EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW: Islam Exposed

Below is the full text of a recent interview I had on Islam Exposed.  It is very extensive and outlines the various Islamic issues in a concise and easy to understand manner. I thank Lisa Michelle from Islam Exposed for inviting me to do this interview and the panel members and fans for their insightful questions.

Lisa Michelle, Islam Exposed (IE) Moderator: We are privileged to welcome Dave Gaubatz as our guest for “Ask the Expert.” Welcome and thank you for joining us. We now immediately segue into our question-and-answer segment with a few questions by us followed by fans.

The title of your book, Muslim Mafia, implies a parallel between Islamic operations and organized crime, particularly with groups such as the Mafia or “Mob.” Would you elaborate on why you make such a comparison in your book and what that parallel is?

D. Gaubatz 

The title Muslim Mafia was well-thought out by the publisher (WND) and myself. The undercover project upon which the book is based pertains to CAIR [Council of American-Islamic Relations] National in Washington, DC. It is well known and documented. They are a Muslim Brotherhood front. CAIR is a well-organized and financed terrorist-supporting organization. Its primary objective is to raise funding for Islamic-based terrorist organizations such as Hamas, as well as for Al Qaeda. It is a business and is a criminal enterprise like the Italian mob.

Adina Kutnicki, Israel Administrator: Can you please explain to readers the connection between Sharia law compliant financial instruments and their nexus to terror, specifically narco-terror? Too many believe the spin put forth that Sharia law finance is exclusively a means to enable Muslims to stay clear of investments considered “impure” according to Islamic principles.

D. Gaubatz 

Sharia financing is a very dangerous aspect of the Islamic ideology and Sharia law. Islamic scholars want people to believe it is all about usury (interest on loans). Sharia financing goes all the way from the poppy fields of Afghanistan to the heroin users on the streets of New York, LA, and across the U.S. It is a tool used by Muslims to keep the bookkeepers of illegal funds and illegal bookkeeping from the eyes of organizations such as the IRS.

Lisa Michelle, IE Moderator:  We hear all time from politicians and media about terrorist cells and organizations, which obviously pose a threat to our national and international security. We also hear the terms Islamic “extremists,” “moderate” Muslims, and “Islamophobes” bantered about with little to no attention on the insidious nature and risks of stealth or “civilized” Jihad posed by so-called “moderate” Muslims, the rapid increase of mosque building here in America and abroad, and groups such as CAIR, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, etc.

By the same token, many of these groups and individuals do indeed seem to have assimilated and adapted to Western society.  What is really going on behind the scenes at these institutions? In your educated estimation, what percentage of Muslims are in fact moderate and peaceful and how much of a threat do or will they present if their population in America continues to rise as it has in Europe?

D. Gaubatz 

A “radical Muslim” is a “practicing” Muslim. A “Moderate” Muslim is a “non-practicing” Muslim or otherwise known as an “Apostate of Islam.” I ask readers to read my prior article, “The Fallacy of the Moderate Muslim.” There are essentially four types of people associated with Islam.

    1. You have the “Pure Muslim” who does everything he or she can to be an example of what Islam was mandated to be by Prophet Mohammed (the founder of Islam). These folks are the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and a dozen other Islamic terrorist groups. They are otherwise known as the band of the Muslim Brotherhood.
    2. The second group are Muslims who found and lead such organizations as CAIR, ISNA, MSA [Muslim Students’ Association], MANA [Muslim Alliance in North America], etc. They spend millions on public relations to make themselves appear as peaceful Muslims only wanting to help other Muslims in need. In actuality, these groups are simply fronts of the Muslim Brotherhood to help fund their illegal operations.
    3. The third group consists of what the world describes as “Moderate” Muslims. They have little to do with Islam and Sharia law. The majority of them are simply Apostates of Islam. The dangerous part is that some of these so-called moderates will side with Islamic terror groups when “the time is right.”
    4. The fourth type of group is made up of liberals worldwide who are non-Muslim but who support the Islamic ideology before they would support their own governments in America, Egypt, UK, etc. They are a grave danger, because they provide cover for terror groups.

Lisa Michelle, IE Moderator: What about interfaith dialogue? Do you think that the concepts of multiculturalism and engagement in interfaith dialogue between Muslims, Israel, the Jewish people, and the West in general are productive or do they pose a danger to us and why?

D. Gaubatz 

Interfaith dialogue is very, very dangerous. It is nothing but a deceptive tool originated by Islamic organizations such as CAIR and a dozen other Islamic-based terrorist supporting groups. Islamic scholars have informed me during my undercover operations that interfaith dialogue is used by Islamic groups to get naive Christian ministers, pastors, rabbis, etc., to side with them on Islamic issues and to denounce anyone critical of Islam. Islamic groups have a confidential database of human sources. They recruit Christian leaders unwittingly. They know that if a pastor of a large church gives them support, it doesn’t matter what the 2,000 people in his/her congregation feel about Islam.

Ricki Elliot (U.S.): What are some of the most common techniques that Muslims use to become accepted members of U.S. society?

D. Gaubatz 

The vast majority of people who identify with Islam in America do not adhere to Sharia law 100 percent as Islam dictates. They are essentially Apostates of Islam. There are thousands, if not millions, of Muslims who assimilate into the American culture by going to our colleges, obtaining legitimate employment, and swearing by the U.S. Constitution just to avoid scrutiny by the U.S. intelligence organizations. They are known as “Sleeper Cells.” When the timing is right, they will openly support physical Jihad operations against America and Israel. Our “Mapping Sharia” study shows that 75 plus percent of the mosques and Islamic centers in America have materials calling for hate and violence against non-Muslims and their respective governments.

Ann Bell (United Kingdom): Why are so many Muslims emigrating to the West?

D. Gaubatz 

The ultimate objective of Islam is to establish a worldwide Islamic Ummah (nation) under Sharia law. In order to do this, Muslims must be in every part of the world and multiply. They are doing this throughout the world, especially in England, Germany, and the U.S. If they can populate these superpowers, they are closer to victory. Imam Siraj Wahhaj, MANA, Brooklyn, New York, said it best: “The U.S. can bomb us in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc., but they can’t bomb us in America.”

Luis Monge (Costa Rica): We in Costa Rica have more than a few mosques. Should we consider every mosque a potential breeding ground for sleeper-cell terrorists, since the only difference between Muslims who carry out violent acts and peaceful ones seems to be how devout they really are?

D. Gaubatz 

Every mosque throughout the world is a breeding ground for Islamic-based terrorism. The mosques are considered safe houses. Over 75 percent openly have material calling for Jihad against non-Muslims. This applies in Costa Rica.

Rickie Elliot (U.S.): How can we successfully block the establishment of a mosque within a city, particularly Norfolk, Virginia, and its surrounding cities?

D. Gaubatz 

The chance of blocking a mosque or the expansion of a mosque in America is virtually zero. They will fight for decades to achieve their goal. Mosques in America are strategically placed (all 2,300). Until we can convince America’s leaders and law enforcement that Islam is a danger to our nation, we are fighting an uphill battle. There is only one slight chance of stopping the building of a mosque: you must provide first-hand evidence of what they are teaching.

George McCallum (U.S.): Do you think that it is possible to have a moratorium on Islamic immigration and the building of any new mosques in the United States? If so, how do we structure it so that it will hold up under any court challenges?

D. Gaubatz 

I think what you suggest about a moratorium on new mosques and immigration of Sharia compliant Muslims into America is the only way we (Americans) have a chance to defeat our number-one enemy. The number-one enemy in America is not Al Qaeda, Hamas, etc. It is the Islamic ideology itself. Until more Americans begin to understand this and are able to convince our politicians that the Islamic ideology is a hate and violence-filled doctrine that must be viewed for what it is, we have little chance of stopping the building of mosques and preventing “Sleeper Terrorists” inside our country. There are approximately 2,300 mosques in America and growing.

Yavi Ore (Canada): Jammat al-Fuqra is a terrorist group in the United States that has terrorist training camps on American soil. How is this possible, and what can the average American do to put an end to this Islamic takeover?

D. Gaubatz 

The 30 plus Jammeat Al Fuqura compounds are a grave danger to our national security. I have been to several of the compounds and have met several of their members. They are a group of thousands, bound together to fight for an Islamic Ummah (nation) worldwide. They are planning and training for physical Jihad within their private camps. There is ample evidence to show their true intentions. Yet, U.S. law enforcement agencies ignore their actions. We need the top leadership of our country to denounce and criminalize them, but this will never happen with Obama in charge.

Ricardo Medina (Peru): Why is the U.S. government still supporting the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, knowing that it funds many terrorist cells around the world?

D. Gaubatz 

America stands behind Saudi Arabia through ignorance and for financial gain. Saudi Arabia pumps billions of dollars into the U.S. economy, and, as we know, Congressmen and Senators get a piece of the pie. Saudi Arabia is “Pure Islam.” Sadly, our President is more Sharia compliant than he is a supporter of the U.S. Constitution. Saudi also controls much of our media, which includes Fox News. When you control the media, you control the actions of politicians.

Lisa Michelle, IE Moderator: As the first civilian Federal Agent deployed into Iraq at the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003, part of your mission was to identify weapons of mass destruction (WMD). You uncovered their sites, but the WMD were later taken by insurgents. Do you have any idea where they are now and how much of a current threat they pose to us?

D. Gaubatz 

In April 2003, my team and I (a group of six U.S. Federal Agents) were deployed to southern Iraq to locate Saddam and his forces and to identify WMD sites for exploitation. We had numerous Iraqis near Nasiriyah, Iraq, who came forward and stated there were four primary WMD sites in southern Iraq. We went to each of these sites.

Per the methods of Saddam, the WMD were buried deep beneath the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. You would need heavy equipment and numerous personnel to excavate them. We wrote our classified reports to the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), to top officials within DOD [Department of Defense] and the Pentagon, and to the White House.

We could not get anyone to respond to the sites and to excavate them. We were told there is a war going on and it was dangerous to travel to the locations we identified. We just shook our heads. The Iraqis had informed us that if we didn’t excavate the sites, Saddam Fedeyeen and insurgents would. They advised that the WMD would be shipped to Syria for safekeeping. Several Iraqis gave their lives to assist the U.S. in identifying WMD. Many lost their lives because they helped us. America let them down.

Lisa Michelle, IE Moderator: Then why were you and your team sent on a mission to uncover WMD in the first place? Failure to excavate them led many Americans to believe that the Bush administration had deceived them about a needless war.

D. Gaubatz 

The ISG (Iraq Survey Group) let Bush down. Top military knew the sites were never checked but sent reports to the White House stating that all sites were checked. Leaders on the ground in Iraq truly let down Bush.

Eulene Johnson (U.S.): Are there more terrorists in the U.S. than the average citizen knows about?

D. Gaubatz 

There are an estimated million plus Muslims in America who will support physical Jihad actions against America when the time comes and they are called into action. They represent all walks of life in America — doctors, engineers, college students, police officers, military, and politicians.

Prayingpat (U.S.): Is our present administration ignorant of Islam’s goals or just fearful of them? Why is it that they think we can negotiate with those who are willing to die themselves in order to kill us? I just don’t get it.

D. Gaubatz 

Our current administration is led by a man who is closer to Islam and Sharia law than he is the U.S. Constitution. Obama is a very smart man. He knows exactly what he is doing. Destroying America is at the top of his list. The best way to destroy a nation is from the inside. One of Obama’s top friends was Bill Ayers. He and his group (Weather Underground) tried to destroy our country in the sixties by bombing U.S. government buildings, such as military recruiting centers. Ayers is a mentor to Obama. Obama and crew know you can’t negotiate with Islamic based terrorists and their supporters, but he also knows most Americans don’t realize this and do not understand the Islamic ideology. Obama plays into the hands of the naïve Americans by trying to negotiate with people who desire death before life.

Samanmal Bandara (Sri Lanka): It is clear that the holy book of Islam, the Qur’an, consists largely of human rights violations. Why then does the United Nations and international system of law still recognize Islam as a true religion, rather than banning it and labeling the Qur’an as a terrorist guide book?

D. Gaubatz 

The Qur’an and related Islamic material are filled with hate and violence. Islam has been dangerous and killing non-Muslims for over 1,400 years. One need only look around at the world to see the wars that involve Muslims. The only way to defeat Islam is to brand the Islamic ideology as a violent and dangerous form of government, and it must be criminalized. To do less is a sure way to lose our country.

Larry Estavan (U.S.): Can you provide us with more details about why you denounced Robert Spencer, Frank Gaffney, Daniel Pipes, and Bridgette Gabriel?

D. Gaubatz 

First of all, I never mentioned any names in reference to the article I wrote about conservative non-profit organizations. I respect Spencer, Gaffney, and anyone who strives to educate Americans about the dangers of Islam. It is my belief that as a conservative non-profit organization your rights to fully explain the truth about Islam and politicians who support Islamic-based terrorists is limited.The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is the government organization that monitors 501 non-profit organizations. We all know the IRS is a tool for Obama. As a non-profit, there are strict limits about what you can say about politicians. You can’t support one over another. As a non-profit, your hands are tied by the IRS.Anyone who has ever been involved in a non-profit organization knows that they are money-making businesses. The leaders and employees of a non-profit make a very good living off of tax-exempt donors. Very little of the money goes into real work and research. A non-profit is more of a billboard with rantings about various issues.I do not belong to any non-profits, and I have no limits on what I can say about Obama or Islamic-based terrorist organizations. The IRS does not control my actions. I conduct first-hand research of Islamic groups using my money and with small support from concerned Americans.

Nicolai Sennels (Denmark), Prior Guest ExpertHow is Islam as an organization infiltrating the European Union?

D. Gaubatz 

Islam and Sharia law have taken over the countries of Europe. England, Germany, France, and others have already reached the point of no return. Sharia roots have already been accepted throughout Europe, and, once the tentacles of Sharia take hold, you will never rid yourself of its abuses. Sharia is like a terminal cancer. It just continues to spread, even if you conduct surgery to remove it. Sharia is terminal.

Luis Monge (Costa Rica): I recognize the threat from Islam in the West. Do you know anything about where sleeper cells are in Central and South America? Specifically, what Latin countries are importing Islam?

D. Gaubatz 

Columbia and Peru are key points for Islamic sleeper cells and for Islamic narcotics suppliers. See Muslim Organizations in Latin America for more details.

Lisa Michelle, IE Moderator:  Israel is often blamed for the violence that has erupted in the Middle East — most recently with the Arab Spring — and for Islamic hostility towards the West due to its support for Israel. Is Israel really to blame for it and impeding our efforts towards peace, and why or why not?

D. Gaubatz 

Israel and the Israeli people are America’s closest friends when it comes to our love of the Jewish people and for our national security. Israel is wedged between Islamic countries that have been terrorizing the Jewish people for over 1,400 years. There is absolutely nothing the Jewish people in Israel can do to be safe from Palestinian terrorists (Hamas and others).Islam has taught innocent Muslim children for centuries that the Jewish people are their enemies. Innocent Muslim children often grow up to be martyrs for Islamic-based terrorists and Islam. I encourage every American to always stay and work with the people of Israel. If Israel were to fall, America would as well.Israel, England, France, Russia, Germany, and dozens of other countries also have been attacked by Islamic-based terrorists. The attacks are not the fault of any one country or government. The attacks all come down to this: Islam is a violent and hate-filled ideology. “Pure Muslims,” who follow Islam as it was dictated by Prophet Mohammed, kill Jews, Christians, and any race or culture of people who are non-Muslim. This is what is taught by Islamic scholars.Even if Israel did not exist, there are still hundreds of millions of non-Muslims in the world of whom they would attack. The goal of Islam is to establish an Islamic Ummah (nation) all over the world to live under Sharia law. The Islamic ideology teaches that in order to establish a worldwide Ummah, the non-believers must be killed. I highly suggest non-Muslims support one another.

Lisa Michelle, IE Moderator: What, if anything, is Israel doing differently than we are in the U.S. to deal with terrorist cells?

D. Gaubatz 

Israel has known the primary reason Muslims commit terrorists acts against them is because this is what they are taught to do by parents and Islamic leaders. The Israeli intelligence and investigative organizations fully understand that Muslim terrorists commit their murders in the name of Islam.

Dretch K (Israel): If counterterrorism is to be 100 percent effective, wouldn’t simply banning Islam be the way to go?

D. Gaubatz 

Criminalize Islam worldwide and we will have peace worldwide. This is the only way innocent people worldwide will not have to suffer the hate and violence within Islam. This may seem hard for some to digest, but it is reality.

Mark Diamond (U.S.): How likely is it that the U.S. will confront civil war/unrest in the near future? What role would jihadi infiltrators and Muslim terrorists have in this scenario?

D. Gaubatz 

I have written papers on the likelihood of a civil war in America. I will attach a link to one, “A Civil War in America,” from December 29, 2013. America is caught in a snare that likely will not be broken. There is actual hate against liberals and conservatives. The turning point of a civil war will happen if President Obama attempts to stay in office after his term ends in 2016. Millions of Americans will view this as the destruction of our U.S. Constitution. Millions of Americans will not allow this. Islam will play a large role. Obama is closer to the Muslim Brotherhood than he is to U.S. law. Islamic fighters will fight for Obama and the collapse of America. This is what Islamic scholars desire.

Mark Diamond (U.S.): How can we prevent this outcome from taking place?

D. Gaubatz 

When it comes down to the point that Americans feel the U.S. Constitution has been abolished by liberals, there will be a civil war. The only way to prevent a civil war is if conservative Americans perceive that liberals love America and support the Constitution. This will not happen, so the only conclusion is for another civil war in America.

Christopher Logan (U.S.), President of North American Infidels & Creator of Logan’s WarningDo you think we will win this war if we do not end Muslim immigration and ban Islam?

D. Gaubatz 

America can’t win any war if our government leaders do not name the enemy. The enemy is the Islamic ideology itself — not Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. These terrorist groups are just fall-outs of Islam. America must view the Islamic ideology as evil. This will not happen, and we will see fighting in America with brother against brother, and father against sons.

Lisa Michelle, IE Moderator: How then do you suggest that we prepare for such an event?

D. Gaubatz 

The best way to prepare for a civil war is to support pro-Constitutional organizations. In addition, the American people should have in storage large amounts of food, water, guns/ammunition, and items to barter/trade with. There will be no winners in a civil war, but I believe there is no way America can avoid one.

Lisa Michelle, IE Moderator: Thank you for what has been a riveting and extremely eye-opening segment. And, of course, thank for your invaluable expertise. We would also like to thank our panelists for their thought-provoking questions and to stress the need for our readers to share this vital interview with their family and friends.

Panelists (in alphabetical order):

Samanmal Bandara (Sri Lanka); Ann Bell (United Kingdom); Mark Diamond (U.S.); Rickie Elliot (US); Larry Estavan; P. Dave Gaubatz (U.S), Our Guest Expert; Eulene Johnson (U.S.); Dretch K (Israel); Adina Kutnicki, Israeli Administrator, Islam Exposed; Christopher Logan (U.S.), Creator of Logan’s Warning and President of North American Infidels; George McCallum (U.S.); Ricardo Medina (Peru); Lisa Michelle (U.S.), Islam Exposed Moderator; Luis Monge (Costa Rica); Yavi Ore (Canada); Prayingpat (U.S.); and Nicolai Sennels (Denmark), Our Previous “Ask the Expert” Guest.

Democrats can be racists, too

Two weeks ago, Congressman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) set off a firestorm of controversy by saying on the syndicated radio talk show of Bill Bennett: “…we have got this tailspin of culture in our inner cities, in particular, of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working or learning the value and the culture of work; and so there’s a real culture problem here that has to be dealt with…”

To read the unedited interview, go to: http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2014/mar/14/context-paul-ryans-poverty-comments-racial-attack/

This made up controversy about Ryan is a bunch of garbage. People need to be much more judicious in labeling someone as a “racist.” It is a very damning term that should only be used under the most extreme of circumstances.

What Ryan said was stupid, but not racist. In the 80s, Jesse Jackson referred to New York City as “Hymietown.” Like Ryan, it was stupid but doesn’t make Jackson anti-Semitic. Professional athletes using the word fa**ot in the locker room doesn’t necessarily make them homophobic, but it may be stupid to use in today’s PC climate.

We, who are in public life or have a media platform, all say stupid things at some point in our lives. But our lives should not be destroyed by the mistakes we make. Rather, our lives should be affirmed by the totality of the contributions we make to society. By this standard, Ryan is definitely a good guy.

Not surprisingly, members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) sharply criticized Ryan. Strangely, they never direct similar anger at President Obama, even after he for willfully disrespected them and ignored them for five years and counting. Republicans are constantly accused of ignoring the Black community because they are racists. So does that also make Obama a racist? Just asking.

U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), former head of the CBC, called Ryan’s comments a “thinly veiled racial attack.” House Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) spokesman called his remarks “shameful and wrong.”

If you only go by the media coverage, a person can only be a racist if they are a White Republican. So, allow me to give you a little Democratic history.

During the Democratic primary of 2008, our “real” first Black president, Bill Clinton had this to say about Obama’s campaign, “Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.” The response from the CBC and white Democrats? Crickets! Nothing. Laryngitis.

The morning after Obama’s 28-point blowout of Hillary in South Carolina, Bill Clinton called Obama another Jesse Jackson (meant in a negative way). Of course, who could forget Bill Clinton’s Sista Soulja moment from the 1992 campaign? Again, Crickets! Nothing. Laryngitis.

I could go on forever with examples of Democrats doing the same thing that Ryan is accused of, but you get the point.

There is also the issue of what I call “White Republicanitis.” I have warned Ryan about this issue, but he didn’t get it. Bob Woodson, founder and president of the Center for Neighborhood Enterprise, has been taking Ryan all across the country to meet with inner city Blacks to discuss possible policy solutions to deal with some of the issues they deem important.

Ryan refused to do any media surrounding this personal initiative with him and Woodson because he’s doing it because he cares, not because he wants media attention.” Paul, they are not mutually exclusive; it’s not either or, but both and.

This is what I call “White Republicanitis:” doing the right thing but in the wrong way. If Ryan had followed my counsel, then he would have some goodwill in the bank to draw down from during his moment of crises.

I have done several media interviews about this Ryan flap and in every instance the comment was made that maybe Ryan needs to go into the Black community and talk with a few Blacks before he opens his mouth. When I shared with the interviewer/host what Woodson was doing with Ryan, they all indicated that they had no knowledge of this. Most looked shocked, as though they couldn’t reconcile the idea of a White Republican going into the Black community because that is the antithesis of their view of a Republican.

Maybe now Ryan will start engaging with the Black media.

But, it’s not just Ryan. I have had similar conversations with the House and Senate leadership about this same issue to no avail.
As far as this feigned outrage from members of the CBC and Pelosi, weak people take strong positions on weak issues.

Charlie Crist Says Obamacare Is “Great” For Floridians

Republican-turned-Independent-turned-Democrat Charlie Crist, has given a full throated endorsement of the failed Obamacare law. While appearing on CNN’s “State of the Union” Sunday morning TV Show, Crist said that the law was “Great” for Floridians, even after it has been reported that 300,000 Floridians have already lost their insurance plans, as a result of this “Great” healthcare law. Rick Scott’s “Let’s Get To Work” Campaign was quick to pounce on Crist’s Obamacare claim with following video hit:

[youtube]http://youtu.be/ZstMy-wu_yw[/youtube]

EDITORS NOTE: This video originally appeared on the Shark Tank.

The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”

A recent article in The Wall Street Journal took note of what has occurred since the 1990s when some three dozen gray wolves were captured in Canada and transferred to the wilderness of Idaho. According to federal biologists, this was necessary to restore the ecological balance in a region teeming with elk and other creatures on the gray wolf food chain.

The article noted that more than 650 wolves roam the state today according to the Idaho Department of Fish and Game which has been hearing a lot of complaints that the wolves “are wreaking havoc on Idaho’s prized elk and livestock, and prompted the governor’s office to embark on an effort to wipe out three-quarters or more of the population.”

So the federal biologists bring in the wolves and a few years later the governor’s office says kill them. Why? Because the elk population has fallen about 15% since the wolves arrived, along with 2,589 sheep, 610 cows, and 72 dogs.

Take a moment on contemplate how arrogant and unconscionably stupid it is to take gray wolves from Canada and put them in Idaho in the name of “ecological balance.” The only balance achieved was a significant imbalance in the elk population and witless destruction of sheep and cows which represent a livelihood to ranchers and dinner to the rest of us.

Throughout America we are all paying for the environmental notion of “endangered species” and the quest to “save” some from extinction. The problem with that conceit is that 95% of all the species on Earth have gone extinct over hundreds of millions of years. One paper on this noted that “Mass extinction of biological species has occurred several times in the history of our planet.”

The Endangered Species Act became law on December 28, 1973, just over forty years ago. It’s not about saving species. It’s about providing a vehicle to environmental groups to shut off access to vast areas of the nation in order to prevent drilling for oil and natural gas or mining them for coal and other minerals.

In a December 2013 Wall Street Journal article, Damien Schiff and Julie MacDonald reported that “A law intended to conserve species and habitat has brought about the recovery of only a fraction—less than 2%–of the approximately 2,100 species listed as endangered or threatened since 1973.”

“Meanwhile, the law has endangered the economic health of many communities—which creating a cottage industry of litigation that does more to enrich environmental activist groups than benefit the environment.”

“One reason the Endangered Species Act has spun out of control is that the federal agencies that decide whether to list a species—the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service—no longer based decisions on what the law calls for: data. Instead they invent squishy standards like ‘best professional judgment.’”

The result of that can be seen in California’s San Joaquin Valley where much of the nation’s almonds, broccoli, onions, watermelons, lettuce and tomatoes have been grown. About 13% of all agricultural production in the nation takes place in the region where some 250 different crops are grown. That is, until the Natural Resources Defense Council won a lawsuit against California’s water-delivery system that they claimed was endangering Delta smelt, on the Endangered Species list since 1994. The result was a manmade drought for the valley’s farmers and ranchers. If you wonder why the cost of everything in the vegetable section of your supermarket costs more, you can thank the NRDC.

Polar Bears (2)Lying about animal species is so much a part of the environmental movement that polar bears have become a fund-raising symbol over the years despite the fact that polar bear populations, said to be threatened by melting Arctic ice, have been thriving since the 1970s. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, there are between 20,000 and 25,000 polar bears worldwide, living in Canada, Greenland, the northern Russian coast, islands of the Norwegian coast and the northwest Alaska coast. Hunting them was banned in the U.S. and worldwide with the exception of Alaskan Natives for tribal needs.

Currently almost half the land west of the Mississippi river belongs to the federal government and environmentalists want to expand on that to prevent the nation’s booming oil and gas development. That development could make the U.S. energy independent, create many jobs, and its revenues could significantly reduce the tremendous national debt. At the heart of the environmental movement is an intent to destroy capitalism and reduce the U.S. among other nations to an era before fossil fuels improved life for everyone.

One way to do that is to increase the endangered list by a record 757 new species by 2018. Two species with the greatest impact on private development are range birds, the greater sage grouse and the lesser prairie chicken. Among the environmental groups who specialize in using the Endangered Species Act are the Wildlife Guardians and the Center for Biological Diversity who have been party to more than one thousands lawsuits between 1900 and the present. The Center has made no secret of wanting to end fossil-fuel production in the U.S.

The Endangered Species Act should be repealed because it has a pathetic record regarding its goal over the past forty years and because it threatens the economic development of the nation. Unless or until this occurs, environmentalists will continue their assault on America.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

Nigeria’s Moment: A visit to a West African nation reveals tragic failure, yet great potential by Doug Bandow

ABUJA, NIGERIA—Arriving in Abuja, Nigeria results in an almost simultaneous impression of poverty and potential. After decades of economic disappointment, even collapse, much of Africa is growing. Yet even its leading states—such as Nigeria—remain locked in an impoverished past and fail to live up to their extraordinary potential.

I’ve arrived with a journalist group organized by SLOK Holding Co., chaired by former governor Orji Uzor Kalu, a potential presidential contender. In Abuja the airport looked more appropriate for a small American town than for a capital city. While less chaotic than some other airports I have suffered through—Dhaka and Islamabad, for instance—it hardly befits what seems destined to be Africa’s leading nation. I changed money at an “exchange” with two men sitting at a small desk, cash in one drawer. The parking lot was cramped and disorganized.

Although cities such as Abuja, Lagos—Nigeria’s most populous urban area—and Port Harcourt—dominated by the nation’s oil industry—enjoy significant development, poverty is never far away. There are paved sidewalks, but usually in disrepair, and dirt roadsides remain common, even the norm, depending on city and district. Trash litters many streets. Most urban buildings are solidly constructed, some even stylish, but most are simple.

In Lagos wealth has created a genuine skyline on Victoria Island. Yet crowded streets filled with poor street vendors sit in the shadows of these fine structures. And the majority of residents live in vast expanses of simple homes crammed together. In Port Harcourt, shacks on overgrown lots dot the city, sometimes adjoining even the best buildings, such banks and hotels. Driving in we passed a pen filled with horses.

Electrical outages are constant, requiring any serious enterprise to maintain a generator. Riding an elevator is especially suspenseful; you find yourself plunged into darkness and brought to a jerky stop for what seems like an eternity, before the brightness returns and you continue on your way. Traffic gridlocks can be worse than Los Angeles, New York, or Washington—in Port Harcourt my group took a couple hours to go a few hundred yards at a particularly bad time.

Rural Nigeria is much poorer. Even the main highways lack even minimal maintenance, while burned and rusted wrecks, stripped of anything useful, litter the sides and medians. Trash is tossed alongside or piled in medians. Roads off the main drag are dirt, always rutted, often muddy, and barely adequate. Most shops are shacks built on dirt just feet from traffic. At times it appears that half of the population subsists by selling merchandise in traffic.

Still, hope remains. Everywhere in Nigeria I saw enterprise. People sit for hours under primitive lean-tos by the highway to sell drinks and food to travelers. Open-air markets, which seem to occur every couple miles, are bustling, with people dashing hither-and-yon selling most everything you can find in a department store or supermarket. At major intersections and along busy streets people sit in the median and walk into traffic hawking fruit, drinks, sim cards, picture frames, newspapers, magazines, cell phone chargers, cigarettes, sunglasses, watches, tools, socks, mops, cooking utensils, and even triangular hazard signs (quite appropriate given Nigeria’s traffic!).

Intellectual capital also is growing. Citizens of this former British colony typically speak English, the global commercial language. I visited a university filled with bright and engaging students hoping to make better lives for themselves and their country. What is desperately needed, said one business executive, a Nigerian who worked in America before returning to help manage his family’s business, is an “enabling environment” for enterprise.

In this the government fails miserably.

One problem is insecurity. Nigeria has suffered dictatorship, civil war, insurgency, militant violence, Islamic extremism, and crime. Kalu said “internal security is critical,” because without a police escort you cannot move throughout much of the country. One newspaper editor cited the risk of robbery in driving papers for distribution at night. Business executives, political figures, and expatriate workers routinely travel with armed escorts, especially in the Niger Delta in the south.

Corruption is rife. One expatriate worker observed: “Nigeria’s not a country. It is an opportunity.” Mundane economic mismanagement bears even greater blame. State enterprises, especially the National Nigerian Petroleum Corporation, are particular founts of abuse. The World Bank ranks Nigeria among the bottom third of nations in its Doing Business report.

Average Nigerians are commonly—indeed, uniformly—frustrated. The young especially crave the opportunities that the country’s dishevelment precludes. A third of adults under 25 are out of work. It’s one reason Nigeria sports a diaspora of millions. The driver of my cab to the airport to start this trip was a Nigerian. Even the more optimistic Nigerians with whom I spoke say much more has to be done, despite the progress they see. Public involvement is essential to create a freer and more honest business environment.

Some see hope in Kalu, a wealthy businessman who understands entrepreneurship and promotes political reform. As a teen he started trading palm oil. He now holds interests in energy, finance, journalism, real estate, and more. Among his recent enterprises is The New Telegraph newspaper. His success—without using government office to his own advantage—is unusual. Noted my Cato Institute colleague Marian Tupy: Nigerian politicians usually “become wealthy during their time in the governor’s mansion.” When talking about his nation’s future, Kalu denounced restrictive licensing and promoted markets; he advocated privatization, including in less traditional areas such as education, which he views as critical for Nigeria’s moral reformation. He told me that he “would like to see small government and big enterprise” and spoke with admiration of Ronald Reagan.

Kalu may run for president in 2015, though his chances are complicated by being an Igbo, a tribe whose members have not held the presidency in a half century.  Substantial problems of ethnic division persist.  Kalu viewed murderous attacks by the Islamic extremist group Boko Haram is a continuation of many earlier violent episodes.

The bigger question is whether he could actually implement his message of market liberalization if elected. Noted Tupy, Nigeria “has never had a president committed to small government, privatization and liberalization.” But Kalu forcefully argued that committed leadership could make the difference.

Obviously industrialized states have their problems, including sometimes galloping regulation (think ObamaCare!) and fail to fully live up to their potential. Yet they remain far freer, especially in economic affairs, enabling bright, enthusiastic, and hard-working people to prosper. Nigeria needs to follow the same broad growth path that enriched America and Western Europe, and more recently East Asia, including China.

The greatest tragedy of Nigeria’s poverty is that it is so unnecessary. Its people know what to do. The spirit of enterprise is everywhere. It’s time for the Nigerian people to liberate themselves. It’s time for freedom to come to Nigeria.

dougbandow3540ABOUT DOUG BANDOW

Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and the author of a number of books on economics and politics. He writes regularly on military non-interventionism.

Benghazi interview with Clare Lopez on The Blaze Radio

The media have been virtually silent about the Benghazi tragedy of September 11, 2012 in recent weeks, despite the ongoing relevance of this chapter to Hillary Clinton’s nascent presidential campaign. Her “What difference does it make?” comment has been translated by the media to mean “nothing at all.” This, despite the fact that a new Bloomberg poll indicates that 51% of respondents do not believe that Clinton didn’t see the requests for additional security at the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, as she claims.

“Her responsibility as Secretary of State was to provide for the security of the missions under her responsibility,” said Clare Lopez, a senior fellow with the Center for Security Policy and a member of Accuracy in Media’s Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi (CCB) in a recent interview on the Jay Severin Show. “I’ve served abroad in many missions. We’ve been in places where there were natural disasters, civil unrest, and even civil war, and there’s a commitment that is understood between those sent to the field and those who send them that if there is trouble, if we get in trouble in the field, help will come.”

“That is her responsibility and she failed it.”

Lopez is an intelligence expert with the Center for Security Policy and a former officer with the Central Intelligence Agency.

The Benghazi cover-up reaches through many levels of government, and has many shades of culpability. It engulfs the President, the former Secretary of State, the Department of Defense, the CIA, and others, yet little journalistic or congressional progress has been made toward finding out what really happened that day. David Kirkpatrick of The New York Times attempted to declare the final verdict on the scandal, in a report that has been widely debunked by AIM and others.

“Everybody knew right away that our mission in Benghazi was under attack,” said Lopez in the interview. “They also knew very shortly after the beginning of the attack that it was a terrorist attack.” Yet the President, in an election year, was allowed to go on the news and blame a YouTube video for weeks. His former United Nations Ambassador, Susan Rice—now his National Security Advisor—recently expressed on Meet the Press that she had “no regrets” over touting a non-existent demonstration in Benghazi, saying she shared the best information available at the time.

“We’re shortly getting ready to make some more revelations in a public event to let the people know what we’ve been doing,” noted Lopez. These revelations will help get to the truth of what really happened in Benghazi. The press should sit up and take notice.

You can listen to the entire interview here:

RELATED STORIES: To read all of Clare Lopez’s columns click here.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on Accuracy in Media.

“There’s a Bear in the Woods”: Ronald Reagan’s 1984 campaign ad revisited

ronald reaganIt is ironic that is was just thirty-years ago that a political ad was run by President Ronald Reagan titled “There’s a Bear in the Woods”. Today we are seeing that bear reemerge from the woods. The bear is hungry for territory where it may prey on the weak, feed vociferously and expand its influence. That bear then was named the Soviet Union. That bear today is named Russia.

Russian influence in the Middle East, Eastern Europe and South America is on the rise. Since 1984 Russia has invaded: Afghanistan, Georgia, Crimea and is on Ukraine’s door step. We are facing a new “Red Dawn”.

This is the same bear, same ideology, with the same goals but a different face that Reagan’s ad was speaking to.

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

There have been many comparisons made between President Barack Obama and President Vladimir Putin. Pundits miss what is really the focus of each leader. Putin has a global view, while Obama has a local view. By that I mean Putin thinks and acts globally with Russian sovereignty first and foremost in his mind. Putin acts in the best interests of Russia, to protect its borders, expand its power and become a world leader using military force.

President Obama is focused domestically. His social programs, domestic policies and political power are totally aimed like a laser on government expansion internally. Obama is adept at community organizing. Foreign policy, expanding American influence globally is not his forte. Military force is not in President Obama’s lexicon of options. He may say it is, but actions (like Putin’s) speak much louder than words.

Now that the bear has come out of the woods, who will stop him? That is the question.

John Greer lists this ad in his Attack Ad Hall of Fame. Greer writes:

The Reagan campaign aired the ad. “There is a bear in the woods. For some people, the bear is easy to see. Others don’t see it at all.” The script goes on to say that we need to be as strong as the bear and that we should not risk being unprepared. Who is the bear? The Soviet Union? Probably, but since it’s not clear, some argue that the spot is not negative. It’s an interesting ad and one that probably was run because of Reagan’s huge lead over Mondale. It’s subtle meaning just makes it not very informative.

RELATED STORY: A Ukraine divide: Congress, world leaders debate how to counter Russia

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by John Cummings. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.

Dial “D” for Murder: Democrat controlled U.S. cities as bad as deadliest 3rd World countries

In 2013 World Net Daily reported, “Those pushing President Obama’s gun-control agenda often portray the United States as one of the murder hot spots of the world, but the numbers tell a different story. Even more revealing, gun murders in the U.S. are concentrated in big cities that typically have the strictest gun-control regulations. And it is those cities’ gun murder rates that are comparable to the rates in some of the deadliest countries in the world.”

[youtube]http://youtu.be/g_D2DFY3_5A[/youtube]

Richard Florida from The Atlantic reported, “A number of U.S. cities have gun homicide rates in line with the most deadly nations in the world.”

  • If it were a country, New Orleans (with a rate 62.1 gun murders per 100,000 people) would rank second in the world.
  • Detroit’s gun homicide rate (35.9) is just a bit less than El Salvador (39.9).
  • Baltimore’s rate (29.7) is not too far off that of Guatemala (34.8).
  • Gun murder in Newark (25.4) and Miami (23.7) is comparable to Colombia (27.1).
  • Washington D.C. (19) has a higher rate of gun homicide than Brazil (18.1).
  • Atlanta’s rate (17.2) is about the same as South Africa (17).
  • Cleveland (17.4) has a higher rate than the Dominican Republic (16.3).
  • Gun murder in Buffalo (16.5) is similar to Panama (16.2).
  • Houston’s rate (12.9) is slightly higher than Ecuador’s (12.7).
  • Gun homicide in Chicago (11.6) is similar to Guyana (11.5).
  • Phoenix’s rate (10.6) is slightly higher than Mexico (10).
  • Los Angeles (9.2) is comparable to the Philippines (8.9).
  • Boston rate (6.2) is higher than Nicaragua (5.9).
  • New York, where gun murders have declined to just four per 100,000, is still higher than Argentina (3).
  • Even the cities with the lowest homicide rates by American standards, like San Jose and Austin, compare to Albania and Cambodia respectively.

“Yes, it’s true we are comparing American cities to nations. But most of these countries here have relatively small populations, in many cases comparable to large U.S. metros,” notes Florida.

Why Government Does Not Function

Do you have the feeling that we no longer have government from the federal to the local level that is able to function because of vast volumes of laws and regulations that have made it impossible to do anything from build a bridge to run a nursing home? If so, you’re right. The nation is falling behind others who do a better job by permitting elected and appointed officials to actually make decisions. We are living in a nation where lawsuits follow every decision to accomplish anything.

Cover - The Rule of NobodyThis is the message of Philip K. Howard in a book that everyone concerned for the future of America should read; “The Rule of Nobody: Saving America from Dead Laws and Broken Government”.

It explains why we can elect a Representative or Senator, send him or her to Washington, D.C. and still see no progress. Instead, we get the Affordable Care Act—Obamacare—that began as a 2,700-page law that has already metastasized into regulations that, stacked up, stand seven feet tall! And more on the way. It has destroyed the healthcare insurance industry and is destroying the U.S. healthcare system.

“The missing element in American government could hardly be more basic. No official has authority to make a decision. Law has crowded out the ability to be practical or fair,” says Howard. “It’s a progressive disease. As law grows to fill the vacuum, the wheels of government go slower every year.”

Howard points to a variety of problems that nation is encountering. “America’s electrical grid is out of date—transformers, on average, are about forty years old, and not digitized.” As vital and essential as the grid is to all life in America, “there’s no active plan to rebuild America’s electrical grid. The main reason is that government cannot make the decisions needed to approve it.”

Citing proposals that would allow the Bayonne Bridge to permit the new generation of large container ships clearance that would enable the Port of Newark to remain competitive, it took three years for environmental reviews to clear the project, but as Howard notes, “the average length of environmental review for highway projects, according to a study by the Regional Plan Association, is over eight years.” Eight years!

“Government on legal autopilot,” says Howard, “doesn’t have a chance of achieving solvency. In 2010, 70 percent of federal tax revenue was consumed by three entitlement programs—Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security—that don’t even come up for annual congressional authorization.”

Americans are in general agreement that Big Government is a big problem, but did you know that more than twenty million people work for federal, state and local government—or one in seven workers in America. Their salaries and benefits total more than $1.5 trillion of taxpayer funding each year or about ten percent of the Gross Domestic Product. Cities in America are declaring bankruptcy because they cannot afford the retirement and other benefits that their employees receive. State budgets are comparably weighed down.

We read about the often incomprehensible results and costs of the legal system affecting all levels of government. “Up and down the chain of social responsibility, responsible people do not feel free to make sensible decisions,” says Howard. “Everything is too complicated: rules in the workplace, rights in the classroom, and machinations in government. We’re bogged down in bureaucracy, pushed around by lawsuits, and unable to steer out of economic and cultural storms.”

“The point of regulation, we seem to have forgotten, is to make sure things work in a crowded society.”

What is forgotten or never learned is that there are elements of risk in everything we do. Trying to legislate risk out of our lives only leaves us with millions of rules that make it impossible to function intelligently in business, in schools, in hospitals and nursing homes, and everywhere else. It eliminates swings and seesaws from playgrounds out of fear of lawsuits.

“America is losing its soul,” says Howard. “Instead of creating legal structures that support our values, Americans are abandoning our values in deference to the bureaucratic structures.” Too often, decisions made by elected officials or reflected referendums voted upon by the public have been taken over by the court system in which judges now feel free to decide these matters. The response was a growing objection to “judicial activism.” Now even the judges are distrusted.

Howard’s book explains why America is in trouble and offers recommendations to put it on the right path again. If it is ignored, the America into which I was born more than seven decades ago will not be around or livable for the next generation or two of Americans.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

Setting the Record Straight: Lottie Beebe Does Not Support Common Core

On March 22, 2014, the Monroe News-Star quoted Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE) member and St. Martin Parish Superintendent Lottie Beebe (pictured above) in such a manner as to incorrectly portray Beebe as supporting the Common Core State Standards (CCSS).

Beebe does not support CCSS.

In her response below, Beebe clarifies not only her position against CCSS but also her experience and position on a number of so-called education “reform” issues mandated in Louisiana’s classrooms:

I have learned a lesson.  In the future, I will provide a written response to reporter inquiries.  This is my response to Common Core and there may be those who say I sound like a politician. To the contrary, I consider myself a public servant and educator. 

There has been much debate surrounding Common Core Standards.  According to Merriam-

Webster dictionary, a standard is a level of quality, achievement, etc. So what is the problem?  

 Many educators will say they are not opposed to rigorous standards and high expectations.  Some will say they are not opposed to Common Core (CC) standards because the standards are merely objectives—norms.  Two examples taken directly from the Louisiana Department of Education (LDOE) website include the following:

3rd grade math:  Tell and write time to the nearest minute and measure time intervals in minutes.  Solve word problems involving addition and subtraction of time intervals in minutes.

*5th grade reading:  Compare and contrast two or more characters, settings, or events in a story or drama, drawing on specific details in the text.

Again, what is the problem?  Upon close examination, many of the CC standards are not age/grade appropriate and are rigorous because students are now expected to perform at a skill level in which prerequisite learning has not yet occurred for many.  Many education researchers have pointed out that the K-3 standards are not age appropriate.  The same can be said for other grade levels due to the lack of requisite skills. The rigor comes into play when the standards, once addressed at 5th or 6th grade, are now addressed at 3 or 4th grade.  Simply put, performance expectations are increased (rigor) by setting the bar higher. 

 The Common Core debate is alive and somewhat contentious in Louisiana.  Some are quick to say Louisiana can no longer continue to rank last in educational outcomes next to Mississippi. Chas Roemer, BESE President, likes to reference the 700,000 students who are trapped in failing schools.  (Again, we must understand the rationale for CC implementation—follow the  money; examine the education reform agenda; examine BESE policy to see how quickly we are approving charter schools expediting the charter application process, and the emphasis on Choice options.)

Governor Jindal and members of BESE supported Common Core in 2010. (Jindal, with aspirations for a national political office,now sees the writing on the wall and is “crawfishing.”)  It is also important to note that Jindal is a member of the National Governors’ Association (NGA).  He was also supportive of John White for the position of state superintendent of education.  I often tell people the support for CC is bi-partisan–Republicans and Democrats embraced the CC agenda as early as 2008 and the support for CC continues to be a bi-partisan effort in 2014.

Bill Gates and other philanthropists lured others (educators) into the CC venture by providing money–representatives of the education associations were lured into believing in and advocating for CC standards.  This has been documented by Dr. Mercedes Schneider, a blogger, in several articles.

I will also add there are educators in Louisiana who strongly support CC standards. 

Therefore, it is difficult for those who don’t share the enthusiasm to stand up and be vocal.

Please note that Superintendents, Central Office Staff, Administrators, and teachers are often silent because educators are not supposed to reject standards.  How dare an educator object to the setting of standards!

The reality is superintendents, like me, are in awkward positions.  We are charged with a mandate from BESE and the LDOE.  If we speak up, we risk conveying a mixed message which could likely result in negative student outcomes.  For example, let’s compare the district superintendent to a military leader set to engage in battle. Does the military leader tell his troops all the reasons why they can’t defeat the enemy, or does the leader proceed with a positive attitude to say we will carry out our charge and claim the victory!  Superintendents have to be careful not to convey the wrong message; otherwise, teachers and students could likely give up and lose hope and do poorly on high stakes exams.  Districts could then earn failing grades and are subject to state takeover.  It is also important to note that the state superintendent of education holds the key to test data. (The picture is clearly evident.) Stand tall, be submissive, and you may be victorious!

After numerous hours of CC debates at a BESE meeting in October, it remains clear that many on BESE are in full support of “staying the CC course.”BESE’s response to the nearly 8 hours of debateof CC occurring in October was the approval of policy which gives parents an option to review textbooks and opt out if they view the material as inappropriate.  Again–an ineffectual response.  Parents have always had the autonomy to review textbooks and educational resources.

 I must be honest.  The Common Core discussion is somewhat challenging for me.  As an educator of 30 years, I value standards.  I have always set high standards for my students.  Having taught both regular and special education students, I fully appreciate establishing rigor while maintaining realistic expectations.  My objection does not lie with standards per se’, but I can’t negate what education research says regarding brain development and students’ ability to perform tasks which are not developmentally appropriate.   There have been numerous concerns expressed by education stakeholders regarding indoctrination, student data/privacy issues, and federal involvement in education.  I have viewed videos where it was stated that computer assisted tests can be manipulated to become  more complex while the student is taking the exam or technology can be utilized to gauge student aggression and can predict whether the student has the tendency to become a  criminal, etc.   Some might say this is hype, but this is a concern communicated by many parents.

  There was also the lack of communication regarding the implementation of Common Core Standards.The Louisiana  Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE) approved these standards in 2010. There was very little input from educators, parents, and other education stakeholders in Louisiana. While it is often stated there was input from the education community, I have to question why the Louisiana Department of Education leadership failed to host community meetings to educate the public to the proposed changes to the Louisiana developed standards prior to the public outcry.  Because of the outcry, there have been scheduled meetings initiated by local school officials in an effort to educate the public.  Perhaps, the lack of education was not an oversight on the part of Louisiana officials.  A survey conducted by Phi Delta Kappa/Gallop Poll (2013) indicated 61 percent of Americans do not know about Common Core.  This is somewhat of a red flag when this is a national agenda.  Forty-five states and Washington, DC initially adopted Common Core standards.  (Some states are now backing away from the standards.)

As an educator, my concern lies with the reports from educational researchers who have studied the Common Core standards  and have indicated many of these standards are not developmentally appropriate and may negatively impact student outcomes.  Dr. Sandra Stotsky, a member of the CC Standards review committee, did not sign off on the standards because she considered them to be “empty skill sets.”  Some months ago, there was a letter written by Catholic scholars who denounced Common Core.    There was no piloting of the standards in Louisiana or elsewhere to justify effectiveness.  These CC standards may be inferior to previously-implemented  Louisiana standards (The Fordham Institute gave Louisiana’s English Language Arts standards a B-plus, the same grade they gave CC.)

 The implementation of standards in Louisiana warrants a letter grade of F, in my opinion.  I feel Superintendent John White, his staff, and BESE failed to effectively communicate and provide proper guidance to local systems.  School systems were led to believe there would be a gradual transition into the Common Core.  Initially, the math curriculum for grades K and 1 was provided to districts.  District officials thought the ELA curriculum would also be available.  This did not occur. Many districts thought the LDOE would provide a Louisiana curriculum addressing the standards; however, this did not happen.

On May, 2013, it was fully disclosed that there would be no curriculum provided to school districts.  Superintendent John White touted autonomy for school systems.  While it is admirable to offer school districts and educators autonomy, it is important to understand teachers have different skill sets.  Some may have the skills to be curriculum writers; others are less likely to have extensive training in curriculum development. Therefore, this creates an inequitable playing field and puts some districts, schools, and educators at a great disadvantage within the accountability program. Recently, a LDOE staff member indicated “the state lacked the capacity to roll out a Louisiana developed curriculum.”  In essence, the state lacked the resources, or capacity, and then passed on this responsibility to school systems in the form of autonomy.  Many districts were put in a vulnerable position and were caught off guard and unprepared.  Superintendent White’s response to districts’ lack of preparedness was “some districts had their heads buried in the sand.”  This is an unfair characterization of school systems.  Many school districts put their trust in their leader who failed to respond in a responsible manner to their needs.

 Another issue of concern is PARCC–the assessment component.  Who has seen PARCC?  I must acknowledge there are sample PARCC-like items distributed to school systems, but who knows whether there will be changes.  (In Louisiana, we have become accustomed to changes—several that would need to be addressed in another article.) No one has seen the exam. Many states have backed away from PARCC, so where is the standard assessment?   One reason for promoting common standards and common assessments is to have more accurate comparisons relative to student achievement regardless of the student’s zipcode.  The decision of many states to back away from PARCC will result in higher test expenditures  for school systems.  There are also technology issues—many school districts are financially challenged.A lot of money has been invested in Common Core standards.  Textbook publishers have spent millions of dollars developing curriculum and supplemental resources.  The LDOE is advocating specific curriculum such as Eureka Math and the publishers who invested lots of money may be “holding the bag” although their product may be superior to Eureka Math.What happened to free enterprise?

There has been a move away from the previous state textbook adoption process—school systems now have the autonomy to review and select textbooks and other education resources.  This, again, proves challenging for districts because teachers, administrators, and central staff are preparing students for high stakes tests and PARCC field tests while engaged in textbook reviews.  The anticipated math and ELA textbook costs for the St. Martin Parish School System are at a minimum– two million dollars.  As a superintendent, I have questioned what happens if systems deviate from the LDOE Tier 1 approved publishers? Is this real autonomy or is there enough fear in the trenches to sway districts to go with the Tier 1 recommendation?   One also has to ask who and how many individuals at the LDOE review and approve publishers for Tiers 1, 2, or 3? 

Districts are challenged with costs associated with CC implementation and PARCC. Technology infrastructure and textbooks will be major expenditures for many systems.  Employer retirement contributions are increasing.  In March, 2014, BESE submitted a MFP resolution without a 2.75% increase over this year—the funding will remain constant to the money received in 2013-2014 in many instances.  School districts are expected to do more with less.  Expectations are to increase student achievement without funding the essential  resources!  Superintendent John White has stated he does not want to denigrate students and teachers.  He has acknowledged that principals know their teachers best and should be given the responsibility of rating teacher performance.  (Say what?)  In 2012, Governor Jindal and John White, State Superintendent of Education, toured the state saying 98% of the teachers in Louisiana received a satisfactory rating; only 2% received an unsatisfactory rating.  According to Jindal and White, this was unacceptable! (The suggestion was that principals were not effectively evaluating teachers.)  In 2013, 96% of teachers received an effective rating (synonymous to satisfactory) and 4% received ineffective (synonymous to unsatisfactory).  The results included teacher value-added (VAM) data.  Millions of dollars were invested in COMPASS—the teacher evaluation program.  Amid tremendous frustration and a mass exodus of teachers, Superintendent White recommended the suspension of VAM for a two year period.  (Note the timing here—VAM will resume after statewideelections—gubernatorial, BESE, and the legislature.) He also recommended an external researcher who will study VAM at a cost of $57,000 to taxpayers.  He then added he does not want to denigrate teachers and students.  Yet, he continues to advocate the assignment of letter grades to schools and school systems.  Doesn’t the labeling of schools and school districts denigrate students and teachers?

 One thing is certain–there is no consideration of the suspension of letter grades assigned to schools and school districts.  My question is why?  Although rhetorical, the answer lies with the dismantling of traditional public education and the increase of charter schools.  It is evident!   As an educator of 30 years, I have witnessed reform initiatives come and go. As educators, we have learned the art of submissiveness.  We go along with the mandates hoping that “this, too, shall pass!”

 As one in the education trenches, I can say there are many educators who have reconciled to the fact that Common Core is a state mandate.  We have struggled with the implementation and have invested numerous hours writing curriculum while searching other states’ websites for additional resources. We have seen education initiatives haphazardly implemented and later placed on hold, or reversed.

Simply put, our only hope is the Legislature and honestly, I don’t know if there is enough will among Louisiana legislators to end Common Core or PARCC.  The question is often asked—if not Common Core standards—what?

 It isn’t as though Louisiana was without standards prior to CC. Louisiana teachers are welcome to organize and review Louisiana’s standards and make changes according to what they view as good for Louisiana.

In closing, I know for every problem there is a solution. I still believe in the Louisiana product! So at the end of the day, developing new standards would be a major task, but one worth the effort considering what research reveals.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo of Lottie Beebe is courtesy of The Advocate.

EXPOSED: The U.S. and British “Sex Industrial Complex”

Former KGB spy and Pedophile Information Exchange (PIE) member Geoffrey Prime (left) and PIE Chairman Tom O’Carroll

The United Kingdom has been rocked by a scandal of major proportions involving government support for pedophilia & pederasty. Child rape has been going on for decades at the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) offices. “The BBC will be plunged into a major crisis with the publication of a damning review, expected next month, that will reveal its staff turned a blind eye to the rape and sexual assault of up to 1,000 girls and boys by Jimmy Savile in the corporation’s changing rooms and studios,” reports Daniel Boffey from The Guardian.

The Daily Mail reported,”A vile paedophile group with links to senior Labour politicians was funded with huge amounts of taxpayers’ money, it has emerged. The Paedophile Information Exchange was allegedly given £70,000 by the Home Office between 1977 and 1980 – the equivalent today of about £400,000. The astonishing claims made by a whistleblower are now being investigated by the police and the government.”

Before It’s News reported in January 2013 how PIE became a ‘legal’ paedophile ring:

“This history must start in 1967 when the Sexual Offences Act decriminalised homosexual acts in private between two men, both of whom had to have attained the age of 21, in England and Wales. It is important to note that  Homosexuality was not decriminalised in Scotland until 1980, and in Northern Ireland until 1982.

Following the 1967 Sexual Offences Act, homosexuals in parts of the UK other than England and Wales organised in an effort to attain equality in law. One such organisation, founded in 1969, was the Scottish Minorities Group (SMG). The SMG, which was based in Glasgow, was a self-help organisation working for the rights of homosexual men and women, and had the aims of providing counselling, working for law reform and providing meeting places for lesbians and gay men.

PIE, originally chaired by Michael Hanson,  began as a special interest group in 1974 under the SMG umbrella organisation. Note that paedophilia was no less illegal than homosexuality in Scotland at this time. PIE relocated to London in 1975 under a new chairman Keith Hose.

Read more.

Dr. Judith Reisman states, “‘The Sex Industrial Complex’ is an economic and attitudinal merger of pedophile and pederast crusaders with ‘sexology’ and its allies in other academic fields, along with commercial pornographers.  The pharmaceutical and abortion industries–both obviously profit from sexual promiscuity–are satellite players in the SIC. It was the academic pedophile/pederasty crusaders, largely employed by the pornography industry, with whom I locked horns in Wales when I presented my research on child pornography at the ‘British Psychological Association Conference on Love and Attraction’ in 1976.”

“Chasing down [Alfred] Kinsey and his closeted sexual revisionists is one of the most mesmerizing detective sagas in social history.  For, tracking the path of brazen clues left by liberal left ‘social scientists,’ we can learn a great deal about how and why our national moral philosophy was overturned,” notes Reisman.

Tom O’Carroll, the head of PIE, Pedophile Information Exchange, a pedophile supported by radical British political leaders, explained in his child molester’s handbook, Paedophilia, The Radical Case: “erotica had a powerful influence on my own attitudes, an influence almost as powerful and revolutionary as the impact on me of Ford and Beach and Kinsey.”  O’Carroll, the pioneering organizer of the English and European academic pedophile movement, nicely links together for us three key agents of “The Sex Industrial Complex” (SIC) discussed in detail in Chapter 5 of Reisman’s book Kinseyan Anthropology as relying upon three-key bodies of change agents:

a)  The pedophile/pederasty crusaders, (heterosexual and homosexual child molesters)
b)  Kinsey’s disciples in sexology and allied disciplines and
c)   The pornography industry.

We are seeing the same thing happen in the United States. Peter Bella in an August 2011 Washington Times article stated, “The modern age has been hailed as post-gender and post-racial. Meaning that we’ve grown as a society beyond petty discrimination against people on the basis of race or gender identity, and such discrimination is met with the entire wrath our legal and social institutions can muster. If some people have their way, this modern age will soon be post-pedophilia.   And playgrounds will be empty.”

According to Bella, “B4U-ACT is a Maryland-based group of mental health professionals, psychiatrists and pedophiles who want to normalize pedophilia. Instead of pejoratively calling them ‘pedophiles,’ ‘fiends,’ ‘deviants,’ ‘freaks,’ ‘perverts,’ ‘degenerates,’ ‘predators’ or ‘pedophiles,’ they would prefer that society refer to them by the sensitive and socially-accepting term: minor attracted persons.” (Daily Caller)

The target of pedophiles and pederasts remain our children. Call it what you may, it is wrong in so very many ways.

RELATED STORIES:

1977 Guardian article with Reisman quotes
How did the pro-paedophile group PIE exist openly for 10 years?
Pensioner backed Paedophile Information Exchange and may hold key to links with left wing groups
Home Office ‘gave Paedophile Information Exchange £70,000′: Group allegedly given taxpayers’ money between 1977 and 1980

Relentless Global Warming “Scientists” Continue Their Scams

Despite the growing worldwide recognition that global warming—now called climate change—is a hoax and that the Earth has been in a cooling cycle going on seventeen years, those most responsible for it continue to put forth baseless “science” about it.

The hoax has its base in the United Nations which is home to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and got its start with the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 that went into force in 2005. It limits “greenhouse gas” emissions, primarily carbon dioxide (CO2). It purports that the gases are warming the Earth and many nations signed on to reduce them. The U.S. did not and in 2011 Canada withdrew from it. Europe is suffering economically from the billions it invested in “alternative energy” sources, wind and solar power.

Five years ago, emails between a group of the United Kingdom’s University of East Anglia scientists and others who were generating computer models that “proved” global warming were revealed. It was quickly dubbed “climategate” for the way the emails demonstrated the manipulation of data claiming that global warming was real. They had good reason to be worried, given the natural cooling cycle the Earth has entered, but of even greater concern was the potential loss of enormous amounts of money they were receiving for their deception.

To date, not one of theirs and other computer models “proving” global warming have been accurate.

On Wednesday, March 10, The Wall Street Journal published an article, “Scientists Say Four New Gases Threaten the Ozone.” It reported on the latest effort of “scientists” at the United Kingdom’s University of East Anglia and it is no coincidence that the university was the center for the original IPCC data created to introduce and maintain the global warming hoax.

“Traces of four previously undetected man-made gases have been discovered in the atmosphere, where they are endangering Earth’s protective ozone layer, a team of scientists from six countries reported Sunday.”

Trace gases are those that represent less than 1% in the Earth’s atmosphere. CO2, for example, represents a meager 0.038% of the atmosphere and represents no impact whatever on the Earth’s climate. It is, however, vital to all life on Earth as it is the “food” for all of its vegetation.

“The gases are of the sort that are banned or being phased out under a global treaty to safeguard the high altitude blanket of ozone that protects the planet from dangerous ultraviolet radiation, experts said.” These “experts” failed to mention that everywhere above the Earth’s active volcanoes the ozone is naturally affected by their massive natural discharge of various gases. The oceans routinely absorb and discharge CO2 to maintain a balance. The bans included the gas used primarily in air conditioners and for refrigeration. It has since been replaced.

Another gas that was banned is a byproduct of chemicals called pyrethroids that “are often used in household insecticides.” Banning insecticides is a great way of reducing the Earth’s population as insects spread diseases and destroy property. Ironically, termites produce massive amounts of carbon dioxide.

The means used to detect the gases included comparing “the atmosphere today to old air trapped in annual layers of Greenland snow” and they also studied “air collected by high altitude research aircraft and by sensors aboard routine passenger jet flights around the world.” Not mentioned is the fact that the Earth has had higher amounts of CO2 in earlier times which posed no threat to it, so a few trace gases hardly represent a “threat.”

This kind of questionable “science” was practiced by one of the most well-known of the East Anglia scientists, an American scientist named Michael Mann, who used tree ring data to prove a massive, sudden increase in CO2 in his “hockey stick” graph that has since been debunked by skeptical scientists.

Mann has brought a libel law suit against columnist Mark Steyn, the National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, charging defamation. Such suits cost a lot of money and Robert Tracinski, writing in Real Clear Politics in February noted that “it’s interesting that no one asks who is going to go bankrupt funding Mann’s lawsuit. Who is insuring Mann against this loss?”

Tracinski pointed out that “It is libel to maliciously fabricate facts about someone” but that it is “legal for me, for example, to say that Michael Mann is a liar, if I don’t believe his erroneous scientific conclusions are the product of honest error. It is also legal for me to say that he is a coward and a liar, for hiding behind libel laws in an attempt to suppress criticism.” The East Anglia emails revealed that they were doing whatever they could to suppress the publication of studies that disputed global warming in various science journals.

How specious is this latest announcement about trace gases that they assert are a threat to the ozone layer? An atmospheric chemist, Johannes Laube of the East Anglia group making the announcement, was quoted as saying “We are not able to pinpoint any sources” for the trace gases. “We are not able to point a finger.”

The objective of the announcement is the same as the creation of the entire global warming hoax. It provides the basis for the transfer of funds between developed and undeveloped nations and would grant greater power to the United Nations to reduce the world’s manufacturing base while endangering and controlling the lives of everyone on Earth.

Is the latest “research” a lie? The data it cites has some basis in fact, but those facts are an excuse, like those cited about greenhouse gases, to frighten nations into wasting billions on climate threats that do not exist. The real threats remain climate events over which mankind never has and never will have any control.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

Divided We Stand: A Traditionalist Manifesto

Conservatives are generally very nice people — who never saw a culture war they couldn’t lose. That is to say, we often hear cracks about how Barack Obama and his ilk may “evolve” on issues, but conservatives exhibit that tendency, too, and their evolution goes something like this:

“Marriage is between one man and one woman, period!”

Five years later…

“I can accept civil unions, but marriage should not be redefined.”

After five years more:

“The states can do whatever they want, just keep the feds out of it.”

And 10 years further on:

“People can do what they want. How does faux marriage affect me, anyway?” (This is the point British “conservatives” have reached.)

And at an even later juncture it’s, “Why shouldn’t homosexuals have the right to ‘marry’? It’s a matter of equality.” (Just ask some “conservatives” in Sweden.)

Oh, this isn’t limited to marriage or anything else some dismiss as “social issues.” Conservatives were against Social Security (in FDR’s time) before they tolerated it before they were for it before they demanded it. And they are against socialized medicine. But should it endure for 15 years, their children will tolerate it and then accept it and then expect it — as today’s conservatives do in Western Europe.

This gets at the only consistent definition of conservatism: a desire to “conserve,” to preserve the status quo. This is why while 1950s conservatives in the US were staunchly anti-communist, conservatives in the USSR were communist. As the status quo changes, so does the nature of the prevailing conservatism. And it is liberals, as the agents of change (without the hope), who shape tomorrow’s status quo.

Here’s how it works: the liberals come to the bargaining table demanding a change. The conservatives don’t like it, but being “reasonable” they give the other side some part of what they want. And it doesn’t matter if it amounts to 50 percent, 30, 15 or just 1 percent.

Because the libs will be back, next year, next election cycle, next decade.

Again and again and again.

And each time the cons will get conned, giving the libs a few more slices, until the left has the whole loaf and those ideological loafers, conservatives, are left with crumbs and a crumbled culture.

In a word, today’s conservatives are generally people who have assimilated into yesterday’s liberals’ culture. And every time we compromise — on civil unions, big-government programs or whatever it may be — we assimilate further. And what is the nature of this evolution?
It is nothing less than a superior culture being subsumed by an inferior one.

Now, all this perhaps sounds hopeless. Are we damned to inexorable and irrevocable movement toward the “left,” at least until the complete collapse of civilization is wrought? Well, there is an alternative to assimilation.

Separation.

There has been some talk of secession lately. But note that there is a prerequisite for political separation: cultural separation. Serbia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Croatia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Slovenia didn’t become their own nations because they suddenly thought the name Yugoslavia was no longer cool, but because of profound cultural differences. And Catalans in Spain some time back empowered parties that have called for an independence referendum this year because of cultural differences. Make the cultural differences great enough, and separation (assuming you can avoid bondage via a governmental iron fist, which is the other possibility) is a natural by-product.

But a key to increasing that cultural divide is avoiding assimilation. Did you ever hear of an Ainu (Japan’s original people) independence movement in Japan? No, because they’ve been largely absorbed by the wider culture, sort of how traditionalists get absorbed by our modernistic culture and end up having, at best, children who’ll reflect today’s liberals and be called tomorrow’s conservatives. So how can further assimilation be avoided?

We only need to look at how it’s done all over the world. And there are two ways. To illustrate the first, consider how ardent Muslims avoid being subsumed. They don’t view fellow citizens in a host nation as national brothers.

But as the “other.”

Oh, the others may occupy the same borders, but they are as alien as anyone outside them. Their culture is to be rejected not just because it’s decadent and despicable — and our liberal-created variety is certainly those things — but because it is of the other. So it is with the others’ laws, social codes, and traditions, too: they are born of an infidel, alien culture and are to be viewed with extreme suspicion if not hostility.

And this is precisely how leftists should be viewed.

For this to work, our instincts must be thus: If liberals say left, we go right. If they say down, we say up. If they scream “Change!” we shout all the louder “Tradition!” and then push for our own change — tradition’s restoration.

Note here that I’m not speaking of a cold intellectual understanding of the issues, which, don’t get me wrong, is important. But just as it is passion that makes a man fight for a woman, it is passion that makes you fight for a cause. Loathe what the liberals stand for, meet their agenda with animosity, cultivate a visceral desire to wipe it from the face of the Earth. Hate, hate, hate it with the fires of a thousand burning suns.

One drawback to this tactic for division, however, is that it constitutes a blind defiance that could conceivably reject virtue along with vice. An example of this is when elements of the black community dismiss education, Christianity and higher culture because they view embracing them as “acting white.” Yet since liberals are right only about 0.4 percent of the time (and I’m perhaps being generous), this isn’t the greatest of dangers at the moment. Nonetheless, this brings us to the ideal method for separation.

G.K. Chesterton once said, “The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him.” A good example of love-driven separation is the Amish. They do try to avoid hating anyone (although I suspect they hate certain ideas), yet their love for their culture is so great that they remain a people apart. Of course, where they fall short is that they won’t fight at all, even politically. And this philosophy will not yield separation on a wide scale because the left simply won’t allow millions of people to live “off the grid.” Someone has to fund the nanny state, after all.

But the proper combination is obvious. We need sort of an Amish jihad, a deep love of the good and hatred of the evil that translates into action. But there is a prerequisite for this, and it brings us to something both the Amish and Muslim jihadists have in common.

They believe in Truth.

Sure, the Muslims may call it the will of Allah; the Amish, God’s law. But the point is that they aren’t awash in a relativism that, amounting to the Protagorean notion that “man is the measure of all things,” is unduly influenced by man. They don’t see a large number of people lobbying for some loony social innovation and figure that, with man as arbiter, they have to “get with the times.” Rooted to what they see as eternal, they don’t bend to the ephemeral.

Quite the opposite of G.W. Bush, I’m a divider — not a uniter. If this sounds bad, note that Jesus himself said He had not come to unite the world but as a sword to divide brother against brother. And while I certainly don’t claim to be God or even godly, I do know that tolerance of evil in unity’s name is a vice — and blessed division a virtue.

We can hate what is in front of us, love what is behind us, or both. But if we’re sheep and not soldiers, compromisers and not crusaders, Western civilization’s days will be behind us — and in front, perhaps, a thousand years of darkness.

Florida one of 46 States Tied to Common Core in 2009?

In June 2009, the National Governors Association (NGA) held an education symposium in which NGA outlined its plans for American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) money. Twenty-one governors attended; so did US Secretary of Education Arne Duncan.

The following information is included a part of that June 2009 report:

At the Symposium, Secretary Duncan made an important announcement regarding these [ARRA] funds: $350 million of the Race to the Top (RTTT) funds has been earmarked to support the development of high-quality common assessments.With 46 states and three territories already signed on to the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and the National Governors Association-led initiative to develop a set of common core standards that are fewer, clearer, and higher, this announcement was greeted  enthusiastically by Symposium participants. [Emphasis added.]

That’s fishy: In June 2009, NGA reported that 46 states and three territories had already signed on to the NGA- and CCSSO-led Common Core State Standards (CCSS).

CCSS would not be finished for another year (June 2010).

RTTT would not be announced for another month (July 2009).

And now, in March 2014, we have former Florida Governor Jeb Bush urging states to “stay the course” with CCSS.

Stay the course?? According to NGA, 46 governors signed on to the race before there was a course and before there was even a race.

That’s dumb.

It’s 2014. CCSS is electric. What is a governor (or former governor) with 2016 presidential aspirations to do?

Bush is apparently putting the full force of his political clout behind CCSS via commercial ads.

However, not all Republican governors are doing so.

Take Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, for instance.

In May 2009, Jindal and then-State Superintendent Paul Pastorek signed the CCSS memorandum of understanding and included it as part of Louisiana’s RTTT application, dated January 19, 2010  (appendices are here). The following statement is from page 52 of Louisiana’s Phase 1 RTTT application:

On May 14, 2009, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal and State Superintendant Paul Pastorek signed the Memorandum of Agreement with the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) to participate in the Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI).

Jindal– who was quick to sign Louisiana on for a not-yet-existent CCSS– and who thought the majority of Louisiana’s school districts would be lured along by the possibility of federal funding– is playing “cautious, silent.”

Ever mindful of his own political career, Jindal offered the following noncommittal statement regarding CCSS to the Baton Rouge Advocate on March 21, 2014:

In general, we think we should have strong standards as a state. We don’t think we should be going backwards on standards.

Which standards should “we” have, Bobby? The former Louisiana standards, or the current, amalgamated CCSS?

(I’m thinking that is the royal “we.” “We” tend to follow only what serves “us,” not what benefits Louisiana citizens.)

As to that May 2009 CCSS MOU:

It was no good, at least initially, without the support of the local school districts.

Louisiana has 69 school districts. Only 26 districts are on record as voting in the affirmative to adopt CCSS (see page 52 of the Louisiana RTTT application appendices).

This was a problem for Jindal and Pastorek. They counted on Louisiana districts’ buying into the already-signed CCSS MOU.

As St. Tammany Parish School Board (Louisiana) member Mary K. Bellisario recalls in a March 21, 2014, email,

In 2009 and early 2010, “to participate in the CCSS initiative” literally meant for each state to compete against the other states for the RTTT money–which of course was the impetus for the CCSS initiative.  Better to use the RTTT funding as the carrot, rather than Common Core itself.  This was the 3-hour debate in our board room the night we voted it down – how much funding were they talking about (the state couldn’t tell us that night), and how committed would we be to standards which weren’t even written at that time.

Most importantly, what would those standards say?

At first it was felt at LA DOE (where Pastorek was then superintendent) that all would go well, that each parish would vote in favor (after all, who would turn down “free” money?), and then the state could apply [for RTTT].

They (La DOE) were stunned when so many parishes voted no. 

The deadline in March for Round 1 of RTTT was fast approaching, and they lacked a major component (see page 18) of the application—a large number of cooperative parishes.

Too bad for them that so many parishes had total distrust of Supt. Pastorek! That was a major reason many of them turned it down.

There should be media sources after March which refer to the altering of the “participation” process at the national level. After the first round’s submissions in March 2010, the rules were relaxed so that a state could “participate” by being signed up by their governor and state supt. regardless of what individual counties/parishes determined.

Ironically LA didn’t win any [RTTT] money in the second round, either. 

But because we were now “participating,” we got the Common Core standards, whether we wanted them or not.

Bellisario continues in a separate email:

In early January 2010, St. Tammany Parish had to vote. … 

Pastorek was sure LA would get the RTTT/Common Core simply by applying and listing those parishes which had voted yes.  (Eventually 28 parishes and RSD schools did vote yes.) 

It wasn’t until sometime in late May or early June that the state officially adopted them via Jindal’s signature.  

We had thought we were safe — until Jindal and Pastorek signed up the entire state, once LA failed to get the RTTT money in early spring, because not enough parishes had signed up.  … 

After that, the rules were changed so that a governor and a state supt. could jointly sign up a state [for CCSS].

Jindal and Pastorek did exactly that. [Emphasis added.]

Louisiana’s application for RTTT funding was rejected. Among the application’s  reviewer comments is the following statement regarding the low participation by local school boards as concerns a section on the grading rubric, Translating LEA(local education agency) participation into Statewide Impact:

The hope is that non participating LEAs will adopt best practices through RTT. No evidence is provided that peer pressure will compel non participating LEAs to change. No evidence was given to support the idea of non participating LEAs making the shift on their own. [Emphasis added.]

Peer pressure??

That certainly does not sound very “voluntary.”

Common Core Lord of the Flies.

The “state-led” CCSS was initially supposed to be informed by the democratic process– one in which a state’s local school boards could vote on CCSS adoption. Then, when that did not yield the “right” response, the democratic process was conveniently discarded for the corporate-reform-style of “forced volunteering” under the sham name of “state leading.”

Allow me to add that the language of the CCSS MOU stands alone as a commitment to CCSS not contingent upon RTTT funding. Therefore, a governor’s and state superintendent’s signatures bind the state to CCSS. (Note: this so-called “agreement” violates Subpart 2, Section 9527 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act {ESEA}.)

In CommonCoreSpeak, the “state” is the governor and the state education superintendent.

In June 2009, NGA had it right when they called CCSS “NGA and CCSSO-led.”

Sometimes, however, Arne still needs to intervene in order to tie as much of the USA as is possible to his education privatization project. Thus, in 2012, Duncan decided to bypass the state and allow districts to deal directly with USDOE in applying for RTTT money.

If the state will not “lead” districts into corporate reform, USDOE is willing to dismiss the state.

And so, this is the manipulative game against which numerous states are fighting in the 2014 legislative session.

Jeb is pushing.

Bobby is squirming.

And somehow, in the midst of all of this education exploitation, America continues to be a world superpower.

Amazing, isn’t it?

RELATED STORY: Bill Gates loves Common Core for your kids, BUT NOT HIS

England Goes Back to the 17th Century: The Insane Wood Bonfire

The Brits have decided to Save the Planet by going back to burning wood instead of coal. The giant DRAX power plant in Yorkshire, which provides about 6% of Britain’s electricity – you know, heat, lights, telly – is being converted from burning coal to burning wood, 100 year-old hardwood, the kind prized for making furniture. American wood, from North Carolina.

No, I’m not making this up. No sane person could make this up. I know because I’ve read it in a British newspaper by a proper Brit reporter.

MoS2 Template Master

The Daily Mail is a rather skeptical Brit newspaper, meaning they don’t seem to uncritically accept what the Brit upper class tells them is good for them, like Charles, Prince of …let’s not go there.

I’m telling you this because the people who support the claims of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) are so world class stupid that explaining the science to them does no good. Perhaps pointing out the idiocy of their remedies for the non-existent “global warming crisis” will make an impression. The reductio ad absurdum works in math and logic; perhaps it will rouse our voters to get rid of these morons.

Secretary of State John Kerry confuses carbon dioxide, equally diffused through the atmosphere, with ozone, mostly in the stratosphere. Senator Nelson believes sea level will rise enough by 2100 to put 28 million Floridians under water. These are people who believe their highest priority – yes, that’s what Kerry said – is stopping – totally – the increase of “carbon pollution” in Earth’s atmosphere. We all exhale “carbon pollution” with every breath; it’s really carbon dioxide, invisible, odorless, and essential to all life on this planet. I really wish Kerry and Nelson would walk their talk – but, these are politicians – and stop exhaling their “carbon pollution.”

So, what did the Brit fishwrap say? A few quotes:

On a perfect spring day in the coastal forest of North Carolina I hike along a nature trail – a thread of dry gravel between the pools of the Roanoke river backwaters. A glistening otter dives for lunch just a few feet away.

Majestic trees soar straight and tall, their roots sunk deep in the swampland: maples, sweetgums and several kinds of oak. A pileated woodpecker – the world’s largest species, with a wingspan of almost 2ft – whistles as it flutters across the canopy. There the leaves are starting to bud, 100ft above the ground.
The trees seem to stretch to the horizon: a serene and timeless landscape.

Sounds pleasant. Not fast-growing trash trees, like pines for pulp. What else?

The UK is committed by law to a radical shift to renewable energy. By 2020, the proportion of Britain’s electricity generated from ‘renewable’ sources is supposed to almost triple to 30 per cent, with more than a third of that from what is called ‘biomass’.

The only large-scale way to do this is by burning wood, man’s oldest fuel – because EU rules have determined it is ‘carbon-neutral’.
So our biggest power station, the leviathan Drax plant near Selby in North Yorkshire, is switching from dirty, non-renewable coal. Biomass is far more expensive, but the consumer helps the process by paying subsidies via levies on energy bills.

So this “renewable biomass” (from America) will cost much more than coal. It also costs much more than natural gas – of which Britain still has a fair amount. They could have far more, of course, if they began fracking, but the EU disapproves of fracking. But, surely, this will save the planet by reducing carbon dioxide emission, right? No!

In fact, Burdett admits, Drax’s wood-fuelled furnaces actually produce three per cent more carbon dioxide (CO2) than coal – and well over twice as much as gas: 870g per megawatt hour (MW/hr) is belched out by wood, compared to just 400g for gas.

Then there’s the extra CO2 produced by manufacturing the pellets and transporting them 3,800 miles. According to Burdett, when all that is taken into account, using biomass for generating power produces 20 percent more greenhouse gas emissions than coal.

There are additional reasons to believe this is insanity run amok, but why belabor the obvious? These are rules from the European Union. Now you understand why Vladimir Putin can take over Crimea without objection from the EU. Angela Merkel and Germany get 40% of their energy from Russian gas. The BMW production line will not shut down for Crimea.

Surely, the British voters will rise up and sweep out of power the government that fosters such policies? No; there are three major parties in Britain (Labour, Liberal, and Conservatives), who all support this green stupidity. No hope there.

But, no doubt OUR Environmental Protection Agency will step in to protect the home of the pileated woodpecker? No; American wind farms have been given a license to kill bald eagles, golden eagles, other raptors, bats… EPA works for the Marxist thug in the White House, who’s been sitting on the Keystone XL decision for five years. Three more years of stupid.

The word “bonfire” comes from “bonfire”, in the years when the Black Death created dead bodies faster than they could be buried. Now the Green Death is sweeping across Europe – and America. Goodbye, pileated woodpecker.

RELATED STORIES:

New Study: President Obama a “member of the Flat Earth Society” on Climate Change

Climate Truth and US Government Climate Policy

Even a child could understand climate change

EDITORS NOTE: The feature image of a bonfire is by Janne Karaste. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license.