Wednesday, May 29, 2013

JeffreysFreisler Award To Florida Judge

NOTE BENE: The issued and hard-copy diploma was headed with the standard Nazi logo.




Abusing The Power Of The Courts

To Attack The Rights Of A Citizen (Mr. George Zimmerman)

To A Fair Trial

Has Been Awarded To

Florida's Judge Debra Nelson


Issued In The Deepest Pit Of Hell
 On 20 Rajbad 1434AH
 (In The Official Date System Of The Evil One

Obama & Hiter

Some have claimed that President Obama is essentially, in his beliefs and actions, the same as Adolf Hitler.  At first, this seemed totally unreasonable. Therefore, I have addressed several of the comparative points.

1.                  Hitler was a National Socialist whose original power base was the poorest of Germany's workers and unemployed.  To progress-in-power, he compromised with the industrialists of his nation.  1'. B. H. Obama's original “base” was the poorer (Often Black) workers and unemployed of the USA. Some have claimed he has betrayed that base by compromises with the “inside the belt-line” professional politicians---Especially those who have been in the Congress for a very long time.
2.                  Hitler hated the Jews and did all he could to destroy them. 2'. Mr. Obama has done as much as allowed to limit aid and general support to the State of Israel (Even to “officially” denying the reality that Jerusalem is the historical and present capitol of that nation.
3.                  Hitler was supported by Muslims. He gave political shelter to the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and having Muslims volunteer to man a SS unit---In large part due to their Islamic hatred of Jews in accordance with Mohammed's special instructions to kill them where ever they are.      3’. Obama has done all possible to “Uplift” “Islam” and “Muslims” by having them infiltrate the Department of State, DOD and other Federal agencies, all in   sensitive and policy-impacting positions. At the same time he has attacked others’ “free exercise of religion” and endangered  the State of Israel by such acts as sending the “Islamist” President and government of Egypt our most modern fighter air craft (Which I suspect the Israel Self-Defense Force would destroy in short order) and, much more importantly, the best tanks in the world, the M1 Abrams is a third-generation main battle tank.
4. The only “Christian” church with which Mr. Obama has had any long-term contact is that which has the  “God Damm The United States” pastor AND is, as far as I know, the only such pastor and church to be honored by “The Nation Of  Islam”.

Saturday, May 18, 2013

"What Michigan's Charter Schools Can Teach the Nation"

I very, very, rarely copy entire articles into this blog.  However, "fair use" and "free political speech" appear to make this necessary as to the below article.

What Michigan's Charter Schools Can Teach the Country

The secrets of reform success include liberal chartering rules and freedom from teacher tenure.


Public charter schools now serve 2.3 million children nationwide and enjoy growing bipartisan support. But they are still loathed by teachers unions and traditional public-school officials more interested in protecting their piece of the school-funding pie than in providing students trapped in failing schools with a chance at a decent education.
Those familiar with the controversy over charters have probably heard of the 2009 study by Stanford University's Center for Research on Education Outcomes. The Credo study, routinely cited by groups opposed to school choice, analyzed charter schools in 16 states and found that, on average, only 17% were outperforming conventional public schools while 37% were doing worse.
However, Credo noted that the study's results "vary strongly by state and are shown to be influenced in significant ways by several characteristics of state charter school policies." These include laws determining how many charters can operate in a state, who can authorize them, and the level of autonomy these schools will have from certain state regulations.
Although largely ignored, this finding is especially relevant in light of a more recent Credo study focusing solely on the performance of Michigan's charter schools. The findings, released in January, portray Michigan's charter schools as a clear-cut success story and provide lessons for other states.

Detroit Midtown Academy teacher Rochell Dunson works with students in 2008.

Credo found that 42% of Michigan's charter schools are outperforming conventional public schools in math and 35% of charters are outperforming in reading. Only 6% of charters are underperforming in math and only 2% in reading. Further, 82% of charters produced growth in average reading test scores and 72% did so in math.
Of the 56 outcomes for different subgroups of students and schools the study dissected, 52 showed charter-school students outperforming their peers in conventional public schools.
Perhaps the most notable finding was that from 2007-11 the typical Michigan charter-school student made annual academic gains in both reading and math equivalent to about two additional months of learning, compared with his or her peers in conventional public schools. The longer a student stayed in a charter school the greater the annual gains. After five years the average charter-school student made cumulative learning gains equivalent to an entire additional year of schooling.
As Cindy Schumacher, executive director of the Center for Charter Schools at Central Michigan University, told the press after the Credo report was released, the report "shows that the Michigan Model is working, with it leading to significant improvements for children, especially at-risk children who are historically underserved."
The results were even more pronounced in Detroit, welcome news in a city where an estimated 47% of the adult population is functionally illiterate, according to the Detroit Regional Workforce Fund. The typical Detroit charter-school student made annual gains worth about three additional months of learning in both reading and math compared with their peers in nearby conventional schools. Of the 100 or so charters in Detroit, 47% did significantly better than conventional schools in reading and 49% did significantly better in math. Only one charter school in Detroit did worse in reading compared with the city's district-run schools.
The Michigan Education Association, the state's largest teachers union, and other defenders of the public-school status quo have tried to play down these results. Some point out that the Credo study didn't include every charter school. In fact, the study included 86% of all charter-school students in the state and remains the most comprehensive and rigorous study of Michigan charter schools.
Credo's researchers matched about 85,000 charter-school students to their "virtual twins" in local conventional public schools based on race, gender, socioeconomic status, prior test scores and other factors. Individual learning gains made by each set of students was then measured over time.
Sadly, the media have largely ignored Credo's findings or grossly distorted them. For example, days after the report was released Huffington Post ran a story calling it a "cautionary tale" and emphasizing that a large portion of charter schools' average reading and math scores were below the state average. This comparison turns a blind eye to the well-documented impact poverty has on average standardized test scores. Since Michigan charters—often found in the school districts struggling most—enroll a far higher percentage of poor students (70%) than do the state's conventional schools (43%), the finding biases the results against charters.
Credo has analyzed charter-school performance in 19 states to date. Only Louisiana and New Jersey even come close to rivaling the results from Michigan. Why? Michigan allows a variety of public entities to authorize charter schools, the most common being universities and community colleges. This frees charter schools from needing school-district approval to operate, which is like requiring new businesses to ask existing competitors for permission to open. By allowing more charters than most states, Michigan has developed a functional charter-school market, so much so that lawmakers recently took the bold step of removing the charter-school cap altogether.
Michigan's charters also aren't subject to teacher tenure laws and have the flexibility to retain or release teachers based on performance. This helps keep the best teachers where they belong, in the classroom, and the worst where they belong—looking for another line of work.
Finally, Michigan has several strong networks of education-management companies, including National Heritage Academies and New Urban Learning. These companies are much maligned for operating as for-profits, but as the Credo study pointed out, the charter schools they run did better on average than those directly managed by a charter-school board.
It is no surprise then that the Center for Education Reform, a pro-charter nonprofit, recently gave Michigan one of only four "As" on its report card of state-charter school laws. If states want to create a healthy charter-school sector to boost outcomes for students, the Michigan experience offers valuable lessons.
Mr. Van Beek is director of education policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a research and educational institute based in Midland, Mich.
A version of this article appeared May 18, 2013, on page A13 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: What Michigan's Charter Schools Can Teach the Country.

Tuesday, May 14, 2013

Jay Carney

Do not assign "blame" or "guilt" as to White House Spokesman Jay Carney!

After all, he is only The Voice Of Sauron.

Wednesday, May 08, 2013

Summary Of Women, Home & Like Defense

The Costs Of NOT Having Guns For Defense

Some few days ago I heard, on TV,  an anti-gun proponent decry the medical and other costs of the People's common and considerable access to guns.

But, what are the medical, psychological and other "costs" to unprotected people  (The police are always too few and too late to protect)  who are killed, physically and emotionally  maimed and lose forever that part of their lives which were expended in honestly earning the money to obtain what lawfully belongs to them---When they are unable to effectively and immediately protect themselves by the use (Or, as is more common, the "mere" pointing) of a gun?

Saturday, February 09, 2013

Women, Self-Defemse & Protecting Others

The October 21, 2012 mass shootings in a Brookfield, Wisconsin salon demonstrate just how effective is an over-dependence on "restraining orders" to prevent somestic violence. It is only a piece-of-paper and will not stop a bullet (Or other weapons which I will not mention as they might give someone some very bad ideas for WMD). It also and clearly demonstrate the inability of the always too late police to protect anyyone and everyone from all dangerous criminals.

In true and serious cases of domestic abuse the potential victim (Usually, but not always, women) should be advised to also obtain a license to carry concealed weapons, obtain a concealable handgun, learn to use it (At the usual short range of related shootings) AND carry that weapon, knowledge and intent where ever they go.

Had Ms. Zina Haughton (The primary target) done so she and the others murdered  by her lack of effective preventive actions might still be alive and uninjured.
It appears that lazy police, inattentive prosecutors, the courts' use of restraining orders and various counseling programs have not stopped determined and murder-minded domestic abusers.

The "hard lesson" is that such terrorists (Like others I could name) are stopped only by deadly force. When the attacks of such creatures are seconds away, the police are minutes or hours away. Therefore, it is the right and, perhaps, the duty of threatened persons to protect themselves. In this era, that means having a CCW license, possessing a concealable firearm, knowing how to use it (At the close ranges usual in such matters) and carry the gun, training and intent with them at all times.

"Gun control" has never worked. There are alternatives to guns abd some easily available WMD much more dangerous than handguns or long-arm.

Legislators AND all others should remember that possessing firearms is now a constitutional right which may be limited or revoked only by due process of law.  The kangaroo court responses to petitions for restraining orders do not meet that standard!  [Although I have never been a subject for any restraining order, I know of cases where no proofs were offered to support such petitions beyond petitioners' claims of abuse.]
Please remember the "woman in the attic who protected herself and her child by (Only) driving away an armed intruder with the only six rounds available to her.

Excellent Self-Training Source: Tomkin, Mattherw; (DVD) Shoot Him To The Ground---Tactical Point Shooting for the  21st Century; Paladin Press.

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

How Many Rounds In Citizens Guns?

There is much current debate as to what limits, if any, should be placed on the number of rounds citizens should be allowed to have in their firearms---Especially those semi-automatic rifles, most specially those which "look like" those "scary" true, fully automatic, "assault rifles".

Estimates for trained soldiers have indicated that it takes from 30 (In urban combat_ to
250,000+ for Viet Nam, where rotary-machine guns were commonly used to kill an enemy.

In the heat, fear, uncertainty of a home/business invasion I doubt that we can expect too much more of citizens, even at the point-blank ranges in such events, as: The usual such "invasion" is by three thugs; And, it generally takes three+ rounds (Dependent on placement) to immobilize (Or kill) an enemy soldier or a criminal   For those who have forgotten their grade-school mathematics:  Three-thugs X Three rounds each = Nine rounds which is more than in Mr. Joseph Biden's double-barreled shotgun or the seven-round limit imposed by New York's pro-death (For law abiding citizens) Legislature and Governor.

Sunday, February 17, 2013

Mentally Ill Vs. Dangerously So & Guns

I am becoming more-and-more disturbed  about the far too many politicians, news commentators/reporters, those opposed to the fullest exercise of Second Amendment rights and others of that ilk who loosely  substitute the terms  "mentally ill"  OR "emotionally disturbed", for the more accurate term "dangerous mentally ill" as to those who should not be allowed to obtain firearms.

It is fit-and-proper and legally/constitutionally-sound  that someone should be declared "Dangerously Mentally Ill" only after a fact-based and contested hearing before a judge-and-jury, in accordance with our 1000 year old system of laws and our Constitution. Why? Because to tag any citizen as being "dangerously mentally ill" takes from such citizens as many civil and political rights as a conviction of a felony---And, deserves the same legal protections.  

At this time there are too many government units (eg -- The FBI) who will accept the unverified and non-judicial comments of some (Anonymous?) Psychologist/Psychiatrist/Other-persons as sufficient "Proof" to deprive citizens of a basic civil right.  Even super-sane me (If, and only if,  you accept my self-diagnosis)  once consulted a psychologist, with my wife, to iron out some marital problems---Which smoothing did occur. .

 Should I or some child with home/school problems who sees a school psychologist or some active-duty member of the Armed Forces/Veteran for whom war/other-problems has resulted in s/he seeking counseling, and other like and law-abiding citizens be deprived of a basic civil right without "due process of law"? [I believe we have another, of too many  Federal Laws which provides for both criminal and civil prosecution for "Deprivation of Civil Rights Under Color Of Law" which should deal with and punish those who would do so to those who are not dangerously mentally ill.

the FBI has reportedly placed entire groups of innocent military veterans on the "no buy"  list and that without "due process of law".

Friday, December 23, 2011

Why CCW Is Better Than Open Carry

One of the disadvantages of the open carrying of weapons (For some time allowed to all adult citizens not on probation or parole) is contained in the unlawful harassment of some legally (And openly) "carrying" citizens in Madison, WI. That case involved a mob of Madison, WI police officers confronting five such legally, openly and peacefully armed citizens. Those who overcame probable fear of unstable an unconstitutional armed police officers were illegally arrested. That asinine police misbehavior cost the City of Madison $10,000.00.

Milwaukee has Edward (SS-und PolizieFuhrer) Flynn who has stated that "his" (Gee whiz, I thought they "belonged" to the citizens of that city) officers are to "take to the ground" any (Openly) armed person until they can "prove" they have a right to go armed. With that prior statement, I suggest that any citizen attacked in that manner should NOT settle for less than $100,000.00.

The other reasons for concealed carry are:
A. To avoid upsetting those immature persons who get upset stomachs and egos upon seeing an armed and law-abiding citizen who is, I presume, willing and able to defend self against criminal attacks---And to protect fellow citizens;
B. To not draw the first fire of such criminals and to allow the armed citizen to "surprise" such critters.

Friday, May 03, 2013

Founding Fathers On Guns

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"
                  George Washington.

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.+

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government”.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of-patriots and tyrants.”

                       Thomas Jefferson

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed “
                        Constitution Of The United States

NOTE BENE:  The Supreme Court Of The United States has declared the rights of the Second Amendment to be the individual rights of every citizen and have made that decision binding on the Several States.