Common Core “standards” vs. educational freedom

Ohio has still not gotten rid of Common Core “standards” for our schools. Michelle Malkin offers her firsthand perspective of Common Core “standards” vs. educational freedom in her aptly titled column “School Choice and Common Core: Mortal Enemies” at Townhall:

. . . It's not just government schools that are the problem. Many supposedly "elite" schools indulge in the senseless pedagogical fads that infect monopoly public schools.

Every family in America deserves maximized, customized choices in education. It is the ultimate key to closing that "income inequality" gap the politicos are always gabbling about. Yet, the White House and Democrats beholden to public school unions and their money are the ones blocking the school choice door.

. . .  Competition in the secondary-school marketplace provided a desperately needed alternative for educational consumers who wanted more and better for their kids.

. . . Family participation is not an afterthought. It's the engine that drives everything. The dedicated parents, grandparents, foster parents and legal guardians I've met in the charter school movement and homeschooling community see themselves as their children's primary educational providers. Not the U.S. Department of Education. Not the White House. Not GOP politicians cashing in on top-down "education reform."

After several years of educational satisfaction, however, we've encountered another sobering life lesson: There is no escape, no foolproof sanctuary, from the reach of meddling Fed Ed bureaucrats and cash-hungry special interests who think they know what's best for our kids.

Big-government Republicans such as Jeb Bush and flip-flopping Mike Huckabee pay lip service to increasing school choice and supporting charter schools, private schools and homeschooling. Yet, they have been among the loudest GOP peddlers of the Common Core "standards"/textbook/testing/data collection regime thrust upon schools who want nothing to do with it.

"Alignment" with the new regime means mediocrity, mandates, privacy invasions and encroachments on local control and educational sovereignty. I've seen it in my daughter's polluted math curriculum. We are not alone. The threat is not just in one subject. It's systemic.

. . .

No fully funded school voucher system in the world can improve the educational experience if Fed Ed controls the classroom and homeschool room. Coerced conformity kills choice.

You can check in at the OhioansAgainst Common Core website for more background and updates.

# # #

County Executive race: Democrats endorse Budish.

Surprise. The Cuyahoga County Democrat Party endorsement for County Executive candidate went to Rep. Armand Budish. The Plain Dealer reports here.

The Cuyahoga County Executive Democrat Candidate Forum last weekend showed Budish getting 39 of a possible 53 votes in a straw poll. Former county Sheriff Bob Reid came in second with 8, and State Sen. Shirley Smith trailed with 4.

The likely Republican nominee is County Councilman Jack Schron.

The Party of Stupid caves on immigration “reform”

Politico reports on the GOP “immigration principles” – caving on amnesty -- as of yesterday afternoon. 

The House Republican leadership is trying to sell their colleagues on a series of broad immigration principles, including a path to legal status for those here illegally.

But Mr. Speaker, there already are numerous paths to legal status for those here illegally.

Speaker John Boehner’s leadership team introduced the principles at their annual policy retreat here. Top Republicans circulated a tightly held one-page memo titled “standards for immigration reform” toward the tail-end of a day that include strategy conversations about Obamacare, the economy and the national debt.

In the private meeting where the language was introduced, Boehner (R-Ohio) told Republicans that the standards are “as far as we are willing to go.”

And Mr. Speaker, they go way too far.

The strategy marks a shift for House Republicans. In 2013, Boehner’s chamber ignored the bipartisan immigration reform bill passed by the Senate. But toward the end of last year and early this year, Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) began hashing out this approach to rally Republicans toward reform.

. . .

Some Republicans fear of the political fallout from immigration reform, but the proposal suggests GOP leaders are taking the long view: Republicans need to woo the booming Hispanic population to stay relevant.

See Ann Coulter’s column here for a thorough rebuttal of that idea.

Read the rest of Politico's report here.

Townhall has the text of the “immigration principles” here.

Once again, Speaker Boehner phone & fax numbers. And send postcards to his Ohio office (shorter security delay):

Butler County Office  PH (513) 779-5400

Miami County Office PH (937) 339-1524

Clark County Office   PH (937) 322-1120

D.C. Office

PH  (202) 225-6205

FAX (202) 225-0704

And his mailbox:

Speaker John Boehner

7969 Cincinnati-Dayton Road, Suite B

West Chester, OH 45069

# # #

Amnesty approaching

Photo credit: westernjournalism.com

 

Ann Coulter has had access to a report on immigration by Phyllis Schlafly. Until Schlafly’s report is released, here are some excerpts from Coulter’s Townhall column yesterday:

GOP Crafts Plan to Wreck the Country, Lose Voters

As House Republicans prepare to sell out the country on immigration this week, Phyllis Schlafly has produced a stunning report on how immigration is changing the country. The report is still embargoed, but someone slipped me a copy, and it's too important to wait. 

Leave aside the harm cheap labor being dumped on the country does to the millions of unemployed Americans. What does it mean for the Republican Party? 

Citing surveys from the Pew Research Center, the Pew Hispanic Center, Gallup, NBC News, Harris polling, the Annenberg Policy Center, Latino Decisions, the Center for Immigration Studies and the Hudson Institute, Schlafly's report overwhelmingly demonstrates that merely continuing our current immigration policies spells doom for the Republican Party. 

. . .

According to a Harris poll, 81 percent of native-born citizens think the schools should teach students to be proud of being American. Only 50 percent of naturalized U.S. citizens do. 

While 67 percent of native-born Americans believe our Constitution is a higher legal authority than international law, only 37 percent of naturalized citizens agree. 

No wonder they vote 2-1 for the Democrats.

The two largest immigrant groups, Hispanics and Asians, have little in common economically, culturally or historically. But they both overwhelmingly support big government, Obamacare, affirmative action and gun control. 

. . .

Also surprising, a Pew Research Center poll of all Hispanics, immigrant and citizen alike, found that Hispanics take a dimmer view of capitalism than even people who describe themselves as "liberal Democrats." While 47 percent of self-described "liberal Democrats" hold a negative view of capitalism, 55 percent of Hispanics do. 

. . .

How are Republicans going to square that circle? It's not their position on amnesty that immigrants don't like; it's Republicans' support for small government, gun rights, patriotism, the Constitution and capitalism. 

Reading these statistics, does anyone wonder why Democrats think vastly increasing immigration should be the nation's No. 1 priority? 

. . .

It's terrific for ethnic lobbyists whose political clout will skyrocket the more foreign-born Americans we have. 

And it's fantastic for the Democrats, who are well on their way to a permanent majority, so they can completely destroy the last remnants of what was once known as "the land of the free." 

The only ones opposed to our current immigration policies are the people.  

 

 Read the rest here. 

 

 

Just a paragraph on Immigration “reform”

Photo credit: sodahead.com

  

The bad news: The GOP may yet pass an Amnesty bill. An article titled "Amnesty: The Next GOP Betrayal" by Michael R. Shannon appeared at CanadaFreePress over a week ago:

Amnesty is a payoff to big business, Democrat interest groups and tribal voters. There is no compelling Republican rationale for passage either morally or politically.

Yet the GOP leadership looks poised to cave. The good news: Roy Beck at NumbersUSA assessed the SOTU reactions from Congress:

It seems a good sign that [President Obama] thought it would be harmful to his cause to tell Americans anything specific that he wants on immigration. 

We had been told ahead of time that he would play nice with his immigration statement so as not to offend House Republicans who he is trying to win over. Still, I was a bit surprised -- and I think encouraged -- by his timidity.

Republican Response Speech A Bit More Troubling -- But Still Encouragingly Vague 

Republicans picked one of the House's top party leaders -- Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) -- to deliver the response.

Because many news media have practically declared the inevitability of House Republicans helping pass an amnesty this year, I was much more interested to hear what she would say.

Since she didn't really mention that many issues, it wasn't a good sign that she and her colleagues thought she should make such a big deal about immigration reform. Still, hers was also just a paragraph and more vague than specific:  

And yes, it’s time to honor our history of legal immigration.  We’re working on a step-by-step solution to immigration reform by first securing our borders and making sure America will always attract the best, brightest, and hardest working from around the world.  

Why do I have a strong idea that Mrs. McMorris Rodgers hasn't the first clue about our history of immigration or what we should honor about it?

Is she aware of our immigration history of a century ago, when mass immigration like we have today created increasingly wide income disparity, a huge underclass and was a primary tool for keeping the freed slaves and descendants of slaves in virtual servitude out of the mainstream of American jobs? How does she propose to honor that history?

I am particularly  concerned by her call that we make sure that America always attracts the "hardest working from around the world."  Sounds like she is committed to helping the corporate lobbies import any foreign worker who they think will work harder, longer and at lower wages and benefits and working conditions than the Americans who employers otherwise would have to recruit and train.

Is there any chance that a person giving any of these addresses could note that the point of immigration policy is to protect Americans. 

But her rhetoric is vague enough that the Republicans at their Chesapeake Bay retreat Wednesday through Friday won't have to embarrass her or seem to reject her when they show no enthusiasm for the GOP leadership's definition of "immigration reform."

Applause During Obama's Immigration Paragraph May Have Been Telling 

Back when I was a congressional correspondent sitting in the press box overlooking the SOTU proceedings, I took a lot of notes on how and when particular Members responded to parts of the speech. I had to depend on the camera feed for the TV networks, but I was intrigued with what I saw from the top 3 House Republican leaders during the President's immigration paragraph.

After his first sentence ending in "fix our broken immigration system," Vice President Biden quickly moved to his feet as did all Democrats in a pretty resounding ovation.

That certainly put Speaker Boehner in a tough position. He knew the cameras were on him. His corporate donors want him to give Mr. Obama what he wants. But Mr. Boehner also had earlier this morning seen a strong negative reaction from his Republican Members to the news reports about a possible GOP legalization plan. Does the Speaker rehearse his reactions ahead of time?  What would he do on this one?

I was relieved that Mr. Boehner didn't seem to have the slightest inclination to stand the way leaders of the "other party" sometimes feel they have to when baseball, mom and apple pie are being lauded.  Instead, Mr. Boehner gave a non-committal facial expression and slowly applauded while remaining seated.

The camera swung to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor who was giving a moderate applause while looking very serious.  At the edge of the camera shot was the No. 3 House Republican Kevin McCarthy also being careful not to look too enthusiastic, despite recently saying that he looked forward to moving legislation that gives work permits and legalization to most illegal aliens.

It looked like maybe a half-dozen Republicans were confident enough of their constituents to stand with the Democrats in the ovation. 

At the end of the President's immigration paragraph, there was more heavy applause.  The camera caught Mr. Cantor not joining at first and then offering a pretty slow clap.

I'm not going to read too much into what the various body language tells us about where these GOP leaders stand but I think it tells us worlds about where they think their constituency stands. 

Time to call Speaker Boehner. Again. And send postcards to his Ohio office (shorter security delay):

Speaker Boehner’s details:

Butler County Office  PH (513) 779-5400

Miami County Office PH (937) 339-1524

Clark County Office   PH (937) 322-1120

D.C. Office

PH  (202) 225-6205

FAX (202) 225-0704

And his mailbox:

Speaker John Boehner

7969 Cincinnati-Dayton Road, Suite B

West Chester, OH 45069

NumbersUSA blog is here. 

# # #

How to listen to the State of the Union speech

State of the Union this evening

 

If you don’t want to watch it live, you can always check in at VodkaPundit (Stephen Green), who, as usual, will be drunkblogging the speech. 9 PM.

 

Another waiver – this one from the NFL

Lawless government? No respect for NFL rules and mandates, either. From nj.com’s report “HowMetLife Stadium scored Super Bowl 2014, bringing the big game to N.J.”:

It took four votes and more than 10 years.

Kickoff for the 2014 Super Bowl is now [less than] two weeks away, and the NFL has already taken possession of MetLife Stadium. 

. . .

It’s been a long march up the field already, marked by quiet, behind-the-scenes lobbying and phone calls, getting the enthusiastic support of the state’s governor, and raising millions from sponsors for what will be the most expensive Super Bowl in history.

The bidding specifications for this year’s Super Bowl, obtained by The Star-Ledger, mandated tens of millions in expenses that would be borne by whoever won the honor of hosting the game. The 127-page document outlined everything from the minimum size of the stadium (the NFL mandates a seating capacity of at least 70,000, after an allowance of 3,000 seats for camera and production locations), to power and lighting needs.

Keep all those “NFL mandates in mind. Here’s another mandate [emphasis added].

And it required a climate-controlled domed stadium "if the historical average daily temperature over a 10-year period in the host city on the week of the game is below 50 degrees" — a mandate that needed agreement from the owners to at least a one-time exception before a cold-weather Super Bowl with a view of the New York skyline was even possible.

Obviously, as with Obamacare, some mandates are more equal than others.

[Jets owner Woody Johnson] said the only real negative he heard about was the weather.

"If you embrace the weather as we have, it doesn’t sound so bad. We’ve had bad weather at previous Super Bowls," Johnson said he argued. The message was drilled home repeatedly. "New York knows how to do this," he said he told other owners. "We’re experts at it."

Tell that to residents on Manhattan’s upper east side.  Brrrr.