Thorner: Can conservatives, libertarians find common ground to forge political realign

Monday, March 30, 2015

Author C.W. Cooke of The Conservatorial Manfesto

By Nancy Thorner – 

The National Review Institute, founded by William Buckley, Jr. in 1991, and The Heartland Institute joined forces for an event with Charles C. W. Cooke featuring his book, “The Conservatarian Manifesto”, on Wednesday, March 25, in the Crystal Room of the Union League Cub, 645 West Jackson, Chicago.  “The Conservatarian Manifesto” is a call to arms for an underserved movement among conservatives.  The crucial tenets of this movement includes fiscal responsibility, constitutional obedience, and controlled government spending.

Author Charles C.W. Cooke is a writer at “National Review” and a graduate of Oxford University in England, where he studied modern history and politics.  His work has focused especially on Anglo-American history, British liberty, free speech, the Second Amendment, and American exceptionalism.  Cooke is the cohost of the “Mad Dogs and Englishmen” podcast and has appeared on HBO (“Real Time” with Bill Maher), BBC, MSNBC, Fox News, The Blaze, CNBC, CTV, ABC, Sun News, and CBS.  In addition to “National Review”, Mr. Cooke’s writings have also been published by the “National Interest”, “The Washington Times”, and the “New York Post.”

A “Conservatarian” is neither a libertarian or a conservative, as the word itself implies, but members of the right that are fiscally conservative but socially liberal.  The question posed in Mr. Cooke’s book, “The Conservatarian Manifesto”, is whether conservatives and libertarians can find common ground and forge the next American political realignment. Set forth in Cook’s book are issues on which conservatives and libertarians can agree, such a limited government and gun rights, while libertarians often disagree with conservatives on the drug war, foreign policy, abortion and immigration. The blending together of the two is important if the Founders’ vision for liberty is to be preserved for future generations of Americans.

To Charlie Cooke, unlike how conservatives are generally described on the Left, they are the radicals who want the government to leave them alone.  Conservatism is therefore marked by its unorthodoxy and its radicalism, standing for the more eccentric ideas that have surfaced only recently like property rights, separation of powers, a preference for local government over central planning, and a free and dynamic market economy.

History and Conservatism

It was Republican discouragement in the 2008 presidential election which led to Barack Obama capturing the presidency.  Republicans, thinking G.W. Bush was a conservative, became discouraged when Bush changed his tune when in office with his compassionate brand of conservatism by passing the federal takeover of education with One Child Left Behind and other big spending programs that had nothing to do with 9/11.  As such the Bush era was not a time worthy of celebration by most Republicans. For when looking back to the 90’s, the years under Clinton were quite good.

The state of the economy was a big factor in 2012.  Only 1/4 of the American people thought the economy was getting better.  Also, a majority of Americans favored repealing Obamacare. But despite these negatives, Obama won a second term.

Regarding 2016, Cooke believes that despite the disastrous policies imposed upon this nation by President Obama and his administration, they have not yet resulted in forever changing the realignment of the American political scene. In speaking about Republican chances for 2016, Democrats have slim pickings when it comes to presidential candidates.  President Obama may not be on the ticket, but he has effectively wiped out the Democratic Party in many states.

Cooke did give this warning to conservative candidates who so often seek to go back to the presidency of Ronald Reagan in describing what they are all about. As Reagan left office in 1989 and it is now 2015, such a comparison is odd sounding to young people who weren’t even alive when Reagan was president.  Conservatives need all the votes they can get, which means attention must be paid to the existence of a generational divide.  A majority of young people believe in gay marriage, legalization of marijuana and abortion.

Federalism vs. progressivism

Conservatives are warned time and again that they must be more socially liberal, yet there is nothing that connects drugs to gay marriage or abortion. All are separate issues and separate questions that can’t be treated in the same way.  Conservatives must highlight their opponents’ inconsistencies whenever and wherever they can, hammering home that it is best to leave social questions to local localities, to civil society, and to individuals.

In regard to the contraception controversy, this winning line is shared by the author:  “We have no issue with contraception, but we don’t think nuns should be forced to pay for it.” The good news is that young Republicans are becoming more pro-life, even as they remain more in line with Democrats on gay marriage and illicit drugs.

As alluded to in the above two paragraph, with a nation that is moving more and more to a one size fits all policy which brings with it a host of problems, conservatives and libertarians must insist on a return to federalism in contrast to progressivism which is irreconcilable with federalism.  Roughly 10 years ago 2/3’s of Americans offered positive assessment of all three levels of government:  federal, state and local.  Now a favorable rating for federal government has fallen to just 33%; state favorability is at 52%; and local government wins at 61%

Federalism allows Americans at the state level to make laws concerning pot use; marry members of the same sex; drink at 18; drive cars at 75 mph instead of 55; or to carry loaded guns on their hips.  Ton Cruz was noted as consistent in wanting to remove the federal government from solving problems.  For liberals who love power concentrated at the federal level with a single national policy as the best way forward, conservatives must remind liberals how big government hangs over them, even as they insist this is what they want.

The massive number of laws passed at the national level was referenced in accordance to the number of Americans who are exempted from them.  One group of Americans, the  Amish, were described as “the canary in the coal mine.”  They want to be left alone.  They are quite happy in their own communities. With so many laws past at the federal level, it’s impossible to know much of what is really legislated unless laws affect us personally. There are even laws for lumberjacks!

Nations are defined by more government

Often forgotten is that nations are more than just their governments.  From the first days of this nation’s independence, of importance was preserving the national ethos. Hispanics generally have the same expectations and want the same things as white Americans, but when voting Hispanics most often select the Democratic Party, the perception being that the Democratic Party stands for the downtrodden and the poor. But unlike what many Republicans are told to believe, for many Hispanics amnesty is not the main issue. Republicans should start to appeal more effectively to the poor and the middle class.  Simply starting to speak Spanish is not enough.  Also to be recognized is that Republicans don’t really need to win the Hispanic vote. They only need to win more of it than they are winning now, while winning other votes.

For those who are pushing for amnesty, why would libertarians and many Republican be willing to import an unlimited number of individuals who will most likely vote Democratic, and who will increasingly outnumber those who are friends of liberty. What is more, this nation’s welfare system is going bankrupt. Importing millions of poor immigrants, though no fault of their own, will completely bankrupt the social welfare system at a time when many Americans are out of work.  The interests of our own citizens must be served above the interests of citizens of other countries.

Regarding foreign policy, Charles Cooke makes no bones about it, Obama has no interest in foreign policy.   For libertarians and others who believe in a non-interventionist foreign policy, they must be reminded that if this nation pulls back who will we leave the world to?  Just who will fill the vacuum?

One success story is the gun issue.  Facts have outweighed fiction and liberty has trumped fear to counter the emotional and dishonest anti-gun position which fails to hold up under scrutiny.

Confessing to not being a particularly religious person, Mr. Cooke did convey the importance of fighting tooth and nail for religious freedom.

One comment made by Cooke stands open to questioning:  “As this country becomes more and more divided the pressure for one size government to fit all should evaporate?”   How much more divided can this nation become?”   Doesn’t division usually breed more dissatisfaction and strife?

The road ahead is uncertain 

Conservatives have not drawn their cases well.  This comment by Cooke could have lasting, positive implications:  “If conservatives play their cards right they can begin to establish that those on the Left moderate and censor the culture and serve as the speech police, the arbiters of taste and the purveyors of mandates.”

In the final paragraph of Cooke’s book he presents a positive view of what conservatives have to offer this nation which could bode well for its future.

Conservatives have on their side the most successful, virtuous, and radical political philosophy in the history of the world.  Unlike their opponents, whose ideology is distressing ahistorical and therefore liable to be shaped by the transient and fashionable demands of self-serving interest groups, conservatives have a North Star to guide them and to establish their place in history’s complex sky.  Conservatives have lost their way from time to time:  “Their task is to catch sight of the star once again, to work out what went wrong, and to sail on without loss of enthusiasm or purpose. The future is there for the taking.

The end result, as it involves the future of our nation, will depend on sufficient pressure applied from below at the grass roots level by conservatives and libertarians coming together to return this nation to federalism, under which this nation was conceived, to take back the Republican Party from the establishment which now controls the Party.

Heartland touts its accomplishments

Charles Cooke was introduced by Jim Lakely, Communications Director at The Heartland Institute. Before introducing Mr. Cooke, Jim Lakely shared three ways in which The Heartland Institute is making a difference in its 31 years of operation.

• Heartland is unique in that it’s the only organization that has a national reach and can likewise get into each state to make a difference.

• Heartland publishes four newspapers which are sent to every state and federal legislator:  “Environmental & Climate News”; School Reform News”; Health Care News”; and “Budget and Tax Issues.”

• Known throughout the world for its work on the environment, Heartland will sponsor its 10th International Global Warming Conference this June in Washington, D.C.  Notable is that the “National Review” for April will feature an insert from The Heartland Institute placed right in the middle of the magazine entitled “Global Warming:  Crisis or Delusion?”, which will go to all 129,000 subscribers.

Monday, March 30, 2015 at 10:03 AM | Permalink

Thorner & O’Neil: Multiculturalism – a cancer on college campuses

Wednesday, March 25, 2015

By Nancy Thorner & Bonnie O’Neil – 

David L. Goetsch in his book, “Liberal Tyranny in Higher Education”, sees multiculturalism as the leftist code for a worldview that seeks the destruction of Christianity and traditional American values.  Although everyone and everything is supposed to be equal, universal equality is preached but not actually believed. Multicultural elitists not only reject the values of those who pay their salaries, they do everything in their power to subvert their values.  Elitists in academia go beyond just advocating multiculturalism, they worship at the altar of this misguided, socially cancerous worldview.

Professor Williams explained this multicultural hypocrisy in a recent column entitled “Multiculturalism, a cancer on Western society”:

“Western values are by no means secure. They are under ruthless attack by the academic elite on college campuses across America. These people want to replace personal liberty with government control; they want to replace equality with entitlement; they want to halt progress in order to worship Mother Earth. Personal liberty and private property are anathemas to people who want to control our lives. This is part and parcel of the multicultural and diversity movements infecting the western world.”

Colleges and universities, hotbeds of multiculturalismIt is not surprising that colleges and universities across this nation have become hotbeds of multiculturalism.  In the social environment that currently prevails on most of these campuses, young students are targeted for being taught the philosophy that no one and nothing is supposed to stand out. Everyone and everything is to be equal.  Not so, however, if the action in question is for the purpose of liberal indoctrination, such as when a college mandated LGBTQ training for all campus groups.   When one group requested an opt-out from the indoctrination, it was labeled a hate group, thus exemplifying the expected intolerance of the Left.  It goes without saying that if we don’t agree with Liberals, we’re part of a hate group. If Liberals don’t agree with us they are the enlightened ones, and have no trouble spewing angry, insulting comments to silence us.

Unfortunately on college campuses we have an ever-growing group of young men and women who no longer understand what it means to be an American.   A story that received national news attention a few weeks ago took place at the University of California, Irvine (U.C.I.), located in Orange County, which is one of the few remaining conservative Republican counties in California.   A student government group decided to ban flags from being displayed in a prominent place on campus, particularly the American flag, because as they were quoted: “it is a symbol of oppression.”  In all likelihood the students who created the firestorm have no clue as to what oppression really feels like.  They would be well advised to examine real oppression that exists in many countries throughout the World, such as Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia.  The UCI students might feel differently about the United States if they witnessed real, not imagined, oppression.   Odd that they ignore the countries that forbid women to go to school, drive a car, show their hair or faces in public, or vote;  countries in which women are the property of their husbands, and where one can justifiably kill another who denounces a specific religious belief.

College students have the legal right to dishonor our American flag. Ironically they do so without considering that our flag is the symbol of the very freedom that gives them that right.  However, they are not immune to criticism for doing so, and their decision, once leaked to the media, caused American patriots everywhere to be outraged.  Thousands expressed their distaste and anger, wondering what caused this utter disrespect for “Old Glory”.  Some wondered if the students’ lack of patriotism originated from their home, their families?   Questions arose as to whether the 6 students were born and/or raised in America or whether they were foreign students whose loyalty lies elsewhere?   How could they be oblivious to the freedom and opportunities our flag represents?   Had they not been taught brave men and women died for the country that flag represents?  Citizens from all over wanted to know if the U.C.I. students in question were among those who have received federal (American) grants for their education, which have grown to around $30 million a year.  In this case, likely due to the resultant public outcry, the decision to remove the American flag was quickly overturned by school authorities.

Flag’s removal not an end all to U.C.I. controversy Despite the removal of the flag, the firestorm of controversy created by the “flag flap” continued.  But what happened next on the U.C.I. campus provided the most glaring explanation as to the thought process that produced the six student’s attitude towards “Old Glory”, and why it was targeted for removal. The first clue that caught the public’s attention was that students were not as shocked by the removal of the flag as they were the accompanying controversy.  The second major clue came several days later when it was reported that a letter of support for the six students had been circulated on campus, apparently by Rei Terada, a professor of Comparative Literature at U.C.I.  The petition included 1,200 signatures, sixty of which were from professors who, by signing, declared their approval of the decision and support for the six students.

The following is an excerpt from the letter:

“We admire the courage of the resolution’s supporters amid this environment of political immaturity and threat, and support them unequivocally.”  “We write to support the six members who offered the resolution to remove national flags from the ASUCI lobby,” the letter reads.  “The university ought to respect their political position and meet its obligation to protect and promote their safety.  The resolution recognized that nationalism, including U.S. nationalism, often contributes to racism and xenophobia”

As more information and facts unfolded, it became apparent to observers that the source of the student’s disrespect for our American flag originated not with their families, but with a philosophy born in classrooms by exceedingly liberal professors who had the audacity to spew their liberal agenda into classrooms of vulnerable, open-minded young students, eager to please the authority over them.  It is about a creeping liberalism that has been dominating, not just U.C.I., but colleges and campuses all over America for decades. Students, our children who are the future of America, have become victims of professors with an extreme agenda.  The unpatriotic action of six U.C.I. students uncovered a far more serious problem that requires the attention and action of every American parent and patriot. The realization that the U.C.I flag incident was only discovered due to a “leak” , believed to have been reported to the media by a student and then fortunately given to a conservative media source to bring to the attention of the public, there is every cause to wonder how many similar college incidents go unnoticed throughout the country?

Influence of liberal professors in American classrooms                                                                                                     The obvious concern should be to what extent U.C.I professors and others in prestigious universities use their position of authority daily to infuse a liberal philosophy into American classrooms, thus indoctrinating rather than teaching vulnerable students.   An article in the L.A. Times entitled “Leftism at UC Leaves Many with Unbalanced Education” quotes a study that concluded: “Cal is a hotbed of leftist faculty and politically correct thinking, where many students are receiving a weak education”.  Students who only learn one viewpoint on controversial issues are not prepared for a society in which they will be challenged with differing perspectives.  With a compromised outlook, students risk succeeding in specific fields, only to find themselves at a disadvantage because of their one-sided frame of reference.

There have been astute students who have complained that professors continually point out America’s perceived failures without balancing the negative with this nation’s many achievements, many of which have propelled this country into becoming the great nation we now enjoy.  Such students are not easily influenced with rhetoric, but look at facts for their conclusions.  They respect our country and its accomplishments and know our borders do not prohibit people from leaving, but instead are challenged to manage the huge number of foreigners who want to enter America.  Just observing that one fact alone indicates we must be doing something right!

Notwithstanding, it is difficult for vulnerable young minds to resist the power of persuasive professors who convey and encourage students to resist national pride and thus consider themselves as “citizens of the world”, not citizens of the United States.  No wonder those six U.C.I. students wanted to remove the flag; they have been indoctrinated with anti-patriotic philosophies in favor of a one-world concept that discourages loyalty to one’s country.

Perhaps the “flap” over the flag has opened a door for all to see that a one-sided, exceedingly liberal political and philosophical perspective in classrooms can prove detrimental. An obvious conclusion is that it is not only the professors, but also school administrations that perpetrates the liberal indoctrination.  That seems logical when we realize most universities hire liberals over conservatives at a ratio as high as seven to one. The solution may be for taxpayers, parents, students, and donors to demand fair and equal hiring practices; one that creates a balance of conservatives to liberals, and which would provide students the opportunity to hear and learn a more fair and diverse political perspective. All students benefit when equipped with a better understanding of all political thought, provided without prejudice.

Equality a byword only when benefiting liberal ideal                                                                                                  Although equality is a byword among university professors, it appears to apply only if that equality benefits liberal ideals.  Recent revelations indicate school administrations are reluctant to make any changes to correct the liberal bias permeating their schools.  In fact they tend to excuse or justify the inequality when exposed.  The bias is not only witnessed in the Universities’ unfair hiring practices, but also in their choice of commencement speakers.  Liberals are favored seven to one over conservatives, which may be largely due to the backlash liberal professors create on the campus when a conservative speaker is selected.

Consider Rutgers University.  Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was invited to give the school’s commencement speech, but soon after her acceptance a group of faculty members led by Rutgers Chemistry professor Robert Boikess and Rutger student Carmelo Cintrón Vivas began a campaign to force the school to disinvite the former United States official. Protestors gained national attention by an intensive effort to malign the former official, and liberal media sources slanted the story in favor of the protestors by citing quotes regarding Rice’s role in the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq and U.S. interrogation policies. To Rutgers credit it refused to disinvite Rice, but not wanting to create more controversy, Rice graciously rescinded her acceptance, stating: “Commencements should be a time of joyous celebration for the graduates and their families.  Rutgers’ invitation to me to speak has become a distraction for the university community at this very special time.”

In actuality, liberals were grateful for the opportunity Rutgers gave them to malign our former Secretary of state and in the process promote their own leftist agenda not only at the university but throughout the nation.

Can this nation tolerate centers of higher learning engaged in indoctrination?                                                        America can withstand unfair protests.  Our country can overcome the rhetoric spewed from the Left.  We can tolerate an occasional professor who has the same liberal mindset as former terrorist Bill Ayers.  What we cannot tolerate is for our nation’s college and university system to become learning centers where our children are indoctrinated by a majority of self-professed liberal professors whose goals are not that of our forefathers, the student’s parent, or the community in general.  The condemning of American policies, practices, laws, leaders and traditions must stop.  Our children deserve a fair and balanced education void of intentional leftist indoctrination.

It is time for each of us to demand real equality in all our schools, from elementary to the University level, which would include everything from hiring practices to the curriculum taught in each classroom.  Students deserve a balanced education, citizens should demand it, and the health of our nation requires it.   We must join together and demand fair hiring practices, then request they drop the controversial Common Core, eliminate the federal Department of Education, and detach from all unions. Now, that would be real progress; the type our brave and wise forefathers would have applauded!

Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 11:49 AM | Permalink

Thorner: PARCC and Common Core undergo scrutiny in wealthy Lake County School District

Friday, March 20, 2015

By Nancy Thorner – 

Thousands of parents across the country and here in Illinois are concerned about Common Core standards, PARCC testing on those standards, and the accumulation and storage of their children’s personal data. Thorner, as a citizen and taxpayer living in a community in northern Illinois, is represented by Lake Forest-Lake Bluff school Districts 65, 67 and 115. All have embraced Common Core standards with enthusiasm.

PARCC testing has already begun in school districts across Illinois, the state having willingly embraced Common Core standards, sight unseen, in 2010. Many parents, having been informed by organizations like Stop Illinois Common Core, are opting their children out of PARCC testing.

Not unlike many school districts in Illinois, PARCC testing is being administered in March on selected classes at Lake Forest District 115, specifically on March 11, 12, 17, 18 and 19, with later testing scheduled for May 12, 13, 14 and 15. Of concern is that for each of those 9 days, LFHS students not taking the test will experience a two hour late start of school, thus depriving students of 18 hours’ instructional time.

As in school districts across Illinois, PARCC testing wasn’t received with open arms in Lake Forest District 115.   An e-mail dated Monday, March 16, from Superintendent Michael Simeck, and sent to parents midday imploring them to send their freshmen to school on Tuesday morning (March17) to participate in the English portion of the PARCC test, was quite telling.  It seems that PARCC testing done in the prior week was “well below” the 95% threshold, meaning there was less than a 95% participation of students taking the PARCC exams.

 Superintendent Simeck stated in his email: “Students’ failure to participate in the PARCC exams will result in the district automatically failing to meet accountability obligations [Not mentioned is that federal funds are contingent upon a 95% participation rate].”In order for our district to be legally compliant, we encourage you to allow your children to take the PARCC exams or have them attend the make- up sessions, if they have missed.”

The Women’s Republican Club of Lake Forest and Lake Bluff , president, Jennifer Neubauer, deserves much credit and praise for hosting a debate on the merits and demerits of Common Core, PARCC testing, and “womb to tomb” personal data collection on students. The event took place on Saturday, March 14 at 9 a.m. at Gorton Community Center’s Stuart Room, Lake Forest. All members of the public were invited to attend the event for free.

Participants at the March 14 Saturday event

• Bruno Behrend, J.D., a senior fellow for education policy at The Heartland Institute and a Lake Forest High School graduate. The Heartland Institute is a vocal opponent of Common Core and its mandated PARCC testing.

• Jessica Handy, currently the Government Affairs Director with “Stand For Children”, and a vocal proponent of Common Core and PARCC.  She is a former teacher and former Illinois Senate Democratic staffer, serving in a variety of capacities before becoming the Policy and Budget Analyst for the Education and Pensions committees.

• Rep. Sheri Jesiel (R-61st), a member of the Elementary and Secondary Education School Committee in the Illinois House, make brief remarks between the solo comments of Ms. Handy and Mr. Behrend.  Representative Jesiel, whose office is in Gurnee, described Common Core as a very polarizing and a highly debated topic.  She sits on the House committee that oversees PARCC testing.

Jessica Handy and Bruno Behrend were each given 20 minutes to address their individual assessments of Common Core.  Ms. Handy, as pro Common Core advocate, is the Chicago organizer of “Stand for Children.” Her extended bio can be read here. Ms. Handy described her organization’s mission accordingly:  to ensure that all children, regardless of their background, graduate from high school prepared for, and with access to, a college education.” Because Handy believes that every kid has a right to a high quality education, Common Core strikes Jessica Handy as the way forward.

Pro Common Core, Jessica Handy, Stand for Children

As shared by Jessica Handy, the facts are stark.  Roughly a quarter of American children fail to finish high school.  That number translates to nearly one million young people leaving classrooms for the streets every year.  This is a guarantee for a life that will breed low earnings, poor health, and risk of incarceration.

In relating background information, Handy spoke about the forerunner of Common Core, “No Child Left Behind”, a George W. Bush education program that required all children by 2014 to meet NCLB standards.  As states scrambled to set their own standards for children to achieve success, the American Federation of Teachers and Fordham Institute looked at the state standards.  Some states had good standards, while others didn’t.  Illinois received a D.

Such a haphazard approach could not continue, given that 50% of students entering college needed to take remedial education courses.  Students were racking up lots of students loans and no college credits.

Enter Common Core which laid out the following:  1) what was expected of children at each grade level and 2) what children needed to know at each grade level to pass on to the next grade. Common Core was latched on to by Stand for Children in 2010, as a plan that could provide the standards for success in every state.  The organization Stand for Children is now active in 11 states.  Illinois was the 7th state to join forces with Stand for Child in 2010.

Favorable attributes of Common Core as expressed by Ms. Handy:

• Common Core moves away from rote memorization.
• Every math problem is a word problem.  It’s not enough to know that 9 + 6 = 15.  The child must understand why this is so, which dictates that the child is able to interpret what the numbers mean, and then be able to interpret the answer in real words.
• In English, informational texts must be read along with standard literature, because, as adults, children will be required to read and understand informational texts.
• First year testing assessments of PARCC will not count.  When the test is taken it is best done on a computer. No longer will a child just fill in the bubble.  Critical thinking is required where a written response might be required.
• Common Core testing will indicate where a child needs help.
• Common Core will eventually replace the COMPASS test for junior college and will count for college admissions at some colleges.
• We must move into the 21th century in the way children are assessed.

Con Common Core, Bruno Behrend, Senior Fellow, The Heartland Institute

Bruno Behrend, although a Senior Fellow at The Heartland Institute, does his presentations for free.  In that Bruno graduated from Lake Forest High was a definite plus.  In the audience was a classmate of Behren’s when a student at Lake Forest High School.

In listening to Mr. Behrend speak about why he’s not supportive of Common Core, at times Bruno appeared almost apologetic in having to point out how his views differed from those of Jessica Handy.  It often appeared that Bruno was being overly polite in his interactions, out of fear of being considered too aggressive.  But what happens when one of the main faults of Common Core it that its agenda is left-leaning and that the purpose the PARCC testing is to assure that teacher are teaching Common Core curriculum?

In a post event interchange with Mr. Behrend, I became aware that he was well versed on the perceived left-leaning agenda of Common Core. Following are Bruno’s reasons for not fixating on the nature of the Common Core agenda:  1) Confrontation is no way to win an argument; 2) the political bent of Common Core might be upsetting to some in attendance; and 3) the format of the event didn’t lend itself to aggressive debating.  Then too, Jessica Tandy was likewise extremely polite and respectful.  Together Bruno and Jessica created an aura of comaraderie, even though their Common Core positions were on opposite ends of the scale.  But they did share a common goal.  Both Bruno and Jessica wanted all children to receive a good education.

For Bruno Behrend education is a social and an economic problem, not unlike that expressed by his counterpart, Jessica Handy.  But for Mr. Behrend Common Core is the wrong approach to education.  It is not the answer for solving the gap between how American children rank education-wise in comparison to children of other nations.  Such a dismal showing of American children is especially troubling because as a nation we dump so much money into education (Lake Forest High School spends $22,500 per student.), yet during the past 20 or so years test scores have remained flat.  Mr. Behrend did admit that Illinois’s standards were crummy, and that if Common Core standards were good he would have no problem supporting Common Core.

Behrend’s main “beef” with Common core is the centralization of education by the federal government.  As Bruno surmised, “Will we discover after 5 – 10 years that Common Core is not producing the desired educational outcome, that Common Core was an education experiment that was conducted at the expense of our children?”  Behrend mentioned two curriculum experts (one each in English and Math) who helped write the Common Core standards.  Upon disagreeing that the Common Core standards formulated were the best standards in the world, the two experts quite the validation committee and were accordingly forbidden to write a minority report.

Bruno believes that a unified set of standards sounds like a good idea, but with this nation’s diverse population, and 52 million children to educate, decentralization of education works better.  By definition Common Core will narrow the curriculum being taught and what children are learning. Apart from the federally directed Common Core state curriculum, only 15% of what is taught locally in each school district can deviate from these standards.

Bruno Behrend questioned whether Common Core really represents 21century education, as the ways in which children are learning and can learn continue to expand at a rapid pace.  Behrend spoke highly of the Khan Academy and how it is changing the rules of education. Khan Academy is an educational website that aims to let anyone “learn almost anything—for free.” Students, or anyone interested enough to surf by, can watch some 2,400 videos in which the site’s founder, Salman Khan, chattily discusses principles of math, science, and economics (with a smattering of social science topics thrown in).  Khan Academy is on a mission to unlock the world’s potential. Most people think their intelligence is fixed. The science says it’s not. It starts with knowing you can learn anything.   Check out this excellent youtube video about Kahn Academy.

Following is question of particular interest addressed to Bruno Behrend from a Lake Forest, District 115 parent:  “How will Common Core affect the Lake Forest School System (District 67 and 115)?  What impact will it have?  To which Bruno replied:  “Lake Forest will be the last place to get bad, and the first place to get better, because of the caliber of its students.”

 

Friday, March 20, 2015 at 09:23 AM | Permalink

Technorati Tags: Common Core, Illinois Review, Nancy Thorner, PARCC

Thorner & Ingold: Is Eric Holder Lying Through Statistics?

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2015/03/thorner-ingold-is-eric-holder-lying-through-statistics.html#more

Tuesday, March 17, 2015

By Nancy Thorner & Ed Ingold – 

According the Eric Holder and the DOJ, the police in Ferguson, MO, systematically target blacks for major and minor offenses. While percentage-wise 67% of Ferguson’s population is black, they account for 92% of all arrests. Is this evidence that Ferguson patently unfair to blacks on a statistical basis?

The DOJ report accordingly concludes that blacks in Ferguson are arrested out of proportion with their population. However, the DOJ does not account for the offense pattern of demographic groups. FBI statistics for 2014  indicate that blacks at 13.2% of the population committed 63.6% (53238/83670) of all violent offenses (murder, rape and robbery). By inference, non-blacks at 86.8% of the population committed 36.4% of violent offenses. The FBI does not track minor offenses like traffic violations and jaywalking, but anecdotal evidence suggests that their rate of offenses is higher in these areas too.

Using the information we do know with relative certainty, this is how the violent offense rate and Ferguson demographics would affect the DOJ conclusion:

• Black incidents: 67/13.2  * 0.636 = 1.638
• Non-black incidents: 33/86.8 * 0.364  = 0.138
• Relative Black Incidents = 1.638/(1.638 + 0.138) = 0.922

In other words, if Ferguson followed the national trend, 92% of arrests for violent altercations would be of black offenders. We do not know the minor offense behavior by race in Ferguson; however, national statistics suggest that the 92% arrest rate tabulated by the DOJ is not unreasonable. National statistics therefore belie the claim of racial targeting by the Ferguson police department. The same is true of the conclusion reached by Milwaukee County Sheriff, David Clarke.

While math might seem wonky to the general population, it does indicate that Holder’s speech and report are highly misleading. The facts aren’t on his side, nor is the law. It’s the pocketbook. The DOJ has a $28 billion budget for civil rights prosecutions, vastly more than any one town can put up to fight the charges, making it much cheaper for communities to capitulate rather than fight spurious charges.

Whether Ferguson, and many other communities, target minor offenses in order to generate revenue is a separate issue, which probably applies to all cities, large and small, in every state of the union. For example, do red light cameras reduce traffic accidents at intersections (some accidents reduced, others increased, net positive) or generate millions of dollars in civil forfeitures (civil rules of evidence are relaxed). In Chicago, red light cameras generate about $500 million in revenue, but rear end collisions (which are disproportionately expensive) have increased with no significant reduction in cross traffic collisions.

Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens) once said, “There are liars, damned liars and statisticians.” (or was it politicians?).    An interesting book written in 1954, “How to Lie with Statistics”, is a must-read for would-be statisticians and economists.

Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 10:21 AM | Permalink

Comments

Thorner and Ingold: How Republicans could prepare for King vs. Burwell decision

​

Friday, March 13, 2015

Thorner and Ingold: How Republicans could prepare for King vs. Burwell decision

By Nancy Thorner and Ed Ingold – 

King vs. Burwell is the latest legal challenge to ObamaCare (Affordable Care Act) before the U.S. Supreme Court.The group behind the suit is the Competitive Enterprise Institution, an advocate for limited government and individual liberty. Represented by the institute are four Virginia resident who say they don’t want to buy the insurance required under Obamacare.Because haste and carelessness ensued in writing and passing Obama Care, federal agencies must now step outside their legal authority to clarify some of the words used in the convoluted bill.

At issue in King vs. Burwell is the legality of the billions of dollars in subsidies being doled our though federal exchanges in about 35 states who refused to set up their own exchanges. It is these four words, “established by the state” that could either make or break Obamacare. The statute does say that people qualify for credits when buying insurance on an exchange. Challengers contend, however, that the four words under scrutiny establish that subsidies for insurance can only flow though exchanges “established by the State”, and that federal subsides given to individuals in states without state exchange are illegal.

It’s a toss up which way the Supreme Court will rule on the Obamacare subsidy issue. If they decide the wording prevails, then subsidies are gone and with it the basis for insurance exchanges. What do the Republicans do?

The Obama administration is confident the worst will not come to pass: it contends that the phrase is a “term of art,” and that other parts of the law show that there is no distinction between federal and state run exchanges. So confident it the Obama administration that it has no back up plan ready if the Supreme Courts rules against it. As Obama recently said:

“If they rule against us, we’ll have to take a look at what our options are, but I”m not going to anticipate that.  I’m not going to anticipate bad law.”

With this in mind Democrats will most likely sit tight and demand that the Republicans pass a “clean” bill which reverses the questioned wording in the ACA, restoring the status quo. This is notwithstanding that limiting subsidies to state established exchanges was deliberately inserted by the Democrats to dangle a carrot encouraging the states to accept responsibility for the exchanges and doubling Medicaid in the process. The ACA was passed by the Senate, completely rewritten by the Democratically controlled house, returned to the Senate and “deemed” acceptable by Harry Reid without debating the changes on the Senate floor. This was done in the middle of the night on Christmas Eve, because the new Republican Senator from Massachusetts, Brown, broke the Democrats’ hold on the Senate.

The Democrats will, of course, blame Republicans for the loss of the ACA sugar, and refuse to consider any changes to ACA. Unless McConnell uses the “nuclear option”, anything other than a “clean” bill will never even be debated in the Senate. Even so, Obama will certainly veto anything which diminishes his “legacy” health care bill.

Why does Obamacare suddenly become too expensive for 11 million citizens in the exchanges? Mainly because the ten coverage mandates double the cost of health insurance, in particular, coverage for pre-existing conditions and eliminating lifetime caps on payouts.

The real debacle starts in 2016, with implementation of employer mandates, which will affect between 70 and 80 million citizens who currently have employee benefits. The ACA defines “full time employment” at 30 hours/week or more, instead of the current 40 hours. This means millions of part-time workers will be fired or their hours cut back 25% or more. The coverage mandates will increase the cost to employers (except for the self-insured, like Abbott), resulting in cutbacks in coverage, increase in co-pay costs and doubling (or more) of annual deductables. Furthermore a 40% “Cadillac tax” will apply to nearly every benefit package, prompting further cutbacks.

One of the goals established for ACA was to cover the 30 million citizens without insurance. There are still $30 million without insurance, perhaps more.

Despite the cockiness of the Obama administration in having no Plan B ready to implement, and in further believing that the Supreme Court will look beyond the “established by the state” wording to the rest of the act and its broad purpose of providing coverage to tens of millions of uninsured Americans, both sides can find reasons for hope.  The four liberal ideologues on the court have already decided that way, leaving Justices Kennedy and Roberts to go either way. Chief Justice Roberts remains the trump card.  Will Roberts base his vote on maintaining the court’s institutional integrity out of concern that striking down the law would be seen as a political decision, or will Roberts adhere to the statue’s wording in a non-constitutional case?

Democrats are counting on a political rather than a legalistic decision from the Court

Should the Supreme Court rule against the subsidies, the Democrats probably feel they have a strong hand to insist that the Republican Congress simply “repair” the defective language because most of the 36 affected states are “Red” states. This could be illusory. At least one justice mused that giving subsidies to only part of the country would render the subsidies unconstitutional under the equal protection principle. This is the same logic by which the Supreme Court struck down the ACA provisions to withhold Medicaid payments to states which declined expansion of that costly program,

Meanwhile, Republicans are eager to show they have a Plan B. Republican governors are scrambling to come up with a response should the Supreme Court invalidates subsides that help millions of their states’ citizens buy health insurance ObamaCare, perhaps making it more difficult for the GOP to rally around a single solution.Reps. Paul Ryan, John Kline and Fred Upton wrote an op-ed in the “Wall Street Journal” on March 2 in which they proposed an “off-ramp out of Obamacare,” that would allow states to opt-out of insurance mandates and offer options for those who can’t otherwise afford insurance. Sens. Orrin Hatch, Lamar Alexander and John Barrasso wrote in the “Washington Post”, they too would help those who can’t afford coverage during a “transitional period” and let states create alternative marketplaces.

Thorner and Ingold can think of a few changes the Republicans can propose and defend, if they have the backbone to do so and make a real case to the public.

• Hold fast on elimination of subsidies based solely on income in Federally run exchanges. Alternately, issue a temporary continuance so that people are not penalized for Obama’s mistakes.

• Eliminate the costly Obama mandates which are the reason insurance is so costly and so many people were cancelled. Replace them with a high risk pool for those with pre-existing conditions and major medical for those with catastrophic illness. Help the needy, not punish the successful

• Redefine full time work as 40 hours

• Eliminate the barriers to multi-state exchanges. The current practice panders to nanny states like New York and California who think they know best.

• Eliminate the employer mandate before it takes effect and drives unemployment through the roof. The 50 employee threshold will “Francify” the U.S. and create a nation of small employers (like France) who can’t afford to grow, against a background of super-corporations who have the resources to flourish under government control.

• Eliminate the automatic filibuster threshold of 60 votes. If Democrats want to filibuster, let them stand and talk  until they drop, then take a vote, or simply vote for cloture. Let Obama take the heat for vetoes, not Congress for inaction.

In the recent past, Republican leaders have withered against a unified Democratic minority. We can’t let the Democrats win victory after victory.

Friday, March 13, 2015 at 11:52 AM | Permalink

Thorner: ‘Building the Machine’ movie provides an in-depth look at Common Core

Wednesday, March 11, 2015

Thorner: ‘Building the Machine’ movie provides an in-depth look at Common Core

Left to Right:  Rep. Tom Morrison, Jim Lakely, Kristin Lombard, Jeb Hopkins, and Steve Slater

By Nancy Thorner –

As part of the Heartland Author Series, The Heartland Institute sponsored an event on Sunday afternoon, March 8, at the Palatine Public Library, which featured “Building the Machine” (also billed as the Common Core movie), a 40-minute movie which introduces the pubic to the Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI) and its effects on our children’s education.  Common Core guest critics who participated were Jeb Hopkins, Kirsten Lombard, and Steve Slater.

An excellent and comprehensive review by Cathy Duffy of “Building the Machine” can be read here. Duffy’s review is a must read to understand the dangers of nationalized educational standards.  As Ms. Duffy points out, Common Core standards were adopted quickly with hardly any awareness among the general public. There was no public debate and minimal public comment.

More about “Building the Machine”

Following are some notable observations by Cathy Duffy:

• The Common Core standards are supposed to be rigorous standards, comparable to international standards—standards that prepare students for the jobs of the 21st century. But there’s huge debate about whether or not that’s true.

• The U.S. Department of Education used $4.35 billion in grants from their Race to the Top program as a very strong incentive for states to sign on to the Common Core. States had only a few months to apply for these grants at a time when state budgets were stressed, so most states signed on with only a vague idea of what would be required of them.

• Dr. Milgram and Dr. Stotsky were the only mathematics and English language arts content specialists on the entire 30-person validation committee. Five of the committee members, including Stotsky and Milgram, did not support that finding and would not sign off on the final standards. Stotsky reveals that all of their committee work was very secretive throughout the process. At the end, there was no acknowledgement of any dissent and no minority report. The names of dissenters were simply removed from the record.

•  Common Core prepares students for community college and vocational training, but not for selective colleges or higher level math and science study.

• Most homeschoolers are not yet feeling the brunt of the Common Core, but the plan is that eventually curriculum and tests aligned to the Common Core will control education for most students, even if indirectly.

• It’s difficult to envision government schools backing away from the standards movement altogether since a tremendous amount of money and power stands behind them. Anyone who is concerned about educational freedom and parental rights needs to be aware of what is happening and do all within their power to resist this encroachment on our freedom.

The full movie can be viewed here.  The trailer can be accessed here. The original documentary is now part of an extended three-DVD set that includes parent interviews and six supplementary episodes.  Together the three segments expose Common Core using the words of leading educational experts, along with parents, teachers and a social worker.  See more here to purchase the 3-segment set.

Presentation by Steve Slater, a reading specialist for 16 years

Following the movie there was less than 20 minutes remaining for the three invited guests to offer their comments and concerns about Common Core.  An “all out” warning was heard over a loud speaker that the library would be closing at 5:00 p.m. before Steve Slater was even able to address the attendees

Steve Slater was first up as a reading specialist for 16 years in a school system in the western suburbs. Steve’s comments, as they related to his slide presentation, featured Illinois and the PARCC test.  Conveyed was the following information:

Illinois and PARCC

• Fully replaces ISAT.
• Elementary and Middle School: all students in grades 3-8 will take the PARCC assessment.
• High School: students in English III and Algebra II or Math III will take the PARCC assessment.
• Governing stats agree to use assessment results for state accountability system.

School Accountability:  The state is currently “revising” its accountability plans to include the new PARCC.  Schools/Districts that don’t show adequate progress will “receive support to improve outcomes for students.

Educator Accountability:  Student growth incorporation into educator ratings beginning in 2016

Review this Language Arts passage from a test for 4th graders.  By all measures the passage seems inappropriate for assessment in grade 4. See here the Grade 4 Passage from:  “Just Like Home” by Mathangi Subramanian which calls for abstract thinking.

PARCC technical skills

• Skills to take the test involve click and drag, maneuvering between screens, and typing responses included.
• Many districts piloting Chrome Books with smaller screens.
• The unknown of thousands of students accessing the testing site simultaneously.

PARCC test Concerns

• PARCC is driving what is being taught in the classrooms.
• The amount of time spent in test-related activities has increased. SAT = Approximately 7 hours. PARCC = Approximately 13 – 15 hours (two sessions March & May).
• The results will not be broken down in a way that useful for informing classroom instruction.
• Computerized version is tricky.

Illinois and PAARC

Student test scores will serve as part of teacher evaluations.  Steve Slater, although a reading specialist, expressed concern over PAARC Math assessments, but time didn’t allow him to pursue the topic. Here is a recent post that covers PARCC math test readability.  This article published at “Illinois Review” on Monday, March 9th shows how a “Teacher takes almost a minute to explain simple math problem using Common Core”.

Steve Slater raised the question as to why parents have no right to opt their own children out of the PARCC testing?  Parental rights are absent as children must convey their own opt out messages to their teachers. This presents a dichotomy.  Children are told to follow directions, yet they must refuse the PARCC test on their own. Slater also related how teachers in his district are very discouraged. They must teach in a new way, not knowing if their students are understanding the material being taught.

Kristin Lombard and Jeb Hopkins stand together in abolishing Common Core

It was unfortunate that guests Kirsten Lombard and Jeb Hopkins had so little time to talk, let alone to address questions.  Both Kirsten and Jeb are from Madison, IL.  Jeb Hopkins is a professor at Edgewood College.  Kristin Lombard is editor and author of Common Ground on Common Core.

Jeb Hopkins entertained a question about the merits of a centralist system that puts schools in position of having to do so much testing of children. His response:  “Parents expect their children to be nurtured when sent off to school. Teachers can’t create a nurturing environment when Common Core intrusively undermines the work of the teacher in how they are to teach and what they are to teach.”

Jeb Hopkins together with Kristin Lombard — both of the same mind set to abolish Common Core — responded to a inquiry about ridding this nation of Common Core standards.  Interesting thoughts were shared by Jeb and Kristin:

1.  The only reason Common Core standards exist is so children can be tested.  Teachers will be graded on how well their students perform.

2.  Common Core functions as a system of indoctrination.

3.  The PARCC test is to ensure that teaching is in compliance to Common Core standards.

4.  There must be a 95% participation of student participation in PARCC testing to validate the test’s own threshold.  If 6% of students opt out in a classroom, the PARCC test is not considered viable.

A brief appearance was made by Illinois Representative Tom Morrison, a sponsor of HB 306. Representative Morrison asked those in attendance to urge their representative to vote for HB 306:  “Amends the School Code. With respect to the administration of State assessments, provides that a student is not required to take a particular State assessment if that student’s parent or guardian requests, in writing, that the student be excused from taking the State assessment. . . ”

Summary

Central planning, the essence of Common Core, appeals to those who like power. With 22% of 9th graders presently not finishing high school,  in the future more adults will be walking around without high school diplomas.  Consider Texas, having opted out of Common Core, the state offers a regular high school diploma geared to attend college and a general diploma.  Students, accordingly, decide which course they will pursue.  Such a procedure is not compatible with federal policy.

Common Core sounds good as the opening wedge.  And what’s wrong with all students having the same education standards?  If this is so, why then aren’t all students scoring top grades?  Then too, does the government have the right to teach children what it thinks they should know?  The Pierson/Gates partnership regards students as a collective productive line.   Whatever happened to state initiative that can serve as laboratories of education?

With Common Core education it’s more about the system than the child.  Common Core supposedly trains students for college and careers, when, realistically, not all children should be or are college bound.  As earlier stated, the PARCC test is to ensure there is compliance to teaching the Common Core Curriculum.

The federal government should not be involved in creating national education standards to be implemented at the state level. Instead, parents, teachers, school districts and local communities should be making these important decisions for our children.  The American public must be involved in this national decision regardless of their political persuasion. This involves contacting your legislators and attending local school board meeting for public comment.

Educational literature available by subscription or for purchasing

Jim Lakely moderated the event as Communications Director at The Heartland Institute.  Heartland Institute has been working for 31 years to put parents back in charge of education. Lakely displayed literature that was available to be picked up as reference material and/or to be shared with others.  The literature included: Heartland’s “School Reform News”; Joy Pullman’s booklet, as research fellow on education policy for The Heartland Institute and managing editor of The Federalist, “Common Core: A Bad Choice For America”; and a palm card, “You Can STOP Common Core,” which briefly informs What is Common Core? and how You can fight back! 

To obtain information about any of the literature items, call the Heartland Institute at (312) 377-4000 or send an email to think@heartland.org.

Wednesday, March 11, 2015 at 04:15 PM | Permalink

Thorner: Jeb Bush embraces New World Order; Common Core provides global education

​

Saturday, March 07, 2015

By Nancy Thorner – 

There is more behind the facade of what Jeb Bush stands for than meets the eye. As detailed in Part 1, “Jeb Bush, a conservative, a moderate, or a globalist,” Jeb didn’t allow challengers to stand in his way when running and winning the governorship three times in Florida. Although it has been reported that Jeb Bush governed as a conservative, in the interim Bush has taken positions that mirror those of Democrats, specifically with amnesty and Common core.

During Jeb Bush’s recent appearance at C-PAC he captured 5th placed percentage-wise. During an interview conducted by Sean Hannity Bush spoke of himself as a “reform-minded conservative.” It is interesting that Jeb Bush was open to a question and answer session with Sean Hannity, but not to a direct confrontation with the C-PAC audience. Of even greater interest is why Jeb Bush is seemingly being pushed as the anointed Republican presidential candidate for 2016.

Part of the answer is found in Phyllis Schlafly’s book, “A Choice Not An Echo.” Schlafly details how in early 1936 a little group of secret kingmakers (prominent financiers and industrialists) laid long-range plans to control the Republican Party. This group has used every trick to dictate the choice of the Republican presidential nominee up to now, although failing in their selections of Bob Dold and John McCain. It was the kingmakers who were responsible for derailing and destroying Senator Barry Goldwater in the election of 1964. For the kingmakers, it was anyone but Goldwater, preferring, as they did, the continuation of the policies of Democrat incumbent Lyndon Johnson to those of Goldwater. With this in mind, there is every reason to believe the kingmakers of today, although faces have changed, are partial to Jeb Bush as the 2016 Republican presidential nominee?

Entities that embrace the “One World, Centralized Political System

The kingmakers are not the only entity who believe Jeb Bush fits the criteria of what a presidential candidate must stand for and represent. The author’s goal is to set forth the tangled web of Common Core as it relates to what the U.N.; non-governmental organizations; and the elitist, establishment members of the Republican Party all wish to achieve in the future: One World Government, often called Globalism.  One World Government is a project of the elites.  It’s presently on track to become the social and political agenda of the 21st century.  Jeb Bush, as a globalist, would lead this nation’s ship in the right direction, while Common Core Standards would enable the process.

The four most influential non-government organizations that embrace the “One World, Centralized Political System” are The Trilateral Commission, The Bilderbergers, The Council on Foreign Relation, and The United Nations.

The Trilateral Commission was founded initially as the brainchild of David Rockefeller in 1973. It was a clique of some two hundred banking, commercial, political and communications leaders.  It was responsible for electing Jimmy Carter, thereafter staffing his administration with essentially the same crowd who had controlled the Republican presidential nominations for so many years.  It was rightly perceived that Carter could be easily controlled.

The Bilderberg Group first met back in 1954 when the most powerful men in the world met at Oosterbeek, Netherlands to debate the future of the world, thereafter they decided to meet annually in secret.  The members represent a who’s who of world power elites, mostly from America, Canada and Western Europe.  These names jumped out at me from the United States:  David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, Bill Clinton, Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, Larry Summers, Tim Geithner, George Soros, Donald Rumsfeld, Rupert Murdock, along with many, many more.  Check this link to read Daniel Estulin riveting book,“The True Story of the Bilderberg Group,” published in 2005 and updated in a new 2009 edition.

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) was founded in 1921 as a United States nonprofit. It is a 4,900 member organization, publisher and think tank specializing in U.S. foreign policy and international affairs, headquartered in New York City.  Once again this is an elite organization.  Brian Williams was a member of this organization, as is Chuck Hagel.  Not unexpectedly, top U.S. figures at the CFR and the Trilateral Commission are also well represented at the Bilderberg Group.

The United Nations is an intergovernmental organization.  It was established on October 24, 1945, to promote international co-operation as a replacement for the ineffective League of Nations. Headquartered in Manhattan in New York City, the UN had 51 members when founded; it now has 193.  In 1992 the U.N. provided the means for world leaders to embrace and carry forth a One World, Centralized Political System, Agenda 21, also known as “sustainable development.”

U.N. Agenda 21 lays the groundwork

This UN action plan, Agenda 21, was birthed at the 1992 United Nations Rio Earth Summit.  It called for the inventory and control of all land, all water, all minerals, all plants, all animals, all construction, all means of production, all information, all energy, and all human beings in the world.  Read here for a synopsis of Agenda 21 in one easy lesson. President George H. W. Bush, as a globalist, signed the US on to this plan, as did 178 other world leaders for their nations.

Globalists have made it clear that as a sovereign independent nation, the U.S., with a long tradition of Liberty, cannot be allowed to continue in its existing form, that the U.S. HAS to be brought under “a New World Order. George H.W. Bush once commented (from “Family of Secrets” by Russ Baker):

“If the American people knew what we have done, they would string us up from the lamp posts.”

As both the father and brother of Jeb Bush are globalists, it doesn’t seem out-of-line to conclude that globalism runs in the Bush family.  Bush’s support of America’s Common Core curriculum, in part, is based on the United Nation’s Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESC), “Education for All”. The makeup of UNESC includes the same people and the same ideas as found in the U.S. Education Department’s Common Core.  Not only was Common Core formulated by the UN, but it was “agreed to” by Barack Obama, funded by Bill Gates, and then imposed on the American people through funding schemes of the Department of Education.

Fact or Coincidence?

Senator Lamar Alexander serves as a Republican elected senator from Tennessee and is the ranking Republican member of the Senate committee on Heath, Education, Labor and Pension (HELP). Years ago Lamar Alexander served as George H. W. Bush’s Secretary of Education. It was during Lamar Alexander’s tenure as Bush’s Secretary of Education that he created the New American Schools Development Corporation .  Its goal was education RESTRUCTURING, from Academic Teaching to Skinnerian/Pavolvian.  Its aim was to train children for the Global Workforce so docile workers would be able to follow simple instructions, but not inclined to ask questions. Learn more about Skinnerian/Pavolvian by reading Charlotte Iserbyt book, “Back to Basics Reform Or…OBE *Skinnerian International Curriculum.” It just happens that Lamar Alexander has been a long time member of the Council of Foreign Relations which advocates for One World Government. Recently Senator Lamar Alexander, as the Republican ranking member of HELP, proposed a Senate education bill for the reauthorization No Child Left Behind that would have allowed for the continuation of Common Core.  Most of the Republican senators supported the bill, while Democrat senators were against the bill.

Jeb Bush Support comes from globalists, elite Republicans, and establishment Republicans

Not unlike the big fat cat Republican donors and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, kingmakers and elitist establishment Republicans view amnesty favorably for the cheap labor it provides and view Jeb Bush as the candidate who can deliver amnesty. Disappointment and anger befell conservatives with the capitulation by Boehner and McConnell in allowing funding for President Obama’s illegal executive order that would provide work permits for five million, etc.  There can be little doubt that most rank and file establishment Republicans do support amnesty, believing that being nice to illegals is the key to future electoral success and a pathway for cheap labor.  The rift between establishment Republicans and their conservative counterparts is now being played out through TV ads. The Republican-aligned American Action Network is going after three conservative Republicans for opposing a deal that funded the Department of Homeland Security without rolling back President Barack Obama’s executive actions on immigration.

Phyllis Schlafly tells a different story about the folly of establishment Republicans in refusing to defund Obama’s illegal executive order in her recent article, “Democrats Plan To Win Elections With Illegal Alien Votes.”

Non-governmental organizations, as the four mentioned earlier in this article, are supportive of Jeb Bush, for as a globalist Bush would be in step with their stated mission of subduing the populous and ushering in world government.  Their mission dovetails with the goal of Common Core to indoctrinate children with the concept of global unification.  As such, Common Core represents a conspiracy of the corporate elitists, the one-world-government types from both side joining together under the UNESCO treaty, item 36 — the binding United Nations Agenda 21 agreement that committed signees to promote universal education. . One of the finest article the author has ever read about Common Core can be found here.

A Jeb Bush candidacy in 2016 must be thwarted

In light of the support Jeb Bush seems to be amassing, there is the good possibility that Jeb, if he hasn’t already, will become the perfect vessel through which Common Core and amnesty can thrive in yet another Bush administration.  As a globalist, President Jeb Bush would also provide the means through which a “One World, Centralized Political System” could continue to go forward.

In that Jeb Bush is an important member of the 20-Member Task Force of the Aspen Institute largely funded by George Soros, Bill Gates, and the NWO banksters, should be all the information needed to conclude that Jeb Bush is not an acceptable Republican candidate in 2016.

May the pubic not be duped by the so-called elites who are already working below the radar to anoint Jeb Bush, believing they know what it best for the nation and for the American people.

Image Source

Saturday, March 07, 2015 at 04:12 PM | Permalink

Technorati Tags: Illinois Review

Thorner: Jeb Bush: a conservative, a moderate or a globalist?

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2015/03/thorner-jeb-bush-a-conservative-a-moderate-or-a-globalist.html#more

Thursday, March 05, 2015

By Nancy Thorner – 

After three days packed with Republican stars, 2016 presidential hopefuls, all seeking grassroots support, finally received the results of the long-awaited Conservative Political Conference (CPAC) presidential straw poll.  The conference is held by the American Conservative Union (ACU).

Over 3,000 registrants voted in CPAC’s 2015 poll, with a plurality of those being 18-25 year-olds.

Following are the five candidates who garnered the most votes:  Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul won over CPAC’s right-wing activists for the third year in a row with more than a quarter of the vote at 25.7 percent (Supporters are routinely trucked in.); Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker placed 2nd with a 21.4 percent vote total; Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and pediatric neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson finished in third (with 11.5 percent) and fourth (with 11 percent) place, respectively; while former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush came in fifth place at 8 percent.

Many conservatives are wary of Jeb Bush, seeing him as an establishment Republican who is too liberal on immigration and Common Core. Bush sees himself as a practicing, reform-minded conservative.  Given Jeb Bush’s positive stance on illegal immigration and Common Core, it was rather surprising that Jeb Bush was given a prime time speaking slot on Friday afternoon, Feb. 27.  Furthermore, Jeb Bush was granted the opportunity to field questions from Fox News host Sean Hannity for almost 20 odd minutes on stage to make his case to the crowd. Although Jeb Bush was meet by some lusty boos, by the end of the Q&A session with Hannity the hecklers had been quieted and Bush had won plenty of applause, some seemingly coming from those his camp had arranged to attend.  While Bush had hoped to come in 2nd among CPAC’s voters, capturing 5th place was reported as an achievement.

Bush’s 5th place showing is cause for worriment and concern among some rank and file Republicans, especially with his Republican conservative base. CBS News’ latest election poll doesn’t reflect CPAC’s conservative hierarchy.  In the nationwide CBS survey, Bush and Paul lead among self-identified Republicans, with 41 percent and 39 percent respectively.  Which brings to mind this question:  Will Republican voters once again allow the GOP establishment to pick the next presidential candidate only to have the chosen candidates fail, as did Bob Dold, McCain, and Mitt Romney?

 

“Kingmakers” select candidates

A must read is Phyllis Schlafly’s book,” A Choice Not An Echo” (Updated and expanded 50th Anniversary Edition), which reveals how GOP “kingmakers,” using every trick in the book, have “dictated the choice of the Republican presidential nominee just a completely as the Paris dress-makers control the length of women’s skirts.”

According to Schlafly, their objective was to maintain control of a Republican Party that would echo the New Deal Democrats rather than offer voters a meaningful choice.  Schlafly book covers elections from 1936 to what we might expect in 2016.  Regarding Goldwater, he was smeared and treated harshly by the establishment (kingmakers) in 1964. When Goldwater was successful in winning the Republican nomination, all stops were pulled out by the kingmakers to ensure that Goldwater would lose to Johnson. The kingmakers favored Johnson over Goldwater because they were not adverse to the continuation of Johnson’s policies.

In case you’re wondering why Jeb Bush is vying to be the GOP standard bearer in 2016, even hoping to be declared as such before the first state primary election is held, Michelle Malkin provides the answer.

 

Jeb Bush’s ties to Common Core

According to Sept. 20, 2013 report by Michelle Malkin, Jeb’s group, the grand sounding Foundation for Excellence in Education, is tied at the hip  federally funded testing consortium called PARCC (Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers), which raked in $186 million through Race to the Top to develop nationalized tests aligned to the Common Core program [PARCC testing is very controversial and is scheduled to be administered soon here in Illinois.]

Furthermore, one of the Bush Foundation’s major corporate sponsors is Pearson, the multi-billion educational publishing and testing conglomerate.  Pearson snagged $23 million in contracts to design the first wave of PARCC test items. Pearson just happens to have a $250 million contract with Bush’s home state of Florida to design and publish its state tests

This summer, Pearson sealed a whopping $30 million taxpayer-subsidized deal to supply the city’s schools with 45,000 iPads pre-loaded with Pearson Common Core curriculum apps. That’s $678 per iPad, $200 more than the standard cost, with scant evidence that any of this shiny edu-tech will do anything to improve the achievement bottom line.

On January 1, Jeb Bush announced that he was ending all his relationships with several corporations and nonprofit organizations, including his own K-12 advocacy group, the Foundation for Excellence in Education. It was roughly two weeks after Bush had made know that he was creating an exploratory committee for a potential run for the White House.  According to Bush’s aides, Jeb was leaving these groups in order to focus more time on politics, although Bush’s decision could very well have been an attempt to disentangle himself from relationships that could complicate his potential run for the White House. Two years ago critics did allege that the Jeb Bush foundation inappropriately lobbies and influences state education leaders on behalf of for-profit entities, particularly digital education services.

Bush likewise ended his relationship with Academic Partnerships, a company that has converted over 4,000 courses to online formats in over 3000 undergraduate and graduate degree programs.  According to the company’s website, Jeb Bush earned $60,000 a year as a paid adviser and also owned a small share of the company’s stock.

It should be obvious by now why Bush is such a zealot advocate for Common Core. Just follow the money.  For anyone whose head isn’t buried in the sand, Common Core is a left-wing education dream that depends on federal funding to serve as a pathway to indoctrinate children.  This is not unlike the way Saul Alinsky choreographed the silent revolution.

 

Past behavior suggests caution

Worthy of consideration is how candidate Jeb Bush might conduct himself during a presidential run? A  Crowley Political Report on Feb. 26 questioned whether Jeb Bush would act like a bully in a GOP race for president.  Having vowed that he would run for president only if he can do it “joyfully”, a recent New York Times article noted that behind the scenes Bush and his aides have pursued the nation’s top campaign donors, political operatives, and policy experts with an eye to rapidly locking up the highest-caliber figures, thus making it all but impossible for other Republican candidates to assemble a high-octane campaign team. In each of his governor elections in 1994, 1998, and 2002, Bush attempted to corner the market, willing to “joyfully” hurl a fastball straight to the noggin of anyone who dared to get in his way.  The Times story is worth reading for those unfamiliar with Jeb Bush and his way of campaigning joyfully.

For all practical purposes Jeb Bush must be given the benefit of the doubt when claiming to be a practicing, reform-minded conservative despite his support for Common Core and amnesty.  There is, however, ample documentation to show that Jeb Bush is following in the footsteps of his dad, G.H. Bush, and his brother, G.W, as a globalist.

 

In Part 2 these questions will be addressed:  1) What is a globalist?;  2) How does Common Core become an issue common to globalists?, and 3) What non-governmental organization are united in their goal to subdue human kind and usher in World Government?  

Thursday, March 05, 2015 at 04:33 PM | Permalink

Thorner & Ingold: Will a royal edict on ammo mock the Constitution?

Monday, March 02, 201

By Nancy Thorner and Ed Ingold – 

 The ATF’s move to ban ammunition in common use since before the 1986 ban on “armor piercing ammunition” is at the direct hand of President Obama. Having failed to secure an assault weapons ban after New Town, or even universal background checks, he is trying to dry up the most popular “plinking” ammunition for AR rifles, the most popular rifle style sold in America. He has already moved to ban importation of Russian ammunition on the pretense of sanctioning Putin’s supporters, and the importation of foreign made semi-automatic rifles. (The same rifles are made here under license.)

As related in the Washington Examiner:

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives this month revealed that it is proposing to put the ban on 5.56 mm ammo on a fast track, immediately driving up the price of the bullets and prompting retailers, including the huge outdoors company Cabela‘s, to urge sportsmen to urge Congress to stop the president.

Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA-ILA, the group’s policy and lobby shop, likewise made this statement about the ammunition ban:

The Obama administration was unable to ban America’s most popular sporting rifle through the legislative process, so now it’s trying to ban commonly owned and used ammunition through regulation.” . . .  “The NRA and our tens of millions of supporters across the country will fight to stop President Obama’s latest attack on our Second Amendment freedoms.

In an effort to thwart BATFE’s attempted action, the National Rifle Association has worked with U.S. Representative Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, to draft a letter to BATFE expressing the lawmakers’ opposition to the proposed Framework.  So far the NRA, working with Goodlatte to gather co-signers, have enlisted 30 House members.  Goodlatte and the NRA are hoping to get a total of 100 House members as co-signers in the near future.  Bob Goodlatte asserts that the proposed ban is a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act and has vowed to fight the measure in court.

According to the letter being drafted to send BATFE by Goodlatte and the NRA:

The idea that Congress intended [the ‘armor piercing’ ammunition law] to ban one of the preeminent rifle cartridges in use by Americans for legitimate purposes is preposterous.”  The letter goes on to state that the law “should be construed in accordance with the American tradition of lawful firearms ownership, as protected by the Second Amendment.” This includes due consideration of “the many legitimate uses Americans make of their firearms including target practice, hunting, organized and casual competition, training and skills development, and instructional activities.“ The letter concludes with several pointed questions for the B. Todd Jones, BATFE’s director, including why the agency bypassed the Administrative Procedures Act in proposing such a radical change to its prior interpretation and enforcement of the law.

The Goodlatte letter also states:

This round is amongst the most commonly used in the most popular rifle design in America, the AR-15. Millions upon millions of M855 rounds have been sold and used in the U.S., yet ATF has not even alleged — much less offered evidence — that even one such round has ever been fired from a handgun at a police officer.

Democrats are distancing themselves from the BATF proposal, with the possible exception of Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin. The issue is unifying gun owners against Democrats to a degree not seen since the spring of 2013.

At issue is so-called “armor-piercing” ammunition.  The inexpensive 5.56 M855 ammo, commonly called lightgreen tips, have been exempt for years, as have higher-caliber ammunition that also easily pierces the type of soft armor worn by police, because it’s mostly used by target shooters, not criminals. The agency proposes to reclassify it as armor-piercing and not exempt.  But now BATFE says that since the bullets can be used in semi-automatic handguns they pose a threat to police and must be banned from production, sale and use. But, as Goodlatte noted, the agency offered no proof. Federal agencies will still be allowed to buy the ammo.

What do we know about M855 ammunition?

• M855 is the most used for sporting purposes, because it is cheap and as military surplice, available in large quantities. Soldiers are issued mainly M193 (FMJ) and M855 (steel tip) bullets for combat, hence the wide availability of outdated or surplus military ammunition.

• The bullet does not fall in the 1896 law’s classification of “armor piercing” bullets, “consisting entirely of brass, bronze, tungsten, steel or spent uranium.” The M855 round is mostly lead with a thin gilding metal jacket and a small, flat-tipped conical steel core in front of the lead and covered by the jacket

• M855 doesn’t actually penetrate armor. The steel core is flat-tipped under the soft, pointed jacket. It will penetrate a steel helmet (not Kevlar) at 300 yards, but is stopped by 1/8” hardened steel plate or 2” of polycarbonate at any distance. The bullet is designed to tumble on striking a target, with only mildly enhanced penetration. Since the bullet is base-heavy, it tends to tumble when it encounters resistance. The bullet turns sideways in as little as two layers of wall board or 6 inches of ballistic gel.
• There have been no documented cases of its use against law enforcement officers.

• The 1986 law purports to protect law enforcement against armor piercing ammunition in HANDGUNS. Ammunition used for both handguns and rifles was classified as “rifle” ammunition. The only handguns firing 5.56×45 ammunition are either single shot only, or large and cumbersome devices, consisting of an AR rifle without the extra 3” of a butt stock.

• LEO armor is designed to resist handgun calibers. Any centerfire rifle and some common handguns will defeat the highest class of soft armor in use, IIIa, regardless of the construction of the bullet. That said, there are no documented cases of their use against officers in a typical encounter, like traffic or ID stops.

In reaction to the ATF’s plan to ban 5.56 mm steel-tipped bullets capable of penetrating a protective vest, customers are purchasing AR-15 ammo in volumes up to 20 times the normal rate in some gun stores across the country.  Numerous gun stores are reporting panic buying. Steve Ellis, owner of Top Guns in Terre Haute, Indiana, told WTHI that supplies were dwindling. “Everyone is selling out of ammunition, distributors are out, manufacturers are out, most dealers are out,” said Ellis  It was also reported that a Walmart in Anchorage, AK went from having plentiful supplies of the bullets to none whatsoever.  Meanwhile, Ryan Cook, manager of Eagle Armory in Springfield, said that suppliers were telling him “there was none available to order”.

Rick Moran, in an article published at the American Thinker on February 27 about the ban on AR-15 ammunition, concluded his article with these thoughtful but troubling statements:

We’re getting used to asking the question, “Can he really do that?”. The answer is, unless the courts are of a mind to stop him, he can do pretty much anything he pleases. In this case, the overreach is so egregious, that a bi-partisan Congress may step in and stifle the BATFE.  If the president would veto congressional action opposing him on the ammunition issue, there may be more than a dozen Democratic Senators will to vote with the GOP to override.

Until Obama came along, the Second Amendment had been enjoying something of a winning streak in state legislatures and the courts, with some notable exceptions in backwards blue states. But even Chicago and Washington, D.C. lost court cases that overturned some of their more draconian gun control laws.

This latest stealth assault on the Second Amendment is cowardly and unnecessary. The BATFE is bypassing Congress because such an ammunition ban wouldn’t have a prayer of passing. By relying on royal edicts to impose his will, the president is making a mockery of the Constitution.”

 

Frédéric Bastiat  (30 June 1801 – 24 December 1850), an early free-market economist and classical liberal French author, had this warning which is applicable to the situation we face today, as a nation who has gradually forgotten from whence she came.

When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

Monday, March 02, 2015 at 11:10 AM | Permalink