Post Scripts

by Jack Lee

 The Keep Chico Clean and Safe Task Force met today at the old City Hall building on Main street and we heard a progress report on the homeless problem.  The roving downtown ambassador program has begun their outreach to the homeless. 

They will be informing them of the proper places to seek assistance (to avoid panhandling) and they’ll also be speaking with them about their behavior, personal issues (drug and alcohol addiction) and offering suggestions.   That potentially could avert some criminal behavior or at the very least they could point them in the right direction, away from our downtown  to relieve some of the pressure.  

This was the main reason for the task force or at least this is what I thought.  But, it seems to be turning into something more to benefit the homeless than our downtown merchants.   Those businesses have been besieged by customer complaints over bums, travelers, drunks, druggies, homeless, crazies, whatever the case may be, that are causing a host of problems.   They’re acting aggressive, weird, inappropriate, or just annoying, others are panhandling and demanding spare change.  But, there’s certainly been much worse, and you know that if you’ve been following the headlines.   People have been hurt.  There’s been stabbings, fights and murder.   For the downtown merchants it’s come to the point where many of their old customers have simply stopped shopping in the downtown.  They don’t want to deal with the street people anymore!  Thus the task force.   

The task force’s stated mission recognizes this serious problem (or at least most of them do) and they seek productive ways of dealing with the street people, but, it’s not easy…in fact it’s been one of Chico’s toughest problems that has yet to be solved.   Many of these street folks are drug addicts, alcoholics, or have serious mental problems, or it’s a combination of all the above.   Some can be reached and some can’t, but this task force is trying and for that part, I strongly applaud their efforts.    

They say our Chico Ambassador program is just the start to resolving the problem and more solutions are coming.   Okay, to be candid…I think having roving groups of kindly, intelligent adults asking more or less immature, irreverent and disorderly people to behave and play nice  is probably not going to work.  However, for right now, and absent a better way to start,  I’m in a wait and see mode.   I wish them much luck…I’m sure they’ll need it!

Next:  Unfortunately, the Chair of this Homeless Task Force is coming from a very far left perspective that probably few in the affected downtown area share.    Jennifer Haffner, Esq.,  has a strong belief that creating costly adult daycare centers and constructing yet another expensive homeless shelter (this will be the 4th)  that has virtually no rules, will be very helpful.  She assures us the facilities won’t act like magnets for more homeless.    She’s sure this is what we need…me,  I’m taking the polar opposite view. 

But, why virtually no rules for the new shelter, you may wonder?   Ms Haffner told me that many on the street are there because they were thrown out of the other shelters for breaking the rules.   These were the disruptive, dangerous people who got the boot and they need some place to go.   I can think of a great place for them to go…but I’ll be civil for the sake of a G rating. 

Ms. Haffner doesn’t care about that unruly behavior when it comes to providing shelter.   She believes it’s a cost effective, human right, to have a roof over your head, food in your stomach (and although she didn’t expressly say so…I inferred she wanted quality health-care too) and if this means no personal responsibility, no accountability on the part of the recipient, then so be it.    That’s a lot to ask of this conservative community!   It’s also an extreme view that’s probably not helpful when it’s coming from the lead person who is supposed to be fund-raising,  garnering support and coordinating with many groups.    I can’t see how her views would be anything but a wedge between the left and right when we need a united front…but, maybe that’s just me.

 So her leadership is problematic for me and I told her so, but be assured I did so respectfully.   Now, let me make this part very clear.   I know she has a good heart, but she’s trying to establish a utopian society here.  Common sense backed up by centuries of  history says that won’t work, not here or anywhere.   I can’t fault her for her altruism, but I can fault her for her naivety and eagerness to spend our tax dollars on societies dropouts who will never appreciate it, much less become productive due to it.  

 I think her leadership is therefore counterproductive to this task force.   She should have a voice, but perhaps not the lead voice.   

If she gets what she wants, I believe she’s going to introduce a very dangerous element into naive little Mayberry (Chico) and her soft hearted kindness will no doubt spell disaster for the community now and for many years and decades to come.     

Just so there’s no misunderstanding, maybe I should back up and clarify exactly who we’ve been focusing on here?  These are generally the healthy, mentally competent, younger adults who see themselves as modern-day vagabonds.   They’re living the life of a Jack Kerouac, on the road, where life is an adventure and working people are suckers.   They’re determined to take the path of least resistance and I just can’t respect that and I don’t think they deserve one whit of our charity.   They don’t have a job and can’t pay their own way, because they don’t too.  And actually don’t have too either, they have plenty of codependents that will give them all them need…for now.   There’s plenty of us that think they deserve to be cared for and that we should cover the bill.    Those folks would gladly provide all those needful things, with no questions asked, albeit with your money.  

She (Haffner) rationalizes her form of charity because she says she has studies that say it costs taxpayers $35k a year to have people on the street, but only $14K to place them in a shelter ( I strongly disagree with this number).   I’m sure there are those studies, just not sure they’re right.   Here’s a big flaw,  you can’t just “place” them in a shelter anymore than you can arrest them for being a derelict.   No, that’s against their Constitutional rights!   This has to be 100% voluntary deal and this brings us back to the hard reality.  This reality has to do with the idea that things given away freely are rarely appreciated or cared for.   That free clothing, food and shelter allow an unmotivated person to stay unmotivated and dependant on some one who is productive.     

 But, moreover the people we’re talking about are those who want to live their lives unfettered by the conventional rules and laws the rest of must.  They take what they can, when and where they can, and life for them is pretty good… as long as that charity lasts.   They’re what I call, “the charity predators” that play the system for all they can and deprive the real needy when the charity runs dry.   There’s ample free things to be taken too, so much free food, free clothing and free lodging…and that’s just the beginning of what’s out here!   There’s a long list of freebe’s for those who know the game and where too look. 

The pro’s know you can get free housing, free Internet and free cells phones or even a free laptop computer.    There are websites, government published leaflets and a myriad of underground ways, all communicating this  info to our reluctant-to-work homeless takers.    This is why it’s said so often, (and rightly so) that America’s poor have nothing in common with the poor in the rest of the world.   By comparison, our poor are quite well off.   But, when it comes to our poor, some people still think we can never do enough (these folks are the codependents, the bleeding hearts, and soft headed fools ) and of course  I strongly disagree with their thinking, well, almost completely - and instead I believe accountability and responsibility go a lot farther to rehabbing one of these young adults seeking a free ride.

Now back to Chico and what to do about our homeless.  

First, lets look at the reality in statistical terms.  Most of them have found a way to get on welfare, Medical or Social Security, the small number that are left out are presumably what we see on the street.  Well, I better rephrase that one,  the rest may also be drawing some of these  benefits, but they use the money, food stamps, etc., inappropriately.  They squander it on in casinos, booze and/or drugs.  So, they wind up in trouble, back where they were before we put them on assistance…and they’re still homeless, still looking for a handout and make no mistake there’s plenty like this on the streets.   

Some in the task force think they can be shown love and compassion to the point they will naturally want to become productive citizens.  Then there are some, like me, think tough love is the answer and anything else is just prolonging the problem.   

My bottom line is, the travelers who refuse to play by the rules in a shelter deserve to be on the streets and shouldn’t get any more handouts until their attitude improves.   This would be a great lesson in life, one they’ve apparently been able to avoid up till now.   Instead they’ve learned how easy it is to get away with bad behavior.   They’ve become acclimated to being professional takers.   Look  folks, there’s absolutely nothing in it for us to have these types hanging around Chico!  I could care less if they are deprived or hungry or whatever, it’s on them.    And if there’s nothing here for those types they will go seek out places run by the Jennifer Haffner’s of this world.  Portlandia, Seattle, San Francisco…these are just a few of the really great places to live for free…while their programs last, before the tax money dries up and the cities go broke.   

This brings up Chico’s finances.  We must be doing really well to afford those proposed adult daycare centers to keep the bums off the streets and build a new $1.4 million dollar homeless shelter…and here I thought we were broke?

Posted by Tina

Some California teachers are fed up and have decided to take steps to free themselves from union dues they say violates First Amendment rights of speech and association:

(CNSNews.com) – California teachers who say they are tired of paying for political causes they do not support – such as Democratic campaigns and gay and lesbian conferences — are suing the National Education Association, the California Teachers Association, and 10 local union affiliate organizations.

The Center for Individual Rights, a public interest legal group in Washington, D.C., filed the lawsuit Tuesday in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in Los Angeles on behalf of 10 teachers from California and the Christian Educators Association.

“The union spends millions of teachers’ hard-earned monies supporting causes and candidates that many of us oppose,” said Rebecca Friedrichs, one of the plaintiffs, in a statement. “The union is free to press its agenda, but individual teachers should not be forced to pay for it. It is shocking to me and many other teachers that union officials have the power by law to spend our wages to press for causes that many of us oppose on moral, fiscal, or philosophical grounds.”

Bravo! I salute these teachers in standing up for their rights.

I’d also like to encourage them to join with others in their communities who believe tax dollars should reach the classroom rather than a bloated education bureaucracy and to fund an unnecessarily top heavy administrative body. You became teachers because you wanted to work with kids and see them realize their full potential. You should have the tools and the means to do that.

Posted by Tina

We’ve had more than a few discussions here at Post Scripts about the nature of Islam and about the accusations of Islamophobia charged against anyone who dares speak of the threat posed to our safety and freedom by radicals tied to the religion. Some insist the radicals are few in number but does that view truly reflect the reality across the world? And isn’t it imperative that we have the freedom to speak honestly about terror threats and the values in Islam that conflict with our Western values?

David French over at National Review has posted a couple of charts that everyone should see. They very quickly dispel the idea that most Muslims around the world hold moderate views, unless you think that execution for those who leave Islam is a moderate position. French elaborates:

Read it and weep. In Egypt, for example, more than 70 percent of the public supports shariah law, and almost 90 percent of those individuals also support executing those who leave Islam. I feel comfortable saying this is a problem, a much, much greater problem than any alleged American “Islamophobia,” and if we turn away from these statistics and believe the fault for continued jihadist bloodshed lies primarily within us — or is primarily the fault of Israel — then we are truly willfully blind. …

Mr. French says he does not pretend to know the “true nature” of Islam and does not share the chart as proof of the true nature of Islam. He offers it, at least if I read him right, as a caution about “deep cultural problems” in the Muslim world. His last ironic conclusion amounts to the booby prize for taxpayers:

…One final note: Two of the worst countries on that chart — Egypt and Pakistan — are also among our largest recipients of military and financial aid. It looks like billions of taxpayer dollars do not, in fact, buy moderation.

I agree! I’d add that appeasement and restrictions on language do not buy moderation or safety. They may, in fact, result in more risk of deadly attacks.

Given recent information that America was warned in writing in 2012 about one of the Boston Bombing perpetrators, and given the lessons we seem not to have learned following the Fort Hood murders, and given the ridiculous changes made in training manuals and failures resulting from official policy it’s time to stop pretending there is no specific Islamic threat. It’s time to drop political correctness in our discourse and in our policy.

It is possible to speak honestly about those who do not share our values and about those who wish to do us major harm without being disrespectful to peaceful, freedom loving Muslims. Anyone that does not, or cannot, speak honestly, for any reason, doesn’t belong in a leadership position. It is imperative that forthrightness be used in language, policy, and training concerning the threats we face. We can take affective steps to stop radicals from completing their deadly missions on American soil but only if we face the task with complete information and honesty in discourse and training.

by Jack

“Queasy with the bright and promising lights of the cultural realities of the present day, those evil, fundamentalist Christian talibanic creatures and their spiritual heirs have taken refuge behind flimsy, well-worn, gauze-like euphemistic facades such as “family values” and “religious liberty.” These overtly bigoted bandits coagulate their stenchful substances in organizations such as the American Family Association (AFA), the ultra-fundamentalist Family Research Council (FRC), and the Chaplains Alliance for Religious Liberty (CARL). The basis of their ruinous unity is the bane of human existence and progress: horrific hatred and blinding bigotry. However, when the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and others correctly characterize them as “hate groups,” they all too predictably raise a deafening hue and disingenuously bellow mournfully like the world class cowards they are.”  Mikey Weinstein – posted at Truthout.org

Pretty strong words that seem out of place and better suited to a real hate group.  I could see it if the targets of his anger were beheading opponents, rolling hand grenades under bunks of sleeping servicemen, shooting up soldiers in a welcome home celebration or blowing up little kids in Boston.  We can only hope that someone with such twisted feelings about Christians represents a marginal fringe, but this guy actually has some traction.  His name is well known in Washington and he’s recruiting some fairly highly profile  people to sign on to his campaign, like former Ambassador Joe Wilson that was involved investigating the Iraqi nuclear program.

I left the military in 2009, granted it was only reserve service at the Guard Headquarters in Sacramento, but I never saw the kind of bigotry or duress Weinstein writes about.   When things are amiss in the ranks, it’s the top NCO’s who are first to know and I was the 1st Sergeant, the go to guy for all enlisted.  I just never saw any problems re Christians and Chaplains.  We had religious ceremonies on Saturday and Sunday, but they were purely voluntary and there were no extremist groups recruiting or pressuring anyone to join them.  Never saw that at any military base either…so, I just don’t understand Weinstein’s attack, unless it’s coming from an old hidden agenda that stems from the cold war days.

I think this hate rhetoric is a sign of times and it is a reflection of how emboldened our left-wing has become.  They’ve made significant gains controlling the direction of this nation and they are ratcheting up their hate speech where it will do the most to destroy our traditional values.   Attacking real enemies, like Muslim terrorists, serves no good purpose in their world, it’s a case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend.  This is why you never hear them raise their angry voice against those killing us, here, in the Mideast and hot spots around the world.  They don’t like these extremists, but they are serving a useful purpose by weakening the old guard with their traditional Christian values so the new left, Godless, movement can take over.

Weinstein is just another liberal fool in pursuit of a communist utopia and he’ll use any means to achieve his ends.  This is why I posted a portion of his article, you need to be aware of people like him.  Because even if you consider him a crackpot, he’s still dangerous and he’s reaching the fertile minds of our young, selling them his ugly brand of BS.

Posted by Jack (with personal commentary)

(Reuters) – The Supreme Court on Monday rebuffed the state of Alabama, and gave a win to the Obama administration, by declining to review a lower court ruling that had blocked a controversial part of the state’s tough immigration law.

Alabama had asked the high court to review an appeals court decision to stop enforcement of the ‘harboring’ provision that made it illegal to harbor or transport anyone in the state who had entered the country illegally.

Commentary by Jack:

Alabama, like Arizona and many other states, said the failure of the federal government to control our Southern border and halt the massive influx of illegal aliens was placing an extreme hardship on them.   It was stressing their finances and their limited public resources.

Unfunded federal mandates were a particular problem to these states.  Illegal immigration stressed them all virtually to the point insolvency.  Health-care, public safety costs, incarceration costs and rising crime cost are also tied to this new illegal sub-culture.  Quite predictably, this has resulted in States being forced to pass legislation to protect themselves in the absence of federal protection.

The right to pass such legislation was vested in State’s Rights as found within the US Constitution and there is extensive past practice where federal laws are legally and routinely enforced by state law enforcement.  Base on this authority, Alabama passed one of the toughest state anti-illegal immigration bills in the nation in 2011 and the White House claimed Alabama’s law invalid because it was trumped by federal immigration law. (known as the rule of hierarchy) Alabama’s law also made it illegal to encourage illegal aliens to enter or stay in the country, a violation found in federal immigration laws.

The Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in two separate decisions, upheld injunctions against the harboring provision and other parts of the law in August 2012. A [brief] order issued by the court on Monday said Justice Antonin Scalia disagreed with the decision not to hear the case.

Based on the recent decisions and now the Alabama case that was rejected by the Supreme Court, it appears America is on a shocking and dangerous new direction our founders never intended.   This is causing serious concern among Libertairans, Constitutionalists, States Rights advocates and others impacted by a leftist Supreme Court and socialist in politics.

Arizona and eight other states passed similar laws to Alabama’s, blatantly accusing the federal government of not following the law! This requirement is found in Article IV, Section 4. and states:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

The flood of illegal workers almost certainly consitutes an invasion.   With the federal governments failure to secure the border, the states then must do so themselves.

However, laws in Georgia and South Carolina are now being challenged in court.  This latest SC ruling is considered a bonanza for those that seek political leverage through illegal immigration in order to permanently and fundamentally alter the face of America.

One wonders how much longer the old guard will continue to absorb these assaults on the Constitution before there is an extreme backlash, or has that time forever passed?  If you follow the demographics and the changing values,  you might reasonably conclude it’s too late for anything except capitulation.

Posted by Tina

At Vanguard, we estimate that policy uncertainty has created a $261 billion drag on the U.S. economy.

Read the story that goes with this quote in Wall Street Journal

Lithium-sulphur batteries have all it takes to replace lithium-ion batteries as the technology of choice for energy storage in electric vehicles. They are much more powerful and cost-effective than all known lithium-ion variants.

So far however, the lithium-sulphur batters suffers from a significant drawback: Its operating lifetime falls short of what is needed for serial vehicles. This however could change now: Researchers from the Fraunhofer Institute for Materials and Radiation Technology (IWS) in Dresden have developed a new battery design that promises to multiply the number of charging cycles by a factor of seven.

“So far, this battery type hardly exceeded 200 charging cycles”, explains Holger Althues, head of the department for Chemical Surface Technology at Fraunhofer IWS. “Through a specific combination of anode and cathode material we could increase the lifetime of lithium-sulphur button cells to 1400 cycles”. Read more ..

WATER FOR CHARGING CELL PHONES?

The world’s first water-activated charging device developed at KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm claims to be able to use ordinary water to extend life for devices of up to 3 W.

Based on micro fuel cell technology, the MyFC PowerTrekk device now means that a power source for your mobile phone can now be as close as the nearest tap or stream. Anders Lundblad, KTH researcher and founder of MyFC, said that the device can be powered by fresh or seawater. The water need not be completely clean.

“Our invention has great potential to accelerate social development in emerging markets,” Lundblad says. “There are large areas that lack electricity, while mobile phones fulfil more and more vital functions, such as access to weather information or electronic payment.”

A USB connector attaches the compact PowerTrekk charger to the device. When plain water is poured onto a small disposable metal disc inside the unit, hydrogen gas is released and combines with oxygen to convert chemical energy into electrical energy. The resulting charge is enough to power an iPhone to between 25 and 100 per cent of its battery capacity.

Posted by Tina

Every day we hear about new groups or citizens that find the law is just not working for them.

IBD – “Even BigLabor Unions Drop Support for Obamacare”:

Late last week, the 22,000-member United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers dropped a bombshell on the Obama administration, not only withdrawing its support for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, but also demanding its repeal.

Repealing Obamacare is turning out to be something about which most Americans absolutely agree!

The law is a turkey; the sooner it goes the better off we will be.

Posted by Tina

The idea that a 48% tax rate should be imposed on millionaires is not surprising or new. The fact that it has been proposed is news…here’s the scoop, according to *The Hill:

Several House Democrats on Thursday introduced legislation that would impose a minimum 45, maximum 49% percent tax rate on taxable income above $1 million…For taxable income from $1 million to $10 million, the bill would set a 45 percent tax rate. That rate increases to 46 percent for income between $10 million and 20 million, 47 percent for income between $20 million and $100 million, and 48 percent for income between $100 million and $1 billion.

The Fairness in Taxation Act, H.R. 1723, was proposed by Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), who said the bill would help put the nation’s wealth back into the hands of middle- and lower-income workers.

“Our country faces an inequality crisis,” she said Thursday. “While the amount of earned income — and accumulated wealth — by the top one percent of earners continues its dramatic rise, most Americans have seen little or no gain in take-home pay for decades.

Point one: It’s another crisis…a crisis of inequality!

Point two: It’s all about the “nations” wealth. What you earn belongs to the “nation”!

That is in direct conflict with a primary tenet of freedom…personal property.

How to express the true meaning of this so-called solution?

Other than making sure the American people remain adolescent forever? Let’s see…going for it in terms of aspiration and dreams, training and educating oneself, gaining in work experience, having a strong work ethic, taking personal risks, saving and investing, being willing to sacrifice, and enduring both disappointment and success is the same thing as being lazy, goofing off, drugging and partying, living off the efforts of others, and failing even to try to prosper. How’s that sound? Totally nuts!

In the progressive mind both behaviors and many variations in between should all result in the same allotment of monetary reward to be decided by elites in government and accomplished through the imposition of “progressive” tax rates. This spreading of wealth, this equalizing of outcomes through what amounts to theft, is the most anti-American idea that ever came down the pike!

The dirty little secret is that no matter how much we send to government it is never enough. The elites will keep over-spending to stay in power. What they offer in return amounts to the crumbs from their plates once full equalization has been achieved. Crumbs are the reward for hard work or for goofing off. Who would ever choose to work in such an environment? Ahhh…unless working is mandated and enforced.

Radical progressive Democrats don’t give a damn about wages going up or about creating greater opportunity for middle and lower class Americans. If they did they wouldn’t propose legislation that limits opportunity. they wouldn’t suggest legislation that demeans the dignity of all citizens. The Marxist idea behind redistribution suggests that the only way middle and lower income people can better their lives is by remaining under the thumb of government, demanding services, and going along with government confiscation of wealth. It suggests that people are incapable of creating the life they want or acquiring whatever level of wealth they might desire. Eventually this type of government denies every citizen the basic right to pursue happiness as he sees fit.

This legislation is a terrible idea generally but at this time it would be a disaster. I doubt it will fly but in this day of socialist thinkers anything is possible. they passed Obamacare didn’t they? Still, it’s quite disturbing to think that people raised and educated in America would think this way.

* The Hill reported the top rate as both 48% and 49% within the article. I did not attempt to clarify because I doubt that it will matter.

Posted by Tina

On Friday morning The New York Times finally bothered to notice the corrupt claims exposed by Andrew Breitbart in the Pigford Farmers case…they even bothered to credit Breitbart as did Politico and the Daily Beast. Mother Jones grudgingly acknowledged the fraudulent cases but stuck to it’s racist meme regarding Breitbart’s motives. Breitbart takes the occasion to recall the wrong-headed Media Matters sliming of Andrew Breitbart and provides related links:

It should be remembered that the left-wing Media Matters for America scoffed at Andrew Breitbart, calling his interest in Pigford the “stupidest conspiracy theory” on the Internet. Now that MMFA’s precious New York Times has at last come to Andrew’s side on this issue, one wonders whether MMFA will keep its anti-Breitbart/Pigford posts up on its site.

The settlements could cost taxpayers upwards of $4.4 billion with law firms making $130 million. Barrack Obama was among the influential Senators that pressured to expand payouts using the Pigford case to garner political support for his presidential bid in the 2008 election. Once he was in office he expanded the program and cut the review process and red tape to award fraudulent claims.

One commenter to the Breitbart story links to a posting titled, “Pigford III”, a Black American Farm Relief Petition by George Harris, Founder, Center for Family Farm Development, Inc., Launched Monday at WhiteHouse.gov.

This petititon, according to the information provided on the site, is a “morals and values-based social media campaign of 100,000 petitioners seeking President Obama’s endorsement of Pigford decree injunctive relief loans. “Pigford lll” calls for release of more than $7.5 billion in farm production loans in Georgia, alone…”

Families with farms that are legitimate claimants in the Pigford case deserve just compensation. But the NY Times article reveals that the “Agriculture Department reviewers found reams of suspicious claims, from nursery-school-age children and pockets of urban dwellers, sometimes in the same handwriting with nearly identical accounts of discrimination.”

Accuracy in Media points out that our government has spent over $1.33 billion compensating Hispanic and female farmers for federal loan discrimination despite a 2010 Supreme Court ruling dismissing those claims.”

Let’s hope media scrutiny will finally put an end to this despicable indiscriminate transfer of taxpayer monies. This is an insult to the families that were actually harmed and deserve compensation and it is in no way an honorable path to success and prosperity with dignity for minorities. Such leadership deserves nothing but scorn.