Category: Guest Authors

Ebola Crisis Exposes Rotted Government

Ebola Crisis Exposes Rotted Government
By Chris Freind

 

Ring. Ring.

“Hello? CDC? Yeah. Quick question. I just took care of a guy with Ebola. Maybe you heard of that virus. Anyway, I was wondering — should I fly on a commercial airplane? And I should let you know that I have a fever.”

CDC: “Oh, fever, schmever. Sure. Why not? Enjoy the friendly skies. What’s the big deal?”

* * *

This conversation is obviously a parody of the real call that took place between a nurse that had direct contact with Ebola patient Thomas Duncan, and the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention.

Unfathomably, the CDC, did, in fact, give the thumbs up to Amber Vinson to fly commercially, despite having full knowledge that A.) she had been caring for an Ebola patient, B.) her colleague, nurse Nina Pham, had already contracted Ebola from Duncan, even though she had worn protective gear, and C.) Vinson had a fever — a symptom of the disease.

How is that possible? It is so immensely stupefying that, for once, this writer is at a loss for words, except to say that the American government is, undeniably, broken.

Its handling of the Ebola crisis — or, more accurately, the lack thereof — was, and remains, pathetic. Despite knowing that this Ebola outbreak, which began almost a year ago, was bound to come to America, the CDC made mistake after inexcusable mistake. One would think the “pregame” jitters would have subsided by now, and with it, the incompetence.

But it hasn’t.

In fact, the Dumb And Dumber show continues unabated.

* * *

The problem isn’t just with the CDC. And it’s not just the Obama Administration and Congress. It’s the entire government, at all levels.

Once upon a time, America solved its problems by rolling up its sleeves and getting the job done. From putting a man on the moon to foiling the Soviets during the Cold War, and from passing Civil Rights legislation to building a world-class transportation infrastructure, our leaders used common sense and an iron will to keep America moving forward.

But that has changed.

Somewhere along the way, we fell, and are now stuck in a malaise of stagnation, with far too many comfortable with mediocrity. Gone is the pioneering spirit that embodied what America was — a nation with an unbreakable self-confidence, and a people who innately understood that with a bold vision, and the courage to see it through, nothing was impossible. Whereas once we would never settle for second-best, now we are content with simply being “better than most.”

Which, as this writer has pointed out many times, is like being valedictorian of summer school.

Nowhere is that more apparent than the government’s failures. And before the partisan barbs fly, let’s not forget that it isn’t Obama’s government, nor was it Bush’s. It’s ours. We alone are responsible for picking the captain of our ship, and have no one to blame but ourselves for the course we have taken.

From the DMV to the White House, the failures of government have taken a serious toll on Americans’ optimism, the hallmark that, above all, has set us apart from every other nation.

Common sense has gone out the window. It has been replaced by politicians jockeying for the 30-second sound bite to gain cheap points and throw red-meat to their bases, with zero regard for actually coming up with a real solution.

The result is an America that either charges headlong into a situation before considering the ramifications, or, on the opposite end, sits idle and does nothing, paralyzed to act. When we do emerge from the fog, the crisis is already upon us, forcing us more often than not to make ill-fated decisions.

Consider:

–America ended its space shuttle program despite having no replacement; now, we must rely solely on the Russians to ferry us to our space station.

–Educational achievement levels continue to decline, yet no innovative solutions are offered; instead, we throw more money at the problem, despite knowing it won’t fix anything.

–We invade country after country with absolutely no clue about how to proceed once regime change is achieved; the results speak for themselves.

— Both Parties talk incessantly about reforming immigration, yet neither has any interest in doing so, creating a huge crisis on the southern border.

–Our onerous tax structure and unfavorable trade policies harm America’s companies, while foreign competitors continue to woo American jobs overseas.

— Despite full knowledge that America’s health care system was not equipped, let alone trained, to deal with the Ebola crisis, the government continues to drop the ball. Now, Americans routinely reject government reassurances that all will be okay. Instead, panic has set in, causing major volatility in the markets.

* * *

Whether it’s the miles of red tape, unaccountable bureaucrats, the bowing to political correctness, an overall aloofness to the concerns of Main Street USA — or all of the above — the causes for Americans’ growing pessimism must be addressed. Quickly.

The alternative is ever so bleak.

Ebola Crisis Exposes Rotted Government

Ebola Incompetence Endangers All

Ebola Incompetence Endangers All
By Chris Freind

Mindboggling. Astounding. Incomprehensible.

All perfectly describe the string of mistakes and idiotic actions of government officials and health care professionals dealing with the Ebola virus on American soil.

But the most important descriptor cannot be omitted.

Expected.

Since we are willfully letting Ebola in, how could we not expect unintended consequences and detrimental results? History teaches us it’s inevitable.

It’s bad enough that we allowed Ebola-stricken Americans to enter the U.S., but by granting unrestricted access to anyone who has traveled to West Africa within a 21-day time frame (Ebola’s incubation period), we asked for big trouble. And now that Thomas Duncan, a Liberian national who flew to America and became the first person diagnosed with Ebola on U.S. soil, we got it. Lots of it.

But don’t worry, we’re told. The “experts” have everything under control. America is more-than-prepared to contain Ebola and wipe it out.

So nothing to fear, right? Wrong. Dead wrong.

Given that Ebola happens to be one of the deadliest viruses in human history, and knowing this year-long outbreak in Africa was unprecedented, we should have been prepared. But in modern America, being proactive is treated with contempt, and as a result, Ebola was given a free ride.

So in the interest of preserving human civilization, let’s look at why Ebola, despite being downplayed by the government, needs to be considered such a grave threat:

HIV/AIDS is the world’s most infectious killer, but contracting it is quite difficult, making the average person’s risk factor virtually nonexistent. The risk to those engaged in certain sexual practices (where intimate physical contact is required for transmission) can be substantially mitigated if simple, medically advised precautions are taken. Yet despite that, a staggering 36 million people worldwide have died since 1981. Thirty-six million!

Contrast that to Ebola, which has a mortality rate of up to 90 percent and where person-to-person contact is not necessary to contract the virus, and it should be immediately obvious what we are facing. Yet officials continue living in la-la land, not seeing, or at least not admitting, that Ebola presents a potentially unstoppable pandemic, especially if it mutates.

Too many view pandemics, such as the Black Death, as relics of the ancient past, arrogantly believing modern medicine is equipped to stop anything. But in doing so, they forget 20th-century history. The Spanish Flu of 1918 devastated the world, including America (and Philadelphia in particular), infecting more than 500 million. It killed with startling efficiency, and as many as 100 million people perished (5 percent of the global population), leading Spanish Flu to be called “the greatest medical holocaust in history.”

Given that Ebola’s lethality is, at a minimum, 300 percent greater than the Spanish Flu, with its 10 to 20 percent mortality rate, it’s anything but alarmist to think we should be pulling out all the stops to halt Ebola. But we’re not. Consider:

1. Continuously admitting Americans infected with Ebola into the U.S. is playing Russian Roulette with five bullets in a six-round gun. We should spare no expense in setting up a Level-4 bio-hazard lab on a remote island to treat all Americans. No exceptions. But instead, the borders, especially at airports, remain wide open, warmly welcoming Mr. Ebola. That’s not compassionate. That’s suicide.

2. After exhibiting symptoms of Ebola at a Dallas hospital, Thomas Duncan was sent home, even after telling health care workers he had just been to Liberia, Ebola’s Ground Zero. First, the hospital blamed a nurse for failing to pass along that hugely critical information, then claimed Duncan’s medical report wasn’t visible to doctors due to an electronic records glitch. Also false. Turns out everyone on the case had access to the information, but simply missed it. Incomprehensible, yes, but also expected.

3. It gets worse. The highly contagious Duncan was free to roam for days, possibly infecting God knows how many — and, truly, only God knows, because the “experts” have no idea. Their guess at Duncan’s “close contacts” keeps rising (it was eight, now it’s over 100). Even after Duncan was diagnosed with Ebola, his family and friends moved freely, including sending possibly exposed children to school.

The family was eventually quarantined in Duncan’s apartment, but why there? Incredibly, no officials deemed it important to remove the family and immediately decontaminate the apartment. Instead, the family was forced to live in a petri dish alongside Duncan’s potentially virus-ridden sheets and clothes. The first cleanup crew, as well as police entering the apartment, had no virus protection. And topping it off, the emergency services’ reverse-911 call to warn residents failed in embarrassing fashion.

The real culprit in all the snafus is Ebola’s biggest benefactor: Human error. And that is why, despite claims to the contrary, Ebola cannot be contained. We knew it was coming, yet inexcusably bad decisions were made, and things went horribly wrong. What happens when it appears in a different form on a mass scale?

All of which makes the statements of Dr. Thomas Frieden, director of the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention — that “we are stopping it in its tracks in this country … There is no doubt in my mind we will stop it here” — ring hollow, huh?

The CDC keeps changing its story, out of both ignorance and deceit. Its leaders believe that by downplaying the extreme seriousness of Ebola and reassuring Americans that all is under control, the problem will go away. They couldn’t be more wrong.

 

Ebola Incompetence Endangers All

Philadelphia Dope Decriminalization Defended

Philadelphia Dope Decriminalization Defended
By Chris Freind

I was delirious with fever.

At first, I was certain it was Ebola. But turns out, it was much worse.

I found myself agreeing with Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter.

For a columnist espousing common sense and responsible government, any consensus with Nutter could make a career go to pot. But fair is fair, and in turning over a new leaf, I must congratulate the mayor for his recent action — which is sure to make the grass greener in Philadelphia. For a half-baked administration that’s been in the weeds for seven years, much more smoke than substance, better late than never.

In what will clearly be a high for the city, Mayor Nutter signed a law decriminalizing marijuana.

Maybe now Philadelphia can end its doobie-ous distinction of always being a backwards town as the mayor tries to get the joint back on track.

Adherents of misguided, draconian drug laws stand opposed to decriminalization, but they are living in a fog, using arguments better suited for the Stone Age.

The decriminalization of marijuana is a smart move for Philadelphia, and hopefully other municipalities will follow its lead.

To be clear, there is a distinction between legalization and decriminalization. Washington and Colorado have legalized marijuana, meaning people can grow and smoke a limited amount of pot without penalty; consumption laws are similar to those governing alcohol.

Decriminalization doesn’t make pot legal, but, as is the case with Philadelphia’s law, police will no longer arrest low-level offenders possessing small amounts of pot. Instead, those caught with 30 grams or less will receive a citation and a $25 fine; smoking it in public will result in either a $100 fine or up to nine hours of community service. Selling or distributing marijuana, as well as possessing more than 30 grams, are still crimes carrying significant penalties.

Nutter also is launching a public awareness campaign to explain the new law. That is commendable, since the average person thinks decriminalization and legalization are the same thing. There is a fine line between government decriminalizing pot and not appearing as though it is encouraging marijuana use.

Here’s the straight dope on why decriminalization is a good idea:

1. Why not decriminalize? At the most basic level, what’s the difference between smoking marijuana and drinking alcohol? Virtually none. Both alter the mind with excessive use, which is where that almost forgotten commodity called personal responsibility comes into play. If you drive or work while intoxicated, there is a price to be paid. The same types of regulations should apply to pot, as Washington and Colorado have done.

And let’s be honest: some of the biggest lobbies against decriminalization and legalization are the alcohol companies, but not because they’re worried about our health and well-being. Their opposition is rooted in financial self-interest, as they justifiably fear a loss of revenue as consumers emerge from the shadows to spend their “recreational” dollars elsewhere.

Bottom line: Since most people don’t view recreational marijuana use as harmful, and studies show pot is not a springboard to other drugs, what’s the big deal?

Ironically, it took action by died-in-the-wool big government Democrats like Nutter to start dismantling Philadelphia’s nanny state. Who would have ever believed that — without being high?

2. Logjams in law enforcement, backlogs in courts, and overcrowding in prisons will be somewhat relieved due to thousands fewer being arrested and processed in the judicial system. Granted, there are many other reforms needed, but this no-brainer is a good place to begin.

3. Police have better things to do than chase recreational pot users. Last time we checked, Philly still had extremely high rates of violence and murder; in fact, the Mayor is still being blatantly disingenuous in how he reports murders. Rather than comparing murders year to year, which is the common sense way to measure progress, he compares them to murders in 2007, the high-water mark for killings. So while the claim is made that the murder rate is “down,” there have actually been seven more murders year-to-date than at the same point in 2013.

There’s a lot of work to be done to make Philadelphia safer for residents, workers and tourists; finding solutions should be the Mayor’s first priority, and this new law will help him focus on that.

4. In a larger context, Nutter has much bigger fish to fry. Philadelphia is one of the most heavily taxed cities in the nation, its schools are dismal and manufacturing plants (and the good jobs they generate) are a distant memory. This has created a vicious cycle: Because of these problems, few companies want to relocate to Philadelphia and many others leave. As businesses and jobs disappear, so do billions in tax revenue; those remaining pay ever-higher taxes despite a vastly decreased customer base. The result is a rapidly-shrinking middle class and continued residential flight.

Any initiative not centered on reversing those monumental problems — such as expending resources to apprehend low-level pot smokers — should be immediately jettisoned.

The decriminalization of marijuana is not waving the white flag of defeat in the “war on drugs,” nor a gift to “druggies” born out of a desperate “they’re going to do it anyway, so why not make it legal” mentality.

It is a smart, reasonable approach to dealing with cannabis and its storied history (George Washington and Thomas Jefferson grew hemp) while not wavering on the fight against the real drugs that threaten society. Hopefully, decriminalization and legalization will also lead to more accepted medicinal marijuana for its undeniably positive attributes.

So kudos, Mr. Mayor. Moving forward, just don’t forget to exhale.

 

Philadelphia Dope Decriminalization Defended

Priests HHS Mandate Case Advances

By Father Frank Pavone

The lawsuit of Priests for Life against the Obama Administration’s HHS mandate continues to move forward in the nation’s second highest court. We filed earlier this month a supplemental brief with the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals addressing two key developments that have occurred since oral arguments were heard by that court in May. The brief declares that the religious freedom violations inflicted by the HHS mandate are not eliminated by the government’s new regulations, but rather perpetuated. It also states that rather than help the government’s case, the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision strengthens the arguments contained in Priests for Life’s lawsuit.

The filing in Priests for Life v. HHS argues that the latest government “accommodation” to Obamacare’s HHS mandate offers no actual change in policy and, therefore, does nothing to alleviate the mandate’s harm to Priests for Life and other religious groups.

At issue in Priests for Life’s lawsuit is whether the federal government can compel a religious non-profit organization to violate the faith upon which it exists and operates. Even more to the point is the question of whether the government can force such a violation of faith when its purported policy goal can be achieved easily in other ways.

Before its latest regulations were issued, the Department of Health and Human Services had required religious non-profit groups to file a form with their insurance companies authorizing that their employees be provided with coverage for sterilization and birth control drugs and devices, including those which can cause abortions. The authorization of such drugs and devices would directly violate the teaching of the Catholic Church.

After two recent Supreme Court actions related to the HHS mandate went against the government, the Obama administration apparently realized that its so-called “accommodation” for non-profit religious groups would not withstand legal scrutiny. It issued yet another version of this accommodation. As stated in Priests for Life’s latest brief, though, “The new regulations… continue the Government’s pattern of attempting to create the illusion of accommodation while coercing religious organizations to act contrary to their beliefs.”

Call it a smokescreen, call it a ruse, the government’s latest scheme still would require Priests for Life and other religious organizations to violate their faith. Under the new regulations, Priests for Life would be mandated to send authorization for abortifacient, contraceptive, and sterilization coverage for its employees to the government instead of to an insurance carrier. In the words of Priests for Life’s latest brief, “the new regulations do nothing more than provide Plaintiffs with another avenue for violating their religion.”

Referring to the Hobby Lobby decision, the brief also pointed out that the Supreme Court, in effect, reaffirms the arguments that Priests for Life is making. Hobby Lobby made it clear that the government cannot force a believer to act against his or her faith, and that when a believer identifies an action as contrary to his or her faith, it is not up to the government to judge whether that is unreasonable. Mr. David Green, CEO of Hobby Lobby, has stated, “The religious freedom of believers of all denominations is under attack. Our family therefore joins in prayerful support of the Priests for Life case against the HHS mandate. As our Hobby Lobby case represents the concerns of businesses, so the Priests for Life case represents the concerns of the religious non-profit groups. Together, we stand against this injustice, and for the law of God.”

Father Frank Pavone is national director of Priests for Life

Priests HHS Mandate Case Advances

Philly Cigarette Tax Fails

Philly Cigarette Tax Fails
By Chris Freind

One can strongly argue that the greatest contribution of our city and state officials is comic relief. And that’s exactly what we have in Harrisburg, as 114 representatives, 39 senators and one lame duck governor just passed the biggest joke legislation in recent memory – an increase in the tax on cigarettes bought in Philadelphia to $2 a pack. The tax revenue is intended to bail out the Philadelphia School District – a black hole that sucks endless amounts of taxpayer money into its coffers – despite its monumental failure to educate.

And the cycle continues: even though the district has more than enough money (over $20,000 per student, per year, yet somehow that’s not “fair”), it cried poor, and, like clockwork, got rewarded with more funding by gutless elected officials. The tragic punchline? The district will continue to score an “F” on the only test that matters: our children’s education.

Any seventh-grader could tell you that the cigarette tax will not only fail miserably in achieving its goal, but will, in fact, hurt Philadelphians. Consider:

1. The cigarette tax will supposedly raise $49 million, though, not surprisingly, projections continue to change. Since the district maintains that it has an $81 million deficit, a gap still remains. And given that Philadelphia taxes damn near everything already, making it one of the highest-taxed cities in the country, what’s next?

2. How exactly is $49 million – out of a $2.6 billion budget – going to help improve anything? Answer: it’s not.

3. It seems like all the justifications we have heard for more taxes and more funding are rooted in saving jobs. But let’s be honest: A) the district is massively inefficient and bureaucratically top-heavy; thousands of jobs can, and should be, eliminated, and B) the only thing that matters is the children, but like always, much of the money never finds its way to the classroom, where it’s needed most. More money doesn’t educate children; accountable educators do.

4. This column has discussed common sense, free-market reform measures ad nauseam. None have been implemented (one of Gov. Corbett’s many failures), nor will they be, because too many politicians fear the teachers’ unions. Until the status quo is turned upside down, nothing will change. All the money in the world won’t improve a thing, and once again, the only ones who really matter – the students – take the hit.

5. The results for standardized state exams are in, and are right where you’d expect – in the toilet. They’re worse than last year’s scores, with reading and math achievement dropping even further. Bottom line: After spending two-and-a-half billion dollars last year, fewer than half of all students met state standards. That’s insane.

6. Republicans who voted for the cigarette tax either A) know it won’t solve anything but knuckle under to pressure, or B) really think throwing more money into a bottomless pit will work. On either count, they deserve to be removed from office by the voters. Here’s hoping.

7. Now for the real world implications of the tax:

First, the anticipated revenue projections are a joke, and won’t come close to being met. Why? Because Philadelphia isn’t New York or L.A., where it would take an hour just to get outside the city limits to buy cheaper cigarettes. In Philly, it’s a quick drive to the surrounding counties where a pack of smokes is significantly cheaper.

And remember that Philadelphia already imposes an 8 percent sales tax (not 6, like the rest of the state), driving up the price that much more. Bottom line: smokers aren’t going to quit, but will simply buy their cigarettes elsewhere.

One wonders if the budget gurus factored in this “bootleg” factor of Philadelphians buying their cigarettes outside the city when they compiled their revenue projections.

Second, the tax will significantly hurt small business owners. Customers who normally bought their cigarettes (and numerous other things) at the corner store now will take their business elsewhere – a boon to convenience stores right over the border but a death knell to city shop keepers. And as they go by the wayside, so do jobs, as well as the income and property taxes they generate.

Nothing like putting more Pennsylvania small business owners out of business. One would think the job of the governor and the Legislature is to keep people employed and grow the economy, instead of forcing businesses to close, move out of state, and put people out of work. Guess not.

Rather than a “smoke” and mirrors approach, the governor and Legislature should have sent the message that enough was enough; instead of sending more blank checks to Philadelphia, it was time to finally overhaul a failed educational system. In doing so, they would have won the support not just of suburbanites sick of seeing their tax dollars wasted, but also the parents of those trapped in abysmal Philadelphia schools with no way out.

Instead, the promise of their new tax law will go up in smoke, and with it, another generation of lost children.

Philly Cigarette Tax Fails

State Police Fitness Suit Doesn’t Add Up

State Police Fitness Suit
By Chris Freind

After taking careful aim, he let the bullets fly, killing one Pennsylvania state trooper and severely injuring another in an ambush outside a police barracks. Suspect Eric Frein, a survivalist and sharpshooter, then fled into the wilderness, where he has eluded an army of police officers and FBI agents for almost two weeks.

Executing an unsuspecting police officer, while cowardly, nonetheless shows the sheer brutality of the shooter and his take-no-prisoners mentality. And given that he deliberately planned his attack on police, it is clear he wouldn’t discriminate shooting a male or female officer. In his mind, he was (and is) at war with law enforcement (he passed on shooting a civilian outside the barracks), so any officer in his sights would have been, and remains, a target, gender be damned.

Should Frein still be in the wilderness, all officers, male and female alike, hoping to successfully track him must be in peak physical shape because of the region’s rugged terrain. And should Frein be cornered by an officer, he will undoubtedly attempt to strike back with lethal force, attempting to kill a female officer just as quickly as he would a male to facilitate his escape.

Bottom line: Frein will show no discrimination killing police, treating all officers with equal opportunity contempt.

Therefore, since all officers face the same threats (not just from this suspect but in all situations, from car stops to home invasions), common sense tells us that all officers should be trained in the exact same way — and subject to the exact same fitness and academic standards, where gender has no bearing whatsoever.

Yet, if the Obama administration has its way, that standard would be shot to pieces.

In his belief that employing the same physical standards for both male and female cadets is discriminatory against women and a violation of the Civil Rights Act, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has filed suit against the Pennsylvania State Police, attempting to force it to change its physical requirements for females (and compensate women who have failed the test). The Justice Department claims “through the use of these physical fitness tests, defendants (the state police) have engaged in a pattern or practice of employment discrimination against women” and that “defendants’ use of physical fitness tests are not job-related for the entry-level trooper position, (and) is not consistent with business necessity.”

And there you have it. Another classic example of a lawsuit dreamt up by armchair bureaucrats completely lacking real-world experience — and real-world common sense.

How are physical fitness tests not “job-related” or a “business necessity?” When a bad guy flees, the police pursue, often on foot. Physically giving chase to, and ultimately overtaking, criminal suspects is a big part of the job. And since catching lawbreakers (usually involving intense physical exertion) is the core “business” of being a police officer, how exactly is that not consistent with “business necessity?”

Criminals aren’t chivalrous — they don’t let up when being chased by a female officer (or an overweight male); by definition, they are fleeing to escape capture. So why would the federal government want to give them an advantage by mandating officers be on the force who aren’t physically up to snuff? Why would we ever want standards implemented that not only help the bad guys, but devalue the abilities of all police officers — especially women, who are more than capable of passing the same tests as their male counterparts. (More than seven of 10 female cadets pass the physical requirements).

And let’s be honest. If anything, the existing requirements are far too lenient: Three chances to vertically jump a whopping 14 inches (fat people jump higher than that when the pizza guy arrives); a 300-meter run in 77 seconds (a feat easily accomplished by your average sixth-grader); a 1.5-mile run in 18 minutes (you could catch a quick nap and still make it); and 13 pushups with no time limit.

Are these requirements discriminatory? Absolutely! And they should be; the whole point is to weed out those who would not be able to perform on the job. Are we supposed to hire female lifeguards who can’t swim? Bus drivers with failing eyesight? Out-of-shape combat pilots who can’t sustain G-forces? Where does it end?

The police requirements are meant to simulate real-life, on-the-job situations that officers will — not may, but will — encounter: Foot pursuit, CPR, climbing stairs, lifting and pushing various things.

Yet, the Justice Department somehow doesn’t see it that way, stating that it “is deeply committed to eliminating artificial barriers that keep qualified women out of public safety work.” If cops never encountered any of the above situations, then the requirements would indeed be “artificial barriers.”

But they do. And therefore the requirements must not only stay, but be strengthened.

If the requirements are dumbed down, and the inevitable negative consequences occur, will Holder or President Obama take responsibility? And would it even matter to victims and their families if they did?

“We’re sorry that the rapist got away to strike again because our officers weren’t able to run a few hundred yards without wheezing; it’s a shame the drug dealer killed your young child because he was able to elude out-of-shape cops time and again; too bad those victims died in the fire because the police couldn’t mount the steps quickly.”

Not much solace there.

Except, of course, to a smug administration, content with a warped belief that its social engineering is changing America for the better. Here’s a news flash, Mr. President: Such assaults on common sense and work ethic don’t work, and only sow the seeds of resentment across all classes and all genders.

Hillary Clinton didn’t earn bonus votes because she was female. In the same way, if an applicant — for any job — can’t meet the requirements, the answer is to move on to something else, or work harder until you can pass the tests. Instilling a sense of misguided entitlement solely because of gender (the true “artificial barrier”) not only isn’t rewarding, but extremely dangerous.

So hats off to the Pennsylvania State Police for not caving, unlike their Corpus Christi, Texas, counterparts. That department, upon having after a similar suit filed against them, agreed to eliminate its physical fitness test, dole out $700,000 in compensation to women who had failed the test, and give priority hiring and retroactive seniority and benefits to females who didn’t pass the test.

And that is downright criminal.

Let’s hope the courts have the stamina to run rings around Obama’s frivolous lawsuit in Pennsylvania and push it to where it belongs: In the trash.

State Police Fitness Suit Doesn’t Add Up

Common Core Fails Says School Director

By Lisa Esler

Isn’t it strange that since the Federal Department of Education was established in the late 70’s, education has been on a disastrous downward decline even though America spends more money on education than any other nation? I think most of us older folks would agree we learned the 3 R’s very well before the FED started “improving” education.

Over the past several years, schools across the country have been implementing Common Core State Standards (CCSS). This is the latest centralized federal attempt to nationalize a new, one-size-fits-all, untested, convoluted teaching experiment with students as the guinea pigs.

These new Common Core Standards emerged from the wreckage of No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top. These two failed experiments are now part of the history of bad education reform along with the “Sight Reading” and “New Math” fiascos.

If the end goal of those who pushed Common Core was a truly honest attempt to improve education, wouldn’t they have used best practices from those states which were already proven to be successful? That did not happen. They also did not consult with Child Behavioral Scientists to see if the standards for each grade were age appropriate. In many cases, they are not age appropriate and therefore undue pressure is put on a child to perform above his developmental ability.

Furthermore, the standards were not state-led and voluntary as claimed by proponents. States have always been the laboratories of innovation and competition. Instead, a bunch of educrats and special interest groups got together and developed standards, ignoring concerns and alarms from professional, well-respected educators and psychologists. Just like No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top, in 2009-2010, CCSS was falsely packaged as rigorous, internationally-benchmarked standards. Because a large federal grant (bribe) was offered, Governor Rendell and then his successor Governor Corbett blindly accepted the standards, sight unseen, without consultation with our elected representatives in Harrisburg. Since then Pennsylvania has changed the name to “PA Core Standards” to ward off Common Core opponents but the standards are basically the same.

Opponents are worried that what was sold as minimal standards will lead to national control of curriculum in order to conform to the ‘Core Aligned’ tests. Bill Gates, who pushed for the CCSS through the financial generosity of his Foundation, said “when the testing is implemented, the curriculum will follow.” He even referred to students as his “customers.” He is absolutely right! Implementation of Common Core has created many “customers” for Microsoft and Pearson Publishing and the testing companies that are all salivating at the thought of the money they can make from the tests, new books and technology.

Great teachers are boxed in by new evaluations which are tied to the tests. They will lose their autonomy and creativity in the classroom since they will be forced to teach to the test. I don’t understand why more teachers, administrators speaking out!

Many parents know something has changed. Their kids are frustrated, have lost self-confidence and no longer like math. They tell me they can’t even help their elementary students with math homework since the old (simple) ways they use are now ‘incorrect’.

In addition to the manipulation of the curriculum and the tests, there is another aspect of Common Core which is known as “Core Data.” Are you aware that an enormous amount of ongoing data is being collected on our students and their families? At this time, it is unclear HOW all that academic and personal information will be used and, worse yet, uncertainty about who can access the data.

The potential for input errors and breach of privacy rights is daunting since the data follows every student from kindergarten through career.

Opposition to Common Core is growing stronger by the day. Our children’s education is far too important to be dictated by educrats and special interest groups in Washington that are counting their profits. Constitutionally, the federal government is prohibited from dictating curriculum. Let’s make sure education decisions are preserved at the state and local level with input from parents.

Please learn as much as you can about Common Core. There are many informative Youtube videos, Facebook Pages and Websites on the subject. Get informed, and if you agree with me, that CC is rotten to the core, speak up at your local School Board meetings.

Also, Common Core is one of those issues that cross political party lines. It seems that Gov. Corbett has recently requested a review of the CCSS by the Pennsylvania Department of Education but more needs to be done. Contact your State Senator and Representative. These politicians are hard at work worrying about the upcoming election yet not a peep out of most of them concerning one of the most basic responsibilities – the education of children.

Ask them where they stand on this important issue.

With your help, we can put an end to Common Core in Pennsylvania.

Mrs. Esler is a director on the Penn Delco School Board

 

Common Core Fails Says School Director

 

Common Core Fails Says School Director

Obama Performance No Fireside Chat

Last evening the American people were yet again treated to a performance given by President Obama. His speech used the usual collection of patriotic catch phrases to win over the audience to his much anticipated “strategy” for ending the genocide in the middle east. It was not a strategy. It was a political check list. Consult with Congress, check. Consult with UN, check. Consult with military advisers, oops.

His robot-like persona struggled uncomfortably to use American euphemisms in the right context. Think Mork from Ork on meth. Thirteen years after September 11 he remains incapable of projecting an understanding of American culture and honor. If he’s got it, he’s doing a hell of a job of hiding it.

Note to constitutional professor: America is a republic. Mysteriously they didn’t teach that anywhere between the madrasah and Harvard. Pretty sure they taught it at one of Sarah Palins alma maters. Read the text in parcels; spare yourself the audio. Only so much pomposity and pretense can be digested at one sitting.

He’s no FDR. This was no fireside chat. It was a campaign promise. It was a gift for those Democrat incumbents struggling to hold on to their Senate seats in Novembers mid term elections. THIS is his priority. Avoiding telegraphing his punches to a deadly enemy for the safety and success of our military is not.

Its purposes were devoid of connection to the realistic needs of a REPUBLIC under threat. His dishonesty and duplicity were breathtaking;

“And our own safety, our own security, depends upon our willingness to do what it takes to defend this nation and uphold the values that we stand for –- timeless ideals that will endure long after those who offer only hate and destruction have been vanquished from the Earth.”

versus

“It will not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil.”

Excerpted from FreedomRadioRocks.com

Obama Performance No Fireside Chat
Obama Performance No Fireside Chat

Common Core 5 Big Half Truths

By Rick Hess

School is back in session, and debate over the Common Core is boiling in key states. As governors and legislators debate the fate of the Common Core, they hear Core advocates repeatedly stress five impressive claims: that their handiwork is “internationally benchmarked,” “evidence-based,” “college- and career-ready,” and “rigorous,” and that the nations that perform best on international tests all have national standards.

In making these claims, advocates go on to dismiss skeptics as ignorant extremists who are happy to settle for mediocrity. The thing is, once examined, these claims are far less compelling than they appear at first glance. It’s not that they’re false so much as grossly overstated. Herewith, a handy cheat sheet for putting the Common Core talking points in context.

Internationally benchmarked: Advocates tout their handiwork as “internationally benchmarked.” By this they mean that the committees that penned the Common Core paid particular attention to the standards of countries that fare well on international tests. It’s swell that they did so, but benchmarking usually means comparing one’s performance with another’s — not just borrowing some attractive ideas. What the Common Core authors did is more “cutting-and-pasting” than “benchmarking.” Some experts even reject the notion that the standards are particularly good compared to those of other nations. Marina Ratner, professor emerita of math at the University of California, Berkeley, and winner of the 1993 international Ostrowski Prize, has written, “The most astounding statement I have read is the claim that Common Core standards are ‘internationally benchmarked.’ They are not. The Common Core fails any comparison with the standards of high-achieving countries….They are lower in the total scope of learned material, in the depth and rigor of the treatment of mathematical subjects, and in the delayed and often inconsistent and incoherent introductions of mathematical concepts and skills.”

Evidence-based: Advocates celebrate the Common Core as “evidence-based.” The implication is that whereas we used to make things up as we went along, decisions about why students must learn this and not that in fourth grade are now backed by scientific research. In fact, what advocates mean is that the standards take into account surveys asking professors and hiring managers what they thought high school graduates should know, as well as examinations of which courses college-bound students usually take. The fact is that it’s difficult for anyone to claim that evidence “proves” in which grade students should learn to calculate the area of a triangle or compare narrative styles. Vanderbilt professor Lynn Fuchs has put it well, noting that there is no “empirical basis” for the Common Core. “We don’t know yet whether it makes sense to have this particular set of standards,” she explains. “We don’t know if it produces something better or even different from what it was before.” Looking at evidence is grand, but what the Common Core’s authors did falls well short of what “evidence-based” typically means.

College- and career-ready: Advocates claim that the Common Core standards will ensure that students are “college- and career-ready.” As former Obama domestic policy chief Melody Barnes wrote in Politico last year, “Too often, the path to a diploma is not rigorous enough to prepare our graduates for their next steps.” Critics have observed, however, that the Common Core drops certain high school math topics (including calculus and pre-calculus, about half of algebra II, and parts of geometry) and moves other material to later grades. When asked whether this might leave students less prepared for advanced college math, proponents explain that the Common Core is a “floor, not a ceiling.” Achieve, Inc., a driving force behind the standards, describes the “floor,” explaining that the standards are meant to make sure students can “succeed in entry-level, credit-bearing postsecondary coursework” in “community college, university, technical/vocational program[s], apprenticeship[s], or significant on-the-job training.” The result adds up to something less than the recipe for excellence that the marketing suggests.

Rigor: Advocates declare that the Common Core is more rigorous than the state standards that previously existed. It’s actually quite challenging to objectively compare the “rigor” of standards. After all, one could insist that fifth-graders should master calculus, note that the Common Core doesn’t require this, and thus dismiss the standards as too easy — even though such an appraisal might indicate impracticality rather than rigor. The Common Core’s authors judged that the old standards had too much material but were insufficiently rigorous, which tells us that, in their view, we shouldn’t equate rigor with quantity. Thus, the question is how to weigh subtle claims of relative rigor. More often than not, the case for the Common Core’s superiority rests on the subjective judgment of four evaluators hired by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute. These four hired evaluators opined in 2010 that the Core standards were better than about three-quarters of existing state standards. Not an unreasonable judgment, but hardly compelling proof of rigor.

Leading nations have national standards: Advocates have made a major point of noting that high-performing nations all have national standards. What they’re much less likely to mention is that the world’s lowest-performing nations also all have national standards. There is no obvious causal link between national standards and educational quality.

When it comes to the Common Core, advocates have become quite adept at delivering their familiar talking points. They’re quite proud of these. In fact, they think them so compelling that they’re befuddled that popular support appears to be steadily eroding. A more skeptical observer surveys these talking points and sees a series of half-truths and exaggerations that have been trumpeted as fact. As states reassess the Common Core, advocates should be challenged to offer more than stirring rhetoric and grandiose claims. Given how avidly Common Core boosters celebrate “evidence,” they really ought to be able to be able to muster more than, “Trust us, we’re really smart.”

This column was passed on to us from this site by Joanne Yurchak. Thank you, Joanne.

Common Core 5 Big Half Truths

Common Core 5 Big Half Truths

Ferguson Shows Widening Racial Gulf

CHRIS FREIND
By Chris Freind

For all the pain endured during the Civil Rights movement by people of all colors, the racial chaos that has descended on Ferguson, Mo., makes one wonder how disenchanted those equality pioneers must be.

In the 1960s, barriers were knocked down by heroes who fought courageously and peacefully, not just to be equal, but to live in a color-blind society. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said it best, stating that people should not be judged by the color of their skin. Those ideals won the day back then, yet it is with tragic irony that today, race relations have been hijacked and taken on a race to the bottom.

It is no exaggeration to say that, in many respects, race relations are worse today than they were half a century ago. And that is a tragedy of our own making. As Ferguson shows, the racial gulf continues to widen, a trend that will only accelerate until we take a hard look in the mirror and remember what the Civil Rights movement fought for in the first place.

In Ferguson, an 18-year-old was shot and killed by a police officer after the two struggled in and around the officer’s patrol car. An autopsy is being performed, and an investigation is ongoing.

That should have been the story line from the beginning. Period. Nothing about race should have entered into the equation until, and only until, it was determined to be warranted.

Instead, protests ensued. Confrontations between citizens and a heavily armed police force were displayed before a national TV audience. The unrest in Ferguson spurred the FBI to launch a civil rights investigation, and the U.S. Justice Department is conducting what will be a third autopsy. Calls for the officer to be charged as a way of bringing “justice” for the deceased, Michael Brown, further enflamed tensions. Curfews were imposed and the National Guard mobilized.

Disregarding the spin and not-so-hidden agendas of some shameless self-promoters, let’s take a sober look at the situation:

1. Brown, who is black, was killed by white police Officer Darren Wilson. Does that mean Wilson, a decorated police veteran, is racist, and that his shooting was racially motivated? Absolutely not, especially because, up to this point, no racist elements have surfaced regarding Wilson. He deserves the benefit of the doubt that his encounter with Brown had nothing to do with color and everything to do with performing his job.

Obviously, if it is determined that race was involved, there should be consequences. That’s why God invented investigations. Common sense tells us that only after the investigation is concluded should anyone be protesting. To do so now is flying blind, since virtually no facts are known, and at least one eyewitness statement — that Brown was shot in the back — seems to have been contradicted by the medical examiner hired by the Brown family. Let’s not forget the innocent until proven guilty principle.

2. Inflammatory rhetoric only ignites the powder keg. Calling Brown’s killing an “execution” (as the Brown family attorney did) is not just ludicrous, but dangerous to everyone. Where are the leaders denouncing such statements?

3. There are conflicting stories as to how far away Brown was when he was shot. Police state that the first shot was fired while the two tussled in the police car, yet we don’t by whom (some reports have Brown shoving Wilson into the car). Regarding the ensuing shots, let’s assume that Brown died 35 feet away from the car, as some reports state. First, that doesn’t mean he was shot 35 feet away, as people can stagger quite a distance after being shot. Ballistics tests and autopsy results should provide the answer.

The medical examiner hired by the family stated the bullet that struck Brown’s in the front of his head could have hit when Brown was giving up or charging the officer. He stated that he found no gunpowder residue near the entry wounds, preliminarily indicating the shot was not from extremely close range, but also said he hadn’t examined Brown’s clothes, which could contain that residue. Again, we must wait for the full picture before casting judgments.

If Wilson shot Brown while the two struggled, that would seem justified, especially if Brown, as reports say, was grabbing for Wilson’s weapon. If, however, Brown was shot at a considerable distance (and not charging the officer), then Wilson is at fault. A shooting can never be justified (if the assailant is unarmed) from a considerable distance, no matter how much adrenaline may be pumping through an officer. Part of the job is to make correct split-second decisions, especially when firing a gun. Noble as being a police officer is, wrong actions in the line of duty have consequences.

4. There was a video released allegedly showing Brown, reported to be 6-foot-4 and 292 pounds, stealing cigars from a liquor store 15 minutes prior to the shooting. The Justice Department and the Missouri governor both criticized the video’s release, but why? Irrelevant is whether Officer Wilson knew of that situation (we don’t know yet). What matters is that Brown had allegedly been engaged in a criminal act, pushing and threatening a much smaller clerk on his way out the door. Therefore, whether or not the shooting was justified, he should not be made out to be a hero.

5. The Ferguson police have been criticized for their strong showing. OK, help me out on this. Given the unrest, including burning and looting, and Molotov cocktails and gunfire being directed at police, what exactly should they have done?

Sadly, race relations will never improve until we stop viewing everything through a racial prism. As long as race is our go-to answer for everything, Dr. King’s dream of a color-blind society will remain just that — a dream.

Ferguson Shows Widening Racial Gulf