It appears Al Franken has truly turned Minnesota election law into a Franken-stein of a monster recount--something the election laws were never intended to do: enable stealing an election.

If you have been following this race since election day 2 months ago, you know that incumbent Senator Coleman was 215 votes ahead of opponent Al Franken when the votes were originally counted. But after Minneapolis' director of elections remembered she forgot 32 absentee ballots in her car the following Friday, and 2 liberal precincts claimed they initially miscommunicated the vote totals, Franken picked up another 346 votes, for a total of 378 Franken votes. The oddity being that "none of the other contests recorded any changes in their vote totals" due to this supposed miscommunication.

For a while, it looked like Coleman would still keep his Senate seat, but more and more there is Funny Business in Minnesota, In which every dubious ruling seems to help Al Franken: 

Strange things keep happening in Minnesota, where the disputed recount in the Senate race between Norm Coleman and Al Franken may be nearing a dubious outcome. Thanks to the machinations of Democratic Secretary of State Mark Ritchie and a meek state Canvassing Board, Mr. Franken may emerge as an illegitimate victor.

Mr. Franken started the recount 215 votes behind Senator Coleman, but he now claims a 225-vote lead and suddenly the man who was insisting on "counting every vote" wants to shut the process down. He's getting help from Mr. Ritchie and his four fellow Canvassing Board members, who have delivered inconsistent rulings and are ignoring glaring problems with the tallies.

The latest travesty in the Franken recount is abusing the duplicate ballot provision. (Emphasis mine)

Under Minnesota law, election officials are required to make a duplicate ballot if the original is damaged during Election Night counting. Officials are supposed to mark these as "duplicate" and segregate the original ballots. But it appears some officials may have failed to mark ballots as duplicates, which are now being counted in addition to the originals. This helps explain why more than 25 precincts now have more ballots than voters who signed in to vote. By some estimates this double counting has yielded Mr. Franken an additional 80 to 100 votes.

Another county "'lost' 133 votes" due to possible double running of ballots through the machines. (In other words, the machine stated 133 votes more than actual ballots.) The Canvassing Board decided to go with the original higher tally--helping Franken by 42 votes. An additional 37 Franken votes from another county were gathered by going with a higher ballot total than the Election Night machine total, even though the higher ballot tally was greater than voters in the precinct!

Anything goes, IF it helps Al Franken win! Do read the entire Wall Street Journal piece. Truth is stranger than fiction!

Senator Coleman is to challenge the Canvassing Board's results. His attorney "said the challenge will be filed within 24 hours. The challenge will keep Franken from getting the election certificate he needs to take the seat in Washington."

A few days ago, Republican Senator John Cornyn of Texas promised to block the Franken seating in the Senate with a filibuster. Good for Cornyn.

So far, Senate Democrats put off plans to seat Franken, "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid yielded to Republican threats and agreed on Monday not to immediately seat fellow Democrat Al Franken, whose razor-close victory in Minnesota faces legal challenges."

Republicans have dropped the ball, in my opinion, on allowing voter fraud after voter fraud to continue, until at last people just throw up their hands and accept it as business as usual.

I hope the Republicans stand firm on this one for once and grow some backbone!

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Vicki Mckenna, Jay Weber, The Right View Wisconsin, Mark Levin, CNS News

 

I heard both Congressmen Paul Ryan and Jim Sensenbrenner interviewed on Jay Weber's radio show this morning. (Hour 4 Part 2). Since I trust the opinion of both of these men, I was curious as to why Ryan voted YES and Sensenbrenner NO on the latest bailout bill. 

First Congressman Ryan, who does have a degree in economics. The following are some notes I took from the interview--they are not direct quotes. Listen to the podcast if you can.

Ryan said the bill yesterday was the Paulson plan with quite a bit of tweaks.

The original Paulson bill was 3 pages: Give me a blank checkbook with $700billion.

We wrote a [Republican] alternative. Ours said, Let's make the firms buy insurance.

We rewrote the bill, added stock options--warrants to taxpayers, so the taxpayer is first in line to get money back (if there are profits--that means ACORN would not be getting funding as the orig. Paulson bill stated.) Executives won't get a Golden Parachute.

This bill was $350 billion: $250b immediately and $100b later. An additional $350b would need to be voted on in the future.  

In other words, they "Made a prettier pig!" This is why Ryan voted for it.

Over the weekend, credit markets went crazy. The problem is not just on Wall Street. Credit markets are shutting down. [That means cash flow for payrolls is unavailable.] There is a fear of recession.

"I'm now sincerely worried this could lead to recession."

Jay Weber: Can we move slowly or do we need to move quickly?

Ryan: Tax money goes out the door either way, this way (bailout) or from FDIC (if banks fail.) Paulson mishandled this so badly.  We added 107 pages to his bill. 

I have never seen things like this [credit freezing up]--ever. Businesses won't be able to cash flow payrolls.

Weber: There is a deep distrust of Congress.

Ryan: 2,300 calls [to my office] almost all against the bailout. [That is changing a little now.] We have to corral Wall Street so it doesn't spill to Main Street.

Weber: Why aren't Republicans hammering this?

Ryan: I am. Since 2002 I have voted against Freddie and Fannie every time.

I think Paul Ryan voted for this measure because he is genuinely worried about our economy shutting down. He knows that if businesses cannot get credit to meet their payrolls, that means workers do not get paid. With many Americans just a paycheck away from being broke, we cannot afford to let that happen. Businesses also use credit to purchase supplies and equipment for future production.

Then it was Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner's turn:

Paulson [Barney Frank] plan fatally flawed from the beginning. That money all came from taxpayers.

The word was, $700billion would not be enough.

America can't afford this. We are wealthy, but there is a limit. 

All of this is inflationary. Interest rates will shoot up. [Remember] 20% prime rates during Carter? 

We should go back to the regular order [of crafting legislation] with committee meetings, rather than Paulson saying we have to do this.

Weber: We're racing against the clock.

Sensenbrenner: When markets opened [today] they were up 200, so hopefully the markets have calmed down.

Paulson is pushing for now. It bailed out the people who caused the problem.

I'm prepared to go back when Pelosi calls us back.

This is a case of Congress serving the people. 

Weber: What angers people is Frank and Dodd in charge of the fix. Is there any mechanism to say when you failed the people, get off the committee!

Sensenbrenner: The Community Reinvestment Act was a significant factor [to what is going on.] 

The process worked yesterday. The speeches like from Pelosi need to stop. She also knew there were not the votes to pass. Why did she bring the bill to the floor? [To fix blame on the Republicans]

Weber: Would you change the Community Reinvestment Act?

Sensenbrenner: Repeal of that law should be in the new package now.

The Security and Exchange Commission dropped the ball--enforcement was not vigorous. 

The Justice Department should investigate if any fraud was committed. [Imprisonment would serve as a deterrent.]

So there you have the Yea and the Nay. Where is Solomon when you need him? 

Conservatives would hope the next version of the bailout bill would be better for taxpayers, that it keeps money from ACORN and repeals the Community Reinvestment Act. With this crew I don't have much hope.

My fear is that the next version will included ACORN funding again or worse. The Democrats will vote for it, and President Bush, who is really over a barrel here, will have to sign it.

Calls from Americans running 500 against, to 1 in favor, of the bailout might be the only thing that saving us from an UGLY pig of a bill.

 

Post Script: Along the lines of Sensenbrenner's request that they craft this bill carefully, 165 Economists rip bailout plan:

The economists say they are well aware of the current financial situation and agree there's a need for bold action but ask Congress "not to rush."

They urge lawmakers to hold appropriate hearings and "to carefully consider the right course of action." 

Right now the market is up 307 points from yesterday's close. You can check anytime on USAToday. (If you leave it open, it automatically refreshes.) 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Jay Weber,  Mark Levin,  Vicki Mckenna

 

What if I had a cure for Parkinson's, leukemia, diabetes, or paralysis caused by spinal cord injury? All you would have to do is take an infant, remove all of its stem cells (sorry, the infant dies), tweak the cells, and transfer them to the ill patient.

Would you do it?

Most people wouldn't and would consider that murderous act barbaric. Yet those who favor embryonic stem cell research are in effect doing just that in the eyes of those who are pro-life.

If you believe that life begins at conception, then even using an embryo for research purposes is an act of murder.

President Bush has been adamantly opposed to federal funding for embryonic stem cell research for that very reason. (The Bush stance only opposes federal funding--not outlawing private research.)

McCain has voted for existing embryonic stem cell research in the past, but those measures failed. John McCain is opposed to embryonic stem cell research that would encourage growing embryos for the purpose. The Republican platform is against any federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, but THEY ALL, BUSH, McCAIN, and PALIN FAVOR FEDERAL FUNDING FOR ADULT STEM CELL RESEARCH! 

The outrageous Obama radio ad that distorts McCain's position includes a woman talking about her diabetic daughter. She says that John McCain is opposed to stem cell research. It goes on to say that medical research, benefiting millions, shouldn't be held hostage by a few.

So why do the Democrats constantly tell people that McCain and Bush are against stem cell research?

Two reasons: One, they want to portray the Republicans as heartless cretins, too stuck on religious principal to care about the ill. Two, if the Democrats can get people to buy into the necessity for embryonic stem cell research, it will dilute the anti-abortion/sanctity of life position of conservatives.

The issue should become moot in time, according to CNS, which is consistent with what I have seen reported*,

Stem cells obtained from adult humans have been widely acclaimed for their ability to promote human health and stave off dreaded illnesses. Stem cells obtained from human embryos, however, have not been successful in yielding results in scientific research thus far.

It will be wonderful to cure some of these diseases in the near future. McCain and Palin are in favor of curing these diseases too, just not at the expense of another individual! Remember that next time you hear an Obama ad saying they aren't.

PS Nick Reed (substitute for Vicki McKenna) called the mother, Jody Montgomery, from the ad to ask if she knew she was telling a complete lie. Turns out, this is the same woman who used the same type ad against Mark Green 2 years ago. Listen to the podcast from the 10am hour on Sept. 24th to hear more.

*Nick Reed just name some of the 73 benefits to human patients obtained from ADULT stem cell research on the same radio program. He continued the stem cell discussion into the 11am hour. He mentioned the 73 benefits at about 11:20am if you were listening to the podcast. See Stemcellresearch.org 

Brookfield District 7 Info meeting, Wed., Sept. 24, 2-3pm or 6:30-7:30pm City Clerk Kris Schmidt will be in attendance to answer questions or concerns regarding recent news about the Van Hollen lawsuit against the state elections authority.

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin,  Vicki Mckenna

 

Evidently Sarah Palin was warned about the potential for vicious attacks from McCain's opponents. She is no shrinking violet though. William Kristol posted this:

"A nervous young McCain staffer took it upon himself to explain to Palin the facts of life in a national campaign, the intense scrutiny she'd be under from the media, the viciousness of the assault that she'd be facing, etc." Here is what she had to say,

You have got to say she has chutzpah!

I am eagerly anticipating her speech tonight. Will we see the same confidence we saw in her on Friday?

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin,  Vicki Mckenna

 

Last night, Bill O'Reilly was hot under the collar about MSNBC's coverage of McCain's Sarah Palin VP pick. Here is the YouTube clip.

MSNBC really crossed the line by adding the caption, "How many houses does Palin add to the Republican ticket?" under their breaking news bulletin of the event. I also agree with O'Reilly that Tom Brokaw and Brian Williams bear some responsibility here too. By appearing on MSNBC, they lend credence to this type of snide reporting.

Any wonder MSNBC isn't watched by conservatives?

I used to get all my news from NBC; I've watched ever since the Dave Garaway years! The Today Show used to be the first thing I turned on in the morning and I prepared dinner with Tom Brokaw. But over the years, NBC became so biased (and fluffy), I couldn't take it anymore.

In Googling this topic, I came across a new acronym for NBC: New Barack Channel 

By the way, I think it's odd that MSNBC would even raise the house question since Sarah Palin seems so very mainstream American and working class. There doesn't appear to be an elite bone in her body--she loves moose stew and probably doesn't even know what arugula lettuce is! 

 

UPDATE: Sept. 8, 2008 MSNBC just demoted their anchors Olbermann and Matthews to commentators. "The change reflects tensions between the freewheeling, opinionated MSNBC and the impartial newsgatherers at NBC News."

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin,   Vicki Mckenna

 

 

I am a little puzzled by this statement, since the Democrat's presidential candidate and platform are pro-abortion too.

The Roman Catholic group, Fidelis, says Barack Obama's selection of pro-abortion Catholic Joe Biden to be his V.P. running mate "is a slap in the face to Catholic voters" and poses a major challenge for American Catholics.

In a press release sent out overnight, Fidelis president, Brian Burch, declared that Barack Obama has "re-opened a wound among American Catholics" by picking a pro-abortion Catholic politician like Joe Biden.

According to Burch, the American Catholic bishops have made it clear that Catholic political leaders must defend the dignity of every human person, including the unborn. 

The article goes on to state Joe Biden's "steadfast support for legal abortion" in the US Senate. 

This same issue came up in the 2004 election when John Kerry "sparked a nationwide controversy over whether Catholics who support legal abortion can receive communion." 

The Catholic group's president, Brian Burch stated, "Selecting a pro-abortion Catholic is a slap in the face to Catholic voters."

According to Burch, "The American bishops have instructed Catholic voters to consider many issues, but have characterized the defense of human life as foundational and have explained that the issue has a special claim on the conscience of the Catholic voter. This means that a political candidate like Biden, because of his strong support for abortion rights, forfeits any claim for support despite his views on other issues like health care and the economy."

I would agree with Mr. Burch that this issue is foundational.

What I don't quite understand is why would a pro-life Catholic (or a pro-life voter from any other religion) be voting for Barack Obama--the most anti pro-life candidate? 

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin,   Vicki Mckenna

 

 

I heard Dr. Alveda King speak yesterday on Vicki McKenna's radio program. Alveda is following in her uncle Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s footsteps in speaking out for civil rights for all. But the issue near and dear to her heart is one that her uncle could not even imagine--civil rights for the unborn.

Dr. King will be the keynote speaker for the Pregnancy Help Center fund raising Gala this Thursday, March 6, at Brookfield Suites. Contact Julie Caltreaux: 414-687-1691

Her mission is to make people aware that you cannot help the Dream survive while murdering children. She then gave the statistics on Planned Parenthood's genocide against Black babies. I had heard Vicki McKenna speak about this before, so  it caught my attention.

Vicki asked Alveda if she was going to vote for Barack Obama for President. Alveda stated she voted for Huckabee in the primary. (Huckabee is the most pro-life candidate.)

Dr. King then added if you are automatically voting Barack just because he is Black, go back and read King's I Have a Dream speech. His (Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's) Community is not based on color of his skin but the contend of his character.

Vicki brought up how Sen. Obama used his Christian faith to defend his position on abortion and mentioned that while in the Illinois Senate, he wouldn't even vote for basic comfort care for babies that survive botched abortions. (If you are unfamiliar, read the post and excerpts below.)

The Elephant in the Room: Obama: A harsh ideologue hidden by a feel-good image:

That bill was the Born Alive Infants Protection Act...  Who would oppose a bill that said you couldn't kill a baby who was born? Not Kennedy, Boxer or Hillary Rodham Clinton. Not even the hard-core National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). Obama, however, is another story. The year after the Born Alive Infants Protection Act became federal law in 2002, identical language was considered in a committee of the Illinois Senate. It was defeated with the committee's chairman, Obama, leading the opposition.

Let's be clear about what Obama did, once in 2003 and twice before that. He effectively voted for infanticide. He voted to allow doctors to deny medically appropriate treatment or, worse yet, actively kill a completely delivered living baby. Infanticide - I wonder if he'll add this to the list of changes in his next victory speech and if the crowd will roar: "Yes, we can."

Alveda also mentioned Barack's Sermon on the Mount speech, where Barack stated that Jesus approved of same sex marriage. "What flawed reasoning" she said. I see some flaws in his content, she added.

Obama: Sermon on Mount OKs Same-Sex Unions:

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) told a crowd at Hocking College in Nelsonville, Ohio, Sunday that he believes the Sermon on the Mount justifies his support for legal recognition of same-sex unions. He also told the crowd that his position in favor of legalized abortion does not make him "less Christian."

"I don't think it [a same-sex union] should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state," said Obama. "If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans." ... St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans condemns homosexual acts as unnatural and sinful. (Hardly obscure, Romans 1: 25-28 is specific, plus the Bible teaches that all scripture is inspired.)

Dr. Alveda King is the perfect person to address these issues. She continues the great message of what America should be all about: We should judge people by the content of their character, not the color of their skin.

I hope people will look into the "content of their character" in their own lives as well as in their candidates.

 

Links: Betterbrookfield,  Vicki Mckenna 

.

One reader sent me this link: Obama and Infanticide

The technical often precedes the ethical. For me, the lines of what is legal get very blurry when you look at another side of the issue.  Now I Lay Me Down To Sleep, Portraits of Love

I posted this Last minute dirty trick by a school board member? the day of the election.

These "Vote YES for Schools" signs with the spray paint on them popped up all over town on April 3rd. They were clearly from some other referendum or school issue; that is why the spray paint is covering up something.

Several of the signs were in front of the Century Centre property on Greenfield, and when I stopped to look at them, they did not seem to be compliant with campaign sign regulations. The disclaimer was not from either group registered for this referendum, VoteNOApril3 or LEGACY, and it did not list who the treasurer was for this new group. All it had on it was, Paid for and Authorized by Elmbrook Cares and then a sticker with Steve Schwei 262-780-0581.

Since Steve Schwei is my school board representative, I thought this was in violation of the policy that the board was not to advocate for the referendum.

So I contacted Brad Schimel, Schimel.Brad@mail.da.state.wi.us , our District Attorney for Waukesha County.

I am including all of his correspondence so you can see what the campaign regulations are. They were not what I expected.


Dear Mr. Prast,

Thank you for your email. You raise several issues, which I will address individually.

It is not illegal for Mr. Schwei to advocate for or against a referendum when acting as a private citizen. I do not have enough information to conclude that he is acting in any official capacity. The fact that he is on the school board does not prohibit him from taking actions as a citizen. (The same rule that applied to Matt Gibson addressing the Common Council about the referendum as a private citizen.)

Before I could determine whether Elmbrook Cares or Steve Schwei committed a campaign finance violation, I would need to know whether they have received contributions, made disbursements or incurred obligations in excess of $25 during this calendar year, and if so, whether they filed a registration statement. You stated that you do not think that Elmbrook Cares filed a registration statement. Did they?

You talk about many illegal signs having been posted by the "Yes group." This is the first I have heard of any complaint. Is there more information that you wish me to consider? What is illegal in nature about the sign you have posted?

I am curious about the blue spray paint on the sign posted on your blog. Do you know who painted that on the sign and what it is covering up?

Brad Schimel

Me to Brad,

They were used for a previous campaign I believe, maybe the last referendum from 2000. I believe they must have had the issue they were for under the spay paint. They are all like that.

So you are saying we could save our vote no signs and not register again if we did not collect any more funds? I thought the disclaimer was incorrect since it says it was paid for and authorized by Elmbrook Cares. Steve Schwei name and phone number, but does not say who Steve Schwei is in relation to Elmbrook Cares. Usually it says, John Doe, Treasurer or Candidate.

The illegally placed yes signs are up to 9 per property. In Brookfield we only allow 1 per address per street face. Last mayoral campaign Cindy Kilkenny was given 10 days to remove her overly large signs from private residences. This referendum is not being enforced that way. The police will remove the excess signs or those placed on city property, but only if a resident calls in the offending address.

Kyle

Brad back to me,

Mr. Prast,

The spray paint looks pretty shabby. Maybe they were trying to look impoverished. Apparently that message was not persuasive.

In terms of reusing signs, yes, if a group/individual saves them and reuses them, they could potentially come under the $25 expenditure threshold and avoid the requirement that they register.

Unless the group was required to register and failed to do so properly, I think the disclaimer is adequate. It certainly gives sufficient information from which one could identify who is responsible for the sign.

The restrictions on the placement and number of signs is a matter for the municipal ordinances.

Brad Schimel

So there you have it. Outside of the signs being place too near the roadway (I don't know if the property owners gave permission or not), Mr. Schimel says they were OK.

As for the official Vote Yes signs, after the replacements came in, the new ones were still placed in a non-compliant way 2 and 3 to a property. But that's a municipal ordinance.



I do thank you for all your correspondence. I have enjoyed hearing from you. Keep the emails coming! Someone did send an anonymous comment that they were for the referendum (the only one ever received). I do want to respond to that and hope to get to it soon, but today I need to attend to some of the many things I did not have time for

Certainly every parent wants to know their children are safe while at school. The district knows this too and makes it one of their reasons to vote for the referendum.

On Elmbrook’s “Fact” sheet #1, it states: “While it is now standard equipment in most high schools, neither Brookfield Central nor Brookfield East has a closed circuit security television system for monitoring activity in the hallways, common areas, or parking lots and for monitoring access to over 60 outside doors at each school.”

There is one BIG FACT missing from this sheet. The FACT that next year, the cameras will be installed regardless of referendum passage. Principal LaBonte told us this little known fact when I toured Central last month.

Here is another FACT you may be interested in. Other area schools have been in the process of getting their cameras installed for a few years now, working their way, school by school through their districts--without a referendum.

Time to dispel another fallacy: These cameras are not to protect against Stranger Danger or terrorist intrusion. I think when most people hear the words security system or closed circuit security cameras they immediately conjure up the image of the security checkpoint at the Pentagon!

THIS is NOT what these cameras are for. These cameras are primarily to monitor STUDENT activity, not STRANGER activity.

A recent Brookfieldnow article stated, “In a time when many high schools around the nation have dealt with incidents of school violence, a closed-circuit security television system is necessary to monitor activity in the hallways, common areas and parking lots, according to principals.”

Remember that most high school violence is caused by students, not strangers. The cameras record motion in the hallways or wherever they are mounted, and that information is stored for future use. As a rule, it is not monitored continually during the day as we would think of a closed circuit television system. It is only there if there is an incident, they can see who was involved.

While on the mechanical tour of Central, the guide told us that one of the stairways in the 3 story addition was seldom used. I asked why, since I had heard the other stairways were so crowded. He hesitated, then said, they were too isolated and things happened in the stairwells.

Whether we are talking hanky-panky or bullying or drug deals, I don’t know. I do know going back to the concept of a hall monitor might help. In any event, this is not a STRANGER problem; it is a STUDENT problem.

The real question is: Why has Elmbrook neglected this “need” until now?

Could it be the same reason they have neglected other standard maintenance issues? They are trying to present a needier picture of our high schools than there really is, and in the case of security cameras, they will be installed next year—even without the referendum.

ONLY 5 MORE DAYS UNTIL MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TUESDAY!

WANT TO CONTACT ME ANONYMOUSLY? CLICK HERE

LINKS:Brookfield7 postings Betterbrookfield, Votenoapril3.com

When I was on the mechanical tour last weekend, I did watch the “informative” video playing in the lobby. (I cannot call it unbiased.) I kept waiting for the commercial to break in.... (Read this in your best announcer voice.)

...And now a word from our sponsor, your Elmbrook School District.

...They brought you referendum, after referendum, after referendum, after referendum, from 1991 to 1995, until the 5th one for Swanson finally passed.

...The ones who brought you the Swanson Swap that you only found out about before the fact because of a leak to the press.

...The same gang who, after the community spoke out loud and clear to save Swanson, tried to change our school district from a Unified to a Consolidated School District so they wouldn’t need public permission to sell school property ever again. (That measure failed.)

...The same group who purposely neglected maintaining our high schools for at least the past 6 years and then have the nerve to whine about our school’s condition. (This is solvable.)

...Don’t forget our board’s approval of that “needed” 4K program, overriding the publics' displeasure of adding another $67 to our tax bills. It required dipping into our reserves to implement. (It still has some openings, and they said it was such a need?)

...And, last but not least, don’t forget my favorite: the $2.5 million dollar tax bite (defeasance) they took out of your wallet last year on your 2006 property tax bill. NOT TO PAY DOWN THE DEBT, but to invest!

When we voted in 2000 for the 2 new grade schools, we approved that referendum for $17,900,000 not an additional pre funding investment scheme.

Anyway, I thought you should remember who the SPONSOR is of this referendum.

Is it a name you can trust?

ONLY 5 MORE DAYS UNTIL MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TUESDAY!

WANT TO CONTACT ME ANONYMOUSLY? CLICK HERE

LINKS:Brookfield7 postings Betterbrookfield, Votenoapril3.com

Someone gave me their Vote Yes postcard yesterday, so I could take a look at it. (I did not receive one because I do not have children in the district.)

The first thing I noticed was that it was an appeal to the emotions. It asks: ...if you would FEEL compelled to help. It then portrays a list of below average and failing grades for various components in the high schools.

I don’t know what they based these grades on. To me a failing grade would mean it does not meet minimal standards—that it does not function at a reasonable expectation. Example: Mechanical Systems: “F” to me would mean we consistently have interrupted or inadequate service for heat, lights, water, electricity, etc. Anyway, that is their opinion; these grades are not based on facts. The school district's own literature contradicts those bad grades, stating that the schools have been "well maintained" (within operating budgets).

But this is one FACT they got WRONG: No opinion, it is simply incorrect.
And it's in regard to a major component: the price.

They state that the COST is roughly 50 cents a day.

THAT IS NOT TRUE!

THE REAL COST IS ROUGHLY 94 CENTS A DAY.

I added up all of the columns on the district’s cost calculator for referendum question #1 and #2, and it totaled $6,837.65 for an average Brookfield home of $335,000. (That is the number the district has been using, if you would add Elm Grove’s average home value into the mix, that number would be higher).

The postcard also listed various other problems below the report card that I don’t believe are accurate. Hopefully I will address them in a future piece.

I realize the question of the high school referendums is something that can be looked at from both sides: the proverbial water glass half full or empty. BUT one must portray the fact of the glass’ contents accurately or the merit of the argument does not hold water!

ONLY 7 MORE DAYS UNTIL MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TUESDAY!

WANT TO CONTACT ME ANONYMOUSLY? CLICK HERE

LINKS:Brookfield7 postings Betterbrookfield, Votenoapril3.com

ONLY 23 MORE DAYS UNTIL MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TUESDAY!


A reader told me they have tables set up in the halls of East to register 18 year old students to vote. They probably are doing it at Central too.

Maybe they do this prior to every election? But speaking as a parent, I would not like this procedure of registering at school, because I could not share in this milestone event.

Registering to vote was one of those important parent/child firsts for me to witness: first steps, first day of school, first time behind the wheel of the family car, first car, first vote.

What do you think?

LINKS:Brookfield7 postings Betterbrookfield

There is no such thing as a free lunch-or breakfast for that matter. Someone always pays for it, and there is always a subliminal reason for supplying a free lunch.

So why is our Elmbrook School District mulling over the possibility of plying you with pancakes or pasta? Or serving cheese and crackers or doughnuts and coffee? Because they are hoping to influence you to vote yes for their $108,800,000.00 referendums.

The very act of breaking bread together is compelling. Why do you think salesmen wine and dine potential clients? Why do you think businesses supply the free lunch or treats on certain days for their customers? (This is common in the trades-electrical, plumbing, or tool suppliers etc.) They are hoping the customer will feel a little cheap coming into their business to eat their free fare and then leave without placing an order. Only a real cheapskate would come in and do that!

There is a certain portion of the population that may feel sheepish about coming to the school district's Saturday Soirees too--especially if they are undecided. I am guessing the district is hoping, like the tradesman eating the supplier's free lunch and then feeling obligated to make a purchase, the diners might be influenced to vote yes for the referendum.

According to the Journal article, "Referendum opponent Jon Wolff said, 'They should not be spending taxpayer dollars to do it (meals)'." Good point. The district is not to overtly promote the yes vote, just present the facts. They have a budget of $49,000 to do just that. The $49,000 is our taxpayer money! (Is it any wonder we never have enough money to properly maintain our buildings?) If influencing voters is not the motivation for the free meal or snack, then why have any food or refreshments at all? It is not like voters will be there all day.

"Smokes for Votes" was a black eye on Milwaukee. Pretending that a free meal or snack is not meant to influence voters does not speak well of our school district either.