lighted sign post from which he has hung a political sign blasting the president (Obama) and making his personal political viewpoints known.
Of course the neighbor took “it upon himself…” Who else would he take it upon? Was he supposed to seek counsel from neighbors prior to putting up the sign? And of course the man isn’t merely criticizing the president, he’s blasting the president. And there is more condescending elitism on display as she felt compelled to tell us who the president is in parentheses. Kind of like another local liberal who had to define “lemmings” in a political mailer. The only people who would likely ever read her letter are Times employees and readers of the paper. Did she really believe there was anyone in that group who wouldn’t know our president’s name? The end of that sentence is particularly enlightening. She’s upset that the sign erector had the gall to make “his personal political viewpoints known.” How dare he!!! What does he think this is, America or something???
It is quite disturbing to many of us who live near this home, and the sign can be seen from both our development roadway as well as the main road that travels along side of this person’s property.
“Many” people are disturbed! Call the sheriff! At the three precincts that include “Monrovia” in their name Barack Obama received 2,379 votes in the 2008 general election. John McCain received 5,015 – more than double what the now-president (Obama) received. Now that doesn’t mean that there aren’t “many” people who disapprove of the anti-Obama sign, but I think it is safe to say that “many” more people in her “very nice” neighborhood agree with the message on the sign even if they find it to be a tacky structure. Maybe she would be comfortable living in a neighborhood with fewer people who have troubling political views. Obama received 98% of the vote at the Calvary Friendship Center, which is just a couple of blocks north of the HHA’s Northwoods housing project. While Monrovia might be “very nice” just imagine how much better the uniformity of opinion must make the neighborhood surrounding the Calvary Friendship Center.
Everyone who travels in and out of our neighborhood is confronted with this sign. Are there laws that would prevent this person from displaying such a sign or are we forced to endure this political rant whether we agree with his belief system or not?
That’s right, the sign is so offensive that it actually confronts you upon entering the neighborhood. “Bad sign! Stop accosting the poor, helpless passers-by. THERE MUST BE A LAW!!! How can this man be allowed to engage in a political rant on his own property?” I couldn’t help but smirk at the conclusion. What a ham handed attempt to offer up the illusion that the author is not necessarily a liberal Obama supporter.
Here is the Times’ response to her inquiry:
It depends on where the sign is located. “To my knowledge,” said Julian Butler, the Madison County attorney, “if it is on private property, there are no laws to prevent it. If it’s on the right of way, the county can remove it.”
He said the county would remove a sign on the public right of way because it is blocking the right of way, not because of the sign’s message.
The issue goes to the heart of the county’s lack of home rule. It does not have the ability to adopt zoning and other laws without approval by the state Legislature.
I can only imagine how unsatisfying that response must have been to the offended Obama supporter. Butler is a proponent of home rule, as am I. Liberals love the concept of home rule because they perceive it as a chance for government to have more control. I like it because Alabama is currently a centrally planned government (at least with respect to counties). I prefer to see local governments have greater authority and more distant governments, which tend to be less responsive to the will of the people, to have less.
According to one of the comments below the article on AL.com the sign is located off of Douglass Rd. Anyone seen it? Have a photo?
All that being said, the moral of this story is a cautionary one. Liberals have little tolerance for opposing viewpoints and have no shame in calling upon the force of the government to silence the agitators in order to restore “harmony” to their “very nice neighborhoods.”
| August 7, 2010 | ||
| 4:30 pm | to | 6:30 pm |
From the Jonathan Hitt campaign:
Jonathan Hitt, candidate for City Council District 3, will hold a campaign meet and greet and picnic on Saturday, August 7 from 4:30 PM – 6:30 PM at Ken Johnston Park at 1100 Mountain Gap Road. The public is invited to join us to eat hot dogs, meet the candidate, and discuss the issues facing south Huntsville.
Jonathan Hitt is a candidate for City Council in Huntsville’s 3rd district, which is currently held by the retiring Sandra Moon.
Compare that quote from Madison City Schools Superintendent Dee Fowler to Huntsville City Schools Superintendent Ann Roy Moore’s complaint that:
“In the real world, that’s not how it works,” said Huntsville Superintendent Ann Roy Moore. “You take a course, you make 95 percent, you still get an A.”
Moore must be referring to HER real world, where her poor performance is rewarded with real tax money based on a process (PEPE) that gives her a perfect evaluation despite poor scores in some areas.
Fowler was referring to Bob Jones High School, which didn’t have enough juniors from low-income families pass the reading portion of the state graduation exam. BTW Bob Jones is the highest-ranked high school in the area according to Newsweek (surpassing Grissom). Madison officials don’t whine that the system is unfair, they pledge to address the AYP deficiency:
“When it comes down to it, I’ve got to figure out a way to get these children to read at the proficient level,” Bob Jones Principal Robby Parker said.
The Huntsville Times published two articles on AYP, one from Challen Stephens “AYP results in Madison County serious for handful of schools in north Huntsville, one in the county” and one from Steve Campbell “Low scores keep 16 schools in Madison County from ‘adequate yearly progress’”. Both articles make good reading (the following quotes are gleaned from both of those articles – the reporters should have done a better job of summarizing the data):
Sixteen schools… failed to meet the state’s definition of “adequate yearly progress”.
HUNTSVILLE CITY:
Butler High, Johnson High, Westlawn Middle and West Mastin Lake Elementary must offer every student the chance to choose a new school.
Martin Luther King Jr. failed to see enough students read on grade level.
Grissom High, Chapman [Middle?], Whitesburg, Providence K-8, Mt. Carmel Elementary (low special education reading or math scores — or sometimes, both).
MADISON COUNTY:
Sparkman High School failed in several categories.
Sparkman Ninth Grade School, Monrovia and Meridianville middle schools (low special education reading or math scores — or sometimes, both).
Hazel Green High was cited for having an 81 percent graduation rate.
MADISON CITY:
Bob Jones High was cited for having low reading scores from students who get free or reduced-price lunch.
GOOD NEWS:
Several schools that didn’t make AYP last year made it this year. Those schools are: Lakewood Elementary (HSV), New Hope High (County), Madison County High (County), Buckhorn High (County), and Madison Cross Roads Elementary (County).
***
Thank goodness Democrat Mary Jane Caylor is leaving the State Board of Education:
“It really sends a very bad and confusing message to people,” said Dr. Mary Jane Caylor of the state school board.
Her attitude of saying ‘if the news is bad, blame the news’ doesn’t help fix the problem.