JOBS AND THE ECONOMY

What’s the best way for the state to encourage job creation?

Get rid of the state income tax.

Do you favor any changes in Iowa’s tax incentive programs to attract businesses or encourage job creation?

I believe such programs violate the foundational principle of equal protection under the law, and amount to crony capitalism, i.e., state socialism. Our laws and public policies should equally protect, and benefit, all, not just a favored few. That's why instead I advocate the elimination of the state income tax, to create an economic tide that would lift all boats. States like South Dakota, Texas, Florida and others have demonstrated the wisdom of this approach.

Do you favor any specific changes in how Iowa regulates businesses?

I support regulation that fulfills a legitimate state interest in protecting the health and welfare of the people. All other regulations, especially those whose purpose is mere social engineering, should be eliminated as quickly as possible.

Do you support any changes to Iowa laws governing requirements to gain and maintain occupational licenses?

I support licensing that fulfills a legitimate state interest in protecting the health and welfare of the people. However, I think all licensing that is purely protectionist, i.e., merely to protect members of certain industries, should be done away with. Perhaps in the latter case we could look at some sort of optional state or private certifications as a service to those industries and their customers.

Should Iowa raise the minimum wage?

No. I don’t think there should be a minimum wage. Such laws are outside the legitimate bounds of government, because they violate private property rights and the rights of free association and private contracts.

TAXES AND SPENDING

What one or two areas of state government would be the highest priority for spending cuts if they are needed?

The majority of our state budget goes to education. I want to get the state and national governments out of the education business, and restore what I call T.L.C., or True Local Control, over our schools. That means that we need to completely overhaul our state tax system, leaving those dollars at home, because the money is the means of control. It makes no sense for us to continue to send our education dollars to Des Moines and Washington, D.C., where they run those dollars through a huge bureaucracy before sending a little bit back with strings attached. Bureaucrats do not teach or care for children. Parents, churches, communities, and teachers teach children.

Would you push for any changes in the state’s tax structure, including personal or corporate income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, or other taxes?

All income taxes should be eliminated. All direct taxes on businesses should be eliminated. Businesses ultimately don’t pay taxes anyway. They simply pass the costs on to the consumer. If they didn’t, they would be out of business. All property taxes should remain in the counties. We can meet all of our legitimate state constitutional duties with sales and excise taxes.

Do you favor an increase in the gas tax to finance highway and bridge work?

No. We have plenty of money in the system now. It must, to put it simply, be spent more wisely.

Should Iowa address its child care “cliff,” where working-poor families can abruptly lose child-care assistance when their income rises slightly?

I don’t think the state should be involved in child care. That is the legitimate responsibility of parents and our communities, not the State of Iowa.

SOCIAL ISSUES

Do you favor retaining or working to repeal same-sex marriage in Iowa?

Our law concerning marriage in Iowa remains one man and one woman. That law is what should be enforced.

Do you favor any changes in abortion laws in Iowa?

The practice of human abortion violates the most fundamental natural law principles of the Declaration of Independence, destroying the concept of God-given, unalienable rights, as it destroys the individual child. It violates every single clause of the stated purposes of the United States Constitution. It violates the explicit, imperative requirements of the Fifth, the Eighth, and the Fourteenth Amendments, most notably that each individual person, in every jurisdiction, be provided with the equal protection of our laws. It also violates Article One, Section One, of the Iowa Constitution, which clearly recognizes the intrinsic nature of the individual right to live.

Do you favor any changes in gun laws in Iowa?

I support the passage of Constitutional Carry legislation, which will remove any and all impediments to our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

EDUCATION

Does the public education Iowa students receive meet your definition of “world class”? If not, please address steps for improvement.

The quality of our public education in Iowa continues to ebb, as parents, those with the primary duty to raise their children, lose control over the educational process. This degradation should surprise no one with any rudimentary understanding of human nature and history. People simply do not take ownership of that which they do not control.

Do you think the Iowa Core Curriculum is rigorous enough?

The Iowa Core Curriculum is an ill-conceived power grab, and it is vastly deficient. If you want an education that is rigorous, perhaps you could reinstate the requirements to graduate from the eighth grade that were in place in our one-room schoolhouses more than a century ago.

Should Iowa rescind its adoption of the Common Core state standards?

Yes. We can’t do it fast enough to suit me.

Are teacher salaries high enough?

That should be a decision that is made by local parents and taxpayers.

Do you think Iowa’s K-12 public schools, community colleges and state universities are adequately funded? Please address each.

Again, I want the state and national governments out of the education business. In an age in which we have instant access, at the click of a mouse, to vast stores of information and knowledge, our current system, bloated to excess by taxpayer dollars, makes no practical sense.

Should parents who choose to educate their children in private or religious schools or at home receive vouchers or tax breaks from the state?

No.

Should Iowa expand efforts to ensure every child can attend free preschool if their parents want them to do so?

No.

HEALTH CARE

Should Iowa make any changes in its approach to implementing the Affordable Care Act, often called Obamacare?

Obamacare, and therefore Iowa’s implementation of it, is blatantly unconstitutional. It should be dismantled, nationally and in our state, before it does any more damage.

Please give a letter grade to Iowa’s redesign of its mental health care system. Is the system adequately funded?

At this point I don’t know, lacking as I do the resources of the governor’s office to explore the question. I believe that the State of Iowa does have a legitimate role in this area, and that we should make every effort to assure a humane, decent, efficient system is in place.

Do you favor changing Iowa law to allow use of marijuana to treat medical conditions if a patient’s doctor approves?

Within very tight limits, yes. For example, the State of Utah recently passed legislation allowing the specific use of an extract for the treatment of those with severe epilepsy. I would sign such legislation as governor.

Is the state’s oversight of emergency medical services adequate?

At this point I don’t know, lacking as I do the resources of the governor’s office to explore the question.

ENVIRONMENT

Do you think Iowa’s efforts to improve water quality in lakes, rivers and streams are adequate?

I think they are more than adequate.

Do you think Iowa’s efforts to protect air quality are adequate?

Yes.

Do you favor local control over siting of large livestock facilities?

Yes.

GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

Disciplinary taken actions against public employees are generally public records, but should there be a requirement to disclose the reason for the discipline to the public?

No, I don’t think so, not unless the offense is of a criminal nature.

Should the Iowa Juvenile Home be reopened?

Yes. It is a perfectly good facility, one that we’ve spent millions of dollars on, located in a great community that has a long history of devotion to the kids.

Does state government have too few, too many or about the right number of at-will employees, who can be fired without cause?

Too few.

MISCELLANEOUS

Should fireworks be legalized in Iowa?

Yes.

Tea Party Tribune

For Immediate Release

Subject; Tom Hoefling Endorsement by Tea Party Community.com

Contact; Ken Crow (832) 377-6807

Candidate for Iowa Governor, Tom Hoefling picked up a key endorsement on Monday April 14th from the Internet Tea Party Social Community giant known as Tea Party Community.com. The social community comprised of mostly conservative Republicans and Tea Party faithful came out in full force behind the conservative candidate Hoefling. Tea Party Community has membership numbering into the six digits and are very active in working to get conservatives elected at all levels of government.

When asked “why” Tea Party Community was endorsing Hoefling; Ken Crow (Co-Founder) stated categorically that Mr. Hoefling espouses and promotes true conservatism at all levels. Crow went on to state that Iowa is in desperate need of a principled conservative leader that doesn’t just “talk” the talk about reining in government but will actually do it.

Crow concluded his endorsement of Hoefling for Governor by saying; it is time that we in Iowa elect a truly honorable and principled leader. Tom Hoefling is that man and I am so very honored to endorse this great leader that doesn’t make excuses but actually fulfills his commitments. 

###

View Tom’s Tea Party Report Card Vetting Survey
Visit Tom’s campaign website
Join Tom’s Facebook campaign page
Follow Tom on Twitter
Connect with Tom on Tea Party Community

The New American

Alex Newman

Facing a growing avalanche of grassroots opposition from teachers, parents, and voters across the political spectrum, pro-Common Core forces — Big Business, Big Media, the Obama administration, and more — are striking back at their critics, oftentimes with outright deception and utterly ridiculous claims. However, under even a modicum of scrutiny, the absurd allegations and unsubstantiated statements made by proponents of the Obama administration-funded nationalization of education standards promptly fall apart. It appears, then, that while Common Core supporters have the big bucks — much of it from U.S. taxpayers, most of the rest from Big Business and the Gates Foundation — advocates for local control and proper education have the truth on their side. 

From the outset, the shadowy development and nationwide imposition of the widely criticized national K-12 standards have been shrouded in deception. The oft-parroted myth that Common Core was in any way “state-led,” for example, has been thoroughly discredited by this publication and many others, including by some of the nation’s top experts in the field. Claims that the nationalized standards would improve education have also been widely debunked, even by some of the respected educators who sat on the largely for-show “Common Core Validation Committee.” The content experts in both English and Mathematics refused to sign off on the standards, citing poor quality, incorrect math, and more.  

Meanwhile, Common Core financier and population-control fanatic Bill Gates inadvertently exposed the lie that the standards did not represent a takeover of the curriculum. “Last month, 46 Governors and Chief State School Officers made a public commitment to embrace these common standards,” Gates said during a speech at the 2009 National Conference of State Legislators. “This is encouraging — but identifying common standards is not enough. We’ll know we’ve succeeded when the curriculum and the tests are aligned to these standards.”

The notion that the federal government and the Obama administration were not involved in the whole scheme to centralize control over schools is so absurd that pro-Common Core zealots appear to have largely stopped making the claim. The national Common Core testing regime, for instance, is being financed by the federal government. The shadowy D.C.-based National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) also receive large sums of taxpayer cash, much of it through the federal government. Of course, as The New American has documented extensively, the Obama administration used billions of taxpayer dollars to bribe and bludgeon states into imposing Common Core, too.    

Still, the deception by Common Core advocates continues unabated. One of the most incredible recent examples reviewed by The New American came from the “Higher State Standards Partnership,” a front group for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable. The astroturf group paid to publish a propaganda advertisement in The Daily Caller headlined “How Common Core state standards prevent federal control of education.” The Big Business front-group’s ad, with a format designed to make it look like an actual article, never explained how the nationalized standards would prevent federal control of education. Instead, the ad made the preposterous claim that abandoning Common Core “would only bolster the hand of the Administration and invite federal control into our schools.”

While the Big Business front group has been producing ads purporting to show that “teachers” support the standards, that lie is easily put to rest by witnessing the revolt among teachers in New York, where the Common Core roll-out has advanced faster than in other states. There, the board of the state teachers union voted unanimously against Common Core as it has been implemented so far. New York State Assemblyman Al Graf, a member of the Assembly Education Committee with a degree in education, even told The New American that the controversial standards represent “state-sponsored child abuse.” Even the governor in the establishment stronghold has been forced to retreat slightly on Common Core in the face of the public uprising. Opponents of the education takeover say this is just the start.         

In Wisconsin, meanwhile, as The New American reported late last year, a handful of extremist Democrat politicians even resorted to concocting fantastical conspiracy theories about the overwhelming public outrage over the national standards. Among other claims, they suggested that some sort of vast right-wing conspiracy was afoot when five top authorities on the standards testified against them — even though many of the experts the lawmakers were attacking as part of the supposed conspiracy were in fact associated with the political Left. “Your manipulative, race/religion-baiting, sociopathic, misleading press release is a textbook example of what is wrong with American politics and is clearly a window into the mind of a warped individual who values the spotlight over serious discussions related to our nation’s children,” wrote Dr. Gary Thompson, a child psychologist who said he campaigned for Obama, after disgraced State Sen. John Lehman claimed the expert had been “fronting” for “right-wing extremism” in his testimony against Common Core.

More recently, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel newspaper, widely regarded as having a strong bias in favor of Big Government and the Democrat Party, provided an excellent example of the deception when it launched a half-baked attack on Dr. Duke Pesta under the guise of doing a “profile.” The respected university professor and prominent Common Core critic has been traveling across America exposing the controversial national education standards to massive audiences. Already, he has spoken to tens of thousands of Wisconsin parents during his more than 150 talks, in addition to large groups all over the country. The piece, perhaps in an effort to seem “fair and balanced,” begins by noting that his students at the University of Wisconsin love him. However, the real agenda soon becomes transparent: attacking the popular professor for his powerful opposition to Common Core.

In addition to parroting the debunked talking points of Common Core proponents as if they were fact — a big faux pas in journalism — Journal-Sentinel reporter Karen Herzog cites alleged “critics” of Pesta’s efforts who supposedly “accuse him of making statements about the nationwide academic standards that are inflammatory, inaccurate or just plain absurd.” It turns out that those “critics,” in fact, at least the only one cited in the article, is one state education bureaucrat who makes blatantly false claims throughout the article — claims that the reporter allowed to pass unchallenged. Pesta said he was either not allowed a chance to respond, or the reporter simply ignored and omitted the vast amounts of documentation he provided that refuted the falsehoods.    

Dr. Duke Pesta spent hours sending documents and information to the Journal-Sentinel reporter backing up the assertions he has made during his talks. Indeed, a copy of the documents with the reporter’s questions and Dr. Pesta’s responses obtained byThe New American reveals meticulous use of official sources and news reports to support every statement that the newspaper brought into question. “Every single thing that this [Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction] DPI hack challenges in the article, I went through meticulously and explained it to her,” Dr. Pesta said in a recent radio interview with popular Wisconsin show host Vicki McKenna. “She didn’t include one shred of that evidence.”

Consider, as just one representative example of the deception and journalistic malpractice, the Journal-Sentinel’s claim, attributed to unnamed “critics,” that Pesta’s warning about “a national sex education standard” in the pipeline is “inflammatory, inaccurate or just plain absurd.” In fact, it is public knowledge that a wide assortment of outfits, including abortion giant Planned Parenthood, is pushing national sex-education standards. Dr. Pesta even provided a link to the document and a key excerpt from it: “The National Sexuality Education Standards were further informed by the work of the CDC’s Health Education Curriculum Analysis Tool (HECAT); existing state and international education standards that include sexual health content; the Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education: Kindergarten – 12th Grade; and the Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and Mathematics, recently adopted by most states.” (Emphasis added). 

The reporter was apparently not interested. “She never allowed me to make my case, she simply allowed the DPI guy to respond to little fragments of things that I might have said,” Pesta continued, challenging DPI “Director of Education Information Services” John Johnson to a public debate. “If my comments are as absurd as you say they are, you should have no problem dealing with me in a public forum. What do you say, John? Quit hiding behind the DPI and the Journal-Sentinel and letting them do your hit work and lobbing you soft-balls, and you come out and talk to an actual person about this.” The radio host, McKenna, agreed, saying she would like to see the alleged documentation and evidence behind the state education bureaucracy’s claims. Neither theJournal-Sentinel’s Herzog nor the DPI’s Johnson responded to requests from The New American for comment and documentation by press time.

The reporter, however, did attend one of Pesta’s three-hour presentations on Common Core in Cedarburg, Wisconsin, several days before her article was printed. More than 150 Wisconsin citizens, including four state legislators and two school board members, were in attendance. In detailed fashion, Pesta made his case against Common Core, citing and documenting his information throughout the talk. Incredibly, though, no mention of the hard-hitting talk appears in the article, and Herzog apparently failed to interview a single attendee. Throughout the article, Herzog cites supposed “critics” of Pesta's presentation, yet she never reveals the fact that, according to Pesta, none of those critics (or critic) ever attended one of his talks. Nor did she bother to solicit the opinions of people who actually heard Pesta speak in Cedarburg or elsewhere.

Still, the attack piece may, ironically, be an encouraging sign. “They would not be doing this if we were not making serious, serious inroads, if we weren’t threatening them,” Dr. Pesta said on the radio show, adding that in the day and a half since the article was published, he had received another dozen invitations to speak on the issue. “I prove everything I say, I proved it to that reporter.... This is how the Journal-Sentinel works.”

Indeed, Pesta, who was not informed that the reporter was working with the DPI operative on the hit piece, was never even given an opportunity to respond to his debunked claims. The paper also took some of Pesta’s remarks out of context and, incredibly — in a profile about Pesta — allowed the DPI operative to have the last word in the transparent hatchet job. “So much for a profile piece on me,” Pesta said, adding that the reporter misrepresented basic facts, even claiming to Pesta that her readers were not interested in Common Core and so it would not be the focus of the piece. The radio host agreed with Pesta, arguing that the journalist repeated brazen falsehoods, such as the claim that Common Core standards were “internationally bench-marked.”  

Herzog also invents an alleged “conflict of interest,” citing unnamed supposed “critics,” by noting that Dr. Pesta “moonlights” as the academic director of FreedomProject Education, an online K-12 school that prides itself on being free of Common Core influence. However, she fails to mention the real conflict of interest — that of her “critic,” the DPI’s Johnson. The Obama administrationprovided massive bribes to state education officials in exchange for imposing Common Core. Even worse, Obama and top administration officials repeatedly told government-school employees and officials that their stimulus-funded bribes to state governments were, as the president put it, "saving" the jobs of hundreds of thousands of teachers. Because the unconstitutional bribes were linked to accepting Common Core and Orwellian new data-mining schemes, the administration essentially tried to buy the support of state and local education workers by claiming that their employment was at stake. Now that is a real conflict of interest — one that readers of the Journal-Sentinel deserved to know about.

The fact is that Common Core proponents must rely on taxpayer-funded bribes, deceptive propaganda funded by special-interests, and brazen deception to push the deeply controversial national standards. As the truth becomes more widely known, as it inevitably must, the radical effort to nationalize American education will almost certainly encounter even fiercer resistance. Already, numerous state governments across America, facing a mushrooming backlash from across the political spectrum, are working to extricate themselves from the scheme. However, as the deception unravels and the reality of the standards becomes clear, the tsunami of opposition to Common Core will continue to grow and accelerate.   

Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, education, politics, and more. He can be reached atanewman@thenewamerican.com. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU.

Related articles:

Common Core: A Scheme to Rewrite Education

Orwellian Nightmare: Data-mining Your Kids

UN, Obama, and Gates Are Globalizing Education Via Common Core

Common Core and UN Agenda 21: Mass Producing Green Global Serfs

On the Defensive, Shills for Common Core Hype Distractions

Big Business Launches Pro-Common Core Propaganda Blitz

Debunking Myth of Common Core Education as “State Led” (Video)

New York Revolts Against Common Core 

Educators Expose Dangers of Common Core National Education

Common Core: People vs. Big Government, Big Business, and Billionaires

Heritage Foundation

Common Core is on the ropes. More and more states are pulling back from the national standards as the 2014–15 school year implementation deadline looms near.

In Louisiana, Governor Bobby Jindal (R)—formerly a Common Core supporter—is now encouraging the legislature to remove the state from the Common Core aligned Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for Colleges and Careers (PARCC) test. And if they don’t act, he will.

Jindal’s new stance comes after eight members of the Louisiana State House of Representatives sent him a letter, informing him of his prerogative to opt out of the standards and encouraging him to do so. As The New Orleans Advocate reported:

Gov. Bobby Jindal said Monday that a gubernatorial order for the state to drop controversial Common Core tests is a ‘very viable option’ if state lawmakers fail to act. Jindal made the comment in response to a letter from eight House members who said the governor can opt the state out of the exams and should do that… ‘We believe you have the authority, as governor, under the 2010 PARCC memorandum of understanding, to opt out of the consortium,’ state Rep. Brett Geymann, (R–Lake Charles), and seven other legislators wrote.

In a statement released on Monday Jindal said,

"We share the concerns of these [anti-Common Core] legislators and also of parents across Louisiana. We’re hopeful that legislation will move through the process this session that will address the concerns of parents or delay implementation until these concerns can be addressed. We think this course of action outlined in the legislators’ letter remains a very viable option if the Legislature does not act."

But as The Times-Picayune reports,

"On a practical level, there is some question as to whether Jindal can unilaterally tear Louisiana away from the PARCC consortium, in which 16 states plus Washington D.C. participate. [Louisiana Superintendent] John White and Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education [BESE] president Chas Roemer said their permission is also required to leave the consortium, and both White and Roemer—who also avidly supports Common Core—are unwilling to do so."

Meanwhile, this week in South Carolina, State Superintendent Mick Zais officially withdrew his state from the Common Core aligned Smarter Balanced (SBAC) tests.

In a letter to the State Board of Education, Zais wrote:

"I want to have a high quality assessment that meets the specific needs of South Carolina, at a competitive price. If we continue to focus only on Smarter Balanced, we lose any opportunity to consider alternatives….

In consideration of the foregoing, and the discovery that I have the authority to withdraw South Carolina from its status as a governing state of the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, and after full consultation with the Governor’s Office and appropriate members of the General Assembly, I am informing you that I am exercising that authority."

Oklahoma, too, is currently in a battle over Common Core. The state senate passed a bill earlier this month downgrading the state’s involvement with the national standards, although there is some difference of opinion as to whether it would fully remove Oklahoma from the standards, or merely change the name of the standards.

Governor Mary Fallin (R), a supporter of Common Core and chair of the National Governor’s Association which helped develop the standards, said in a statement that she “support[s] passing legislation that increases classroom rigor and accountability while guaranteeing that Oklahoma public education is protected from federal interference…”

Meanwhile, the Missouri House of Representatives passed their bill to find a Common Core replacement.

“We’re going to create the process to have Missouri standards and Missouri assessments,” State Rep. Kurt Bahr (R), who introduced the measure, stated. The proposal requires that by October 1, 2014 the state board must develop new academic standards by the following October 2015, in place of the Common Core, and adopt and implement these standards by the 2016-17 school year.

Fifteen states have now made strides in halting or downgrading their involvement in the standards. Last month, Indiana became the first state to exit Common Core. This is promising momentum in the effort of states to reclaim their educational decision-making authority.

"Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. For he who has died has been freed from sin. Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him. For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord."

-- Romans 6:4-11

"We're winning!" - Tom Hoefling

WND

Bob Unruh

“Our Creator, not government, gives to all people ‘unalienable’ natural rights,” the opinion asserts, arguing that state laws protecting children after birth also cover the unborn.

The concurrent opinion by Chief Justice Roy Moore, who once fought the state over the display of the Ten Commandments, says: “As stated by James Wilson, one of the first justices on the United States Supreme Court: ‘Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine.’”

Moore noted the “first right listed in the Declaration as among our unalienable rights is the right to ‘Life.’”

“Blackstone wrote that ‘[l]ife is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in every individual; and it begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother’s womb,’” he wrote.

The case at hand dealt with a woman, Sarah Janie Hicks, who was charged after her newborn tested positive for drugs. She had pleaded guilty to a count of violating Alabama’s chemical-endangerment statute. Her conviction was affirmed.

“We … hold that the use of the word ‘child’ in the chemical-endangerment statute includes all children, born and unborn, and furthers Alabama’s policy of protecting life from the earliest stages of development,” the majority opinion said.

The non-profit Liberty Counsel, which represents pro-life organizations, submitted a brief in the case.

“In an age where some judges do not know the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, or do not even care, finally the Alabama Supreme Court springs forth with a ray of light,” said Mat Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel.

Staver said the opinions by Chief Justice Roy Moore and Justice Tom Parker “are well-reasoned, grounded in history and natural law, and completely demolish the fallacies of the U.S. Supreme Court’s abortion decisions.”

“One day soon the United States Supreme Court’s abortion opinions will come toppling down like a house of cards,” he said. ‘Then we will look back at history like we now do with Nazi Germany and wonder why our generation was so blind to the personhood of the preborn child.”

The 8-1 decision affirmed the position adopted by the court a year ago. In that case, Ankrom v. State, the court ruled the term “child” includes the “unborn child.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/protection-for-children-includes-unborn/#MUqKKDDz5dg0DGIj.99

WND

Alan Keyes

The dispute over their grazing rights on land administered by the federal government brought the Bundy family into tense confrontation with the Obama faction. Obama and his cohorts intended to make an example of the Bundy family, one that would discourage all Americans tempted to stand on their rights from doing so. But what was supposed to be a spectacular execution, striking fear into the heart of Americans who still think they live in the land of the free, has instead demonstrated the fact that at least some Americans have gone beyond thinking. They have taken action.

Following the example of previous generations of Americans, they formed a 21st-century instance of one of the committees of correspondence, which were the backbone of America’s resistance to the intended tyranny of the British government in the run up to America’s war for independence. Instead of the prospect of an intimidating victory over one isolated, vulnerable family, the Obama faction faced the common resolve of an organized community of citizens asserting their right to self-government.

It was supposed to be a chilling exercise of factional dominance. Instead it was shaping up to be a Rosa Parks episode, likely to serve as the byword for inspiring citizens throughout the nation to act on what it means to be American. Worse still from the would-be tyrants’ viewpoint, the Obama faction would come off looking like the bullies they most certainly are, arrogantly drawing first blood in their bid to crush the spirit of American liberty.

Now there are reports indicating that corrupt motives are at work in the U.S. government’s adamant effort to assert its “ownership” of the grazing land used by the Bundy ranch. A case can be made that the U.S. government’s management of the land was a form of permanent arbitration, intended to reduce the likelihood that local disputes would lead to violent confrontation. But arbitration makes sense only if the arbitrator is an “honest broker,” i.e., someone who has no prejudicial interest in the outcome. The U.S. government’s role is to help manage the land, not to help itself to the land. It is to be managed in the interest of the locals, who are thus acknowledged to own the usufruct, i.e., the right to derive profit or benefit from the property.

Of course, the actual intention of the U.S. government’s delegated land-management role is of no importance to Obama and his minions. Their aim is to “nationalize” the land, using whatever legal pretext is available. As an excuse, they look for some legalistic pretext for asserting ownership the U.S. government was never intended to possess, along with the power to determine how land is used without any regard for what is fair to local interests and good stewardship of the land. What is happening in Nevada is just a foretaste of things to come, as proposals move forward that will have the effective of allowing the Obama faction to assert pharaoh-like national ownership of much of the economically valuable land in America.

This is proof of the Obama faction’s totalitarian socialist agenda. But it also signals that a form of government is being imposed on the nation in which the government’s power is not constrained by respect for the rights of the people, as individuals or as a whole. Instead it is being deployed with the collusion of elected officials who serve as the focal points of factional dictatorship; lords, as it were, in an oligarchic regime that is no longer supposed to represent the people who “elected” them.

When government consists in rule by the wealthy, powerful few the deployment of power on their selfish behalf is not a corruption of government. It is the purpose for which it exists. The oligarchs own the country, exercising the full prerogatives of ownership, with the usufruct of all its goods, including the labor of its people.

In the course of the 20th century, we Americans allowed the institution of a national tax and banking system that handed the usufruct of our labor over to the control of a powerful few (those I refer to as the elitist faction.) We allowed the power of the judiciary to be abused so that this elitist faction could overturn the moral ideas and institutions (like the God-endowed family) without which the heart and spirit of self-government cannot be maintained.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/at-the-bundy-ranch-a-rosa-parks-moment/#zQBoWLwBHIGcokHh.99

Caffeinated Thoughts

Shane Vander Hart

*excerpt*

Kaufmann during his remarks mentioned a couple of different times that “this is not rhetoric, it’s results.”  Unfortunately his statement on local control and education standards is just that.

Governor Branstad has even been reported to say that he rejected Common Core.  He seems quite confused on the matter.

Let me be clear, again, Governor Branstad did not reject the Common Core.  Governor Branstad does not believe in local control there is NOTHING in his entire time as Governor that would indicate that.  To Governor Branstad and Mr. Kaufmann I would say you keep using that phrase “local control” I do not think it means what you think it means.  Centralization of education in Iowa began under Governor Branstad’s watch.  Anybody remember forced school consolidations in the 80s and 90s being directed by the Iowa Department of Education?  Then we have his push to control school start times, the bullying bill he’s pushing, and today he even signed a bill requiring school districts and accredited non-public schools to share their radon testing and mitigation plans with the Iowa Department of Education.  There has been nothing, but mandates or the desire to implement mandates on public schools.

That doesn’t even touch what he desired to do in his first education reform bill and agenda which, fortunately, did not go through as originally written.

With Governor Branstad’s executive order we slammed the barn door closed after the horse got out.  I addressed this at Iowans for Local Control...

*excerpt*

In regards to curriculum, schools were able to choose curriculum before, but it makes precious little difference when 46 states, who have embraced the Common Core at least in part, are driving the textbook and curriculum market toward “Common Core-aligned” resources.  It’s like saying “you can choose anything you want as long as its Common Core.”  The only way for that to change is for states to pull out, for real, not just rebranding. With the Common Core though it is full steam ahead.  Also the Branstad administration is still going after Federal education grants which come with Federal strings attached.  The Iowa Department of Education is still working toward implementing the Common Core-aligned Smarter Balanced Assessment with several school district piloting the assessment this year.

Hoefling in a press release sent yesterday stated, “I don’t know why they think they can get away with this, frankly. It is obvious to any honest observer that Terry Branstad continues to support Common Core, and that he has done nothing of any real substance in this legislative session to stop it. It is also clear that the Branstad executive order from last October that they constantly cite did nothing to stop the implementation of Common Core. That was, to put it simply, a political smokescreen, and everybody who has looked into this question closely knows it.”

Hoefling added, “Support for the Common Core standards, which amount to the final blow against any remaining vestige of local control of our schools, is bad enough. But when the Governor and his campaign staffers go out on the campaign trail and try to deceive the people of this state, that takes things to a whole new level. It is now more than just a disagreement over public policy. It is a question of honesty and integrity.”

I agree.  When it comes to the Common Core and his so called belief in local control in education the rhetoric just plain rings hollow.

Tom Hoefling for Iowa

For immediate release

Contact: tomhoefling@gmail.com

April 16, 2014

Des Moines – Iowa GOP gubernatorial primary challenger Tom Hoefling today charged that incumbent Governor Terry Branstad and his campaign are deceiving Iowa Republicans about Branstad’s ongoing support for the Common Core national standards.

Tom Hoefling said today, “I don’t know why they think they can get away with this, frankly. It is obvious to any honest observer that Terry Branstad continues to support Common Core, and that he has done nothing of any real substance in this legislative session to stop it. It is also clear that the Branstad executive order from last October that they constantly cite did nothing to stop the implementation of Common Core. That was, to put it simply, a political smokescreen, and everybody who has looked into this question closely knows it.”

Hoefling added, “Support for the Common Core standards, which amount to the final blow against any remaining vestige of local control of our schools, is bad enough. But when the Governor and his campaign staffers go out on the campaign trail and try to deceive the people of this state, that takes things to a whole new level. It is now more than just a disagreement over public policy. It is a question of honesty and integrity.”

The Hoefling campaign pointed to a report from the statewide group “Iowans for Local Control,” which can be found here:

http://iowansforlocalcontrol.com/2014/01/no-governor-branstad-did-not-reject-the-common-core/

###

Tom Hoefling:

Terry Branstad and his staffers are telling Iowa Republicans that the Governor does not support Common Core. But this is simply not true.

They are telling Iowa Republicans that he has done everything he can to stop Common Core, but again, this simply isn't true. Together with Republican leaders in the Iowa House, he assured that no true anti-Common Core legislation moved in this session of the Legislature.

They continue to deceive Republican primary voters by claiming that last October's Branstad executive order did something to stop Common Core, when it is simply not true.

Please, don't let them get away with this, folks. Does the truth matter to you?

An important repeat from January:

No, Governor Branstad Did Not Reject the Common Core
Iowans for Local Control

Shane Vander Hart

I had a Eastern Iowa resident contact me last week to discuss a tele-townhall he participated in with Governor Terry Branstad.  He said he was asked about the Common Core and Branstad replied, “I rejected the Common Core.” During his press conference on Monday when he discussed progress made on the education reform package passed last year. Branstad said he’s “tried to make it extremely clear that Iowa has our own standards…”

Yes we have the Iowa Core which consists of math, English language arts, social studies, science, and 21st Century learning skills.  During the Iowa House Education Committee meeting Rosie Hussey, the president of the Iowa State Board of Education and Dr. Brad Buck, director of the Iowa Department of Education, shared a presentation on the Iowa Core and Common Core and indicated that for Iowa’s math and ELA standards, Iowa has added 15%, but Common Core is the base.

So 85% of our standards were written by outside groups.

If you read through Governor Branstad’s executive order there is no rejection of the Common Core.

Read this story at iowansforlocalcontrol.com ...

April 15, 2014

"It's time to abolish all income taxes in America, at the federal and state levels, and declare April 15th to be just another fine spring day."

-- Tom Hoefling

"Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time, find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. If inequalities should arise in some States from duties on particular objects, these will, in all probability, be counterbalanced by proportional inequalities in other States, from the duties on other objects. In the course of time and things, an equilibrium, as far as it is attainable in so complicated a subject, will be established everywhere. Or, if inequalities should still exist, they would neither be so great in their degree, so uniform in their operation, nor so odious in their appearance, as those which would necessarily spring from quotas, upon any scale that can possibly be devised.

It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption, that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four." If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them."

-- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #21