To see the real contest between Ted and Trump, compare something other than what the news outlets permit you to see. Start with the Cruz and Trump official websites. Note the way that they speak about (or if they even mention at all) education, family, the Constitution, and religious liberty. Compare the clarity and substance of their points. Compare their histories of real action versus talk.
To me, there is no real contest after you do this.
The only thing I sincerely like about Trump is his slogan: “Make America Great Again”.
I wonder: how, precisely, would Trump do that –without having outlined steps to actively uphold religious freedom, educational freedom, the First Amendment, religious liberty, and the family as the central unit of society, traditionally defined? On these issues –my issues– Trump seems stumped.
Cruz has real, defined solutions based on foundational principles, but Trump has not. What Trump has is hot air, angry bravado, a memorable slogan, and a nifty hat.
In researching which candidate upholds my priorities, I first took a look at Cruz’s and Trump’s official websites:
On Trump’s site, you see a lot of stuff for sale and you see narcissistic campaign articles about the Trump movement itself. You don’t learn anything substantive. There’s no mention of my priorities on his site. That scares me. Trump’s “issues” page only lists:
The Cruz website focuses on principles and gives information about how Cruz has taken action on those principles, such as the vital detail of why religious freedom is so important. The site says:
“America was founded on a revolutionary idea. Our rights do not come from government. They come from God.
Ted has spent his career defending religious liberty. He has fought to protect our First Amendment rights in a number of Supreme Court cases, and as U.S. Senator, he has been a tireless fighter for the right to freely live according to our faith.
As a presidential candidate, Ted Cruz has hosted two national religious liberties rallies and has brought together Christians who have been persecuted for their beliefs so that people across the country can listen to their stories and stand united for our first freedom.
On day one, a President Cruz will instruct the Department of Justice, the IRS, and every other federal agency that the persecution of religious liberty ends today.”
Aside from the websites, think about their histories. I especially like the story of Cruz, as Texas Solicitor General in 2005, who stood up to and beat the combined forces of murderer-rapist Jose Medellin plus the U.S. federal government plus the U.N. “International Court”. The U.S. and U.N. courts attempted to side with Medellin, who had raped and killed two Texas teenagers as part of a gang initiation. The U.S./U.N. courts argued that although Medellin was guilty, Medellin should not be tried by Texas, but by Mexico. Cruz won the case for Texas. The murderer-rapist, Medellin, was executed.
Trump has what history? He has made money, despite a lot of bankruptcies, and he had a reality show that a lot of people watched. And?
This is not a high school popularity contest. Choosing the wrong candidate can have devastating, even deadly, consequences.
As Mitt Romney pointed out this week, “Trump’s bombast is already alarming our allies and fueling the enmity of our enemies… What he said on “60 Minutes,” about Syria and ISIS, has to go down as the most ridiculous and dangerous idea of the campaign season… This is recklessness in the extreme. Donald Trump lacks the temperament to be president. …[He] mocked a disabled reporter… attributed a reporter’s questions to her menstrual cycle… mocked a brilliant rival who happened to be a woman, due to her appearance… bragged about his marital affairs, and who laces his public speeches with vulgarity…. Mr. Trump is directing our anger for less than noble purposes… He calls for the use of torture and for killing the innocent children and family members of terrorists. He cheers assaults on protesters. He applauds the prospect of twisting the Constitution to limit first amendment freedom of the press. This is the very brand of anger that has led other nations into the abyss.”
The anger that Trump displays, which so many Americans feel, does not suddenly translate into a reversal of those things that make us mad. Anger is not enough. We need a president with substantive, defined plans; with honest, noble character; with a proven track record of dedication to honorable and Constitutional principles. That is not Donald Trump, nor Hillary Clinton, nor Bernie Sanders. The best available embodiment of noble aims and history is Ted Cruz.
Finally, what about Common Core?
Ted Cruz has a simple, excellent plan that moves us in the right direction, called Five for Freedom. It calls for elimination of unconstitutional agencies, including eliminating the federal Department of Education. Trump, on the other hand, makes no mention of education on his website.
It was a year ago that Ted Cruz tweeted: “Federal government has no business sticking its nose in education. We need to repeal every word of Common Core.”
Nowadays, all the Republican candidates are suddently posturing as if they are opposed to Common Core. How convenient for them, now that Common Core has become a byword.
About five minutes ago, when Trump seemed to realize that millions of grassroots Americans won’t vote for anyone who admits they’re working with, or cashing in on, the common core/common data alignment monopoly, he started making statements like “We’re cutting Common Core!” That statement elicits cheers. But Trump does not demonstrate understanding of how deep and penetrating the unwanted, common alignment of all things educational has grown, nor how sobering and difficult a task it will be to untangle it and retrieve freedom.
When Senator Mike Lee endorsed Ted Cruz, he explained in a New York Times interview why Trump was not his pick: “Mr. Lee… said he worried about [Trump’s] policy positions and views on presidential power. ‘I’m still waiting to hear more detail from Donald Trump on where he stands on a whole host of issues,’ Mr. Lee said.”
We are all waiting for that. Where does Trump stand on common, aligned education standards when they alter their names? What about the common, aligned data standards? Where does Trump stand on privacy rights? Where does he stand on family rights? The right to life? Marriage or adoption of children by homosexuals? The restoration of the Constitution? Where does he stand on the Federal Reserve? Where does he stand on religious freedom? His silence is deafening on vital issues, yet he rants like a drunken sailor about making America great again. That is not meaningful to me.
Cruz is not perfect. He has said things that I don’t competely agree with. But I don’t completely agree with my own dear husband, all of the time. And that is okay. Cruz is not a danger to our nation; Trump is. So are (of course) Hillary and Bernie.
Trump seems almost a typecast for a dictatorship, a drunken one. I can’t resist sharing a video that uses Trump audio clips with a lip-synching actor; you’ll either laugh or want to cry. I know it’s immature, but it’s so darn poignant.
Please recall that last summer, a report card posted by Pulse 2016 and American Principles Project graded presidential candidates on their actions in getting rid of Common Core.
The only person who had an “A” then, who is still in the campaign, is Ted Cruz. Take a look at the grades and the criteria. It’s very telling.
Although I have a Cruz bumper sticker on my minivan and although I cheerlead for Ted Cruz on Facebook, I hadn’t, until recently, felt that making a specific Ted Cruz blog endorsement would be valuable. It felt like it would be preaching to the choir. I guess I’m naiive enough to have believed that people would see what I have seen, in comparing Trump and Cruz. I thought that the “pro-freedom-in-education” gang all agreed that it’s only been Ted Cruz who has consistently, and with more than a five-minute history, been outspoken against Common Core and the top-down suffocation of local control in every aspect of education.
It seemed like the most obvious thing in the world, to me, that Cruz was the best choice. But I was wrong about the obvious part. Some of my friends and family members are “yuge” Trump fans. They say that he’s strong. They say that he’s refreshingly blunt and politically incorrect. They say that he’s so rich that he doesn’t have to be beholden to lobbyists, the way all the other candidates on both left and right supposedly must. They say that he’ll intimidate our enemies. Tempting thoughts, all.
But I agree with what Gina Dalfonzo wrote, in an article for First Things entitled “Nikabrik’s Candidate” –that there’s a desperation, similar to the oppressed people in C.S. Lewis’ Prince Caspian– in the desperation of Trump supporters. Dalfonzo wrote:
“How could… the good guys in this story become corrupt enough to seek help from someone whose greed, brutality, and lust for power were legendary?
“…Nikabrik’s fears are legitimate. His enemies are real and powerful… He is right to recognize the need for help. He is wrong to decide that help must come from a force equally merciless—wrong when he tells Caspian, ‘I’ll believe in anyone or anything . . . that’ll batter these cursed Telmarine barbarians to pieces or drive them out of Narnia. Anyone or anything, Aslan or the White Witch, do you understand?’
“This is how good people with strong, ingrained values—people who have invested time and money in the sanctity of life, religious liberty, and similarly noble causes— …end up flocking to a reality-show star who spends his days on Twitter calling people ‘dumb’ and ‘loser.’ This is how some who have professed faith in Jesus Christ are lured by a man who openly puts all his faith in power and money, the very things Christ warned us against prizing too highly. As one wag on Twitter pointed out, “If elected, Donald Trump will be the first US president to own a strip club,” and yet he has the support of Christians who fervently believe that this country needs to clean up its morals.
“…Tired of waiting for Aslan—who may be nearer than we think—we turn elsewhere. It doesn’t matter if our candidate hates, bullies, and exploits other people, the reasoning goes… Hatred is a perfectly acceptable weapon, as long as it’s ‘on our side.’”
Are Trump supporters like Nikabrik in Prince Caspian, desperate for anything and anyone to defend them, even if that defender is evil? Have Americans forsaken the principles that really did make America great? Do Americans want Trump– regardless of his character, and regardless of the intended or unintended results that will come from unfettered rage and mannerlessness? Is something as transitory as anger the prerequisite to good leadership? Does blunt anger “trump” all other qualities? What lasting good can come from following such a man?
My church teaches that “honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold” because “when the wicked rule the people mourn”; also, that we must “befriend” the “constitutional law of the land”(Doctrine and Covenants 98: 6-10). It doesn’t say to seek or uphold perfect candidates; there aren’t any. It says to find the most honest, the most good, the one most seeming to befriend the Constitution.
Even if you had time to read the final version of the new ESEA bill which will get released days from now –which you won’t, because you’ll be eating turkey– and even if you agreed with every word (which I’m betting you won’t, because Senator Alexander’s view of ed reform is sick and wrong) –but even if you liked it– shouldn’t you, on principle, still oppose its passage, based on the devious process being used, a pushing of laws into their cemented form without representative debate– very fast, and mostly in the dark?
Senator Mike Lee’s fight against this now-brewing, corrupt, “new” No Child Left Behind, inspires me. His backbone in standing up to the corruptos in Congress that are pushing ESEA is a rare treasure in politics. Do you realize that he’s fighting for the actual freedom of our children and grandchildren? This is real. Listen to him.
Senator Lee’s railed against some of the corruption; for example, its $250 million plan to hurt good preschools by pushing loser-federal preschools on all; its cementing of Common Core standards, etc. There’s more brewing that he hasn’t taken time to denounce yet, such as its creepy, parent-ditching “community school” program that puts government ahead of families, churches or anyone else in influencing kids and eating up too much of kids’ time; and its cementing of common, kid-stalking data tags (CEDS) –but you can study all of that.
(I keep calling the other members of the Utah delegation to leave messages asking them to join his fight. Please do, too.)
This process that Senator Lee speaks of is so corrupt.
It is un-American to make Congress vote on something so fast that it hasn’t been vetted or understood by voters. It is un-American to skip debate and to ditch input. We all know that this law will weigh heavily on everyone who will be ruled by it afterward. Shouldn’t voters have a real opportunity to look at the bill from all angles and then take the vote?
Senator Lee has pointed out that the process creates the policy. This is how ESEA/NCLB is to be rammed down the throat of Congress (and all of us) next week.
Step one: right now, a tiny handful of pro-reauthorization members of Congress, behind closed doors, are cooking up the poison pill.
Step 2: They’ll speed it to a vote so fast that the rest of Congress has no time to think before swallowing, no chance to offer what they are supposed to be allowed to offer: “motions to instruct the conferees” (input).
Step 3: They’ll market it under the banner of good-sounding lies and slanted press releases and news stories that will successfully deceive Americans (including our politicians) into believing that control has been returned to the localities. It won’t be true. But we’ll figure it out too late to easily reverse it. Because nobody’s going to really read the bill before they vote yes.
The draft was released a few day ago.The bill won’t be released until next week, the same week that the vote will be taken: December 2.
This hurried method is a sick pattern used by the Obama administration. We saw Secretary Duncan push states with the monetary lure of “Race to the Top” millions to adopt Common Core and its tests and SLDS systems for a chance in that race. Before that, there was the ARRA funding that was tied, among other things, to governors agreeing to get federally-approved student data collection systems and standards.
Now, the speed of ESEA will similarly maim freedom, pushing these controversial programs into nation-binding law.
I’m reposting Senator Lee’s entire speech below.
After you read it, please call. This monster will affect all Americans for years to come.
Ask for any senator and representative in D.C. at 202-224-3121. Say, “VOTE NO ON ESEA.” Done? Thank you!! Please call again. Then call for your neighbor who isn’t taking the time to call. Skip the gym or the crochet project and call some who aren’t your direct reps, too. Leave them messages — ask them to call you to account for how they plan to vote on December 2.
Politicians need constituents’ support to get re-elected. Tell them that this is a make or break issue; you won’t vote for them again if they vote yes on ESEA. Your voice and vote are leverage.
At some point today the Senate will vote on the motion to appoint conferees – or what’s often called the motion to go to conference – for a bill that reauthorizes the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, or the ESEA, which is the legislation governing our federal K-12 education policy.
Because most Americans have probably never heard of this obscure parliamentary procedure – the motion to appoint conferees – I’d like to take a moment to explain how it works… or at least, how it’s supposed to work.
When the House and the Senate each pass separate, but similar, bills, the two chambers convene what’s called “a conference.”
A conference is essentially a meeting where delegates from each chamber come together to iron out the differences between their respective bills, and put together what’s called “a conference report” – which is a single piece of legislation that reconciles any disparities between the House-passed bill and the Senate-passed bill.
Once the delegates to the conference – the conferees – agree on a conference report, they bring it back to their respective chambers, to the House and to the Senate, for a final vote.
It’s important to note here that, once the conference report is sent to the House and the Senate for a final vote, there’s no opportunity to amend the legislation. It’s an up-or-down vote: each chamber can either approve or reject the conference report in its entirety.
If each chamber votes to approve the conference report, it’s then sent to the president, who can either sign it into law or veto it.
So what we’re doing today is voting on the motion to appoint conferees for the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
Earlier this year, both the House and the Senate passed their own ESEA reauthorizations. And now, we’re voting to proceed to the conference process and to appoint certain senators to participate in that process as conferees.
Historically, and according to the way the conference process is supposed to work, this vote is not that big of a deal. Voting on the motion to appoint conferees is usually, and mostly, a matter of routine.
But it’s not a vote that should be rushed through on a moment’s notice, because it is the last opportunity for senators and representatives who are not conferees – such as myself – to influence the outcome of the conference process.
We can do that by offering what are called “motions to instruct the conferees.”
For example, let’s say I was not chosen to be a conferee to a particular bill, but there was an issue related to the bill that was important to me and to the people I represent – in that case, I could ask the Senate to vote on a set of instructions that would be sent to the conference to inform their deliberations and influence the substance of the conference report.
Mr. President, this is how the conference process is supposed to work.
But it is not how the conference process has been conducted with respect to this bill, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization.
Sure, we’re still voting to appoint conferees.
And those conferees will still convene a conference.
And that conference will still produce a conference report.
So from the surface, it will still look like the conference process is happening the way it’s supposed to.
But beneath the surface we know that all of this has already been pre-arranged, pre-cooked, pre-determined… by a select few members of Congress, working behind closed doors, free from scrutiny.
And we know that this vote was scheduled on extremely short notice, so that it would be difficult – if not impossible – for the rest of us to influence the substance of the conference report through motions to instruct.
Now, why does this matter?
We know the American people care deeply about K-12 education policy. But why should they care about this obscure parliamentary procedure in the Senate?
They should care – and Mr./Madam President, we know that they do care – because the process influences the policy.
In this case, the process expedites the passage of policies that we know don’t work – policies to which the American people are strongly opposed.
For instance, it’s my understanding that this pre-agreement may authorize $250 million in new spending on federal pre-K programs – what amounts to a down-payment on the kind of universal, federally-run pre-K programs advocated by President Obama.
This would be a disaster not only for American children and families, but for our 21st-century economy that increasingly requires investments in human capital.
We know that a good education starting at a young age is an essential ingredient for upward economic mobility later in life. A mountain of recent social science research proves what experience and intuition have been teaching mankind for millennia: that a child’s first few years of life are critical in their cognitive and emotional development.
Yet we also know that too many of America’s public schools, especially those in low-income and disadvantaged neighborhoods, fail to prepare their students to succeed.
Nowhere has the top-down, centrally planned model of public education failed more emphatically than in our nation’s public pre-K programs. The epitome of federal preschool programs is Head Start, which has consistently failed to improve the lives and educational achievements of the children it ostensibly serves.
According to a 2012 study by President Obama’s own Department of Health and Human Services, whatever benefits children gain from the program disappear by the time they reach the third grade.
But because bureaucracies invariably measure success in terms of inputs, instead of outcomes, Head Start and its $8 billion annual budget is the model for Democrats as they seek to expand federal control over child care programs in communities all across the country.
This bill also doubles down on the discredited common-core approach to elementary and secondary education that the American people have roundly, and consistently, rejected.
Mr. President, parents and teachers across America are frustrated by Washington, D.C.’s heavy-handed, overly prescriptive approach to education policy.
I’ve heard from countless moms and dads in Utah who feel as though anonymous government officials living and working 2,000 miles away have a greater say in the education of their children than they do.
The only way to improve our K-12 education system in America is to empower parents, educators, and local policymakers to meet the unique needs of their communities and serve the low-income families the status quo is leaving behind.
With early childhood education, we could start block granting the Head Start budget to the states.
This would allow those closest to the children and families being served to design their own programs – rather than spending all their time complying with onerous, one-size-fits-all federal mandates – and designate eligible public and private pre-schools to receive grants.
We know this works because many states are already doing it. In my home state of Utah, for instance, United Way of Salt Lake has partnered with two private financial institutions, Goldman Sachs and J.B. Pritzker, to provide first rate early education programs to thousands of Utah children.
They call it a “pay-for-success” loan.
With no upfront cost or risk to the taxpayers, private capital is invested in the Utah High Quality Preschool Program, which is implemented and overseen by United Way.
If, as expected, the preschool program results in increased school readiness and improved academic performance, the state of Utah repays the private investors with the public funds it would have spent on remedial services that the children would have needed between kindergarten and the twelfth grade, had they not participated in the program.
Washington policymakers should not look at Utah’s pay-for-success initiatives – and other local success stories like them – as potential federal programs, but as a testament to the power of local control.
Mr. President, we shouldn’t expand Washington’s control over America’s schools and pre-K programs. Instead, Congress must advance reforms that empower parents – with flexibility and choice – to do what’s in the best interest of their children.
The policies in this bill move in the opposite direction.
Senator Hatch’s offices better fasten their seatbelts. They are in for a bumpy ride after messing with family rights in education. Sen. Hatch voted against Senator Lee’s “Parental Notification and Opt Out Amendment” to the Every Child Achieves Act, S1177 yesterday.
If you call Senator Orrin Hatch’s D.C. offices, or his Salt Lake City offices, you will get an answering machine. It happens to me every time. Please call and leave a message anyway. Ask his staff to call back to account for why Hatch voted against Sen. Lee’s common sense amendment. Call 801-625-5672 and 801-524-4380.
If Sen. Lee’s “Parental Notification and Opt Out Amendment” would have passed, we would have upheld the parental right to opt out of federally mandated standardized testing (aka Common Core/SAGE/AIR/SBAC/PARCC testing.) This would have required schools to notify parents when such testing takes place, effectively killing the creepy new nationwide education trend called embedded curriculum testing, or stealth testing, which erases parental opt out-ability. But Hatch said no.
I will call his offices every day until I get a response.
Please share the precise bill language in S1177 with all US senators everywhere as they prepare to vote for or against this monster reauthorization of No Child Left Behind today. Please tell Senators that you expect them to VOTE NO on S1177.
Rep. Justin Amash explained, after he wisely voted NO on the twin bill to S1177, House Bill, HR5 “The Student Success Act” (which passed this week) :
“Here are the facts you should know about H.R. 5 and the current status of NCLB: The funding authorization for No Child Left Behind expired more than seven years ago. Contrary to some statements and press reports, H.R. 5 does not repeal NCLB; it reauthorizes NCLB with modifications. If H.R. 5 becomes law, NCLB will be authorized for the first time since FY 2008.
Why do states and schools continue to act as though No Child Left Behind is current law? Because Congress has continued to appropriate money for NCLB as though the funding authorization never expired! In other words, the program is legally dead, yet Congress continues to send federal funding to schools, with strings attached, as though the law remains in effect.
How should Congress deal with No Child Left Behind? Simply stop funding it.There’s no current authorization for the funding, so the funding needs to stop.
Don’t we need this new bill to stop Common Core? No, we don’t. H.R. 5 reauthorizes No Child Left Behind, which provides federal funding for education. The bill says none of that money may be used (or withheld) to push Common Core. But voting no on H.R. 5 means voting no on the funding authorization that the federal government uses to compel states to adopt Common Core. So, either way, Common Core loses.
Doesn’t this new bill include an amendment to allow parents to opt out of standardized testing? Yes, but it’s H.R. 5 that authorizes federally mandated standardized testing in the first place. Voting no on H.R. 5 means voting no on such standardized testing.
Was there an amendment to allow states to opt out of No Child Left Behind even if H.R. 5 becomes law? Yes. I voted yes on the Walker amendment, but remarkably it failed 195-235 in a Republican-led House of Representatives.”
“I’ve heard from countless moms and dads in Utah who feel as though anonymous government officials living and working 2,000 miles away have a greater say in the education of their children than they do.
One of the most frustrating issues for parents is the amount of standardized tests their children are required to take, particularly the tests that are designed and mandated by the federal government. And it’s not just the frequency of these tests that is frustrating. Too often parents don’t know when these federally-required assessments are going take place, and they don’t find out until after the fact.
…The notion that parents should not be expected to forfeit all of their rights to the government just because they enroll their children in the public school system is not a Democratic idea or a Republican idea. It’s simply an American idea.
That’s why several states – including states as distinct as California and Utah – have passed laws that allow parents to opt out of federally-required tests.
But there’s a problem. Under current law, states with opt-out laws risk losing federal education dollars if a certain proportion of parents decide opting-out is best for their children, because schools are required to assess 95 percent of their students in order to receive federal funds. I introduced an amendment to protect states from losing federal funding if over 5 percent of parents choose to opt out of federally-required tests. Unfortunately, the Senate failed to pass my amendment.”
How I wish we had dozens of Representative Amashes and Senator Mike Lees in Congress. Congressmen who understand and apply the Constitution are becoming rare, rare treasures.
———————–
Update: I did hear back from a staffer at Senator Hatch’s office. I was given talking points and more talking points. What I want is an actual written conversation using the language of the bill in all its contradictions and oppressions, citing page and section numbers and not avoiding the issues that are uncomfortable, controlling the conversation. This is what saps constituents of substantive faith in their elected reps: cut and paste talking points (which sadly, even my own Rep. Jason Chaffetz is handing out on HR5.) These do not, not impress.
You can’t stick corks into the side of the Titanic to save the people on the ship, and you can’t stick amendments into evil bills and then in good conscience vote yes on them. We are building and voting for our own children’s cages in the belly of a sinking ship.
Read the current ed reform bill amendments here; some are dancing about the Zeldin amendment because it “allows” states to opt out of Common Core. STATES ALREADY CAN do that. The point is that the feds bribe states not to, and states don’t. Then the feds push out data systems that nobody is smart enough to not build.
If I sound a little bit angry, that’s because I am typing. If you were here in the room you would want earplugs. I am very angry, very disappointed. Very loud inside my own little furious head and home.
I know I’m not smarter than my senators and representatives. I can read, and so can they. So why, why, why are they NOT telling we, the people, who call their offices that they are unequivocally voting NO on these bad twin ed reform bills, HR5 and S1177? I have to assume that the represenatives are not studying these 300, 600, 800 page monsters; that they are relying on the talking points of the bill’s authors. If so, the reps are revealing dangerous incompetence– carelessness with our precious liberty and our precious children.
I do realize that our representatives are busy. But these are dire circumstances that affect children so negatively. We elected and pay these friends. We entrust them with the futures of our public school children. Yet, I don’t know if I believe they are reading the bills. Orrin Hatch is promoting S1177. But I’m concerned about the entire Utah delegation of senators and representatives -and many others outside Utah.
In what universe is it okay for a senator or a representative to vote yes on a bill that does what HR 5 does?** It:
Cements the unconstutitional Fed Master- State Servant relationship
Attacks parental opt out movement – kills parental opt out rights
Hacks off religious freedom and autonomy for any private schools that receive federal dollars for any of their programs
Pretends that federal FERPA hasn’t been shot full of holes and depends on FERPA for privacy rights (what privacy rights?)
Fails to require parental consent for state data mining of children’s personally identifiable data
Creates unelected committees that have real power over state citizens who did not elect them
Fails to provide enforcement for autonomy which means there won’t be any state autonomy
Extends federal tentacles and data collection to preschoolers
Reinforces socialist alignment of schools to workforce, putting economy first without regard for students
Retains federal testing mandates
Promotes psychological profiling of students
**Below, I am posting section numbers for the reference of those who want to see the language with their own eyes.
In what universe is it okay for a senator or a representative to vote yes on a bill that does what S1177 does?***
Pretends to protect us from federal overreach with redundant, nonhelpful language
Aligns us to “college and career ready” standard which ARE Common Core, federally defined elsewhere
Cements the unconstutitional Fed Master- State Servant relationship
Mandates that States answer to the Feds even on altering state standards
Retains federal testing mandates
Adds to the list of programs a state must consult and aligns with workforce (socialism) program
Dictates types of testing
Forces out the parental opt out movement
Narrows the definition of “mental health” and “school climate” that reduces student religious and political expression
Probes into psychological data collection on children without parental consent
Fails to require parental consent for state data mining of children’s personally identifiable data
Extends federal tentacles and data collection to preschool
***Below, I am posting section numbers for the reference of those who want to see the language with their own eyes.
The list could go on and on and on.
I don’t get it. I really do not understand these politicians. I really do not.
Our children deserve better. So much better!
I’ll be wasting spending time and breath all day today, again, calling 202-224-3121 to get my senators’ and reps’ attention. Feel free to join me. Even though it feels like we are sticking corks into the side of the Titanic. May God help us.
—————————-
“THE STUDENT SUCCESS ACT”
**HR5 section numbers for reference:
Master and Servant unconstitutional relationship in cement:
“For any State desiring to receive a grant under this subpart, the State educational agency file with the Secretary a plan,” “Each State plan shall demonstrate [to the federal agents]” – 1111(a)1 –
“Approval: The Secretary shall approve a State plan within 120 days of its submission; disapprove of the State plan only if the Secretary demonstrates how the State plan fails” – 1111(e)1B
“The Secretary [federal] shall have the authority to disapprove a State plan” – 1111(e)2 D
“If a State makes significant changes to its State plan, such as the adoption of new State academic standards or new academic assessments, or adopts a new State accountability system, such information shall be submitted to the Secretary under subsection (e)(2) for approval.” – 1111 (f)
“If a State fails to meet any of the requirements of this section then the Secretary shall withhold funds” – 1111(g)
Attack on parental rights via stopping opt out movement:
“Assessments shall… be administered to not less than 95 percent of all students, and not less than 95 percent of each subgroup of students”- 1111(b)(2)(B)(xiii)
Hacking off religious freedom and autonomy for any private school receiving any federal dollars for programs:
“The control of funds provided under this subpart, and title to materials, equipment, and property purchased with such funds, shall be in a public agency, and a public agency shall administer such funds, materials, equipment, and property… independent of such private school and of any religious organization.” 1120(d)(2)(B)
Pretending that federal FERPA hasn’t been shot full of holes and depending on FERPA for privacy rights (what privacy rights?)
Failing to require parental consent for state data mining of children’s personally identifable information
Nada. Do a word search for “SLDS” or “State Longitudinal Database Systems” or “SIF” or “CEDS” and you will find nothing. There is no protection. There is no informed consent. There is no parental-consent requirement– not here and not in FERPA.
Creating unelected committees that have real power over state citizens who did not elect them. (And using these unelected groups to eliminate policies that don’t match federal policies)
“State rules, regulations, and policies… conform to… the committee of practitioners”
“Each State educational agency that receives funds under this title shall create a State committee of practitioners”
“Eliminate the rules and regulations that are duplicative of Federal requirements… identify any duplicative or contrasting requirements between the State and Federal rules or regulations; report any conflicting requirements to the Secretary… (1403)
Failing to provide enforcement for autonomy which means there won’t be any state autonomy from the feds.
State autonomy is in no way enforceable by HR5. It’s not in there. That is the problem. It’s just talking points about state’s rights, with no support.
Extending federal tentacles and data collection to preschoolers.
“perform child-find screening services for the preschool-aged children of the tribe” – 5133 a
“assessment of family-based, early childhood, and preschool programs for Native Hawaiians” – 5304 (c) 2
“evaluate the aggregate short- and long-term effects and cost efficiencies across Federal programs… under this Act and related Federal preschool, elementary, and secondary programs” – 6601
“improve the identification of homeless children (including preschool-aged homeless children and youths) ” – 702
“Coordinator for Education of Homeless Children and Youths established in each State shall— gather and make publically available… comprehensive information on— the number of homeless children and youths identified… the nature and extent of the problems homeless children and youths have in gaining access to public preschool programs” – 702
“collect data for and transmit to the Secretary, at such time and in such manner as the Secretary may require, a report containing information necessary to assess the educational needs of homeless children and youths within the State, including data necessary for the Secretary to fulfill the responsibilities… including teachers, special education personnel, administrators, and child development and preschool program personnel – 702
“Plans required: … how the local educational agency will use funds under this subpart to support preschool programs” – 1112
Reinforcing socialist alignment of schools to workforce, putting economy first without regard for students
“Each State plan shall demonstrate [to the feds] that the State has developed and is implementing a single, statewide accountability system to ensure that all public school students graduate from high school prepared for postsecondary education or the workforce” -1111 (This is repeated and repeated. A word search for “workforce” turns up 22 times in this bill.)
Retaining federal testing mandates
“Academic assessments… shall— be used in determining the performance of each local educational agency and public school… be aligned with the State’s academic standards and provide coherent and timely information about student attainment of such standards… be consistent with… nationally recognized… technical standards… be administered in each of grades 3 through 8 and at least once in grades 9 through 12… in the case of science, be administered not less than one time during—grades 3 through 5; grades 6 through 9; and in the case of any other subject chosen by the State, be administered at the discretion of the State; measure individual student academic proficiency and, at the State’s discretion, growth… be administered through multiple assessments during the course of the academic year that result in a single summative score that provides valid, reliable, and transparent information on student achievement … enable results to be disaggregated… be administered to not less than 95 percent of all students, and not less than 95 percent of each subgroup of students described in paragraph (3)(B)(ii)(II); and be the same academic assessments used to measure the academic achievement of all public school students… provide for— the participation in such assessments of all students… produce individual student interpretive, descriptive, and diagnostic reports regarding achievement on such assessments in … uniform format…” –1111
Promoting psychological profiling of students
“Assessments … (xi) “produce individual student interpretive, descriptive, and diagnostic reports regarding achievement on such assessments” -1111
Pretending to protect states and parents from federal overreach using redundant, nonhelpful (and contradictory) language
First the bill raises our hopes; the talking points sound good; maybe this won’t be a federal sledgehammer to parents and states. The bill’s sections 5001-5010 (a large chunk of the very large bill) even go under the title “Empowering Parents and Expanding Opportunity Through Innovation”. Sounds nice. But deep inside, the bill almost conceals ugly and unconstitutional words like this:
“State plan disapproval: The Secretary shall have the authority to disapprove a State plan” –1004
“If the Secretary determines that a State plan does not meet the requirements of this subsection or subsection (b) or (c), the Secretary shall, prior to declining to approve the State plan immediately notify the State of such determination… offer the State an opportunity to revise” –1111
“A State educational agency may use not more than 5 percent of the amount made available to the State… for the following activities…”
“Closing student achievement gaps, and preparing more students to be college and career ready” -2501(4) (Making everyone common does tend to close the achievement gaps, by slowing those who would otherwise soar ahead of the mediocre and the slow.)
Cementing the unconstitutional Fed-Master/State-Servant relationship
“State plan disapproval: The Secretary shall have the authority to disapprove a State plan” –1004
“For any State desiring to receive a grant under this part, the State educational agency shall submit to the Secretary a plan…” – 1111
Retaining federal testing and standards mandates
“Same standards: … standards required by subparagraph (A) shall be the same standards that the State applies to all public schools and public school students” –1111 (Do you want to give the feds the authority to dictate uniformity to us? What if a state wants to be innovative and diverse and various? That won’t be allowed by this federal law.)
“Alignment: Each State shall demonstrate that the challenging State academic standards are aligned with entrance requirements, without the need for academic remediation, for the system of public higher education in the State; relevant State career and technical education standards; and relevant State early learning guidelines” –1111
“Measures the annual progress of not less than 95 percent of all students, and students in each of the categories of students” -1204
“Measure the annual progress of not less than 95 percent of all students and students in each of the categories of students” – 1205
Adding to the list of programs States must consult, and aligning with workforce socialism program
“(aa) student readiness to enter postsecondary education or the workforce” -1111 (repeated many times)
“an application … shall include the following: A description of… assets, identified by the State… which shall include— an analysis of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education quality and outcomes in the State… labor market information regarding the industry and business workforce needs within the State….” –2504
Dictating types of testing– including using nonacademic, interpretive, and diagnostic student reports
“produce individual student interpretive, descriptive, and diagnostic reports… include information regarding achievement on academic assessments aligned with challenging State academic achievement standards… in uniform format” –1111(b) (2) (B) (vi) (xiii)
“(vi) involve multiple up-to-date measures of student academic achievement, including measures that assess higher-order thinking skills and understanding, which may include measures of student academic growth and may be partially delivered in the form of portfolios, projects, or extended performance tasks” – 1111 (b) (2) (B) (vi)
Assessments must “be administered through a single summative assessment; or be administered through multiple statewide assessments during the course of the year if the State can demonstrate that the results of these multiple assessments, taken in their totality, provide a summative score” – 1111 (b) (2) (B) (viii)
“(xiii) be developed, to the extent practicable, using the principles of universal design for learning.” – 1111 (b) (2) (B) (xiii)
Forcing out the parental opt-out movement; also, booting family out and putting government in to the center of the universe.
Crushing opt outs, each state test must “Measures the annual progress of not less than 95 percent of all students, and students in each of the categories of students” -1204
Same: “Measure the annual progress of not less than 95 percent of all students and students in each of the categories of students” – 1205
Schools to be far, far more than places to learn numeracy and literacy: “21st Century Learning Centers… an array of additional services, programs, and activities, such as youth development activities, service learning, nutrition and health education, drug and violence prevention programs, counseling programs, art, music, physical fitness and wellness programs, technology education programs, financial literacy programs, math, science, career and technical programs, internship or apprenticeship programs, and other ties to an in-demand industry sector” – 4201
“address family instability, school climate, trauma, safety, and nonacademic learning.” -7304
Utah’s Sen. Mike Lee is taking a powerful stand against Common Core. Lee has joined with FreedomWorks to try to eradicate the Common Core.
“The next generation of Americans doesn’t need to be force-fed big government propaganda in the classroom,” said Lee. “If they’re allowed to stay, Common Core standards will be the Obamacare of education.”
Sen. Lee stands with many on both the left and right sides of the political aisle against Common Core. It’s still uncertain whether Lee’s own Governor Herbert of Utah will ever take a clear and unmistakable stand against Common Core. (In other states we see many governors who do firmly oppose Common Core: Louisiana’s Gov. Jindahl, Texas Gov. Perry, Indiana Gov. Pence, South Carolina Gov. Haley, Oklahoma Gov. Fallin, Wisconsin Gov. Walker, Maine Gov. LePage, Indiana Gov. Pence, Alabama Gov. Bentley. This is interesting considering the fact that the National Governors’ Association is the group that co-founded and copyrighted the Common Core under the funding of Bill Gates.)
Read the Newmax report here. And read the email on which the Newsmax story is based, here:
It’s time to end Common Core.As a U.S. Senator, I’ve seen the federal government make a mess of everything it touches. And if they’re allowed to stay, Common Core standards will be the ObamaCare of education.Common Core is the DC takeover of our school system. It will dumb down standards and cheapen the education our children receive. But my friends at FreedomWorks are fighting back – their activists are working around-the-clock to take back their local schools.Just this year, Common Core was repealed in Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Missouri thanks to the hard work of grassroots activists.
I stand with FreedomWorks and grassroots Americans against Common Core. And I’ve seen their plan to make this Common Core’s last school year. But if they’re going to kick it off, they need to raise $250k in the next 7 days. I stand with them. And I need YOU to join me.
As a father of three, the last thing I want for my kids is a one-size-fits-all education system created in Washington. My kids deserve better. Your kids deserve better. They deserve the best education in the world. And the only way we can make that happen is to repeal Common Core across America.
There’s nothing more powerful in America than dedicated parents coming together to create a better future for their children. That’s why moms and dads are getting active, speaking out at their local school boards, and kicking Common Core out of the classroom. FreedomWorks is mobilizing this incredible energy and they plan to defeat the education takeover.
When it comes to education, the future of our country is on the line. The next generation of Americans doesn’t need to be force-fed big government propaganda in the classroom. They should be learning real American history, and why our sacred heritage makes this the greatest nation in the world.
Common Core does away with that. That’s why it must be stopped.
We are running out of time to make Common Core history. Activists need the tools to win this year. And you can play a big part in saving our children from another big government disaster.
I love to watch my favorite thinkers from the left and the right wing agree that “college- and career- ready standards” or Common Core– aka ObamaCore –along with its CEDS data-grabbing plot in cahoots with the CCSSO — is utterly unacceptable and has got to go.
Today I read Stanley Kurtz (conservative writer) who praised Diane Ravitch (liberal writer) for her public call for Congressional hearingson Common Core.
Both are must-read articles.
They explain why in recent cases of states dropping Common Core, leading events appear to be bipartisan efforts. Nobody likes to be micromanaged. And the Constitution protects us all.
Look at a few highlights of the Stop Common Core fight:
Last year, in February, liberal educator/historian Diane Ravitch announced that she could not support Common Core. In April, eight Republican senators wrote an open letter decrying Common Core. The same month, the national GOP met to discuss (and then passed) the anti-Common Core resolution. In August, Dr. Joseph Rella, a superintendent of Comsewogue District in New York, led 1,500 parents in a rally against Common Core. In October, Democratic Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey penned an open letter to Secretary Arne Duncan, also attacking federal-corporate education “reforms” in student data collection. The next month, 132 Catholic scholars wrote a letter to U.S. Bishops, voicing their concerns about Common Core. Following several governors who wrote executive orders” against Common Core, a group of Florida parents launched a parental national executive order against Common Core and student data mining. And the teachers! Look at heroic progressive Democrat teacher Paul Horton alongside conservative Republican teacher David Cox — two examples of thousands from both political camps, equally opposed to Common Core.
“The misguided notion of social justice that stands behind the Common Core excuses in the minds of its advocates… silly little things like the consent of the governed… Congress is obligated to investigate.”
Ravitch wrote: “The story about Bill Gates’ swift and silent takeover of American education is startling. His role and the role of the U.S. Department of Education in drafting and imposing the Common Core standards on almost every state should be investigated by Congress.
“The idea that the richest man in America can purchase and–working closely with the U.S. Department of Education–impose new and untested academic standards on the nation’s public schools is a national scandal. A Congressional investigation is warranted.
“The close involvement of Arne Duncan raises questions about whether the law was broken.
“Thanks to the story in the Washington Post and to diligent bloggers, we now know that one very rich man bought the enthusiastic support of interest groups on the left and right to campaign for the Common Core.
“Who knew that American education was for sale?
“Who knew that federalism could so easily be dismissed as a relic of history? Who knew that Gates and Duncan, working as partners, could dismantle and destroy state and local control of education?”
——————
Ravitch and Kurtz make me proud to be an American. This is what freedom of speech, freedom of political choice and the national tradition of lively debate can do.
Have you seen Senator Mike Lee’s statement on education policy?
Education Policy
Senator Mike Lee
The first principle of education, and therefore of education policymaking, is that parents are the primary educators of their children.
And because responsibility for children’s education lies primarily with parents, to the greatest extent possible so should decision-making authority over Pre-K to secondary education.
The further pre-K to secondary policymaking authority is removed from the parents and guardians of children, the further it is removed from those who will promote the best interests of students.
Therefore federal pre-K, elementary, and secondary education policy should be limited. Neither members of Congress nor Department of Education bureaucrats can be expected to promote the interests of individual students – with unique talents, interests, and learning styles – more than those students’ parents, their teachers or principals.
And indeed, history has borne out this basic human insight. Pre-K Federal pre-K policy primarily amounts to the Head Start program, which for forty years has utterly failed to improve the lives of the poor children and families it ostensibly serves.
It is a demonstrable fact that the federal Head Start program does not help, and in most cases hurts the children and families enrolled in it. The $8.1 billion the federal government today wastes on this failed program, on the other hand, might conceivably do some good for poor children and families – if federal bureaucrats surrender control over it to states, school boards, and, ideally, parents themselves.
Senator Lee has therefore introduced the Head Start Improvement Act (S. pending) to eliminate the federal Head Start bureaucracy and block grant its full $8.1 billion budget to the states, to spend on pre-K education for the underprivileged as they see fit, including as vouchers to defray the costs of private pre-school tuition.
Primary & Secondary
Federal K-12 policy today consists of the No Child Left Behind Act, which has bound states and schools in so much red tape that even some of NCLB’s “successes” have been revealed as little more than administrative book-cooking.
Tying educators and administrators in federal red tape does nothing to educate children, or protect parents’ rightful authority over the education of their children.
Therefore Sen. Lee is an original co-sponsor of the “A-Plus” Act, which creates an alternative, locally-controlled accountability and regulatory system for federal K-12 funds. Borrowing the logic of charter schools – under which new public schools are freed from bureaucratic supervision in exchange for meeting performance goals – APlus would in effect allow for the creation of “Charter States.”
States would be free to continue under the current NCLB system, or they could instead adopt rigorous performance standards in exchange for being released from NCLB red tape. If over time the standards are not met, the state will revert back to the NCLB system.
Federal K-12 funding – which should generally be limited – should finance innovation, opportunity, and success in the classroom – not Washington bureaucracy.
Utah senator joins others in signing letter opposing the Common Core.
By Lisa Schencker
|Reposted highlights from Salt Lake Tribune article
First Published Apr 29 2013 06:48 pm
Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, has jumped into the ongoing fray over Common Core State Standards, signing a letter asking Senate budget leaders to “restore state decision-making and accountability.”Lee, along with eight other Republican senators, sent the letter to the chairman and the ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee that funds education on Friday. The letter asks that any future education appropriations bill includes language prohibiting the U.S. Secretary of Education from using the money to implement or require the standards in any way, in hopes of eliminating “further interference by the U.S. Department of Education with respect to state decisions on academic content standards.”
“The decision about what students should be taught and when it should be taught has enormous consequences for our children,” the letter says. “Therefore, parents ought to have a straight line of accountability to those who are making such decisions. State legislatures, which are directly accountable to the citizens of their states , are the appropriate place for those decisions to be made, free from any pressure from the U.S. Department of Education.”
In an interview with the Tribune Tuesday, Lee declined to comment on Utah’s adoption of the standards, saying his concern is with keeping the federal government out of state and local education decisions.
“If they choose to adopt them, I hope they do so because they’re relevant standards and local leaders think they’re good standards not because of any federal mandate,” he said of states’ adoption of the standards. He said, so far, he’s noticed “disturbing trends” in the direction of the federal government becoming overly involved in pushing the standards.
Utah proponents of the standards, however, have long fought against arguments that they were federally developed or imposed. The Utah state school board adopted the standards in 2010 in hopes of better preparing students for college and careers. The standards — developed as part of a states-led initiative — outline the concepts and skills students should learn in each grade, while leaving curriculum decisions up to local teachers and districts.
Critics of the standards point out that the federal government, several years ago, encouraged states to adopt the standards as they applied for federal Race to the Top grant money. They also point to a federal requirement that states adopt college- and career-ready standards in order to receive a waiver to No Child Left Behind .
But Utah did not win that money, and to receive waivers, states could adopt either Common Core standards or different standards of their choosing…
Senator Mike Lee of Utah joined other senators — Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), and Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) in signing Iowa Senator Grassely’s letter that points out that the Dept. of Education must be restrained from funding and promoting nationalized standards and must not be allowed to continue the illegal implementation of Common Core with federal tax monies.
The letter said: “”While the Common Core State Standards Initiative was initially billed as a voluntary effort between states, federal incentives have clouded the picture. Current federal law makes clear that the U.S. Department of Education may not be involved in setting specific content standards or determining the content of state assessments. Nevertheless, the selection criteria designed by the U.S. Department of Education for the Race to the Top Program provided that for a state to have any chance to compete for funding, it must commit to adopting a ‘common set of K-12 standards’ matching the description of the Common Core. The U.S. Department of Education also made adoption of ‘college- and career-ready standards’ meeting the description of the Common Core a condition to receive a state waiver under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Race to the Top funds were also used to fund two consortiums to develop assessments aligned to the Common Core and the Department is now in the process of evaluating these assessments.”
“The first principle of education, and therefore of education policymaking, is that parents are the primary educators of their children. And because responsibility for children’s education lies primarily with parents, to the greatest extent possible so should decision-making authority over Pre-K to secondary education. The further such decisions are removed from the parents and guardians of children, the further they are removed from those who will promote the best interests of students. Therefore federal influence over pre-K, elementary, and secondary education should be limited. Neither members of Congress nor Department of Education bureaucrats can be expected to promote the interests of individual students – with unique talents, interests, and learning styles – more than those students’ own parents, teachers or principals.
While the Common Core Standard Initiative was initially promoted as an effort to move in this direction, it has become polluted with Federal guidelines and mandates that interfere with the ability of parents, teachers and principals to deliver the education our children deserve.” Read More Here
He actually did what all the senators are supposed to be doing: he defended the U.S. Constitution from the tentacles of the United Nations– again!
He defended our freedoms: national sovereignty and parental rights, when others lightly dismissed the seriousness of the threat to these sacred things.
If the U.N. convention won’t affect U.S. laws, how can it change other nations?
by Senator Lee
December 6. 2012 – Supporters of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities are attempting to have it both ways. They dismiss as a myth any concerns about protecting sovereignty or parental rights because the treaty lacks a formal enforcement mechanism. They suggest that Congress can simply ignore any United Nations demand that isn’t in our national interest.
Yet they simultaneously argue that U.S. ratification is necessary in order to force other countries to institute reforms. This inconsistent logic begs the question: If the treaty cannot be used to force changes in American law, how can it then be used to change the laws of other countries?
Ironically, no one highlighted this inconsistency more eloquently during Tuesday’s floor debate than one of the treaty’s most ardent supporters, Sen. John Kerry: “When have words or suggestions that have no power, that cannot be implemented, that have no access to the courts, that have no effect on the law of the United States, and cannot change the law of the United States, when has that ever threatened anybody in our country?”
Or any other country, for that matter.
Supporters argue the treaty gives us a seat at the international table. But America already sits at the head of that table. Our laws are the gold standard for protecting the rights of disabled persons. Nothing about Tuesday’s vote changes that. We continue to be influential throughout the world in promoting the Americans with Disabilities Act as the model for other countries. Ratifying the treaty would not strengthen our hand, nor would it provide further rights or benefits for Americans at home.
At best, the treaty is ineffective. At worst, it could have grave consequences for U.S. domestic law. By their very nature, treaties diminish our sovereign authority to govern ourselves. Parties to this particular convention must answer to an unaccountable U.N. committee and are subject to its directions. If you believe Sen. Kerry, then the U.S. has nothing to worry about, but also no reason to support the treaty. If he is wrong, we have many reasons to oppose it.
Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, is a member of the Foreign Relations Committee.
“Children are treated much, much better in the special needs setting whenever their parents have real and certain rights. Those rights are gone if this Senate ratifies this treaty.”
The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) is a treaty that undermines U.S. sovereignty. Despite its name, it does little to advance the needs of people with disabilities. This treaty is unnecessary and will surrender American power into the hands of a foreign entity.
Overview:
Americans with disabilities are already protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act and other federal laws.
America is already the leading example for the world, providing freedom and justice for persons with disabilities.
Advocates of the Treaty argue that if the U.S. signs on it will send a strong message to other countries to do the same.
Those opposed to the Treaty understand the error of signing onto a Treaty where U.S. power is emasculated.
Excerpts from Michael Farris’ address to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
The way for the United States to continue to lead the world in this area is to ensure that American law and practice live up to the promises of the Declaration of Independence rather than the amorphous standards of a committee of 18 experts in Geneva.
The UNCRPD follows the trend of the second generation of human rights treaties which promote the idea that government, not parents, have the ultimate voice in decisions concerning their children.
Early human rights instruments were very supportive of the rights of parents to direct the education and upbringing of their children.
All of the rights that parents have under both traditional American law and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act will be undermined by this treaty.
Children are treated much, much better in the special needs setting whenever their parents have real and certain rights.
Those rights are gone if this Senate ratifies this treaty.
Americans should make the law for America—we do not need a committee of experts in Geneva to look over our shoulders to help us determine what kind of policy we need to best protect Americans with special needs and disabilities.
It was American self-government and not international law that led to the significant advancements that this nation has seen in the appropriate law and policies concerning persons with disabilities.
International law has no track record of success that could lead any reasonable person to believe that international law would have any claim of superiority over American self-government.
We should pass whatever laws we need to ensure proper policies and practices for Americans with disabilities. But we should not give away our policy prerogatives to the superintendence of a committee of UN experts sitting in Geneva.
Be aware that the UN has its own language. Reading these documents having never read them before might not raise any red flags. We know from experience how the mere mention of treating people equally, especially in “developing nations” can mean a mandate to the wealthy nations to redistribute their funds to those nations, either through more foreign aid (hidden international tax) or through a direct international tax, which has been on the table for some time.
UT Senator Mike Lee is trying to stop this! Please thank him! UT Senator Hatch voted yes on the Motion to Proceed after committing to Senator Lee that he would vote no. Senator Hatch needs to hear from you.
The vote for ratification is tomorrow.
Please read this information and contact your U.S. Senators today (number and locator link below) and pass it on. The vote will take place tomorrow at noon.
Ask them to oppose UNCRPD (U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
COMMON CORE 