The Promise

One of the perpetual “promises” made by those seeking political office is that they will “shrink the size of government”.. This particular “promise” is made ONLY by Republicans.. The opposite of this “promise”, that the size of the government will INCREASE, is the ONLY “promise” ever fulfilled by the liberals.. This “promise” is so understood by the left’s collectivist constituents that it never has to be spoken aloud either on the campaign trail or in public..

The charade that is “Iowa” is proving once again that politics is merely show business for ugly people. The “promise” is made and has been made to those who are important for ONLY a few weeks every four years or so. This time through, these “caucus-ers” are being regaled by a group of “candidates” who number enough to start a flag football game.. After the first caucus, Iowa is as invisible to the political world as Republican ex-presidents are to the “impartial” media.. Or better yet, Iowa will be as invisible as OWEbama has been for the last two months, skulking off on another five million dollar tax payer funded vacation..

At BEST, the claim of “shrinking” government really means that our aspiring candidate will hopefully SLOW the PACE of the government’s perpetual growth.. RARELY has this modest proposal ever come to fruition and there are more than a few reasons as to why..

The federal government, especially when it has ended up under the totalitarian tutelage of the liberals, MUST increase its size and scope, its intrusion and its “importance”, so that the political creatures of any and all stripes may survive and more importantly, procreate in perpetuity..

When ANY government program fails miserably (the War on Poverty, for example..) the liberals blame ONLY a “lack of funds”. The “problem” can NEVER be “wastefulness” or “fraud” or “deception” or “theft”.. (The liberals take their lunacy to its lowest level when they begin croaking about the “root causes” of things like poverty.. This is when the Democratic dance of deception really begins to go to double time..)

Soon the bellowing begins anew and once more “funds” are sequestered from the pockets of the middle class, and the moment that the cash arrives, the liberals’ reward THEMSELVES FIRST. This is always accompanied by the liberals hiring more and more like-minded leftists to take a healthy cut right off of the top of these “funds” before the collectivist crumbs are lovingly disseminated to the “victims”. As long as the “victims” stay hungry, the left can continue their role as their socialist saviors..

In order for the liberal government to “grow”, the left must always be on the lookout for more “victims”, real or imagined.. Once the left locates these “victims”, it is ONLY the left that can “fix” things for those that the left defiles. Once all semblance of self respect and self esteem are exorcised from the new “victims” of the liberal disease, their addiction to the liberal handout mentality complete, NOW the left goes about asking for more funds/taxes/revenues to “cure” these pitiful “victims” that the left has created themselves..

The liberals NEVER seek to “cure” a problem. They seek to germinate, to expand the “problem” so that MORE “victims” can be created, “victims” who will willingly take the Bolshevik Bataan Death March.. As always, once the “problem” has been located, there is always an urgent need for MORE liberals to be employed to help with its “cure”.. Please keep in mind that if the liberals EVER actually “cured” a “problem”, there would be no need for the liberals or their sclerotic empathy..

The liberals childishly believe that the ineffective and intentionally inefficient government creates “opportunities” as opposed to the free market. The liberal’s government demands RESULTS (not really..) and when results are the demand, the liberals HAVE to be there to ensure the “fair” application of EVERYTHING so that these “results” can be attained. This is yet another reason why the left seeks to make EVERYTHING into a “right”, a “right” that cannot be found anywhere within the Constitution for example..

When privileges become “rights” the LEFT HAS to be present in large numbers in order to “guarantee” that these newly created “rights” are properly and FAIRLY disseminated..

Redundancy is the hallmark of liberal politics. There are an infinite number of redundant political “departments”, all of them available at the state and local levels as well. “Shrinking” the federal government actually means ELIMINATING the redundancies at the federal level and allowing the state’s to administer to the state’s needs. Why is there a department of “education” at all three governmental levels, for example. We ALL know what a rousing success the public schools have become (after generations of liberal intentional destruction..) under such “leadership” and the invariable answer for the total failure of the pubic schools is a “lack of funding”..

Asking for money is the “path of least resistance” as the “results” can always be explained away later as a .. You guessed it, a “lack of funding”..

The size of the government MUST match the size of the liberal’s altruism. It’s not their “altruism” that guides them, this is merely what they say when they are patting each other on the back at a flag burning or some other type of progressive pow wow. What really motivates the left is their inherent desire to “feel” superior, to boss around those beneath them. This is why the liberal Democrats were so fond of slavery..

The fact that this shrinking government “promise” is made and the fact that this “problem” is soon forgotten leads us to the thought that politics apes entertainment. The voters just want a good “show”, lots of embellishment, lots of bombast but the concept of “results” is just something to be explained away in long and flowery fits of puling which then become a telethon for the acquisition of more “revenues” to “cure” the “problem”.. Everyone seems to want government to be efficient, everyone seems to claim that they will make it so but NO ONE seems to actually go about trying to make it happen.. Why? The liberals..

An attempt at governmental efficiency will invariably mean that a large number of governmental employees will be terminated. “Employees” that have probably been placed into the liberal governmental labyrinth by liberals who seek to retain their political offices.. The liberals will howl and moan that the insensitive right doesn’t “care” about the plight of the left’s “victims”, never mind that the left NEVER has the permanent curing of the victim’s problems, real or imaginary, as their goal.. The left just wants more liberals “working on the problem” and ALL of them need to be paid..

Thus according to the left, the “root” of the “problem” is “insufficient funding” and once more “funding” is acquired and as soon as it does, it goes to pay the salaries of MORE liberals who have as their goal to ENLARGE the “problem” that they are supposed to be solving..

It is the unspoken but avowed goal of liberalism to ENLARGE government. (Which makes one wonder where the collectivist cries about “Big Brother” have gone.. “Big Brother” simply means ” a government run by someone other than ME”..) As the liberal government constantly grows, it is by its very nature LESS efficient which is irrelevant to the liberal “cause.” The liberals NEVER promise to be efficient, they just promise to “take action”.. The left has made the concept of actually reducing the size and GROWTH of government immune to the effects of elections and to the “promises” of the opposition to “reduce the size of government”..

Keep that in mind, Iowa..

Advertisements

10 responses to “The Promise

  1. What a home run with this one. If we could only find a way to expose all Americans to this type info we would have a much better country.

  2. Graywolf,

    First: thank you for the kind words.

    Second: feel free to forward the link for the article to ANY like-minded, common sense conservatives that you know.

    Such “exposure” might make a difference..

    I will certainly appreciate the efforts.

    Thanks as always,

    Larry

  3. beyond disgusted

    You have so nailed this! As just one example, if more money were the answer to education woes, said problem would have been solved decades ago.

  4. JR NOT OF DALLAS

    BACK TO BATAAN
    How many of our country men even know about
    that WAR.

    Just read Gov Perry’s comment about Obama
    and comparison to nazis Strong words and accurate

    I will follow your directions Larry and forward this message
    to my contacts

    Great article keep it up

    VICTORY IN 2012

  5. Larry, another home run.

    I did a lot of research on our education system in 2008-09.

    These are the things that the liberals seem to want to teach. I apology in advance for the length.

    Liberal School Superintendents and liberal teachers have an agenda, where the conservative lifestyle is considered bad, where God and religion will never be discussed or allowed. Now, this could be confusing for young children, while children attend church with their parents on Sunday, their teachers Monday through Friday, are telling them that it’s wrong to go to church or say the words God or Jesus Christ. Instead, the liberal crowd feels they would prefer to teach children 8 or 9 years old about sex, by providing them with a questionnaire about how many times do they “touch themselves down there”, alternative lifestyles, i.e., two mommy’s or two daddy’s, and teaching children about masturbation. (So when do they learn the A,B, and C’s?) They want to start with pre-school children and work there way up. So, Miss Liberal would rather have 3 or 4 years old’s watch “The Virgina Monologues” then Barney. It doesn’t matter that these young children have no idea what they are talking about. Doesn’t matter, just so long as their message is spoken nor the fact that the child’s parents would object to this liberal message, by telling children, don’t tell Mommy or Daddy. Shhh… it’s a secret.

    A liberal teacher and children’s author, Ann Pelo, co-wrote a preschool book for teachers call, “It’s Not Fair! A Teachers Guide to Activism with Young Children. It’s okay, you can say it. It’s ludicrous and I would agree with you. Creating a four year old activist, pre-schoolers. It’s so important for parents to question your children’s teachers and principal’s. I suggest parent’s request a syllabus or preview school curriculum on your children’s studies. If they are using Ms. Pelo’s book as a teaching tool, get the hell out of there. I cringe at the thought of what “show and tell” would be like in her classroom. It’s already pretty scary sending your children to school these days, with teachers getting turned on by 11 or 12-year old boys. With the arrest and incarceration of Mary Kay Letourneau, the floodgates of disturbed teachers has opened up, where every school year more of these teachers (male and female) are being revealed.

    It’s distressing that parent’s now have to weigh through so much liberal garbage in order to remove the unwanted material that the liberals are trying to push on children, as young as four. Some of our public schools are more concerned about spreading their liberal agenda, then actually teaching your children how to read and write. Where building self-esteem is more important then giving them knowledge. Teachers can no longer criticize a student when the student incorrectly answering a question.

    California State Senator, John Vasconcellos, believes in this “no criticizing theory” because it’s bad for a child’s self-esteem. He has authored numerous books on this theory, A Liberating Vision: Politics for Growing Humans, and Welcome This Next American Revolution: Towards a 21st Century Politics of Trust, Healing and Hope. The theory of self-esteem overpowers self-knowledge.

    If all states agreed with this teaching method, we would have a bunch of self-absorbed, self-centered, selfish, egotistic idiots to hand our Country over too. Think about a Supervisor of an Engineering Company, where one of their employees miscalculated engineering specs, which causes a building to collapse. Would or should the employee get fired? Does he have to bring a note from his mother that says… “Please don’t yell at Bobby, it would destroy is self-esteem and he needs his job to pay for all his psychological issues he has. So please don’t be mean to him.” The more I think about it, the more it sounds like Paris Hilton or Lindsey. Lohan Do we really need to have thousands of little brain-dead Paris Hiltons’s running around? Makes me want to have my legs sewn together to stop any chance of giving birth or raising a child like that and send him or her out into the World!

    Why so many graduating high school students graduating with a limited ability to read and write at their age level? Do some of these teachers, principals and superintendents feel any concern for those students that they send out into the world reading at the 3rd or 4th grade levels, at 18 years of age and expect them to live a productive life (that’s not their main concern)? Sign them up for welfare and unemployment. To me that’s a huge concern that these educator’s have decided to teach some children their liberal priorities by learning about alternative lifestyles, sex education, sexual orientation, masturbation, and telling students that the United States is a horrible place, or whatever else they object to, yet they don’t appear to be too concerned about graduating an 18 year old’s who can’t read or write their own names, but they certainly learned how to masturbate. Yeah, that will get them far in life. I cannot believe my Catholic school teacher Father Curley would ever talk about these subjects in an open classroom (unless he does so in the privacy of the confessional) any of these liberal topics.

    A small minority of parents are sending their children to religious and/or private schools where their children will be taught the A, B, C’s and discuss God and able to say the Pledge of Allegiance, put their heads down in a moment of silence, and say grace before eating their lunch or snack . And, they won’t be expelled from school or sent to the Principal’s Office for doing so. Oh my goodness, that’s horrible torture for a child! I believe a majority of American’s would prefer their children listen to Billy or Franklin Graham then listen to Nancy Pelosi explain the virtues of recycling and saving the environment by not drilling for oil. Where children aren’t taught a watered-down version of the United States history.

    Now, look at the lengths that the democrats in Congress are doing by eliminating the school voucher option for parents, who just want the best for their children. But, if a parent no longer wants their child to be educated by a public school, because they object to the schools liberal curriculum or the school under performs and/or lack of moral development for their children, aren’t given that choice. Democrats are generally against school vouchers, and there are logical concerns and reasons for conservative parents who want a sensible choice on how their children are taught and if they are learning anything substantial, as opposed to liberal rhetoric. If Democrats really truly believed every child has a “right” to get the best education for every child, not just wealthy parents like they did and send their own kids to private schools, they would allow the voucher program to be utilized. But again, their focus has always been about the teachers because teacher can vote.

    President Bush, in 2001 created a plan known as “No Child Left Behind” Act, which is about getting and receiving the best education possible for children. Good idea for a plan, unfortunately either President Bush, Congress or both did not provide the funds need to pursue this educational agenda (hence the failure of that program). I don’t know who’s at fault, but they better start giving more funds. Because whether the education is in home-schooling, private, public or religious in nature, whenever possible parents should be given a choice. I believe most parents priorities are their children and what is best for their development, when later they will become productive in the future and if off-setting the cost of whatever education avenue they choose, so be it. Allow them to make that choice, and not have the federal government make it for them. The alternative educations choices are much more expensive because there are less children (the higher the number, the lower the cost) and a majority don’t receive or don’t qualify for government funding, whether it’s on the local, state or federal level.

    The Presidential candidate’s theories on education and school vouchers are polar opposite, in 2008, where John McCain is for the school voucher programs and Barack Obama is against it. In doing research on this topic I discovered that the Obama’s sent their two daughters to private school, run by the University of Chicago (which is an extremely liberal school). By being two high paying lawyers and Barack receiving a Senator pay and Michelle and her $600,000 a year salary, they can afford to educate their children privately, whatever method of their choosing but he wants to deny other parents from doing the same thing. For me, this is another hypocritical issues from the Democrats. Another democrat response to do what I say, don’t do what I do.

    By allowing an open market in our educational systems and providing a type of reform to create a better educational system that is sorely needed for our Country? By sending a child to a better school, whether it’s public, private or religious should be the goal for every parent and every educational government official, as well as the United States Congress. So if a public schools (who receives federal and state operations funds) starts losing too many student, wouldn’t and shouldn’t they start to review the reason’s why they lost them in the first place? I don’t know, question parents and discover the reasons why they felt they needed to make that choice. Instead of criticizing the parents, maybe they might actually learn from them and overhaul their educational system. Acknowledge the gaps between the educators, students and parents and trying to fix them so that they are all on the same page.

    It’s pretty clear that the public school system is failing. We need to look at the student drop-out rates and discover why it’s so high, how are we failing our students? In a study, every 29 seconds a student has given up on school and has dropped out, making it 1 million students every year. If we don’t stop this drop-out rate it will continue to increase to dangerous levels by 2020. Drop-outs are more likely to be out-of-work, and most will slip into poverty, and are 8 times more likely to end up in Jail or Prison. And, the government would reap $45 billion in extra tax revenues and reduced costs in public health, crime, and welfare payments if the number of high school dropouts decreased in the U.S. today, which numbers more than 700,000 individuals, would be cut in half. Now, if we paid really good teachers more, stopped hiring teacher who are buying their time until a better paying job offer comes around and gave parents the incentive to choose the better educational system for their children locally, why object to the school voucher program?

    Our former favorite Senator from Illinois and the City of Chicago has one of the highest drop-out rates (listed 3rd) in the United States. But, the winning state with the highest rate is Nevada at 11%. The state with the lowest rate is Hawaii (3%), which means the democratic candidate (Obama) did benefit personally by receiving a better education from a private school, while those student in his district while a State Senator did not. Other cities with high drop-out rates are Detroit, Baltimore, New York, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Los Angeles, Miami, Dallas, Denver and Houston, (note that most of these Cities are run by the liberals) where more than half of the students will never graduate. I call this a disgrace and a massive failure of the United States, by allowing this to happen. So, parents really need to review whatever options are available to them to prevent their own children from becoming a victim of our failed public school education system.

    On an international scale the United States was ranked 18th out of 24 Counties. In a four year study, it showed that Finland, Australia, Belgium, Austria, Hungary, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and all Asian countries were superior to the educational system in the United States. This is an embarrassment and maybe those in power should take a look at some of these countries and review their educational teaching methods, because the one we have now are not working. These children are this Country’s future, shouldn’t we give them the knowledge and tools they will need to keep our Nation’s survival instead of destroy it?

    When I was a student I went through the Public and Catholic Schools systems. What I recall was that the public school teacher had about 30-35 students in their classroom, where as in Catholic school, there were about 15-20 students. The lower number of students, the more likely the teacher was able to spend more time with each student and give one-on-one attention when needed, to those whose learning curve was below average. That’s what I saw and witnessed, I don’t know if it matches the rest of the Country and I don’t care.

    These are a number of personal experiences in both cases, but I actually preferred public school. For students who were above the average learning curve for their grade and reading levels, the teacher encouraged the advanced behavior and supported it by testing our knowledge and understanding of the material. Once he or she could confirm that the student understood what they were learning, they were allowed to continue, without much supervision by the teacher. My older sister and myself were above average in our comprehension of learning. This type of program benefited us.

    I didn’t know about it or acknowledge it, until our family moved from Long Island, New York to a small town in western New Jersey. As a 12-year old and extremely shy student, I entered 7th grade and was dumbfounded to learn that the students in this 7th grade class were currently learning what nouns, verbs and adverbs were in English, something I had learned as a 7 year old second grader (and not in advance studies either). They were being taught division in math. I could not understand why they were so far behind. To me and my sister, it didn’t make sense, and we weren’t allowed to become more advanced than the rest of the student. No encouragement at all. I shut down and didn’t participate in class. Some teachers were average in getting students to learn. There were no teachers like the ones in Long Island, who were encouraging, made learning exciting, informative and fun. Instead I heard hum-drum, boring lectures from teachers who appeared to be buying their time until a better job came along. And, I still don’t understand why they taught their students this way, it seemed to be unproductive. (NJ liberal state)

    I don’t know if the teachers in New York were considered progressive or not (in the early to mid 1970’s), I mean what does a 12-year old know about progressive. But, what I did learn from this experience is that the teachers who taught students with enthusiasm and got the students to be enthusiastic about learning did a better job at teaching. Every student is different as are every teacher and a teacher really needs to listen to their students and make learning exciting and fun, but also make it informative. They will get more out of it as will the students.

    So, it doesn’t matter to me whether a teacher is nice and provides one-on-one contact. If you’re a great teacher, you make it a fun learning experience, and I believe students will remember what they learned and retain that knowledge. It shouldn’t matter whether the teacher is your mother/father, a public or private school teacher or a nun in Catholic School, teacher’s who teach from the heart with enthusiasm and enjoys watching students learn will always leave a lasting impression, and students who become enthusiastic and excited to learn, will always listen and learn.

    As College and Universities cost skyrocket and they make it sometimes impossible for families, who have more than one child, who can no longer afford to send all their children for an advanced education. Athletic scholarships are generally given to minorities. Full or partial Scholarships are limited and only a handful are given out per graduating class. So, what does that do for the remaining graduating classmates? They will end up placing themselves in a huge debts by taking out student loans, go to a local state college or attend community college. President Bush had a proposals that student loans will no longer have fixed rates, but will fluctuate as markets increase or decrease but will never go over 8.25%. Students can consolidate their loans if they are receiving funds from the same bank allowing them to repay the loan with one payment.

    Educational grants are meant for special needs for students in America, there are two types of grants available, discretionary and cooperative agreements. They are similar, but the cooperative grant is awarded by a group or department to a recipient who will be studying the subject matter, by the awarding group or department, i.e., a Foundation or Science Department. There are state and federal grants available but they are very competitive, and the chances of receiving it when thousands apply, is frustrating for any student, and the likelihood of the student being rewarded with grant would be slim.

    There are Pell Grants which were designed to help the neediest undergraduate students. Congress came up with the criteria on how students would qualify to receive it and are distinguished from other types of financial assistance in that all students meeting certain criteria are guaranteed aid, with the amount of aid determined by financial need, enrollment level, and educational cost. Unfortunately, there are limited funds as benefits may and could be reduced from those anticipated under a fully-funded system. Anyone participating in this grant system needs to meet certain residency requirements and be enrolled in a College or University who’s a participate in Pell Grant program. Tuition also plays an important factor.

    I cannot image the worries and concerns that parents will have in the next 10, 15 or 20 years who worry about how can they possible afford to send their child to college, let alone more then one child. It just seems that the middle class continues to fall between the lines of the wealthy and underprivileged. There are numerous athletic scholarships, every thing from Archery to Wrestling, which also includes rodeo scholarships. The National Intercollegiate Rodeo Association offers a number of $1,000 scholarships each year, based on a student’s performance in the ring, however, Colleges that participate in the College National Finals Rodeo only the top three performances, who also have the highest grade point average will qualify for the scholarship award. There are also a limited number of states who are participating in this scholarship program, mostly in the southwest area of the Country. Obviously, $1,000 doesn’t cover every much when some Colleges and University yearly tuition can be as high as $32,000 to $10,000, the lowest being $4,600, per year from a private College. But some state colleges can be even higher.

    Football and Basketball scholarships are generally given to minorities, but only those players who qualify in a Division I or II schools, which mean you have to be an advanced player in these sports.

    In order to get an advanced education now, it appears that a child needs to be a superior athletic, highly intelligent, or have wealthy parents. Don’t you think that all parents want what is best for the child or children? Don’t you think that by allowing parent’s to choose the best school that is available in their area, be allowed to make that choice? By sending a child to a better-quality elementary and secondary educational would give them the tools to success in our education system as well as in life? So my question still remains, why are the democrats so against school vouchers?

    I think while I was researching this topic, I think I may have found why they object to this program. Seems they are afraid that parents will send their child or children to a religious school, which is not something that liberals want to see happen. It’s not a schools job to provide moral and values in a liberal educational system. Since most religious schools would included morals and values as part of their curriculum, and would be more likely to object to the subjects of abortion, sex education, gender reassignment, and same sex marriages. The democrats will never allow that to happen, especially Barack Obama. You would think that they would want what is best for all children by providing the best education possible so that they could get the knowledge by giving them the supported and the tools when it’s their turn to run our Country.

    Barack Obama’s role in Chicago’s New Educational Windfall. Barack Obama has always voted against providing what is best for a child’s education. Even when he was an Illinois State Senator, he put the Chicago Teacher’s Union first over the education of students in his south side district of Chicago. In 2006, the City of Chicago created one of the most ambitions merit pay systems in the Country with $27.5 million in federal grants by the United States Department of Education by rewarding exemplary teachers and principals for those districts that had difficulty locating and hiring superior teachers and administrators. I guess it’s an odd version of hazard pay.

    Did the teacher’s benefit from this new program? Of course they did, where they are now one of the highest paid educational professionals in the Country. Where currently some Chicago teachers are making as much as $100,000 for nine months of work and, where a first time teacher gets a salary of almost $44,000, which doesn’t include an additional $3,059 in contributions toward the Teachers’ pension plan. You’re probably asking the same question I am, where can I sign up?

    A better question to ask is has this pay increased helped the students of Chicago. No! These high salaries have costs the city so much that students are spending less time in School, dropping from an 8 hour day to 5 hours and 45 minutes. As noted previously, Chicago still has one of the highest High School dropout rates in the country, ranking third in the Nation. So, maybe if high school students were given the opportunity to vote in a State Senate, US Senate or Presidential elections, Barack Obama might actually put students first for a change.

    Our Country’s educational professional are extremely important and should be paid a “fair” wage, but this type of pay is way over the top, and now I am finding out that more states and cities are copying Chicago’s new education plan. On board this educational money train is Utah, Texas, Missouri, Colorado and Florida. I think most parents would be a little unhappy watching an overpaid teacher driving around in the latest BMW or Mercedes (because some of those were the vehicles that some of the teacher drove in Chicago).

    According to an article in Education Week, Deborah Lynch, the former President of the Chicago Teacher’s Union was removed from her post, when she agreed in 2003, to increase the school day by fifteen minutes, in exchange for a reduction of the school year by seven days.

    In an article from Substance, a newspaper for public education in Chicago, written in September, 2005. There were 37,000-members in the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) and the General Counsel of the union’s national membership, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), tried to intimidate union members during a heated exchange in a June 1st meeting, which was an attempt to block the election of former CTU union president Deborah Lynch to the CTU executive board. They even went too far as to make a false police report against Deborah Lynch before the meeting was over.

    Her removal from the union meeting, when the ballots were still being counted, in an election where there were only two candidates, and when the other candidate was receiving the backing and support of the current union President is questionable at best. Their attempts to have Deborah Lynch arrested, denied her the right to witness the counting of the ballots, where Lynch once served as president of the 37,000-member union from July 2001 through July 2004, who was ousted after a union election that was marked by widespread charges of voter fraud.

    This behavior along with other bad decision just continues to show teachers first over student education. When those union members who supported Deborah Lynch were also harassed by those members that opposed her and, in spite of the objections of the current Chicago Teacher’s Union President, Marilyn Stewart, Deborah Lynch still won this heated election, who is now a member of the Union’s Executive Board. Not only is this behavior unprofessional by supposed educational professionals does not create a positive setting or a great example for students. Who are still not getting the best education possible? You have to, as a parent wonder why would I send my child to be educated by these money hungry teachers? If my children were educated by these professionals, I would remove them, permanently, whether or not the school voucher program existed. I would find away to avoid public school education.

    As a general rule, Teacher Union’s opposes the School Voucher program because they are terrified by the loss of students who’ll be educated by teachers that aren’t represented by a teachers union (at most private schools, union membership is not required). Most Teachers’ Unions vote politically democratic. Since the Chicago Teachers Union has endorse President Obama (as are most Teacher Unions) because he again objects to the voucher program, which gives the illusion of “one hand is washing the other” ideal, which has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with student education. If this is the type of educational system you want nation-wide, where its teachers first over student education, then by all means, vote for Barack Obama again. But, if you actually want your child or children to receive the best education that’s available for your area, I don’t no where the GOP candidates stand on the Department of Education, I heard some want to get rid of the Department of Education but I won’t hold my breath.

  6. beyond disgusted,

    Stop making sense..

    Thanks as always,

    Larry

  7. JR,

    NO ONE should EVER forget what happened to another of the heroic members of the greatest generation..

    Thanks for your support, I appreciate it greatly,

    Larry

  8. Eileen,

    Wow, great stuff.

    “Education” has been ruined INTENTIONALLY by the left and its minions.

    You have provided ample proof.

    Thanks as always,

    Larry

  9. I received a New Year virus that cleaned my computer, every nook and cranny, so I am little behind. Boy, this article has so much potential. If we can just get it to the fence sitters or the stumbling blind and those testing the waters, what a great teacher this article would be in showing exactly how the Liberals work. Larry, your disection and examination of the Liberals is spot on! I am going to forward this to many people and ask them to keep it going. Eileen, your are really a great researcher. I think we are off to a good start for 2012! On to Victory!

  10. I think we are in trouble since the liberals cannot hold a Teacher’s Union election that’s not tainted by corruption especially when most of the participants are liberal. No shock there.

    It went much deeper the more I researched. The DC voucher program was working very successfully until Obama took Office and closed the program. Now, I found a correlation as to why it was shut down. Do you all remember the firing of Inspector General Gerald Walpin? The first corruption case since Obama took Office.

    Walpin had a meeting that discussed Walpin’s report criticizing the St. HOPE Academy settlement agreement and Walpin’s forthcoming report questioning the validity of the largest AmeriCorps program—the Research Foundation of City University of New York (RFCUNY) New York City Teaching Fellows program, the bipartisan CNCS Board of Directors unanimously requested that the White House review Walpin’s conduct as Inspector General.

    In April 2008, the Corporation asked Mr. Walpin to investigate reports of irregularities at St. HOPE, a California nonprofit run by former NBA star and Obama supporter Kevin Johnson. St. HOPE had received an $850,000 AmeriCorps grant, which was supposed to go for three purposes: tutoring for Sacramento-area students; the redevelopment of several buildings; theater and art programs.

    Mr. Walpin’s investigators discovered that the money had been used instead to pad staff salaries, meddle politically in a school-board election, and have AmeriCorps members perform personal services for Mr. Johnson, including washing his car.

    At the end of May, Mr. Walpin’s office recommended that Mr. Johnson, an assistant and St. HOPE itself be “suspended” from receiving federal funds. The Corporation’s official charged with suspensions agreed, and in September the suspension letters went out. Mr. Walpin’s office also sent a civil and/or criminal referral to the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of California..

    Stay with me here. Some of the money was also spent visiting his girlfriend, Michelle Rhee (flying back and forth from Sacramento to DC), who happened to be the Chancellor of D.C. public schools. She was the reason the voucher program was ended by Obama. They didn’t want parents to remove their children from her new program that she start, Rhee founded and began serving as the CEO of The New Teacher Project, a non-profit which within ten years of its founding, had trained and supplied urban school districts with 23,000 mid-career professionals wanting to become classroom teachers. The Project has mainly served New York, Chicago, Miami and Philadelphia (again more liberal controlled cities). Beginning in 2000, the Project began redesigning the D.C. school’s recruitment and hiring processes and the love from the Teacher’s Union.

    In 2007 the D.C. board of education was stripped of its decision-making powers and turned into an advisory body, and the new office of chancellor was created—so that changes in the public school system could be made without waiting for the approval of an often argumentative board. Newly-elected D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty quickly offered Rhee the job of chancellor; she accepted after being promised mayoral backing for whatever changes she wanted to make. Critics noted that Rhee had no experience running a school system, and had not even been a principal. She had been highly recommended to Fenty, however, by the chancellor of the New York public schools.

    Side note here Fenty was a shaky political character for DC politics.
    He ran on Education reform was his major focus of Fenty’s mayoral tenure. On the first day of his term, he introduced legislation to vest control of the public schools in himself, rather than the elected school board. Previous attempts to reform the schools, including one in 1996 where a D.C. financial control board took charge of the schools, had failed. At the beginning of Fenty’s term, student test performance scores and graduation rates were among the lowest (ranked 5th) in the nation and District residents had been demanding that the schools be “fixed”. In April 2007, the D.C. Council approved Fenty’s plan; the necessary legislation was approved by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush in May 2007. Don’t you just love how liberals always claim they want to fix something and make it better but their method to their madness only seems to make things worse.

    Back to Rhee, Johnson and Walpin. Rhee inherited a troubled system (the usual blame game from the liberals. That’s so if the “program” fails, which they always do, they can place blame on someone else); there had been six school chiefs in the previous 10 years, students historically had below-average scores on standardized tests, and according to Rhee, only 8% of eighth graders were at grade level in mathematics. The D.C. schools were performing poorly despite having the advantage of the third highest spending per student in the US (another liberal ideology of throw money at the problem and hope that something sticks).

    That’s why the parents of these students wanted the voucher program to stay, their children were actually learning. I certainly hope these people realize that these Dem/Lib only use them instead of caring for them but if they were educated in a liberal school district, they won’t notice the Liberal Deception.

    Onto Kevin Johnson’s roll… He started the Kevin Johnson Corporation, which Johnson oversees the operations of several subsidiary organizations specializing in real estate development and management, sports management, and business acquisition. A key component of his Kevin Johnson Corporation includes appearances and public speaking engagements for corporations, academic institutions, and community organizations. Johnson founded the St. Hope Academy in 1989 and served as its CEO until January 2008. St. HOPE is a nonprofit community development corporation whose mission is to revitalize communities through public education, civic leadership, economic development and the arts (Dumbing down American school programs. St Hope should be called No Hope).

    In 2003, St. HOPE formed St. HOPE Public Schools, a pre-K-12 independent charter school system that provides education to nearly 2,000 students in seven small schools.

    On March 5, 2008, Johnson announced he would run for mayor of Sacramento, his hometown, challenging incumbent Heather Fargo. Election day was June 3, 2008. Since no candidate received a majority of the vote in the nonpartisan election, there was a runoff.

    Johnson garnered the endorsement of the Sacramento Police Officers Association (SPOA), the Sacramento Regional Builders Exchange, the Chamber of Commerce, Realtors’ Association and Labor Council, among others. Johnson was also endorsed by Sacramento City Council members Steve Cohn (Vice Mayor) and by former Sacramento Mayor Jimmie Yee.

    So far, so normal. But that all changed in the Fall of 2008, when Mr. Johnson was elected mayor of Sacramento. News of the suspension had become public, and President Obama began to discuss his federal stimulus spending. A city-hired attorney pronounced in March that Sacramento might be barred from receiving federal stimulus funds because of Mr. Johnson’s suspension. Thus, the change in the investigation into the misappropriation of the funds he borrow from the AmeriCorp funds meant for school children.

    The news caused a public uproar. The U.S. Attorney’s office, which since January 2009 had been headed by Lawrence Brown — a career prosecutor who took over when the Bush-appointed Attorney left — had already decided not to pursue criminal charges. Media and political pressure then mounted for the office to settle the issue and lift Mr. Johnson’s suspension. Mr. Walpin agreed Mr. Johnson should pay back money but objected to lifting the suspension. He noted that Mr. Johnson has never officially responded to the Corporation’s findings and that the entire point of suspension is to keep federal funds from individuals who’ve shown to have misused them.

    Obama needed the investigation to go away. Mr. Brown’s office responded by cutting off contact with Mr. Walpin’s office and began working directly with the Corporation, the board of which is now chaired by one of Mr. Obama’s top campaign fundraisers, Alan Solomont. A few days later, Mr. Brown’s office produced a settlement draft that significantly watered down any financial repayment and cleared Mr. Johnson. Mr. Walpin told us that in all his time working with U.S. Attorneys on cases he’d referred, he’d never been cut out in such fashion.

    Mr. Walpin brought his concerns to the Corporation’s board, but some board members were angry over a separate Walpin investigation into the wrongful disbursement of $80 million to the City University of New York. Concerned about the St. HOPE mess, Mr. Walpin wrote a 29-page report, signed by two other senior members of his office, and submitted it in April to Congress. That Wednesday in 2009, he got a phone call from a White House lawyer telling him to resign within an hour or be fired.

    The settlement amount represented one-half of the $847,673 in AmeriCorps funds received by St. HOPE Academy over three years from 2004 to 2007. Johnson, St. HOPE Academy’s founder and former CEO, agreed to pay $72,836.50 of St. HOPE Academy’s $73,836.50 initial payment. In a settlement, St. HOPE Academy acknowledged not adequately documenting a portion of its AmeriCorps grant expenditures, and the Corporation for National and Community Service terminated its September 24, 2008 suspension of St. HOPE Academy and Johnson from receiving federal funds, ending questions about Sacramento’s eligibility to receive federal stimulus funds. That’s the most important part… stimulus funds. The liberals are calling it something different now because the word “stimulus” has negative reaction from the People.

    The liberals have long since disliked the position of inspectors general, on grounds that they are creatures of Congressional designed to torment the executive. Yet this case appears to be one in which an IG was fired because he criticized a favorite Congressional and executive project (AmeriCorps), and refused to bend to political pressure to let the Sacramento mayor have his stimulus dollars.

    There’s also the question of how Mr. Walpin was terminated. He says the phone call came from Norman Eisen, the Special Counsel to the President for Ethics and Government Reform, who said the President felt it was time for Mr. Walpin to “move on,” and that it was “pure coincidence” (there are no coincident in politics) he was asked to leave during the St. HOPE controversy.

    Yet the Administration has already had to walk back from that claim.
    That’s because in 2008, Congress passed the Inspectors General Reform Act, which requires the President to give Congress 30 days notice, plus a reason, before firing an inspector general. A co-sponsor of that bill was none other than Senator Obama. Having failed to pressure Mr. Walpin into resigning (which in itself might violate the law), the Administration was forced to say he’d be terminated in 30 days, and to tell Congress its reasons. (Anytime you hear a politician use the word “Reform” that means a once right we had has been lost and come under control of the federal government. We should just run).

    White House Counsel Gregory Craig cited a complaint that had been lodged against Mr. Walpin by Mr. Brown, the U.S. Attorney, accusing Mr. Walpin of misconduct, and of not really having the goods on Mr. Johnson. But this was curious given that Mr. Brown himself settled with St. HOPE, Mr. Johnson and his assistant, an agreement that required St. HOPE (with a financial assist from Mr. Johnson) to repay approximately half of the grant, and also required Mr. Johnson to take an online course about bookkeeping.. (Now that was really funny. I laughed for 10 minutes).

    Walpin was suspended with pay on June 11, 2009 by President Barack Obama, who on the same day advised the U.S. Congress that he would remove Walpin from office, effective 30 days from then, because he no longer had “the fullest confidence in” Walpin as Inspector General, and on June 16, 2009, the White House submitted a letter with additional information on the reasons Walpin was removed.

    On July 17, 2009, Walpin filed a civil lawsuit in federal court seeking his reinstatement as CNCS Inspector General, arguing that his removal violated the 2008 Inspector General Act. On July 20, 2009, Walpin issued a statement saying the primary reason for his lawsuit was to protect future Inspectors General.

    On October 19, 2009, the chairman of the Integrity Committee of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE) notified Walpin that his May 20, 2009 response to an April 29, 2009 complaint about him by acting U.S. Attorney Lawrence G. Brown had sufficiently and satisfactorily addressed the matter and closed the complaint.

    On June 17, 2010, U.S. District Court Judge Richard W. Roberts dismissed Walpin’s wrongful-termination lawsuit.

    Connection to AmeriCorp and the Obama’s: Iowa Republican Chuck Grassley, a co-sponsor of the IG Reform Act of 2008, was now demanding that the Corporation hand over its communications on this mess. He also wanted to see any contact with the office of First Lady Michelle Obama, who has taken a particular interest in AmeriCorps, and whose former chief of staff, Jackie Norris, recently arrived at the Corporation as a “senior adviser.” Oh the webs they weave when they practice to deceive.

    If this seems like small bear to, keep in mind that Mr. Obama promised to carefully watch how every stimulus dollar is spent (He sent his number 1 bulldog Joe Biden to handled how the money was distribute and spent). In this case, the evidence suggests that his White House fired a public official who refused to roll over to protect a Presidential crony.

    Another side note regarding Kevin Johnson: During the summer of 1995, a 16-year-old girl alleged that Johnson had groped her. Johnson apologized to the girl when he was confronted by her with the accusation during a phone conversation recorded by Phoenix police. However he also stated that “what you’re saying happened, I’m not entirely agreeing happened.” The Sacramento Bee stated that they had received a copy of a proposed settlement agreement, under which Johnson would have paid the girl’s family $230,000. After conducting an investigation, the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office declined to prosecute, on the grounds that there was not a reasonable likelihood of conviction.

    I would list where I got this information, most from the Sacramento Bee but when I tried to pull the story up they were all gone. Luckily I printed out most of the articles and used that as my guide. This is the second time I tried to pull up stories written by a reporter from the Sacramento Bee. The other involved the Pelosi’s. The author no longer works for the paper and you have to wonder why? We’re they forced to remove him because his articles seem to attack liberals. Pressure from the White House? I cannot be shocked by them anymore. The lower I think they can go, they always prove me wrong and show they can always go even lower.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s