Bob Orr from Pekin and I won the Tri-County 75 Doubles a couple of weeks ago. Bob is 82 and I am 85. We also won it two years ago and have won numerous tournaments in Bloomington, Lansing, Mich., (Midwest Championship in 2000) Peoria and Danville. We plan to play again next year in the yearly Tri-County which drew about 180 entries in all age divisions.
It was my 5th 1at place Tri-County trophy to go with the approximately 250 tennis and track awards I have won since I started to compete again at the age of 55. My wife bought me a full size trophy case a few years ago. It was large enough to hold half of my trophy's. Even through I've played only 4 tournaments while serving 10 years on the Peoria County Board, I plan to play the Gran Prix Tournaments on the Gulf Coast starting in January. Some of the best senior players in the country and Canada play in these Grand Prix tournaments generally held in Naples, Sarasota, St. Petersburg and Ft. Meyers, moving from city to city through February with the finals of the best in early March.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Peoria Riverfront Museum - What Bloggers are Saying
Find the Peoria Chronicle by typing it in your search. This site is the most widely read in Peoria. On this site you can read what people are saying about the PRM, District #150, the City of Peoria, Peoria County and more.
I've had more people asking how to find my blog site. Easiest way is to type in merle widmer's blog or use my number http://widmer-peoria-watch.blogspot.com
I've had more people asking how to find my blog site. Easiest way is to type in merle widmer's blog or use my number http://widmer-peoria-watch.blogspot.com
Illinois is broke.com
Dial it up. Better do it on an empty stomach unless you believe you have a secure public job and a secure public pension.
No IMAX -------------------nooooooooooooooooooooo
Peoria Mayor Jim Ardis said in today's JS under the caption of "Museum may lack an IMAX theatre", 'I think a number of people in the community as well as myself, were under the impression there would be an IMAX theatre in the PRM.' He then states that "If there isn't, I guess the concern is will the alternate make the County and the PRM feel the project still has the same energy that it would have with an IMAX?" County Board member Andrew Rand and Chairman of the PRM Construction Committee is quoted as saying, "I don't think we're specifically hung up on IMAX which is a specific brand."
Besides, Andrew says it's too costly. Andrew is a smart guy but occasionally he says things that indicate he is drinking too much Kool-Aid. Andrew, in case you believe that IMAX is only a brand name and other big screens out there are all the same then I'd like to rename my Lincoln a Mercedes-Benz. After, all it does the same thing a double the price car does, like gets me where I'm going with air-conditioning and heat.
C'mon Andrew, the referendum was sold on the basis of there being and IMAX theatre.
Proof, here goes: JSEB, April 5, 2009, in urging the voters to vote yes wrote, "The museum will an IMAX theatre". What say?
JS 'You Page', April 12, 2009, "I can't wait to see some culture in Peoria, an IMAX, etc.
Same page, "This (museum) will add culture to the city and IMAX will be cool."
Same page, "the whole campaign focused on this awesome IMAX theatre.... small problem, IMAX hasn't signed a contract."
JS, the day after the referendum passed with a "mandate" of 400 votes out of 30,000 votes cast, The PRM will have (among other things) a giant IMAX theatre."
Peoria County Courier, Feb. 27. 2009, show a picture of the PRM with a building clearly labeled "IMAX'. Who sent them that picture? The museum committee!!
Js, November 29, 2009, "Some of the proposed features include a giant IMAX theatre."
Letter from a PRM Board member, Dr. Bruce Hillemeyer, dated 11/17/2009, "Solid projections of over 360,000 visitors each year will visit the Cat Experience and IMAX theatre. OUR IMAX will be the only one south of Chicago and in all of Il. and it will draw thousands..."
Enough? No let's print just the ones I can find.
Margie White, Secretary African American Hall of Fame Museum in a personal letter to me on 12/13/2007, "The IMAX theatre alone will attract visitors from near and far."
(The AA Hall of Fame is presently located at Proctor Center and can be viewed only by appointment, at least, each time I visit). Board Member Junior Watkins said that the Hall is donating $10,000 to the PRM.
Letter from Dan and Kim Phillips, Illinois Antique Center on requesting my vote for support for the downtown museum, "This project will be home to (among other things) a digital IMAX theatre."
Pat Barton, wife of Glen Barton wrote a LTE on 3/14/09, "There is no elitism in plunging through a dark hole in the planetarium, enjoying a movie in the IMAX."
Dr. Joanne Glasser, Bradley University President wrote on 3/22/09, "The PRM will boast (among other things) a 3D IMAX like, note she is the only so far to say 'IMAX like'theatre."
Mayor Jim Ardis on the PRM, "There will be tremendous value for such a low cost. (you bought the Kool Aid then, Jim!) For example a 3-D IMAX theatre."
H.L. Chappie Chapman, on 4/29 in a LTE to the JSEB, The Build a Block will be a major destination for families in our region and visitors to Illinois. It will include (among other things) an IMAX theatre."
Emily Thompson, Bradley Class of 09, in a LTE in the JS wrote, " The museum will house (among other things), an IMAX theatre that will show both educational movies and big blockbusters like 'Harry Potter'........'
Had enough yet, folks and especially Mr. Rand? No, here's more:
Pam Adams of the JS, of course, had her say in a column titled "Dreams of the riverfront museum's future", wrote 'A museum on hand to razzle dazzle attached to a Caterpillar experience and an IMAX theatre.'
Fuss Crawford, Mr. Everbody, in a LTE to the JSEB on 4/05/09 wrote a snide article in which he explains to his kid why Peoria blew it and didn't build "There was going to be a huge IMAX theatre, etc......
And of course, the perennial Barba Mantz Drake wrote an LTE on 3/22/09, she got it right this time, "There will be an IMAX type theatre........."
And then Sheldon Shafer, Lakeview employee and political candidate wrote "How could we sign a contract with IMAX when the building hasn't been built yet?" A s----d statement and he wants to govern us??
Michael Bryant who runs Methodist wrote in the EB on 5/2009, "The IMAX theatre will allow first-run movies,drawing more people downtown."
I'M RUNNING OUT OF ENERGY SO THE LAST ONE AND THE CLINCHER is a statement from Jim Richerson in the IB on June 2009 in a column written by Ray Lees, PSA Dewberry, "Our
stage to the world". Richerson is quoted, 'The Peoria Riverfront Museum will appeal to all people of all ages and will include a digital 3-D IMAX theatre.'
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Folks, looks like you were lied to by an awful lot of our best and brightest.
What's new? BelWood, up from $34 million to $54.6 million in less than a year. There bond request costing $72 million more or less will be voted on also, tomorrow night. No questions from the board, I predict. OPM is easy to justify spending it.
Besides, Andrew says it's too costly. Andrew is a smart guy but occasionally he says things that indicate he is drinking too much Kool-Aid. Andrew, in case you believe that IMAX is only a brand name and other big screens out there are all the same then I'd like to rename my Lincoln a Mercedes-Benz. After, all it does the same thing a double the price car does, like gets me where I'm going with air-conditioning and heat.
C'mon Andrew, the referendum was sold on the basis of there being and IMAX theatre.
Proof, here goes: JSEB, April 5, 2009, in urging the voters to vote yes wrote, "The museum will an IMAX theatre". What say?
JS 'You Page', April 12, 2009, "I can't wait to see some culture in Peoria, an IMAX, etc.
Same page, "This (museum) will add culture to the city and IMAX will be cool."
Same page, "the whole campaign focused on this awesome IMAX theatre.... small problem, IMAX hasn't signed a contract."
JS, the day after the referendum passed with a "mandate" of 400 votes out of 30,000 votes cast, The PRM will have (among other things) a giant IMAX theatre."
Peoria County Courier, Feb. 27. 2009, show a picture of the PRM with a building clearly labeled "IMAX'. Who sent them that picture? The museum committee!!
Js, November 29, 2009, "Some of the proposed features include a giant IMAX theatre."
Letter from a PRM Board member, Dr. Bruce Hillemeyer, dated 11/17/2009, "Solid projections of over 360,000 visitors each year will visit the Cat Experience and IMAX theatre. OUR IMAX will be the only one south of Chicago and in all of Il. and it will draw thousands..."
Enough? No let's print just the ones I can find.
Margie White, Secretary African American Hall of Fame Museum in a personal letter to me on 12/13/2007, "The IMAX theatre alone will attract visitors from near and far."
(The AA Hall of Fame is presently located at Proctor Center and can be viewed only by appointment, at least, each time I visit). Board Member Junior Watkins said that the Hall is donating $10,000 to the PRM.
Letter from Dan and Kim Phillips, Illinois Antique Center on requesting my vote for support for the downtown museum, "This project will be home to (among other things) a digital IMAX theatre."
Pat Barton, wife of Glen Barton wrote a LTE on 3/14/09, "There is no elitism in plunging through a dark hole in the planetarium, enjoying a movie in the IMAX."
Dr. Joanne Glasser, Bradley University President wrote on 3/22/09, "The PRM will boast (among other things) a 3D IMAX like, note she is the only so far to say 'IMAX like'theatre."
Mayor Jim Ardis on the PRM, "There will be tremendous value for such a low cost. (you bought the Kool Aid then, Jim!) For example a 3-D IMAX theatre."
H.L. Chappie Chapman, on 4/29 in a LTE to the JSEB, The Build a Block will be a major destination for families in our region and visitors to Illinois. It will include (among other things) an IMAX theatre."
Emily Thompson, Bradley Class of 09, in a LTE in the JS wrote, " The museum will house (among other things), an IMAX theatre that will show both educational movies and big blockbusters like 'Harry Potter'........'
Had enough yet, folks and especially Mr. Rand? No, here's more:
Pam Adams of the JS, of course, had her say in a column titled "Dreams of the riverfront museum's future", wrote 'A museum on hand to razzle dazzle attached to a Caterpillar experience and an IMAX theatre.'
Fuss Crawford, Mr. Everbody, in a LTE to the JSEB on 4/05/09 wrote a snide article in which he explains to his kid why Peoria blew it and didn't build "There was going to be a huge IMAX theatre, etc......
And of course, the perennial Barba Mantz Drake wrote an LTE on 3/22/09, she got it right this time, "There will be an IMAX type theatre........."
And then Sheldon Shafer, Lakeview employee and political candidate wrote "How could we sign a contract with IMAX when the building hasn't been built yet?" A s----d statement and he wants to govern us??
Michael Bryant who runs Methodist wrote in the EB on 5/2009, "The IMAX theatre will allow first-run movies,drawing more people downtown."
I'M RUNNING OUT OF ENERGY SO THE LAST ONE AND THE CLINCHER is a statement from Jim Richerson in the IB on June 2009 in a column written by Ray Lees, PSA Dewberry, "Our
stage to the world". Richerson is quoted, 'The Peoria Riverfront Museum will appeal to all people of all ages and will include a digital 3-D IMAX theatre.'
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Folks, looks like you were lied to by an awful lot of our best and brightest.
What's new? BelWood, up from $34 million to $54.6 million in less than a year. There bond request costing $72 million more or less will be voted on also, tomorrow night. No questions from the board, I predict. OPM is easy to justify spending it.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Peoria Riverfront Museum - Additions
An addendum to my blog. Referring to the Lakeview Museum of Arts and Sciences Financial Statements June 30, 2009. On Page 8, of this 2009 Financial Statement, it reads "Notes to Financial Statements, June 30,2009, "Discounts on pledges/allowance for uncollectible pledges - $777,739. On Page 5, it reads, "Provision for uncollectible pledges - $432,000????
Pledges are just pledges and which figure is the correct one for 2009? Both may be correct depending on the meaning of "discounts" and "provisions".
At a recent fundraiser, Peoria County Board member and a PRM Chairperson, Andrew Rand said an additional $400,000 was raised. I asked, cash or pledges? His answer, pledges.
Pledges are just pledges and which figure is the correct one for 2009? Both may be correct depending on the meaning of "discounts" and "provisions".
At a recent fundraiser, Peoria County Board member and a PRM Chairperson, Andrew Rand said an additional $400,000 was raised. I asked, cash or pledges? His answer, pledges.
Peoria Riverfront Museum
This blog is a copy of an email I sent today to our County Administrator and Board Chairman, Tom O'Neill, and three dozen other individuals. I have made some small corrections or additions.
Please read all as some of this information is unknown to the voters.
Patrick,
Early this year you issued a single sheet titled "Museum Project Cost/Funding Summary", dated 12/31/09 showing $13,318,791 "Funds actually received or spent" and "Expenditures through 12/31/09" of $11,516,757 leaving "Funds Pledged or on Hand" of $1,801,791.
Nearly 12 million spent as of 7 months ago.
Since Lakeview Museums Fiscal year ended 6/30/10, I last week asked you again for an update of their financial condition in print. You have indicated you are working on getting it. What is the delay?
The board is going to vote in two days to bond out $41 to the museum from the Sales Tax Referendum passed last year.
More facts need to be made public. In a letter I received from Michael Bryant dated December 11, 2008, before the referendum passed, contained these words "57% private funding (for the museum) of which nearly 90% is in hand". I would interpret that to mean only 10% more private funding would be needed to fund the entire, at that time, $136,000,000 project. The letter said "public funding was to be $59 million". The overall project now has projected costs of $145-147 million. So many statements have been made about the funding of the museum and parking garage funding that it is difficult to know the future risk to the taxpayer.
Millions of dollars in pledges were made to the museum. Pledges are not "cash in hand" as Lakeview's Financial Statements show $556,000 in 2008 and 432,000 as 'uncollectible'. No figures on uncollectible pledges are available as of Fiscal year 2010 ended on June 30, 2010.
The original resolution "supporting the concept of the PRM" passed by the County Board on 12/13/07, was for $24 million. Now that amount has risen to $41+ million. Also, a report from our former Financial Officer, Erik Bush, on 09/08, stated that the Endowment would have to "contribute $11 1/2 million in 'stable' budget situation and $22 1/4 million in a 'reduced' revenue scenario". An amended report was received on January 22, 2009 from Mr. Bush, after further information was given him by Lakeview, stated the endowment needed to be $8,000,000, producing approximately $320,000 per year over the 20 year sales tax term. Mr. Bush said that "a common benchmark for investment is 10%". The proposed Endowment does not meet this benchmark.
These figures are all based on projections. Projections have not been met on any major development on the Riverfront in recent history.
The full board was told by PRM Board Chairman Brad McMillan that "public involvement in other museums is not unusual" and the public share should be about 33%. Actually, today the public share for the museum project is more than 70% depending on whether the city is still going to lease or sell the $10 million valued land for $1.
The board needs to see a draft of the financial condition of the museum at the end of June 30 similar to the one we received dated 12/31/09. As a former businessman, I know of no lender who would wait for 5 weeks to get a draft of this very important current financial report. Nor should the County Board especially before an extremely important vote on Thursday.
Also, we are raising the $34.7 million cap pledged to the museum from the "Facilities" referendum fund to $41 million for the museum building alone The museum was to offset other costs. This extra revenue would help finance the badly underfunded Endowment Fund according to this statement made by Lakeview on Oct, 22, 2009, " If Peoria County supplies the additional $5.3 million, an equivalent amount of funding can be redirected to enhance the Endowment or fund unfunded priorities.......".
(Doug Stewart, a bank president and CEO Board member was quoted in the JS on 12/04/05 that the Endowment should be $14 million). We appear to be settling for much less creating more risk if the project does not live up to projections. Not to be overlooked is projected operating costs to be in the $4.1-3 million range with costs projected to be around $8 million a year in 2032.
No Endowment should be funded by taxpayer dollars. Raising the museum tax collected from $34+ million to $41+ million would appear to bridge this gap as last week the Endowment fund stood at around $3.6 million. Isn't this similar to the City of Peoria garbage fee which is really a tax on the public? To fund what was promised to be a private Endowment?
We have not yet reached an agreement with the City. The only way the facts are gong to come out on this underfunded and now publicly ($70 million+) financed museum project are for all the committee meetings be open (and advertised) for questions from the concerned citizenry.
If this museum is to succeed, facts for all who voted for or against the Facilities Referendum, should be easily available. It appears that some leadership has forgotten that this referendum passed by about 400 votes out of 30,000 cast, hardly a mandate, with the supporters spending from between $600,00 upwards to the non-supporters spending less than $3,000. These "no" voters need to become believers and visitors if this still underfunded project is to succeed..
Promises and pledges are just that, not hard money in hand. There is often a vast gap between "visions" and facts. Our board chair has been told to "prepare a tight agenda and stick to it". As of now there are still a lot of unanswered questions about the stability of either project, mainly the PRM.(BelWood bonds for $51 million are also on the agenda). Chairman O'Neill should not hold to a "tight agenda" this Thursday evening with so many questions unanswered.
Once low interest facilities are built, they remain to be funded for 50-60 years or more. Any studied information of this museum, indicate that both the funding of the museum, underground parking and future revenues and operating costs pertaining strictly to the museum and parking garage, are all projections; these projections to be funded largely by a "skeptical" taxpayer as proven by the referendum vote and all the delays on contracts and funding.
Skeptical? One of several surveys presented by County Administration showed the answer under Policy questions was "Peoria Riverfront Museum: 65% somewhat oppose or strongly oppose a sales tax increase" Note also that the Peoria Public Park District has failed to raise the money for the $5 million dollar parking lot and entrance to enhance the new zoo. Also check how many dollars in new business has been brought into this community by the new $27 million zoo. The museum, two Bradley Professors project, will bring in $14 million new dollars to local businesses every year??
At a County Board Meeting July 9, 2009, you made it clear that "ground will not be broken, even for the parking deck, until there is $8 million dollars in PRIVATE funds to cover the gap. If PRIVATE funds in CASH have been raised in the past year, please "show me the money'.
Is not this situation similar to what helped get us in the financial mess we are in in this country; that the buyers thought they had the funds and credit to buy housings and buildings?
This project became flawed shortly after its inception. One misunderstanding was the museum committee believing the County was contributing $6 million. The figure is actually $600,000 paid over 6 years. This was an error made by the County. This money is supposedly being held in a separate County Account. As our paid County liaison Mark Johnson said "it is a mess". Before the "messes" started surfacing, I supported the $24 million and the concept as per my vote on record. For the past two years, I have not.
Despite a tremendous amount of energy and money already spent, approximately $12 million, it still appears to be unfunded and flawed.
This project should again be put on hold at least until the City decides if they now wish to charge the museum project for the land. And the Endowment is fulfilled with PRIVATE funds and the pledges outstanding are audited, a request I made a year ago..
Please read all as some of this information is unknown to the voters.
Patrick,
Early this year you issued a single sheet titled "Museum Project Cost/Funding Summary", dated 12/31/09 showing $13,318,791 "Funds actually received or spent" and "Expenditures through 12/31/09" of $11,516,757 leaving "Funds Pledged or on Hand" of $1,801,791.
Nearly 12 million spent as of 7 months ago.
Since Lakeview Museums Fiscal year ended 6/30/10, I last week asked you again for an update of their financial condition in print. You have indicated you are working on getting it. What is the delay?
The board is going to vote in two days to bond out $41 to the museum from the Sales Tax Referendum passed last year.
More facts need to be made public. In a letter I received from Michael Bryant dated December 11, 2008, before the referendum passed, contained these words "57% private funding (for the museum) of which nearly 90% is in hand". I would interpret that to mean only 10% more private funding would be needed to fund the entire, at that time, $136,000,000 project. The letter said "public funding was to be $59 million". The overall project now has projected costs of $145-147 million. So many statements have been made about the funding of the museum and parking garage funding that it is difficult to know the future risk to the taxpayer.
Millions of dollars in pledges were made to the museum. Pledges are not "cash in hand" as Lakeview's Financial Statements show $556,000 in 2008 and 432,000 as 'uncollectible'. No figures on uncollectible pledges are available as of Fiscal year 2010 ended on June 30, 2010.
The original resolution "supporting the concept of the PRM" passed by the County Board on 12/13/07, was for $24 million. Now that amount has risen to $41+ million. Also, a report from our former Financial Officer, Erik Bush, on 09/08, stated that the Endowment would have to "contribute $11 1/2 million in 'stable' budget situation and $22 1/4 million in a 'reduced' revenue scenario". An amended report was received on January 22, 2009 from Mr. Bush, after further information was given him by Lakeview, stated the endowment needed to be $8,000,000, producing approximately $320,000 per year over the 20 year sales tax term. Mr. Bush said that "a common benchmark for investment is 10%". The proposed Endowment does not meet this benchmark.
These figures are all based on projections. Projections have not been met on any major development on the Riverfront in recent history.
The full board was told by PRM Board Chairman Brad McMillan that "public involvement in other museums is not unusual" and the public share should be about 33%. Actually, today the public share for the museum project is more than 70% depending on whether the city is still going to lease or sell the $10 million valued land for $1.
The board needs to see a draft of the financial condition of the museum at the end of June 30 similar to the one we received dated 12/31/09. As a former businessman, I know of no lender who would wait for 5 weeks to get a draft of this very important current financial report. Nor should the County Board especially before an extremely important vote on Thursday.
Also, we are raising the $34.7 million cap pledged to the museum from the "Facilities" referendum fund to $41 million for the museum building alone The museum was to offset other costs. This extra revenue would help finance the badly underfunded Endowment Fund according to this statement made by Lakeview on Oct, 22, 2009, " If Peoria County supplies the additional $5.3 million, an equivalent amount of funding can be redirected to enhance the Endowment or fund unfunded priorities.......".
(Doug Stewart, a bank president and CEO Board member was quoted in the JS on 12/04/05 that the Endowment should be $14 million). We appear to be settling for much less creating more risk if the project does not live up to projections. Not to be overlooked is projected operating costs to be in the $4.1-3 million range with costs projected to be around $8 million a year in 2032.
No Endowment should be funded by taxpayer dollars. Raising the museum tax collected from $34+ million to $41+ million would appear to bridge this gap as last week the Endowment fund stood at around $3.6 million. Isn't this similar to the City of Peoria garbage fee which is really a tax on the public? To fund what was promised to be a private Endowment?
We have not yet reached an agreement with the City. The only way the facts are gong to come out on this underfunded and now publicly ($70 million+) financed museum project are for all the committee meetings be open (and advertised) for questions from the concerned citizenry.
If this museum is to succeed, facts for all who voted for or against the Facilities Referendum, should be easily available. It appears that some leadership has forgotten that this referendum passed by about 400 votes out of 30,000 cast, hardly a mandate, with the supporters spending from between $600,00 upwards to the non-supporters spending less than $3,000. These "no" voters need to become believers and visitors if this still underfunded project is to succeed..
Promises and pledges are just that, not hard money in hand. There is often a vast gap between "visions" and facts. Our board chair has been told to "prepare a tight agenda and stick to it". As of now there are still a lot of unanswered questions about the stability of either project, mainly the PRM.(BelWood bonds for $51 million are also on the agenda). Chairman O'Neill should not hold to a "tight agenda" this Thursday evening with so many questions unanswered.
Once low interest facilities are built, they remain to be funded for 50-60 years or more. Any studied information of this museum, indicate that both the funding of the museum, underground parking and future revenues and operating costs pertaining strictly to the museum and parking garage, are all projections; these projections to be funded largely by a "skeptical" taxpayer as proven by the referendum vote and all the delays on contracts and funding.
Skeptical? One of several surveys presented by County Administration showed the answer under Policy questions was "Peoria Riverfront Museum: 65% somewhat oppose or strongly oppose a sales tax increase" Note also that the Peoria Public Park District has failed to raise the money for the $5 million dollar parking lot and entrance to enhance the new zoo. Also check how many dollars in new business has been brought into this community by the new $27 million zoo. The museum, two Bradley Professors project, will bring in $14 million new dollars to local businesses every year??
At a County Board Meeting July 9, 2009, you made it clear that "ground will not be broken, even for the parking deck, until there is $8 million dollars in PRIVATE funds to cover the gap. If PRIVATE funds in CASH have been raised in the past year, please "show me the money'.
Is not this situation similar to what helped get us in the financial mess we are in in this country; that the buyers thought they had the funds and credit to buy housings and buildings?
This project became flawed shortly after its inception. One misunderstanding was the museum committee believing the County was contributing $6 million. The figure is actually $600,000 paid over 6 years. This was an error made by the County. This money is supposedly being held in a separate County Account. As our paid County liaison Mark Johnson said "it is a mess". Before the "messes" started surfacing, I supported the $24 million and the concept as per my vote on record. For the past two years, I have not.
Despite a tremendous amount of energy and money already spent, approximately $12 million, it still appears to be unfunded and flawed.
This project should again be put on hold at least until the City decides if they now wish to charge the museum project for the land. And the Endowment is fulfilled with PRIVATE funds and the pledges outstanding are audited, a request I made a year ago..
Friday, August 06, 2010
JSEB Makes No Common Sense
New York's Planned new mosque to add to the hundreds they now have throughout the City.
Merle
When developers tried to build a mall next to the Manassas battlefield, many who had kinfolk who fought and died in that war blocked it, including Jody Powell, Jimmy Carter's press secretary.
They did not fight development because they opposed private enterprise, any more than those who blocked the licensing of a casino beside Gettysburg battlefield did so because they dislike gambling.
Patrick Buchanan
Merle
When developers tried to build a mall next to the Manassas battlefield, many who had kinfolk who fought and died in that war blocked it, including Jody Powell, Jimmy Carter's press secretary.
They did not fight development because they opposed private enterprise, any more than those who blocked the licensing of a casino beside Gettysburg battlefield did so because they dislike gambling.
Patrick Buchanan
Honor Killings
Fox News will have an "Honor Killings" program tonight at 9:00PM Central Time. This program will shed more light on the "true believers" who are gaining a strong foothold in this country.
Thursday, August 05, 2010
Governor Quinn's Political Ads Avoid Voters Who Can Think
To constantly run a political ad condemning Gubernatorial Candidate Brady, Quinn appears to be appealing to welfare people, minimum wage people, out of work people, socialist bent people and village idiots. By claiming that Brady earned a salary of $70+ a year and paid no income tax is meant to rile up people whose only income is as stated above.
Educated types, including the job-seekers, realize that ones salary, if they are fortunate enough to be employed, is just part of your possible earnings and possible losses. When you report these earnings and losses, it is your combined earnings (or losses) on which one pays taxes. If he files a joint return as most of us do, their combined losses or carry forward losses evidently were charged against his salary, thus no overall income but losses on their investments. However, after even a very ordinary accountant puts it all down in legal form showed Brady would legally owe little or no taxes.
No special treatment for Brady. Ask any accountant.
You could explain this to an average forth grader. Just what type of voter is Quinn trying to reach with this elementary low blow ad??
Educated types, including the job-seekers, realize that ones salary, if they are fortunate enough to be employed, is just part of your possible earnings and possible losses. When you report these earnings and losses, it is your combined earnings (or losses) on which one pays taxes. If he files a joint return as most of us do, their combined losses or carry forward losses evidently were charged against his salary, thus no overall income but losses on their investments. However, after even a very ordinary accountant puts it all down in legal form showed Brady would legally owe little or no taxes.
No special treatment for Brady. Ask any accountant.
You could explain this to an average forth grader. Just what type of voter is Quinn trying to reach with this elementary low blow ad??
Wednesday, August 04, 2010
Don't Forget the Little People
So writes Diane Vespa, a local parent of two children who attend Peoria Public Schools. She works as a volunteer in the classrooms and advocates for sound child-focused district policy. She also works as a realtor and her husband, John, a judge, is running for election in November.
Her article appears in the August Issue of InterBusiness Issues magazine. She is right in all areas including school board members with little background to run an $150 million system. She says not to be too hard on the unions. Unions in Peoria Public School District #150 have gained their power through the public general dis-interest in who serves on the (thankless 5 year, no pay, my comments), school board.
Diane tells it pretty much like it is which is rare in a publication like IB that generally selects article writers who are only positive and optimistic about the "goings on" in this community.
Diane says new buildings are nice but it's what the kids learn that is more important than new steel and concrete (and debt, I might add).
Her article can be found on pages 64-66. Good reading, and thanks, Diane, for telling it like it is while holding hope for the future of the Peoria Public Schools with less interference from the government such as the highly questionable NCLB.
Her article appears in the August Issue of InterBusiness Issues magazine. She is right in all areas including school board members with little background to run an $150 million system. She says not to be too hard on the unions. Unions in Peoria Public School District #150 have gained their power through the public general dis-interest in who serves on the (thankless 5 year, no pay, my comments), school board.
Diane tells it pretty much like it is which is rare in a publication like IB that generally selects article writers who are only positive and optimistic about the "goings on" in this community.
Diane says new buildings are nice but it's what the kids learn that is more important than new steel and concrete (and debt, I might add).
Her article can be found on pages 64-66. Good reading, and thanks, Diane, for telling it like it is while holding hope for the future of the Peoria Public Schools with less interference from the government such as the highly questionable NCLB.
Liberal Piety and the Memory of 9/11
This the title of a column in today's WSJ by one of my favorite columnists, Dorothy Rabinowitz. Among supporters of the location of the Islamic Mosque is New York Mayor, Michael Bloomberg who states, "Ground Zero is a 'very appropriate place' for a (15 story) mosque. It 'tells the world' that in America, we have freedom of religion for everyone."
Rabinowitz writes, "Here was an idea we have been hearing more and more of lately--the need to show the world America's devotion to democracy and justice, also cited by the administration as a reason to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in NY City. Who is it, we can only wonder, that requires these proof? What occasions these regular brayings on the need to show the world the United States is a free nation?
Bloomberg and Cuomo resort to the pious battle cries, the claim that antagonists of the plan stand against religious freedom. Why have the builders insisted on building this 15 story mosque within 2 blocks of Ground Zero? It is an insistence that calls to mind the Flying Inmans, whose ostentatious prayers-apparently designed to call attention to themselves on a U.S. Airways flight to Phoenix in November 2006-ended in a lawsuit. The inmans sued. The airlines lost.
Dr. Zuhdi Jasser-devout Muslim, physician, former U.S. Nay Lt. Commander and founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy-says there is every reason to investigate the center's funding under the circumstance. Of the mosque so near the site of the 0/11 attacks, he notes 'It will certainly be a seen as a victory for political Islam.'
The center may be built where planned (at least one lawsuit has been filled to stop it) but it will not be without consequences on the political intent on jamming the project down the public throat, in the name of principle. Liberal piety may have met its match in the raw memory of 9/11, and in citizens who have come to know pure demagoguery when they hear it. They have had, of late, plenty of practice."
Don't expect our current administration to come to the support of the the families of the victims of 9/11. He is too busy making "nice' to all the oppressive regimes in the world while they laugh at him behind his back.
Rabinowitz writes, "Here was an idea we have been hearing more and more of lately--the need to show the world America's devotion to democracy and justice, also cited by the administration as a reason to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in NY City. Who is it, we can only wonder, that requires these proof? What occasions these regular brayings on the need to show the world the United States is a free nation?
Bloomberg and Cuomo resort to the pious battle cries, the claim that antagonists of the plan stand against religious freedom. Why have the builders insisted on building this 15 story mosque within 2 blocks of Ground Zero? It is an insistence that calls to mind the Flying Inmans, whose ostentatious prayers-apparently designed to call attention to themselves on a U.S. Airways flight to Phoenix in November 2006-ended in a lawsuit. The inmans sued. The airlines lost.
Dr. Zuhdi Jasser-devout Muslim, physician, former U.S. Nay Lt. Commander and founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy-says there is every reason to investigate the center's funding under the circumstance. Of the mosque so near the site of the 0/11 attacks, he notes 'It will certainly be a seen as a victory for political Islam.'
The center may be built where planned (at least one lawsuit has been filled to stop it) but it will not be without consequences on the political intent on jamming the project down the public throat, in the name of principle. Liberal piety may have met its match in the raw memory of 9/11, and in citizens who have come to know pure demagoguery when they hear it. They have had, of late, plenty of practice."
Don't expect our current administration to come to the support of the the families of the victims of 9/11. He is too busy making "nice' to all the oppressive regimes in the world while they laugh at him behind his back.
Aaron Schock on H.R. 5175
Forwarded to me by a friend. An intelligent answer from an intelligent public servant.
Merle
August 3, 2010
Dear Mr. McWilliams,
Thank you for contacting me regarding, H.R. 5175, the Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections (DISCLOSE) Act. I certainly appreciate hearing your views on this issue, and welcome the opportunity to respond.
Currently all groups funding political advertisements must disclose their identities in each ad and file spending reports with the Federal Elections Commission (FEC). Donors who contribute toward funding the ads must also be disclosed. Furthermore, foreign corporations are prohibited from making donations or supporting electioneering communications.
As you may know, H.R. 5175, was introduced by Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) on April 29, 2010, and subsequently passed the House of Representatives on June 24, 2010. However, this bill has recently stalled in the Senate. Passage of this bill would impose absurd disclosure requirements that could take up more than half of an ad's time. It is a bill that was craftily designed to serve the interests of the current majority in Congress.
This bill is so objectionable to adherents of the First Amendment, that disparate groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have united in opposition.
The DISCLOSE Act is the result of a recent Supreme Court decision, Citizens United v. FEC. The Court held that funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment. The Court struck down a provision of the Campaign Reform Act that prohibited both for-profit, not-for-profit entities, and unions from broadcasting commercials within 60 days of a general election and within 30 days of a primary election. The ruling became even more infamous, after President Obama gave an unprecedented rebuke to the Supreme Court during his State of the Union address.
The DISCLOSE Act is nothing more than a punitive measure against associations of persons who choose to exercise their right to free political speech; as guaranteed by the Constitution and affirmed in the Citizens United v. FEC case. The bill's new limits on spending and endless disclosure requirements target only the political speech of businesses and non-profits, with no effect on unions - including foreign-influenced labor unions, public-employee unions or government grant recipients.
Alarmingly, the DISCLOSE Act represents a significant departure from past campaign-finance legislation, which sought to treat unions and businesses comparably and was framed in a genuinely bi-partisan manner. The legislation's sponsors admit that the bill's purpose is to deter their potential enemies from participating in the political process. Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has said that the bill will make organizations "think twice" before attempting to influence election outcomes, and that this "deterrent effect should not be underestimated."
While the authors of the bill claim their provisions are necessary for voters to know who is paying for political advertising, the truth is they want to intimidate concerned groups into not expressing their views about incumbent lawmakers without fear of retaliation.
By attempting to silence voices in the political process, while enabling unions to retain their enormous influence, the DISCLOSE Act is patently unconstitutional and a political threat to the election process. Its partisan intent is clear. The bill's principal sponsor in the House, Congressman Van Hollen, is the Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC); its other principal sponsor has previously held the equivalent position in the Senate. The sponsors have openly admitted their intent to enact the bill quickly to influence the elections this fall.
While I understand the concerns many may have with the Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC, I believe the decision preserves the free speech protections of the First Amendment and ensures that these protections are applied evenly. I voted against the DISCLOSE measure when it was passed by the House this past June.
Again, thank you for contacting me. Please don't hesitate to contact me in the future regarding this, or any other issue. Also, to stay informed on what's happening in Washington, please feel free to sign up for my electronic newsletter, The Schock Report, at www.schock.house.gov.
Sincerely,
Aaron Schock
Member of Congress
Merle
August 3, 2010
Dear Mr. McWilliams,
Thank you for contacting me regarding, H.R. 5175, the Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections (DISCLOSE) Act. I certainly appreciate hearing your views on this issue, and welcome the opportunity to respond.
Currently all groups funding political advertisements must disclose their identities in each ad and file spending reports with the Federal Elections Commission (FEC). Donors who contribute toward funding the ads must also be disclosed. Furthermore, foreign corporations are prohibited from making donations or supporting electioneering communications.
As you may know, H.R. 5175, was introduced by Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) on April 29, 2010, and subsequently passed the House of Representatives on June 24, 2010. However, this bill has recently stalled in the Senate. Passage of this bill would impose absurd disclosure requirements that could take up more than half of an ad's time. It is a bill that was craftily designed to serve the interests of the current majority in Congress.
This bill is so objectionable to adherents of the First Amendment, that disparate groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have united in opposition.
The DISCLOSE Act is the result of a recent Supreme Court decision, Citizens United v. FEC. The Court held that funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment. The Court struck down a provision of the Campaign Reform Act that prohibited both for-profit, not-for-profit entities, and unions from broadcasting commercials within 60 days of a general election and within 30 days of a primary election. The ruling became even more infamous, after President Obama gave an unprecedented rebuke to the Supreme Court during his State of the Union address.
The DISCLOSE Act is nothing more than a punitive measure against associations of persons who choose to exercise their right to free political speech; as guaranteed by the Constitution and affirmed in the Citizens United v. FEC case. The bill's new limits on spending and endless disclosure requirements target only the political speech of businesses and non-profits, with no effect on unions - including foreign-influenced labor unions, public-employee unions or government grant recipients.
Alarmingly, the DISCLOSE Act represents a significant departure from past campaign-finance legislation, which sought to treat unions and businesses comparably and was framed in a genuinely bi-partisan manner. The legislation's sponsors admit that the bill's purpose is to deter their potential enemies from participating in the political process. Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has said that the bill will make organizations "think twice" before attempting to influence election outcomes, and that this "deterrent effect should not be underestimated."
While the authors of the bill claim their provisions are necessary for voters to know who is paying for political advertising, the truth is they want to intimidate concerned groups into not expressing their views about incumbent lawmakers without fear of retaliation.
By attempting to silence voices in the political process, while enabling unions to retain their enormous influence, the DISCLOSE Act is patently unconstitutional and a political threat to the election process. Its partisan intent is clear. The bill's principal sponsor in the House, Congressman Van Hollen, is the Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC); its other principal sponsor has previously held the equivalent position in the Senate. The sponsors have openly admitted their intent to enact the bill quickly to influence the elections this fall.
While I understand the concerns many may have with the Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC, I believe the decision preserves the free speech protections of the First Amendment and ensures that these protections are applied evenly. I voted against the DISCLOSE measure when it was passed by the House this past June.
Again, thank you for contacting me. Please don't hesitate to contact me in the future regarding this, or any other issue. Also, to stay informed on what's happening in Washington, please feel free to sign up for my electronic newsletter, The Schock Report, at www.schock.house.gov.
Sincerely,
Aaron Schock
Member of Congress
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)