If teaching was a science, education a business and students robot that could be programmed at will, the answer of course would be a definite yes.
But teaching is a art, and although in some cases students still fail because of all-too-human factors that could be attributed to interaction between students and teachers.
The reason cannot be boiled down to such a simple cause, even though the government and the public would like to hang the blame for the failure to motivate and cajole students to produce the "acceptable desired that justifies huge outlays of money from either the public's purse or that of their parents if they attend private schools that are in reality businesses.
Schools that have failing students don't meet their needs.
Needs are not met because education students as products that can be sent along an assemblyline with the expectation that all should have the same outcome of excellence as they move toward graduation.
If students were widgets or robots, the outcome should be the same, but even when young, each is a distinct, highly complex individual that can't possibly flourish to full potential in a system that attempts to mold as if they were Toyotas or Apple Computers, a one-size-fits all at the lowest possible cost.
that doesn't mean that incompetent should stay in the profession. These should be weeded out and sent on their way.
But first,? the reasons for poor student academic performance should be determined.
A reort on Fox News stated that some school districts were planning to fire teachers "if their students failed," and part of the criteria is set out by ""No Child Left Behind," the U.S. Governments intrusion into the former provenance of state and local governments.
Just as a one-size-fits-all health care system can't address the needs of all citizens, it is unrealistic that a government mandate from Washington, D.C. or the capital of any state can adequately address the issues and problems found on the ground in every classroom in America where teachers and staff struggle to determine what are the needs, what are the issues that must be faced, often changing daily or evenly hourly as each classroom becomes a unique space with problems not found anywhere else.
But to bureaucrats intereted in "measurable outcomes" as determined by yet other bureaucrats, the substantial issues that interfere with their goals are not relevant.
Is poor student performance in Texas schools a result of a language deficit? Perhaps culture shock when moving from one environment to one that is totally alien? Is there significant peer pressure not to conform to the norms of the school? Do students come from homes that don't value education? Have they lost the point of education: preparation to succeed in life because the education provided doesn't seem to be doing that for them?
Many angry students come to school only to socialize, and knowing the high stakes involved, decide to sabotage either the system, teachers, or both.
How can you measure "the sabotage factor," the effects of alienation, culture shock, language barriers, emotional baggage, or peer pressure?
Because these can't be measured by the quick-and-dirty scantron these culural and system barriers that affect outcome are ignored completel and teachers are being held accountable for issues that are mostly out of their control.
Is that fair?
[Posted with iBlogger from my iPhone]
Although I didn't go into panic mode, I certainly wasn't happy to know that a 10-foot Burmese Python had crawled into a canal near a subdivision in Melbourne, Florida just 20 miles as the crow flies from where I live. Thank goodness that snake would have to cross the saltwater lagoon known as the Indian River to get onto Merritt Island.
The capture of a 12-foot green anaconda in Kissimmee by mounted police this past week [See map] due west at East Lake Fish Camp gives pause. Although much farther inland, the fact that this snake is on the same relative latitude as I means that they can thrive in spite of the cold weather we sometimes experience.
A naturalist recently assured us that these large snakes would be killed even though the water temperature was much warmer than the air they "couldn't handle inhaling freezing air," a proclamation giving little comfort as no one has reported find the corpse of any large dead snakes in spite of the fact that we went through an unusually prolonged period of extremely cold weather.
A state-sanctioned python hunt in rural Miami-Dade county has netted five African rock pythons, "stirring fears the nonnative constrictor is breeding in the Everglades and could crossbreed with the already breeding population of Burmese pythons that number in the thousands.
Bigger and meaner than the Burmese variety, in their native Africa, Rock pythons have been known to eat everything from goats to crocodiles, and there have been cases of snakes killing children.
The big snakes were flushed out by cold weather onto flood control levees. Hunters targeted the area near the intersection of Tamiami Trail and Krome Avenue in Miami-Dade County.
Three snakes were captured, one measuring 21 inches in girth. Unfortunately two escaped.
Back in September 2009, Delilah the 'monster' Burmese python, 16-years old, weighing in at more than 400 pounds, 18-or-20-feet long, measuring 30 inches around was seized by Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation near Lake Apopka because the owner did not have the proper permit and a critical-incident plan.
The well-fed pet snake was strong enough to push over the supports of her pen and was known to slither around the yard until someone would put her back in her pen.
The snake is being kept at a zoo at Camp Kulaqua, a camp near High Springs, Fla. Bobby Cheever, the snake's owner said the camp is excited to have Delilah since its previous python, Monty, has died.
"The enclosure they had for Monty was not adequate for Delilah so they built her a new one," he said. "It features both an indoor glass observation room that stays heated year round as well as an outdoor observation area for good weather days."
High Springs is in the center of the state of Florida, west of St. Augustine, south of Lake City, just east of highway 75 in Alachua County.
Geert Wilders has warned America that Islam’s fanaticism threatens free people everywhere. In the talk above he quotes Mohammed’s formula for conquest: “I have been ordered by Allah to fight against people until they testify that there is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his messenger.” Europe’s embrace of Muslim immigration looks like a fatal mistake.
Ironically and hypocritically, the Qu'ran is full of admonitions to kill any and all non-Muslims, the reason why the so-called "terrorists" are engaged in violence.
They are not fighting because of poverty as most Jihadists are from good families and are well educated. Bin Laden's second-in-command is a medical doctor.
Authorities are falling all over themselves to prove that Ft. Hood shooter, Nidal Hassan was "unstable." What they fail to understand is that his behavior is consistent with the Koranic admonition to kill those that oppose Islam, and he was distraught because American servicemen were killing or injuring Muslims, a "sin" that no Muslim should permit. (Although there is no admonition against Muslims KILLING or HURTING non-Muslims.)
The same ideology is being used to indoctrinate college students all over the West. Obviously these are not impoverished tribesmen.
Alienation, dislocation, and indoctrination in mosques, universities, and on the web make radicalization possible, allowing Jihadists to do more than blow up buildings as did the anti-war 60s radicals of the Viet Nam era.
The problem has become an imperative so much so that cities such as New York now must have their own terrorism department.
But as Wilders points out in his above speech, the real danger is not radicals bombing and shooting. The real danger comes with the changes being forced upon Western culture in order to accommodate Islamic ritual and culture, from cab drivers refusing to transport passengers with alcohol or dogs, to masked and disguised women in niquab and burqa, to Islamic banking, to halal foods being forced on non-Muslims, requiring slaughter techniques that were abandoned in the West as being inhumane.
Separate facilities, special times, classes, prayer times at work and in schools, and other special treatment for a population that has no regard for the rights of those that are not Muslims.
And as Wilders points out: Europe is under the heel of Islam, and the United States is feeling the toe. Europe has had millions of Muslims move in from North Africa and from Eastern Europe that fell to Islam centuries ago during the last invasion. But what he didn't mention was another threat: the Mediterranean Union that joins 43 nations. John Laughland gives reasons why this body is being formed. [See map]
The UPM (Union for the Mediterranean) already has a new secretary general for the Union of the Mediterranean.
Stated goals (for now) are:
to fight pollution in the Mediterranean Sea, increase solar energy use, build land and sea highways and cooperate on higher education and research.
Its goals are meant to be achieved by joint infrastructure projects aimed at improving regional integration.
Baron Bodissey at Gates of Vienna blog puts it this way:
It is remarkable that an ambassador of a non-democratic nation has been appointed to head the Union. Now, it should not be assumed that the European Union, run by a non-elected Commission and having a non-elected President, should care too much about such details.
But since the 16 non-EU states of the Mediterranean Union does include decent democracies (Israel, Croatia) as well as more dubious ones (Albania, Bosnia, Turkey), it would seem appropriate to appoint a representative from a democratic country to head the Union.
There are more remarkable passages in that piece.
A statement will be circulated tomorrow amongst the 42 Foreign ministers of the countries which make up the Mediterranean Union, with any comments to be made within 15 days. With the exception of surprise opposition, today’s appointment will be definitively approved by a process of tacit consent. “Today we have made history.”
There we have it — full stealth mode. Unless someone protests loudly, this will proceed. Now, in order to field a reasonable protest, one needs to know what goes on, and politicians in democracies need to know if they have public support for the protest or not. Since neither of these are the case, no protests can be expected, and the project will continue.
Further, ‘making history’ through ‘tacit consent’ is not an honorable way to run things in a democracy. Either you have democracy, Rule by the People, where all major decisions are based on public, not tacit, consent. Alternatively, you should give up the pretense of democracy and declare EU to be the Oligarchy it truly is. That would at least be honest.
[Come to think of it: we in America also are starting to have trouble maintaining Rule by the People as those in Washington are flagrantly ignoring our wishes.]
Then the Baron gives links to sites that about EuroMed:
Read about the Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, recent recipient of the "King Faisal International Prize", explicitly given for "his services to Islam". Report at JihadWatch.
What is the difference between EuroMed and the Union for the Mediterranean?
Quote from the European Commission:
While maintaining the acquis of its predecessor, the Barcelona Process offers more balanced governance, increased visibility to its citizens and a commitment to tangible, regional and trans-national projects.
In other words, nothing of significance.
The change of name is said to increase visibility, but in reality this is mere window dressing to confuse the press and the public. You don’t magically get more visibility merely by uttering the word. For real visibility, critical inquiry and public debate is needed.
There was an implicit assumption that when French President Sarkozy launched his Union for the Mediterranean, Sarkozy’s proposal for Mediterranean bloc makes waves it was a different initiative, that the concerns about the original EuroMed had been taken seriously, causing it to be replaced by a less ambitious and less dangerous ‘Club Med’. This is documentably false.
The confusion, however, worked quite well. It became unclear to journalists and citizens alike what was the nature of Sarkozy’s project, what kind of progress would take place, and if this made sense at all. The last significant press reports assume that the project was now faltering Sarkozy’s Union of the Mediterranean falters, thus nothing to worry about. In reality his “Club Med” has served to cover the fact that EuroMed proceeds apace.
Thus, we have been subject to several acts of deception. This is not in itself illegal or punishable under the law, it is merely disrespect for the spirit of democracy. We should not be all too surprised, for Sarkozy performed a similar sleight of hand for the Constitutional Treaty, now renamed the Lisbon Treaty, after it had been rejected in French and Dutch referendums.
Sarkozy had originally promised the electorate that the Constitutional Treaty would be replaced by a ‘Mini-treaty’, a concept that lead journalists and citizens alike to assume that the concerns that led to the rejection by the people had been addressed.
The new Treaty, however, turned out to be wordier than the rejected one. Sarkozy kept his promise with a simple trick: Setting the revised version with a smaller type, that it could be printed on fewer pages. Such behaviour from our most trusted politicians leave us lost for words, damaging democracy itself by means of contempt from our very own leaders. More on that (a very interesting subject unto itself) in From Constitution to Lisbon.
["Contempt from our very own leaders...", now that's a concept very close to my heart. This must be disease that leaders pick up from each other in conferences...Hmmm]
This practice of deception alone is sufficient reason for the citizens of Europe to reject EuroMed, now renamed Union for the Mediterranean. It is a project not subjected to public scrutiny, conceived before it was understood that Islamism is a threat to the free world, and based on blind and naïve assumptions on the goodwill of all involved parties. This is unworkable and dangerous in the current political situation.
Much more needs to be researched and discussed about EuroMed, its implications for Europe, for immigration and the development of Eurabia. The latter was for a long time considered almost a conspiracy theory created by historian Bat Ye’or. Yet, if one connects the dots and follows the news, its implementation is well underway, formally as well as informally. She was right from the very first day.
Right now we need to pull the brake on establishing the EuroMed institutions. You can help to do that, by writing to the newspapers or even going directly to the Foreign minister of your country, requesting an immediate halt to this stealth project. The time is now. We have 14 days.
UPDATE - Bat Ye'or comments:
I commend you for warning Europeans about the political decisions taken by their leaders without consulting their public opinions on matters that would change totally their future, and not for their advantage. Europeans should request to be consulted on Foreign policy and immigration issues.
They should not allow a small group of people to conduct their affairs behind their back, as it has been for the whole immigration and Mediterranean policy since 1973 as European, Arab, and American sources confirm it. The media should be open to debates and should not be controlled by networks subjected to the Organization of the Islamic Conference fatwas. This is going on now. More and more international policy is conducted through international networks linked to the UN bodies weakening democratic institutions.
P.S. My apologies to Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs. She posted on December 27th 2009 that EuroMed was coming into force on January 1st 2010. I found the piece underdocumented and protested. While it was not quite clear at that time, Pamela was fundamentally right. She has posted much more on the subject since then, including extensive new research.
How Does This Affect Us in the United States?
The recent Climate Change Conference held in Copenhagen in December 2009 should be an indicator of how easily sovereignty could be transferred to another entity. We escaped that one for now, but there are many others, including the Transatlantic Policy Network.
Jerome Corsi at WND:
The plan – ... implemented by the Bush administration with the formation of the Transatlantic Economic Council in April 2007 – appears to be following a plan written in 1939 by a world-government advocate who sought to create a Transatlantic Union as an international governing body.
An economist from the World Bank has argued in print that the formation of the Transatlantic Common Market is designed to follow the blueprint of Jean Monnet, a key intellectual architect of the European Union, recognizing that economic integration must inevitably lead to political integration.
As WND previously reported, a key step in advancing this goal was the creation of the Transatlantic Economic Council [Framework for Advancing Transatlantic Economic Integration Between the EU and the US pdf] by the U.S. and the EU through an agreement signed by President Bush, German Chancellor Angela Merkel – the current president of the European Council – and European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso at a White House summit meeting last April.
Writing in the Fall 2007 issue of the Streit Council journal "Freedom and Union," Rep. Jim Costa, D-Calif., a member of the TPN advisory group, affirmed the target date of 2015 for the creation of a Transatlantic Common Market.
Costa said the Transatlantic Economic Council is tasked with creating the Transatlantic Common Market regulatory infrastructure. The infrastructure would not require congressional approval, like a new free-trade agreement would.
Writing in the same issue of the Streit Council publication, Bennett also confirmed that what has become known as the "Merkel initiative" would allow the Transatlantic Economic Council to integrate and harmonize administrative rules and regulations between the U.S. and the EU "in a very quiet way," without introducing a new free trade agreement to Congress.
No document on the TEC website suggests that any of the regulatory changes resulting from the process of integrating with the EU will be posted in the Federal Register or submitted to Congress as new free-trade agreements or as modifications to existing trade agreements.
In addition to Bennett, the advisers to the Transatlantic Policy Network includes the following senators: Thad Cochran, R-Miss.; Chuck Hagel, R-Neb.; Barbara Mikulski, D-Md.; Pat Roberts, R-Kan.; and Gordon Smith, R-Ore.
Among the 49 U.S. congressmen on the TPN's Congressional Group are John Boehner, R-Ohio; John Dingell, D-Mich.; Kenny Marchant, R-Texas; and F. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisc.
A progress report on the TEC website indicates the following U.S. government agencies are already at work integrating and harmonizing administrative rules and regulations with their EU counterparts: The Office of Management and Budget, the Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Securities and Exchange Commission.
When the Front Door Slams Shut, Go In Through the Back: A Step Toward World Government
The Streit Council is named after Clarence K. Streit, whose 1939 book "Union Now" called for the creation of a Transatlantic Union as a step toward world government. The new federation, with an international constitution, was to include the 15 democracies of U.S., UK, France, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and South Africa.
Ira Straus, the founder and U.S. coordinator of the Committee on Eastern Europe and Russia in NATO, a group dedicated to including Russia within NATO, credits Bennett as TPN chairperson with reviving Streit's work "seven decades later."
A globalist with leftist political leanings, Straus was a Fulbright professor of political science at Moscow State University and the Moscow State Institute of International Relations from 2001 to 2002.
The congruity of ideas between Bennett and Streit is clear when Bennett writes passages that echo precisely goals Streit stated in 1939.
One example is Bennett's claim in his Streit Council article that creating a Transatlantic Common Market would combine markets that comprise 60 percent of world Gross Domestic Product under a common regulatory standard that would become "the de facto world standard, regardless of what any other parties say."
Similarly, Streit wrote in "Union Now" that the economic power of the 15 democracies he sought to combine in a Transatlantic Union would be overwhelming in their economic power and a clear challenge to the authoritarian states then represented by Nazi Germany and the communist Soviet Union.
Also writing in the Fall 2007 issue of the Streit Council journal "Freedom and Union," World Bank economist Domenec Ruiz Devesa openly acknowledged that "transatlantic economic integration, though important in itself, is not the end."
"As understood by Jean Monnet," he continued, "economic integration must and will lead to political integration, since an integrated market requires common institutions producing common rules to govern it."
[And there lays the problem that affect the United States, for economic union with the EU will certainly become a union with EuroMed, bringing full-blown Sharia Law to the United States as a consequence of political integration that would inevitably follow the economic.]
A Translatlantic Common Market by 2015?
Last February, the Transatlantic Policy Network formed a Transatlantic Market Implementation Group to put in place "a roadmap and framework" to direct the activity of the Transatlantic Economic Council to achieve the creation of the Transatlantic Common Market by 2015.
The Transatlantic Economic Council is an official international governmental body established by executive fiat in the U.S. and the EU without congressional approval or oversight. No new law or treaty was sought by the Bush administration to approve or implement the plan to create a Transatlantic Common Market.
The U.S. congressmen and senators are involved only indirectly, as advisers to the influential non-governmental organization.
In a February 2007 document entitled "Completing the Transatlantic Market," the TPN's Transatlantic Market Implementation Group writes, "The aim of this roadmap and framework would be to remove barriers to trade and investment across the Atlantic and to reduce regulatory compliance costs."
The document further acknowledged the impact the Transatlantic Common Market agenda would have on U.S. and European legislators: "The roadmap and framework will necessarily oblige legislative and regulatory authorities in both Europe and the United States to take into consideration from the outset the impact their acts may have on transatlantic economic relations and to ensure that their respective governmental bodies involved have the necessary budgetary and organizational resources to work closely with each other."
Clinton administration roots
The work to create a Transatlantic Common Market can be traced back to the Clinton administration's decision to join in the 1995 New Transatlantic Agenda with the European Commission.
Today, the website of the Transatlantic Economic Council openly proclaims the TEC is "a political body to oversee and accelerate government-to-government integration between the European Union and the United States of America."
The first meeting of the TEC was held Nov. 9 in Washington, D.C., and the next meeting is scheduled for June.
A joint statement issued at the Nov. 9  meeting specified progress was being made "in removing barriers to trade and investment and in easing regulatory burdens" in a wide range of policy areas, including drugs and disease control, the importation into the EU of U.S. poultry treated with pathogen reduction treatments, federal communication commissions allowing suppliers to create declarations of conformity for products, uniform standards for electrical products and agreements on standards for pure biofuels.
[Union and regulation by stealth is happening all over the world. One day we will wake up and wonder how we lost it all.]
The carnivorous pilot fish congregates around sharks, rays, and sea turtles where it eats ectoparasites on and leftovers around the host species, one reason why "pilot fish" is the correct name for Anjem Choudary, Britain's infamous Muslim extremists who "gives Muslims a bad name," but correctly portrays Islam. Here is Pat Condell via Gates of Vienna:
The Pilot Fish has become a metaphor or simile as ancient sailors noticed that Pilot Fish seemed to follow them through the oceans, lead them to shore, OR lead predators to them: "they are like the pilot fish to the shark, serving to lead him to his victim."Sometimes the metaphor has been used to herald the imminent appearance of a much greater threat, as in the 2005 Christmas Special of the BBC science-fiction television show Doctor Who, a "mysterious, humanoid alien who "travels through time and space in a craft called the TARDIS, which normally appears from the exterior to be a blue 1950s police box."
One could say that the arrival of Islam to the UK is a threat and Chaudary is warning of the greater threat to come: Sharia Law.
They have nothing of harm to dread, But liquidly glide on his ghastly flank Or before his Gorgonian head; Or lurk in the port of serrated teeth In white triple tiers of glittering gates, And there find a haven when peril 's abroad, An asylum in jaws of the Fates!----The Maldive Shark, Herman Melville (1888)
Writer Ernest Hemingway used the term "pilot fish" in his memoirs A Moveable Feast to refer to the scouts that rich people send out to check on artists to see if they're the next big thing.
To my mind, being compared to a pilot fish is not a compliment.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
The blogsphere seems to be the only place where the people are being informed as the corporate (MSM) has abrogated its duty to be a watchdog for the public good.
Much is made of those immigrants that fled the Old World tyranny for freedom in the new, entering through Ellis Island in the 19th and early 20th centuries. The movement began three hundred years ago as English, then British non-conformists and separatists chose to face hardship in North America rather than live under Tyranny. And from time-to-time, they have convulsed in open rebellion against tyrants who attempted to usurp the people's power and abrogate the Constitution.
Those that understand how jealously the people guard their liberty and the Constitution have contrived a way to distance them from knowledge of the Constitution, and while doing so have stretched and contracted those powers through "judicial activism" and legislation, hoping that people, lulled by complacency won't know any better.
Although many Presidential administrations have slowly chipped away at the people's rights, the Barak Obama administration and the present Congress are rapidly advancing the erosion. Health-Care Reform is one example. Another is the expansion of Federal power over the states by Executive Order.
In spite of the fact that there is NO Constitutional provision or statute that explicitly permits Executive Orders, there is a vague grant of "executive power" given in Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution, and furthered by the declaration "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" made in Article II, Section 3, Clause 4. At the minimum, most Executive Orders use these Constitutional reasonings as the authorization allowing for their issuance to be justified as part of the President's sworn duties, the intent being to help direct officers of the US Executive carry out their delegated duties as well as the normal operations of the Federal Governement - the consequence of failing to comply possibly being the removal from office.
But some Executive Orders are more troubling than others.Kurt Nimmo:
Three days ago, January 11, 2009, Obama issued another Executive Order, this time establishing a "Council of Governors." The order further diminishes the sovereignty of the states and builds on a framework for possible martial law. Here it is:
“By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1822 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-181), and in order to strengthen further the partnership between the Federal Government and State governments to protect our Nation and its people and property," the order reads:
The Council shall meet at the call of the Secretary of Defense or the Co-Chairs of the Council to exchange views, information, or advice with the Secretary of Defense; the Secretary of Homeland Security; the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism; the Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement; the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas’ Security Affairs; the Commander, United States Northern Command; the Chief, National Guard Bureau; the Commandant of the Coast Guard; and other appropriate officials of the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense, and appropriate officials of other executive departments or agencies as may be designated by the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of Homeland Security.
Robert Stevens, Obama Extends Power Over Governors
Obama Extends Diplomatic Immunity to Interpol by Executive Order, The New Media Journal, December 22, 2009.
Robert Stevens analyzes this troubling order and explains why we should all be worried:
As Kurt Nimmo wrote in his article Obama Expands Federal Power Over the States with Executive Order, "The order, signed January 11 2010, further diminished the sovereignty of the states and build on a framework for possible martial law. The executive order was completely ignored by the corporate media.
Ten Governors are required to meet whenever called. What if they refuse?
As the executive order mandates, The Council shall meet at the call of the call of the Secretary of Defense or the Co-Chairs
The authorizes the federal government, whenever they wish, to round up ten Governors. What if they refuse? Will they be arrested or taken by force?
An abuse of power
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and all the Founding Fathers would be furious beyond the boiling point over this Unconstitutional, self-authorizing expansion of executive power.
Given too much power, the Founding Fathers knew an abusive President would turn against the citizens and their states, so they granted specific, limited power to the Executive Branch and established barriers to halt unauthorized expansions of power.
Ten Governors to be outnumbered and outgunned
Once assembled, Governors are no longer protected by their bodyguards, executive protection or state militia. They are subject to intimidation, interrogation, bullying, and personal threats. Would anyone exclude torture?
Under the false pretense of meeting "to exchange views, information, or advice," ten Governors will be forced to meet with top military commanders including:
The "Secretary of Defense; the Secretary of Homeland Security; the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counter terrorism; the Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement; the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas' Security Affairs; the Commander, United States Northern Command; the Chief, National Guard Bureau; the Commandant of the Coast Guard; and other appropriate officials of the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense, and appropriate officials of other executive departments or agencies as may be designated by the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of Homeland Security"
Governors - You will do as commanded
The Founding Fathers knew that freedom and liberty is always destroyed from domestic enemies, and during the final stages of converting a republic to fascism, an attack is pretended and enemies or terrorists are blamed.
This Council of Governors, like Hitler's staff, may be told it is their duty to impose martial law to quell rebellions or arrest terrorists, who are just Constitution-loving citizens on the government's massive terrorist list, and they may be compelled to carry out such orders.
What if Governors are commanded to disregard the Bill of Rights, arrest innocent citizens and take them to FEMA detention camps?
The President serves the people; the people do not serve the President
The President serves the people and states, and must stand accountable. It is the duty of the Governors, Congress and Supreme Court to check his every act against the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to thwart the Executive Branch from amassing tyrannical powers, and to nullify any bills, executive orders or presidential signings their states do not support.
State governments are not extensions of the federal government. Governors do not serve the Executive Branch. This executive order is completely wrong, is exactly what the Constitution was established to prevent, and must not be accepted.
Council of Governors can be used to bully other Governors
Will acts against these Governors be used as an example for non-compliance of federal mandates? Will Governors be persuaded to declare that state sovereignty is irrelevant?
If Governors are bullied, who will protect the people?
Citizens are protected by their states, each led by a state Governor. Governors have the power to organize and assemble militias to defend citizens against domestic and foreign enemies, including despots, dictators, the President, and totalitarian government.
Now the President can conveniently demand meetings at all the wrong times
What if Governors had scheduled a meeting to nullify executive powers, dissolve the Executive Branch or plan succession? The Founding Fathers established separate branches of government to balance power representing citizens and states. The Constitution was designed to protect citizens against an all-powerful President who grants himself sweeping powers over Governors and the citizens they are sworn to defend.
If Governors decide to protect their states against a run-away Executive Branch, they must not be kept from their duties.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights are roadblocks against tyranny, not Hallmark Greeting Cards
The Founding Fathers studied history and the rise and fall of nations. They knew that whenever an abusive King, President or Executive Branch gets too much authority, they practice unrighteous and unlawful dominion, so they created a Constitution to protect people against their government, not to protect government against the people. By controlling Governors by their earlobes, the Executive Branch is seizing unprecedented state control under the disguise of exchanging, "views, information, or advice."
While some say this is just the formation of an advisory council, this unlawful presidential executive order is another attack against freedom and liberty. Governors may be our last defense against executive abuse, and states nullifying Unconstitutional bills our last hope. Those who seek to complete the overthrow of the United States of America know this very well.
Tyranny and abuse always begin with what first seems to be harmless acts of legislation. Phone your state Governors today and demand your voice be heard.
Here is the Executive Order:EXECUTIVE ORDER
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America,including section 1822 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-181), and in order to strengthen further the partnership between the Federal Government and State governments to protect our Nation and its people and property, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Council of Governors
(a) There is established a Council of Governors (Council).The Council shall consist of 10 State Governors appointed by the President (Members), of whom no more than five shall be of the same political party. The term of service for each Member appointed to serve on the Council shall be 2 years, but a Member may be reappointed for additional terms.
(b) The President shall designate two Members, who shall not be members of the same political party, to serve as Co-Chairs of the Council.
Sec. 2. Functions. The Council shall meet at the call of the Secretary of Defense or the Co-Chairs of the Council to exchange views, information, or advice with the Secretary of Defense; the Secretary of Homeland Security; the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counter-terrorism; the Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement; the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas’ Security Affairs; the Commander,United States Northern Command; the Chief, National Guard Bureau; the Commandant of the Coast Guard; and other appropriate officials of the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense, and appropriate officials of other executive departments or agencies as may be designated by the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of Homeland Security.Such views, information, or advice shall concern:
(a) matters involving the National Guard of the various States;
(b) homeland defense;
(c) civil support;
(d) synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities int he United States; and
(e) other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities.
(a) The Secretary of Defense shall designate an Executive Director to coordinate the work of the Council.
(b) Members shall serve without compensation for their work on the Council. However, Members shall be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by law.
(c) Upon the joint request of the Co-Chairs of the Council, the Secretary of Defense shall, to the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, provide the Council with administrative support,assignment or detail of personnel, and information as may be necessary for the performance of the Council’s functions.
(d) The Council may establish subcommittees of the Council. These subcommittees shall consist exclusively of Members of the Council and any designated employees of a Member with authority to act on the Member’s behalf, as appropriate to aid the Council in carrying out its functions under this order.
(e) The Council may establish a charter that is consistent with the terms of this order to refine further its purpose,scope, and objectives and to allocate duties, as appropriate,among members.
(a) the term “State” has the meaning provided in paragraph (15) of section 2 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002(6 U.S.C. 101(15)); and
(b) the term “Governor” has the meaning provided in paragraph (5) of section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122(5)).
Sec. 5. General Provisions
(a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
- (1) the authority granted by law to a department, agency, or the head thereof; or
- (2) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary,administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
SOME are paying close attention to these EOs, (Executive Orders). The allowing INTERPOL, the International Police Force certain rights and privileges has raised concern, which is a euphemism for "scaring the pants off of" many who love liberty and the Constitution and fear tyranny in government.
Obama isn't the only President that scared people in this way. Many of the EOs of George W. Bush were criticized, and rightly so.
But how do we rescind an EO? First, like any other law, they must enforced, and if anyone is hurt, then an officer of the court certified to appear before the Supreme Court can argue the case. But then, this could take years and, who knows, perhaps the EO enforcement could have created irreparable damage UNLESS Congress take takes action.
Dont' hold your breath. The "action" taken by Congress lately doesn't inspire confidence. We might be on our own on this one. We all know what needs to be done to protect ourselves and our families.
John Griffing at American Thinker:
Americans should pay attention to the Lisbon Treaty and the corresponding events in Europe. We're on the same road, and we're fast approaching a point of no return.
Europe -- the Europe of free and independent nations -- is no more. Sovereignty is all but dead there, and a collective behemoth, tellingly referred to as the "European soviet" by Mikhail Gorbachev, now straddles the continent, ushering in a new tyranny for the 21st century. With the unanimous (and highly undemocratic) ratification of the infamous Lisbon Treaty on November 3, 2009, the European Union has achieved a transfer of authority that even the most aggressive military conquests could not. Even the German Anschluss can't compare to this unified surrender of freedom by stargazing Europeans.The Lisbon Treaty - The Readable Version 2nd Edition September 2009
The following is the reason why the Obama administration has spent a full year on health care, ignoring the economy and the American people.
Presidents (and their backers) have been searching for ways to circumvent the Constitution and the other branches of government from the very beginning. Almost all have issued what are known as Executive Orders that transferred power to the Executive. However the situation has been made worse now that members of Congress have become complicit, using the health care bills that force Americans to participate on pain of incarceration.
Americans have been assured that they will be able to view a debate on C-Span, but it will not be necessary to publish the bill since "there has been so much press that everyone knows what's in it."
How can we know what's in it unless we read it ourselves. Apparently the rank-and-file members of Congress won't have seen the result until the vote. And in case the vote goes against the will of leadership, the "little-known twin bills called 'MedPAC Reform of 2009' are waiting in the wings."
Here is SusanAnne Hiller at Big Government:
To achieve the goal of universal, single-payer health system, the White House must secure the power it needs by amending the Social Security Act to transfer pivotal controls from Congress to the executive branch. This transfer of power would ultimately give the President and the majority party, in this case the radical left Obama White House and Pelosi-Reid led progressive Democrats, the authority to frame and manipulate new policy, coverage options, and reimbursements, ultimately reshaping the future US health care system into a something unrecognizable in this country.
The deliberate set for the White House power grab is built into the each of the health care bills and, if they fail, little-known bills called "MedPAC Reform of 2009" are waiting in the wings. The bills, S.B. 1110 and H.R. 2718, craftily amend the Social Security Act and transfer the Medicare guideline and rule setting processes, from the legislative branch to the executive branch. These bills offer cover to one another in case one doesn't pass the House or Senate, respectively. Remember, Democrats need to gain executive branch authority by amending the Social Security Act over Medicare regulations and physician fee schedules to transform the health care system in a single-payer, socialized system.
More importantly, Medicare's regulations and physician fee schedules are the keystone to developing payer systems and reimbursement models across the entire health care industry. And where Medicare goes, insurers follow.
To underscore the far-reaching power, a bulk of the states already reference or utilize the Medicare guidelines and fee schedules in determining policy, coverage, and payment, which impacts certain state-specific plans, including, but not limited to, self-funded plans, automobile insurance payers, and state workers' compensation funds and plans - affecting Big Labor. For the executive branch to have such authority over Medicare regulations with little oversight is alarming. This raises further issues of the powerful impact these federal mandates could potentially have on the states in stripping them of their own management of their respective insurance industries.
Specifically, the language of the Reid bill intentionally places unlimited power directly in the hands of Health and Human Services (HHS) Kathleen Sibelius, including the ability to designate covered services, or rationing. The Pelosi bill creates a Health Choices Commission and its "commissioner" is empowered to make the same decisions. More alarmingly, both will have to take direction from the White House - and its unconfirmed czars - due to their executive branch affiliation.
In retrospect, Obama's picke of Sebelius as HHS Secretary is obvious. Aside from being a governor, Sebelius is the former Kansas insurance commissioner and has the bility to identify the strongest and weakest links - navigating her way quite expeditiously throughout the health care system. An she'll never disavow one of her first career choices - executive director and chief lobbyist for the Kansas Trial Lawyers Association. That explains the blatant omission of tort reform, in addition to the fact that trial lawyers are the biggest Democratic donors.
Another disturbing Obama appointee is health care czar Nancy Ann DeParle, who remains unconfirmed, and was the administrator of the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), now known as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. In short, she "owns" Medicare. and if you pub Sebelius and DeParle together in one room for a few hours, you'll get a formula for a single-paer government-run health care system - with the Obama's wish list met.
These designated appointees make sense of the intentions at hand to frame a universal or single-payer health care system. Everything in this administration makes sense when you look at the overall agenda. Even the branding makes sense. The urgency, caring for the uninsured, taking advantage of the uninsurable, proclaiming it's paid for, packaging it as deficit-neutral, and amplifying that people are 'dying' in the streets.
The aforementioned MedPAC Reform of 2009 bills give the executive branch power it so dearly covets to devise the single-payer system. Currently, MedPAC - the Medicare Payment and Advisory Committee (MedPAC) - is a Clinton-era independent Congressional agency established by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 that advises the Congress on issues affecting the Medicare program, including payments to private health plans participating in Medicare and providers in Medicare's traditional fee-for-service program. MedPAC also analyzes access to, quality of, and cost of health care.
The MedPAC bill designer, progressive Senator John Rockefeller (D-WV), has strategically branded the need for the bill by calling Congress "inefficient" and "inconsistent" - and who wouldn't agree with that?
Therefore, the MedPAC Reform bill creates a new MedPAC - the Medicare Payment and Access Commission - and gives the Obama White House and its advisors over-reaching control of several factors governing the economy of the health care system. The new MedPAC, which is exempted from judicial review, would have the authority to rewrite the physician fee schedules, redefine medical necessity, evaluate coverage of treatment options, rewrite the beneficiary definitions and coverage, and redesign diagnostic definitions and coverage.
The new MedPAC’s mission would also be to inform new research in health services to adequately address deficiencies in the evidence. However, in reality, this would apparently cripple new treatments and technologies by overshadowing progressive research and treatment algorithms by apparently emphasizing the deficiencies, not the benefits, equaling a denial of care and arresting development of burgeoning technologies.
Rockefeller also confirms that the new MedPAC will evaluate and test new and innovative payment models for provider reimbursement. The MedPAC reform is being packaged under the guise of efficiency; however, by maximizing the volume of care delivered at the lowest possible cost, it appears that the payment and utilization schedule is a mechanism to control the pressure that would build when the health care system is overloaded with millions of new patients.
Finally, Rockefeller highlights another intention of MedPAC, which is to expand the capacity to evaluate basic and health services research for reimbursement. This is the pinnacle power grab because this gives the new MedPAC and the executive branch the power to ration or deny care and decide what treatment options are available or acceptable as a whole.
Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, commented, “As a congressional support agency, MedPAC’s mission is to advise Congress on Medicare payment issues. If MedPAC were to become part of the executive branch as contemplated in the Rockefeller bill, then Congress would no longer have this support agency to provide technical support when making policy decisions.” Senator Grassley also confirmed that he is not willing to abdicate congressional responsibilities for Medicare payment policymaking to a body that does not hold certificates of election. He is correct that Congress wouldn’t have the support agency’s advice, but misses that it wouldn’t be Congress’s responsibility anymore—the policy decisions would be the responsibility of the new MedPAC—under the direction of the Obama White House.
What’s inherently disturbing is the fact that Rockefeller has been very outspoken in support of the public option and knows that this transfer of power must take place via the Social Security Act—in any form. He even confirms that health care reform will not be successful, unless all authority is shifted to the executive branch. He also rightly chooses his words–the “healthcare delivery system,” which is code for the public option.
Additionally, Rockefeller confirms the overall task at hand by stating, “Establishing MedPAC as an independent executive branch agency – which can only change through an act of Congress – is the cornerstone of improving our delivery system reform. Health care reform will only be successful if we craft transformative changes.” Transformative, as in a government-run health care system.
If there are any questions if the White House would flex its executive branch authority over an agency, just look the way of the EPA. Congress stalled on cap and trade and Climategate has proven to be a problem, so the White House and EPA took matters into their own hands to keep moving on the agenda—to intentionally put regulations in place that further strangle American businesses, create unemployment, and further destabilize the economy.
Furthermore, with most of the Obama administration graduates of the Saul Alinsky school of thought, of course the main goal of all legislation and policies would be to support the overall intention of Alinsky, which is for the “have-nots on how to take it away.”
In any of these legislative scenarios–Pelosi, Reid or MedPAC bills–the White House gets the power it seeks–and needs–in order to accomplish the task at hand–a single payer, government-run health system.
These bills must be defeated; the power grab thwarted because after the Social Security Act is amended in any form these bills present and the rule changes take effect, it is not likely for the Act to be reopened and amended again. The problem is Congress doesn’t even comprehend what’s at stake in either of the health care bills or MedPAC Reform–and you can’t stop something you don’t see.
At Gates of Vienna: This is the fourth in a series of articles by John J. O'Neill exploring the role that Islam played in the destruction of classical European civilization.
Holy Warriors: Islam and the Demise of Classical Civilization, is published by Felibri Publications. Other posts in this series:
Previous posts by John J. O’Neill:
|2009||Oct||6||Islam and the Dark Age of Byzantium|
|Nov||10||How Muslim Piracy Changed the World|
|Dec||2||Islam and the Rise of Violent Anti-Semitism|
In my newly-published book, Holy Warriors: Islam and the Demise of Classical Civilization, I argue at length that a great majority of the things commonly regarded as “Medieval” were in fact introduced to Europe from Islam, and that it was Islam, and not the Huns, Vandals and Goths, which terminated Classical Civilization, the rational and humane civilization of Greece and Rome. This civilization survived in Europe and in North Africa and the Near East until the seventh century, at which point it was terminated by the Muslim conquests.
In point of fact, Islam’s influence upon Europe was much greater than is commonly imagined, but that influence was entirely negative. Not only did the Muslims terminate Classical Civilization, but they dragged Europe, on many levels, down to a more barbarous level of culture. It was from the Muslims, for example, that Christian Europeans got the idea of “Holy War,” a concept that would have been unthinkable in earlier centuries. And from Islam too, the institution of slavery, as well as the slave trade, received a new and powerful impetus.
Icicles dripping from oranges and strawberries ripening on trees and bushes, as well as from other tropical foliage.
During the month of December the local "Winter Fair" sported an ice skating rink in a local park. Although the rink was in its own enclosure, the temperature at night was downright chilly, and outdoor ice skating felt like a real possibility as everyone was shivering while standing in line or milling about in the local park when could view safely inside a warm restaurant.
It's not supposed to be this cold in Sunny Florida - EVER, so said the Global Warming Enthusiasts that insisted upon creating legally-binding protocols that would help mitigate the effect of Global Warming Climate Change due to man-caused burning of fossil fuels. Looking out that restaurant window and my window at home, I wonder where did all that overheated air go from the climate-change conference. Perhaps farther south as the Arctic Circle and the Arctic Tree Line are migrating in that direction.
In case you forgotten the lessons taught in 7th-grade science classes, here is a break down from Dexter Wright at American Thinker:
The location of the Arctic Circle is a function of the tilt of the Earth's axis, which is approximately twenty-three and a half degrees (23.5o) from the orbital plane of our planet. This is why the Arctic Circle is at sixty-six and half degrees (66.5o) north latitude, exactly 23.5o south of the North Pole, which is at ninety degrees (90o) north latitude. But this angle of axis tilt has not always been 23.5o.
The Earth's axis has been calculated to "wobble" on a 40,000-year cycle. This "wobble" is known as "precession," [caused by weather] and this phenomenon is well-documented by astronomical observations throughout history. As the axis wobbles, it points toward different parts of the heavens. There is even an entry in Christopher Columbus's log where he admonishes his officers that the star Polaris (the North Star) is not located due north at the center of the celestial sphere but is off by one degree. That is not the fact today, but five hundred years ago, Polaris was off by one degree. Calculations have revealed that the tilt of the Earth's axis has been as much as twenty-four degrees (24o) and little as twenty-two and a half degrees (22.5o). These variations in the tilt of the axis over time have been linked to the onset and end of ice ages simply because the size on the arctic would expand and contract correspondingly to the angle of tilt resulting in a migration of the Arctic Circle tree line.