PK'S NOTE: Guys, this is serious, scary and real.

Obamacore: The White House Takes the Schools

President Obama’s bid to control what your children learn in school is surely one of the most important and disturbing of his many transformative plans. Not only is Obama’s attempt to devise what is in effect a national K–12 school curriculum arguably unconstitutional and illegal, the fact that most Americans have no idea that the new “Common Core” (a.k.a. Obamacore) even exists may be the most troubling thing about it.

Today’s Washington Post features an article on the controversy being kicked up by the new English curriculum that 46 states and the District of Columbia are just now waking up to. Not coincidentally, this new education war is hitting less than a month after Obama’s re-election, just in time to prevent the public from taking the most effective step it could have to block the changes. You have to get nearly to the end of today’s Post article even to get a hint of the fact that Obama is the real force behind the new curriculum. Following that link takes you to an article that more frankly lays out Obama’s role in commandeering the substance of what’s taught in the nation’s schools. The print version of this September 21, 2012 article featured a more revealing headline than the web version: “Education overhaul largely bypasses Congress.”

To say the least, the legality of Obama’s curriculum power-grab is dubious, as George Will explains.

The trouble with the new English curriculum is that it largely crowds out classic literature in favor of non-fiction. As teachers and students rebel against boring selections and the gutting of their most popular units, defenders of the Common Core claim that schools have missed qualifications in the new requirements (helpfully laid out in an obscure footnote).

Technically, the new non-fiction requirements can be satisfied in classes other than English. In practice, however, with science teachers unwilling to assign essays, English classes are forced to junk Huckleberry Finn in favor of readings such as “Executive Order 13423: Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management.” The potential for political abuse in a curriculum heavy with government documents and news articles should be obvious. Given the politics of most teachers, the new non-fiction requirements create a huge opening for leftist indoctrination. And that’s only the beginning of the potential political abuses of the Common Core.

That 45 states and the District of Columbia have signed on to what is in effect becoming a new national curriculum, most of them without even seeing the new standards, is a Constitutional, legal, political, and educational outrage. Obama is most at fault, yet the states (many run by Republicans) also deserve blame for selling their constitutional birthright for a mess of pottage. I have much more to say about the Common Core here.

All is not lost. Indiana and Utah already have popular rebellions in progress against the Common Core. If you want help fighting Common Core in your area, contact the American Principles Project.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/334645/obamacore-white-house-takes-schools-stanley-kurtz

Surprise: McConnell Offers Vote on Obama/Geithner Fiscal Cliff Plan, Reid Objects

By Guy Benson
I've been critical of Republican tactics and messaging this week, so let's give credit where it's due: Moments ago, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell took to the floor and offered an immediate vote on President Obama's fiscal cliff plan, which shocked the Beltway late last week. (In case you're keeping score at home, this was the surreal proposal that induced McConnell to laugh out loud as it was outlined by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner). Harry Reid quickly objected and shut the whole thing down, labeling the suggestion a "stunt." Think about that. The President of the United States, a Democrat, crafted a fiscal cliff package that would give him everything he wants. It has tax hikes on the rich. It has huge tax hikes on investments and estates. It has more stimulus spending. It has no meaningful, specific, or guaranteed spending cuts. And it compels Congress to cede control of the debt ceiling to him. This is "fairness" on steroids. The Senate's top Republican proposed an up-or-down vote on everything the president wants, yet Democrats, who control the upper chamber, instantly blocked it. By what definition is it a "stunt" to hold a vote on the president's full, public plan? The White House has insisted it's a serious document, yet Hill Democrats don't want it to see the light of day.

This isn't the first time we've seen Democrats engaged in this awkward political dance. Obama released a wildly expensive, unpaid-for "jobs" (read: stimulus) plan last year. Republicans offered to vote on it, and Reid objected; a "stunt," he said. Reid even went so far as to change the Senate rules to block Republicans from forcing a vote on the bill. Obama also put forward budget blueprints for fiscal years 2012 and 2013, both of which were unanimously defeated in Congress. Every single Democrat voted against both budgets, griping that the act of actually voting on Obama's budgets amounted to -- you guessed it -- a Republican "stunt." The reason for all of this cynical posturing is pretty simple: Obama's plans aren't reasonable. They're totally beyond the realm of possibility. They're all for show -- unserious, extreme, unaffordable, and so reckless that even his own party doesn't have a prayer of passing them through the legislative body they control. And yet, the White House continues to demand that Republicans offer an endless parade of "serious proposals" for them to inevitably reject as unserious. Which side is acting like petulant children, again? Do Democrats really want to avoid the fiscal cliff, as they claim? If so, wouldn't they welcome the chance to give the president what he's asking for? I'll leave you with McConnell's floor speech handing Democrats the opportunity to do just that, knowing exactly what they'd be forced to do. Good stuff, especially the feigned "surprise:"

[The president's plan] was so ridiculous, as I’ve said, it wouldn’t even pass the House under Nancy Pelosi. And that’s why even the most liberal members of Congress, the President’s most ardent supporters, haven’t come forward to support it. So, for the White House to demand a response shows they’re just playing games at this point. And if you don’t believe me, ask yourself how many Democrats would vote for this bill. Not many. But I didn’t think we should have to speculate. I still think we should give Democrats a chance to demonstrate for themselves how serious the President’s plan was, and how serious they are. That’s why I just asked consent to offer an amendment to the Russia Trade Bill that gave them that opportunity. As I noted, I’d be happy to have this vote here, or as an amendment to the next bill, or as a standalone — it will not slow down what I hope is swift passage of PNTR for Russia. If the President’s proposal was made in good faith, Democrats should be eager to vote for it. So I’m surprised the Majority Leader just declined the chance for them to support it with their votes. I guess we’re left to conclude that it couldn’t even pass by a bare majority of votes, and that they’d rather take the country off the cliff than actually work out a good-faith agreement that reflects tough choices on both sides.

...I for one was eager to see what Democrats in the Senate support this totally unrealistic proposal. I think folks should know who actually wants to raise taxes on family farmers and manufacturers, and who thinks we can solve our fiscal problems without doing anything serious to our real long term liabilities. D emocrats are so focused on the politics of this debate they seem to forget there’s a cost. They’re feeling so good about the election, they’ve forgotten they’ve got a duty to govern. A lot of people are going to suffer a lot if we go off this cliff. That’s why we assumed Democrats wanted to avoid it. We thought it was the perfect opportunity to do something together. Apparently we were wrong.

Maybe Boehner should introduce the bill over in the House, too. Every Republican would vote no, and I'd bet Pelosi would orchestrate unanimous 'no' votes from her caucus, too. Because, obviously, "stunts!!" Thus, House Democrats would be voting against the president's "balanced" fiscal cliff tax plan "for the middle class" and "fairness." Good times. The biggest problem the GOP is facing at the moment is a public that has bought into the idea that they're the irresponsible actors in this drama. Watching the Democrats line up against their own side's plan might complicate that narrative a bit, to say nothing of the smoking-gun 2011 video of the president touting the math behind the current Republican. In case you're wondering, the White House's explanation for that cognitive dissonance is pretty fun: In essence, "but it was different back then Just because."

UPDATE - Reid: The Obama proposal doesn't exist. Geithner: "We laid out a very detailed set of proposals." How pathetic.

“There is no Geithner proposal,” Reid said. “This is all made up.” Reid’s comment might come as a surprise to Geithner and the reporters who interviewed him over the weekend.

“We laid out a very detailed, carefully designed set of spending, savings and tax changes that help put us on a path offiscal responsibility,” Geithner told Fox News’ Chris Wallace on Sunday

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/12/05/surprise_mcconnell_offers_vote_on_obamageithner_fiscal_cliff_plan_reid_objects

DHS Spent $35 Billion To Make Us Safer; But Can’t Say How Much Safer We Are

A grant program administered by the Department of Homeland Security has morphed from a fund designed to fight terror into a pork-barrel program that pads local governments’ budgets, according to a report to be released Wednesday by Sen. Tom Coburn (R., Okla.).

The report, titled “Safety at Any Price: Assessing the Impact of Homeland Security Spending in U.S. Cities,” focuses on Homeland Security’s Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI).

“Since 2003, DHS has spent $35 billion on grant programs that were intended to make Americans safer from terrorist attacks,” a spokesman for Sen. Coburn wrote in an email. “But DHS failed to establish goals or metrics to ensure that funds were used to make Americans safe and cannot say how much safer we are today after spending $35 billion.”

The report says the UASI grant program has ballooned beyond its original intent and lacks the oversight and rigorous measurements needed to determine its effectiveness.

http://minutemennews.com/2012/12/dhs-spent-35-billion-to-make-us-safer-but-cant-say-how-much-safer-we-are/

PK's NOTE: And we have to find THIS article from the foreign press because our media won't cover it.

Obamacare Architect Leaves Admin. Through “Deeply Corrupt Revolving Door”

As Baucus himself repeatedly boasted, the architect of that legislation was Elizabeth Folwer, his chief health policy counsel; indeed, as Marcy Wheeler discovered, it was Fowler who actually drafted it.

More amazingly still, when the Obama White House needed someone to oversee implementation of Obamacare after the bill passed, it chose . . . Liz Fowler. That the White House would put a former health insurance industry executive in charge of implementation of its new massive health care law was roundly condemned by good government groups as at least a violation of the "spirit" of governing ethics rules and even "gross", but those objections were, of course, brushed aside by the White House. She then became Special Assistant to the President for Healthcare and Economic Policy at the National Economic Council.

Now, as Politico's "Influence" column briefly noted on Tuesday, Fowler is once again passing through the deeply corrupting revolving door a

s she leaves the Obama administration to return to the loving and lucrative arms of the private health care industry:
"Elizabeth Fowler is leaving the White House for a senior-level position leading 'global health policy' at Johnson & Johnson's government affairs and policy group."

The pharmaceutical giant that just hired Fowler actively supported the passage of Obamacare through its membership in the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) lobby. Indeed, PhRMA was one of the most aggressive supporters - and most lavish beneficiaries - of the health care bill drafted by Fowler. Mother Jones' James Ridgeway proclaimed "Big Pharma" the "big winner" in the health care bill. And now, Fowler will receive ample rewards from that same industry as she peddles her influence in government and exploits her experience with its inner workings to work on that industry's behalf, all of which has been made perfectly legal by the same insular, Versailles-like Washington culture that so lavishly benefits from all of this.

It's difficult to find someone who embodies the sleazy, anti-democratic, corporatist revolving door that greases Washington as shamelessly and purely as Liz Fowler.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/05/obamacare-fowler-lobbyist-industry1

Syria loads chemical weapons into bombs; military awaits Assad's order

The Syrian military is prepared to use chemical weapons against its own people and is awaiting final orders from President Bashar Assad, U.S. officials told NBC News on Wednesday.

The military has loaded the precursor chemicals for sarin, a deadly nerve gas, into aerial bombs that could be dropped onto the Syrian people from dozens of fighter-bombers, the officials said.

As recently as Tuesday, officials had said there was as yet no evidence that the process of mixing the "precursor" chemicals had begun. But Wednesday, they said their worst fears had been confirmed: The nerve agents were locked and loaded inside the bombs.

Sarin is an extraordinarily lethal agent. Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's forces killed 5,000 Kurds with a single sarin attack on Halabja in 1988.

U.S. officials stressed that as of now, the sarin bombs hadn't been loaded onto planes and that Assad hadn't issued a final order to use them. But if he does, one of the officials said, "there's little the outside world can do to stop it."

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/05/15706380-syria-loads-chemical-weapons-into-bombs-military-awaits-assads-order?lite