By Peter Heck
This year as I settled in to watch my annual 33 seconds of “Dick Clark’s New Years Rockin’ Eve with Ryan Seacrest” – that’s the amount of time it takes for me to realize that it’s only fair to the coming year not to make it start with the procession of “special guests and musical performances” ABC has planned to feature – something stood out at me: the name Dick Clark.
No, not because it left me pining away for the American television and radio icon who passed away in 2012 after a heart attack. I wouldn’t wish anyone out of the grave if it meant forcing them to introduce “acts” like Dua Lipa, Blanco Brown, Post Malone, and the cast of something called Jagged Little Pill.
Actually, the name reminded me of another Dick Clarke that you probably don’t know about, but should, since his case offers yet another glimpse of what we are all facing in this coming year and decade: the radical nature of the fascist LGBT political lobby. So radical that they will ensure good deeds aren’t done unless they are accompanied with the appropriate capitulation to the lobby’s political agenda. Behold:
For 19 years, 85-year-old Dick Clarke has raised money for The Salvation Army during the holiday season — 18 of them ringing a bell beside a red kettle for donations outside Nordstrom’s downtown Seattle store. He loved the conversations and the feeling of giving back through the more than $100,000 he collected. He volunteered five days a week, six hours a day.
“The best thing I like about Thanksgiving is the next day I go to work,” said the retired teacher and principal.
Or that’s how he used to feel. This year, Nordstrom told The Salvation Army it would no longer allow solicitation in front of its doors.
Remember when the LGBT lobby made sure Catholic Charities was forced to close its doors if it didn’t violate church teachings and place orphans in homes of homosexual couples? Sorry foster kids, LGBT political demands trump your hope of having a mom and dad.
This is just more of the same – Dick Clarke can’t help raise money for homeless people and food banks outside Nordstrom’s because the Salvation Army doesn’t sufficiently bow to the whims of the LGBT lobby. Sorry homeless people and hungry kids, LGBT political demands trump your right to eat and keep warm.
As was pointed out when the fast-food giant Chick-fil-A betrayed them in futile deference to LGBT political demands, the Salvation Army has long cared for LGBT people, providing services that include a Las Vegas shelter specifically intended for transgenders.
That’s what made the Chick-fil-A betrayal all the more perplexing given that both groups have never exhibited a shred of anti-LGBT discrimination yet still faced the unjustified wrath of the left’s political activists. It almost seemed as though Chick-fil-A felt that by selling out the Salvation Army they could earn some street cred with those who had hated them for so long.
The fruits of those efforts are now being enjoyed by faithful servants like bell-ringer Richard Clarke.
But the larger story, of course, extends well beyond one man at a Seattle Nordstrom. It involves the rights of association, the freedom of conscience, and economic freedom, of course. But it also includes the question of how long rational people will abide an aggressive, anti-liberty, bullying movement that is on an unrelenting search-and-destroy mission for anyone, anywhere who doesn’t bow the knee to their ideology.
First they came for the cake-bakers, then the adoption centers, then the sandwich-makers, then the bell-ringers. We’ll soon find out who’s next.
In all the talk about health care these days, there seems to be an assumption that there is a right to (free) health care. That's a curious notion.
Something to which one has a just claim, such as:
Do you have a right to health care?
If so, where does this right come from – where does it originate?
From God? If so, that will be problematic (see questions below). Besides, "you" likely don't believe in God anyway.
From man? True rights are timeless and universal. If a right derives from man, then the right is, by definition, fickle, and can be granted or revoked at the whim of said man and therefore can't be a right at all.
If you have a right to health care, how much health care do you have a right to?
Other troubling questions:
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness
Compare true rights to the myth of a right to health care. In the historical context, one can pursue life, liberty, and happiness to the ends of the earth, limited only by one's capacity or when one reaches the point where pursuing one's rights infringes on the rights of others.
How far can you get pursuing (free) health care before you infringe on the rights of others (either directly or indirectly)? Sadly, not very far...
Clearly, by any rational meaning of the word, there is no right to health care (free or otherwise). You have the right to pursue whatever health care that may be available to you. You have the right to buy whatever health care you can afford, to ask for charity in the form of health care, or to take advantage of any health care services that others choose to provide for free. But you have no right to make demands of the health care talents and services of others, either directly or indirectly.
We all know the sadness of events that result in flying the flag at half staff. But have you ever wondered how the decision to fly the flag at half staff is made?
Fun fact: flags are said to be half-mast if flown from ships and half-staff if on land.
Note: For more information and current flag lowering orders, click <here>
Note: To receive notifications when Wisconsin half-staff orders are issued <Click here>
In the US, the President can order the flag be flown at half-staff upon the death of principal figures of the United States government (and others) to respect their memory as follows:
When ordered, all government buildings, offices, public schools, and military bases are to fly their flags at half-staff. Because the flags of states, cities, and localities are never to be placed above the flag of the United States all other flags also fly at half-staff when the U.S. flag has been ordered to fly at half-staff.
Governors of U.S. states and territories are authorized by federal law to order all U.S. and state flags in their jurisdiction flown at half-staff as a mark of respect for a former or current state official who has died, or for a member of the armed forces who has died in active duty.
The governor may proclaim that the flag be flown at half-staff upon the death of a present or former state government official or a member of the armed forces. When the order concerns a military death, flags at federal facilities within the state “shall be flown at half staff consistent with that proclamation.
Municipal and county governments, public and private schools, private businesses and individuals should also lower their flags to half-staff by order of the governor, but that is a guideline, not a matter of law for private individuals and organizations.
The governor's authority to issue the order is more restricted than the president's, and does not include discretion to issue the order for state residents who do not meet the criteria stated. Since a governor's executive order affects only his or her state, not the entire country, these orders are distinguished from presidential proclamations.
Quid pro quo is a Latin phrase that literally means "something for something." The phrase usually indicates an exchange of goods or services of roughly equivalent value.
From a legal perspective, quid pro quo indicates that a good or service has been traded for something of equal value. In particular, quid pro quo is used explicitly to indicate that there has been "consideration" in a contract, meaning that there are goods or services being delivered and that acceptable payment is made for these goods or services. Without consideration, or quid pro quo, for example, a contract may be determined to be nonbinding and invalid.
In the political world, for example, quid pro quo sometimes refers to giving support, financial or otherwise, to a political candidate in exchange for the expectation of direct support for an activity of the political benefactor. Quid pro quo may appear as bribery in these cases and such support must always be tested for conflicts of interest.
Click here for more information about the proposed Lake Michigan sanctuary.
Guest commentary by Judith Perlman
The Maritime Museum hired Cathy Green in a key position. She is the wife of Russ Green, Regional Coordinator for the proposed marine sanctuary.
Mrs. Green accepted permanent employment in Manitowoc before completion of the public due process for deciding the sanctuary. That process is now tainted. We cannot reasonably believe NOAA conclusions in support of the sanctuary are unbiased.
This hire is bad for the community:
This country is founded upon due process. It is what separates us from fascists and barbarians. This blatant violation of due process is an insult to Wisconsin and to our democracy.
Many people opposed to the sanctuary have wondered who is in bed with NOAA. Now we know that the Museum is in bed with NOAA, quite literally. Will we ever learn what other dirty deals have been done behind closed doors to trade away our fresh water and Great Lake? Unlikely.
Governor Walker, please tell the Federal Government to go jump in the Lake it wants to control. Please do not sign the Sanctuary Designation.
Above: Arlington National Cemetary. "Home" of over 400,000 individuals who proudly served their country.
From a Nov. 13, 2010, speech by then-Lt. Gen. John Kelly to the Semper Fi Society of St. Louis, describing a 2008 suicide bombing in Iraq that killed two Marines, Cpl. Jonathan Yale, 22, and Lance Cpl. Jordan Haerter, 20. Gen. Kelly’s son, Second Lt. Robert Kelly, 29, was killed in action in Afghanistan Nov. 9, 2010:
What we didn’t know at the time, and only learned a couple of days later after I wrote a summary and submitted both Yale and Haerter for posthumous Navy Crosses, was that one of our security cameras, damaged initially in the blast, recorded some of the suicide attack. It happened exactly as the Iraqis had described it. It took exactly six seconds from when the truck entered the alley until it detonated.
You can watch the last six seconds of their young lives. Putting myself in their heads I supposed it took about a second for the two Marines to separately come to the same conclusion about what was going on once the truck came into their view at the far end of the alley. Exactly no time to talk it over, or call the sergeant to ask what they should do. Only enough time to take half an instant and think about what the sergeant told them to do only a few minutes before: “let no unauthorized personnel or vehicles pass.” The two Marines had about five seconds left to live.
It took maybe another two seconds for them to present their weapons, take aim, and open up. By this time the truck was halfway through the barriers and gaining speed the whole time. Here, the recording shows a number of Iraqi police, some of whom had fired their AKs, now scattering like the normal and rational men they were—some running right past the Marines. They had three seconds left to live.
For about two seconds more, the recording shows the Marines’ weapons firing nonstop, the truck’s windshield exploding into shards of glass as their rounds take it apart and tore in to the body of the son-of-a-bitch who is trying to get past them to kill their brothers—American and Iraqi—bedded down in the barracks totally unaware of the fact that their lives at that moment depended entirely on two Marines standing their ground. If they had been aware, they would have known they were safe, because two Marines stood between them and a crazed suicide bomber. The recording shows the truck careening to a stop immediately in front of the two Marines. In all of the instantaneous violence Yale and Haerter never hesitated. By all reports and by the recording, they never stepped back. They never even started to step aside. They never even shifted their weight. With their feet spread shoulder width apart, they leaned into the danger, firing as fast as they could work their weapons. They had only one second left to live.
The truck explodes. The camera goes blank. Two young men go to their God. Six seconds. Not enough time to think about their families, their country, their flag, or about their lives or their deaths, but more than enough time for two very brave young men to do their duty—into eternity. That is the kind of people who are on watch all over the world tonight—for you.
Guest commentary by Ed Perkins:
After attending the Sheboygan NOAA SEAS Facts Forum meeting on Sept. 21st, and after reading Kristyn Halbig Ziehm's report this last Wednesday, I want to share some further information on this meeting and the proposed Sheboygan Sanctuary.
First, I have yet to read any news coverage that stated that when the question was asked, "Do you oppose this sanctuary?" that 95% of the 75 or more attendees raised their hands in opposition to this sanctuary. About the only people who supported it were the NOAA staff, the Sheboygan mayor, and Steve Kroll, who said he was a volunteer from Alpena, MI, and a supporter wanting to see more marine sanctuaries. Mr. Kroll, as a supporter of the Alpena Sanctuary, when informed that Alpena voters voted against the Alpena Sanctuary didn’t even know this. He turned to Russ Green the NOAA Alpena Ass’t Director asking, “Is this true?” and Green said “Yes.” This fact along with others showed that Kroll lacked basic and important info concerning the Alpena, MI, Sanctuary, yet is a local volunteer supporter of it. Mr. Kroll is a diver and maybe that explains why he supports the sanctuary while others with other concerns do not. I would like to know whether Mr. Kroll was paid to appear on the panel.
Second, the issue of land owner and business rights and how NOAA has dealt with them in the past has received very little attention in the various forums, even though this is a big concern to many. At the Alpena, MI, sanctuary some of us have learned that current land owners with shore land have been prevented from even cutting their brush or cutting down any trees on THEIR property. Also, the NOAA has shown and stated they are not bound by local referendum when it comes to whether NOAA will proceed with a sanctuary. This was proven in Alpena, MI, when the residents there called for a public referendum vote. The results were 1770 opposed the marine sanctuary and 770 were for it. NOAA then determined it was in the best interests of the residents and land owners of Alpena and built the sanctuary.
Third, one of the arguments being used by NOAA and its supporters over the years has been marine sanctuaries will bring a significant economic benefit to the community. That has been proven NOT true in Alpena, MI, and elsewhere. In a study paid for by the NOAA and done by the Univ. of MI on page 85 of that report one will read that after 17 years, "...no significant economic benefit resulted at the Thunder Bay Sanctuary in Alpena." Further what is not acknowledged is that the Alpena sanctuary COST Alpena's taxpayers over $300,000 in additional property taxes because NOAA needed a bridge reconstructed for its bigger boats. Further, the price of fuel at Alpena marinas has increased when it should have gone down like our auto gas has over the past years.
Fourth, I find it of interest how so many in the media like, Ziehm's article, never acknowledge any of the above facts, never bring them up and when they are, brush them aside. I believe that is because there are vested interests that will profit and benefit from the sanctuary. Those include tourist and other related interests, government leaders who believe there will be economic benefit even though there is clear evidence to the contrary; and bureaucrats whose agencies will receive more federal and state funding. Remember, tourist jobs are mostly seasonal and part-time, not good paying jobs. These are the primary supporters of the Sheboygan NOAA Marine Sanctuary - not the local residents, businesses and taxpayers.
Finally, it is important to point out NOAA, along with the WI Historical Society have been promoting the WI Lake MI Sanctuary for almost 10 years. I and other Wisconsin voters and taxpayers first heard about this less than 6 months ago, long after our governor and several state elected reps signed on with their support. This is not how one reaches out in a positive way to gain support for a project impacting ALL of Wisconsin, and not the way to disseminate information to the public. NOAA has spent a large amount of money and staff time over the past 8 years to promote this and many other marine sanctuaries they wish to build. Like any bureaucracy they have "their" own interests. Question is whether those are "OUR" interests?
Guest commentary from Ruth Elmer:
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work. Thomas A. Edison
I was privileged to be at a luncheon that featured Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Annette Ziegler. The above quote is one of her favorites. She reminded a room full of women that our “foremothers”, “The Suffragettes” endured much to give us (women) the right to vote.
In the February election fewer than 5% of all registered voters in the state bothered to get out and vote. In April we have an election, will you be one of the 20% who are expected to vote? Our great-grandmothers surely expected better from us. Although Justice Ziegler is running unopposed, I hope you will show your support for integrity as she serves Wisconsin. Give her your vote.
The most important state wide election on April 4th is for Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction
Dr. Lowell Holtz was also a speaker at the luncheon. His question, “Who has the greatest influence on your property tax bill? The governor? No, it’s the DPI.” The Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty has a study (Apples to Apples) that compares public school results with charter, voucher, and private schools. With $2,000 less per-student, the voucher/choice/private schools get better results. But, we will surely hear that the additional amount Governor Walker is proposing for education is not nearly enough!
Dr. Holtz also said that when he went to bed one night there were over 50 failing schools in Milwaukee. How did Tony Evers solve the problem? He lowered the expectations so that all schools were above the fail line. Education for the inner city student was not improved.
Dr. Holtz also promises to work toward eliminating Common Core and give control of your schools back to your school board.
VOTE APRIL 4th.
Guest commentary by Ron Zahn:
What state-wide elected officer potentially has the greatest impact on your taxes and quality of life? I would suggest it might be the Superintendent of Public Instruction, the officer who heads the largely independent Department of Public Instruction. On April 4, in the Spring General Election, we have the opportunity to vote for needed change.
The incumbent Tony Evers said upon taking office in 2009 “Let me be clear – more of the same is not enough.” Now, after eight years of “more of the same,” of serving the system, not the kids, it's time for beneficial change.
Dr. Lowell Holtz is fully qualified to lead that change, having many years of experience in law enforcement and as a teacher, principal, and superintendent in Wisconsin. What will Lowell bring to the DPI office?
Dr. Holtz is running under the acronym ASK: Always Serve Kids.
Learn more at www.Kidservative.org
Hate is real
Love is real
Stupidity is real
Courage is real
“It’s not what you know, it’s who you know” is real
“Beautiful people get more privileges” is real
“Smarter people have more advantages” is real
“Abortion is murder” is real
“Teacher’s unions destroy education” is real
“Liberals are uniformly hypocrites” is real
"Guns save lives" is real
Criminals are real
“2 + 2 = 4” is real
“Lucy pulls the football away from Charlie Brown (again)” is real
Umm…really…WHAT’S YOUR POINT?
A guest testimonial by Ed Perkins:
WHY I AM SUPPORTING DR. LOWELL HOLTZ TO LEAD THE WI DEPT. OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION:
On Feb. 21st primary elections will be held in Wisconsin. On that ballot we will be voting for the WI Superintendent of Public Schools, DPI.
There will be three candidates on that ballot:
Dr. Lowell Holtz has an exceptional record of innovative leadership in Wisconsin school districts in which he has served. Dr. Holtz is an opponent of Common Core but a strong supporter of School Choice, Charter schools, private schools, etc. He takes a very strong position on local control of our K-12 schools.
In the Beloit School System his administrative success, especially with the Latino and African American students, earned him the National Distinguished Principal award from the US Dept. of Education. He has been endorsed by 8 of our WI legislators to head up the DPI.
Dr. Holtz also had an outstanding administrative record at Whitnall School District in the Milwaukee area from which he recently retired.
Holtz’s web site www.kidservative.org contains info that should lead many to support him.
Dr. Tony Evers has been the head of the WI DPI for 8 years and has been a strong supporter of various federal education programs, especially Common Core. In the very last days of Gov. Jim Doyle’s administration in 2009, Tony Evers signed a federal document forcing WI to adopt and support the undefined and almost unknown federal education program we know today as Common Core. That K-12 education program has had disastrous effects upon our local schools’ curriculum.
Our local schools were forced to adopt and implement this UNTESTED education program. Like Obama Care, was adopted without knowing what was in it, the same is true of Common Core. We had to blindly say yes to an undefined and totally untested educational program because millions of federal dollars were available IF Wisconsin entered into this program. Dr. Tony Evers, in spite of this disastrous program, is still a supporter of it.
He is also a strong opponent of the School Choice Program and believes he alone has the authority to define the curriculum for our K-12 students in WI and has publicly stated this.
John Humphries who has worked for the DPI in the past is currently working as a Program Director in the Dodgeville school district. He does not have a PhD.
He sought to have Gov. Walker recalled and signed a recall petition. He claims today to regret having done this.
He has also supported the elections of President Clinton, Ms. Burke who ran against Gov. Walker and also Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett who ran against Gov. Walker. He has never run for public office. He has never held a high level administrative position.
My hope in presenting the above info is that it leads you to vote for Dr. Holtz on Feb. 21st.
I believe he will bring needed change and leadership to implement that change in our WI Dept. of Public Instruction. REMEMBER, the primary election to eliminate one of the above 3 candidates is here in a matter of days.
On Tuesday, Feb. 14th, from 11:30 am to 1:30 pm, at the Appleton Machine Shed Restaurant, Dr. Holtz will be speaking and taking questions from the public. This event is open to all.
We encourage you and friends to bring your appetite for a sit-down meal at your expense, if you are hungry. If not, just come and learn why Dr. Holtz is worthy of your support on Feb. 14th. This will also be a voluntary fund raiser for Dr. Holtz. If you can’t attend you can donate money to Friends of Dr. Holtz, P.O. Box 158, Big Bend, WI, 53103.
For more information, contact Ed Perkins at (920) 358-7242 or firstname.lastname@example.org