Illegal-cheat-sheet (1)

By Nancy Thorner & Bonnie O’Neil – 

Our current immigration rules outline acceptable reasons for border agents to follow, when deciding whether undocumented aliens can cross into the United States. What has and is continuing to happen with the unprecedented 60,000 currently asking for entry is an example of how our laws are being violated by “gaming the system”. The aliens were given a “cheat sheet” (see above), which has been found at the border, with prepared instructions on how to answer designated questions asked by border agents how to provide the right answers, which will in turn guarantee them entry.  One of the more important questions they are being asked is their reason for wanting to leave their country of origin.  The aliens were told to claim it was due to poverty and/or fear of their government or gangs. Those answers are the “triggers” or the “loop holes” in our immigration law, which were originally written and intended for specific purposes (such as preventing sex trafficking) and certainly not for qualifying half the world’s population for entry into America.

If this loophole is not quickly corrected, we can expect a steady stream of immigrants to invade our country, creating a disaster we are not equipped to handle, and which our established immigration law was enacted to avoid. There are some concerned that within a short period of time, the parents of these children will be allowed to join their children under family unification. We certainly suspect others who see the success of the masses already here, will be eager to try the plan themselves. Quick action to shore up the loopholes, and resolve this problem is required by our government, or the precedent created will cause great harm to America.

It has been suggested that President Obama and his “no borders supporters” might perceive this increase in child immigrants to be a politically opportune moment.  President Obama has pushed Congress to act on long-stalled proposals to overhaul the nation’s immigration laws, and he has indicated the changes would ease requirements for illegals to gain citizenship.   Should immigration reform pass, the flood of those invading the U.S. will become even more massive, as the hope of amnesty entices them to make the difficult trip north.  That phenomena happened when President Reagan granted amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants in 1986.   Although closing the border was stipulated in that 1986 bill, the border security promise never kept.

While President Obama advocates for amnesty, it appears there are already those in place who will protest increased border security.  An Obama-appointed judge has recently ruled that a fence protecting the border is discriminatory against minorities!  Sadly, some in our judicial system are more concerned with citizens from other countries then they are in protecting our own.  According to liberals, sealing the border is bigoted and racist.  Apparently that opinion allows them to disregard our immigration laws and previous agreements to secure the border.   Agreements and promises are ignored, and the unprecedented onslaught continues.

For those who put compassion above all else, they should consider the dangers of transporting unattended children so far without their parents.  Some die before reaching their destination, due to the multitude of dangers they encounter.   Also, it is important that we discover who set up and financed those dangerous trips. Most parents were obviously not in a position to do so, and if they did do so, how then can the child claim poverty.      How did they get through Mexico without passports and the right papers?  Mexico has much more stringent rules about authenticated passports. Yet, they breezed through Mexico.  There is much more to this story that we do not yet know, indicating serious mischief by top officials.  We are learning that these children rode what are called death trains, where it is common to jump on top of moving trains, and then struggle with hunger, illness and exposure to the elements as they ride a train 3,000 miles to our border.  Worse yet, Sen. Ted Cruz said the children are being placed in ‘unspeakable’ peril when the traffickers, known as ‘coyotes,’ take over. ‘We just heard stories of little boys and little girls, forced by these drug dealers to cut off the fingers or cut off the ears of other little boys and little girls, in order to extort money from their families,’ Cruz said – See more at:http://www.teaparty.org/illegal-alien-children-forced-cut-fingers-ears-kids-coyote-gangs-45310/#sthash.SSgJlEgm.dpuf

Who will step forward with inconvenient facts?

Another problem not being discussed is that agents are now being pulled away from their patrol stations elsewhere along the border, resulting in dangerous gaps in coverage, and thus allowing drug traffickers to exploit the situation.   While we are caring for citizens here illegally from other countries, we are harming American citizens by inadvertently allowing an increase of illegal drug supplies and criminals into our country.

Will this tragedy be just one more example of a liberal media effectively protecting the Obama administration from the full extent of a White House involvement?  Will they turn this horrendous situation into some kind of a humanitarian effort in which our government is to be applauded?  Too often the “spin” effectively hides important facts with irrelevant fluff.  Will the media investigate or sufficiently explore the impact this mass immigration will have on our population, such as the exorbitant costs to taxpayers who will now be responsible for the immigrants’ expenses, their education, their very lives?

Will the use of this immigration crisis open the door to universal citizenship for illegal aliens

There are good reasons for our immigration laws; they protect our citizens.  Our porous southern border is harming Americans due to the importation of drugs, sex trafficking, criminals, and contagious illnesses, including one known case of swine flu in San Antonio, directly linked to the border surge.

What is not being discussed is that due to the unprecedented number of immigrants in America, our Country’s demographics are changing too.  One example of America’s future can be seen in what has happened in Santa Ana, CA, which is the county seat of Orange County.  Fifty years ago Hispanics made up barely 15% of Santa Ana’s population, which were mostly farm workers.  Today, Hispanics make up 79% of Santa Ana’s population and Whites now are a mere 10%.  If the current lack of immigration enforcement continues, Santa Ana will not be an exception.

Democrat officials have done very little to stop this invasion by illegals, which many attribute to the fact Hispanics vote for Democrat candidates by large percentages.  It has been said that Democrats don’t see people, they see voters. Republicans see overcrowded classrooms, higher taxes to support the massive welfare programs needed to support them, and cultural changes due to the problem Hispanics do not assimilate.  They remain loyal to their birth country, and send much of their money to Mexican relatives.  Santa Ana schools have even used Mexican textbooks in their classes; books that are favorable to Mexico, not the United States.

The National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers (NAFBPO) made some interesting observations about the border crisis, saying:  “Congress must take immediate action to protect our homeland from this invasion. The orchestrated surge exposes a crises in leadership which by design fosters lawlessness which is bound to end in anarchy. The humanitarian issue is a false argument put forth by the administration which is very likely the reason the administration will not allow interviews of the minors by the press.  The administration does not want the truth to get out.  The truth would dispel the deception.  Whatever America does, whatever NAFBPO does, should protect American and Americans first to the maximum extent possible.  That means consequences for the lawbreakers to stop the invasion and return the invaders to their home country.  Period!  Anything less is political posturing.”  Possibly their most potent statement was this: “America is undergoing the most intensive campaign of political deception ever launched against Americans by her political leaders.” 

It is incomprehensible why all of America isn’t absolutely demanding that all the children be returned to authorities in their home country, and stop this potential precedent that has more potential to harm instead of help America.  They should not just be returned to their parents, but to their respective government officials so that they will have the burden of and responsibility for locating parents and reuniting these families. No asylum, no amnesty, no sheltering them in our cities.  This is a critical national security issue.  We urge all concerned citizens to ask their Congressional representatives to take immediate action to protect our homeland from this invasion, by demanding this of their elected officials.

University of California Professor Darrell Y. Hamamoto, a Professor of Asian American Studies at the University of California, Davis, warned on June 25 that “the influx of illegal immigrants into the United States through mass uncontrolled illegal immigration is part of a plan to create a new underclass of people who can be re-educated from the ground up in order to create a subservient underclass who can be controlled much more easily.”

Hamamoto’s warning is noteworthy given his position at one of the most liberal institutions in the United States. He has received backlash from his vocal stance against the mass influx of unaccompanied children across the border.  Even so Professor Hamamoto’s concerns are so profound that he has had no reservations in going public.

Many concerned citizens are recognizing another potential aspect of the recent wave of “Unaccompanied Alien Children”, claiming it is one more application of the left’s long-championed Cloward Piven strategy, which has been used multiple times in the past to accomplish liberal goals.  It has been suggested that Obama is using the hordes of unaccompanied children sent to our southern border as pawns to implement his goal of universal citizenship for illegal immigrants, by referencing the intentionally created crisis as a humanitarian one.

The big question which everyone must consider is whether the liberal’s goal to help other country’s citizens will be realized or whether American citizens will refuse to be influenced by emotions, and instead be motivated by logic and wisdom.  America is $17 trillion in debt, with a myriad of problems that will take great efforts to correct, including security concerns and continuous problems with a significant jobless rate and homeless population.  Close to 50 percent of Americans are on some type of financial assistance program.  We simply cannot take on the “needy” of this world, without soon suffering a similar fate ourselves.

Thorner & O’Neil: Part 1: Surge of immigrants: humanitarian issue or political deception?

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2014/06/thorner-oneil-part-1-surge-of-immigrants-humanitarian-issue-or-political-deception.html#more

Technorati Tags: Illinois Review

Advertisements

Arizona-illegals-2

By Nancy Thorner & Bonnie O’Neil – 

Since October of last year 52,000 – 60,000 unaccompanied children have arrived at our border with Mexico with an expectation of being allowed into our country. They came mostly from Honduras, Guatemala or El Salvador, based on information they received promising America had relaxed their immigration laws and if they managed to reach our borders, they would be allowed entry, especially the children.

Among the hundreds of  children apprehended by U.S. Border Patrol  it is alarming that some were infants and toddlers, but also that the average age was about  fourteen, and many of them were in the unaccompanied category. Shocking images have been captured of young faces pressed blankly up against thick glass panes and hundreds of children huddled under aluminum-foil blankets on concrete floors behind chain fences and barbed wire. Obviously, the pictures tear at our hearts, and cause us to think emotionally about the situation, rather than with rational logic. Could that be the intent of those who helped initiate the mass immigration we are seeing?

Few deny it has become a crisis of epic proportions, as immigration officials and their facilities have been overwhelmed with the flood of arrivals. They are taxed with finding equitable ways to manage the unprecedented invasion. But many questions remain as to how all this happened, why it happened, and what our government plans to do about the problem now, as well as long term solutions.

Resettlement rather that Deportation

It is perceived that the Obama administration’s plan is more about resettlement than deportation for the unaccompanied migrant children. Therefore, it is important for everyone to examine current laws that have been enacted on the subject. The current crisis involves a massive amount of children who are coming from Central America, rather than Mexico. That makes a difference in procedures. Central American children must be taken into US custody, while Mexicans of any age can be turned back at the border. This is the result of a series of laws passed by Congress and signed by President Obama that set in place a particular process for unaccompanied child migrants, as a way of fighting human trafficking. These laws reinforced a 1997 government lawsuit settlement that set certain standards for care.

Most of this process was codified by Congress under the Homeland Security Act of 2002; Congress added some additional protections under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, in 2008.

Under those laws, the Border Patrol is required to take child migrants who aren’t from Mexico into custody, screen them, and transfer them to the Office of Refugee Resettlement (a part of the Department of Health and Human Services), which is tasked with either finding a suitable relative with whom the child can be released, or putting the child in long-term foster care. The current system was built for 8,000 kids — not 50,000. There are not beds in HHS facilities to handle the number of Central Americans. So this is unprecedented, and because the decisions now being made could set a precedence for the future, it is exceedingly important that citizens keep a close watch on the issue and hopefully offer their well-thought-out advice to elected officials, ICE, and Homeland Security.

Surge anticipated by Obama administration?

There are reports that the Obama Administration anticipated the surge of children that would be crossing the southern border illegally way back in January. It was then that the Obama administration placed an advertisement for contractors to “help Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) resettle 65 thousand illegal children”, months before the border crisis began. So, why is President Obama and other officials acting surprised by the thousands who made their way here?

In this video clip, documentary filmmaker Dennis Michael Lynch warns that the invasion is only beginning.  As stated by Lynch, “It’s about to get worse.  Entire villages are emptying and coming from Central America through Mexico to the United States. They’ll be hitting the border within the next few weeks. What you are seeing right now is the tip of the iceberg.”

In an act that speaks of desperation, on June 19, the federal government posted yet another help wanted advertisement as a solution to the explosive increase of children illegally crossing the southern border, namely:

The Department of Homeland Security is seeking “Escort Services for Unaccompanied Alien Children,” or UAC, as juveniles entering the United States are called.

How has the public responded to this Administration’s pleas for American citizens to “adopt” these immigrants into their communities?

Residents of Lawrenceville, Virginia succeeded in thwarting plans to shelter 500 of the children at a defunct college located in Lawrenceville, St. Paul’s College, which authorities saw acceptable as a refugee camp for junior illegal aliens.  Concerns mentioned as to why the residents declined the immigrants included:  fear of “communicable diseases, such as drug resistant tuberculosis, and potential gang violence from the “teenagers.”  Known gang members, some sporting gang tattoos, are among the children storming the U.S. border. Of immediate concern is that a case of swine flu has been confirmed at a shelter for unaccompanied minors

Another site crossed off the list of potential sites by HHS (the same agency that botched the ObamaCare rollout) was a former monastery located in Olympia Fields, a south Chicago suburb, due to a strong social media outcry.

The White House official statement about the immigration crisis is that it is an “urgent humanitarian situation.”   Recently Democrats have sought to re-frame the deepening crisis by identifying the immigrants as “refugees”, to coincide with the different rules and laws that apply to people with that label. That is one reason critics believe Obama’s intention is to find a way to keep all 60,000 plus immigrants here permanently.  Be prepared for the possibility of our president suggesting a good-will gesture to bring the children’s families to the United States too.  That would add another potential 200,000.

Will rule of law and nation’s well being trump the emotional factor?

Yes, Americans feel sorry for others’ misfortunes and lack of quality of life based on where they were born, most certainly when children are involved, but if we allow a flow of 60,000 minors to enter the U.S.A., with a steady stream to follow, that will adversely affect and impact our own citizens.  That is wrong. A law should never injure one person’s life to make another one’s better.  That simply is unfair!  We may need to remind our government that USA citizens must be their top priority.  We simply cannot rescue everyone all the time, especially when we currently have a 17 trillion dollar debt and a continuing job crisis problem.

How will keeping the 60,000 immigrants injure anyone? The immediate problem is that due to the huge numbers needing to be processed, the usual health checks, background checks, and investigating for potential criminal records, cannot always be completed on everyone.  Many have already been shipped away to other areas of the country.

For decades, American officials, at the highest level of our government, have refused to enforce established immigration laws, causing our immigration system to become horrendously inefficient, overburdened and in desperate need of a correction.  Yet it seems the new laws enacted tend to escalate rather than decrease problems.  In 2002 a law was enacted to protect childrens’ welfare, so that thousands of immigrant minors crossing alone into the United States would be able to attend public schools and possibly work in America for years without consequences.  This fact is known throughout Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador, and thus enticed even more children to make the dangerous trip, believing they can remain in the U.S for years, before facing even a moderate risk of deportation.  And the longer the immigration process goes on, the less likely a child will be returned home.  In recent years as many as one-quarter of the immigrants ordered to report to courts have failed to appear.   Because of the massive number of children involved, it will take years before the unaccompanied minors have their cases heard.

We, the taxpayers, are paying for the care of immigrants who illegally cross our borders.   We have allowed ourselves to be responsible for the arriving 60,000 too.  They currently need housing, care, and ways to transport these illegal aliens to parents, relatives, or warehouses in the United States. The White House has projected a staggering cost of $2.28 billion to care for and resettle child migrants from Central America; some say that figure is low.   They are asking for another $1.4 billion to keep the children here.  Incredibly, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. announced that the Obama administration would pay for 100 lawyers to help these underage illegal aliens remain in the United States, thus begging the question:  “why”?  Has our government become more concerned about foreigners rather than our own citizens?

Part 2 will discuss the surge as a politically opportune moment for the Obama administration in its use of the crisis to open the door to universal citizenship for illegal immigrants, which represents yet another application of the left’s long-championed Cloward Piven strategy.

 

Obamas-Pen

By Nancy Thorner and Ed Ingold – 

The PBS Newshour on June 18 at 6:45 p.m. EST, presented a topic for debate that should be non-partisan in nature: “How much power can the president wield by sidestepping Congress?  Gwen Ifil presented the following introductory remark:  “This week, the White House has announced three separate executive actions dealing with gay rights, the environment, and manufacturing, raising the question, in the midst of partisan gridlock, how much can the president do without Congress?”

It was Jeffrey Brown of PBS who conducted the June 18th PBS program debate between Jonathan Turley, Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, and Michael Waldman, President of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law.  Brown prefaced the start of the Turley/Waldman debate by informing listeners how President Obama has been expanding executive action, something Obama promised to do earlier this year when he said:  “We’re not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help they need.  I have got a pen and I have got a phone.”

Brown continued his preliminary debate remarks by relating how President Obama has followed through on a wide range of issues, including equal pay for women, student loans, and more recently carbon pollution, with the result that every time the president does he faces backlash from those who peg him as an imperial president.

The debate that followed was a surprisingly, well-balanced debate on a traditionally liberal forum.  Jonathon Turley provided some good insight. This is the same Jonathan Tuley who testified as a constitutional law expert in front of a House Judiciary Congressional hearing, “Enforcing the President’s Constitutional Duty to Faithfully Execute the Laws,” on Wednesday, February 26, which focused on the multiple areas President Barack Obama has bypassed Congress, ranging from healthcare and immigration to marriage and welfare rules.

In his Congressional testimony, Turley warned that expansion of executive power is happening so fast that America is at a “constitutional tipping point.”  This from one who agrees with many of Obama’s policy positions, while he steadfastly opposes the method Obama is going about in enforcing them

The President has increasingly resorted to using Executive Orders to further his objectives. The excuse being is that he is unable to get Congress to do his bidding. The House, in particular, controlled by Republicans, is unlikely to cooperate in this regard. With conservatives moving further to the right, the country is becoming more polarized, a natural consequence of nature seeking a balance. With a President moving ever further to the left, refusing to compromise with Congress or even to obey and enforce laws already on the books, moving to the right is the only way to offset this misdirection. Conservatives have found that to compromise is to lose. The Left has abandoned the gentle art of compromise, which forms the core of a working democracy. The barricades are up and the lines are drawn.

Although all Presidents have used executive powers to some extent, none have used these powers like President Obama to directly override Congressional wishes, existing laws, and to create new powers for himself.  President George Washington numbered but eight executive orders.  In the grips of a devastating union strike President Truman took control of the steel industry on April 8, 1952 to prevent collapse of manufacturing, transportation, and ultimately the economy; President Obama did the same to halt a transportation strike in Philadelphia which paralyzed the city. Truman’s action was subsequently found unconstitutional and overruled by the Supreme Court in a 6 to 3 decision.  Why did a similar action by President Obama go unchecked?

The National Emergencies Act of 1976 sought to define presidential power in a way which would serve the country and the constitution, yet be reasonably constrained.

Conflict with Congress is nothing new. Laws can be proposed by the President, but must be passed by both the Senate and House in the same ultimate language. The process is cumbersome because it is intended to force compromise, between branches of government and chambers of the legislature. It is this give and take structure, which has served for nearly 250 years, that is under unparalleled assault by this administration.

It is not just the President, but his major appointees who threaten the rule of law. The Attorney General, Eric Holder, has refused to enforce major provisions of immigration law against selected classes of people. Knowing they will not be deported, we have up to 600 unaccompanied children each day pouring across the border, only to be shipped by buses and planes throughout the country with only a token admonition to submit to a hearing.

Pamphlets encouraging this migration are being handed out in their native countries, a thousand miles away, by unidentified persons. The Defense of Marriage Act (1976) was overturned by the Supreme Court, largely because Holder refused to defend it, giving a precedent by which state and local laws continue to fall (The Supreme Court ruled that the act usurped power granted to the states.). Bill Clinton signed the bill, and Congress overwhelmingly supported it.

In the last day or so both Vice President Biden and President Obama have conveyed messages to the governments of Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras that the children being sent will not be granted amnesty, but, like other promises, they are likely to say one thing and do another.

According to pro bono lawyers hired to represent the unaccompanied children, based on current immigration and asylum laws the vast majority of the children could be legally staying right here in the U.S. before long. Their opinion is further bolstered with recent information that on January 29th of this year, the federal government posted an advertisement seeking bids for a vendor contract to handle “Unaccompanied Alien Children” — 65,000 of them!  The Obama administration’s claim to have been surprised may very well be yet another political lie of the year.

The Department of the Treasury joins the Department of Justice and the President in the assault on the Constitution. The Constitution grants first power of the purse to the House of Representatives, yet Jack Lew declared he would order the Treasury to print money for the President to spend, whether authorized by Congress or not. The theory is that once Congress determines something should be done, it will be done at the discretion of the President, regardless of the cost and the manner of implementation. Congress can no longer halt action by withholding funding.

The Internal Revenue Service, allegedly at the behest of key Democrats, including Charles Schumer and Richard Durbin, launched a campaign to silence conservative citizen organizations before the 2012 elections, hoping to prevent a repeat of their apparent success in 2010. The President’s role is unclear, but in his State of the Union address in 2011, Obama called out the Supreme Court for its 2010 “Citizens United” decision, which gave corporations and associations the right to spend money on political campaigns and issues. This was recently expanded in “McCutcheon” decision, April 2014.

If nothing else, the President’s statements may have emboldened his followers to act on his behalf, like the famous statement made by King Henry II:   “Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest? [Thomas Becket].”  Despite considerable indication of a major cover up, even destruction of evidence, the Attorney General refuses to appoint an Independent Investigator (prosecutor), with real authority to uncover the facts.

The Democrats are acting as though there will never be another president, that the next two years are the only ones that count.  We can’t survive as a nation if this lawlessness continues.  In the absence of constraints, whether by law or ethics, the Republic is in grave danger of becoming a dictatorship.  The next president will not reset the clock, rather start in the footsteps of the last, and so ad infinitum.

This President is unchecked largely because any legislative restraints passed by the house are blocked from the Senate floor by majority leader Harry Reid, as well as any that might originate in the Senate. If Reid and the Democrats cannot see that their actions render Congress irrelevant, the only hope is that Republicans will be restored to control that body in the 2014 mid-term elections.

Even gains short of a majority might still awaken Senate Democrats to the folly of the status quo, and revive the tradition of negotiations and compromise. The President could still veto legislation, but the sole responsibility would fall on his shoulders. So shunned, Congress has a long tradition of bi-partisan restoration of balance in the form of override votes.

 

Student-photo-privacy

By Nancy Thorner and Bonnie O’Neil – 

The public, even parents of school aged children, tend to trust those in authority to make good decisions and enact credible laws regarding our public education system, believing that any changes made would be in the public’s best interest. While that is largely true, citizens should remain vigilant and carefully examine any and all new laws and mandates. Complacency invites corruption. Our nation’s education system must always be one in which we can fully trust. Anything else is unacceptable.

The implementation of Common Core Standards, and its resulting curriculum, initiated a major shift in our nation’s education system, and the changes it requires have caused enormous controversy throughout America for numerous reasons that we have outlined in previous articles.

Let’s focus on the Data Mining element of Common Core. Now that the public has had a chance to “read the rules”, we discover Common Core violates the privacy of students and their families, through the gathering and sharing of personal information and worse yet, that the private information is being sent and shared with the federal government.

Parents are particularly concerned about three major issues: 1. The safety aspect of schools and government entities being able to keep personal data safe from “hackers”; 2. The reasons our federal government intervened and interfered with state rights, and require the gathering of personal data from students and their families; and 3. How parents can use legal ways to avoid divulging intrusive private information to schools.

The Problem of Keeping Private Information Safe

We are living in an age in which most information is being stored electronically.  It is popular due to the ease, convenience, and ability to store so much data without requiring massive space to do so.  With these wonderful attributes though, there is one unfortunate problem.  The stored data is not as safe as we once had believed.   A new study indicated almost half of all Americans’ private information was compromised/revealed due to hackers.  Hackers have successfully infiltrated and gleaned information from sources that were once considered impossible to “hack”, such as chain stores like Target and even our government agencies.  For that matter, our government has used sophisticated tech equipment to spy on other countries.  Nobody is safe from prying technology today, and thus neither is any electronically stored information garnered through schools.

Therefore, parents should be exceedingly cautious about giving personal information to schools. Some have suggested Common Core itself could be considered one of the more dangerous domestic spying programs.  This came about when Bill Gates, one of the leaders and most avid promoters of Common Core, put millions of dollars of his own personal money into its development, implementation and advertising of the new national education program. Consider that much of the data mining will occur via Microsoft’s Cloud system.

Even the Department of Education is concerned with the issue of privacy, admitting that some of the data gathered may be “of a sensitive nature.”   This is indeed an understatement by the DOE as much of the data collected will be completely unrelated to education.  Data collected will not only include grades, test scores, name, date of birth and social security number, it will also include parents’ political affiliations, individual or familial mental or psychological problems, beliefs, religious practices, income and other incredibly sensitive, highly private information about the student and the student’s family.

There is also concern that private companies donate education apps to schools in exchange for children’s information, increasing the threat of children’s personal data being abused.

According to The New American, schools in Delaware, Colorado, Massachusetts, Kentucky, Illinois, Louisiana, Georgia and North Carolina have committed to “pilot testing” and information dissemination via sending students’ personal information to the InBloom database (a non-profit group funded by the Gates Foundation and supported by Amazon). Not yet known is whether parents know and/or approve of the dissemination of that personal information.

Reasons for the accumulation of student/family Data

We have all heard the quote:  “Information is Power”.  New York Times Columnist Matthew Lesko expanded upon that theme with this statement: “Information is the currency of today’s world. Those who control information are the most powerful people on the planet – and the ones with the most bulging bank accounts.”  Imagine the power of those who receive the collection of student data from most every student in America.

Common Core supporters will point out that there is nothing within the standards or rules which requires personal data be acquired; and that any data gathering is entirely up to the individual states.  Ah, but it isn’t that simple or even true!  That statement is highly disputed, with a little research.

The federal government had been prohibited from gathering students’ specific data for a national database, but shortly after Obama became president, the Stimulus Bill provided a loophole.  Money was given to each of the states to develop longitudinal data systems to catalog data generated by Common Core aligned tests.  Permission to release student information collected since 2009 was then authorized to be shared among federal agencies without the consent of parents.

The federal government encouraged states to participate in data collection initiatives such as the Data Quality Campaign, the Early Childhood Data Collaborative, and the National Student Clearinghouse, all of which helped to increase the collection and sharing of children’s formally protected data.

In addition, the National Education Data Model suggests that states increase their collection of information about students to over 400 data points on each one.  That leaves little doubt that the construction of their data systems has been purposely increased.

Beginning in the 2014-2015 school year, students under Common Core will begin taking state standardized tests, and student-specific specific data will be stored by the states in their newly create longitudinal data system, designed to track student progress from K through 12th grades.  That data will be dissected, supposedly for the purpose of improving education.  However, as a nation, we must ask ourselves whether we want to respect individual rights of privacy or whether we want a more “collective” approach that claims it is permissible if the action benefits the common majority.  Consider, if such a benefit is at the expense of others.  It is moral?  Leo Tolstoy said: “Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.”

What will be collected?  

The type of material being collected due to the changes by the current administration, is so extensive, one could say “almost everything will be included, some of which is highly personal “.  Of course test scores will be collected, and be aware, Common Core encourages massive testing.  What is strange and should be a red flag to reasonable people is why schools are also asking about student’s hobbies, psychological evaluations, medical records, religious affiliation, political affiliation, family income, behavioral problems, disciplinary history, career goals, addresses, and bus stop times, with their locations.  It was even suggested schools use cameras and/or special equipment to judge facial expressions and a student’s posture in the classroom, supposedly for the purpose of assigning stress levels.

The Department of Education claims to be concerned with the issue of privacy, admitting that some of the data gathered may be “of a sensitive nature.”  This is indeed an understatement by the DOE.  Knowing much of the data collected will be completely unrelated to education, in 2012, a combination of 24 states and territories struck a deal to implement data mining to receive federal grants. “Personally Identifiable Information” was allowed to be extracted from each student.  Examples below are some of the more extreme examples of data mining, causing reasonable people to question why the government would venture into such an invasion of our privacy.

1. Political affiliations or beliefs of the student or parent;

2. Mental and psychological problems of the student or the student’s family;

3. Sex behavior or attitudes;

4. Illegal, anti-social, self-incriminating, and demeaning behavior,

5. Critical appraisals of other individuals with whom respondents have close family relationships;

6. Legally recognized privileged or analogous relationships, such as those of lawyers, physicians, and ministers;

7. Religious practices, affiliations, or beliefs of the student or the student’s parent; and

8. Details of Income.

The information, will be sent to federal agencies that were put in place once the States accepted Common Core.

Local Control Compromised

When the federal government first interfered with the States’ responsibility to educate our children, a line was tragically crossed.  Local control was compromised, as higher levels of officials took more responsibility and dictated more rules from their level of government.  While Common Core apologists try to minimize problems their changes caused, discerning people know there has been this breach in America’s laws and traditions.  Power transferred from the local governing agencies to the federal government.  Any advantage parents had for any significant control over their children’s school or curriculum has been greatly reduced.  It is easier to facilitate potential changes, act on complaints, and make specific adjustments when local government has the power to consider logical adjustments, rather than have to go to a state or federal level to be heard.

While Common Core supporters argued states still have the same control as always, many parents remained skeptical.  It did not take long to discover just how much control the federal government now has.  Our wise forefathers did not want the federal government in charge of the education of our children.  Too much power!  Remember the warning by Sir John Acton in the 1500’s.  “Power Corrupts and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.”  When we see that power has corrupted a local politician, it is fairly easy to remove and replace the person.  That is not as easily discovered or accomplished then the official lives and works outside of our community.

What Parents Can do to Protect their Children from Data Mining

A California law firm, the Pacific Justice Institute has developed a from parents can use to opt-out of all statewide performance assessments, including academic, achievement tests, and Common Core assessments, as well as any questionnaire, survey, or evaluation containing personal questions about their child’s beliefs or practices in sex, family life, morality, politics, income, religion, and other highly personal information.

Parents in other states can contact The Pacific Justice Institute for specific information, and to see if there is a similar agency in their state with a similar “opt out” form.

Conclusion

There was a time in our history in which schools needed the permission of parents for their children to go to school.  Decades later that was reversed and a law enacted that made it mandatory for all children to attend school.  Laws were eventually enacted giving schools more authority than the parents over their children’s schooling.  The current administration has taken federal control to a whole new level, which includes loss of local control and parents subjected to invasive data mining.  This did not make the front page of our newspapers.  In fact Common Core was a surprise to most teachers and local school boards, who scrambled to comply with the new law and education standards and curriculum.

Something as important as major changes in our nation’s education system deserved more input, more openness, public involvement, a public comment period, and certainly proof through trial programs that the new system is superior to the one it replaced.

Instead, our federal government and most every state government unleashed an unproven education program, resulting in our nation’s children becoming guinea pigs in an experimental program that could prove disastrous.  That is why concerned citizens throughout America are having meetings and conferences to educate other about Common Core problems to encourage state officials to enact legislation that would stop Common Core, or at the very least put a “hold” on the program until it can be proven the new system has merit, and to enact strong privacy laws that will protect both students and their families from invasive data mining.

Barack-obama-444 copy

By Nancy Thorner – 

Recently author Andrew McCarthy has been a guest on various Fox News shows, in addition to many appearances throughout the country promoting his new book, Faithful Execution,  At each event McCarthy weighs the political dynamics as he builds an impeachment case through assembling a litany of abuses that add up to one overreaching offense by the President, specifically, his willful violation of his solemn oath to execute the laws faithfully.

It is McCarthy’s contention that our elected representatives are duty-bound to take up the dare. This, however, is much easier said than done. The “why” will be covered later on.

The Heartland Institute had an overwhelming response to its noon time Author Series event that featured  McCarthy on Thursday, June 12 at The Heartland Institute library, One South Wacker Drive, Suite 2740 in Chicago.

McCarthy, as a nationally claimed author, is a prominent voice on security issues, specifically the threat of radical Islam in America. Books include: “The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America” and “Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the jihad.” At the present time McCarthy is a senior fellow at the Foundation of Defense for Democracies and a columnist for the National Review. Previously he was the Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District in New York. Most famously McCarthy was the lead prosecutor in the trial against Sheik Omar Abdul Rahman and 11 other terrorists involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombings.

When writing Faithless Execution, McCarthy admitted there came a time when he had to finish writing about Obama’s abuses of power. Summarily, McCarthy found himself a few events behind by the time the book was published. McCarthy was especially taken back by the Obama administration’s failure to abide by the National Defense Security Act which mandates a 30-day notification period to members of Congress before Gitmo prisoners can be released. Because of the failure to notify Congress about the details of the prisoner swap of five dangerous Gitmo terrorist in exchange for Sargent Bengdahl, this usurping of congressional authority is gaining more traction than have previous infractions of the law, most likely due to bi-partisan anger over the reckless exchange.

Violation of Presidential Oath

Why is the willful flouting of the law by President Obama so egregious and dangerous to this nation?  It should be evident that unchecked power in a single chief executive poses a serious threat to liberty.  Andrew McCarthy doesn’t take lightly, nor did he forget candidate Barack Obama’s promise back in October, 2008, when during a campaign rally Obama remarked that he was only “five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America

Time and again President Obama has blatantly elected not to follow the oath of office of the President of the United States, which is simple and concise and reads:

“I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Instead of living up to that oath, President Obama has actively attempted to subvert, ignore, and completely destroy large parts of the Constitution.  It is all together reasonable to conclude that President Barack Obama is well aware of what he is doing and that his actions are completely intentional.  A further thought, just why shouldn’t Obama continue with his lawlessness?

So far the main stream media has given President Obama a free pass.  Furthermore, Obama’s past history places him as a devotee of Alinsky and his “Rules for Radicals” in his work in the 80’s as a community organizer in Chicago.  Rule No. 8 of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” is definitely in play when considering Obama’s lawful actions and behavior as president.

Rule No. 8:  Keep the pressure on. Never let up. Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.) 

As suggested in Alinsky’s Rule No. 8, hit the public with one event after another to cause confusion.  Obama’s transgressions against the Constitution happen with such regularity, often with little daylight between them for reflection, that the American people have become overwhelmed and somewhat inoculated as to how to react when one lawless act follows another with little time elapsing to understand the previous one.  It doesn’t help that the public has such a short attention span, or that Obama is able to so masterfully divert blame from himself to another person or entity.

Impeachment as an option

As set forth by McCarthy, the Framers of our Constitution, because of concern over how placement of power in a single chief executive could lead to a rogue executive, vested in Congress two ways to deal with presidential excess:  1) Power of the purse, whose responsibility the current Republican-led House of Representatives has, for all practical purposes abdicated and 2) the power of impeachment.  These stand alone to check the president.   There are no other ways.

At the federal level, Article II of the United States Constitution (Section 4) states that “The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.” The House of Representatives has the sole power of impeaching, while the United States Senate has the sole power to try all impeachments.  Most of the framers knew the phrase “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” well. Since 1386 the English parliament had used “high crimes and misdemeanors” as one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown

McCarthy believes that President Obama has committed “high crimes and misdemeanors” through his abuse of power as a holder of high public trust.   Because of numerous infractions, Obama’s rampant lawlessness poses a systematic threat to our constitutional order, thereby making the case that Obama is unfit to continue in his role as president.  In comparing the campaigns to impeach President Nixon and Clinton to the call for President Obama’s impeachment, McCarthy describes Obama’s behavior as president “a willful, systematic attack on the constitutional system of separation of powers, an enterprise that aims to bring about a new regime of government by executive decree.”  In comparison, he Nixon and Clinton episodes involved misconduct that did not aim to undermine our constitutional framework.

Impeachable offenses cited by McCarthy

In Part 2 of “Faithless Execution” Andrew McCarthy builds the political case for President Obama’s impeachment by setting forth the broad range of his high crimes and misdemeanors and willful subversion of the Constitution by factoring in seven articles of impeachment:

1.  Refusal to Execute Laws Faithfully.

2.  Usurping Constitutional Authority.

3.  Dereliction of Duty as Commander in Chief.

4.  Fraud on the American People.

5.  Failure to Execute Laws Faithfully:  Immigration.

6.  Failure to Execute Laws Faithfully:  Department of Justice.

7.  Undermining the Constitutional Rights of the American People.

Impeachable offenses that fit under the above seven categories 

  • McCarthy cites the implementation of ObamaCare as one key aspect of a potential impeachment effort.  McCarthy asserts that Obama committed fraud on the American people by deliberately misleading voters in regard to his healthcare intention, which Obama continues to change at will whenever it suits him politically.
  • The botched gun-walking operation arming Mexican criminals is another scandal McCarthy believes rises to a level that meets potential impeachment proceedings.  According to McCarthy, Obama engaged in “systematic politicization of a Department of Justice that has covered up the Fast & Furious scandal.”
  • Through the appointment of a U.S. House select committee to investigate the 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, attempts are still being made to find out what happened the night of 9/11/2012.  The failure to provide adequate security was described by McCarthy as a “dereliction of duty” by Obama as commander in chief.  This was followed by the fraud of the video, rather than Islamic Supremacists, as the suggested entity responsible for the Benghazi massacre deaths of U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three others killed in a night of violence.
  • The president and his subordinates involved this nation in an unauthorized war in Libya that empowered jihadist enemies of the United States.  Furthermore, the purpose of the war was spun as an attempt to protect civilians, pursuant to a United Nations resolution, when the  real purpose was to overthrow the Libyan regime of Muammar Qaddafi, a government that had previously been portrayed as a key counterterrorism ally of the U.S.
  • The selective targeting of political opponents for harassment and abuse by the IRS occurred when Lois Lerner, who ran the Exempt Organizations division of the IRS, subjected Republican and conservative groups to heightened scrutiny.  McCarthy thought Lois Lerner should have been given immunity and is doubtful she will be prosecuted.  The latest wrinkle in the IRS scandal took place when it was recently reported that two years of e-mails had gone missing during a period when tea party groups were being targeted.   Sounds much like the dog ate my homework!
  • Obama’s immigration amnesty by executive edict is now indirectly responsible for the flood of children crossing the southern border from Guatemala and Honduras.  Acting over the authority of the Department of Homeland Security, Obama has conferred administrative amnesty on categories of illegal immigrants which he has unilaterally defined, undermining federal immigration laws and the constitutional authority of Congress to enact immigration law.
  • The American people were defrauded, including investors in the public securities exchanges, when President Obama and his subordinates willingly subsidized Solyndra with over half a billion taxpayer dollars despite obvious indication that the venture was not viable and would collapse.

Political trumps legality

Andrew McCarthy’s closing thoughts were somewhat sober in nature when he recounted why the impeachment of Obama, although warranted, would not help conservatives, Republicans or any elected official or individual who seeks to defend this nation’s constitutional framework.  Noted was how the case for impeachment is not the same as moving forward with articles of impeachment, although legally speaking a president may be impeached for a single offense that qualifies as “high crimes and misdemeanors,” whether it includes a breach of the profound pubic trust vested in the president, or a violation of his constitutional duty to execute the laws faithfully.

Real impeachment can only occur if there is a public will to remove the president from office.  Even with a thousand impeachable offenses, impeachment is not an appropriate remedy absent a political consensus.  This said, all Americans should be concerned regardless of political affiliation.  Why is this so?  The lawlessness President Obama is getting away with today will be available to every future president unless checked.

McCarthy proposed in his book and during his talk what amounts to a concerted effort to change the political environment by bringing the issue of lawlessness front-and-center in public discourse. Through changing the political environment, mused McCarthy, Obama could be pushed to execute the laws faithfully through actions that fall within the bounds of the Constitution.  Given Obama’s leftist political philosophy and his determination to build his progressive legacy through fundamentally changing this nation, aided by the backing and financial support of George Soros and others, McCarthy’s musings seem little more than a pipe dream.

The only way to build a political case for impeachment it to make it clear to the American people that all have a stake in what happens to this nation, not only as it pertains to their present lives, but also how future generations will fare through Obama’s misguided policies of today.

Minus the public firmly on the side of impeachment, President Obama’s reckless abandonment of lawlessness and breaches of public trust will continue unchecked, assuring that both this nation and its people will reap little of substance.  Instead, mostly grief and a loss of liberty and freedom will result from the bitter seeds of progressive socialism Obama is sowing and will continue to sow throughout the remainder of his presidency if there is no outcry from the public otherwise.

Save this date:  Stephen Moore, Chief Economist with the Heritage Foundation, will give a dinner lecture on Thursday, July 17, at The Heartland Institute headquarters in Chicago at One South Wacker Drive, #2740.  He will speak about his new book:  “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of States.”

Also of note is that from July 7-9, The Heartland Institute will be holding its 9th International Conference on Climate Change in Las Vegas, Nevada.

For more information and to register for events, call 312/377-4000, or visit heartland.org.

 


When Illinois became a state in 1818, the Illinois Constitution allowed the state and local taxing districts to tax property in direct proportion to its value. The property tax is the largest single tax in Illinois, and is a major source of the tax revenue for local government taxing districts. Every person and business in Illinois is affected by property taxes whether by paying the tax or receiving services or benefits that are paid for by property taxes.

Anyone who attends public school, drives on roads or streets, uses the local library, has police protection, has fire protection services, or benefits from county services, receives services paid for, at least in part, by property taxes. Find here The Illinois Property Tax System: A general guide to the loyal property tax.

Regardless of which of Illinois’ 102 counties you live in, receiving your county’s tax bill is not an occasion one looks forward to. With this in mind, on Tuesday, June 10 the Northern Illinois Patriots featured at its monthly meeting at Austin’s Fuel Room in Libertyville: Martin Paulson, Lake County Tax Assessor and David Stollman, Lake County Board member and Republican candidate for Lake County Treasurer. Together they described the step-by-step process used to determine property tax bills and the trends of which all taxpayers should be aware.

Sales information and property data collection start in the Township Assessors’ Offices and occur also at the County and State level. Each level of government keeps records of transactions for determining individual property value and the collective township and country valuations. Property owners can appeal their assessments at each level, using either the actual recent purchase price of a property or sales of comparable properties that have occurred in the previous three years.

The Office of the Lake County Tax Assessor offers a Tax Advocate Program that is unique to Lake County. Property Tax Information is readily available for Lake County residents here. Its user-friendly site offers the ability to view videos, view all assessments and detailed parcel information for a township, and, most importantly, the ability to view comparable property assessments.

These important Property Tax Facts apply to all 102 Illinois Counties:  

  • The assessment process is used to determine each taxpayer’s overall share of the tax burden created by taxing bodies such as villages, schools, townships, park districts, etc.
  • Each taxing body determines the amount they need in property taxes, and that total is divided by the value of all the property in that taxing body’s jurisdiction.  That produces a tax rate, which is then applied to individual properties.
  • Unless taxing bodies reduce spending or lower their tax rate, tax bills will not change.  Taxing bodies are required to hold public hearings prior to adopting their tax levy.  Attending these meetings is important to have a say in the budget process.
  • Money can be saved by applying for homestead exemptions, etc.  Senior exemptions are applicable to all those who are 65 years of age.

The four Property Tax Facts listed above are self-explanatory. But as with all facts questions do arise which require further explanations, such as why the assessed value of a property may go up even though its market value has dropped. Many individuals don’t realize that assessed values are different from “property” or market” values. As township assessors are required by law to use sale prices from the last three years, the assessed value doesn’t necessarily reflect the current real estate market.

Following is a point-by-point summary of the Important information gleamed from the step-by-step presentation about Property Taxes at the Northern Illinois Patriots monthly June meeting:

1. It is the owner’s responsibility to make sure that the assessment is comparable to the assessments of similar properties in your area.

2. Application for any exemptions must be made by owners, if the homeowner’s exemption has not already been applied — a check of the assessment letter or tax bill will indicate what exemptions have been applied.

3. As mentioned previously, the only way taxes can be held in check is if budgets are reduced.  Each taxing body has a budget process and a hearing.  An alert public can insist on reductions in budgets.

4. A new 2013 law mandates that an appraiser cannot represent a petitioner before the Board of Review.  Although anyone can use an appraisal and appear on his own before the Board, it is not within an appraiser’s license to act as an advocate.  If one wants an advocate, then a lawyer must be hired.

5. Illinois has 7,000 units of local government, 40% more units of local government than in any other state, which has driven Illinois’ property tax burden to the second highest in the United States.  It’s past time to consolidate local government.

Any Lake County property owner who thinks that his property is not properly assessed can use the link provided to check that the details of his property are correct. In addition, he can also check for sales and/or assessed values of comparable properties to determine if his assessed value is fairly assessed. If either the details of his property are incorrect or the property is assessed higher than comparable properties, the owner should start at the Township Assessor’s Office for an appeal (when the assessment letter is mailed, the owner has 30 days to appeal). If unsuccessful there, an appeal may be made to the County Assessor’s office.  If unsuccessful there, an appeal may be made at the state level. The Lake County Assessor’s Office link also provides information on the appeal process.

As property taxes are necessary to provide for all services used and enjoyed, it is only right that this tax burden be shared. It is up to taxpayers, however, to make sure that tax bills do fairly reflect property values.

On Tuesday, July 8th, Northern Illinois Patriots will hold its annual fundraiser featuring Adam Andrzejewski, Open the Books Patriot of the Year recipient, at Austin’s, 481 Peterson Road, Libertyville, IL.  Visit this site for more information.

 

Obama-community-organizer

Obama during his community organizing days in Chicago – Image Source

By Nancy Thorner – 

Saul David Alinsky is best known as an American community organizer and writer.  Although Saul Alinsky died in 1971, his writings continue to influence those in political control of our nation today.  Generally considered to be the founder of the modern community organizing movement, Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” were practiced by President Obama when serving as a community organizer in Chicago back in the 70’s.

To deny that the tenets advocated by Alinsky in “Rules for Radicals” were not embraced by Obama during his time as a community organizer would indeed be fool hardy.  Some might question and even find it difficult to believe how Obama can be linked to radical Alinsky.  Perhaps it has to do with their lack of understanding how deeply Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” are ingrained in the thinking of the Democrat Party.  Both exhibit the same ideals.

Consider what Saul Alinsky’s son, L. David Alinsky, had to say in a letter written for Obama 2008 campaign:

“Obama learned his lesson well, I am proud to see that my father’s model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday.”

As to when Barack Obama began his Alinsky worship, it was very early in his career.  According to a study on Alinsky, “in 1985 Obama began a four-year stint as a community organizer in Chicago, working for an Alinskyite group called the Developing Communities Project.”

In an article titled, “Proof That Obama is Linked to Radical,” Alinsky, stated is that article Obama spent his entire youth taking classes and later teaching workshops on Alinsky’s methods.  He worked hard to follow Alinsky’s rule of “blending in.”

Later in the same same article is an account of how Obama also helped fund the The Woods Fund, a nonprofit community-organizing group on which Obama served as paid director from 1999 to December 2002.  On the board with Obama at the Woods Fund was William Ayers, the founder and terrorist of the Weather Underground.  The Woods Fund provided funding for yet another community organizing group, Midwest Academywhich teaches Alinsky tactics of community organizing.

Unfortunately there are many Americans who cannot admit or whose closed-minded progressive ideology prevents them from understanding the path down which President Obama is taking this nation as a Marxist Alinskyite.

Without this recognition by voters of who and what President Obama represents when choosing one to succeed Obama in November of 2016, this nation could elect another Alinsky devotee in the guise of Hillary Clinton who did her senior college thesis(Wellesley College class of 1969) on Alinsky’s writings.  For the eight years of Bill Clinton’s presidency it was locked away.  Hillary’s claims to fame consists of being the wife of a former president for eight year and serving as President Obama’s Secretary of State.  Even Hillary was hard pressed in an interview to name her top accomplishment as Secretary of State.

Below are six of the rules Saul Alinsky advanced in “Rules for Radicals” which provide insight into why Obama does what he does:

1.  Politics is all about power relations, but to advance one’s power, one must couch ones’ positions in the language of morality.

2.  There is only three kinds of people in the world:  rich and powerful oppressors, the poor and disenfranchised oppressed, and the middle-class whose apathy perpetuates the status quo. 

3.  Change is brought about through relentless agitation and “trouble making” of a kind that radically disrupts society as it is.

4.  There can be no conversation between the organizer and his opponents.  the latter must be depicted as being evil.

5.  The organizer can never focus on just a single issue.  He must move inexhaustibly from one issue to the next.

6.  Taut one’s opponents to the point that they label you a “dangerous enemy” of “the establishment.   Republicans are now implying this rule to those of their own party.

It was Saul Alinsky who taught Obama to say one thing and to do the opposite (to flip-flop).  Alinsky believed that it was fine “to present oneself as a moderate, even a centrist, for the purposes of securing power.”  Once power was obtained it was “perfectly acceptable to revert back to who (and what) you really are.”

Alinsky merely simplified Vladimir Lenin’s original scheme for world conquest by communism under Russian rule.  Stalin described his converts as “Useful Idiots.”

Useful Idiots have destroyed every nation in which they have seized power and control.  It is presently happening at an alarming rate in the U.S.A.

You need to be prepared to make an informed, educated decision when you enter the polling booth in November of 2016.  Strongly recommended is that you read the books on both lists, regardless of your political views.  In so doing you will be better prepared to defend your own political positions and educate others.  These recommended books will also show you how long it has taken for socialism/communism to creep into the United States and the insidious way it infiltrates every fiber of our lives.  And of most concern, how difficult it will be to stop and eliminate it.

For those of you on the Left:

For those of us who studied socialism and communism when we were in school and actually lived through the Cold War with Russia and China, some of this may be a refresher course.  For those of you who are younger and have not been taught any of this in school – or, have been taught a white-washed version of it – you need to read these books first, then read the Levin books below.  As far as Obama is concerned, you need to read his books now, before you vote in November because what he sold himself to you in 2008 and who he actually is are two quite divergent things. These books will give you a clearer picture of why our country is in such turmoil – and, danger. Read them and learn something.

The Communist Manifesto, 1848, Karl Marx   (What you need to know about the philosophy of socialism/communism.

Rules For Radicals, 1971, Saul Alinsky   (What you need to know about the implementation of socialism/communism and how Obama is installing it).

Dreams From My Father, 1995, Barack Obama  (What you need to know about the President and why he thinks the way he does).

The Audacity of Hope, 2006, Barack Obama   (What you need to remember about his promises to see how he’s broken them).

For those of you on the Right:

There are lots of political books and authors, but I chose four books by Mark Levin 3 because I listen to him every week night from 9-12:00 pm, 890, WLS. He really is a constitutional lawyer (as opposed to Obama), is a conservative and tells it like it is. His legal organization, Landmark Legal Foundation, helped prepare the arguments for the Supreme Court for Obamacare. Out of all the talk show hosts I listen to (including liberals), Levin makes the best points and matches my feelings about what’s going on in the country today, and what’s coming for us if we don’t make a radical turn in the road in November of 2016.   This is not pap-writing. You will have to think and use your head. All four books have been on the best sellers lists upon their issuance. Read them and learn something.

Men in Black, (2005), Mark Levin   (The story of how the Supreme Court came to be the way it is).

Liberty and Tyranny, A Conservative Manifesto, (2009), Mark Levin  (An analysis of the attack on our Constitution and the growth of Big Government).

AmeritopiaThe Unmaking of America, (2012), Mark Levin   (Where America is headed and why).

The Liberty Amendments:  Restoring the American Republic, (2013), Mark Levin  (Guidance to restore the American Republic as envisioned by our Founding Fathers and the Constitution).

The election that will determine the course our nation is but two years away.  Start reading.  There is no time to waste.   Share this information with others so informed choices can be made at the polls.  If otherwise, uninformed and confused voters could rule the day by electing one who will continue to destroy the very foundation upon which this nation was conceived and then presented to future generations of Americans by our Founding Fathers to keep and preserve. 

Barack_obama-_bob_bergdahl_and_jani_bergdahl-1

By Nancy Thorner and Edward Ingold – 

President Obama picked a fight last week and things didn’t go well for him. He expected to be attacked by the Republicans, but be rescued by public opinion and the main stream media. He needed to “score points” against his detractors, and divert attention from the growing VA scandal. What happened?

The President negotiated the release of an American soldier, Sgt. (nee Pvt.) Bowe Bergdahl, held by the Taliban in exchange for five senior terrorists, and staged a hero’s welcome for him. In the process, however, he negotiated with a terrorist organization, a violation of Federal law and a tradition going back to Thomas Jefferson (q.v., the shores of Tripoli), and released prisoners from Gitmo against the express wishes of Congress, also a violation of the law. The returning “hero” had, in fact, deserted his platoon in Afghanistan, and actively sought contact with the Taliban.

The event was framed with misleading references to “leave no man behind on the field of battle,” “prisoners of war,” “cessation of hostilities,” and “served with honor and distinction.” The setup was to invite criticism from conservatives (aka Republicans) through egregious actions, then crush the opposition by appealing to a sense of humanity. The event was capped by inviting Sgt. Bergdahl’s parents to speak in the Rose Garden, where his father appeared dressed in Taliban garb and full beard, giving closing remarks praising Allah in Pashto.

The picture was perfect! A humanitarian rescue of an American soldier, held in captivity by a brutal enemy for five years, and returned safely to his adoring parents.

Far too much air time and ink have been spent chasing down questionable leads regarding Bergdahl’s actions during his captivity. There has been speculation that he collaborated with the enemy against his own troops, which is unlikely.  His conversion to Islam and sympathy for his captors may constitute a crime under military law, but may simply be a manifestation of the Stockholm Syndrome. This will all come out in the trial (and there must be a trial).

It has been amusing to watch Obama roast in his own juices over the ransom of Bowe Bergdahl.  He had hoped that Republicans would take the lead in attacking the deal, but that didn’t happen. Between Congress, veterans and the major media, the response has been largely apolitical. However the tide may turn if Obama can frame their criticism into an attack on Bergdhal rather than the consequences of his own action, and assign all criticism to the Republicans?

The event contained several hot buttons known to inflame conservatives – negotiation with a terrorist organization, release of high level Gitmo detainees contrary to the wishes of Congress, and portrayal of a suspected deserter as a national hero. The hope was to provoke conservatives into a quick, negative reaction which could be turned against the Republicans by sticking to a carefully planned narrative.

Bergdahl was a “prisoner of war” not an hostage. Urgent action was demanded by the deteriorating state of Bergdahl’s health. When this was proven to be untrue, the narrative changed to the possibility of imminent execution by the Taliban (he was observed training with them using firearms).  The extraordinary negotiations were justified by citing military policy to never leave a fallen comrade behind.

On Fox News, “The Five,” liberal Bob Beckel commented regarding the public spectacle staged staged by the White House over of the release of Bowe Bergdahl, “How could they be so stupid?” He was referring mainly to the Rose Garden affair, and Susan Rice’s statement praising Bergdahl as serving with “honor and distinction.”

The problem for the White House was that Democrats and Republicans alike came out in opposition to the “honor and distinction” story, as well as veterans, his platoon mates, and most of the main stream media.  Democrat U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein, the Senate Intelligence Committee chairwoman, further claimed she had received no indications that Bergdahl’s life could be jeopardized if the detainee exchange proceeding were disclosed or derailed before the release from Gitmo of the five detainees.

Negative response was reinforced by the testimony of Bergdahl’s fellow soldiers in Afghanistan regarding his conduct leading to his capture by the Taliban. The White House’s attempt to dismiss their testimony by calling them “fast boaters” or psychopaths backfired badly.  This shameful narrative was picked up by the “New York Times” in an editorial on Thursday. Furthermore, the release of five Taliban terrorists is widely seen as an invitation for future kidnapping of military and civilian personnel for ransom.  One of the five Taliban leaders freed from Guantanamo Bay in return for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s release has pledged to return to fight Americans in Afghanistan, according to a fellow militant and a relative.

“After arriving in Qatar, Noorullah Noori kept insisting he would go to Afghanistan and fight American forces there,” a Taliban commander told NBC News via telephone from Afghanistan.

Let us now focus on the key points, which are largely undisputed:

Bergdahl walked off base into the hands of the Taliban, which is pretty serious in time of war. Obama chose to ignore this evidence and portray Bergdahl as a returning hero, a slap in the face for his fellow soldiers who did their duty at their constant peril. Obama chose to secure his return by releasing five known terrorists, describing them as prisoners of war rather than war criminals. He did this unilaterally, against the express wishes of Congress and most of his military advisers (past and present). Predictably, Obama and his minions attribute all criticism of his actions as “politics as usual” rather than serious concern over the consequences.

Politics is like a good movie. Nothing, not the smallest detail nor bit of dialogue, is there without a reason. Predictably, the President doubled down on his talking points, and Susan Rice “explained” her earlier comments by denying rather than retracting them, as though they never were uttered.  The New York Times, as would be expected, has resumed carrying the President’s water by stating that “The Republicans” are responsible for attacks on Susan Rice, ignoring the fact that nearly everyone heard her in disbelief.  Best of all, nobody has talked about the VA scandal (Benghazi, IRS, etc) for an entire week.

The furor over trading terrorist prisoners for the return of Bowe Bergdahl did not blindside the President. It was clearly planned. Obama knew his political enemies would seize on the nefarious means whereby the deal was struck with the Taliban, and hoped to turn it on his critics out of sympathy for the rescued soldier. In the process, the story would dominate headlines while the VA crisis and other scandals go unnoticed. He wasn’t disappointed over reaction from the right, but negative reaction from both parties in Congress and over half of the public were a surprise. Obama may still win political points.

Obama has continued to recite the White House Talking Points – that Bergdahl was a valiant soldier who was captured when he fell behind during a patrol, and that it is the long-standing policy that no “brother” will be left behind, regardless of the cost. You will see these same words uttered by everyone tied to the White House, almost without variation. That’s how it works – a lie repeated eventually becomes truth. Testimony from Bergdahl’s fellow soldiers are being dismissed (since unabashed suppression failed) as similar to the “Swift Boat” attack on Kerry in 2004. Never mind that the “Swift Boat” ads were entirely correct. To date, six of Bergdahl’s fellow soldiers describe how he packed a picnic lunch, left his armor and weapons behind, and walked off in the middle of the night. It was not the first time he had done so, according to these men.

Leaving no one behind is always a qualified doctrine. Soldiers will make every effort to recover their comrades wounded, killed or separated in action, but not if it unduly endangers the mission or others in the team. The cost in lives and to some extent, treasure, is always a consideration. They will chase “rabbits” too, but for different reasons with decidedly different consequences. It appears that Bergdahl was a rabbit.

The real malefactor in these events is the President himself. Bergdahl is merely a pawn in the political arena. Attacking Bergdahl will simply make him an object of sympathy, and depict his detractors as heartless, which was Obama’s intent all along.

 

 

 

We appreciate all responses to our articles, especially when written by people with extensive knowledge about the article’s subject. Recently we have been writing about the controversial new education program, Common Core, that was initiated in most all of our states, without any proof it was superior to the one it replaced.  On Thursday, June 5th a lengthy comment was posted by Elaine J. Roberts, Ph.D to our Monday, June 2nd Common Core article.  Dr. Roberts’ comments were well written, and due to her excellent reputation in the field of education, we decided all our readers would appreciate seeing our response to her in print. 

First, we would like our readers to know that our material for writing the series has been gleaned from extensive research from parents and educators all over the country, as well as by researching hundreds of articles on the subject.   Our posts have been a way to convey all we have learned, so that citizens, especially parents, can learn more about problems that their schools are not likely revealing.  Our nation’s schools were not asked to accept Common Core, they were ordered to accept it.  Teachers are making the best of it by having a positive attitude for parents and students, as they should.  So, while teachers are doing their best to work with Common Core, they, their students, and parents are frustrated, as they see serious problems with the new material.    

Due to the covert manner in which Common Core was planned, initiated, and sold to the states, most of our citizens do not even know a new federally initiated education system has been inserted into our schools, and certainly do not know about the growing criticism of it.  

We believe the public deserves to know, actually must know the facts, for the sake of our children and the future of our country.

With this in mind, the following is our response to Dr. Roberts’ remarks, as stated in her post of June 5th to “Common Core and Critical Thinking: Sounds good, but is it?”

 

Elaine J Roberts, Ph.D. said…posted comments are in italics:

“Oh dear. Well, Common Core isn’t really liberal propaganda. It’s not a curriculum.”

Response:  True, the Common Core Standards are simply education standards set for teachers to follow, but the curriculum obviously must coincide with those standards, as well as the tests which are aligned with both.  The liberal propaganda is in the curriculum and has managed to find a way into most every Common Core subject.

“Critical thinking isn’t a buzz word; it’s a learning and work place concept that’s been around for decades. Based on the data we had, the current system isn’t working but, in all fairness, the systems for training and supporting teachers and administrators has been faulty for a while. That’s not a liberal nor a conservative issue; that’s a national issue.”

Response:  Yes, our education system has been faulty for a while, but the very areas that required “fixing” were not addressed by Common Core. As for it being a national issue, I am sure you know education is not the federal government’s responsibility.  Our forefathers gave the task of educating our children to the individual states, thus creating competition between them and allowing them the advantage of deciding what their individual states feel most necessary to emphasize.    .

“The standards are not perfect, but then neither is any so-called curriculum or testing. Some of the standards may need to be revisited, but far too many folks aren’t giving them any sort of chance but simply dismissing them on principle.”

Response:  We disagree!  Most schools and Education Boards accepted Common Core, trusting that our elected officials would not have changed to a new system unless it had been proven superior. The problems were found when the curriculum was finally examined and taught. That was when teachers, parents, and students began voicing complaints.

“Cursive writing was dismissed from schools long before Common Core. I know of schools that stopped teaching cursive writing past the 1st grade over 10 years ago. Teachers don’t have time to teach it and/or they don’t know how to teach. By the way, I think handwriting is a key cognitive and motor skills development skill, and handwriting should be part of a student’s learning through high school.”

Response:  So glad you agreed with us.  We too believe in the importance of cursive writing and are disappointed the authors of Common Core chose not to include it.  As for teachers not having to teach it, how did educators make the time in the past,  and why can’t teachers learn how to teach it today. 

“Your issue with the kinds of literature being taught is an old saw.  What to teach and what not to teach has been an issue for decades and has nothing to do with Commom Core.”

Response:  We agree!  Deciding upon the kinds of literature teachers ask students to read has been questionable for decades.  If parents actually read the books their high school children were given to read, they would gasp!  However, this is one more opportunity lost by the authors of Common Core.  Instead of introducing some of the amazing classics to students, Common Core continues introducing books that include illegal sex, rape, murder, crimes, child abuse,  and other unsavory activities minors need not/should not be exposed.   

 
“As for traditional methods of learning math, well, you’re wrong again. Common Core doesn’t tell any teacher how to teach math, or any other subject. Common Core is a set of standards by which student proficiency might be measured. Teachers help their students get to those learning levels in whatever ways best suit their students. If the teachers don’t have methods for differentiation, that’s on the teacher and the administrators who don’t provide professional development for those teachers.”

Our Response:  Common Core math curriculum is a new system which (at least in early grades) is more concerned with the method than in a correct answer. Every teacher must explain and teach the new method, or their students will not do well on their tests where they will be graded on their ability to use the new math method.   Common Core curriculum causes simple addition or subtraction questions to take ten times as long to solve, and due to all the steps required, mistakes are common.   Parents have found the method so convoluted that even with a master’s degree and/or when the parent has an engineering degree, helping their child with the math assignment is difficult.  Teachers are equally frustrated in trying to teach it.   

“That teacher in Grayslake? She has no idea what she’s doing. Common Core does emphasize process so that kids really understand why and how they got the right or wrong answer, but the standards do not anywhere suggest that the correct answer does not matter.”

Our Response Our article is not critical of the C.C. Standards per say.  It is the curriculum designed for Common Core that emphasizes method over correct answer, with the excuse they are forcing young minds to be critical thinkers.  The problem is that there has been an age appropriateness left out, causing young children to begin hating math because their brains are not yet mature enough to understand the concept.  

“New math was introduced in the 80s. Parents complained then, too. Then some other math curriculum was introduced in the 90s. Parents complained then because they couldn’t help their kids do math. One of the big issues with math instruction and homework is that too many teachers really don’t know the content well enough so they have to have kids do problems a particular way. So if Mom or Dad try to help kids with their homework and the kids do the homework a different way from the teacher’s, the teacher may mark it wrong because that teacher doesn’t know how to solve the problem that way. There is the tragedy in math instruction. I don’t know how many teachers I’ve coached to help them learn how to work with fractions, decimals, and percentages.”

Our Response:  Yes, parents and teachers complained with the 80’s New Math for good reason.  It too was worse than what it replaced. Finally, after years of student tests scores declining, it was determined that New Math was not the answer.  Those same decades also introduced “Whole Language” and dropped the traditional “phonics” approach to teach reading, which also proved to be a huge failure.  Fortunately, schools went back to the traditional teaching method for both math and reading.  Common Core is just one more attempt to try something new, but this time the changes are not in just a few schools or states.   Common Core was introduced into the classrooms of 45 states, making Guinea pigs of our children.  Tragically, we have already seen the same results you mentioned in your comment about the failed experience of the 80’s and 90’s. It seems absolutely irresponsible to have most every student in America embrace a new system that was not first fully tested with proven positive results.  

“As a moderate conservative who sees the Common Core as a potential solution and is fully aware of its many flaws, I’d like to say there is no leftist agenda. That 1992 UN Agenda 21 is such a bogus argument I’m always surprised when apparently intelligent people offer it up. Let the Common Core Standards stand or fall on their own merit or lack of same, not some trumped up political agenda.” 

Our Response:  Do you not see any “leftist” agenda in our colleges either?   Do you deny that universities have an unhealthy imbalance of liberal professors who make no secret that they teach a leftist agenda to students?  In fact, they are proud of doing so.  As a society, we ignored this growing imbalance, and the result can be seen in how it influenced our current culture and laws.  Now, we see leftist thinking incorporated in grade school Common Core curriculum, mostly rather subtle, but some even blatant examples.  Not a surprise really, when we know that the creators of Common Core curriculum are liberal.  It is dangerous to insert social engineering material in grade schools, as it sets an unhealthy precedent.   It is also a basic violation of parental  rights and certainly damages trust in the school system.

“And I’m so sorry you are spending all of this time tearing down a possible solution rather than offering something substantial as an alternative.”

Our Response:  How long do you believe we should wait to be critical of  Common Core?  New York State gave it two years, and saw their test scores plummet and the teachers’ union denounce it.  How fair was it to our children that Common Core was agreed to by state governors without any proof whatsoever it was superior?   In fact, the curriculum was not even written when states accepted it.  Citizens should be asking their state officials how and why that happened.  Parents should be furious when they discover Common Core has major flaws, which should have been corrected in “trial testing”, before being incorporated in most every classroom in America.  

We plan to devote an article to the known problems in our former education system;  problems which were not addressed or corrected by Common Core’s  authors.  As for your suggestion that we offer an alternative solution (a new system), that is not something we are qualified to do.   It is, however,  exactly what each state must do.  They should develop their own education system, with the help of experts in all the specific fields, and do so with public awareness, input, and request for comments.  Then, they should test the system with one or two school districts first, to work out any problems before exposing to to the entire state’s school children. That is what seems most responsible to us.  

Once again we thank you, Dr. Roberts, for your contribution to this important subject.   An exchange of thoughts is always helpful to readers interested in all facts and opinions on a subject.

Nancy Thorner      331 E. Blodgett Ave., Lake Bluff, IL  60044   847-295-1035

Bonnie O’Neil        314 Morning Star, Newport Beach   949-645-4459

                                                                                    

 

UnknownBy Nancy Thorner and Bonnie O’Neil – In Part 1  published by Thorner and O’Neil at Illinois Review on Monday, June 2nd, Common Core Language Arts and Math were evaluated and shown to be seriously lacking in content as a practical and common sense approach to education, assuming as it does that all children will learn what is prescribed at the same rate within each grade level.

What about Common Core history?

David Coleman, an architect of Common Core, is now president of the College Board responsible for aligning the SAT to the Common Core.  Even so he found time to basically rewrite American History.  Beginning in the fall of this year, close to a half million high school sophomores and juniors will be learning from a new set of AP history standards.   Coleman’s detailed 98-page document  indicates the revised education material will be applicable in the Fall of 2014.

Jane Robbins, a senior fellow for APP Education of the American Principles Project and a retired AP U.S. History teacher from Pennsylvania, said the following about the Coleman-style AP history standards:

“The new “Framework” inculcates a consistently negative view of American culture.  For example, the units on colonial America stress the development of a rigid racial hierarchy and a ‘strong belief in British racial and cultural superiority.’  The Framework ignores the United States’ founding principles and their influence in inspiring the spread of democracy and galvanizing the movement to abolish slavery.  The Framework continues this theme by reinterpreting Manifest Destiny — rather than a belief that America has a mission to spread democracy and new technologies across the continent, the Framework teaches that it ‘was built on a belief in white racial superiority and a sense of American cultural superiority.”Coleman’s “Framework” dismisses the “Declaration of Independence” and the principles so eloquently expressed therein.  Benjamin Franklin and James Madison are not mentioned, and George Washington is minimized to a small snippet from his farewell address.  Ironically, two pages later the “Framework” grants teachers the flexibility to discuss the architecture of Spanish missions.  It can be surmised that Coleman rates the architecture of Spanish missions above honoring the heroes of 1776!

These omissions reflect not only a leftist slant on our history but also a general view that academic historical knowledge is unnecessary.  Just imagine how South Africans would respond if an unelected agency issued a history of their country that contained just one reference to Nelson Mandela.

Might new Common Core history books be confusing to students?  The “Gettysburg Address” will be taught to ninth and 10th graders without a mention of the Civil War, the Battle of Gettysburg, or why President Abraham Lincoln had traveled to Pennsylvania to make his famous speech. The “Gettysburg Address” unit can be found on the Web site of Student Achievement Partners, a nonprofit organization founded by lead author David Coleman and two others (Susan Pimentel and Jason Zimba) also described as “lead authors of the Common Core State Standards.

An Arkansas mother was disturbed by her daughter’s homework with instructions to “prioritize, revise, prune and/or add” amendments to the “Bill of Rights.”  Parents wonder if such a strange assignment might be an attempt to introduce students to the concept that it’s not unusual to make changes to our Constitution and Bill of Rights, and that maybe some or all should be eliminated.   Nevertheless, her assignment appears to coincide with the Common Core curriculum which perceives the “Bill of Rights” to be outdated and one that may not remain in its current form any longer.

Consider also how Common Core-approved textbooks are rewriting the Second Amendment.  In a book approved by Common Core for use in elementary schools, the author states the following description of the Second Amendment:

People have the right to certain weapons, providing that they register them and they have not been in prison. The founding fathers included this amendment to prevent the United States from acting like the British who had tried to take weapons away from the colonists.

These types of half-truths or manipulations are peppered throughout Common Core material.  Will teachers expand the lesson and explain the whole truth …. that there is nothing in the Second Amendment that excludes ownership of certain weapons from within its protection, and that the amendment reads:  “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”  If the teacher does not include that important phrase, unsuspecting children will be indoctrinated with the liberal misconception that government has the right to give and take away citizens’ rights to own firearms. Neither can the fact be ignored that specific elected officials in power have an agenda to create new gun laws that will limit or exclude our gun rights.

Currently being used in Brevard County, Florida is a Prentiss Hall’s World History book that devotes a 72-page chapter to Islam and only one small paragraph for Judaism and Christianity, which are embedded in other chapters.  According to Prentiss Hall, the book is balanced on all religions, causing parents to wonder how many other falsehoods and indoctrination methods are being used in Common Core without parents’ knowledge .

Other examples are surfacing of teachers reacting irrationally when a student makes any mention of Christianity.  A California teacher bullied a student when he brought a Bible to class as his reading choice for a class assignment to read a nonfiction book.  The teacher claimed the Bible was not nonfiction; the student stated he believed it was nonfiction.  The teacher did not leave the issue a private one.  Instead, she asked the entire class to vote as to whether the bible was nonfiction.  To her apparent shock, only two students believed it was not nonfiction.  The vast majority believed the Bible was indeed nonfiction.

Overt anti-Christian behavior has not been reported in most classrooms, but reports cf abuse have been escalating.   It has been suggested the cause is connected to the liberal agenda of Common Core curriculum, which subtly seeps into the minds of educators and thus their students. There is an emphasis in America to stop bullying and increase tolerance, but too often that rule is ignored if the abuse is directed to Christians or Christianity. Parents need to be sensitive to this problem.

What About Common Core Science? 

The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSSP), were adopted on April 9, 2013.  It took three years for national science education groups to develop Common Core Science Standards.  Because U.S. students don’t rank at the top in science, the creators of the Next Generation Science Standards looked to Singapore, South Korea, and Finland for help in devising their standards.  States having officially adopted NSS (last update April 9, 2014) are:  Rhode Island, Kentucky, Kansas, Maryland, Vermont, California, Delaware, Washington, District of Columbia, Nevada, Oregon and Illinois.

The decision to call Common Core Science standards the “Next Generation Science Standards” may be due to the negativity surrounding Common Core, and thus a way to avoid the toxic name.  The public is beginning to realize what federalized standards actually mean to the future of math and English K-12 education in America.  State committees were allowed some input into formulating the standards, but in the end standards were set by national science education groups.

The science standards, like those for math and English, are not based on empirical evidence of efficacy, nor are they tested in any environment. They are fresh out of the box and will be field-tested statewide in any state that signs on.  No longer is science treated as a list of facts and ideas students are expected to memorize.  Instead, fewer ideas will be covered using more approaches, so students have a deeper understanding of the subjects covered.

Proponents of evolution and manmade climate change are ecstatic about the Common Core Science Standards.  Children must embrace the notion that CO2 emissions from gas, coal and oil cause global warming.   It is not rocket science to figure out whyWyoming has become the first state to block the new set of national science standards.  It’s economy depends on oil.  As Steve Goreham explains in his book, The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism, scientific evidence indicates that warming and cooling trends are naturally occurring as an earth cycle.  Although scientists disagree about the extent to which man’s activities are a cause of climate change, the Next Generation of Science Standards teach unconditionally that human activity is responsible for detrimental climate change and emphasize that action must be taken before it is too late to “save the planet.”  Most parents do not want schools to use fear tactics in the classroom.   However, the government has invested heavily into their man-made global warming agenda, and its apologists are not adverse to propagandizing young minds with their controversial material.

Worth reading is the new Common Core Educational Standards on Climate Change,  which dovetails with those of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  A recent report by the IPCC on March 31 paints a grim picture on mitigating greenhouse gas emissions.  Children will be held captive to a central learning theme that mankind should be reducing its use of fossil fuels, as set forth in the Essential Principles of Climate Science.  It is highly doubtful that students will be taught to be cautious of the government’s conclusion on Anthropogenic Global Warming (humans as the main cause of global warming), nor will they be taught of the known benefits of CO2 in the atmosphere.  “What if” scenarios will he used to convince children that the dogma being taught is scientific fact and represents settled science.

There is no scientific consensus about climate change, as was documented by the April 9th release by The Heartland Institute of“Climate Change Reconsidered II,”   This study from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) draws its conclusions from thousands of peer-reviewed papers and finds global warming to be an “entirely manageable, if not beneficial, change in the climate.”  While NIPCC seeks to objectively analyze and interpret data and facts without conforming to any specific agenda, it stands in direct contrast to the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which is government-sponsored, politically motivated, and predisposed to believing that climate change is a problem in need of a U.N. solution.

Elections Have Consequences

 A PhD from Bulgaria, warns this nation of things to come if there is a full application of the Common Core standards.  The end result will be “fully socialized communistic education, entirely controlled by the government.”School districts nationwide have loaded up students with billions of dollars’ worth of tablets, laptops, iPods and more on the theory expressed by Obama last year, that preparing American kids to compete with students around the globe will require interactive, individualized learning experiences driven by new technology.  In Finland there is roughly one computer per five Finnish students in schools.  In the US. that ratio is almost one to one.  Yet in the latest PISA rankings, 18 education systems — including Finland’s — outperformed the United States in reading, math and science.

We should all be very concerned about our country when we consider the alarming changes and potential changes Common Core is having and will have on our children.  School children are clearly being indoctrinated with a liberal curriculum, while at the same time parental control is being systematically reduced.  Local control is diminishing at the same alarming rate that the federal government is increasing.   I shudder to think what this nation will be as our children are indoctrinated with the junk science of the Next Generation Science Standards; strange and ambiguous ways of doing math; English/ Language Arts absent the classics; and a twisted, convoluted history of this nation, all defined by liberals, such as David Coleman, with links reaching back to the United Nations Agenda 21 of 1992 and before.

If you are convinced Common Core is one more liberal program designed by the current administration for the purpose of drawing our nation closer to Socialism, which is a step away from Communism, then you must be wanting to know what can be done about it.    We all must keep ourselves informed, while we  get to work undoing the liberal changes initiated by liberal educators, bureaucrats, and politicians.   Liberals have devised highly questionable and controversial programs such as Common Core, Obamacare, Climate Change, and others.  Constitutionalists claim the enacting of Common Core violated our laws and Constitution.

Our children deserve better; our country must do better.   Elections have consequences.  Our representatives have not been efficient or effective in keeping the above exceedingly faulty programs from being enacted, so why vote for them or their ilk in the future?   Elections are designed to vote out those who are not paying attention to us or the health of our country.  Those who love America must seek out excellent candidates, support them, encourage others to get involved, tell friends what you know, join Conservative groups, and pray!  Together, we can change the direction of our Country, and not be the generation that let America’s greatness slip away.  With that in mind, please consider contacting your elected officials and ask them to “Cut Common Core” out of our schools.  It is indeed ROTTEN TO THE CORE!