Only A Government Can Do This

If you've been keeping track of the alleged murderer of Laken Riley you may have noticed something absolutely gobstopping. If you haven't, well, everyone hopes you come out of that coma. What you may have noticed in about one third of the news outlets is a quote from the Feds regarding the interactions between Customs and Border Protection and the arrested alleged murderer. Let's quote the quote:

"...arrested Ibarra Sept. 8, 2022, after he unlawfully entered the United States near El Paso, Texas. He was paroled and released for further processing."

So much is wrong with this failed state gobbledyspeak. Unlawfully? Say what you mean, and you mean he is here illegally. But what leaps out of this mind fart is "released for further processing." What kind of processing? Who does this processing? When does it happen? Come to find out they expected a recently released unlawful actor to...and here's were it gets Orwellian...follow the law. That's right, someone in D.C. expects a person who just got caught, red handed, breaking the law, to come on in for fingerprinting and then file an asylum claim. No worries, no hurries, whenever you get a round tuit. The folks touting "common sense" when it comes to gun control are senseless when it comes to border control. And do not mention his brother, who is also here illegally, using a fake green card, because pulling on that thread exposes the ugly underside of the illegal immigrant industry, and those in government who support it. 

Perhaps you can be forgiven if this hasn't shown up on your radar. If you're true blue, you probably tune in to the over 60% of media that are left-leaning, who've ignored the illegal immigrant fact, whilst doing some victim blaming suggesting women shouldn't be out alone. It is as if they are saying "girls, it just ain't safe, and we're OK with that." Well some folks are not OK with that. Anyone, male, female, or swirling in decision, should be able to engage in an outdoor activity, solo, without putting their health or life at risk. If the allegations are true, the murderer used a weapon of opportunity, and we all know who gave him that opportunity. It wasn't the victim. 

Hard To Keep A Good Sign

Good sign run over once again.

Note The Tire Track

Pole banner put up by some city minion, without even considering removal of the illegal commercial sign. 

Is This An Endorsement?

Willis Wonky

Fani, Fani, Fani. What have you done? It seems you've painted a target on the back of every Black person in America. And you sucked your dad into this, with him testifying:

"It's a Black thing. Most Black folks, they hide cash or they keep cash." 

Really? Is that part of "The Talk?" Whatever. Now you've got every bad actor out there thinking any and every Black person is a walking ATM.

One Of These Is Not Like The Others

OK, OK. Two of these are not like the others.

Can You Find Them?

The first is obvious. It is the closest light that just cannot seem to stay on, switching on/off every few minutes. Has done this for quite some time. The other might be less obvious. Not much but a little less. It is the glaring, gawdawful super bright, super white LED light. The only one on the entire parkway. This is how this city does infrastructure maintenance. Do you really want them to get their hands on more infrastructure?

Whisper Sweet Nothings

Folks are at it again. The "local control" banners, buttons and bumper stickers are being handed out, this time for the proposed city of Mulberry. The referendum bill has passed in the legislature and the governor has signed off, and an interesting city it will be. The city charter is worth a read and in the vein of "there ought to be a law," reading the charter should be required before you're allowed to vote. 

There are some key takeaways.

Like Dunwoody, the city tax millage rate is limited by law. Unlike Dunwoody, it is pegged at 0 mills. That's right, ZERO. Can you imagine how our crop of tax-and-spend whiners would squeal with a limit like that? Of course the Mulberrians must be on constant alert as at the first charter "update" some greedy bastard will want to raise that limit if not eliminate it entirely. 

Perhaps more interesting is all-things-city-manager is left blank, as in "reserved." Perhaps they are wise enough to avoid a city manager and the inevitable bloated bureaucracy that entails. Maybe they want to ensure a limited time contract, say 3 years, for the city manager. Perhaps they will contract it all out and given it is "city-lite" that may be the plan. Or it may be a sneak attack against trusting Mulberrians. In any event, prudent Mulberrians should ask, and demand, answers to critical questions. Go not blindly into that danger zone. 

Worthy of note is that the city will not provide police and fire, keeping these services with the county. Would that we had been so wise. Perhaps the Mulberrians have learned from the huge mistakes made by Dunwoody (can you say "losing court battles?"). But they also need to be on guard against a "developers' authority" and selling your soul to outside grants. That is if they are really committed to local control.

We WERE Warned

Shortly after the Shining PATH Bond failed we were warned that folks addicted to endless taxing, spending and bureaucratic bloat, some of whom count themselves amongst the original evangelists of citihood, are now trying to market a workaround to violate all the promises made when they asked for our votes. It makes you wonder if they knew this all along with no intention of hewing true to the stories they used to herd the sheep. And that original promise? Fiscal responsibility. The promise, backed by the CVI study, that the city could provide services superior to the county on an $18M annual budget, which adjusted for inflation (42% over that period) is less than $26M. That was the promise, and to calm any fears and mistrust of future greeds, the millage rate was capped. In the early years city bloat was satisfied with back-door tax increases due to rises in property valuations, but bloat has a way of snowballing and millage rate increases were required to feed the beast. 

Now even that cannot satisfy current bureaucratic bloat and the sales pitch is neither unexpected nor clever. Riddled with political speak and equivocations, it attempts to conflate wants with needs. It also speaks from the rather odd perspective that the failure of the Shining PATH Bond means that Dunwoody voters will not approve any referendum, when in fact it is more a statement that the community does not want these cult-like paradise pavers desecrating our city. This is further ignored when we are treated to a false dilemma: do we want reduced services like police, road paving, and parks/sidewalk maintenance (note there is no mention of Shining PATHs), or do we want higher taxes? Assuming a tax referendum would fail, the proposal is to bypass any millage rate referendum in favor of "special tax districts," creating another form of back-door taxing. Again, we were warned.

Is this a serious proposition? Really? 

How about you, the royal you, live up to your original promise? Wouldn't that be a breath of fresh air? And just how are we to believe promises made now, often by the same folks who made these broken promises, that somehow this is different, that we should place any trust in them? Or how about this: how about instead of more, and more expensive policing, we put in place a department, within a sound city organizational structure, that is well managed and doesn't cost us hundreds of thousands of dollars in doomed, self-inflicted legal battles? Or maybe we realize that crisis funding, known to be temporary, isn't an opportunity to permanently bloat the bureaucracy? Or maybe the tax base would not be, or would not have been, on a downward trend had they not handed out tax "incentives" like mardi gras beads and maybe, just maybe, imposed impact fees on developments that everyone knows were going to happen anyway? That all sounds like fiscal prudence, doesn't it? And that is exactly what we were promised, so if they'd like to withdraw that promise, that commitment, how about we dissolve the city charter first? Maybe we were better off as a part of unincorporated DeKalb, because that seems to be the underlying truth of what they are saying now.

And think about this: the current DeKalb CEO is far, far, better, by any measure, than the current Dunwoody City Manager, and we get to elect the CEO.

Infant Mortality

HR 836 is likely to never make it out of committee, and is probably just flag waving by the resolution's sponsor, pandering to a specific constituency. It proposes to enshrine abortion rights into the state's constitution by way of an amendment. A well crafted amendment would probably pass, even in Georgia, but this resolution borders on nonsense. 

The language is politically correct avoiding any mention of female, male, woman or man, referring instead to "individuals," dodging the wrath of the biological science deniers but somehow making it appear as if some issue is being avoided. The sponsor takes the most extreme position of unrestricted abortion. This avoids the "viability" battle line, which is constantly moving against the abortion supporters, also avoiding the arbitrary "this many weeks" restrictions. It makes you wonder what limit would be acceptable. Crowning? Cut the cord? Pass the APGAR? Should the state set the minimum score? Sound extreme? So does avoiding the discussion altogether.

One topic absent from all abortion rights advocacy is the notion of "Y-Rights." He (let's be biologically correct rather than politically correct) gets no say, certainly no supremacy, for example no one supporting abortion supports the right for the man to unilaterally determine the pregnancy must be terminated. Where is the Equal Rights Amendment when you need it? Or, if that's a right not available to Y-Guys, how about allowing them to permanently, completely and irrevocably terminate the relationship, without cost, penalty, or responsibility. It is, after all, the woman's choice. 

Does this all sound ludicrous? Yes, it does. Why? Because it is. But right now that is where we are, with little but nonsense coming from pontificators on both sides of the issue, an issue that will not be resolved until they sit down, shut up and let adults discuss this like adults. Don't hold your breath.

They really, REALLY, don't give a...

...[your favorite expletive here]. And just what is it they don't care about? That would be you. And your community. And how you want your community to look, now or in the future. And they don't care to take a few moments to ponder just what the recent referendum vote was a referendum on. To be fair, King John did raise the issue. Pb balloon.

When they got down to business it was the business of moving money around for their singular obsession: paving an interstate highway lane across folks' front yards. All done without the bother of a budget meeting. Debate, deliberation, open records and all that. Why bother? King John took issue with this as well.

All this reveals a couple of things. Their "plans" really aren't, what with "design change" and all that. Turns out one of their paving projects now goes right across a few yards which may be a surprise to the homeowners as no one bothered to inform them. Not even Mother Earth Mayor. Or maybe they kept her in the dark as much as they have mere homeowners. The other is that they are all about paving our paradise. You do have to wonder how many of these bureaucrats actually live in Dunwoody. And there can no longer be any doubt that almost none of that $60M would have been spent on parks. Well maybe paving parking lots over green space in parks, but almost all was pre-allocated to their pet project. 

Here's a thought. Do you think there is a licensed real estate appraiser who would say these concrete lanes in your front yard would increase your home value and specifically by how much? Or, is it more likely they'd say it causes a decrease in value? If so, since the city government is taking value without the owner's permission, shouldn't eminent domain apply?

Fighting Liberty

Nope. Did not forget a word in the title and certain not "for." This is about shenanigans under the gold dome, specifically a senate bill to impose an outright, state-wide ban on ranked-choice voting. Proposed by Republicans and passing on party lines, but only because it was paired with changes to undermine the office of the Secretary of State. Otherwise, it would have had overwhelming bi-partisan support. Why? Because ranked-choice threatens the power duopoly held by the Democrats and Republicans. What state senator wants that? The bill's sponsor claims, without any supporting evidence, that ranked-choice can lead to "danger and chaos." Clearly a politician, not a statesman.

What would a statesman say? Fortunately we have access to what a statesman actually did say, foretelling and forewarning, George Washington offered his guidance to those who came after.  

 In reference to political parties, Washington observes:

One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection. 

And further:

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

Doesn't that seem prescient?

Back to ranked-choice voting, the bill's sponsor, a Republican who is clearly targeting Raffensperger, because the sponsor questions the integrity of the polls, intends to codify a run-off system that guarantees more exposure, rather than less, to that which he faults. 

Washington was right and we should take heed.