Obama’s Amnesty Will Add As Many Foreign Workers As New Jobs Since 2009

Posted By Neil Munro On 10:37 AM 11/20/2014

 

Obama’s Amnesty Will Add As Many Foreigners as Jobs

 

President Barack Obama’s unilateral amnesty will quickly add as many foreign workers to the nation’s legal labor force as the total number of new jobs created by his economy since 2009.

The plans, expected to be announced late Nov. 20, will distribute five million work permits to illegal immigrants, and also create a new inflow of foreign college graduates for prestigious salaried jobs, according to press reports.

Obama has already provided or promised almost one million extra work permits to foreigners, while his economy has only added six million jobs since 2009.

Under the president’s new amnesty plan, “up to four million undocumented immigrants who have lived in the United States for at least five years can apply. … An additional one million people will get protection from deportation through other parts of the president’s plan,” according to a Nov. 19 report in The New York Times.

The five million total was attributed to “people briefed on his plans,” the Times reports.

The five million work permits will add to Obama’s prior giveaways, which have provided work permits to almost one million foreigners.

Since 2009, the U.S. economy has added only six million jobs, according to the International Monetary Fund.

The total number of jobs rose from 139,894,000 in 2009, to 145,871,000 in 2014, according to the IMF. That’s an increase of 5,977,000 jobs in five years.

Obama’s administration claims it has helped create 10 million jobs. If so, he is giving out one work permit for every two jobs created since his inauguration.

Not all the five million illegal immigrants who get permits will work, and many are already working under fake names or for cash. However, their new work permits will allow them to compete for jobs now held or sought by blue-collar Americans, including the many African-Americans and Latinos who voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012.

Polls show that the public is hostile to the amnesty plan and want Obama to work with Congress on immigration.

Currently, less than one percent of the nation’s population of 12 million illegal immigrants are repatriated each year. Obama’s policy will likely shrink the repatriations, while providing millions with work permits.

Obama’s total of six million extra work permits does not include the normal inflow of legal immigrants.

Each year, the nation accepts one million new immigrants, or roughly five million since 2009. That total includes roughly 3.5 million working-age immigrants, which is slightly less than the number of Americans — 4.3 million — who turn 18 each year.

Also, companies annually hire roughly 450,000 blue-collar guest workers and roughly 200,000 white-collar guest workers. Most of these guest workers stay for less than a year, but many stay for six years.

That current population of roughly 600,000 foreign graduates is expected to increase, if, as reported, Obama’s plan allows American universities to offer green cards to foreign tuition-paying students who will then compete for  the well-paying jobs or the prestigious jobs sought by the offspring of the nation’s influential upper middle class.

Each year, roughly 4.3 million Americans join the workforce in search of good jobs. That total includes roughly 800,000 Americans with expensive degrees in business, engineering, medicine, technology and architecture.

At least nine million Americans are unemployed, and at least seven million have given up looking for work. Employment rates among African-Americans and Latinos are lower than rates for whites and Asians.

Since 2000, the number of native-born Americans with jobs has stalled, despite a growing population of working-age native-born Americans.

The surplus of domestic and foreign job-seekers also helps ensure that U.S. median wages have flat-lined since 2000. Economists — including Obama’s top economic adviser — say that wages stall when the labor supply is larger than the supply of new jobs.

But if the labor market tightens because the number of job-seekers is fewer than than number of new jobs, the wages will rise in the tight labor market. For example, in the late 1990s, even lower-skilled people saw their wages increase because the labor supply grew slower than the Internet-boosted job market.

That relationship, however, is shifted by technology, which creates and eliminates jobs for Americans.

Obama has already provided or promised almost one million work permits to foreigners since 2011.

Since June 2012, Obama used the legally questionable Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals program to give work permits to almost 600,000 illegal immigrants. That DACA number may go above 1.5 million.

In May 2014, Obama’s deputies announced they would provide work permits to 100,000 spouses of university-trained guest workers used by brand-name companies.

In October 2014, his deputies announced they would accelerate the paperwork for 110,000 would-be Haitian immigrants, allowing them to begin working in the United States long before they were due to get green cards.

Since 2011, Obama has allowed roughly 180,000 migrants from Central American to cross the border and apply for green cards.

Despite the administration’s focus on “unaccompanied children,” only about a third of the Central American inflow consisted of school-age kids. The majority were working-age youths and adults, all of whom can apply for work-permits while their legal causes slowly work their way through the courts.

Follow Neil on Twitter


Article printed from The Daily Caller: http://dailycaller.com

URL to article: http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/20/obamas-amnesty-will-add-as-many-foreign-workers-as-new-jobs-since-2009/

 

The article below is titled in a very divisive fashion. It is capitalizing on continuing to divide the people of the country along political party lines, when the comments that were made didn’t refer to any party, but to all voters as being “stupid”. In a nutshell, Jonathon Gruber said that Obamacare was a fraud all the way through and the idea was to remove individual health care plans but it had to be done in a manner in which the stupid voters wouldn’t strongly object. So it’s not a tax, it’s not a mandate, and if you like your healthcare, you can keep your healthcare, etc. All lies designed to keep us in line, of course.

The article is below, and here is the video:

Here’s the article. Click on the title to get to the original:

GOP’s anti-Obamacare push gains new momentum in wake of Gruber video

 November 12 at 8:47 PM
The Republican Party’s ardent campaign against President Obama’s health-care law gained new momentum Wednesday as lawmakers reacted angrily to assertions by an architect of the policy that it was crafted in a deliberately deceptive way in order to pass Congress.

On both sides of the Capitol, leading conservatives said they may call economist Jonathan Gruber to testify about his remarks, which were made last year and surfaced this week in a video on social media. In the video, Gruber suggests that the administration’s signature health-care legislation passed in part because of the “stupidity of the American voter” and a “lack of transparency” over its funding mechanisms.

“The strategy was to hide the truth from the American people,” said Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), who is slated to chair the Senate Budget Committee next year. “That is a threat to the American republic.”

Gruber has been a complicated figure in the history of the health-care law. He helped the Obama administration craft the measure and has been a leading advocate of it, but he has also made sporadic comments sparking political brush fires that have been problematic for the law’s supporters.

The White House sought Wednesday to distance itself from Gruber and his comments.

“The Affordable Care Act was publicly debated over the course of 14 months, with dozens of Congressional hearings, and countless town halls, speeches, and debates,” White House spokeswoman Jessica Santillo said in a statement. “The tax credits in the law that help millions of middle class Americans afford coverage were no secret, and in fact were central to the legislation. Not only do we disagree with [Gruber’s] comments, they’re simply not true.”

An administration official who spoke on the condition of anonymity sought to play down Gruber’s role in developing the law, noting that he “did not work in the White House.”

In the recently disseminated video, Gruber expresses frustration with the political process surrounding the law rather than with the law itself. Nevertheless, the clip has again made the health-care law a primary focus for congressional Republicans, even after an election in which the party played down its zeal to repeal it. While health care was an issue often mentioned by Republicans, it was not a central one in the closing arguments for many Senate candidates. House GOP leaders, who had long planned to roll out an alternative health-care bill, moved away from that idea months ahead of the election, choosing instead to focus on the economy and the president’s leadership.

Now, rank-and-file conservatives and their grass-roots supporters are using the Gruber video to pressure congressional leaders to be more aggressive in coming weeks in their efforts to dismantle the law. There is a growing sense among Republicans that in spite of the challenges of fully repealing the law, they could make progress in undoing parts of it should the president and his associates lose credibility with voters.

“This gives us ammunition to make fundamental changes to the law,” Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said in an interview Wednesday.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), a member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and an influential tea party voice, said House Republicans may hold hearings on the matter, given the intensity of the reaction.

Jordan said that House Republicans have been e-mailing and texting one another about it all week and that he expects the interest in “bringing [Gruber] up here to talk” will gain traction.

“I just had a colleague text me saying, ‘We’ve got to look into this!” Jordan said as he glanced at his phone outside the House chamber Wednesday morning.

Michael Steel, a spokesman for Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), said the House leadership is also closely monitoring reaction to the video. “[Gruber’s] comments are a sad reminder that this awful law was passed in the worst possible way, with lies, secrecy and more lies from Washington Democrats,” he said in an e-mail.

According to his allies, Boehner plans to gauge the reaction among his members Thursday morning at a closed-door conference meeting at the Capitol. He is said to see the Gruber backlash as a potentially useful cudgel, but he is not yet sure how to use it.

Aides to Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said the probable majority leader was also well aware of the video and planned to discuss it with senators this week.

McConnell has pledged to hold a vote on a bill to fully repeal the health-care law, but he has been vague about how he will do it.

According to senior Senate Republican aides who requested anonymity to speak freely, McConnell is looking at a variety of strategies. One includes using reconciliation — a fast-track process that enables some bills to pass with just 51 votes — to eliminate provisions in the law. But because of the way the reconciliation process is structured, McConnell would be unable to use it to eliminate the entire law. To do that, he would need Democratic support to reach 60 votes and overcome a filibuster.

Conservative leaders with outside groups such as FreedomWorks, Heritage Action and the Senate Conservatives Fund have encouraged McConnell to use reconciliation as a means of passing a repeal proposal. How McConnell moves forward will be one of his first tests with a conservative wing of the GOP that is elated about the party’s Election Day rout but wary of McConnell’s tactics and his level of commitment to making repeal the party’s chief goal.

McConnell is not expected to make a decision until he gathers his entire conference for a series of policy lunches.

Several Senate Democrats said Wednesday they were unaware of Gruber’s comments and declined to speculate on the political consequences. Even with their losses in last week’s elections, Democrats maintain enough votes to block most health-care-related legislation from coming to a vote, and President Obama could still veto anything that reaches his desk.

The backlash to Gruber’s comments began Monday when a video of a 2013 panel discussion at the University of Pennsylvania that he participated in began to circulate on social media. By late Wednesday, the hashtag “#Gruber” was trending on Twitter.

“Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” Gruber said during the discussion. “And basically, call it the ‘stupidity of the American voter’ or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass.”

Gruber apologized for his remarks in an interview with MSNBC on Tuesday afternoon, calling his comments inappropriate and saying he was speaking “off the cuff.” Gruber did not respond to The Washington Post’s requests for an interview.

The clips of the panel discussion were uncovered by Rich Weinstein, a Philadelphia-area investment adviser who said Tuesday he had begun watching hours of footage featuring the experts behind the Affordable Care Act late last year, after his health insurance plan was canceled because it did not meet the requirements of the law.

“These people were showing up on the shows, calling themselves architects of the law,” Weinstein said in an interview with Bloomberg News, pointing to David Cutler, Zeke Emanuel and Gruber, health-care policy experts who had all been involved in the development of the legislation. “I wondered if these guys had some type of paper trail. So I looked into what Dr. Cutler had said and written, and it was generally all about cost control. After I finished with Cutler, I went to Dr. Gruber. I assume I went through every video, every radio interview, every podcast. Every everything.”

This isn’t the first time that remarks by Gruber have hurt the health-care cause. In 2009, at a critical moment during the administration’s efforts to get the law passed, Gruber undercut them by declaring that the legislation “really doesn’t bend the cost curve.” And even as far back as the 2008 presidential campaign, he said that he preferred McCain’s proposal for financing the health-care system, which would have treated health care provided by employers as taxable income.

When it was working on putting together the health law, the Obama administration relied on Gruber’s data and his microsimulation model — which consisted of 15,000 lines of computer code — to get quick estimates of costs and effects of policy proposals. One official involved in the effort said Gruber and his staff of three could provide answers overnight, when it often took weeks to run the same questions through the Office of Management and Budget or the Congressional Budget Office.

Gruber had played a similar role in states across the country — and for leaders of both parties. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, a Republican who pushed through a health law in his state, said Gruber’s estimates persuaded him to include a requirement that individuals buy health insurance and to offer subsidies to those who could not afford to do so. Both are elements of the federal law as well.

Karen Tumulty contributed to this report.

Robert Costa is a national political reporter at The Washington Post.

 

Video  —  Posted: November 13, 2014 in Uncategorized

If I remember correctly,and it appears that I do, the UN Weapons Treaty didn’t pass the US Senate, so, even if Obama signed it, it hasn’t passed legal muster for enforcement in the US. Nonetheless, there are possible avenues open for enforcement if there were to be martial law of any variety implemented across the nation. The article copied below has many people commenting on the site that ran the article who apparently believe the treaty did pass and it is creating a lot of confusion and possibly unnecessary angst in firearms freedom advocates. In reality, no matter what “law” is passed or who is in control of the political processes, every thing comes down to the consent of the governed.

Here is the article from the New American that is creating a lot of concern:

Merry Christmas: UN Declares Arms Trade Treaty to Go Into Effect Dec. 24

 

On its official website, the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs (yes, that’s really a thing and yes, it is housed right here in the United States) announced that the UN’s Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) “will enter into force on 24 December 2014.”

Merry Christmas!

It is ironical that on the day before the world’s 2.18 billion Christians commemorate the coming of Jesus Christ to the Earth, the United Nations will officially put into motion a plan to deny them of a right given to them by the very God whose birth they celebrate.

For those unfamiliar with the text of the UN’s Arms Trade Treaty, here’s a brief sketch of the most noxious provisions:

• Article 2 of the treaty defines the scope of the treaty’s prohibitions. The right to own, buy, sell, trade, or transfer all means of armed resistance, including handguns, is denied to civilians by this section of the Arms Trade Treaty.

• Article 3 places the “ammunition/munitions fired, launched or delivered by the conventional arms covered under Article 2” within the scope of the treaty’s prohibitions, as well.

• Article 4 rounds out the regulations, also placing all “parts and components” of weapons within the scheme.

• Perhaps the most immediate threat to the rights of gun owners in the Arms Trade Treaty is found in Article 5. Under the title of “General Implementation,” Article 5 mandates that all countries participating in the treaty “shall establish and maintain a national control system, including a national control list.” This list should “apply the provisions of this Treaty to the broadest range of conventional arms.”

• Article 12 adds to the record-keeping requirement, mandating that the list include “the quantity, value, model/type, authorized international transfers of conventional arms,” as well as the identity of the “end users” of these items.

• Finally, the agreement demands that national governments take “appropriate measures” to enforce the terms of the treaty, including civilian disarmament. If these countries can’t get this done on their own, however, Article 16 provides for UN assistance, specifically including help with the enforcement of “stockpile management, disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programmes.” In fact, a “voluntary trust fund” will be established to assist those countries that need help from UN peacekeepers or other regional forces to disarm their citizens.

Arguably, the Arms Trade Treaty would become the law of the United States if the Senate were to ratify the treaty.

While that is the process that the Constitution establishes for the implementation of treaties, fundamental principles of construction and constitutional law dictate that no treaty that violates the Constitution can become the supreme law of the land. In the case of the UN’s Arms Trade Treaty, there is no doubt that regardless of presidential signatures or congressional consent, this treaty cannot pass constitutional muster and therefore will never be the valid law of the land.

Unless, of course, Americans once again acquiesce to President Obama’s assumption of illegal authority and relinquish their rights and weapons regardless of the reasons they should not do so.

There is a higher authority, however, who never asked his followers to surrender their weapons and leave themselves defenseless in the war against tyranny.

While the president declares that greater federal restriction on the right to own, transfer, buy, and sell guns and ammunition is necessary in order to “heal our troubled minds,” Christians believe that there is only one place to turn for such relief: the Great Physician.

Christians, moreover, believe they not only have the right to keep and bear arms, but have the obligation to do so in the fight to protect freedom. The idea that God has commanded his children to own weapons and to be ready to wield them in defense of liberty might sound odd to many, but the scriptures provide ample evidence of this divine injunction.

In Luke 22:35-36, to cite one example, Jesus commanded his followers to purchase a sword in defiance of Roman law. Within the boundaries of the world under the control of the Roman emperor, to carry such a weapon was a crime punishable by death.

Why, then, would Jesus, the Prince of Peace, command his followers to break the law of the world’s most powerful empire – with legions of armed enforcers around every corner — if the benefit of keeping that commandment did not outweigh the potential harm?

Furthermore, if Jesus was the pacifist so many modern gun-rights deniers portray him as, why is there not a single syllable in the scriptures forbidding disciples from keeping and bearing arms?

If God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, why would he instruct early Christians to arms themselves, but insist that modern disciples be left defenseless? And, what of Paul’s pronouncement that “if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Tim. 5:8)?

If God preferred that his children refrain from buying, selling, owning, or transferring weapons, why is there not one verse in the entire canon of Christian scripture setting out such counsel?

Where has the Christian adherence to and understanding of this principle gone?

Perhaps it has slipped into oblivion, much like the related precept of being steadfastly dedicated to obeying the world of God in defiance of immoral government edicts.

Perhaps there are “evil men and seducers” who are “without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good.” (2 Timothy 3: 3, 13) who intend to enslave mankind and who understand that a disarmed populace is a slave populace.

Turning to the wisdom and warnings of the Holy Bible, Christians can find the “instruction in righteousness” that they believe lead them to “all good works.” (2 Timothy 3: 16-17)

All Americans, regardless of religion, must recognize that God gave us the freedoms we enjoy and with that gift comes the obligation of protecting ourselves and our loved ones. We must be armed, not for the purpose of private vengeance, but to remain ready to defend the liberty that is our inheritance.

The next meeting of the states that are parties to the Arms Trade Treaty — including the United States — is scheduled for November 27-28 in Berlin, Germany. There is time, then, to convince our elected leaders to refuse to sacrifice our freedom to keep and bear arms on the altar of one-world government.

Joe A. Wolverton, II, J.D. is a correspondent for The New American. Follow him on Twitter @TNAJoeWolverton

 

 

Just a reminder that we have until 11:30 PM November 14th to comment on the proposed changes to the CWA. This is concerning the change of the meaning of “waters of the United States” and expanding them to include mudholes and puddles, etc.
 Just click on the link below and you can submit your comments there:
Put on Subject line:  EPA-HQ-ow-2011-0880
 The Missouri DNR extended their comment period by one month for the NPSMP, Non-point Source Pollution Management Plan. That extension was through August 8th. The DNR has STILL not posted the responses to questions on this extremely overreaching plan. It’s very unusual, and we do not know what is going on with this. As soon as we find something out, we will let everyone know.

 

The Constitution Party has put together a good list of the amendments on the upcoming ballot. Please research these before you vote so that you don’t go in blind and only consider the snippet of information given to you on the actual ballot.

Notably, the judges up for re-election are all recommended as “yes” votes by the Judge’s Association. Not very surprising. Also, it doesn’t appear to be very wise. Please find out whether the judges are supportive of individual rights or increasing coffers for foolish penalties.

Here is the CP stand on the upcoming amendments:

 

Amendments

See how the Constitution Party stands on Missouri’s constitutional amendments on the August primary election ballot.

Constitutional Amendment #10

This amendment is more about partisan wrangling over who will control the purse strings. It contains a mix of good and bad together. If you mix a good idea with the right amount of bad ideas, everyone has a reason to vote for it or against it. You will not feel the effects of this either way.

This is the ballot language that pertains to the budget:

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to require the governor to pay the public debt, to prohibit the governor from relying on revenue from legislation not yet passed when proposing a budget, and to provide a legislative check on the governor’s decisions to restrict funding for education and other state services?

If this amendment passes, it will guarantee that the Governor could never withhold any money we owe on our debts. It’s always honorable to pay our debts. Missouri should always pay its debts before it spends one dime anywhere else in the budget. That is the measurement of our integrity and demonstrates our sense of responsibility.

However, we do not need a new Constitutional Amendment to force the Governor to pay our debts.

Anytime we don’t spend money, it is a good thing! How can you not be happy about that?

Currently the Governor can withhold funds from other line items. This new amendment will make it harder for him to do that.

However, a governor’s withholding money usually results in less spending which is always a win for the taxpayers. In the intervening time when the funds are being withheld, the governmental entity lives with less. Even after the Governor releases the money later, the department may not have enough time to spend it all before the year is over, so the year may end with a savings.

The Constitution Party recommends voting “NO” on Amendment #10

Constitutional Amendment # 6

(HJR 90 from 2014)

This is the ballot language:

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to permit voting in person or by mail for a period of six business days prior to and including the Wednesday before the election day in general elections, but only if the legislature and the governor appropriate and disburse funds to pay for the increased costs of such voting?

State governmental entities estimated startup costs of about $2 million and costs to reimburse local election authorities of at least $100,000 per election. Local election authorities estimated higher reimbursable costs per election. Those costs will depend on the compensation, staffing, and, planning decisions of election authorities with the total costs being unknown.

From now on in a normal 4-year election cycle, there is one March Presidential Primary, four April, two August and two November elections. There might also be other elections in some counties or possibly a statewide “Special” election.

This amendment would allow early voting in ONLY the November elections. All other elections are not included. Additionally, this will allow very limited early voting to happen only if the legislature appropriates the money.

Early voting only in November will confuse voters and, with the process being subject to appropriation, might not even happen consistently.

This is bad legislation and should not pass.

The Constitution Party recommends voting “NO” on Amendment #6

Please click here to learn more about the Constitutional viewpoint on “Election Reform”:   http://cpmo.us/2014/06/platform/#Election%20Reform

For a more in-depth examination on the Early Voting ballot language, please click here:
http://cpmo.us/2014/10/early-voting/

 

Constitutional Amendment #2

(HJR 16 from 2013)

This Amendment pertains to sexual predators.  Everyone despises sexual predators. When children are the victims, it is even more despicable.

On first glance, we all should have strong feelings about how horrible it is for anyone to hurt anybody, especially a child.  This might pass because people think we can do something more than what we are already doing.  However, we already have laws to punish sexual predators.

We are supposed to be considered innocent until proven guilty.  Our justice system is designed so that it protects both the innocent and the victims alike and punishes the guilty.  That is justice.

Passage of this amendment is a distortion of how we achieve justice in our court system.  It would allow “prior criminal acts, whether charged or uncharged”, to be used in a prosecution.

Fact #1: if a person is never charged, there is no prior criminal act. So what “relevant evidence” could there possibly be of an “uncharged” act.

Fact #2: “The court may exclude relevant evidence of prior criminal acts, etc.” So, if the evidence relates to an “uncharged act”, the court may not exclude it. Remember an uncharged act is not a criminal act. An uncharged act is one which legally does not exist.

Fact #3:  Words have meaning. Words are important. The way the wording was written, it says that “the court can exclude evidence of prior criminal acts…”, but the language doesn’t allow for the court to exclude evidence of “an uncharged act”.  The end result is that a criminal charge can be excluded if it prejudices a jury, but if it were for an uncharged crime, it cannot be excluded.

Here is the actual language that will be changed if this passes:

Section 18(c). Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 and 18(a) of this article to the contrary, in prosecutions for crimes of a sexual nature involving a victim under eighteen years of age, relevant evidence of prior criminal acts,whether charged or uncharged, is admissible for the purpose of corroborating the victim’s testimony or demonstrating the defendant’s propensity to commit the crime with which he or she is presently charged. The court may exclude relevant evidence of prior criminal acts if the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.[4]

The Constitution Party recommends voting “NO” on Amendment #2

For a more in-depth examination, please click here:
http://cpmo.us/2014/09/ballot-questions/

Constitutional Amendment #3

 

(by petition initiative)

Article IX of the Missouri Constitution establishes the framework for education in Missouri. Section 161 establishes the Department of elementary and secondary education which oversees and supervises public education in the state.

When you cut through all the legal language, this amendment deals with hiring, firing, promoting and disciplining of teachers.

These are not issues that should be placed into the Constitution of the state.

Each local school board should pass its own laws on how they want to run the district as there are no legal obstacles preventing any district from passing these reforms at the school board level right now.

Amendment #3 says this:

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to:

  1. Require teachers to be evaluated by a standards based performance evaluation system for which each local school district must receive state approval to continue receiving state and local funding;
  2. Require teachers to be dismissed, retained, demoted, promoted and paid primarily using quantifiable student performance data as part of the evaluation system;
  3. Require teachers to enter into contracts of three years or fewer with public schooldistricts; and prohibit teachers from organizing or collectively bargaining regarding the design and implementation of the teacher evaluation system?

The Constitution Party recommends voting “NO” on Amendment #3

Please click here to understand the Constitutional viewpoint on “Education”:   http://cpmo.us/2014/06/platform/#Education

For a more in-depth examination on the ballot language, please click here:
http://cpmo.us/2014/09/education-2/

 

Recently, a women in Tennessee was sent to jail for not keeping her lawn properly mowed. Now we have an elderly man being descended upon with an Mine Resistant Assault vehicle and two dozen armed enforcers to collect fines ascribed to him by the city for not removing equipment from his own property….And it is even worse than that, really. No representation and they take him to the bank to take his money from him as well. Is this the “Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave”?

Here is the article:

Marathon County police are not apologizing for their decision to use an armored military vehicle on a senior citizen because he may have been “argumentative.”

police tankFor years, 75-year-old Roger Hoeppner has been at odds with his local government in Marathon County, Wisconsin, over $80,000 dollars worth of fines relating to the use of his property.

Hoeppner has strongly disputed the fines that have been imposed on him, and he has been through multiple lawsuits and appeals with the city, in a fight to use his property the way that he wants to.

Town officials claim that a business which Hoeppner operates on his property is in violation of zoning ordinances.

In 2011, the town confiscated large amounts of personal property from Hoeppner because he refused to pay the fines. Several tractors, pallets and equipment were auctioned off by the government for “pennies on the dollar” according to Hoeppner’s attorney, Ryan Lister.

Next, the town imposed a $500-a-day fine on Hoeppner for refusing to remove certain equipment from his property. Eventually, the bill ran up close to $100,000, and the town came to collect the money with an armored truck and two dozen cops.

The local police department has defended their show of force by saying that Hoeppner was “argumentative” about the fines, although they admit that he never made any threats or indications that he would be violent.

“I’ve been involved in about five standoff situations where, as soon as the MARV showed up, the person gives up, saving time, money and increasing safety. People may not always understand why, but an armored vehicle is almost a necessity now,” Sheriff’s Capt. Greg Bean told reporters.

Hoeppner was arrested without any physical resistance, and was escorted to a bank where he was forced to withdraw $80,000 and hand it over to police.


Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/24-cops-armored-vehicle-collect-fines-argumentative-75-year/#GFjrh31USYEX0ZMk.99

 

Following is the testimony given by Mary Byrne yesterday at the Common Core/Academic Standards hearing in Jefferson City:

Below is a copy of my testimony presented to the Missouri State Board of Education at yesterday’s public hearing regarding the progress of academic standards development by the work groups. My primary concern was the appearance of bias given by past actions of the State Board and the partnership of the National Association of State Board of Education with the corporations who stand to profit from the implementation of the Common Core State Standards Initiative. Below is the testimony I submitted.
Mary Byrne, Ed.D.
Springfield, MO
 
INTRODUCTION
President Herschend, members of the board, I appeared before this State Board of Education in January of this year to ask that you reverse the board’s adoption of the Common Core State Standards because the process by which they were adopted was inconsistent with ethical and responsible governance (that is, governors, including Missouri’s governor, having signed a memorandum of agreement committing states to “. . . the development and adoption of a common core of state standards before they were written), and lacked the statutory authority to adopted privately owned, copyrighted materials as public policy. At that time, little was known about the National Association of State Boards of Education’s involvement in the agreement to cooperate with the Council of Chief State School Officers, the National Governors Association, and the U.S. Department of Education in promoting the Common Core State Standards Initiative; however, since January, additional information has been found that calls into question an apparent conflict of interest that inhibits the ability of this board to make unbiased decisions about academic standards developed by work groups constituted by HB 1490.
EVIDENCE
The following is evidence to support my concerns:
  • Page 3 of the Common Core Standards Memorandum of Agreement to develop and adopt a common core of state standards signed by Governor Nixon in June 2009 describes a National Policy Forum to include signatory organizations and names the National Association of State Boards of Education among them. It’s justified to assume that members of this board, though not all, were aware of the Governor’s agreement at that time.
  • Page C-0 of the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Application (the grant program that provided four assurances to the U.S. Dept. of Education including the adoption of common standards and aligned assessments) shows the signature of Dr. Bert Schulte as the Chief State School Officer who is under the direction of the State Board of Education.
  • A 2010 990 filed by the National Association of State Boards of Education reads as follows:
     . . . in 2009 48 states and 3 territories agreed to participate in the process of creating a set of common core standards . . . they must adopt 100% of the common core k-12 standards in english language arts and mathematics and begin assessment on the common core state standards within three years . . .NASBE is an equal partner with the Council Of Chief State School Officers and National Governors Association on the Common Core Standards Initiative the three organizations are working closely together to facilitate the dialogue related to standards adoption and implementation the focus of this effort is to engage state boards of education, other governing bodies, . .  NASBE conducted four regional conferences from January-March of 2010 to give state boards an opportunity to gain an information infrastructure of materials and resources on the common core as well as prepare state boards for the policy and advocacy work that will be essential to a smooth approval process of the common core standards the conferences are funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. (italics added) The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation funds millions of dollars in grants in the state of Missouri.
  • In 2012, Missouri State Board of Education President Peter Herschend received the Distinguished Service Award from the NASBE.
  • Annual and Platinum Level Partners identified on the NASBE website (http://www.nasbe.org/about-us/partners/) include a list of corporations that benefit from contracts awarded to develop, administer, score, and report student performance on tests aligned to the new standards; sales of instructional material and personnel development programs to teach content associated with the grade level sequence of the standards; and provide interventions to schools associated with poor test results. Among these are Pearson, ETS, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, McGraw-Hill, ACT, College Board, WestEd, Wireless Generation and others. Missouri contracts with several of the above testing companies.
CONCLUSION
Although NASBE’s “Public Education Positions for 2014 states, “The adoption of any common standards by individual states must not be a condition for the receipt of federal aid.” That point was disregarded from the outset of the standards adoption process. Further, the association of the Missouri State Board of Education with the National Association of State Boards of Education and its partners, as well as the relationship of the board with the governor, is a concern in its ability to evaluate the standards developed by the academic workgroups of Missouri’s education professionals and teachers. Please be reminded that your first duty is to uphold the compact Missouri has with its citizens, that is, Missouri’s constitution; and that Article IX of our constitution promises, public education is for, “A general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence being essential to the preservation of the rights and liberties of the people,” [that is, a liberal arts education as envisioned by our founders; not workforce development envisioned by Washington DC-based trade organizations and their partners] for the gratuitous instruction of all persons in this state . . .”