Governor Rick Scott fully supports in-state tuition for illegal aliens

Governor Rick Scott, Governor Jeb Bush and Governor Bob Martinez called on the Florida Senate to lower tuition for all Florida students and their support SB 1400. This means Governor Scott has caved into pressure to provide illegal aliens in-state tuition. All Florida students means illegal aliens at the expense of legal resident students.

According to a press release Scott, Bush and Bob Martinez are advocating for lowering tuition by advancing SB 1400, which would allow all Florida students, regardless of their background (illegals), to qualify for the in-state tuition rate.

Floridians for Immigration Enforcement (FLIMEN) notes that, “When immigration is viewed only racially and culturally, limits and legality will never be imposed.  The debate must focus on limitations and lawfulness, otherwise open borders will make the United States a marketplace and not a country.”

FILMEN states, “The bottom line nationally is that illegal immigration continues to hurt American families, take away jobs and depress wages of fathers and mothers who desperately want to support their children without going on welfare. The bottom line here in Florida is HB851/SB1400 will cause an unknown number of legal students to be displaced from college by illegal alien students. There is absolutely no estimate of the fiscal cost of college tuition subsidy for illegal aliens.”

Governor Scott said, “Students who have spent their childhood here in Florida deserve to qualify for the same in-state tuition rate at universities their peers and classmates do. We want our students to stay here in Florida when they go to college and when they choose a career, and that means we must make college more affordable for all those students who call Florida home. The Florida Senate should take immediate action to move SB 1400 forward.”

Forget the US and Florida Constitution. If you come to Florida you are now “entitled” to in state tuition.

Governor Bush, supporter of Common Core and potential presidential candidate in 2016, said, “We must keep and capitalize on the talent of all Florida students who want to attend our exceptional colleges and universities.  Punishing some children for their parents’ acts by creating obstacles to a college degree isn’t in their interests, or ours.  I urge the Florida Senate to do the right thing for our state and pass SB 1400.”

Governor Martinez said, “For Florida to continue to be a land of opportunity and a beacon of freedom to people from all backgrounds, we must ensure our future generations are prepared for success. As a university trustee, I know this often starts with having access to a great higher education. I hope the Florida Senate and the full Florida Legislature support SB 1400 as a critical measure to continue to move our state forward.”

Nice sounding words but lackluster in defending resident and legal student slots in Florida universities and colleges.

RELATED STORY: Latest Trick for Illegal Immigrants: Granting Amnesty in Return for Military Service

Why are the Republican Sarasota County Commissioners violating their own Party Platform?

Many Sarasotans are wondering about their County Commissioners. In particular their support for policies that are directly violating their own party’s platform. On June 5th, 2014, Sarasota County will be hosting the United Nations 2014 World Environment Day (WED). Why? Because the County Commissioners have fully embraced the UN’s agenda on climate change and sustainable communities. But this is in direct violation of their own party platform.

The 2012 Republican Party platform states:

Since the end of World War II, the United States, through the founding of the United Nations and NATO, has participated in a wide range of international organizations which can, but sometimes do not, serve the cause of peace and prosperity. While acting through them, our country must always reserve the right to go its own way. There can be no substitute for principled American leadership.

The United Nations remains in dire need of reform, starting with full transparency in the financial operations of its overpaid bureaucrats. As long as its scandal-ridden management continues, as long as some of the world’s worst tyrants hold seats on its Human Rights Council, and as long as Israel is treated as a pariah state, the U.N. cannot expect the full support of the American people.

[ … ]

We strongly reject the U.N. Agenda 21 as erosive of American sovereignty, and we oppose any form of U.N. Global Tax. We oppose any diplomatic efforts that could result in giving the United Nations unprecedented control over the Internet. International regulatory control over the open and free Internet would have disastrous consequences for the United States and the world. [Emphasis added]

Many are calling for the Sarasota County Commission to opt out of any participation in or support for World Environment Day.

The Sarasota County website on sustainability is promoting the United Nations WED and its efforts for “sustainable communities“. According to its website, “Sarasota County government is committed to environmental, cultural and economic sustainability.”

The Sarasota County Roadmap to Sustainability reads, “Planning for a sustainable community is the overarching theme of the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan. Sarasota County government is committed to lead by example, promote public participation and work in community partnership to improve our quality of life and protect the natural systems that support life. – Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan 2006”

Sustainable development is a UN initiative. According to the UN sustainable development website:

One of the main outcomes of the Rio+20 Conference was the agreement by member States to launch a process to develop a set of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which will build upon the Millennium Development Goals and converge with the post 2015 development agenda (click here for information on different work streams). It was decided establish an “inclusive and transparent intergovernmental process open to all stakeholders, with a view to developing global sustainable development goals to be agreed by the General Assembly“.

The Sarasota County Commission and United Nations are in full compliance with the Rio+20 outcome document, where member States agreed that sustainable development goals (SDGs) must:

  1. Be based on Agenda 21 and the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation.
  2. Fully respect all the Rio Principles.

Bottom line: The all Republican Sarasota County Commission is fully aligned with UN Agenda 21, and in direct violation of their own Republican Party platform. They are not, by their party’s own definition, principled American leaders.

RELATED STORIES:

AGENDA 21 REVEALED: ICLEI, Comprehensive Planning, Smart Growth, Green, Regionalism
EPA’s “Sustainability” Agenda: Vast Power Grab
Agenda 21 and the Threat in Your Backyard

RELATED VIDEO:

[youtube]http://youtu.be/JuoPqxAfnd8[/youtube]

Common Core Is Losing. Pass It on!

In “Pushback Continues: States Grow Increasingly Wary of Common Core” Brittany Corona writes, “Common Core is on the ropes. More and more states are pulling back from the national standards as the 2014–15 school year implementation deadline looms near. In Louisiana, Governor Bobby Jindal (R)—formerly a Common Core supporter—is now encouraging the legislature to remove the state from the Common Core aligned Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for Colleges and Careers (PARCC) test. And if they don’t act, he will.”

Corona notes that Jindal’s new stance comes after eight members of the Louisiana State House of Representatives sent him a letter, informing him of his prerogative to opt out of the standards and encouraging him to do so. As the New Orleans Advocate reported:

Gov. Bobby Jindal said Monday that a gubernatorial order for the state to drop controversial Common Core tests is a ‘very viable option’ if state lawmakers fail to act. Jindal made the comment in response to a letter from eight House members who said the governor can opt the state out of the exams and should do that… ‘We believe you have the authority, as governor, under the 2010 PARCC memorandum of understanding, to opt out of the consortium,’ state Rep. Brett Geymann, (R–Lake Charles), and seven other legislators wrote.

In a statement released on Monday Jindal said,

We share the concerns of these [anti-Common Core] legislators and also of parents across Louisiana. We’re hopeful that legislation will move through the process this session that will address the concerns of parents or delay implementation until these concerns can be addressed. We think this course of action outlined in the legislators’ letter remains a very viable option if the Legislature does not act.

But as The Times-Picayune reports,

On a practical level, there is some question as to whether Jindal can unilaterally tear Louisiana away from the PARCC consortium, in which 16 states plus Washington D.C. participate. [Louisiana Superintendent] John White and Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education [BESE] president Chas Roemer said their permission is also required to leave the consortium, and both White and Roemer—who also avidly supports Common Core—are unwilling to do so.

Meanwhile, this week in South Carolina, State Superintendent Mick Zais officially withdrew his state from the Common Core aligned Smarter Balanced (SBAC) tests.

In a letter to the State Board of Education, Zais wrote:

I want to have a high quality assessment that meets the specific needs of South Carolina, at a competitive price. If we continue to focus only on Smarter Balanced, we lose any opportunity to consider alternatives….

In consideration of the foregoing, and the discovery that I have the authority to withdraw South Carolina from its status as a governing state of the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, and after full consultation with the Governor’s Office and appropriate members of the General Assembly, I am informing you that I am exercising that authority.

Oklahoma, too, is currently in a battle over Common Core. The state senate passed a bill earlier this month downgrading the state’s involvement with the national standards, although there is some difference of opinion as to whether it would fully remove Oklahoma from the standards, or merely change the name of the standards.

Governor Mary Fallin (R), a supporter of Common Core and chair of the National Governor’s Association which helped develop the standards, said in a statement that she “support[s] passing legislation that increases classroom rigor and accountability while guaranteeing that Oklahoma public education is protected from federal interference…”

Meanwhile, the Missouri House of Representatives passed their bill to find a Common Core replacement.

“We’re going to create the process to have Missouri standards and Missouri assessments,” State Rep. Kurt Bahr (R), who introduced the measure, stated. The proposal requires that by October 1, 2014 the state board must develop new academic standards by the following October 2015, in place of the Common Core, and adopt and implement these standards by the 2016-17 school year.

Fifteen states have now made strides in halting or downgrading their involvement in the standards. Last month, Indiana became the first state to exit Common Core. This is promising momentum in the effort of states to reclaim their educational decision-making authority,” notes Corona.

RELATED VIDEO: Bill Gates on Common Core

[youtube]http://youtu.be/Zrp-Bu2SLp8[/youtube]

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Sara Caldwell/The Augusta Chronicle/ZUMAPRESS.com and Heritage Foundation.

The Bundy Ranch and the “Sinister Six”

The Bundy Ranch showdown is over for now, but the bad guys are still free to attack others. Major General Paul Vallely, US Army (Ret.) has a plan to force the resignations of the worst of them. Learn who are the “Sinister Six.”

[youtube]http://youtu.be/0bdHbIuZYQ8[/youtube]

 

RELATED STORIES:

EPA gives campaign paper trail to Democrats; little trace of FOIA requests from Republicans – Washington Times
‘Disturbing new evidence’: Bundys tell Greta what they discovered Feds doing
Oklahoma Joins the Fight: Militia Members Migrate to Nevada to Join Fight Against Feds
Democrats awash in ‘green’ energy deals on public land
US states map out wildlife habitats to promote sustainable development | The Verge

Confronting Boston’s sex-change insurance proposal

The Boston City Council is proposing to require city employee health insurance to pay for sex-change operations and other “transgender” treatments.

On Wednesday, April 16, two members of the Boston City Council introduced an ordinance to require that health insurance for city employees cover “transgender” sex-change procedures, including hormone treatments and “gender reassignment” surgery. This is the latest demand of the homosexual / transgender movement in many cities across the country.

Who would have ever imagined something like this even a decade ago?

It was introduced by City Councilors Michelle Wu and Ayanna Pressley, two of the most liberal on an already left-wing Boston City Council. They worked closely with local homosexual activists, according to press reports. Boston Mayor Marty Walsh, an aggressive pro-homosexual advocate, told the press that he is “wholeheartedly in support” of it.

Supporting her constituency.Michelle Wu, co-sponsor of transgender insurance ordinance, marches in Boston Gay Pride Parade in 2013.
[MassResistance photo]

It was applauded by the usual crowd. “This ordinance is a pivotal step toward ensuring that transgender city workers have access to comprehensive healthcare coverage just like all other city workers,” Kara Coredini, Executive Director of the LGBT lobbying group MassEquality told the press.

MassResistance reaction in the press

MassResistance gave its reaction — which was covered in the Boston Globe andChannel 5 TV. And we didn’t hold back for the liberal media.

Boston Globe coverage of ordinance featured MassResistance’s uncompromising reaction.

As the Boston Globe reported on April 14:

Not everyone sees the proposed ordinance as positive, or agrees that hormones and surgery are proper treatment for those who identify as transgender. The leader of MassResistance, a nonprofit conservative advocacy group in Waltham, called the proposed ordinance “a sad example of science fiction over science.”

“The medical community has always considered ‘gender identity’ confusion as a mental health issue,” said Brian Camenker, executive director of MassResistance. “Attempting to ‘treat’ someone with sex hormones or body mutilating surgery may please the political activists but only makes things much worse for the individual.”

That evening, Boston’s WCVB Channel 5 also did a report also featuring MassResistance:

Ch. 5 TV News:“Giving people hormones and body mutilation surgery only makes it worse. This is being done to please a political agenda,” Brian Camenker of MassResistance told Channel 5 News.

In other words: What other mental health issue is treated by amputating parts of the body?

Movement’s goal: Sex-change insurance coverage mandatory nationwide!

According to a number of sources, this is part of an overall strategy to eventually make coverage of transgender hormone treatments and sex-change surgery mandatory for all health insurance nationwide. The national groups “Human Rights Campaign” and “Lambda Legal” are providing ammunition for this push.

The tactics are similar to those the homosexual movement used pushing “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” non-discrimination laws throughout America. In both cases, they started with private corporations, then some small cities and towns, then bigger cities in liberal areas, and eventually capturing entire states. In this case, they sometimes start with “lower level” mandates, such as hormone treatment, and then later push for full sex-change surgery coverage.

Mandating insurance support for sex “transitioning” is being seen across the country. As the Globe reported in its article:

Transgender city workers are guaranteed medical treatment by statutes in San Francisco; Seattle; Portland, Ore.; Washington, D.C.; and other US cities, according to Andrew Cray, a policy analyst at the Center for American Progress, an independent nonpartisan educational institute in Washington, D.C . . . [R]egulators in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Oregon, and Vermont have mandated that private insurance plans in those states cover transgender health services for residents.

Trying to keep Boston’s “100% pro-LGBT” rating intact

As part of that push, the national radical LGBT group Human Rights Campaign now requires cities to include sex-change operations to get their coveted 100-percent pro-LGBT rating, similar to the rating they give large corporations. And the local radical lobby will not settle for anything less, and clearly has the power to enforce that.

As the Globe reported:

An attorney for the Human Rights Campaign, a national civil rights organization, said the group this year will begin to include transgender treatment coverage for city employees as a criterion in its Municipal Equality Index, which rates cities on their inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender residents and visitors.

Last year, Boston scored a perfect 100 on the scale, but it could not do so again in 2014 without mandating that coverage, said Cathryn Oakley, the organization’s legislative council for state and municipal advocacy.

Among other things, this policy would certainly attract some very disturbed people to work for the City of Boston. Is this really what the citizens want?

Is this the future?Men with hormone-induced breasts and women with hormone-induced beards march in downtown Northampton, Mass. in 2008.
[MassResistance photo]

Text of ordinance: false and misleading statements as justification

As usual for these kinds of political efforts by the sexual radical movement, the text of the ordinance includes as justification a number of statements presented as “fact” which are either grossly misleading or outright false — cleverly woven together to give the sense of serious medical data. It is Orwellian in its inversion of truth. For example:

1. It uses the weak term “gender dysphoria.” The older term, “gender identity disorder,” was previously the standard medical description until the LGBT movement pressured the medical community to water it down to a “dysphoria”.

2. It uses the transgender organization World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) as if it were a legitimate medical resource, but in fact it is a group of radical transgender activists and medical professionals who intimidate other medical associations into accepting their “findings” (in order to be seen as non-discriminatory).

3. It lists several prominent national professional associations (American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association, etc.) that they say have “consensus” that hormones and body-mutilating surgeries are “appropriate” and “effective”. But none of these groups’ statements point to any legitimate studies. Instead, they just commit to non-discrimination in “treating” transgender patients. But themanner of treatment is left undefined.

4. It claims that the surgery and other treatment is “the only safe and effective medical treatment option” for some people. But is it? The phenomenon of hormone injections and surgeries is so new — only done in the last few decades — that it is virtually impossible to claim long-term positive health outcomes. In fact, the AMA and APA admit that transgender health care is still a “controversial” area.

5. It claims that not providing these treatments brings higher risk of suicide. Where are the studies confirming that? Some research suggests the opposite. In 2010 the Journal of Homosexuality reportedon a review of studies that suggest that people having “gender reassignment surgery” commit suicide at alarmingly higher rates than average. There is no question that people with gender identity disorders have a much higher suicide rate (as much as nine times higher) than the general population. Common sense would suggest that the best treatment is a mental health counseling approach, not a physical body change approach.

6. What it doesn’t tell you: Over a decade ago, Johns Hopkins University Hospital completely disbanded its “sex-change” program. The program’s director, Prof. Paul McHugh, wrote, “I have witnessed a great deal of damage from sex-reassignment . . . We have wasted scientific and technical resources and damaged our professional credibility by collaborating with madness rather than trying to study, cure, and ultimately prevent it.” We couldn’t agree more.

But will anyone in the Boston City Council challenge any of this nonsense? We don’t think so.

The huge need to tell the truth

How do you fight this? As we have shown, there is at least one thing that everyone can do that makes a difference: Tell the truth without backing down.

This ordinance is an example of how the Left’s world is built on lies and intimidation. They depend on the silence and fear of regular people to push their agenda. Any textbook on confronting a totalitarian environment always begins with the requirement of telling the truth without any compromise. If you just do that, you’re having a positive effect! And not doing so gives their side a tighter grip on the public’s perceived definition of reality.

There is a disturbing trend by pro-family groups around the country to be moderate and inoffensive when dealing with this issue, so as not to antagonize the LGBT movement and the media. They either (1) avoid the subject entirely; or (2) concede major points but quibble with a minor part of it, such as saying that transsexuals may “need” surgery but it ought not be paid for by the taxpayer; or (3) simply say that the whole thing is something they “disagree with” because of “religious freedom” or similar non-threatening reasoning. Thus, handing a victory for the other side.

Even in seemingly overwhelming circumstances like this, it is necessary to continue fighting harder than ever. We are convinced that in the long run it’s worth it.

Potential (or current?) City of Boston employees marching in the Gay Pride Parade (left) and attending a transgender bill public hearing at the State House (right).
[MassResistance photos]

One Year After an Attack on the Grid, It’s Still Dangerously Vulnerable – and So are We

On the first anniversary of a nearly devastating attack on the Metcalf Substation outside San Jose, California, the Secure the Grid Coalition convened a symposium on whether the electric grid has been made appreciably more resilient against this and other sorts of assaults, whether by enemies of this country or solar storms.  Seven senior legislators and national security experts warned that, incredibly, the answer is “No.”

[youtube]http://youtu.be/aQD5rwRBuuw[/youtube]

 

The participants included: Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich; Rep. Pete Sessions, the chairman of the powerful House Rules Committee; and Rep. Trent Franks, the co-chairman of the House EMP Caucus. Each provided videotaped statements, as did Thomas Popik, the chairman of the Foundation for Resilient Societies.

Appearing as well and in person at the Reserve Officers Association venue were: Dr. Peter Vincent Pry, a former staff member of the Congressional EMP Threat Commission; Michael Del Rosso, former Chairman, IEEE Critical Infrastructure Committee; and Major General Robert Newman, the former Adjutant General of Virginia.  The program was moderated by Frank Gaffney, the president of the Center for Security Policy.

Speaker Gingrich observed: “This is a very important topic. I believe it may be the most important topic in national security because an electromagnetic pulse event or a very, very large solar event are the only things I can think of that could literally cripple the society so decisively, barring a spasm nuclear war with hundreds of warheads.”

Highlights of the program included:

  • The wake-up call represented by the narrowly averted disaster at Metcalf. Had the perpetrators of that attack – who have not been apprehended and must be assumed to be still at large – succeeded, they would likely have destroyed seventeen, and perhaps all twenty-one, of the facility’s absolutely vital, and effectively irreplaceable, extremely high-voltage transformers.  The result would have been disruption of power to Silicon Valley and parts of the San Francisco Bay area for a protracted period.
  • The fact that enemies of this country have as part of their cyberwarfare doctrine the use of attacks involving: direct physical assault, radio frequency weapons, cyber attacks and high-altitude electromagnetic pulses to destroy our grid.
  • The certitude that, even if none of such threats eventuate, the grid will – if left unprotected – be devastated by a naturally occurring “Carrington event.” These are powerful solar flare-induced geomagnetic disturbances that occur roughly every 150 years.  The last one occurred in 1859, one hundred and fifty-five years ago.
  • The reality that eleven different studies have been performed or commissioned by the U.S. government over the past decade to examine threats to the electric grid. Each one – whether addressing man-caused or naturally induced dangers – arrives at the same conclusion: the protracted disruption of the grid that would result from such events would pose an existential threat to the nation.  (A compilation of the executive summaries of these studies was recently published by the Center for Security Policy under the title, Guilty Knowledge: What the U.S. Government Knows about the Vulnerability of the Electric Grid, but Refuses to Fix, was disseminated at the symposium.
  • The historical experience of the U.S. military with hardening its critical nuclear forces and command-and-control assets.  As a result of this fifty-year long practice, the technology for grid protection is known, proven and in-hand.
  • The reasons why electric utilities and what amounts to their trade association – which, incredibly, also happens to be their regulator at the federal level – the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, seem so indifferent to the evidence that their assets and infrastructure face potentially ruinous assaults. Evidently, they are more concerned about the immediate bottom line and regulatory restrictions than even their own long-term fortunes, to say nothing of the country’s.
  • The peculiar outcome of a hearing convened last week by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee to examine the question: “Keeping the Lights On:  Are We Doing Enough to Assure the Reliability and Security of the Electric Grid?”  It seems that – despite the readily available evidence to the contrary (well summarized by the Coalition’s symposium yesterday) – Senators were under the illusion that the answer is that we are doing enough, and that the only real problem is that information to the contrary has appeared in places like the Wall Street Journal.

Symposium moderator Frank Gaffney observed: “The U.S. government knows about the grid’s vulnerability.  So do the utilities.  And so do our enemies.  In fact, the only folks being kept in the dark about this problem and the disaster that it invites are the American people.  And, if something is not done swiftly to secure the grid, they may be kept in the dark permanently.”

For more information about the work of the Coalition and to sign a petition calling for our most indispensable critical infrastructure to be hardened, visit:  www.SecureTheGrid.com.

ABOUT THE CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY

The Center for Security Policy is a non-profit, non-partisan national security organization that specializes in identifying policies, actions, and resource needs that are vital to American security and then ensures that such issues are the subject of both focused, principled examination and effective action by recognized policy experts, appropriate officials, opinion leaders, and the general public. For more information visit www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org

Regulation Nation: Federal Bureaucracy is as Busy as Ever

The shale energy boom may be taking place in North Dakota, Texas, Pennsylvania, and elsewhere. However, the Wall Street Journal editorial board notes that a less economically-helpful boom is happening in Washington, DC:

Washington set a new record in 2013 by issuing final rules consuming 26,417 pages in the Federal Register. While plenty of government employees deserve credit for this milestone, leadership matters. And by this measure President Obama has never been surpassed in the Oval Office.

The latest rule-making tally comes from the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Wayne Crews, who on April 29 will publish his annual review of federal regulation in “Ten Thousand Commandments.” This is important work because politicians and the media treat regulation as a largely cost-free public good. Mr. Crews knows better.

Congress may be mired in gridlock, but the federal bureaucracy is busier than ever. In 2013 the Federal Register contained 3,659 “final” rules, which means they now must be obeyed, and 2,594 proposed rules on their way to becoming orders from political headquarters.

The Federal Register finished 2013 at 79,311 pages, the fourth highest total in history. That didn’t match President Obama’s 2010 all-time record of 81,405 pages. But Mr. Obama can console himself by noting that of the five highest Federal Register page counts, four have occurred on his watch. The other was 79,435 pages under President George W. Bush in 2008.

And the feds aren’t letting up. Mr. Crews reports that there are another 3,305 regulations moving through the pipeline on their way to being imposed. One hundred and ninety-one of those are “economically significant” rules, which are defined as having costs of at least $100 million a year. Keep in mind that the feds routinely low-ball their cost estimates so the public will continue to think regulation is free.

Federal agencies are hard at work writing more rules to implement Dodd-Frank, Obamacare, and environmental laws. “By far their greatest and most tragic cost has been slower economic growth, which has meant fewer jobs, lower incomes and diminished economic possibilities for tens of millions of Americans,” writes the editorial.

Our modern economy needs a revamped, transparent, balanced, and accountable regulatory system so businesses have more certainty to invest and hire workers.

My colleague Sheryll Poe put together this infographic to summarize the editorial.

[via memeorandum]

 

Common Core: 95 Reasons why it is bad Public Policy

CCSS 95 THESES COVER PAGE

1. Common Core State Standards (CCSS), as an education reform policy, does not satisfy the four pillars of education reform:  1) Accountability 2) More State and Local Control 3) Focusing resources on proven educational methods and 4) Expanded choices for parents. Accountability for implementing the Common Core Standards (that were not properly piloted or vetted) unfairly rests predominantly, and without proper balance, in the hands of the classroom teacher.  State of Florida educators were not properly trained in the standards prior to rollout and implementation; State of Florida educators were not asked to provide input during the creation and development of the standards; and State of Florida educators are being forced to implement the Standards without allowances for feedback or changes.

State and local control of education is further removed by Common Core as it cements additional layers of bureaucracy before educational process improvements and timely changes to individual school district student needs can be implemented. Common Core is not focused on proven educational methods as it is not the return to classical education and, in fact, resembles and is more closely aligned with the failed outcome-based education policy. School choice is not an element of Common Core as it has been said on more than one occasion by Florida education legislators and policy experts –  Common Core will not cause the proliferation of charter schools, et al. In addition, Common Core has in practicum moved parents further away from the educational process – student learning and caring involvement in their child’s academic needs/strengths.

2.  Teachers are in fear of their jobs should they speak out against Common Core.  CCSS has created a hostile work environment and a growing mistrust between students, parents, teachers, and administrators. Classroom teachers are held to the highest level of accountability for individual test scores while administrators and superintendents shuffle resources and students around to inflate school grades and school grade improvement statistics.  Unjustifiably and unjustly, Florida teachers’ compensation is one of the lowest in the country particularly considering the volume of students (4th in  the country).

3.  Common Core was not piloted and therefore only exists as a hypothesis and our children are involuntarily being used as processors of non-subject matter experts ideas about their education. These non-experts do not have any vested interest or life connection to the potential failure of such untested standards and therefore will not have to pick up the pieces of frustrated and undereducated (to their potential) students. Common Core is a corporate driven education reform package.

4.  All the bandage bills to correct deficiencies in Common Core Standards, while still remaining in the Common Core Consortium and Initiative, are a process of legislative deception; the lack of passing Florida HB25 and SB1316 through Committee for a full House and Senate vote is a form of legislative deception; the Florida Department of Education and Florida legislators receiving, from education foundations, directives regarding the promotion of Common Core prior to and during the 3 state hearings on Common Core, and through this current legislative session, is a process of legislative deception as well as a breach of public trust on the basic principles of fairness and integrity.

5.  The numerous bills (bandages) in the FL legislature trying to provide remedy to the documented problems with the development, rollout, and implementation of CCSS indicate just how harmful the standards as developed and copyrighted are and will continue to be.

6.  CCSS had a complete lack of transparency during its development and implementation.  It was only after public outcry about the lack of parental and education experts input in the development of Common Core that Florida decided to “attempt” to correct the problem by holding 3 supposedly “unbiased” community hearings.  The hearings were strictly placebo and an attempt to placate an increasingly hostile parent community.  Given the numerous emails sent to the Florida legislative hierarchy and FL Department of Education officials, from special interest groups, one has no option but to conclude that all the players involved in the adoption of CCSS in the State of Florida had a singular lack of respect for parent, teacher, or subject matter expert input.

7.  Florida needs to pull out of the RACE TO THE TOP (RTTT) Memorandum of Understanding as it was bribed/coerced to adopt Common Core Standards in order to qualify for federal funds.  Florida was rejected as a contender for RTTT funding in Phase I because it did not stipulate accepting CCSS and only progressed to Phase II after accepting Common Core. The “contract” for Common Core was signed prior to final development of Common Core Standards and, as such, the Florida Department of Education and Florida legislators showed a willful disregard, and were quite negligent, to the educational well-being of Florida’s children. “Show me the money” is a phrase best used in film.  There are two groups of Americans who sit at the top priority of individuals whose well-being should never be sacrificed for money or profit – the American soldier and the American student. Such callous indifference and disregard for proper process and pedagogical soundness is disturbing.

8. Private schools should not be coerced or blackmailed to adopt Common Core Standards (CCSS) through Common Core’s linkage with the SAT, ACT, and other K-12 testing agents. Private schools have a mission that does not coincide with the mission implicit in CCSS.  By and large, the methodology employed by private schools is that students will be treated as individuals and individual learners.  Public schools in higher achieving and competitive cities (Example: Boston) have done well by adopting this methodology. Common Core is a step backward towards group thinking and group learning. We respect common minds but we should be ambitious for exemplary minds.  Common Core punishes private schools for this decades old philosophy of education and seemingly demands adoption of a less effective teaching curriculum and methodology to match the Common Core standards expectations.  Additionally,making adoption of CCSS linear with admissions tests for colleges and universities provides a stranglehold and almost virtually eliminates freedom “of adoption or not” because a variance in even 5% points in a college admissions test can be the difference between getting in a top-tier college or not.

9.  There was no input by early childhood experts in the development of Common Core.  Such a lack of emphasis on early childhood is as detrimental to education reform as a phony college and career readiness component. Kindergarten readiness is an extremely necessary program of education, particularly in diverse socio-cultural-economic metropolitan areas like Miami Dade, Tampa, and Orlando, were significant challenges arise in kindergarten when such readiness is not achieved.

10.  American Institutes for Research (AIR), the chosen education testing/assessment company for Common Core in Florida, is heavily involved in data collection and mining and Florida SB188 does not qualify as a STOP into such intrusion of privacy or a STOP to the potential for a student’s private personal identifiable information being able to be accessed by third party non-education related agents.  As such, the ACLU and other agencies are seriously opposed to the data mining and data collection components of Common Core.

11. Both testing companies considered by the Florida Department of Education (FLDOE), the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) and AIR, as well as the dismissed PARCC (Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers), have requirements that they must share information “across consortia” and with the U.S. Department of Education.

12.  CCSS was not state designed, but rather designed by the National Governors Association (NGA), Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE), Achieve, Inc., West End, and other private special interest organizations via federal and private grants.

The Florida Constitution calls for education policy to be determined in state.  Historical education reform research data validates that the most successful and effective programs for higher learning are managed, developed, and implemented with the input of local administrators, education experts, and parents.

13. Mark Tucker, one of the major developers of Common Core, became President of NCEE all the time working for national standards disregarding individual state Constitutions and legislatures.  Both Tucker and Lauren Resnick push for national standards based reform.  Outcome based education, of which Common Core is but a derivative or reincarnation, has been tried previously and was a pitiful failure.

14. The terminology “cradle to grave” is coined for education and the data collecting of student’s information under the guise of making “positive” changes and process improvements in education. Children’s data is collected and analyzed from cradle to grave.  Students’ mistakes become unforgiving in a data controlled business where data analysis is more important than process, individual circumstances, or personal ability.  The ends justifies the means is a repeated mantra.  The idea of a new generation committed and accepting to data collection and lack of privacy for children is born.

15.  The Goals Act of 2000 was a failure, the School-to-Work Opportunities Act was a failure, and the ESEA reauthorization No Child Left Behind was a failure. Education reform must be locally driven to both stop and prevent systematic abuses of children’s individual data, children’s individual mental health, children’s individual social and economic challenges, and children’s individual academic needs.  Education reform must be locally driven to assure advances in higher learning and academic achievement, as well as to provide timely assistance to those students with special needs.

16.  Florida has failed to provide a security network for protection of children’s data.  In an increasingly online education driven learning and teaching environment, extra scrutiny and security must be in place prior to adoption or implementation of any standards/testing of which results and student data could be easily corrupted or breached.

17.  Achieve, Inc., a for-profit business formed by the National Governors Association, corporate leaders and Mark Tucker, drove the development and implementation of Common Core.  Thusly, a lay person’s and dedicated parent’s assumption would be that Common Core was revenue driven for the benefit of reinvestment in schools, inclusive of continuous teacher training and classroom resource improvements. However, it is not revenue driven for reinvestment in local schools. The priority then becomes the commercialization of schools for profit and benefit of companies and industry and, as such, is an egregious violation of parent, student, and resident trust.

18.  Mark Tucker and Judy Codding create America’s Choice Removing parental input and local school input takes high priority as well as necessity in their reform movement, where local control and influence needs to be drastically reduced and minimized.  Uniform control becomes the order of the day vice individual uniqueness. Children are left to the educational mercy of corporate interests (America’s Choice partners with Pearson) and values as it relates to their education.

19.  The reauthorization of Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) into No Child Left Behind was another failed national and centralized education policy that failed to deliver appropriate policy for the diverse and otherwise individual challenges and unique populations of each state, inclusive of child poverty rates.  Child poverty is the single most serious problem facing learning and achievement in schools. Common Core is more of the same, or an extension of the same, results driven education drivel that shortchanges both teachers and students in an ever increasing high stakes roulette wheel that has no correlation or acknowledgement to lifelong learning or success. Hitting targets marks and high school grades make administrators happy but is not synonymous to student success.

20.  Microsoft contracted with UNESCO for world education by “a master curriculum for teacher training information technologies based standards, guidelines, benchmarks, and assessments.” Corporate business interests disregard the critical fact that a master curriculum violates federal laws as well as State of Florida laws, inclusive of respective Constitutions.  In continuation of efforts towards a master curriculum, Bill Gates funds the New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce, created by Mark Tucker. Prioritizing education commercialization and future company profits becomes the reform “policy of success for education, achievement, and for individual student needs, strengths, and opportunities”.  In truth, for-profit interests should have NO place in determining education policy except as an accountable and transparent education reinvestment strategy.

21.  Gates plus 2 others create Strong American Schools.  Businessmen with no subject matter expertise are determined to decide what is best for American children en masse formula versus an individual formula.  While Strong American Schools is non-profit, the policy results are anything but. Such prioritization of profit over individual needs, abilities, and desired skill sets is academic manipulation not for the individual student good but for the greater good of the commercial profiteers.

22.  State of Florida  SB864 affirming local control of textbooks is incomplete and thus lacking in comprehensive substance inasmuch as we know that the State of Florida, and their school districts, purchased, and obtained respectively,  their CCSS aligned textbooks prior to the effective date of 2014-2015, as rollout and implementation had already commenced. What allowances, both fiscally and administratively, have been made for previously purchased and obtained CCSS aligned fallacious textbooks?

23.  Florida decided to adopt CCSS prior to the standards being completely written.  Florida signed over the academic lives of children without knowledge of the content or quality of the standards.  Such negligence must stop and never be repeated.  Continuing to implement Common Core sets a dangerous precedent of neglectful behavior towards securing the educational protection and betterment of children.

24.  Florida parents, teachers, and administrators were ignored in the process of developing and implementing Common Core.  Process does matter and the means for obtaining the highest quality of standards for Florida students has never been fully investigated.  3 hearings organized simply to “correct” the mess that is CCSS does not qualify as sincerity by the Florida Department of Education or Florida Legislature to develop and implement the highest quality of standards SPECIFIC to Florida’s student needs, diversity, and academic abilities. Florida has 6 of the top 12 largest school districts in the country.  Such volume demands thorough investigation and input by the vast array of individuals within the state committed and qualified to give testimony regarding education, curriculum, instruction,standards, and careers. The State of Florida Department of Education and Florida Legislature should have been aggressive in seeking out these experts when considering reform instead of “you can come to a hearing or provide website comment” if you are concerned about Common Core.  I find this methodology of reform and engagement of experts to be woefully incompetent and lacking in sincere intent for the creation of the very best standards Florida can offer.

25.  Professors from a diverse group of colleges and universities have risen up in opposition to Common Core Standards.  They include, but are not exclusive to – Dr. Anthony Esolen (Providence College), Dr. Thomas Newkirk (University of New Hampshire), Dr. Daniel Coupland (Hillsdale College), Dr.Christopher Tienken (Seton Hall University), Dr. James Milgram (Stanford University), Dr. Sandra Stotsky (University of Arkansas), Dr. Alan Manning (Brigham Young University), Dr. Bill Evers (Hoover Institute at Stanford University), Dr. Terence Moore (Hillsdale College), Dr. William Mathis (University of Colorado, et al.

26. The Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) is weakened as a result of Common Core, therein seriously damaging the protection of student information and data.  FERPA’s collusion with Common Core further decimates parental rights and harms children as a result of parental non-involvement.  FERPA’s removal of the requirement for parental permission before any data is collected or transmitted regarding children is dangerous. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) is suing the U.S. Department of Education because of the weakening of FERPA and the loss of privacy as a result thereof.

27.  Some states data collection starts when a child is 24 hours old – hence the Common Core used terminology “cradle to grave”.

28.  Common Core is of mediocre quality and will not result in greater student learning as per the analysis of the #1 Think Tank in the world, Brookings Institute (Brown Center for Education Policy).

29.  Common Core threatens, coerces, and puts undue pressure and duress on private, religious, and homeschooling because of the stranglehold CCSS has on linear assessments, particularly the  SAT/ACT and other college admissions requirements.  Private, religious, and homeschooling students have traditionally scored higher in standardized tests and have higher percentages of student graduation rates and college admissions.  A consortium of Florida education experts from these 3 areas of schooling, as well as their public school counterparts, will do much more for student learning and success than any Common Core hypothesis.

30.  Common Core provides no process for ongoing teacher feedback and hence lacks a mechanism for process improvement in a timely and efficient manner.

31.  A small group of paid experts created Common Core standards with the philosophy “Corporate Interest Knows Best” versus local school and parent know best.

32.  Common Core was never pilot tested in any school or school district.  Such failure re-emphasizes that the priority was given to commercialization and/or special interests instead of validated and proven student learning techniques.

33.  Common Core puts an unequal emphasis on education as being solely for workforce training. (My professor father would have such loud opposition to such emphasis.)

34.  Teacher evaluations being tied to federal mandates represent a gross ignorance by the Common Core developers of the uniqueness and challenges of local populations – particularly in the areas of diversity, cultural needs, language, and poverty.  Teacher accountability standards should be determined at the state level.

35.  Common Core disregards local child poverty programs and does nothing to discuss/resolve the linkage between poverty and academic underachievement.  Consequently, even if it was education’s “eureka” moment, it is incomplete.

36.  Common Core seems to be more a campaign by millionaires and billionaires to achieve short and long-term company profit goals than a reform program prioritizing the maximization of individual achievement.  Measurement and data seem to be at the top of the new paradigm for education.

37.  Common Core has no component for educational supplemental services such as high-quality preschools, expanded summer school, and after school resources.

38.  Common Core fails to deliver a transparent and comprehensive strategic plan to make every student college and career ready. (Probably because it is a completely bogus component and only used for propaganda purposes.)

39.  Common Core developers, as well as the State of Florida, presented no cost analysis prior to approval of adoption and implementation of Common Core Standards. There is a major concern that such negligence for funding, especially given the anticipated dramatic increase in funding needed, will be another issue that interferes with student outcomes and performance.  Common Core’s lack of cost analysis is sure to lead to revenue shortfalls and eventual CCSS implementation failure as schools struggle for funding.  Uncertain funding will surely lead to some program shortages.  Uncertain funding will surely lead away from learning as a priority and towards funding as a priority.  As any parent that runs a household knows, it is hard to think about tomorrow’s “lesson” when you are trying to provide nourishment for today’s “lesson”.

40.  CCSS is nothing visionary, but rather the opinions of a few, and a desire by some, to be the next visionaries and founders of education’s “Eureka moment”.

41.  Standards should never be moved away from educators, schools, and parents then given to distant bureaucracies and politicians or special interest groups or companies.

42. Any potential positive of Common Core was completely undermined by bad process.  Political agenda, quid pro quo practices, favor giving, and commercial interests should never take precedence over student protection and respect, or teacher protection and respect.

43.  Common Core aligned textbooks and worksheets have been proven to be flawed.  Teacher training for the implementation of Common Core has been proven to be flawed.  Funding equity and resources per school has been proven to be flawed. (Example: If school district schools are allotted $ equally, but yet one school only employs one security guard while another has to employ four, are they both getting equal $ for classroom instruction?).  Common Core does nothing but institute more flaws inan already flawed system.  This is what the Florida legislature calls quality education reform? Common Core is not a problem solver, Common Core is a problem maker.

44.  There are states that adopted Common Core even though they are recognized to have had higher standards than Common Core. (Minnesota and Massachusetts by way of example) Why force, through stranglehold federal government monetary incentives and mandates, states to lower their standards? Such coercion speaks to the lack of sincerity in truly delivering higher learning for all.  Rather it speaks to COMMON curriculum and standards regardless of individual student needs and abilities.  Rather it speaks to corporate interests vice community/student interests being a priority.

45.  Common Core once claimed to be internationally benchmarked as a public relations selling point, but the CCSS website no longer uses that terminology as it was a total fabrication (lie). Rather, it now states CCSS “is informed by the standards of other countries”.  What exactly does that mean – informed by?

46.  Common Core does not necessarily help students who transfer from other states as there is no proven data to suggest the standards’ “uniformity” will help the students.  In other words, are the classes and curriculum going to be taught in the same sequence, at the same time, with the same teacher energy and expertise?  It is nonsensical to suggest transient students will benefit from such a “uniformity” of standards.  No classroom teacher or administrator would stipulate such guaranteed benefit.  There are too many ingredients/variables in student academic success to even suggest that national standards would even remotely be the “end all” of higher learning. It might play a part in better testing (eventually), but philosophically and theoretically cannot play a realistic part in higher learning.

47.  Less than 4% of the student population moves from state-to-state therefore any promotion of the idea that Common Core benefits moving students puts the other 96% of the student population in jeopardy.  Both are hypotheticals much like the standards themselves.

48.   Ethan Young, a high school student, has given a first-hand account of the problems with Common Core.  He should be listened to as many student accounts are now coming in as a result of states implementing CCSS and first person testimony finally being readily available.  The mathematics standards are of lower quality and the English Language Arts standards, particularly the informational texts, used as a priority in high school, is manipulative/subjective as well as not of pedagogical soundness.  If the informational text is geared towards college and career readiness, how do you determine student interests and talents? It appears as if career “interests” will be pre-determined.  That is offensive to individuality and personal skills.  Filling slots in workforce shortages was never and should never be the pre-eminent intent of education.

49.  High stakes testing is wrong for students and teachers and puts a grotesque priority/emphasis on grading/results versus learning and innovation.  Think Einstein.

50.  Common Core appears to be a power grab by private non-governmental institutions not answerable to parents. 

51.  Common Core institutes a feeling in parents (apparently true) that they are being ignored and that they should have little to no control over their children’s education.

52.  Common Core Standards are not owned by the State of Florida, and even though the FLDOE and the Florida legislature are calling CCSS by its new name Next Generation Sunshine State Standards or Florida Standards, all the while violating its own renewed commitment to transparency and ethics, Florida still remains in the Common Core Consortium and Initiative, and still has agreed to adopt Common Core State Standards.    Such duplicity has no place in constituent communication much less student education.

53.  The British education system showed a marked decrease in academic achievement after adopting Common Core-like standards.  If they are the pilot for Common Core, we should take notice.

54.  The negative impact of one-size-fits-all-standards is expected to be irreversible for at least one generation.  Even one generation being impacted negatively is unacceptable.

55.  Parents should decide, in combination with their local communities and education leaders, the best education policy and reform for their children.

56.  Parental input for educational process improvement was decimated during Common Core development and is continuing to be decimated during implementation.  Common Core limits parental voice in their child’s education.

57.  Teachers are given little control over their classroom.  Common Core Standards will impose a strict regimen of compliance, whether effective for each individual student or not.

58.  Teacher evaluation and pay is tied to student performance regardless of challenges in diversity, poverty, language, or disability.  Teachers are in effect forced to participate in a merit/accountability system that has triggers more for the benefit of administrators and education vigilantes than students.

59.  Common Core will hurt students as it is a one-size-fits-all education norm that assumes students all learn in the same way (what a gross travesty of reasoning) and gives no variance/allowance for individual student styles, preferences, and paces.

60.  The Race to the Top Memorandum of Understanding absolutely requires data mining of a student’s personal identifiable information.  The information collected is more than test scores and academic progress (parent political party affiliation, religion, marital status, etc. could be collected).  In Florida, parents have testified they feel coerced into “voluntarily” granting, signing on the dotted line, permission to transfer such personal information as part of the requirements to have their children’s assessment scores sent to award agencies and/or colleges and universities, as well as participating in the race to receive scholarships and grants.

61.  Sandra Stotsky, Professor at the University of Arkansas, and a member of the validation committee for Common Core, says Common Core dumbs down students at least two grades levels.

62.  Centralized education systems have a long history of not working and never will work as diversity and poverty, two areas which impact both student curriculum needs and learning ability, cannot be administered effectively, i.e. personally and individually, by remote control.

63.  300 prominent policy makers and education experts warn that Common Core will close the door on innovation.

64.  Common Core will drive curriculum, a fact which was admitted by both the U.S. Department of Education and Mark Tucker.  As we know, there is no best design for curriculum sequences in any subject.  Therefore, it is then highly questionable, given the diversity of adolescent’s interests, talents, and educational needs, that CCSS and its curriculum will be not be effective given its lack of understanding of the local population and their needs, which are necessary in order to effectively maximize student learning and achievement (scholars admit and understand learning and achievement are not necessarily the same).

65.  Common Core Standards are of insufficient quality to be deemed a “national” standard.

66.  Alaska, Nebraska, Texas, and Virginia refused to adopt Common Core.  Did anyone ask them their reasoning?   As such, because of their non-involvement, we cannot possibly have national standards, thereby negating any of the propagandistic elements used by Common Core’s developers in support of the benefits of national standards.

67.  Education administrators in Florida, educators in Florida, and parents in Florida did not hear about Common Core until after the FL State Board of Education had already adopted them.  The members of the Florida Department of Education board decided to adopt Common Core prior to comprehensively consulting lawmakers, education administrators, educators, education subject matter experts and parents.  Being on the FL State Board of Education should be more than a ceremonial job offered to “favored colleagues”.  Being on the FL State Board of Education should be more than a job” politik”.

68.  Some members of Florida legislature have circled the wagons, protected special interests, made decisions based on future jobs or careers, and aggressively circumvented the legislative process and responsibility, by not bringing HB25 and SB1316 up for a full House and Senate vote.

69.  All attempts to “play” quid pro quo politics, favor giving politics, and self-aggrandizement politics must be eliminated particularly in the education of our children K-12.

70.  Education standards are not curriculum but they do determine what children will and will not learn.  They define curriculum.  In the State of Florida, curriculum must be state driven.

71.  No state, Florida included, has analyzed how much the upgrade in technology for only online-testing will cost or know how effective it will be. What happens with audio learners or special needs students? What happens with testing security and computer malfunctions? Is Florida ready or is there a rush to implementation?  One student testified that online tests are already being given.  As a Magnet high school student in an International Baccalaureate Program, she had a situation where a computer malfunctioned during a timed test resulting in her having to start all over.  She was almost in tears as not only did she have to restart and then finish per the time guidelines, but any ability to re-check her work was impossible given the set-up procedures for online testing.

72.  Common Core ruins simple addition and subtraction by complicating easy problems.  In subtraction it forces students to visualize columns.  Supposedly, such “dissecting” helps with analytical skills.  The truth of that statement is unknown.  What is known is that a very small group of people got together and decided that “theorectically” the math standards by Common Core should prove to improve analytical skills.  Apparently, it was only proven to not improve theirs.

73.  A key Common Core creator, Jason Zimba, said that Common Core can prepare students for non-selective colleges but that it does not prepare students for STEM careers.  He said “I think it is an unfair  critique that it is a minimal definition of college readiness. . . but it’s not for the colleges most parents aspire to . . . not only not for STEM, it is also not for selective colleges.  For example, for U.C. Berkeley, whether you are going to be an engineer or not, you’d better have pre-calculus to get into U.C. Berkeley.”

74.  Do the Common Core Standards improve K-12 education?  No one knows because, once again, Common Core was unpiloted and untested.  As such it continues to be a hypothesis in word and in practicum.

75.  Dr. James Milgram (Stanford University emeritus professor who served on the Common Core validation committee) said this about Common Core, “I can tell you that my main objection to Core Standards and the reason I did not sign off on them was that they did not match up to international expectations.  They were at least two years behind the practices of the high achieving countries by 7th grade, and, as a number of people have observed, only require partial understanding of what would be the content of a normal, solid, course in Algebra 1 or geometry.  Moreover, they deliver very little of the context of Algebra II, and none of any higher level course. . . They will not help our children match up to the students in the top foreign countries when it comes to being hired to top level jobs.”

76.  Dr. Sandra Stotsky (previously mentioned as being on the validation committee and who refused to sign off on the English Language Arts standards) also had this to say about Common Core.“As empty skill sets, Common Core’s ELA standards do not strengthen the high school curriculum.  Nor can they reduce post-secondary remedial coursework in a legitimate way.  As empty skill sets, Common Core’s ELA “college and career readiness” standards weaken the base of literacy and cultural knowledge needed for authentic college coursework, decrease the capacity for analytical thinking. . ; and completely muddle the development of writing skills.” Common Core will not solve the English remediation problem currently existing for incoming college freshman.

77.  The General Education Provisions Act (GEPA) wisely prohibits the federal government from directing education – very clearly.

“No provision of any applicable program shall be construed to authorize any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system, or over the selection of library resources, textbooks, or other printed or published instructional materials by an educational institution or school system.”

78.  The emphasis in English Language Arts on informational text – 4th grade splits Literacy and Informational 50/50; 8th grade splits Literacy and Informational 45/55; 12th  grade splits Literacy and Informational 30/70 – is not advantageous to literacy and vocabulary building sequencing. Informational text can be in the form of scientific writings, political writings, opinion pieces, or anything other than classic novels, poetry, plays, or other fictional works.  Such an emphasis on informational text damages unnecessarily literacy as the needed priority in reading and writing development.

79.  Common Core falsely advertises itself as more rigorous.  Nothing can be further from the truth especially in the math standards.  The National Center for Education and Economy (NCEE), one of the advisors and/or writers of CCSS, stated quite clearly that high math standards were not necessary in high school.

80.  The federal EDFacts Exchange collects data for local, state, and federal levels.  The federal government paid for states to build matching and interoperable State Longitudinal Database Systems. The U.S. Department of Education is listed as a partner of the Education Information Management Advisory Consortia (EIMAC) which does data collection of students and does promise to share biological and behavioral data. 

81.  132 professors of Catholic universities wrote a letter denouncing Common Core on both academic and moral grounds.

82.  Regardless of any legislation passed by the Florida legislature regarding data privacy, the stakeholders in Common Core have orchestrated state school systems to “voluntarily” agree to common data core standards to make data comparisons easy.  They do not care about the content of the standards, rather they care that the comparisons are easily documented and created into workable data, and are using CCSS as an accessory.  The CEO of Escholar Shawn Bay spoke at an event called Datapalooza and stated that Common Core “Is the glue that actually ties everything together” for student data collection.  Cradle to grave mentality is not just theory but a collusion between companies and government – placing children as subjects of data trafficking and worse.  The buying and selling of data is a multi-billion dollar business.

83.  Common Core manages teachers through intimidation.  Common Core will effectively discourage individuals from seeking a career in teaching.  (How is that for college and career readiness?!)  The increase in testing days demotivates teachers, abnormally stresses students, and puts an undue burden on “quick” instruction and the ever dreaded “teaching to the test”.

84.  Ze’ev Wurman (formerly a U.S. Department of Education official and currently a Professor of Mathematics at Johns Hopkins University) contends that Common Core math standards are not as promised.  Example:  As compared to California and Minnesota, who have higher math standards, Common Core is more numerous.  Minnesota has 42 pages of standards; California has 59 pages of standards; meanwhile Common Core has 73 pages of standards.  More standards are not necessary or efficient for higher achievement.

85.  The National Mathematics Advisory Panel, Foundations of Success, called for fluency in addition and subtraction of whole numbers by the end of 3rd grade, and fluency in multiplication and division by end of 5th grade.  California has the same fluency standards.  However, high math achieving countries like Singapore and Korea, Japan and Hong Kong, call for multiplication and division of whole numbers even earlier or by 4th grade.  However, Common Core refers fluency to 6th grade proving that Common Core’s math standards are not more rigorous.

86.  Andrew Porter, Dean of the University of Pennsylvania’s Graduate School of Education, recently evaluated the Common Core Standards with his colleagues and their conclusion was negative towards CCSS.  “Those that hope that the Common Core Standards represent greater focus for U.S. education will be disappointed by our answers.  Only one of our criteria measuring focus found that the Common Core standards are more focused than current state standards. . . We also evaluated international benchmarking to judge the quality of the Common Core standards.  High performing countries’ emphasis on “perform procedures” runs counter to the widespread call in the US for greater emphasis on higher-order cognitive demand.”

87.  The End of the Math Wars is nowhere in sight.  Professor William McCallum, one of the 3 main writers of the Common Core mathematics standards said this when speaking at an annual conference of mathematics societies.  While acknowledging the concerns about front loading demands in early grades, McCallum said “the overall standards would not be too high, certainly not in comparison with other nations, including East Asia, where math education excels.

88.  College readiness is defined by what colleges require as prerequisites for incoming freshman. Overwhelmingly, the enrollment requirements of four-year state colleges consist of at least 3 years of high school mathematics including Algebra I & II (and geometry) – including such elements contained therein as complex numbers, vectors, trigonometry, bionomical theorem, logarithms, logarithmic and exponential functions, ellipse, etc.  Common Core Standards do not include these elements and therefore cannot lay honest claim to “college readiness”.

89.  Common Core mathematics standards fail on rigor and clarity in comparison to better state standards and those of higher achieving countries.

90. The Florida Department of Education’s testing company American Institutes for Research (AIR) is the same as Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) – as AIR is developing the test for SBAC.  AIR is controversial as it involves itself in mental health analysis without having any subject matter expertise in health.

91.  The National PTA (Parent Teachers Association) and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have been, as it appears, to be effectively bribed, through million dollar donations, to not only support Common Core but to propagandize it publicly.  The unfortunate exchange of money between the creators/developers of Common Core and self-promoting agencies is a violation of consumer trust and seemingly a corrupt manipulation of the very purpose/mission of any program or policy that affects our nation’s children.

92.   Career readiness as a component of Common Core can only be an advertising moniker because there is absolutely no way for academic standards to determine student interests and talents other than in general/common requirement terms and, as such, are not exclusive or unique to Common Core.  In the alternative, is Common Core a methodology to force students into fields for which they have no or very little interest but will nonetheless fulfill commercial workforce interests vice student learning interests?

93.  Where is the strategic plan for assuring career readiness?  Is career readiness going to be determined by college graduation rates?  Is career readiness going to be determined by school-to-work programs?  We know that traditional colleges have a graduate employment rate (measured by a graduate being employed within 6 months of graduation) at less than 30%; we know that career colleges can have a graduate employment rate of up to 80%.  Are Common Core Standards geared to the encouragement of increasing the participation of our student population in career colleges vice traditional colleges?  If it is career colleges, do students benefit from the implementation and assessments of Common Core Standards and are they necessary for career college success?  Historical data would show that career colleges are not influenced and will not be influenced by these “career readiness” standards.  Therefore, who is the target market?  WE DO NOT KNOW.  What we do know is who owns the profit market.

94.  Special need students have been largely ignored in the development and implementation of Common Core.  Despite bandage bills in the Florida legislature attempting to remedy this gross oversight, Florida public school students of special needs, and the teachers that are working their hardest to integrate them into the student population while still developing/implementing an Individualized Education Plan, will suffer unnecessarily by this oversight.

95.  Ultimately, Common Core is harmful to family structures as “it takes away power from parents, and de-incentivizes parents from a deep and abiding interest in their child’s education”.  Education is lifelong; Education begins and ends at home.

Florida high school teacher fakes orgasm in class — and keeps her job by Allen West

Parents today have so many factors and variables working against them when it comes to a quality education for their children. As we all know, America has unfortunately fallen behind other countries in the world when it comes to academic achievement.

As a result, my wife Angela and I decided to invest in our daughters’ future by sending them to private parochial schooling. Aubrey graduated from a Catholic high school and Austen attends a Christian high school — not only is a quality education important but a moral one as well.

Hence the backdrop for another sad story coming out of Florida. Hat tip to LTC (Ret.) Dr. Rich Swier who reports that a language arts teacher at a Miami-Dade public high school actually simulated an orgasm in front of her students.

According to a recent Education Practices Commission of the State of Florida report, Christine Kirchner, who teaches at Coral Reef Senior High, regularly discussed sex, virginity and masturbation, simulated orgasm and gave massages to students in her language arts class during the 2012-13 school year.

Kirchner is no weird outlier. In 2008 she was appointed by the Miami-Dade School Board to the Lesson Plan Development Task Group. Kirchner was elected Vice President At-Large and sits on the Executive Board of the United Teachers of Dade (UTD).

For her actions, Kirchner was found guilty of “gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude” and in violation of “the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession.” Gee, ya think?

Her punishment? The Florida Department of Education accepted a “Settlement Agreement” which consists of a letter of reprimand and placing Kirchner on two years probation. Kirchner accepted the Settlement Agreement and will return to her classroom at Coral Reef High School and retain her position on the Executive Board of the UTD.

I’m quite sure the teacher’s union had a play in this case. Now, you can understand why parents are seeking out charter schools and homeschooling is on the rise. As well, you can understand why our public schools are failing our children and not preparing them with quality instruction promoting critical thinking skills.

So what’s your assessment? Should Ms. Kirchner return to the classroom, and is this just another case of dismissing and rewarding abhorrent behavior?

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on AllenBWest.com.

NYPD Disbands Muslim Surveillance program: Dangerous for New Yorkers?

Tuesday, a news conference held by New York Police Commissioner William Bratton announced the dismantling of the NYPD Muslim community surveillance program, The Demographic Unit, renamed the Zone Assessment Unit. Department spokesperson Stephen Davis remarked:

Understanding certain local demographics can be a useful factor when assessing the threat information that comes into New York City virtually on a daily basis. In the future, we will gather that information, if necessary, through direct contact between the police precincts and the representatives of the communities they serve.

Democrat Mayor of New York, William Di Blasio called the move:

a critical step forward in easing tensions between the police and the communities they serve, so that our cops and our citizens can help one another go after the real bad guys.

CAIR New York Board Chairman, Ray Mahoney said:

CAIR-NY welcomes the closing of the NYPD Zone Assessment Unit. This is an important first step. However, the damage of unconstitutional mass spying on people solely on the basis of their religion has already been carried out and must be addressed. We need to hear from the mayor and NYPD officials that the policy itself has been ended and that the department will no longer apply mass surveillance or other forms of biased and predatory policing to any faith-based community.

Linda Sarsour of the Arab American Association of New York said:

The Demographics Unit created psychological warfare in our community. Those documents, they showed where we live. That’s the cafe where I eat. That’s where I pray. That’s where I buy my groceries. They were able to see their entire lives on those maps. And it completely messed with the psyche of the community.

Thus ends a program developed in 2003 with the assistance ex-CIA officer Lawrence Sanchez at the request of former Commissioner Ray Kelly. In the wake of 9/11 it was deemed important to try and identify extremists in New York and outlying targeted Muslim communities who might provide assistance in terrorist plots threatening the City of New York.  That meant identifying informants within the community, creating a veritable census of the community and its institutions including monitoring Mosques and their leaders for inflammatory ideology.

Given the failure within the federal intelligence community exposed in the Report of the 9/11 Commission to collect, analyze and disseminate counter terrorism intelligence, forming special units within  the NYPD to detect and prevent terrorist attacks made eminent sense to former Mayor Michael Bloomberg and former Police Commissioner Ray Kelly.  The NYPD counterterrorism program had another component the International Liaison Program with officers located in 11 overseas cities. The combined NYPD counterterrorism effort  alleged to have stopped more than 16 terrorists plots including intercepting a perpetrator of a possible dirty bomb attack planned for the 2004 Republican National Convention in Manhattan.  These programs have been pummeled with criticism that they were costly, and didn’t result in any arrests. New York Muslim community activists and civil liberties groups point to a “pretrial examination before the US District Court for the Southern District of New York  in which  Commanding Officer of the Intelligence Division Thomas Galati admitted that the program had never generated a lead”.

With the arrival of   Mayor De Blasio and Commissioner Bratton in 2014, the Muslim Community Mapping effort by the NYPD became subject to litigation by Muslim plaintiffs, in actions previously  filed in the Newark, New Jersey Federal District Court and in the Eastern District Court  in Brooklyn. Mayor DiBlasio during his electoral campaign had urged accommodation of New York Muslim community concerns. The Washington Post tagged Bratton, in December 2013 as  “healer in chief of a worried Muslim community”.

The first case was brought by Muslim plaintiffs in 2012 against the City of New York as a result of a 2011 Associated Press investigation of the New York Police Department (NYPD) surveillance of Muslim mosques in New Jersey.  The AP series:

Revealed that the NYPD dispatched undercover officers into minority neighborhoods as part of a human mapping program.  Police also used informants, known as “mosque crawlers,” to monitor sermons, even when there was no evidence of wrongdoing. Hundreds of mosques and Muslim student groups were investigated and dozens were infiltrated. Many of these operations were built with help from the CIA, which is prohibited from spying on Americans but was instrumental in transforming the NYPD’s intelligence unit after 9/11.

The NYPD had also undertaken similar surveillance  of the Somali Muslim community in Buffalo, New York.  The Newark federal court ruling was immediately contested by Muslim community leaders and civil rights groups as abetting ‘spying’ and so-called community profiling. The New Jersey case harkens back to CAIR and other Muslim advocacy groups in New York contesting a 2007 NYPD Muslim profiling   manual.  There was also  a case brought by an ex- Muslim NYPD officer against a consultant to the NYPD counterterrorism unit. Ironically, former NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly, who set up the Muslim community surveillance program, received an award in 2012 from the Department’s Muslim Advisory Council.

On February 20, 2014, the first action brought by New Jersey Muslim Plaintiffs in the matter of Hassan v. City of New York, 2:12-CV-3401, U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey (Newark) was dismissed by Federal District Judge William F. Martini who noted in his decision:

[T]he Plaintiffs in this case have not alleged facts from which it can be plausibly inferred that they were targeted solely because of their religion.  The more likely explanation for the surveillance was a desire to locate budding terrorist conspiracies. The most obvious reason for so concluding is that surveillance of the Muslim community began just after the attacks of September 11, 2001. The police could not have monitored New Jersey for Muslim terrorists’ activities without monitoring the Muslim community itself. While this surveillance program may have had adverse effects upon the Muslim community after the AP published its articles; the motive for the program was not solely to discriminate against Muslims, but rather to find Muslim terrorists hiding among ordinary, law-abiding Muslims.

In an interview with Brooke Goldstein of the Lawfare Project, we asked her about the NYPD surveillance program.  She said:

What I can say is that from my dealings with the NYPD, they were not targeting Muslims and engaging in discrimination based on race or religion.  What they were doing was targeting institutions that have a connection to terrorism and those groups happen to be Islamist… Simply because of the fact they have a theological justification has now opened up the NYPD surveillance program to accusations of so-called Islamophobia which are absolutely baseless and ridiculous.

In light of Tuesday’s announcement by NYPD Commissioner Bratton, could the Eastern District case brought by New York plaintiffs be mooted? Or will the announcement spur further Lawfare litigation by New York Muslim plaintiffs?

The NYPD  abandonment of the Muslim community mapping programs  may  embolden Muslim Brotherhood influencers in the Obama Administration, especially Arif Alikhan, assistant secretary for policy and Mohamed Elibiary, a senior member of the US Department of Homeland Security’s  advisory council.  Alikhan, as deputy mayor of Los Angeles for public safety, worked to scuttle  a similar Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD)  Muslim community ‘mapping’ program in 2007 when current NYPD Police Commissioner William Bratton was LAPD  Police Chief from 2002-2009.  Elibiary on the DHS Advisory panel had been actively involved in elimination of Islamic Jihad doctrine from DHS and other federal agencies’ counterterrorism training materials.  Perhaps NYPD Commissioner might turn to a community self policing proposal being promoted by MPAC, a Muslim Brotherhood front with influence in Washington,   called “Safe Spaces”.  According to a Wall Street Journal article,  “Mosques get a New Message”, Safe Spaces , is about  a voluntary program  by boards of  American Mosques engaging in identifying and ‘converting’ extremists in their midst thereby co-opting local and national law enforcement profiling of their communities.

With the end the NYPD Muslim community surveillance by order of Commissioner Bratton, New Yorkers must be concerned about who will monitor Islamist extremists and potential terror threats in the Big Apple.  As of Tuesday, Lawfare by Muslim Brotherhood interests reigns supreme in all five boroughs.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The New English Review.

CLICHES OF PROGRESSIVISM #1: Income Inequality Arises From Market Forces and Requires Government Intervention

The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) is proud to partner with Young America’s Foundation (YAF) to produce “Clichés of Progressivism,” a series of insightful commentaries covering topics of free enterprise, income inequality, and limited government.

Our society is inundated with half-truths and misconceptions about the economy in general and free enterprise in particular. The “Clichés of Progressivism” series is meant to equip students with the arguments necessary to inform debate and correct the record where bias and errors abound.

Leaders and experts who support free enterprise and who understand the importance of fiscal responsibility and entrepreneurship will author the pieces. A book will be released in 2015 featuring the best editorials in the series. The opinion editorials and columns will be published weekly on the websites of both YAF and FEE: www.yaf.org and www.FEE.org

See the index of the published chapters here.

#1 — Income Inequality Arises From Market Forces and Requires Government Intervention

Inequality is everywhere. In a rainforest, mahogany trees take up more water and sunlight than all the other plants and animals. In our economic ecosystems, entrepreneurs and investors control more of the assets than the rest of us do. No one worries about the mahogany trees, and yet there is terrible fretting about the wealthy. In the case of ecosystems and economies, however, there are very good reasons for an unequal distribution of resources.

The sources of some forms of inequality are better than others. For example, inequality produced by crony capitalism—or what Barron’s editor Gene Epstein refers to as “crapitalism”—is surely undesirable. Therefore, it’s important for us to make a distinction between economic entrepreneurs and political entrepreneurs: The former create value for society; the latter have figured out how to transfer resources from others into their own coffers, usually by lobbying for subsidies, special favors or anticompetitive laws. If we can ever disentangle the crapitalists from the true entrepreneurs, we can see the difference between makers and takers. And inequality that follows from honest entrepreneurship, far from indicating that something is wrong, indicates an overall flourishing. In a system where everyone is made better off through creative activity and exchange, some people are going to get wealthy. It’s a natural feature of the system—a system that rewards entrepreneurs and investors for being good stewards of capital. Of course, when people are not good stewards of capital, they fail. In other words, people who make bad investments or who don’t serve customers well aren’t going to stay rich long.

Whenever we hear someone lamenting inequality, we should immediately ask, “So what?” Some of the smartest (and even some of the richest) people in America confuse concerns about the poor with concerns about the assets the wealthy control. It’s rooted in that old zero-sum thinking—the idea that if a poor guy doesn’t have it, it’s because the wealthy guy does. But one person is only better off at the expense of another under crapitalism, not under conditions of honest entrepreneurship and free exchange.

Unless someone has made lots of money hiring lawyers and lobbyists instead of researchers and developers, wealthy people got rich by creating a whole lot of value for a whole lot of people. Thus, the absence of super-wealthy people would actually be a bad sign for the rest of us—especially the poor. Indeed, it would indicate one of two things: Either very little value had been created (fewer good things in our lives, like iPhones and chocolate truffles) or the government had engaged in radical redistribution, removing significant incentives for people to be value creators and stewards of capital at all.

When resources are sitting in investments or in bank accounts, they are not idle. In other words, most rich people don’t stuff their millions under mattresses or take baths in gold coins. In conditions of economic stability, these resources are constantly working in the economy. In more stable conditions, a portion finds its way to a creative restaurateur in South Carolina in the form of a loan. Another portion is being used by arbitrageurs who help stabilize commodity prices. Another portion is being loaned to a nurse so she can buy her first home. Under normal circumstances, these are all good things. But when too many resources get intercepted by Uncle Sam before they get to the nodes in these economic networks, they will be squandered in the federal bureaucracy—a vortex where prosperity goes to die.

We should also remember that, due to our equal markets, most of us live like kings. Differences in assets are not the same as differences in living standards, although people tend to fetishize the former. Economist Don Boudreaux reminds us that Bill Gates’s wealth may be about 70,000 times greater than his own. But does Bill Gates ingest 70,000 times more calories than Professor Boudreaux? Are Bill Gates’ meals 70,000 times tastier? Are his children educated 70,000 times better? Can he travel to Europe or to Asia 70,000 times faster or more safely? Will Gates live 70,000 times longer? Today, even the poorest segment in America live better than almost anyone in the eighteenth century and better than two-thirds of the world’s population.

When we hear people fretting about inequality, we should ask ourselves: Are they genuinely concerned for the poor or are they indignant about the rich? Here’s how to tell the difference: Whenever someone grumbles about “the gap,” ask her if she’d be willing for the rich to be even richer if it meant improved conditions for the absolute poorest among us. If she says “no,” she’s admitting that her concern is really with what the wealthy have, not what the poor lack. If her answer is “yes,” then the so-called “gap” is irrelevant. You can then go on to talk about legitimate concerns, like how best to improve the conditions of the poor without paying them to be wards of the State. In other words, the meaningful conversation we should be having is about absolute poverty, not relative poverty.

In so many of the discussions about income inequality, there is a basic emotional dynamic at work. Someone sees they have less than another, and they feel envious. Perhaps they see they have more than another, and they feel guilty. Or they see that someone has more than someone else, and they feel indignation. Envy, guilt, and indignation. Are these the kinds of emotions that should drive social policy? When we begin to understand the origins of wealth—honest entrepreneurs and stewards of capital in an inherently unequal ecosystem—we can learn to leave our more primitive emotions behind.

 

Max Borders
Editor & Director of Content
The Freeman

Summary

  • Economic inequality, like the personality traits that make up each individual, is a defining characteristic of humanity.
  • When economic inequality arises naturally in the marketplace, it largely reflects the ability of individuals to serve others; when it arises from political connections, it’s unfair and corrupt.
  • Allowing economic inequality to occur, so long as it doesn’t derive from politics (or fraud from the Bernie Madoffs of the world), inevitably raises the standard of living for society as a whole
  • Concern for “the poor” is often a way to disguise envy or disdain for “the rich.”
  • For more information, see http://tinyurl.com/ohwvrx9.

ABOUT MAX BORDERS

Max Borders is the editor of The Freeman and director of content for FEE. He is also co-founder of the event experience Voice & Exit and author of Superwealth: Why we should stop worrying about the gap between rich and poor.

RELATED ARTICLE: Scientific American: The Myth of Income Inequality by Michael Shermer

EDITORS NOTE:  The features photo is courtesy of FEE and Shutterstock.

Earth ‘Serially Doomed’: UN Issues New 15 Year Climate Tipping Point – But UN Issued Tipping Points in 1982 & 1989!

According to the Boston Globe, the United Nations has issued a new climate “tipping point” by which the world must act to avoid dangerous global warming.

The Boston Globe noted on April 16, 2014: “The world now has a rough deadline for action on climate change. Nations need to take aggressive action in the next 15 years to cut carbon emissions, in order to forestall the worst effects of global warming, says the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”

Once again, the world is being warned of an ecological or climate “tipping point” by the UN.

In 1982, the UN issued a two decade tipping point. UN official Mostafa Tolba, executive director of the UN Environment Program (UNEP), warned on May 11, 1982, the “world faces an ecological disaster as final as nuclear war within a couple of decades unless governments act now.” According to Tolba in 1982, lack of action would bring “by the turn of the century, an environmental catastrophe which will witness devastation as complete, as irreversible as any nuclear holocaust.”

For a larger view click on the image.

As early as 1989, the UN was already trying to sell their “tipping point” rhetoric on the public. See: U.N. Warning of 10-Year ‘Climate Tipping Point’ Began in 1989 – Excerpt: According to July 5, 1989, article in the Miami Herald, the then-director of the New York office of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), Noel Brown, warned of a “10-year window of opportunity to solve” global warming. According to the 1989 article, “A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos.” (LINK) & (LINK)

It’s all so confusing. In 2007, UN IPCC chief Pachauri declared 2012 as the climate deadline to act or it would be “too late.” See: Celebrate! UN IPCC Chairman Pachauri: It’s Too Late to Fight Climate Change! – Pachauri in 2007: ‘If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment’

Not to be outdone by the UN, Former Irish President Mary Robinson weighed in this week, issuing a more generous 20 year tipping point. “Former president says we have 20 years to save the world from climate change effects…Robinson calls for climate agreement by 2015.” Robinson noted that global leaders have “at most two decades to save the world”.

Not to be left out, NASA got in the climate tipping point act in 2009. See: NASA’s James Hansen Declared Obama Only First Term to Save The Planet! — ‘On Jan. 17, 2009 Hansen declared Obama only ‘has four years to save Earth’

For a larger view click on the image.

Watch Now: Morano rips NASA’s James Hansen: ‘Hansen said we only have 4 years left to save the planet in Jan.2009, We passed another Mayan calendar deadline’

But in 2012, the UN gave Obama and planet Earth another four year reprieve. See: Tipping points extended again: UN Foundation Pres. Warmist Tim Wirth: 2012 is Obama’s ‘last window of opportunity’ to get it right on climate change

Former Vice President Al Gore also created a 10 year climate tipping point in 2006: See: Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer Mocks Gore for issuing 10-year tipping point in 2006: Al Gore’s 10-year climate warning – Only 2 years left & still no global warming – Spencer: ‘Gore told us in January 2006 that we had only 10 years left to solve the global warming problem’ – ‘In the grand tradition of prophets of doom, his prognostication is not shaping up too well…still no statistically significant warming’

Then, Michael Mann weighed in with his 2036 Mayan calendar type deadline. See: 2036 is the new 2012?! UN Scientist Michael Mann starts his own Mayan Calendar deadline: ‘Global Warming Will Cross a Dangerous Threshold in 2036′

Other global warming activists chose 2047 as the key date. See: Global warming activist scientists may not be the first to proclaim a doomsday year of 2047 as the end of time! — 2047 is the new 2012 — but global warming activists were beaten to Armageddon! – A Climate Depot analysis has uncovered that 2047 has long been seen as a successor to 2012 as an apocalyptic date.

Finding no date agreement, 20 governments chose 2030 as the scary deadline: See: Skeptics Repent! We are all doomed! Report: More than 100 million people will die by 2030 if world fails to act on climate — Reuters: ‘More than 100 million people will die and global economic growth will be cut by 3.2% of GDP by 2030 if the world fails to tackle climate change, a report commissioned by 20 governments said on Wednesday. As global avg. temps rise due to ghg emissions, the effects on planet, such as melting ice caps, extreme weather, drought and rising sea levels, will threaten populations and livelihoods, said the report conducted by humanitarian organisation DARA’

The tipping point rhetoric seems to have exploded after 2002. See: Tipping Points In Env. Rhetoric: An Unscientific Survey of Nexis: After June 2002, news media’s use of tipping point in the context of global warming and climate change exploded’ — ‘Between June 2002 and June 2005 – CC: 262; GW: 303. Between June 2005 and June 2008 – CC: more than 3,000; GW: more than 3,000* Between June 2008 and June 2011 – CC: more than 3,000; GW: 2903 Between June 2011 and June 2012 – CC: 1,348; GW; 637 Of course, the problem with tipping points is that they can never be proven wrong; only right in retrospect. And that, of course, makes citing them a wonderful rhetorical device for doomsayers’

UNEP Warns of New ‘Tipping Points’ Being Reached — ’20-30 years into future…far enough away that it can be forgotten when date approaches & Armageddon hasn’t yet arrived on schedule’

Perhaps the best explanation of tipping points comes from UK scientist Philip Stott.

See: UK Scientist Philip Stott ridiculed “tipping point” claims in 2007. “In essence, the Earth has been given a 10-year survival warning regularly for the last fifty or so years. We have been serially doomed. […] Our post-modern period of climate change angst can probably be traced back to the late-1960s, if not earlier. By 1973, and the ‘global cooling’ scare, it was in full swing, with predictions of the imminent collapse of the world within ten to twenty years, exacerbated by the impacts of a nuclear winter. Environmentalists were warning that, by the year 2000, the population of the US would have fallen to only 22 million [the 2007 population estimate is 302,824,000]. […] In 1987, the scare abruptly changed to ‘global warming’, and the IPCC (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) was established (1988), issuing its first assessment report in 1990, which served as the basis of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC).”

Inconvenient History of Climate ‘Tipping Point’ Warnings

UK’s Top Scientist Sir David King in 2004: ‘Antarctica is likely to be the world’s only habitable continent by the end of this century if global warming remains unchecked’

NASA scientist James Hansen has been warning of a “tipping point” for years now. See: Earth’s Climate Approaches Dangerous Tipping Point – June 1, 2007 – Excerpt: A stern warning that global warming is nearing an irreversible tipping point was issued today” by James Hansen.

Former Vice President Al Gore invented his own “tipping point” clock a few years ago. Excerpt: Former Vice-President Al Gore came to Washington on July 17, 2008, to deliver yet another speech warning of the “climate crisis.” “The leading experts predict that we have less than 10 years to make dramatic changes in our global warming pollution lest we lose our ability to ever recover from this environmental crisis,” Gore stated.

Prince Charles claimed a 96-month tipping point in July 2009. Excerpt: The heir to the throne told an audience of industrialists and environmentalists at St James’s Palace last night that he had calculated that we have just 96 months left to save the world. And in a searing indictment on capitalist society, Charles said we can no longer afford consumerism and that the “age of convenience” was over.

Get ready, we only have 190 years! Scientists ‘expect climate tipping point’ by 2200 – UK Independent – June 28, 2010 – Excerpt: “13 of the 14 experts said that the probability of reaching a tipping point (by 2200) was greater than 50 per cent, and 10 said that the chances were 75 per cent or more.”

‘World has only ten years to control global warming, warns Met Office – UK Telegraph – November 15, 2009 – Excerpt: Pollution needs to be brought under control within ten years to stop runaway climate change, according to the latest Met Office predictions. […] “To limit global mean temperature [increases] to below 2C, implied emissions of CO2 to the atmosphere at the end of the century fall close to zero in most cases.”

In 2013, the UN extended the deadline again. See: Earth Gets 15 Year Reprieve From Climate Doom?!: UN in 1989: World has a ’10-year window of opportunity to solve’ global warming — Now in 2013: ‘UN needs global warming answer by 2015′ – New date is the latest in a long history of flexible global warming deadlines

The UN chief Ban Ki-moon further shortened the “tipping point” in August 2009, when he warned of ‘incalculable’ suffering without climate deal in December 2009!

Newsweek magazine waded into the tipping point claims as well. Newsweek wrote: “The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.” But, Newsweek’s “tipping point” quote appeared in a April 28, 1975 article about global cooling! Same rhetoric, different eco-scare.

For an explanation of why climate fear promoters are failing to convince the public, see: MIT Climate Scientist: ‘Ordinary people see through man-made climate fears — but educated people are very vulnerable’ – July 6, 2009]

More Related Links:

Warmists Prep for UN Summit: ‘World headed for irreversible climate change in five years, IEA warns’: ‘The world will ‘lose for ever’ the chance to avoid dangerous climate change’ — ‘The door is closing,” Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency…Every month now counts: if the world is to stay below 2C of warming’

UK greenie George Monbiot 2002 warned we only had 10 years! ‘Famine can only be avoided if the rich give up meat, fish and dairy’– Monbiot on December 24, 2002: ‘Within as little as 10 years, the world will be faced with a choice: arable farming either continues to feed the world’s animals or it continues to feed the world’s people. It cannot do both’

1924: Top Scientists Say That Earth Is Doomed (April 16, 1924) – ‘It is the firmest conviction of a group of serious scientists of established reputation, who have devoted their lives to a dispassionate and careful examination of geological and astronomical evidence. This group includes such investigators as Dr. Max Valier, of Munich. Engineer Hanne Hoerbiger, of Vienna, Dr. Voigt, of Berlin; and Professor F. Queisser. of Prague’

New Ecology Paper Challenges ‘Tipping Point’ Meme

Analysis: ‘Al Gore’s 10-Year ‘Scorching’ Prophesy Emerging As A Grand Hoax…Global Temperatures Declined Over Last Decade’

Gore Losing: No cause for alarm at 5-year mid-point of Armstrong-Gore climate ‘bet’ — ‘Gore should be pleased to find concerns about a ‘tipping point’ have turned out to be unfounded’ – ‘The latest global temperature is exactly where it was at the beginning of the ‘bet’ — ‘The IPCC’s forecasting procedures have been found to violate 72 of the 89 relevant principles’

ALERT: Obama (& Planet Earth) Granted Last Minute Reprieve! Four years ago, the world’s greatest climatologist James Hansen gave Obama until Jan. 17, 2013 to save the planet’

Doomster Paul Ehrlich is back and just as wrong as ever! Remember when we all starved to death in the 1980s, just as I predicted? It might happen AGAIN! – Ehrlich: ‘We risk a global collapse of our civilization as we know it. Climate change is just one of our problems. We cannot avert calamity without tackling it and other pressing ecological concerns’

Flashback: ‘Accurate Tribute to Paul Ehrlich: ‘Mad…Kook…Lunatic…Disgraced…Worse than Hitler…fear-monger…parasite on Academic system’

UK Guardian: ’50 months to avoid climate disaster’ — ‘On a very conservative estimate, 50 months from now, the dice become loaded against us in terms of keeping under a 2C temp rise’

Forty Year Cycle Of Scientific Psychosis Discovered: ‘There appears to be a forty year cycle of mental illness in the scientific community’ — ‘This is what they were saying in 1970′: ‘Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind; — George Wald, Harvard Biologist — ‘We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.’ — Barry Commoner, Wash. U biologist’

MIT to Obama: Only 4 years left to stop global warming: ‘It is quite possible that if this is not done over the next four years, it will be too late’ — MIT to Obama: ‘We can no longer pretend that addressing climate change will be without real costs’ — ‘You have the power and the opportunity to lay the groundwork for a new clean-energy policy that will help us avoid the worst consequences of climate change,” said the letter, published in the MITTechnology Review’

Flashback 2007: Climatologist Dr. Michaels mocks ‘tipping points’: ’We have to do something in 10 years — they have been saying that for two years. Why don’t they at least subtract 2 and make it 8?’

Another Atmospheric Scientist Dissents: Calls fears of CO2 tipping point ‘alarmist, ludicrous, and totally without foundation’ – July 13, 2009 – ‘Over geologic time there has been 15 to 25 times more CO2 than current concentrations’

Media Tipping Point! Houston Chronicle Reporter Reconsiders Science is ‘Settled’ Claims! ‘I am confused. 4 years ago this all seemed like a fait accompli’ – September 6, 2009

Antarctic Tipping Point? ‘If we don’t act soon, the planet will become a barren ball of ice and snow’ – October 2, 2009 – ’5 of the 6 years with the greatest Southern Hemisphere sea ice extent have occurred in just the last decade’

2007 – GLOBAL WARMING ALARMISM REACHES A TIPPING POINT – October 26, 2007

Climate Depot’s Morano on new alarmist National Academy of Sciences’ climate ‘tipping point’ study: It ‘openly shills for more climate funding for its members’ — Morano: ‘The organization [NAS] is virtually 100% dependent on government funding. So when they do a study like this – and they’ve done other studies in the past – you know the outcome of these studies before they do them. The actual funding quote from new study is: ‘The sudden changes in the climate is full of uncertainties. The world can prepare by better monitoring,’ Morano offers. ‘And it goes on [to say that] because of budget cuts and aging satellites, we have fewer measurements than we did a few years ago.’ – ‘When the NAS is advocating for a carbon tax, it’s not too surprising that all [their] reports are going to fall in line.’

Former Greenpeace co-founder turned climate skeptic Dr. Patrick Moore calls NAS ‘tipping point’ study ‘pure junk’: ‘Low point for US National Academy of Science. Warns of ‘tipping points’ in climate like ‘drunk drivers’

AP’s Seth Borenstein: ‘FEDERAL STUDY WARNS OF SUDDEN CLIMATE CHANGE WOES’

See: NAS Corrupted Warmist Ralph Cicerone: Turned Org. into political advocacy group: $6 million NAS study used to lobby for climate bill

Flashback: MIT’s Lindzen Slams: ‘Ralph Cicerone of NAS/NRC is saying that regardless of evidence the answer is predetermined. If gov’t wants carbon control, that is the answer that the Academies will provide’

Cicerone’s Shame: NAS Urges Carbon Tax, Becomes Advocacy Group — ‘political appointees heading politicized scientific institutions that are virtually 100% dependent on gov’t funding’

Western Washington University Wants Fewer Whites — Fears “Mediocrity”

If you thought the “educator” who saw “racist” intent behind offering someone a peanut-butter sandwich was a loon, consider Western Washington University (WWU) president Bruce Shepard. Always on the lookout for ways to improve his institution’s academic integrity, he recently circulated a school-wide questionnaire and asked, “How do we make sure that in future years ‘we are not as white as we are today?’”

Apparently, Shepard has been gnashing his teeth over this problem for quite a while. As Kaitlyn Schallhorn at Campus Reform reports, el presidente said in a 2012 speech, “Every year, from this stage and at this time, you have heard me say that, if in decades ahead, we are as white as we are today, we will have failed as university.”

Hey, forget the old measures of academic success, such as if students know what’s in the Constitution, have a grasp of basic history and civics, can perform rudimentary mathematical calculations and properly use the language (for Shep’s benefit, I refer to English). It’s now all about melanin content.

And if you disagree with this thesis, then hope you’re just an ignorant rube. Because the alternative, according to el presidente, is far worse. As he wrote in a January blog post, if you disagree, you “have not thought through the implications of what is ahead for us or, more perniciously, assume we can continue unchanged.” Lions and tigers and pernicious! Oh, my! For graduates of WWU, in calling those who’ve thought things through but nonetheless cling to their misbegotten notions “pernicious,” Shep is accusing them of being “ruinous; injurious; hurtful.” Well, off to the re-education camp with you.

And WWU’s got that covered: Campus Reform also tells us that el presidente has already junked “standard performance reviews” in favor of “sensitivity training and hosts workshops” to better serve illegal aliens. Hey, doubleplusgood for you, Shep.

But Shep is just looking to the future. He also warned on his blog, “In the decades ahead, should we be as white as we are today, we will be relentlessly driven toward mediocrity; or, become a sad shadow of our current self.” Would that be a White Shadow?

But I’m hip. We certainly wouldn’t want to be mediocre like the white guys who forged Western civilization, founded the US, created the modern world and gave us most of what makes our lives better.

Now, given that WWU was founded in 1886 and originally called the Northwest Normal School, I have a feeling it’s already a shadow of its former self. But, question: if WWU became what it is today while being intolerably white, how could remaining so make it a shadow of its current self? I know, I know, our strength lies in our diversity, our smartness lies in our stupidity, and academics lie constantly.

But I have a couple more questions. Does Shep still want the mediocre white alumni’s money? And since WWU has printed information on how to more effectively “recruit and retain faculty and staff of color,” will the colorless Shepard lead by example and give his presidency to a member of the color replete? Or is this where, as with Elizabeth Fauxcahontas Warren, we suddenly learn that Shep is really a Cherokee named Peddling Bull.

Anyway, it’s not hard to figure out how to reduce the number of whites at WWU: just eliminate the affirmative action for whites.

Oh, wait….

Alas, mediocrity may not remain restricted to WWU’s presidency after all.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

The Case for Voluntary Private Cooperation by Michael Munger

We don’t need nations, flags, and armies to make us prosperous.

When I tell Duke freshmen my version of the argument for liberty, they often scoff, “If this is right, how come I’ve never heard it before?” I try to be conciliatory. I offer the kids time to go text their parents. They need to sue those elite private high schools for failing to educate them in even the basics of how societies work, and why so many societies fail to work.

Okay, so that’s not all that conciliatory. And my answer plays to mixed reviews, at best.

But it’s the truth. How can it be that some of the world’s most educated young people have never heard the concise version of the argument for voluntary private cooperation? I want to present here the version I have found most useful. And by “useful” I mean profoundly unsettling to people who hear it for the first time.

“Markets” Are Not the Point

To start with, the argument for liberty is not an argument for “markets.” The market vs. State dichotomy was dreamed up by German sociologists in the nineteenth century. Don’t buy into that dichotomy; it’s a rhetorical straitjacket, and in any case it’s not our best argument.

The question is how best to achieve the myriad benefits of voluntary private cooperation, or VPC. Markets are part of that, a useful way of achieving prosperity, but a variety of other emergent social arrangements—more properly viewed under the rubric “society”—are also crucial for prosperity.

The first argument I usually hear, especially from people hearing about VPC for the first time, is this: “If markets are so great, why is most of the world poor?” The problem is that poverty is not what needs to be explained. Poverty is what happens when groups of people fail to cooperate, or are prevented from finding ways to cooperate. Cooperation is in our genes; the ability to be social is a big part of what makes us human. It takes actions by powerful actors such as states, or cruel accidents such as deep historical or ethnic animosities, to prevent people from cooperating. Everywhere you look, if people are prosperous it’s because they are cooperating, working together. If people are desperately poor, it’s because they are denied some of the means of cooperating, the institutions for reducing the transaction costs of decentralized VPC.

So forget about explaining poverty. We need to work on understanding prosperity.

There are two reason that VPC is the core of human prosperity and flourishing.

1. Exchange and cooperation: If each of us has an apple and a banana, and I like apple pie and you like banana crème pie, each of us can improve our lot by cooperating. I give you a banana, you give me an apple, and the world is a better place. And the world is better even if there is no change in the total size of our pies. The total amount of apples and bananas is the same, but each of us is happier.

But there is no reason to fetishize exchange. (That’s the “markets vs. social/state” dichotomy; don’t give away the farm here.) Nobel Prize-winner James Buchanan’s central insight was that cooperative arrangements among groups of people are just “politics as exchange.” Nonmarket forms of exchange, in which we cooperate to achieve ends that we all agree are mutually beneficial, may be even more important than market exchanges. Banding together for collective protection and taking full advantage of emergent institutions such as a language, property rights, and a currency are all powerful tools of VPC.

If we cooperate, we can use existing resources much better by redirecting those resources toward uses people value more. So even if we are only thinking of cooperation in a static sense, with a fixed pie, we are all better off if we cooperate. Cooperation is just a kind of sharing, so long as every cooperative arrangement is voluntary. The only way you and I agree with a new arrangement is if each of us is better off.

2. Comparative advantage/division of labor: Still, we don’t need to be satisfied with making better use of a static pie. Working together and becoming more dependent on each other, we can also make the pie bigger. There is no reason to expect that each of us is well-suited to produce the things we happen to like. And even if we are, we can produce more of it by working together.

Remember, I like apples and you like bananas. But I live on tropical land in a warm climate that makes producing apples difficult. You live in a much cooler place, where growing your favored bananas would be prohibitively expensive. We can specialize in whatever we are relatively best at. I grow bananas, you grow apples, and we trade. Specialization allows us to increase the variety and complexity of mutually beneficial outcomes.

Interestingly, this would be true even one of the parties is actually better at producing both apples and bananas; David Ricardo’s “comparative advantage” concept shows that both parties are better off if they specialize, even if it appears that the less productive person can’t possibly compete. The reason is that the opportunity costs of action are different; that’s all that is necessary for there to be potential benefits from cooperation.

But there is no reason to fetishize comparative advantage. In fact, true instances of deterministic comparative advantage are rare. The real power from specialization comes from division of labor, or the enormous economies of scale that come from synergy. Synergy can result from improvements in dexterity, tool design, and capital investment in a production process composed of many small steps in a production line, or from innovations, using the entrepreneurial imagination to see around corners. Synergy is not created by the sort of deterministic accidents of weather, soil quality, or physical features of the earth that economists obsess about. Producing wool and port depend on location; human ingenuity can create synergy anywhere that division of labor can be promoted. All the important dynamic gains from exchange are created by human action, by VPC.

The Street Porter and the Philosopher

Entrepreneurs are more likely to be visionaries than geographers or engineers. Argentina has a comparative advantage, probably an absolute advantage, in producing beef, because of its climate, soil conditions, and plentiful land in the pampas. But Argentina is poor. Singapore has next to nothing, and doesn’t produce much. But Singapore built both physical (port facilities, storage, housing) and economic (rule of law, property rights, a sophisticated financial system) institutions to promote cooperation. And Singapore is rich because those institutions help give rise to powerful synergies.

One could argue, of course, that Singapore has a comparative advantage in trade because of its location at the southern tip of the Malay Peninsula, connecting the Strait of Malacca with all of East Asia. But other nations not blessed with such location rents have used the same model. Portugal in the fifteenth century, Spain and Holland in the sixteenth, and England in the eighteenth century all built huge, prosperous societies by channeling the energies of citizens toward cooperation. None of these countries played well with others, perhaps, but internally they built synergies, so that for each their prosperity and importance in the world was multiplied far beyond what you would have expected just by looking at their populations, their climates, or their soil quality.

Humans build synergies by fostering VPC. Adam Smith’s example of the philosopher and the porter is sometimes quoted, but not well understood. The benefits to specialization need not be innate: The street porter might well have been a philosopher if he had had access to the tools that promote VPC. Education and social mobility mean that where one is born has little to do with where one ends up.

The plasticity of human abilities is at least matched by the malleability of social and economic institutions. Human societies need only be limited by what we can think of together. The development of specialization and the consequent increase in productive capacity is a socially constructed process, like Smith’s “philosopher”—the result of thousands of hours of study, practice, and learning. Smith’s porter didn’t fail to become a philosopher because of comparative advantage. The porter just failed (or was denied a chance, by social prejudice) to specialize.

To Be Useful, Cooperation Must Be Destructive

The flaw in division of labor is also its virtue. Division of labor and specialization create a setting where only a few people in society are remotely self-sufficient. Further, the size of the “market”—more accurately, the horizon of organized cooperative production—limits the gains from division of labor and specialization. If I hire dozens of people and automate my production of apple pie filling, I can produce more than you, your family, your village, or perhaps even your entire nation can consume. I have to look for new customers, expanding both the locus of dependency and the extent of improved welfare from increased opportunities to trade.

The same is true for the benefits of specialization. In a village of five people, the medical specialist might know first aid and have a kit composed of Band-Aids and compression bands for sprains. A city of five million will have surgeons who have invented new techniques for performing complex procedures on retinas, the brain, and exotic enhancements in appearance through plastic surgery. A village of 250 people may have a guy who can play the fiddle; a city of 250,000 has an orchestra. Division of labor, and specialization, is limited by the extent of the VPC.

The power of that statement, taken directly from Adam Smith, is the basis of the argument for VPC. People are assets, not liabilities. Larger populations, larger groups available to work together, and more extensive areas of peaceful cooperation allow greater specialization. Four people in a production line can make 10 times as much as two people; 10 people can make a thousand times more. Larger groups and increased cooperation create nearly limitless opportunities for specialization: not just making refrigerators, but making music, art, and other things that may be hard to define or predict.

VPC allows huge numbers of people who don’t know each other to begin to trust each other, to depend on each other. Emile Durkheim, the famed German social theorist, recognized this explicitly, and correctly noted that the market part of division of labor is the least important aspect of why we depend on it. He said, in his masterwork Division of Labour in Society, “the economic services that [division of labor] can render are insignificant compared with the moral effect that it produces, and its true function is to create between two or more people a feeling of solidarity.”

That “feeling of solidarity” is society—voluntary, uncoerced, natural human society. We don’t need nations, and we don’t need flags and armies to make us prosperous. All we need is voluntary private cooperation, and the feeling of solidarity and prosperous interdependence that comes from human creativity unleashed.

ABOUT MICHAEL MUNGER

Michael Munger is the director of the philosophy, politics, and economics program at Duke University. He is a past president of the Public Choice Society.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is courtesy of FEE and Shutterstock. The below quote by Walter E. Williams, American economist, commentator and academic, is worthy of note:

WEW

Louisiana: Can the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education Save Superintendent John White? I’m Thinking – No

John White’s job is on the line, and the primarily-purchased Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE) is standing behind its Common Core State Standards (CCSS)- and Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC)-promoting talking head.

For White’s annual evaluation, BESE gave him a 3 out of 4.

I’m thinking White’s BESE rating will not save him from the now-undeniable divide between White’s support for CCSS and PARCC and Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal’s publicized change of position on the matter.

The April 15, 2014, nola.com article on White’s review notes that only BESE can fire White.

However, that does not mean that Jindal cannot get rid of White.

For starters, Louisiana lawmakers are considering legislation to make the state superintendency an elected position, not appointed by the governor and approved by BESE– and then shielded by BESE. If approved, election for the next superintendent would occur in 2015, effective 2016.

Second, in 2011, the BESE election was purchased in order to get White– who has less than five years of teaching experience– approved as state superintendent.  Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush assisted with this effort. Thus, if money could get White in, money can get him out.

Third– and this is the big one– Jindal does not play well with those who publicly oppose him. The most famous example of this is the 2009 firing of a state worker who publicly criticized Jindal, Melody Teague. From the Teague incident, in which both a husband and wife were fired within 18 months of one another, comes the term “being ‘teagued.’” As Louisiana Voice’s Tom Aswell notes:

The term (teagued) derives its name from Jindal’s propensity to fire employees, especially those who may have the temerity to question or challenge his decisions. It began early in his first administration when Tammie McDaniel, a member of the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, questioned certain budget decisions. Jindal immediately asked for her resignation. She refused at first but eventually resigned.

Then there was William Ankner who was forced out at the Department of Transportation and Development when it was revealed that a $60 million highway contract was awarded not to the low, but the high bidder.

Jim Champagne, executive director of the Louisiana Highway Safety Commission, in a moment of ill-advised level-headedness, disagreed publicly with Jindal’s plan to repeal the state’s motorcycle helmet law. Gone.

Ethics Administrator Richard Sherburne hit the bricks when Jindal gutted the Ethics Board’s adjudicatory authority and gave it to administrative law judges.

But the most high-profile firings, and the namesake of our new terminology, were the dismissals of Department of Social Services grant reviewer Melody Teague in October of 2009 and her husband, Office of Group Benefits (OGB) Director Tommy Teague, 18 months later.

Mrs. Teague testified against Jindal’s government streamlining plan that included calls for massive privatization. It took her six months but she got her job back.

Her husband was not so lucky. He was shown the door when he did not jump on board quickly enough to please the administration when it floated its idea of privatizing OGB.

Thus, the all-too-appropriate term Teagued. [Emphasis added.]

Add to Aswell’s list the 2012 firing of Martha Manuel:

Gov. Bobby Jindal fired the head of the Governor’s Office of Elderly Affairs, Martha Manuel, the day after she criticized his plan to merge the agency into the Department of Health and Hospitals.

Manuel told lawmakers Tuesday she’s afraid the governor’s plan will damage services for the state’s elderly. [Emphasis added.]

And let us not forget the abrupt 2012 resignations of Secretary of Revenue Cynthia Bridges and Board of Regents member Vic Stelly:

On Friday (June 15, 2012) , the Secretary of Revenue, Cynthia Bridges, one of the only people within the Bobby Jindal administration with real institutional knowledge of Louisiana government, abruptly resigned.

That resignation came one day after Governor Jindal reportedly discovered that her department had passed an emergency ruling allowing purchasers of new vehicles meeting certain alternative-fuel requirements to take a hefty state tax credits at the very time the state has been fretting over budget hemorrhaging. (Note: Bridges was just doing her job by expanding the list of vehicles qualifying for alternative tax credits.)

Also, on Friday (June 15, 2012), former lawmaker Vic Stelly, left the Board of Regents. His reason for the sudden resignation was because he did not want to watch the evisceration of higher education as has been the case in recent years. [Emphasis added.]

Now, in regards to John White, it is possible that Jindal has had a genuine change of heart and that he meant what he said on March 22, 2014:

White has been a strong supporter of the (Common Core) standards, but the governor indicated that he and the superintendent are not on the same page.

“I’m not trying to create division with John,” Jindal said in response to questions about a possible rift between them. “He’s an independent actor who works for BESE. I don’t always agree with what he does.”

He said BESE members and White “know where we stand on these issues,” and “during this debate we’re going to talk for ourselves.” He added, “I may not always agree with him on every issue, but that’s OK.” [Emphasis added.]

Perhaps Jindal has changed, and perhaps White really is “acting independently.”

Nevetheless…

…compare Jindal’s uncharacteristic, “John White thinks for himself” response to White’s October 2012 complaints about being “bounced around” in his trying to please Shreveport, LA Representative Alan Seabaugh, BESE President Chas Roemer, and– of course– Jindal– as regards the “fixing” of three “embarrassing VAM scores” for three teachers at a magnet elementary school in Seabaugh’s district. Again, Tom Aswell reports in regards to a recorded telephone conversation between Seabaugh and White:

White apparently attempted to accommodate the lawmaker (Seabaugh) [with fixing the three VAM scores] even as he complained to him in that telephone conversation that he felt like a “ping pong ball” being bounced between the governor’s office, Seabaugh and Chas Roemer, President of the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education. [Emphasis added.]

So, to recap: Jindal has an established history of removing workers (including those he is not directly able to fire) who do not publicly agree with him. Jindal is on opposite sides of White on the CCSS and PARCC issues, but Jindal says that’s okay because White makes his decisions independently.  However, White has admitted in a recorded phone conversation that even though Roemer is technically his “boss,” he still accommodates Jindal.

Of course he does. Or has. Until now.

If White thinks he can save himself by hiding behind Roemer, I think he is in for a rude awakening… good BESE grade notwithstanding.

Grades aren’t everything.