Monday, October 03, 2011

"The Texas Race Riots" (click link below - thank you)

The Literary digest, Volume 41

By Edward Jewitt Wheeler, Isaac Kaufman Funk, William Seaver Woods, Wilfred John Funk, Arthur Stimson Draper
Beginning on Page 226

Link on Google Books

... This story is indeed "a pitiful one." says the New Orleans Times- Democrat "and puts the slaughter in a very bad light."

  "White supremacy is in danger nowhere in Texas, so far as we have been informed, and at this distance we know of no other cause adequate to condone the horrible slaughter which was reported."

Other Southern papers speak as strongly, The Richmond Times-Dispatch characterizing this "brutal butchery of innocents" as a "reproach to the State and an offense to humanity."  And in Texas the Houston Chronicle cries out against such indiscriminate butchering of negroes because of some crime committed by an individual member of the race....

There are plenty plantations in West Texas as well.  


I want to know EXACTLY where the Perry Hunting Ranch got its name!

I want to know its heritage and I want to know whom is buried on it!

The one question that comes to mind when a person(s) are wrongfully charged ...

... and tried; is: "Who would WANT to have this happen to them?"  You know, like "Nigerhead" lynchings or something.

All so often 'Poor White Trash' in the OLD, OLD South are 'fair game' when the unthinkable happens.


Then again, maybe that horrible culture ain't so old after all.

Black man dragged to death 200 miles from site of Byrd murder 10 years ago. (click here)

Brandon McClelland, 24, was dragged to death beneath a truck driven by two white men in Paris, Texas last month. McClelland was black. The site of his death is about 200 miles from the location whereJames Byrd was murdered in a similar manner ten years ago. (Image at left: Jacqueline McClelland, Brandon's mother; photo courtesy Jesse Muhammad.) 
McClelland's murder took place on September 16, 2008. Parts of his mangled body were found strewn along the highway at great distance.
First responders treated the case as a hit and run. The county district attorney's office denied the possibility of racist motivations, and said comparisons to the Byrd lynching were "preposterous"....

"Ya'll can't seem to find some healthy recreation in Texas?  For real?  Or is it simply bad examples of people in authority!  There ain't 'nutin' like Texas hubris.

I am sure the drought is just 'one of those things' caused by all the bad people in the world.  I betcha it will clear up soon.

Two charged with murder after black man dragged to death 

in troubled Paris, Texas (click here)

Pair also accused of tampering with witnesses, evidence, as prosecutor weighs hate crime charges

A grand jury in the racially-troubled northeast Texas town of Paris returned first-degree murder indictments Thursday against two white men accused in the September dragging death of a black man, and the prosecutor in the case said he is investigating whether to add hate-crime charges.

Shannon Finley and Charles Ryan Crostley, both 27, face up to life in prison if convicted of charges that they murdered 24-year-old Brandon McClelland  by running him over and dragging him beneath a pickup truck after the three went on a late-night beer run....

This must be one of those 'high tech' lynching this article refers to.

Double Lynching Trial Begins in Texas, Again

December 16, 2008
...Supports of Jacquline McClelland, (click here) mother of Brandon McClelland, gather during a rally in front to the Lamar County Courthouse in Paris, Texas, Monday, Nov. 17, 2008. Supporters of McClelland whose 24-year-old son was run over and dragged beneath a pickup truck in East Texas in September, rallied with members of the New Black Panther Party and the Nation of Islam in an organized event to speak out against a justice system they consider racist....

When men are sacrificed for the 'status quo' they are demons.

I watched the interview on CNN Piers Morgan.  It was unbelievable and I can't say I am not worried about Damion's well being.  He got the worst of it, although even Jessie could not have faired all that well.  Who killed the children?  The loyalty Jason had for Damion’s outcome exceeded any idea there was a primary person among the three responsible for the children’s deaths.

I can’t help but believe the actual killer already had Damion, Jason and Jessie lined up as suspects before the murderers occurred.  I hope no one believed there had to be such heinous murders in order to stop ‘demons’ from living in the community.  It is bizarre.  What the heck goes on in West Memphis, Tennessee?  The law there isn’t interested in finding the actual killer, regardless of the plea deal?  They probably made the deal so the city and county could not be sued.  But, what about justice?  Finding the actual murderer would open up the city and county and state’s liability, but, justice isn’t important?  Really?  Tennessee?  This is what turns opinion against a government.  I hope the US Justice Department reviews all this and asks plenty of questions. 

And the prison conditions are a chamber of horrors.

September 30, 2011 11:26 AM

Damien Echols, of West Memphis Three, in TV interview: "I hadn't seen daylight in almost a decade" (click title to entry - thank you)

(CBS) - The West Memphis Three, a group of men who were convicted in 1994 for killing three 8-year-old Cub Scouts in Arkansas, spent 18 years behind bars for a crime they say they did not commit. The men, who were allowed to walk free last month, spoke to CNN's Piers Morgan in an interview that aired Thursday describing their years behind bars....

Abuse of office or abuse by the press?

Giuliano Mignini and Amanda Knox at her appeal hearing over the murder of Meredith Kercher. Photograph: Giuseppe Bellini/Getty

The media is really racking them up, aren't they?

...But his (click title to entry - thank you) American detractors have claimed his investigation was a "railroad job from hell", starting from the moment he questioned Knox for hours without a lawyer, coaxing her into naming an innocent man, Patrick Lumumba, as the likely murderer, to his suggestion that Knox and Sollecito's slaying of Kercher was inspired by the occult.
The criticisms will have come as no surprise to a man who has strongly believed for years that opponents were secretly plotting his downfall....

October 3, 2011 3:50 PM
Last Updated 4:28 p.m. ET
PERUGIA, Italy - American student Amanda Knox, who was convicted by an Italian court for the 2007 murder of her roommate Meredith Kercher, was acquitted today by an appeals court.
Her murder conviction in the 2007 slaying of her roommate Meredith Kercher was thrown out by the jury, and she was ordered immediately released from prison after nearly four years of detention.
Knox collapsed in tears after the verdict was read out Monday.
The murder conviction against her former boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito was also thrown out.
The judge upheld Knox's conviction on a charge of slander for accusing bar owner Diya "Patrick" Lumumba of carrying out the killing. He set the sentence at three years - meaning for time served - and a fine of 22,000 euros (about $29,000). Knox has been in prison since Nov. 6, 2007.
Sobbing, Knox was escorted out of the courtroom.
Does the legal profession seriously have a place on weekly programming competing for ratings while we are seeing innocent people facing death sentences?  Hasn't the public been traumatized enough.  There is a reason for newspapers.

Within the past few months we have witnessed two high profile cases and three victims charged with murders they did not commit.  TWO were women.  

Both women suffered 'trial by reputation' while in the Knox case her boyfriend was held accountable with her as if illicit sex between them damned them to death.  

I've had enough of the self-righteous.  




(1) GRANT PROGRAM. From the amounts made available under subsection (h), the Secretary shall award grants to States to modernize, renovate, or repair existing facilities at community colleges....

Below is the subsection (h) the bill refers to.  It is the last paragraph in this provision.


(1) There are authorized to be appropriated, and there are appropriated, to carry out this section (in addition to any other amounts appropriated to carry out this section and out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated), $5,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2012.

(2) Funds appropriated under this subsection shall be available for obligation by community colleges only during the period that ends 36 months after the date of enactment of this Act.

There is at least one glitch in this section.  In this section there are monies set aside for American Indian and Other Possessions.


(A) RESERVATIONS. Of the amount made available to carry out this section, the Secretary shall reserve—

(i) up to 0.25 percent for grants to institutions that are eligible under section 316 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1059c) to provide for modernization, renovation, and repair activities described in this section; and


(c) Authorized activities
(1) In general
Grants awarded under this section shall be used by Tribal Colleges or Universities to assist such institutions to plan, develop, undertake, and carry out activities to improve and expand such institutions’ capacity to serve Indian students....

(ii) up to 0.25 percent for grants to the outlying areas to provide for modernization, renovation, and repair activities described in this section.

The concern is the use of the word PROFESSIONAL.  Community Colleges offer 'certification programs' that quality individuals for "Professional Careers" in areas such as electricians, Golf Course Management, etc. So the word "Professional" can be a bit ambivalent in this application of the word.  I do believe the word Professional used here is to indicate something like a law degree of medical degree, etc.  In my opinion there needs to be a specific word substituted for 'Professional" the Community Colleges use to describe these programs. I would think Dr. Jill Biden could consult on that topic if necessary.

(B) ALLOCATION. After reserving funds under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall allocate to each State that has an application approved by the Secretary an amount that bears the same relation to any remaining funds as the total number of students in such State who are enrolled in institutions described in section 230(b)(1)(A) plus the number of students who are estimated to be enrolled in and pursuing a degree or certificate that is not a bachelor’s, master’s, professional, or other advanced degree in institutions described in section 230(b)(1)(B), based on the proportion of degrees or certificates awarded by such institutions that are not bachelor’s, master’s, professional, or other advanced degrees, as reported to the Integrated Postsecondary Data System bears to the estimated total number of such students in all States, except that no State shall receive less than $2,500,000.

(D) STATE ADMINISTRATION. A State that receives a grant under this section may use not more than one percent of that grant to administer it, except that no State may use more than $750,000 of its grant for this purpose.

The application process for the States seek the same measure of criteria and assurances.  But, there are specific prohibitions of the funding.


(1) IN GENERAL. No funds awarded under this section may be used for—

(i) payment of routine maintenance costs;

(ii) construction, modernization, renovation, or repair of stadiums or other facilities primarily used for athletic contests or exhibitions or other events for which admission is charged to the general public; or

(iii) construction, modernization, renovation, or repair of facilities—

(I) used for sectarian instruction, religious worship, or a school or department of divinity; or

(II) in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission.

(2) FOUR-YEAR INSTITUTIONS. No funds awarded to a four-year public institution of higher education under this section may be used for any facility, service, or program of the institution that is not available to students who are pursuing a degree or certificate that is not a bachelor's, master's, professional, or other advanced degree.

There are Green provisions no different than with the other school building standards and Labor Standards according to Federal Law. NOT Labor Union.

(e) APPLICATION OF GEPA. Section 439 of the General Education Provisions Act such Act (20 U.S.C. 1232b) shall apply to funds available under this subtitle

Cited Law Below:

20 USC 1232 - Sec. 1232b. Labor standards (click title to entry - thank you_

All laborers and mechanics employed by contractors or subcontractors on all construction and minor remodeling projects assisted under any applicable program shall be paid wages at rates not less than those prevailing on similar construction and minor remodeling in the locality as determined by the Secretary of Labor in accordance with sections 3141-3144, 3146, and 3147 of title 40. The Secretary of Labor shall have, with respect to the labor standards specified in this section, the authority and functions set forth in Reorganization Plan Numbered 14 of 1950 and section 3145 of title 40. 

The remainder of this section is about accountability by the States and the Secretary of Education as to tracking the funds and knowing where they went and are being used.  Then there is (h) which I listed above.

That brings up to the next section on page 24, which I consider to be an important section regardless of how mundane.



I'll start here tomorrow.

SUBTITLE D – SCHOOL MODERNIZATION - begins the bottom of Page 17 of the bill



The purpose of this part is to provide assistance for the modernization, renovation, and repair of elementary and secondary school buildings in public school districts across America in order to support the achievement of improved educational outcomes in those schools.


There are authorized to be appropriated, and there are appropriated, $25,000,000,000 to carry out this part, which shall be available for obligation by the Secretary until September 30, 2012....

This provision, no different than the previous one sundowns at the end of the current fiscal year.  That probably holds true throughout the bill so there is no need to repeat it.  If there are different dates I'll note them.

As with previous provisions this one is divided between the Secretary of Education and the Secretary of the Interior or help to American Indians and USA Possessions.

Cited Law:

(ESEA) (20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.) for fiscal year 2011 (click title to entry - thank you)

Below is the PRIMARY law that others are built on.  In this case there have been repeated code revisions to the this, the baseline, document.  So, to refer to this 'edition' of the law is somewhat useless.  It is replaced by updated versions and the latest is the one of 2011.  It is not unusual for this law to be revised by nearly every administration along the way.

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (click here)

Now, the previous mention of allocation of funds to local 'agencies' makes sense.  The delineation is quoted here and is based on NEED.  I sincerely do not believe when a bill is this clear the Governors can interfere.  They are children in special need.  A frank example I can think of off the top of my head is the special monies and assistance set up in legislation some time ago for improvement of the populous of Appalachia.  It was a unique need by the people there, it was moral and appropriate.  So, if the delineation to distribute monies to 'local agencies' is poverty and need, there can't be interference if the bill is so stated.  It makes sense now, these words did not appear in the previous provision of Teacher Stability.  It doesn't mean this is the final draft either.  

(1) the Secretary shall allocate 40 percent of such remaining amount to the 100 local educational agencies with the largest numbers of children aged 5-17 living in poverty, as determined using the most recent data available from the Department of Commerce that are satisfactory to the Secretary, in proportion to those agencies' respective allocations under part A of title I of the ESEA for fiscal year 2011; and

(2) the allocation to any State shall be reduced by the aggregate amount of the allocations under paragraph 

(1) to local educational agencies in that State....

Forget it.  The ability for local agencies to apply directly to the Federal Government is included.  So the State Governors are not gatekeepers to much of these funds if they are refused by the Governor.

(2) If a local educational agency does not apply for its allocation under subsection (b)(1), applies for less than the full allocation for which it is eligible, or does not use that allocation in a timely manner, the Secretary may reallocate all or a portion of its allocation to the State in which that agency is located.

And if these words appear in the final law there is no reason why a local agency could not file a grievance they were excluded from any monies unfairly.


(a) RESERVATION. Each State that receives a grant under this part may reserve not more than one percent of the State's allocation under section 223(b) for the purpose of administering the grant, except that no State may reserve more than $750,000 for this purpose.

There is a limit on administrative funds in these provisions.  The monies are suppose to go to the place they are intended and not sucked up by the State or anyone else.  The administrative costs are sufficient but I would not say over generous.

The funds under this provision are less per local agency than the poverty provision.  Of the funds received by the State at least has to be 'granted' to local agencies including charter schools considered to be local agencies but not less than $10,000.

The grants are determined by previous qualifications under fiscal year 2011. accordance with their respective allocations under part A of title I of the ESEA for fiscal year 2011...

The remaining funds are to be used with discretion in areas in need and in the bill it mentions rural communities.  As a rule these communities do not have a large tax base to support maintenance and improvements.  So, it makes sense.  The State should know where these problems are within their cities and towns.  I would think as soon as this law is passed there should be correspondence ready to mail to the State and/or Federal governments indicating the needs of the school systems or local agency.  I would not hesitate.  I'd be meeting on this now and act on it as soon as possible.  I think the letters should include all possible expenses to the local agency to be sure the maximum amount qualifies.  Don't hold back.  I would never allow any aspect of need to be disqualified and make it clear.  The 'cut' will come as it does and hopefully it will fill a lot of holes.

The State Applications need to include how it determines priorities and criteria and ASSURANCES.  The focus is on:


(a) STATE APPLICATION. A State that desires to receive a grant under this part shall submit an application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing such information and assurances as the Secretary may require, which shall include—

(1) an identification of the State agency or entity that will administer the program;...

(i) the needs of local educational agencies for assistance under this part;
(ii) the impact of potential projects on job creation in the State;

(iii) the fiscal capacity of local educational agencies applying for assistance;

(iv) the percentage of children in those local educational agencies who are from low-income families; and

(v) the potential for leveraging assistance provided by this program through matching or other financing mechanisms;

These are building projects so the energy imprint should be a focus.  I can't imagine any responsible government agency not being prudent about energy efficiency and there is a Green provision to the bill.  Energy efficiency is a matter of saving money and using budgeted energy monies to the best interest to the budget to make educational dollars go further.

(F) a description of how the State will give priority to the use of green practices that are certified, verified, or consistent with any applicable provisions of—

(i) the LEED Green Building Rating System;

(ii) Energy Star;

(iii) the CHPS Criteria;

(iv) Green Globes; or

(v) an equivalent program adopted by the State or another jurisdiction with authority over the local educational agency;

If there is a local agency applying for the funding, they do not have the same demands as an entire State School System would have.  It isn't practical to include all those organizational demands with THE AGENCY receiving the funding.  Below:

(b) LOCAL APPLICATION. A local educational agency that is eligible under section 223(b)(1) that desires to receive a grant under this part shall submit an application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing such information and assurances as the Secretary may require, which shall include —

(1) a description of how the local educational agency will meet the deadlines and requirements of this part;

(2) a description of the steps that the local educational agency will take to adequately maintain any facilities that are modernized, renovated, or repaired with funds under this part; and

(3) such additional information and assurances as the Secretary may require.

The monies can be used toward recent Bonds:


(a) IN GENERAL. Funds awarded to local educational agencies under this part shall be used only for either or both of the following modernization, renovation, or repair activities in facilities that are used for elementary or secondary education or for early learning programs:

(1) Direct payments for school modernization, renovation, and repair.

(2) To pay interest on bonds or payments for other financing instruments that are newly issued for the purpose of financing school modernization, renovation, and repair.

There can be no substitution for previous commitments with these funds.

(b) SUPPLEMENT, NOT SUPPLANT. Funds made available under this part shall be used to supplement, and not supplant, other Federal, State, and local funds that would otherwise be expended to modernize, renovate, or repair eligible school facilities.

The requirements for Private Schools are more stringent.  They probably have been exempt from standards of public schools, but, for the purposes of this bill Private Schools have to measure up to a safety criteria:

except that—

(1) section 9501 shall not apply with respect to the title to any real property modernized, renovated, or repaired with assistance provided under this section;

(2) the term "services", as used in section 9501 with respect to funds under this part, shall be provided only to private, nonprofit elementary or secondary schools with a rate of child poverty of at least 40 percent and may include only—

(A) modifications of school facilities necessary to meet the standards applicable to public schools under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.);

(B) modifications of school facilities necessary to meet the standards applicable to public schools under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794); and

(C) asbestos or polychlorinated biphenyls abatement or removal from school facilities; and

(1) above appears to me to exclude Private Schools from paying the mortgage with these funds.  It is suppose to go to moderization, etc.  Jobs, not property.

The statement below appears regularly through this bill.  It is to enforce the spending of the monies and not the return of the monies to the federal government.  Example: If expenditures are not as much as the monies determined to be distributed based on eligibility to that local or state agency, then those monies CAN  AND  SHOULD be used for the purposes they were intended where needed and as they apply to the particular provision, be it Teacher or Emergency Worker Stabilization or Modernization of Schools.  This tells me the 'paid for' part is not to come back to the Federal Government for either reallocation and/or deficit reduction.  So, the 'paid for' aspects of the bill is highly intended to serve the purpose of the bill.  

What does that tell me about the intent of President Obama in asking the nation for their support?

That is is hoping in all ways possible the nation will regain confidence in their government and know he is dedicated to serving them with every penny he asks for.  That is those FIVE words tell me.

...the remainder shall be available to...

This provision defines timelines of funds:


(a) Funds appropriated under section 222 shall be available for obligation by local educational agencies receiving grants from the Secretary under section 223(b)(1), by States reserving funds under section 224(a), and by local educational agencies receiving subgrants under section 224(b)(1) only during the period that ends 24 months after the date of enactment of this Act.

(b) Funds appropriated under section 222 shall be available for obligation by local educational agencies receiving subgrants under section 224(b)(2) only during the period that ends 36 months after the date of enactment of this Act.

(c) Section 439 of the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232b) shall apply to funds available under this part.

(d) For purposes of section 223(b)(1), Hawaii, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico are not local educational agencies.

That is page 22, the next section is Community College Modernization and goes for about three or so pages.  I think I might review that one, but, I am going to take a short break.

Subtitle C - First Responders Stabilization Act - It is comprised of three paragraphs.


The purpose of this subtitle is to provide funds to States and localities to prevent layoffs of, and support the creation of additional jobs for, law enforcement officers and other first responders.


The Attorney General shall carry out a competitive grant program pursuant to section 1701 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796dd) for hiring, rehiring, or retention of career law enforcement officers under part Q of such title. Grants awarded under this section shall not be subject to subsections (g) or (i) of section 1701 or to section 1704 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 3796dd–3(c))....

The program is a $5 billion program to be divided between the US Justice Department to benefit police officers and the Department of Homeland Security.  Twenty percent of the program will be assigned to Homeland Security with the remainder going to Justice.  Of the monies no more than $8 million can be spent by Justice for administrative costs and $2 million for Homeland Security administrative costs.

Very straight forward.

Below is the original law:

'42 USC Sec. 3796dd' (click title to entry - thank you)