Sibby Online

Question to the ALEC Board: is the possible sell out of the Constitution via implementation of common core standards worth $376,635?

Good question (After reading that, check out Dan Lederman's agenda regarding ALEC and education ):

We might as well refer to the Department of Education as the Department of Bill Gates.  He has spent an enormous amount of money on the initiatives benefiting Microsoft and pre-determined vendors.  We'll spell it out again how Gates is becoming the czar of education (it's really quite creative):

• He is taking over the public education realm by his foundation providing Common Core Standards (they are all "free"-think philanthropy) to states if they will agree to use its blueprint.
• If the states agree to do so (under financial pressures from the Federal Government), the Gates Foundation can control what and how students learn. 
• He's done this by crafting the standards under which students will learn. 
• The states have been ruled impotent in exercising their sovereign right to educate their citizens in the manner deemed appropriate by the state by this takeover of education.

That's it in a nutshell.  He gives money to the government and schools to further his agenda and he reaps the benefits of the business that agenda creates.   The common core is an integral part of that agenda.  If the common core standards are not implemented, the whole plan falls apart.

I was interested when I read The American Legislative Exchange Council's (ALEC) education task force just last week called for the demise of the standards:

A package of model legislation opposing the common standards gained ground yesterday at the American Legislative Exchange Council.

The organization's education task force approved the package, we learned from a couple of folks who attended those sessions of ALEC's meeting this week in Scottsdale, Ariz.
 

This is listed on ALEC's website and describes its mission:

… to advance the Jeffersonian principles of free markets, limited government, federalism, and individual liberty, through a nonpartisan public-private partnership of America’s state legislators, members of the private sector, the federal government, and general public.
… to promote these principles by developing policies that ensure the powers of government are derived from, and assigned to, first the People, then the States, and finally, the Federal Government.

If ALEC takes its mission seriously, then this model legislation is long overdue and should have been introduced when the talk of common core and a national curriculum was introduced by Bill Gates, the NGA, the CCSSO and the Department of Education.

This is good news, right?   W**A**I**T.

On the heels of this announcement, did Mr. Gates say to ALEC...."not so fast"?  Bill Gates is not only buying the Department of Education, it seems he is attempting to buy out ALEC as well.  A grant was given to ALEC by Gates for educational reform in November 2011.

...

Gates is spearheading the implementation of common core standards, teacher hiring and teacher evaluations.  State legislators can stop the implementation of standards and unfunded mandates.  Will the ALEC Board support this model legislation?  Or will it fold like Arne Duncan, take the money....and pretend it promotes Jeffersonian principles?

Gates is intent on a complete takeover of the educational delivery and content while utilizing taxpayer money.  From our previous article "The Outrage of the (Bill and Melinda) Gates Foundation is Misdirected":

In the interview Mr. Gates clearly states that his goal is "to leverage private money" in a way that "redirects" how tax dollars are spent inside public education. Mr. Gates is using his personal philanthropy to direct government policy, to channel taxpayers' funds to pay for the national curriculum he personally wants. (emphasis added)

Question to the ALEC Board: is the possible sell out of the Constitution via implementation of common core standards worth $376,635?

Hanson county water permit withdrew 5 hours after plans were announced to subpoena Secretary of Ag Walt Bones

I was handed a copy of the September 20 issue of The Alexandria Herald whose front page is topped off with the headline "Concerned Citizens Halt Hanson County Dairy". excerpts:

According to [Stace] Nelson, Concerned Citizens learned of the withdrawal after meeting with the South Dakota Office of Hearing Examiners related to the case. A hearing had been scheduled with either the Office of Hearing Examiners or the DENR on September 18-19. As part of the discussion, the Concerned Citizens indicated they planned to subpoena South Dakota Agricultural Secretary Walt Bones to appear, Bones had been believed to have been instrumental in approving the original permit.

Following that meeting, the Concerned Citizens were informed the Dairy had withdrawn its request for a water permit.

"As a former police officer I don't believe in coincidences," Nelson said. "Within five hours of informing of the subpoena the Dairy withdrew its request."

...

"This is a perfect example of what's wrong with a government determining what should happen at the local level," Nelson said. "This community is the best judge of what is best for it."

Stace Nelson returns fire in what the MItchell Daily Republic calls a civil war

From this morning's Mitchell Daily Republic:

At almost the same time Daugaard issued his statement, state Rep. Stace Nelson, R-Fulton, asked Jackley, a fellow Republican elected in 2010, to investigate Daugaard for possible wrongdoing.

Nelson said Daugaard is angry over the defeat of Senate Bill 188 in 2011, which Nelson claims sought to end an education benefits program for National Guard members. He termed it a “disgraceful bill” that he was proud to oppose.

“If your office deems it appropriate to do the governor’s political bidding, to go after his political opponents who are complaining about his embarrassing bill, and those that voted for it, while those doing so are being substantially compliant with our state law, then I respectfully request the same standards be applied to the governor,” Nelson wrote to Jackley.

...

Nelson said the critics of the governor and other GOP politicians are acting within their legal and constitutional rights.

“Going after them for expressing their First Amendment Constitutional rights smacks of the Chicago politics and is something I would expect in a corrupt third world country, not South Dakota,” he wrote.

...

Nelson also asked Jackley to investigate Dakota War College, which he has written for in the past. The political blog “is rumored to be the property of a candidate/and or PAC/political party,” he said.

“It routinely disseminates/allows dissemination of information about elected officials and candidates without any of the required disclosures,” Nelson said.

And he also asked the AG to look into reports that state Rep. Brian Gosch, the House speaker pro-tem, has engaged in illegal conduct by killing a bill “for a pass and assistance” from the National Rifle Association.

There has been another ongoing fight between gun rights groups, with a group called South Dakota Gun Owners, based in Rapid City, claiming several Republican legislators who have NRA backing are actually “anti-gun.”

Robomney, the Establishment's choice for president

We Americans have a real choice for president:

No modern third-party candidate ever has won a U.S. presidential election, but Jim Gray said he’s serious about running for vice president on the Libertarian Party ticket.

“When (presidential candidate Gary Johnson) asked me to be his running mate, I said, ‘I will on the condition that we run to win,’ ” he said. “None of this moral victory stuff.”

Gray, the running mate for Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson, the former governor of New Mexico, spoke to several dozen students Wednesday at the University of South Dakota.

During almost two hours at the university, Gray argued President Obama, a Democrat, and Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney were basically the same.

“They are so much the same, we call them ‘Robomney,’ ” Gray said.

Yes Cory, Obama wants to take our guns away, unconstitutionally via executive abuse of power

Cory Heidelberger often mocks conservatives who say Obama wants to take our guns away. Well, he does and without due process:

The Obama administration, apparently by executive decree, has enacted new rules that make it easier for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to seize the guns of citizens without due process of law. A Washington Times report issued on Thursday provides the details.

Under normal circumstances a citizen must be convicted of a crime, or at least charged with a crime, in order for law enforcement to seize their firearms. But the Justice Department granted authority to the ATF to "seize and administratively forfeit property involved in controlled substance abuses."

According to the Times, this gives the federal government the power to seize the guns of citizens even if they are merely suspected of substance abuse. These citizens do not have to be officially charged or arrested.

Due process of law, under the mandate of the U.S. Constitution, requires among other things that citizens have rights that cannot be violated even if they are suspected of crimes. Historically this has meant that citizens who are not charged but are mere suspects cannot be deprived of any of the rights afforded to any other citizen. And even if they are charged with crimes, they still have certain rights that cannot be violated, such as the right to a fair trial, the right to face one's accusers in a court of law, and the right to qualified legal counsel. Any violation of that person's rights after they are charged must be done according to accepted legal process and not on the whims of prosecutors or law enforcement.

But prior to formal charges being issued, the government has operated under the restrictions placed upon it by the Constitution that prevent it from treating citizens as if they are charged prior to actually being charged with crimes.

Gradually these time honored mandates have been under assault as law enforcement has skirted the boundaries of the law by engaging in activity that violates both the spirit and letter of due process. The assault kicked into high gear after the 9/11 terror attacks.

But civil forfeiture of property is a dangerous new step in the assault on due process in that citizens can be deprived of their property, as well as their rights, even if it is never proved that they committed a crime.

The concept behind civil forfeiture of property is simple but baffling. Inanimate objects are placed on trial and treated as persons. And since objects have no rights, prosecutors can simply dispense with constitutional rights in these trials. But the citizen or citizens who are caught in the crosshairs are considered guilty until proven innocent and are burdened with the task of proving their innocence.

In the meantime such citizens are deprived of their Second Amendment rights. And all of this comes as the ATF and the Justice Department operate under a heavy cloud of suspicion in the wake of the biggest political scandal in U.S. history -- Operation Fast and Furious.