Sibby Online

Senate Education testimony includes historical revisionism

I did testify on HB1153 and how the "internationally benchmarked" Core Curriculum standards opened the door to control by the United Nations of America's history. The point seemed not to bother six of our Senators who voted against HB1153 in South Dakota's Senate Education committee yesterday. We heard arguments that HB1153 violated America's democracy by Ed Pogeny from the Department of Education and Dianna Miller, lobbyist for the "Large School Group". Both are paid with taxpayers' dollars. No one during the committee corrected them as to the true founding of America as being a "Constitutional Republic". I was not given the opportunity to point out that the testimony proved that we not only needed to pass HB1153, but we needed to do much more. America's history has been severely misstated, and I question as to whether or not that is by design. The question of the day, who is controlling today's American history?

Bank franchise fee problem continues to impact South Dakota government budgets

Earlier this week I pointed out that there is a $27 million bank franchise fee refund that is being funded by the $26 million South Dakota received from the federal governemnt last summer to fund education. Now we have this from the Argus Leader:

Minnehaha County is facing an unexpected $800,000 budget shortfall during a time when commissioners already have trimmed expenses.

County Auditor Sue Roust said the county has received from $2 million to $2.5 million during the past four years from the bank franchise tax but knew it would be lower this year, so commissioners budgeted less.

"We thought we were conservative on that," Commissioner Dick Kelly said.

But a conservative approach was not enough. The county's share of the annual bank franchise tax was slightly less than $700,000 this year. That compares to the $1.5 million commissioners budgeted.

As a result, commissioners will look for additional ways to save county money.

The bank franchise fee is what South Dakota banks and other lending agencies pay for the income they earn in interest and fees. The state, cities, schools and counties receive their shares once a year.

South Dakota Dept of Ed misrepresented Jim Bolin's HB1153 to a legislative committee

Representative Jim Bolin presented the House Education on Wednesday HB1153 which says:

Notwithstanding the provisions of § 13-3-48, the Department of Education may not participate in the development of or present to the Board of Education any standards for the subject of history that the Common Core State Standards Initiative, a state-led effort launched by state leaders through their membership in the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers, may propose, and the Board of Education may not adopt any such history standards.

Cory Heidelberger provides an accurate analysis of the opposition from the Department of Education, Wade Pogeny:

There are no history standards to warrant concern. The states aren’t working on common history standards. As Pogany’s mom always said, “Never trouble trouble until trouble troubles you.”

We already have checks and balances in the process to allow the debate Bolin wants over history standards.

It’s bad policy to tie hands of state board of education. To tell the Board of Education they can’t even participate in discussions about standards actually erodes local control. It prevents the board from holding hearings and seeking public input to empower teachers and citizens.

It’s bad policy to write statutes about a problem that doesn’t exist. (Actually, Wade, I think you already covered this in point #1.)

The "trouble" with the first point is that the English component of Common Core Standards does include history. If you got to the South Dakota Board of Education web site that deals with the Common Core Standards and click on the link to the pdf file containing the Common Core Standards - English Language Arts, you will see that those Standards include "English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects". This also counters Pogeny's 4th point.

And Pogeny's point that local control is represented by the Board of Education is false. Local control is parents and the school board they elect, not the state board who is appointed by the Governor.

And what the State Board of Education did by adopting these Common Core Standards violated local control by accepting standards thate are "internationally benchmarked". You will find that on page 3of the pdf file in the 3rd paragraph. Here is more on what "internationally benchmarked" means:

In fact, as explained by Professor Allen Quist, the only comprehensive "internationally benchmarked" standards are those produced by the UN's educational and cultural arm UNESCO and the International Baccalaureate Organization (IBO).  These standards will promote the documents and principles of the United Nations over those of the United States:

American schools used to teach the fundamental values of the United States--including the inalienable, God-given rights of life, liberty and property, as guaranteed by our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Not any more. Now our students will be indoctrinated in the UN's definition of human rights. As clarified by the UN's UDHR [Universal Declaration of Human Rights], our rights now may not "be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations" (Art 29:3). Our children will be taught that they have only those rights the UN says they have.

The UNESCO standards also include the UN's Earth Charter, which further defines internationally benchmarked standards. The Charter says these standards must entail what it calls "sustainability education" (Art 14:b). The Charter explains that "sustainability education" entails the "promotion of the equitable distribution of wealth within nations and among nations" (Art. 10:a), nuclear disarmament (Art. 16:d), gay marriage (Art. 12:a), legalized abortion (Art. 7:e), adoption of an "international legally binding instrument on environment" (The way Forward), and indoctrination in pantheism (Art. 14d and Art. 16:f).

All of these harmful trends were accelerated under NCLB, but still there was the veneer of state developed and written standards and assessments. With RTTT, all veneer of state and local control of education will be gone.

Clearly the adoption of standards based "international benchmarks" is the exact opposite of local control.

By adopting Common Core Standards, the South Dakota State Board of Education has not only sold out South Dakota, but also has sold out America to the United Nations and the one-world ruling elite who control that international body. We must put a stop to any further actions that take us down this path. 

Jim Bolin's HB1153 is probably one of the most important pieces of legislation proposed during this session of the South Dakota legislature. Unfortunately, we have the executive branch providing misinformation to our legislators and we have a obligation as citizens to understand the truth and urge our legislators to do the right thing and support HB1153. This bill will be voted on Monday 2/7/2011 in the House Education Committee. Here is a link to the members of that committee who need to hear the truth from their constituents.

Voices for Children activist, state and federal goverment support and defend welfare parent's illegal drug use

Efforts to drug test welfare recipients has opposition from unusual sources. Ironically a supposed advocate for children defends parents who abuse drugs and believes we are to help them, not punish illegal activities:

South Dakota representative Mark Kirkeby is the prime sponsor of House Bill 1120 and he believes financial aid through welfare programs should not go to people who abuse that privilege.

"I think it just bears down to that initial focus on there," Kirkeby said. "I really don't believe any tax dollars should go to support anybody who, in fact, is using illegal drugs. I just can't emphasize that enough."

South Dakota Voices For Children director Susan Randall agrees that illegal drugs are a problem. But she says a bigger issue is how the bill would create new roles for the state employees who work with welfare recipients.

"We have law enforcement and the court system for a reason," Randall said. "If there are issues with violations of drugs, then that's the proper place for them to be dealt with. Social workers and health care personnel's responsibility is to be in a helping mode."

Under the proposal, if someone refuses a drug test, they would be denied financial assistance for six months. Those who consent and are found with drugs in their system wouldn't receive aid for a year.

"These are low income people who are coming to the state to receive assistance in needing basic needs in tough times," Randall said. "And it seems inappropriate to assume, somehow, that we need to police them in this fashion."

But representative Kirkeby says the bill would help find recipients who are using financial aid appropriately.

"If somebody thinks that they don't want to be subjected to it, it's kind of a pretty good indication that they very well could be doing something wrong," Kirkeby said.

Yet Randall says it's those people who need help the most.

"This bill offers no provision to assist that individual in recovery and rehabilitation," Randall said. "It's all about being punitive and saying 'no, we're not going to help you.'"

And here is what happened yesterday:

A plan to make three state agencies give drug tests to people getting help from a wide range of welfare programs was rejected Tuesday by a South Dakota House panel.

Meanwhile, the Health and Human Services Committee approved a second measure that gives state officials the discretion to conduct random drug screening of people who get cash payments from just one welfare program, known as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. The department would have the option of denying benefits for one year to anyone testing positive for drugs.

Supporters of the measures said drug testing is needed because some people on welfare are using illegal drugs.

"The intent and the philosophy of this bill is if you are going to be receiving tax-supported services, you're going to be drug-free," said Rep. Mark Kirkeby, R-Rapid City, sponsor of the defeated bill.

Kirkeby said his bill would help children by making sure their parents are not using illegal drugs.

"I'm not looking to hurt anybody. I'm trying to help individuals and certainly the citizens and taxpayers of South Dakota," Kirkeby said.

State Social Services Secretary Kim Malsam-Rysdon opposed both bills, saying the measures did not specify how drug testing should be done. The people who work in various welfare programs also have no expertise in detecting signs of possible drug use, she said.

In addition, studies have shown welfare recipients are not much more likely to use drugs than anyone else in society, Malsam-Rysdon said. About 7 percent of the general population uses illegal drugs, while about 9 percent of those on welfare do, she said.

Courts have struck down similar drug testing programs in other states after ruling that they violate people's protections against unreasonable search and seizures, Malsam-Rysdon said. Federal regulations also prevent using drug use as a reason to deny food stamps or coverage in the Medicaid program that provides health care for poor people, she said.

Sad that taxpayers are forced to fund the lifestyle of parents that include illegal drug use. Sad that those who use children for political gain would support such lifestyles. It is even more sad that they would support children being in an unsafe environment. This admission by a state official is very disturbing:

Malsam-Rysdon said people who work in welfare services are not trained to detect drug use.

So it seems that welfare is not about supporting the best interest of children. Instead it is about supporting irresponsible and even illegal activities of the parent(s)that are a danger to children. And it is the Department of Social Services that are not part of the 10% across the board budget cuts and instead are getting more state dollars. Why isn't the media reporting on that? And what about a little insight into the percentage of welfare recipients who are single parents and for what reasons their children don't have their father's support?

How many law-abiding citizens are required to be subjected to drug tests in order to work and pay the taxes that fund government while welfare recipients sit in front of their big screen TVs, smoking cigarettes, and consuming illegal drugs with a cell phone is stuck in their ear while their children are neglected and unsupervised? Doesn't sound like officials from the Deprarment of Services are capable of detecting such activities.

SB138, members of the SDGOP jump in with George Soros and his National Popular Vote crusade to destroy the Electoral College

Before I begin, lets get one thing straight. America was formed as a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy. The founders feared a democracy would create mob rule by factions and special interests fighting for the power of the majority so they can have their way with the minority.

Bob Mercer reported this last week:

The Legislature will consider whether South Dakota should join other states in agreeing to choose future U.S. presidents by national popular vote.

State Sen. Bob Gray, RPierre, is prime sponsor of the South Dakota legislation. The measure, Senate Bill 138, was introduced Tuesday. The Senate hasn’t scheduled a hearing yet.

“I told the proponents I was interested and we ought to have a discussion,” Gray said.

A similar attempt in 2007, led by Rep. Paul Dennert, DColumbia, was killed at its first House committee hearing.

“It has three hurdles to clear before it gets to me, so the chances of me getting to vote on it are …,” Dennert said Tuesday, his voice trailing into a laugh. “Seriously though, I think the concept is great, and we should be looking at it.”

Rep. Steve Street, DRevillo, was one of the cosponsors of the 2007 version. “I love lost causes, so I’ll support it,” he said.

Currently, presidents are selected by the federal Electoral College, with electoral votes allocated among the states by population and with no state having less than three. Each state can decide how its electors are chosen.

South Dakota, as one of the nation’s least-populated states, has three electoral votes. A candidate needs at least 270 of the 538 electoral votes to be elected president.

The proposal Gray is forwarding on behalf of National Popular Vote, a nonprofit organization, is essentially an agreement between participating states they will direct their electors to vote for the candidate receiving the most votes nationwide, whether or not that candidate wins in their states.

Mercer neglected to explain exactly who is behind the National Popular Vote organization, so here you go:

The biggest enemy of federalism derives from the revenues of the Federal income tax and the vast expenditures of money, including funny money (presently a national debt approaching $13 trillion), which Washington consumes, dispenses and dissipates.   A century or less ago who, except maybe some talented political prophet, would have envisioned a United States Department of Education, as though a Federal bureaucracy, full of funds, were supposed to be usurping, guiding, dominating, traditionally State public (and,  more and more,  private) education.

Incursions upon, and usurpations of, traditional State and local functions are ubiquitous.  A new and rather different manifestation is emerging – abolition of the Electoral College.  One Jonathan Soros, of Soros Fund Management, is among the proponents.  The very name “Soros” tells one the cause is not conservative.

Here is another perspectiveon this Soros funded attack on the Republic and state's rights:

The cohesive voting pattern of urban voters of course explains why academia is so excited by the National Popular Vote movement. The small cabal of election law professors distinguish themselves primarily by conjuring new ways to federalize elections.

State control of elections helps preserve liberty by decentralizing control over elections. No single federal entity has the power to write rules, regulations and procedures for electing members of Congress and the president. Academia finds it inconvenient that the Constitution vests the power to run elections with the states. Like so many other bad ideas, this anti-constitutional popular vote scheme originated in academia.

The Founders feared national mob rule more than anything else, certainly more than poorly run state elections. They studied how earlier democracies such as Greece devolved into bankrupt majoritarian collapse. They viewed the federal government as deriving power from grants by the individual states, not majoritarian whim. The Electoral College ensures that our president represents many parts of America, not just an urban core.

If that isn’t enough to question Anuzis’ support for the National Popular Vote scheme, two words might convince you: George Soros. Soros and his son Johnny are bankrolling the national popular vote attack on the Constitution.

[Emphasis is mine]

Mercer reports on the South Dakota Republican legislators who signed on to SB 138:

In addition to Democratic leader Frerichs, joining Gray as co-sponsors of the South Dakota legislation are Republican senators Cooper Garnos, of Presho; Mark Johnston, of Sioux Falls; Shantel Krebs, of Renner; Dan Lederman, of Dakota Dunes; Tom Nelson, of Lead; Eldon Nygaard, of Vermillion; and Craig Tieszen, of Rapid City.

The lead sponsor in the House is Rep. Tad Perry, of Fort Pierre. Other House cosponsors are Rep. Charles Hoffman, of Eureka; Rep. Don Kopp, of Rapid City; Rep. Melissa Magstadt, of Watertown; Rep. Chuck Turbiville, of Deadwood; and Rep. Mark Willadsen, of Sioux Falls. All are Republicans.

Not surprised to see Tad Perry, former head of the Board of Regents, heading this up in the House, based on the above references to academia. (And the Board of Regents have an additional $144 million of federal money in Daugaard's budget)

Anybody still want to dispute the fact that the SDGOP has been taken over by a bunch of far-left radicals? No wonder the Obama democrats like sending South Dakota a ton of borrowed money financed by the Federal Reserve and the International bankers that run it. And don't foget that South Dakota bankers are getting a tax refund funded by federal education dollars.