Tuesday, April 26, 2011

NCAE plans to boycott chain stores owned by conservative businessman Art Pope.

you're reading...

TARGET OF TEACHER UNION IS VARIETY WHOLESALERS -- PARENT GROUP OF ROSES, MAXWAY, VALUE MART, SUPER 10 AND SUPER DOLLAR.

April 24, 2011

By Christopher Carpenter | The Macon County News

The largest association of educators in the state is calling for a boycott of all businesses owned by Art Pope, a North Carolina business man and political insider who has contributed millions of dollars to conservative groups pressing for the elimination of caps on charter school funding. The decision to call for the boycott was made last week at the annual convention of the North Carolina Association of Educators.

Art Pope is the president of Variety Wholesalers, Inc., and a director of the conservative political advocacy group, Americans for Prosperity. Pope is also a major supporter of the Civitas Institute, and he holds a seat on the boards of directors for the John Locke Foundation, the Atlas Economic Research Foundation and the North Carolina Retail Merchants Association. Variety Wholesalers is the parent group to a number of popular stores in the state such as Roses, Maxway, Value Mart, Super 10 and Super Dollar (though not Dollar General), among others owned by Variety Wholesalers Inc.

On Tuesday, Brian Lewis, the government liaison for the NCAE, confirmed the association’s plans to call for a boycott. Nearly 1,200 delegates from every part of the state participated in the annual convention in Raleigh where the boycott was voted on. Lewis said a formal announcement of the boycott is will be made on Thursday.

Americans for Prosperity is among the most forceful proponents of Senate Bill 8, which would lift the cap on charter schools and entitle them to more public school funding. Supporters of the bill say it will inject a level of competition into public education that will improve it in the long run. Detractors say it could cripple a public education system that is already embattled in the state.

As it is currently written, S.B. 8 would require that local school systems hand over a portion of their funding to charter schools in their district, but the charter schools receiving the funds would not be required to provide the services for which the funds were originally allocated to the districts, such as nutrition programs and transportation. Lewis noted that the bill, which is currently being reworked in the House, has been softened slightly from earlier versions that could have even opened local P.T.O. funds, athletic game receipts and even endowments to charter schools.

Senator Jim Davis (R-Franklin) says that some changes to the original bill have been necessary, such as those to protect non-governmental funds and address other legitimate complaints which educators have. At the same time, Davis remains a strong supporter of removing the cap on charter schools.

“The bottom line is we’re trying to expand the educational opportunities for students and for parents in North Carolina, and we feel like lifting the cap on charter schools would go a long way towards that,” Davis said. “I think that we need to introduce competition into our educational system.”

But according to Lewis and the NCAE, rather than strengthen education in the state, such competition could ultimately destroy public schooling. Pope has reportedly said in speeches that he would be happy if all traditional public schools were replaced with charter schools, a statement which should raise alarm bells, says Lewis.

“The most egregious thing about Mr. Pope’s activities, … from our member’s standpoint, is that he makes his millions off of poor people,” Lewis said, explaining the reason Pope has been singled out. “He makes his millions off of African Americans and other disenfranchised groups, and then takes this money and uses it to undermine the poor by gutting the public schools and creating a system of vouchers that help the affluent.”

“Taken to its natural conclusion, this would mean there would be no bus services, no nutrition programs,” says Lewis of the Pope dream of a privatized education system. “Children would be segregated by race or economic status. Teachers would lose their due-process rights and their professional salaries would be cut along with healthcare and other benefits.”

Davis disagrees and says statistics prove otherwise. According to Davis, of the 100 charter schools in the state, twelve of them have 99 percent-plus minority populations, which he believes demonstrates that charter schools would not disadvantage certain groups. “This is just an empty argument to try to thwart the effort of bringing competition into our school system,” says Davis.

Lewis and Davis (and maybe Pope) do agree on one thing. Public education in North Carolina is in trouble. But the annual NCAE Fund Schools First report points to other reasons for the situation. North Carolina is ranked 46th in the nation in terms of per-pupil expenditures and 45th in the nation in terms of average teacher salaries. Giving charter schools the right to skim off even more funding from local education agencies will only exacerbate the problem, say opponents of S.B. 8.

“The NCAE is drawing the line in the sand,” said John deVille, vice president of the Macon County chapter of the NCAE. “We’ve identified who the leaders are in breaking apart public education as we know it in this state and remaking it in their image.”

http://politicsispower.com/2011/04/24/n-c-politics-nc-teachers-to-boycott-art-pope-businesses/

Ex-Labor Board Chairman: Union-backed case against Boeing 'Unprecedented'.

Verne Strickland Blogmaster

By Judson Berger /AP

Published April 26, 2011

| FoxNews.com

The former chairman of the National Labor Relations Board told FoxNews.com that a board attorney's bid to stop Boeing from opening a production line at a non-union site in South Carolina is "unprecedented" and could have serious implications for companies looking to expand.

The comments Tuesday from Peter Schaumber add to the roiling debate over the complaint filed last week against the aerospace giant. NLRB's acting general counsel, taking up allegations from union workers at a Puget Sound plant in Washington state, had accused Boeing of violating federal labor law by moving to open a second 787 Dreamliner airplane production line in South Carolina.

The complaint hinged on claims that Boeing made "coercive statements" regarding union-led strikes, and then retaliated by transferring its second line to a non-union facility. As evidence, the NLRB noted that a Boeing executive said in an interview that the overriding factor in going to South Carolina -- a right-to-work state where unions cannot force employees to join -- was a desire to avoid disruptions. The union in Washington state has led several strikes against Boeing since the 1970s, most recently in 2005 and 2008.

But Schaumber said the complaint is a big stretch and would mark a departure. He said that if the claim is upheld, it could jeopardize any company with unionized workers that wants to expand to a right-to-work state.

"It would be fair to say it's unprecedented," he said.

Schaumber, a Bush administration appointee who served on the board for almost eight years including as chairman, argued that the NLRB counsel offered "no basis" for the central claim that Boeing retaliated by transferring work from Washington to South Carolina.

"The workers don't have any claim to the work," he said. "If the workers don't have any claim to the work, it wasn't retaliatory to open a new second production line. ... It is simply expanding its business operation."

Boeing offered a similar defense, saying the jobs in South Carolina will not come at the expense of jobs in Washington state.

The new production line is expected to pump out three planes a month, on top of the seven planes a month coming out of the Puget Sound area. Boeing said since the expansion decision was made, union employment in Puget Sound has increased by about 2,000 workers. Plus Boeing noted that the South Carolina factory is almost done and has involved more than 1,000 workers in the process.

"This claim is legally frivolous and represents a radical departure from both NLRB and Supreme Court precedent," Boeing General Counsel J. Michael Luttig said in a statement.

South Carolina Republican lawmakers were similarly outraged over the complaint. Sen. Jim DeMint called it a "political favor" for the unions who supported President Obama's 2008 campaign.

Sen. Lindsey Graham vowed to try to cut off funding for the "wild goose chase."

"If successful, the NLRB complaint would allow unions to hold a virtual 'veto' over business decisions," he said in a statement.

FoxNews.com is seeking comment from Washington state's two Democratic U.S. senators. But NLRB spokeswoman Nancy Cleeland said the charge that Boeing is transferring work away from union employees stems from the company's original commitment "to the state of Washington that it would build the Dreamliner airplanes in that state."

Plus she said the South Carolina facility would assume work that is currently being done at a Seattle facility. "As far as the merits of the complaint go, however, the distinction does not matter. Whether this work is considered new or existing, the decision about where to locate it would violate federal labor law if done for discriminatory reasons," she said in an email to FoxNews.com.

NLRB General Counsel Lafe Solomon cited Boeing executives' comments on their desire to avoid strikes in claiming the company violated federal rules.

"A worker's right to strike is a fundamental right guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act," Solomon said in a statement. "We also recognize the rights of employers to make business decisions based on their economic interests, but they must do so within the law."

Solomon noted that a settlement could still be reached. The NLRB stressed that the complaint doesn't request that Boeing shut down the South Carolina plant; however, it seeks to keep 787 production in Washington.

The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, which initially filed the allegation against Boeing with the NLRB in March of last year, said in a statement that the South Carolina decision was aimed at the union.

"Boeing's decision to build a 787 assembly line in South Carolina sent a message that Boeing workers would suffer financial harm for exercising their collective bargaining rights," Vice President Rich Michalski said. "Federal labor law is clear: it's illegal to threaten or penalize workers who engage in concerted activity, and it's illegal in all 50 states."

A hearing in the case is now scheduled before an administrative law judge on June 14 in Seattle. That decision could then be voted on by the National Labor Relations Board itself. And that decision could in turn be appealed to a federal circuit court.

Schaumber said the dispute could drag on for a while, but suggested the current makeup of the board does not favor Boeing.

"This board views its role as to promote unionization, and with that in mind, that will be their focus in deciding this case," he said.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/26/ex-labor-board-chairman-union-backed-case-boeing-unprecedented/

Obama heavy on Muslim holiday greetings, but a wash-out on holy days important to Christians.

I am veteran White House reporter Keith Koffler. White House Dossier is the only 24/7, independent, and totally unauthorized White House blog.

By Keith Koffler on April 25, 2011, 11:11 am

Just when I thought the current team running the White House might have used up all its allotted mistakes comes word that President Obama failed to issue either an Easter or a Good Friday greeting to the nation.

Now, let’s forget for a moment that these greetings, which presidents issue on many holidays and commemorations of events, are largely perfunctory and symbolic gestures that nobody cares about.
Until there’s a problem with them.

Fox News first caught the blunder and put it into context that makes the omission insulting to Christians. The mistake is odd enough to call into question just what Obama’s priorities are.

By comparison, the White House has released statements recognizing the observance of major Muslim holidays and released statements in 2010 on Ramadan, Eid-ul-Fitr, Hajj, and Eid-ul-Adha.
The White House . . . did release an eight-paragraph statement heralding Earth Day. Likewise, the president’s weekend address mentioned neither Good Friday or Easter.*

Obama, Fox notes, did head out to church yesterday and held an Easter prayer breakfast at the White House last week.
Obama is on a roll for religious holiday greeting screw ups. Fox News writes:

In 2010, Obama was criticized for releasing an all-inclusive Easter greeting. He reached out to Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and people of no faith at all in a statement about a holiday that is uniquely Christian.

And as I noted last week, the president released a Passover greeting this month that compared the ancient Jewish exodus from Egypt to the Arab political awakening this year, which would be a beautiful thing if most Arabs didn’t seek Israel’s destruction.

The president is, of course, hosting the Easter Egg Roll at the White House today (Apr. 25). But Easter isn’t really about rolling eggs on a manicured lawn, now is it?

UPDATE: Asked during this afternoon’s briefing about the issue, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney suggested Obama’s “high profile” visit to a church Sunday should suffice.

“I’m not sure if we put out a statement or not, but he obviously personally celebrated Easter with his family,” Carney said, adding ”the president took his family out to church in a very high-profile way.”
Carney added that Obama is a “devoted Christian.”

* Fox News is incorrect. Obama does mention Easter in his weekend address, though he does so only briefly and not as a message or greeting to Christians celebrating the holiday.

Verne Strickland USA DOT COM Blogmaster Apr. 26, 2011
Article referral by Jennifer Dunbar

Monday, April 25, 2011

Blacks' migration to suburbs will have big impact on redistricting process this year.

Verne Strickland Blogmaster

ANDY YATES RECOMMENDED THIS EXCELLENT STUDY OF REDISTRICTING FROM THE WASHINGTON POST. IT DETAILS EXPECTED -- AND UNEXPECTED -- RESULTS OF POPULATION SHIFTS, AND STRATEGIES FOR MAPPING. NORTH CAROLINA WILL BE IMPACTED. THE GOP'S CHANCES LOOK VERY PROMISING.

Louisiana’s newly designed 2nd Congressional District doesn’t look like it makes much sense — one end of it starts in a tip just north of Baton Rouge, and from there it juts and jags its way more than 70 miles south and east past New Orleans, seemingly picking up random communities along the way.

Most of the people who live in those communities are African Americans, joined together partly by design and partly by law. By looping African Americans into one district, lawmakers increased the number of Republicans in surrounding districts, virtually ensuring that the GOP will hold a major advantage in five of the state’s six congressional districts for the next decade.

As lawmakers across the nation begin the once-a-decade process of redrawing their congressional boundaries, a significant migration of blacks from cities to suburbs is having a widespread political impact.

According to newly released census numbers, eight of the nation’s top majority-black districts lost an average of more than 10 percent of their African American populations. That will provide an opportunity for Republican lawmakers, who control an increasing number of statehouses following last fall’s elections, to reshape districts in suburban swing areas of Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia and elsewhere.

Dozens of seats could become easier for Republicans to hold on to, with a half-dozen or so becoming prime pickup opportunities for the party, according to political strategists.

“The practical effect is great for the GOP,” said Dave Wasserman of the Cook Political Report. “In state after state, it’s allowing Republicans to pack more heavily Democratic close-in suburbs into urban black districts to make surrounding districts more Republican.”

The migration of blacks to the suburbs is also having an impact in the Washington area, where the African American population in the District dropped 11 percent over the last decade, while suburban Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) gained more black voters than anyone outside of the fast-growing Atlanta area.

Fellow Maryland Democrats Donna F. Edwards and Chris Van Hollen also gained large numbers of black voters. Unlike some other places, though, those lawmakers are not likely to be greatly affected, since Democrats control the redistricting process in Maryland.

The 1982 amendment of the Voting Rights Act led to the creation of many legislative districts, particularly in the South, in which minorities became the majority populations. The idea was to give minority voters a chance to elect candidates of their choice. Over time, these districts encountered legal challenges and setbacks, including at the Supreme Court, over questions of racial gerrymandering.

Initially, these districts were a boon to Democrats, creating opportunities in places where the party struggled to win. But over the last few rounds of redistricting, Republicans have made a habit of “packing” as many reliably Democratic black voters into as few districts as possible, virtually guaranteeing black representation for those districts while also making nearby ones more winnable for the GOP.

Even as the African American population has been shrinking in many longtime black districts, the number of majority-black districts has actually increased over the last decade — and could very well continue to do so, with Republicans leading the redistricting process this year.

Reshaping the suburbs

The relocation of large numbers of African American voters will likely lead to substantially different districts outside several major cities.

In the Detroit area, for instance, Democratic Reps. John Conyers Jr. and Hansen Clarke lost nearly one-quarter of the 800,000 black voters in their districts since 2000, with many of them migrating to nearby districts. The expansion of Clarke’s and Conyers’s districts could help Michigan Republicans eliminate a Democratic district in the area.

The same goes in Ohio, where Rep. Marcia L. Fudge’s (D) loss of 29,000 black voters means that her district will have to grow and Republicans can more easily collapse some nearby Democratic districts.

There is also an opportunity for the GOP to create some new black-majority districts. If Republicans make the district of Rep. Sanford D. Bishop Jr. (D-Ga.) majority black, it could help keep freshman Rep. Austin Scott (R-Ga.) safe by taking Democrats out of his neighboring district.

And Republicans could push Rep. Robert A. Brady (D-Pa.), a white Democrat whose district is primarily in Philadelphia, into a majority black seat, a move that might help them shore up all the suburban seats they hold nearby.

In Louisiana, the current New Orleans-based 2nd District lost nearly 120,000 black residents over the past decade, largely due to Hurricane Katrina. In order to keep the black population as high as it was before, the district had to be expanded significantly, reaching to the state capital of Baton Rouge.

As a result, the Baton Rouge-based 6th District, which Democrats held briefly last decade, dropped from 34 percent black to 24 percent black.

“It keeps those districts a lot safer for those guys,” said Louisiana political analyst John Maginnis.
Hilary Shelton, the Washington bureau director for the NAACP, said his organization is prepared to fight the over-packing of majority-black districts and hopes that Republicans won’t overplay their hand.
“On one hand, we like to see cohesiveness of those who share common values,” Shelton said.

“But it is important that we don’t end up with the kind of packing in districts that” diminishes the influence of black voters.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/blacks-migration-to-suburbs-will-have-big-impact-on-congressional-redistricting/2011/04/21/AF7gBTLE_story_1.html

Federal judge denies Muslim's religious 'rights' over growing beard. Well, okay.

Verne Strickland Blogmaster

EXCUSE ME, SIR, BUT WHEN YOU ARE A GUEST OF THE STATE OF VIRGINIA, YOU DON'T HAVE NO RIGHTS! YOU GAVE THEM UP WHEN YOU RAN AFOUL OF THE LAW (RAPE, ETC.) IF YOU CAN GET INTO A FEDERAL PEN, YOU MAY GROW THAT BEARD. MAYBE KILL SOMEBODY. THAT SHOULD DO IT.

Apr 25, 2011 – 4:08 PM

Dena Potter (AP)

RICHMOND, Va. -- Virginia's prison system did not violate a Muslim inmate's religious rights when it refused to allow him to grow a 1/8-inch beard, which he believes is required by his religion, a federal judge has ruled.

William Couch, a 50-year-old Sunni Muslim, is a medium-security prisoner serving multiple life sentences for rape and other convictions. He challenged the Virginia Department of Corrections' grooming policy, which bans long hair and beards.

Virginia Department of Corrections / AP

Virginia's prison system did not violate Muslim inmate William Couch's religious rights when it refused to allow him to grow a one-eighth-inch beard, which he believes is required by his religion, a federal judge has ruled.

U.S. District Judge Samuel G. Wilson in Harrisonburg sided with the department in a ruling Thursday. Couch's attorney, Jeffrey Fogel, filed an appeal Monday.

Department spokesman Larry Traylor declined to comment on the case.

Fogel argued a 1/8-inch beard would be too short to allow Couch to easily change his appearance if he escaped or hide weapons or other contraband, which is why the department argues the policy is needed.

"There is no conceivable security issue for a Muslim, with concededly sincere beliefs, to grow a 1/8-inch beard," Fogel said Monday.

It will be difficult for Couch to convince the federal appeals court, however.

The 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the grooming policy after a group of Muslim and Rastafarian inmates challenged it when it went into effect in 1999. Many lived in segregation for more than a decade until the department created a separate living space for the inmates last year. Those inmates are gradually given more privileges in an effort to persuade them to cut their hair or beards.

Of the 26 inmates who had been in isolation but were moved into the program, 10 refused to participate and returned to segregation. The others are required to take classes in exchange for more recreation, personal property and other privileges.

Traylor pointed out that relatively few of the state's more than 31,000 inmates are in noncompliance, even among those who identify as Muslims or Rastafarians. Around 300 inmates say they are Rastafarian but obey the grooming policy, as do nearly 3,800 inmates who attend Muslim services, he said.

Couch wore a beard until the policy went into effect, but he has shaved since then. In court papers, he said he recently became convinced that his Islamic faith required him to wear a beard.

The policy allows for an exemption if inmates have a medical condition that is aggravated by shaving.

Virginia is among only about a dozen states that limit the length of inmates' hair and beards, according to the American Correctional Chaplains Association. A handful of those allow religious accommodations for Rastafarians, Muslims, Sikhs, native Americans and others whose religious beliefs prohibit shaving or cutting their hair.

Media ignore blatant racist elements in attack on white patron at Baltimore McDonald's.

BLACK STAFF HELPS BLACK ATTACKERS ESCAPE AFTER ASSAULT ON WHITE VICTIM IN FAST FOOD RESTAURANT. WANT FRIES WITH THAT?

By Ethel C. Fenig April 23, 2011

In all the reports of the vicious beating of a patron in a Baltimore McDonalds by other patrons while the staff looked on, not one I read mentioned the race of the victim, the attackers, the restaurant workers who helped the attackers escape or the other patron who managed to call the police.

Could it be because the attackers and the employees are black while the victim and telephone caller are white? LiveLeak finally pointed out the obvious.

At the end, the white victim is beaten until she has a seizure, at which point the camera operator warns the female attackers to flee, because the police are on the way. Note: he makes sure to repeatedly tell the criminal attackers to flee, instead of keeping them there for the police to apprehend.

4.19 pm EST UPDATE: response from Mc Donalds: "We are shocked by the video from a Baltimore franchised restaurant showing an assault. This incident is unacceptable, disturbing and troubling. McDonald's strives to be a safe, welcoming environment for everyone who visits. Nothing is more important to us than the safety of customers and employees in our restaurants. We are working with the franchisee and the local authorities to investigate this matter."

If the situation were reversed, the incident would have dominated news and entertainment media, all ponderously discussing race relations focusing on the "pervasiveness of racism within American society."

But instead there is a lack of acknowledgment of the races involved, a nothing to see here, move along attitude.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/04/the_racist_attack_at_mcdonalds.html

Sen. Lindsey Graham: NATO and administration should bomb Tripoli.

WHEN IS THE LAST TIME A LEADER IN WASHINGTON THREW DOWN LIKE THIS? MAYBE FDR? THERE'S SOMETHING QUITE REFRESHING ABOUT IT.

Verne Strickland Blogmaster

April 24, 2011

Posted by Jake Sherman

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Sunday NATO and the administration should wage an all-out bombing campaign on Tripoli so Col. Muammar Qadhafi 's inner circle "wake up every day wondering, ‘Will this be my last?'"

"My recommendation to NATO and to the administration is to cut the head of the snake off, go to Tripoli, start bombing Qadhafi’s inner circle, their compounds their military headquarters in Tripoli," Graham said on CNN's "State of the Union."

"The way to get Qadhafi to leave is to have his inner circle break and turn on him, and that’s going to take a sustained effort through an air campaign."

The comments come amid a growing concern in Washington that there's a military stalemate in Libya in the fighting between forces loyal to Qadhafi and rebels.

Graham said he does not believe the United States should be hamstrung by a United Nations mandate that does not call for taking Qadhafi out, signaling that he believes the U.S. campaign should be aimed on removing the Libyan leader.

He also rejected suggestions from host Candy Crowley that there would a backlash to the United States pushing Qadhafi out of power.

"You cannot protect the Libyan people if Qadhafi stays. You cannot protect our vital national security interests if Qadhafi stays," the senator said.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/0411/Graham_Bomb_Tripoli.html