Wednesday, July 30, 2014

Lamar In His Own Words on Education

I saw Lamar Alexander's "No National School Board" ad again last night.  Every time I hear/see it, I crack up.  Lamar is using a phantom issue to deceive voters about his real views on education.  It's just like his "I'm against ObamaCare because I voted against it" shtick.  True he voted against funding it, but he voted for cloture which is what allowed it to be passed by a simple majority of Democrats.  What is in the water in DC anyway?  But I digress.  This article is about education and Lamar.

Obama and the Democrats aren't trying to form a National School Board, Lamar.  Are they trying to take over education?  Yes.  See Common Core.  But that doesn't mean that Democrats are trying to form a National School Board as their strategy.  They are too smart for that.  They use more devious ways in which to do so.  Again, see Common Core.

What Lamar isn't touting is his ideas in 1989 for cradle to college education ~starting at 3 months;~ year around school from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

Where have you heard these ideas before?

Just in case you don't know who this is, it is Obama's current of Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan.  And yes, Arne Duncan is a proponent of Common Core.

What is Lamar Alexander's stance on Common Core?  With his misleading ad, he's implying that he's against Common Core.

How about we look at what he does.  It is no secret that Tennessee governor, Bill Haslam is a big supporter of Common Core.  It's an understatement to say that Jeb Bush is a supporter of Common Core.  So who is it that Lamar is palling around with in March 2014?  Why  Jeb Bush and Governor Haslam, of course.

Good Try Lamar!  The good news is that we do have a choice for US Senate.  Joe Carr actually has a record for fighting against Common Core.

Join me in voting for Tennessee.  Vote for Joe Carr in the Republican Primary for US Senate.  

Thanks Lamar!

I just want to take this opportunity to Thank Lamar for voting for Amnesty thus encouraging the influx of illegal ~which is another word for criminal~ minors into Tennessee and our country.  Tennessee has received 760 ~that we know of~ so far.  All without even our governor knowing about it.

Just to show my appreciation, I will be voting for Joe Carr, not you in the Republican Primary.

Your Kids' New Classmates . . .

Schools here in Memphis get started next week, August 4th.  There will be lots of changes.  After Memphis City Schools surrendered their charter in 2010 to force consolidation with the Shelby County Schools, the subject of education has been a sore spot here in Memphis.  There has been a lot of angst, confusion and name-calling going on.  The parents of the municipalities didn't take kindly to a forced takeover by the failed MCS, so they responded by creating school districts of their own.  Next week will be the kickoff for the new schools.  I wish them well.  The parents in the municipalities showed what can happen when citizens get involved with self-governance.  Kudos to them.

So all will be hunky dory right?  Not so fast.  The municipal schools will still be dealing with Common Core, but that is a subject for another post.  No, what I am referring to are all of the illegal "unaccompanied" minors that will be joining our kids in school.

From The Daily Caller:  ~h/t Education News~
American kids and teenagers will be sharing their already-crowded classrooms with tens of thousands of ill-educated Central American migrants this fall, because President Obama is distributing perhaps 100,000 Central American migrants across the country.

The arrival of the American students’ new classmates was highlighted July 25 when Obama’s agencies announced he had already distributed 30,340 foreign youths and children by July 7.

Virginia received 2,234 foreign students and Maryland got 2,205, according to the announcement from the Department of Health and Human Services. Texas got 4,280 foreign students, North Carolina got 1,191, and New Jersey got 1,504, said the government statement.  ~My note: Tennessee got 760~
 Those numbers may double by October, however.
More than 50,000 Central American children and youths have crossed the border since October with the aid of smugglers, usually working under a contract with their parents. More that 90 percent say they are teenagers, and more than 95 percent are being released by Obama to their U.S.-based parents or relatives, many of whom are illegal immigrants.

Another 50,000 Central Americans have crossed in so-called “family units,” of at least one parent and child. A few of those are being repatriated, some are being held in government facilities, but many have been bussed or flown to cities where they want to live, despite widespread protests from worried Americans.

More migrants are expected to cross before winter sets in, and next’s year’s inflow is expected to be much larger than this year’s flood, unless the federal government sharply changes its immigration enforcement policies.

Roughly 30,000 Central Americans children and youths arrived from 2012 to September 2013. Most of them are enrolled in U.S. schools, including some who are believed to be over 18.

Not only are these kids not literate in English ~how can they be expected to be?~ they aren't even literate in Spanish.

Another concern that we as parents should have is all the infectious diseases that these kids are bringing with them.  There's tuberculosis, scabies, chicken pox, pneumonia, H1N1 just to name some of them.  I have a daughter whose immune system is compromised because she is on anti-rejection drugs for her transplant.

How about all the MS-13 gang members that are coming across?  Did you know that the vast majority ~84%~ of these "children" are teens?

Even if you believe that the compassionate thing to do is educate these youth, what is it going to do to our schools already stretched budgets?

From  the Boston Herald:
“We certainly don’t want to communicate that our city is not a welcoming place, especially for young children, but we have to be concerned about our finances and our ability to serve all of our citizens,” said New Bedford Mayor Jon Mitchell. “If the point comes where we feel as though our resources are getting too strained, we’re going to look to the state and federal government for assistance because that is only fair.”

With our own school, municipal and personal budgets tight, is it really "fair" to our kids to take resources from them to give to illegal entrants?  Schools have security systems to keep out threats to our children.  Now we are being forced to "welcome" them in?

Tuesday, July 29, 2014

It's Bush's Fault . . .

Except that it's not.  How many times have we heard Obama and the Democrats blame Bush for _______ ?  Just fill in the blank.  The economy, the Obama phones, Fast and Furious ~I'll talk about this in another post~  the FSA spying on us, the VA scandal and the list goes on.  Anytime that Obama gets questioned about something that is bad, he blames Bush.  And here we are again.  Obama and the Democrats are trying to blame Bush for not being able to deport these "unaccompanied" minors flooding across our southern border.

The Democrats are blaming a law signed by Bush in 2008 as the reason that they can't just send these kids back home.  "We want to send them back, but our hands are tied by the law," they squeal.  "We are just following the law."  First of all, they forget to mention ~and they know they will get away with it with their base~ that the Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress in 2008.  Secondly, since when are Obama and the Democrats worried about the rule of law?  What law that they dislike are they upholding?  Remember when Obama's Justice Dept refused to uphold DOMA ~The Defense of Marriage Act~?  Or how about the voting intimidation case by the New Black Panthers in Philadelphia from 2008?  Or current immigration laws?  How many times has ObamaCare been delayed or changed by executive order?  So why all of a sudden this penchant for the rule of law?

Come to find out, Obama is once again using his partisan minions to subvert the rule of law.

From the Daily Caller:
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson admitted at a Tuesday press conference that nearly all the roughly 50,000 Central American youths who have crossed the Texas border since October are accompanied by smugglers hired by the youth’s parents or families.

“It is our observation and our experience that almost all of of them are smuggled,” he said. ”Nobody is freelancing,” he added.

“The families are paying as much as $10,000,” he said.

The act was originally designed to aid the small number of youths who are forcibly imported and abandoned in the United States by criminal groups, such as prostitution rings, said Jon Feere, the legal analyst at the Center for Immigration Studies.

The administration is improperly applying the law to the smuggled immigrants, which only helps the young people win residency and helps the smugglers win more customers, Feere told TheDC.

White House officials “are hoping no one reads through what the 2008 law requires, and they’re happy to act as if their hands are bound by the 2008 law,” he said.

Federal immigration law excludes children with parents or guardians in the U.S. from being classified as “unaccompanied alien children,” and so excludes them from the 2008 law, said Feere.

So how many of these "unaccompanied alien children" are being reunited with their illegal parent already here?

From CNS News:
According to Kenneth Wolfe, deputy director for the Office of Public Affairs at ACF, told that in 2014 (through the month of June),  96 percent of the 45,157 children -- or 43,341 of them -- who were transferred from the custody of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to the ORR have been placed with sponsors inside the United States, including with family members.

“Over half of the sponsors are parents of the child,” Wolfe said, citing the percentage of children with this placement status at 55 percent.

So let me get this straight.  The regime is admitting that over half of these kids are being reunited with their parents who are already here illegally.  If the parents were here legally, why would they have to pay a smuggler to get them here?   I would submit that most of the others are with some sort of family member here illegally.

How is the Dept of Health and Human Services finding these family members so easily?  I thought the whole reason for immigration reform was so that the illegals could come out of the shadows.  Sure doesn't sound like they are in the shadows to me.  Things that make one go hmmmmmm.

How about when these family members come to pick up their kids, they take the whole family to dinner and then put them on a bus back to their home country?  If they are so important and good for our country, why not let them do their thing in their country of origin?

Saturday, July 26, 2014

The "good" Doc is up to His old Tricks Again

What is the saying about teaching an old dog new tricks?  Perennial spoiler candidate Doc Flinn is up to his old tricks.  I was lucky to be in the 8th Congressional District in 2010 when Flinn was running in the Republican Primary for Congress.  There were three candidates in that race ~which ended up being the most expensive primary that election:~ Stephen Fincher, Ronald Kirkland and George Flinn.  I would sometimes get two or three mailers from each candidate in a day.  Stephen Fincher won the primary and went on to beat the Democrat for Congress.  In 2012, the "good" doc ran in the 9th Congressional District ~after redistricting~ and defeated Charlotte Bergmann in the Republican Primary and then later went down to a smashing defeat to Democrat Steve Cohen.  I discovered fraud with Flinn's Primary Petition, but that didn't phase the Establishment Shelby County GOP.  They were lured by the "good" doc's money.  Even with the "good" doc's money, he still got a lower percentage of the vote than Ms. Bergmann did in 2010.

Now we are in 2014 and guess what; the "good" doc is at it again.  This time his "prize" is the US Senate.  The problem is; he's not in it to win it.  He's in it to spoil it for his buddy Lamar Alexander.

From the Tennessean:

"Flinn’s involvement increases the chances that anti-incumbent voting could be split in a race that has a total of eight candidates. But Flinn says he does not mind being cast as a spoiler.

"'I think we’re going to spoil this whole election,' he said."

Like in 2012 when he entered the race at the last minute, the "good" doc also entered the 2014 race at the last minute.

When Beat Lamar had their first meeting in Memphis in June 2013, the "good" doc was there and taking pics.  Here is a pic of him at that event.  He then had a meeting with Lamar Alexander right before pulling the petition to run for the Senate.

Fast forward to this week.  Talk show host, Laura Ingraham came to Nashville to help Joe Carr.   Here is the link to the actual Facebook event.  Here is the link to the fake Facebook event for the "good" doc.

Here is a picture of the actual event with Laura Ingraham and Joe Carr.

Here is the logo for the real Beat Lamar group and here is their website:

Here is the logo for the "sponsor" of the fake Flinn event and the website for the fake group.

What is it that they say about imitation being the highest form of flattery?  What does it mean that Lamar is feeling the heat from Joe Carr and is needing to get help from his buddy the "good" doc?   

Don't be fooled by the "good" doc.  Vote for Joe Carr who actually does have a record of being against amnesty and ObamaCare.  It's time to tell the "good" doc and his buddy, Lamar, that we are tired of you.  Your money might buy you influence with the ruling class, but We the People aren't buying what you are selling anymore.

Monday, May 26, 2014

5 Years of "Facts" of Obama

I have had two FaceBook friends post this graphic in the last couple of weeks.  Maybe it has popped up in your newsfeed as well.  I believe it is important to have the facts to counter these kinds of claims.

As with anything else, context is so important.  Here is my response to both of them.

When one is looking at stats, one has to have the whole picture. This graphic doesn't have the whole picture. Here's the context of these numbers. 
First, the timing of these numbers is misleading.  If you remember, the Democrats took control of Congress after the 2006 midterm elections. So the real effect of Democrat policies started taking effect in January 2007. Remember also that both Obama and Biden were in the Senate during that time ~as well as Hillary Clinton~. 
1)  The Dow is up because of Quantitative Easing.  Federal $$ being printed and pumped into the stock market.  Hang on to your hats.  Remember the .com bubble and the real estate bubbles? 
2)  For the real unemployment numbers, one needs to look at the labor force participation rate.
Jan 2007 – 66.40%
Jan 2009 – 65.7%
April 2014 – 62.80% 
Lowest labor force participation rate since 1978.  The reason that the umemployment numbers are down is because of workers that have quit looking for work.   
3)  GDP growth – US Dept of Commerce
2006 – 2.7%
2007 – 1.8%
2008 - -0.3%
2009 - -2.8%
2010 – 2.5%
2011 – 1.8%
2012 – 2.8%
2113 – 1.9%
1st quarter 2014 = 2.9%
4th quarter 2013 = 2.6% 
GDP after the Bush tax cuts
December 31, 2002 – 1.8%
December 31, 2003 – 2.8%
December 31, 2004 – 3.8%
December 31, 2005 – 3.4%  
The facts show that GDP increased after the Bush Tax cuts and started falling when the Democrats took control of Congress and the Democrats started spending like drunken sailors.  My apologies to sailors; at least drunken sailors quit when they run out of money.  DC politicians just borrow and print money.   
The federal budget goes from October 1 - September 30.  When we elected the Republicans to Congress in the fall of they took office in January of 2011 and the first budget they had was the 2012.  That was the fiscal year that the federal deficit started to decrease slightly.  Here are the actual numbers. 
The federal deficit the last year of the Bush/Republican Congress budget was $161 Billion. When the Democrats took control of Congress after the 2006 elections, the next fiscal year the deficit climbed to $459 Billion and $1413 Billion the year King Barry I was elected. That was when TARP was forced on us. We then had 2 additional years of $1300 Billion deficits with Obama/Democrat Congress. Finally with Republicans back in control of the House, the deficit has come down slightly to $1100 Billion and $973 Billion. So yes, the deficit is technically down from its highs, but doesn't really paint the whole picture. For comparison, the highest deficit during the Bush/Republican Congress days was $413 Billion. 
One fact that this graphic doesn't touch is the increase in food stamps.  If the economy is so great, why are there millions more on food stamps today than when Obama was immaculated?  Why has spending on food stamps doubled under Obama if the economy is doing so well?

So far, I have not had one of these friends ~one is my TN State Representative~ who have even tried to refute any of my facts.  I'll post updates when/if I hear from any of them.  Leave your thoughts in the comments below.

Update:  I just had one of the friends that posted this make a comment.  She didn't try to refute any of my facts, she just basically tried to make the point that Obama is only one person and doing what he can for the "betterment of all."  Sorry, but that doesn't cut it for me.  Even if you ascribe good intentions to Obama and the left, ~which I don't~ there are consequences to their wrong policies.  She did say she loved my "deep knowledge" though.  I guess when you can't argue with the facts . . .

Update #2:  There have been two friends of the original poster of this graphic that have said that they agree with the graphic ~no response to the facts I posted however.~  One of them was one my dh's cousins that unfriended me a couple of years ago when she couldn't handle my challenges.  She could call me racist, but heaven help if I pointed out her hypocrisy, but I digress.  I asked her if she was going to post my facts along with the graphic.  She responded with a long rant and called me rude, argumentative and accusatory.  She also proceeded to tell me what I could and couldn't say on this common friend's page.  You've gotta love libs . .

Update #3:  I was asked for my source by a reader below.  I have revised my numbers and added the link to the U.S. Dept of Commerce.  At the link, you can create your own table of stats by year and/or quarter.  While my updated numbers are lower, they still show that the economy started to tank after the Democrats took control of Congress in 2007.

Thursday, May 22, 2014

Are the NGA and CCSSO Lobbyists Who are Funded by Corporations?

I have a friend on FaceBook who has been on a tear about Common Core.  It all started with discussions about Common Core Math.  At first he refused to talk about anything but the Common Core Math which he is in favor of.  That is a whole other story for another time though.  What I want to focus right now is on the funding for Common Core.

He posted the link to this article by Phyllis Schlafly.
“So the Obama Administration has latched onto a national education curriculum called Common Core that was launched by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers in 2009. Those organizations have very official names as though they are government agencies, but they are actually private groups financed by foundations such as Gates and various corporations.”

He is taking issue with the fact that the NGA and CCSSO are lobbyists with corporate donors.  The question he posed was "Is Mrs. Schlafly being honest?"

His claim is that since the NGA is comprised by governors and they control it, then those of us who say that Common Core is not state-led are not being honest.  In fact, he says that the CC opponents aren't to be trusted.

Let's start out with the definition of a lobbyist.  According to a lobbyist is "a person who tries to influence legislation on behalf of a special interest."  According to their own websites, both the NGA and CCSSO fit that definition.  First off, both of their offices are in Washington D.C.  Secondly, both organizations have lobbying divisions or offices.

This is the description from the NGA website about their  Office of Federal Relations.

"The mission of the National Governors Association (NGA) Office of Federal Relations is to ensure that governors’ views are represented in the shaping of federal policy. NGA policy positions, reflecting governors’ principles on priority issues, guide the association’s efforts to influence federal laws and regulations affecting states."

Let's look at the CCSSO website:  They describe themselves as "The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) is a nationwide, nonpartisan, and nonprofit membership organization."

This is what the CCSSO says about their Legislation and Advocacy for their members.

"As the national voice of the Chief State School Officers in all 50 states and U.S. Territories, CCSSO represents its membership by coordinating consensus on federal education matters before the Administration, Congress, and the U.S. Department of Education.

"CCSSO provides thoughtful, pragmatic, analysis of the implications and opportunities federal education policies, including all major federal laws and grant opportunities, have on state education agencies. CCSSO prepares testimony for congressional committees, analyzes proposed federal regulations, form coalitions with other national education organizations, and educates federal policy makers on the education policy needs of states.

"CCSSO regularly hosts informational discussions with its membership updating chiefs on policy. Additionally, CCSSO hosts an annual legislative conference in Washington, D.C. providing its members the opportunity to meet with federal elected officials, discuss state education challenges, and formulate the Council's stance on federal issues.

"Through encouraging collective state action, CCSSO strengthens the influence and impact each state has over federal education by unifying states around common principles, themes and policies."

I don't know about you, but that sure sounds like lobbying to me.

Next let's look at the corporate sponsors or funding for both the NGA and the CCSSO.  They are not self-sustaining from their membership of governors and school officers.

You can find the list of NGA Corporate Fellows at this link

What is a Corporate Fellow? So glad you asked. "As a Corporate Fellow, your contribution supports the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) and positions you and your colleagues as intellectual resources for providing governors ideas that work. "

Unless I don't know what the word contribution means, I think that means monetary funding from the Corporate Fellows.

Here is information on the CCSSO's Business and Industry Partnerships.
"The Council's mission is to assist chief state school officers and their organizations in achieving the vision of an American education system that enables all children to succeed in school, work, and life. This mission cannot be met without forging new collaborations. In today's environment, success derives from working with and learning from diverse constituencies.

"One such constituency is the business community. The Council has engaged this community by developing a corporate sponsorship program for interested partners, who have provided support for Council meetings throughout the year. To ensure appropriate representation, the Council offers tiered levels of partnerships. The tiered partnership approach provides businesses with a menu of options from which to choose and enables the Council to receive sponsorship support to operate its meetings, conferences, and forums."

Apparently the CCSSO has 3 different tiers of Corporate partners. Just glancing thru their list, several jump out. Microsoft, inBloom, McGraw-Hill Education, Pearson Education, and Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Both  the NGA and CCSSO have received funding from the Gates Foundation.  The NGA has received over $25 Million from the Gates Foundation.  The CCSSO has received $84 Million from the Gates Foundation.

My question is does being run by governors or school officers negate the fact that these organizations are lobbyist influenced by their corporate donors?

My friend has also accused me of being anti-capitalist because I object to our kids being treated like units whose information is being tracked for marketing.  I reminded him that there is a difference between capitalism ~which I am all for~ and corporatism, but again that is a discussion for another time.

What do you think?  Are the NGA and CCSSO lobbyists or are they as the Common Core proponents claim, state led?