Sharon Savings Robbery Update

Springfield Police say the man who held up the Sharon Savings Bank in Springfield, reported 2:39 p.m., March 29, was thin, short — about 5 feet, 6 inches tall — and black. He was wearing a black baseball cap, an over-sized hoodie, blue jeans and sunglasses.

The man approached the teller and passed her a note saying he had a gun. The teller gave him some cash which he tucked into his jacket and fled running down School Lane. Police think he possibly left in a green SUV.

The FBI and Springfield Detective James Devaney are investigating. Anyone with information should call 610-544-5503.

God Loves You On Brookside Road


Thank you to the nice people who tacked the inspirational signs on Brookside Road, Springfield, Pa. The signs, hand-lettered and made of colored construction paper, contained phrases such as “God loves you” and “Smile.”

Rolling Stone ‘Expose’ Exposed

Rolling Stone ‘Expose’ Exposed — The Rolling Stone expose alleging widespread thuggery by members of the 5/2 Stryker Brigade Combat Team in Afghanistan has been shown overblown to the point of dishonesty by war correspondent extraordinaire Michael Yon, a former Green Beret who has been covering combat in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2004.

Yon notes that the hope-it-dies-before-it-gets-older hippie mag mingled legitimate combat footage with a murder committed by a handful of members of that brigade who were subsequently turned in by a fellow soldier and prosecuted in due course all without media outcry.

Yon’s story can be found here.

 

Rolling Stone ‘Expose’ Exposed

Sharon Savings Robbed

Sharon Savings RobbedSharon Savings Robbed — The Sharon Savings Bank, 5 E. Springfield Road, Springfield, Pa., was robbed within the hour 3:16 p.m., March 29. The branch is locked. The sign on the door reads “This Office Will Be Closed On Tues. 3/29/11 due to bank robbery”.

Sharon Savings Robbed

NFL Players Slaves?

This is being republished with the permission of Chris Freind.

Talk about a political football. At a time when most municipalities are running in the red, another line item must now be factored into budgets: new history textbooks.

That’s right. It turns out that the real reason for fighting the Civil War was the North’s desire to steal the incredible wealth of the slaves. Apparently, despite subjugation by their owners, the majority of slaves were millionaires, and those who weren’t still received a guaranteed minimum of $310,000 per year.

Shocking as this recent historical find seems, it was certified by Minnesota running back Adrian Petersen, and as we all know, anything a National Football League player says must be true. Petersen’s plethora of antebellum knowledge was revealed as he enlightened the nation by comparing the NFL labor dispute to “modern-day slavery.”

At issue is how to divvy up $9 billion in revenue between owners and players. Talks have broken off and management has locked out the players.

Summing up how the players were being treated during the negotiations, Peterson said, “It’s modern-day slavery, you know?”
He added, “People kind of laugh at that, but there are people working at regular jobs who get treated the same way, too.”
That brilliant Petersen Principle, though, remains a bit unclear. Were those “regular” people — those not involved in the NFL negotiations — average Americans who will work the first four months of this year just to pay their local, state and federal tax burden?

As in, a “slave” to the government? A government, by the way, that “regular” Americans send more money to than they spend on food, clothing and shelter combined.

Or was Petersen’s defense of regular people referring to the poor and disadvantaged NFL saps who only make seven figures a year, compared to Petersen’s $10.5 million, and whose six-year contract is worth almost $41 million? And for those making the league minimum of $310,000, well, they should probably pick cotton in the off-season just to make ends meet.
It must be tough being an NFL slave.

*****

The Petersen case underscores just how hypocritical some “leaders” have become regarding race relations. As a result, we aren’t the color-blind country we should be, but instead see the gulf between black and white only widen.

Take the pathetic defense of Petersen’s remarks from his agent Ben Dogra (who obviously has a financial interest in seeing this flap go away). Rather than condemn the statement for what it was, he defends it with meaningless rhetoric. “I think anybody that knows Adrian knows that (he) is a very strong-willed and passionate individual,” Dogra said. “The game means an awful lot to him.”

Gee, thanks for clearing that up, Ben. In other words, because he makes eight figures a year and is “passionate,” it’s okay to equate his situation to slavery, which, by the way, is still rampant in parts of the world.

But it gets better: “People should not just take his statements per se word by word. It’s a difficult time. He would love to play. I’m sure that everybody would love to see football continue in the NFL… nobody should really look at those words and take them out of context.”

Nice try, Ben. But how exactly are they “out of context?” He compared his situation to slavery. That’s a fact. It wasn’t a slip of the tongue, and there’s no gray area here. His “passion” and “love of the game,” while admirable, have absolutely nothing to do with his racist remarks. He shouldn’t get a free pass for outrageously disrespecting the misery that slaves in America endured. A life, by the way, that they couldn’t walk away from, unlike Petersen, who at 25, could quit his work today and live comfortably for five lifetimes.

But he has been given a free pass. And that is the real — and wholly unreported — story.

Adrian Petersen will come and go. He’ll probably make some half-hearted apology written by PR specialists and appear at events to make him seem more racially-sensitive (although he has yet to do so). And he’ll dazzle on the gridiron for seasons to come (especially if he learns to stop fumbling). But in the big picture, Petersen is irrelevant.

No, the biggest frauds of all need to be exposed. Through the whole flap, nary a peep was heard from the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of the world. And where was that bastion of cowardice, the NAACP?

Conspicuously silent, but what else is new?

And this is precisely why they have no credibility left. Condemning racism of all kinds and promoting equality should be their goals, but instead, it’s the polar opposite. To them, separate and unequal trumps unity, and the condemnation of racism is done on an extremely selective basis. Translation: jump on the bandwagon in cases involving a “racist” white person, but go on vacation when the person is black.

The list of being on the wrong side is long: the Duke lacrosse team falsely accused (who were innocent), the Tawana Brawley case which Sharpton enflamed with racial rhetoric (where rape allegations by white men of a black girl were proven false), the ridiculous firing of Don Imus, and the Jena Six case in Louisiana, when Jackson reportedly ripped then-presidential candidate Barack Obama for “acting like he’s white.”

But when a situation like that of Adrian Petersen comes along, providing a perfect opportunity to explain why slavery comparisons are so hurtful and destructive, their silence is deafening. And their credibility, whatever is left of it, crumbles.

The conversation at kitchen tables and watercoolers around the nation is that Jackson and Sharpton are worthless, and the NAACP promotes racism far more than it fights it. But fear of being labelled racist and bigoted keeps most people — and most media commentators — from taking on these hypocrites, and speaking the truth.

Racism still exists in America, albeit to an infinitely smaller degree than it once was. Perhaps the greatest example of that progress was illustrated when a black President — itself a remarkable feat — gave the eulogy of Senator Robert Byrd, a former member of the KKK.
Unfortunately, that progress has come in spite of, not because of, people like Sharpton and Jackson. But there is a silver lining. Their blowhard political grandstanding and blatant hypocrisy have become such trademarks that they not only lack credibility, but more important, relevance. No one cares what they have to say anymore because their platforms have been built on a house of cards.

The biggest tragedy of all is that, had these men — d
ynamic orators of great charisma — truly fought the good fight, America’s racial divide would be measurably smaller.

What a shame. Leaders who preach color-blindness but really only see black-and-white…are a terrible thing to waste.

 

NFL Players Slaves?

Ron Pritsch’s Legacy

Ron Pritsch’s Legacy — The lead story in last week’s Springfield Press concerned the gift bequeathed by writer and anthropologist Ron Pritsch to the Springfield (Pa) Library.

The money was used to replace the 48-year-old circulation desk with one more suitable for the computer era.

Ron died Jan. 19, 2009 of a heart attack which was quite unexpected. He was either 55 or 56.

I knew Ron. He was a fine writer and a decent man and the community still mourns his passing.

 

Ron Pritsch’s Legacy

Springfield P.O. Finds A New Home

The Springfield (Pa) Post Office is moving from the Brookside Road site where it has sat for decades to a shiny new, much smaller spot in Olde Sproul Village on Baltimore Pike that was once Baja Fresh burrito joint. The satellite office in the Springfield Mall is being closed.

Call it progress in this Obama progressive era — higher cost and less convenience. OK, if you live in Swarthmore it will be more convenient.

U.S. Postal Service officials say the move will occur in July or August.

More Thoughts On HB 42

HB 42, the  bill pending in the Pennsylvania House that would keep much of ObamaCare from being enforced in Pennsylvania, is being held in the  Appropriations Committee until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on challenges to the law socializing American medicine, according to Appropriations Chairman Bill Adolph (R-165).

The idea, according to his staff, is to  simplify any tweaking that may be needed.

One suspects that Rep. Adolph just doesn’t get it.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was rammed through a year ago on false pretenses and against the obvious will of the American people. A Republican was elected to represent Massachusetts in the U.S. Senate in hopes of stopping it, for Pete’s sake.

The legislators — including the leadership — did not read the bill before voting on it, and the Obama administration told blatant falsehoods to the public regarding what it would do whether it be not raising insurance premiums, not cutting Medicare benefits, or that the mandates not being a tax which they are  now are telling judges that it really is.

Peaceful federalist resistance to ObamaCare is a perfectly moral and legitimate answer to it; and it would be a successful one assuming that the state legislators have the courage to carry it out which does not appear to be the case in parts of Pennsylvania.

Philly School District Caves

This article by Chris Freind is republished with his permission.

What’s wrong with this picture?
Teacher doesn’t like a possible school district decision. Teacher gives students SEPTA tokens, ostensibly allowing them to attend a protest rally at District headquarters — during the school day. Teacher doesn’t notify principal or parents that students were leaving school. Teacher was allegedly insubordinate by disclosing a document the District wanted kept confidential. Union boss fights efforts to fire teacher on First Amendment grounds.
Teacher wins.
That’s right. Despite an initial effort by the Philadelphia School District to terminate Hope Moffett, a teacher at Audenried High School, she is back at work, smug as ever. And why not?
The District completely caved. Instead of pursuing the right course of action, it settled for Moffett to read a non-descript one sentence letter to her class — a statement the District claims is an admission of wrongdoing, but which Moffett bluntly denies. “There’s no apology,” she said. “I think it’s very clear that they wanted an apology, but what they wanted an apology for was something that wasn’t true.”
The statement: “I acknowledge that I didn’t notify the principal on 2/14/2011 that students planned to leave the school building during the school day on 2/15/2011, even though no parental permission had been submitted to the school.”
Seems Moffett is right — no apology there.
The District’s take? They were pleased she was admitting wrongdoing.
“I think her acknowledging that she did something wrong was part of what we were looking for all along,” a District spokeswoman was quoted as saying. “Just that she had some sense of remorse that she put the students in harm’s way.”
Remorse? Where is the remorse when Moffett refused to apologize for placing students in possible danger without any parental or school notification? “It’s ridiculous, but it gets me back into the classroom,” she said, according to the Inquirer. “It is a statement that I’m fine with making because to them it will always be an apology, thereby justifying that I can return to the school.”
“Ridiculous” and “no apology.” Wow. What incredible remorse.
Most interesting was that even Moffett herself “didn’t anticipate being returned to the classroom.” So let’s get this straight. Moffett’s actions led the District to start the firing process, and despite Moffett believing she did nothing wrong, she thought she would lose.
So what happened?
The unions got involved. And since everyone in Philadelphia kowtows to the unions, the ballgame ended. Incomprehensible? Yes. Expected? Absolutely.
Moffett’s union, the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers (PFT), sued the District on free speech grounds, since Moffett opposed plans to convert Audenried to a charter school. That argument is so hollow that it would be laughed out of court anywhere but Philadelphia.
So a U.S. magistrate judge got involved, and helped broker a deal. (Moffett was also given a five-day suspension, but don’t count on that standing up, since the union is appealing that, too).
The biggest joke in this whole debacle is the notion that both sides can claim a semblance of victory.
Moffett won, and District made fools out of themselves. If that’s “victory” for the District, I’d hate to see what losing is.
The First Amendment has no role whatsoever in this case. Moffett is certainly free to disagree with the District’s charter school plans, and it’s well within her rights to advocate for her cause.
What is unacceptable is to knowingly allow students to leave the safe confines of school and venture unsupervised into the city (facilitated, the District claimed, by giving out the SEPTA tokens), with parents having absolutely no knowledge of their children’s whereabouts. What if a student was involved in an accident while on this unsanctioned field trip? Or mugged? Or raped?
(And let’s be honest — how many students, completely of their own volition, were really motivated to take up this cause as their own? It’s a fact that some teachers use students as pawns in political fights. Was this one of those cases? It certainly raises questions.)
To say the District — and in fact, taxpayers — would be liable for a massive lawsuit is a gross understatement.
And, if as the District contends, Moffett was insubordinate for disclosing a document that it had ordered kept private, they had even more grounds for firing.
Given the facts, Moffett should have been terminated. It’s a case the District should have pursued, because it would have sent the right message. Instead, the clear message is that the District can be bullied into submission, settling for nothing despite holding all the cards.
This is one of those rare cases when the union should have backed away. Loyalty above all, except honor. And there is no honor in what Moffett did.
But why should the union back away when it knows it won’t be challenged? These victories only add to the union’s mystique.
Of course, it’s a good bet this wouldn’t have played out the same way about ten miles east, across the Delaware River. Odds are that Governor Chris Christie would have come swooping in with his trademark thunder, pointing out how cowardly the District was being, aggressively taking on the union, and fighting for justice to be done.
And he would have won.
Too bad we don’t have the same kind of barnstorming leaders in Pennsylvania. If we did, this would have been the perfect opportunity to show that quality.
And little Miss “Moffett” would be eating her curds and whey somewhere other than Audenried High.

Why Pa.’s Anti-ObamaCare Bill Is Bottled Up

HB 42, a bill that would keep much of ObamaCare from being enforced in Pennsylvania, will be held in the State House Appropriations Committee until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on ObamaCare’s constitutionality according to the staff of Committee Chairman Bill Adolph (R) whose 165th District  includes much of Springfield and Marple townships.

ObamaCare has been found, in whole or part, to be unconstitutional by lower courts.

The Pennsylvania bill — which says “law or rule shall not compel, through penalties and fines, directly or indirectly, any individual, employer or health care provider to participate in any health care system” — specifically allows health care providers to accept direct payments for services from employers or individuals without penalty, and prohibits  state law enforcement and regulatory agencies from participating “in compliance with any Federal law, regulation or policy” that would compromise the “freedom of choice in health care” of any resident of the state.

The Adolph staffer —in returning a call placed a month ago — said keeping it in the Appropriations Committee will simplify tweaking it in accordance with any ruling, or, hopefully, making the bill unnecessary.

The bill was introduced Jan. 19 by Matthew Baker (R-68) and 61 other representatives. It has been reported out of the House Health Committee on Feb. 7 by a 14-9 vote and has since languished in Appropriations.

Adolph was called out for sitting on the bill at a Feb. 20 event of the Pennsylvania Chapter of the Americans For Prosperity.