konane's Blog

by Lori Drummer

Source BigGovernment.com

"When New Jersey teachers union members refused to make room for students in a legislative committee hearing, the chairman took the meeting to the students.

***** photo******

Approximately 1,500 New Jersey schoolchildren and school choice supporters witnessed democracy in action on Thursday, May 13, when they attended a rally at the state capitol to support a private school choice bill under debate in the state Senate.  The rally was set to support S1872, legislation that would establish a five-year scholarship tax credit pilot program for students in failing schools, which was heard by the Senate Economic Growth Committee that day.

When State Senator Ray Lesniak (D-Union), chairman of the committee and longtime supporter of school choice, prepared to call the committee to order, he noted that all of the seats had been taken by New Jersey Education Association (NJEA) members.

The chairman requested that half of the seats be made available for the children who supported the school choice bill.  The union members refused to offer the children any seats. 

So, the senators’ desks were moved, and Chairman Lesniak took the committee hearing outside:

“The NJEA and their supporters packed the room.  I asked them to allow for fifty percent of supporters of the legislation in the room or else I was going to have them take the meeting outside so that everybody can see it.  They refused to leave the room, so we’re going to have the committee meeting right here.  Outside.”

In the end, the committee agreed that if they could meet outside of the government-assigned committee room – and instead outside, in the light of sunshine and in the view of taxpayers – students in failing schools should have the same flexibility to find a better venue that meets their needs.

The committee unanimously passed the legislation.

If enacted, the pilot program could fund up to $24 million in scholarships for up to 4,000 children the first year. After five years, up to 20,000 children would receive $120 million in scholarships. Scholarship funds would come from corporate contributions, for which the corporations would receive a dollar-for-dollar tax credit.  The full Senate must approve the measure before it advances to the state Assembly.

Meanwhile, the NJEA refuses to accept any responsibility for the looming budget gaps at both the state and district levels.  Only 30 school districts have accepted any form of a pay freeze for employees, and as the Star-Ledger Editorial Board recently used the situation in Fairfield, New Jersey, to illustrate the statewide mess:

“A pay freeze in Fairfield would comprise 77 percent of the needed $140,000 in cuts. But teachers there, and throughout the state, have thumbed their noses at taxpayers — the same taxpayers who have made teachers among the highest-paid in the nation, with an average salary of $63,154, a pension and, until recently, free health care benefits. So taxes will go up, programs will be eliminated and teachers will lose jobs. Hamilton will fire 75 teachers, and the union won’t even allow its membership to vote on a pay freeze that would save many of those jobs.”

The rest of New Jersey legislators should take note.  The NJEA does not want to be a part of the solution.  They are the core of the problem.

Hundreds rally in support of school voucher bill"

Tuesday, May 18. 2010

___________

 May 16, 2010 Posted by John at 3:42 PM

This is unfreakingbelievable, even for the Obama administration:

The United States and China reported no major breakthroughs Friday after only their second round of talks about human rights since 2002.

The Obama administration wants to push Beijing to treat its citizens better, but it also needs Chinese support on Iranian and North Korean nuclear standoffs, climate change and other difficult issues. ...

[Assistant Secretary of State Michael] Posner said in addition to talks on freedom of religion and expression, labor rights and rule of law, officials also discussed Chinese complaints about problems with U.S. human rights, which have included crime, poverty, homelessness and racial discrimination.

He said U.S. officials did not whitewash the American record and in fact raised on its [sic] own a new immigration law in Arizona that requires police to ask about a person's immigration status if there is suspicion the person is in the country illegally.

What an idiot! China murdered millions of its citizens who opposed the government's Communist policies and allows most of its people little or no freedom. We, on the other hand, enforce our immigration laws. No, wait--actually we don't. That's why Arizona had to take a shot at it. Oh, by the way, Michael Posner, you clueless moron--China actually does enforce its immigration laws.

These dopes are actually proud of themselves for being morally and historically ignorant:

Jon Huntsman, U.S. ambassador to China who was in Washington, told reporters earlier Friday that the rights talks are a useful way to get results on tough issues.

"We're talking about issues that are uncomfortable, quite frankly, but it is a sign of maturity that we can talk about specific cases," Huntsman said.

Is it unfair to say that the Obama administration consists of a bunch of anti-American ignoramuses? If so, why?

UPDATE: Scott thinks I may be unjust to Huntsman, as it isn't clear what "specific cases" he is talking about and his comment may have been unrelated to Posner's apology. Fair enough. But I've reviewed the transcript of Huntsman's remarks and he repeatedly deferred to Posner. Posner, meanwhile, adopted Huntsman's "mature" comment and explicitly put it in the context of his own apologies for the U.S.:

QUESTION: Was there any areas in which China sort of turned the tables and raised its own complaints or concerns about U.S. practices around the globe or at home? Can you give some examples there -

ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: Sure. You know, I think - again, this goes back to Ambassador Huntsman's comment. Part of a mature relationship is that you have an open discussion where you not only raise the other guy's problems, but you raise your own, and you have a discussion about it. We did plenty of that. We had experts from the U.S. side, for example, yesterday, talking about treatment of Muslim Americans in an immigration context. We had a discussion of racial discrimination. We had a back-and-forth about how each of our societies are dealing with those sorts of questions. ...

QUESTION: Did the recently passed Arizona immigration law come up? And, if so, did they bring it up or did you bring it up?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: We brought it up early and often. It was mentioned in the first session, and as a troubling trend in our society and an indication that we have to deal with issues of discrimination or potential discrimination, and that these are issues very much being debated in our own society.

So Posner's comments about Arizona were even worse than was reported by the AP. I would suggest to Ambassador Huntsman that if he wants to disassociate himself from the ignorance and the anti-Americanism of the Obama State Department, he should resign."

_________

May 18, 2010 Posted by Scott at 10:28 AM

"Andrew Wilder writes from the office of Senator Jon Kyl to draw our attention to a letter that Senators Kyl and McCain sent today to Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner regarding his inexcusable comments to the Chinese government about Arizona's new immigration law. Mr. Wilder writes: "Because of your attention to the matter, I wanted you to be one of the first to see the letter....I thought that your readers may appreciate knowing." (I've taken the liberty of adding the links to John Hinderaker's posts on this matter.)

Here is the letter from Senators Kyl and McCain:

The Honorable Michael H. Posner
Assistant Secretary of State
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20520

Dear Assistant Secretary Posner:

During the recent U.S.-China Human Rights Dialogue, you reportedly cited the Arizona immigration statute (SB 1070, as amended) as an example of a "troubling trend in our society" that you seemed to imply is morally equivalent to China's persistent pattern of abuse and repression of its people. As the Assistant Secretary of State in charge of the bureau of democracy and human rights, your remarks are particularly offensive. We demand that you retract your statement and issue an apology.

According to the 2009 Human Rights Report produced by your bureau, China remains one of the worst human rights offenders, and its record is only worsening. Your bureau's report details how democracy activists, religious groups, journalists, and human rights advocates in China continue to be "targeted for arbitrary arrest, detention, and harassment." The report also describes the brutal tactics the Chinese regime uses to suppress these peaceful groups: "security forces reportedly committed arbitrary or unlawful killings," "officials used electric shocks, beatings, shackles, and other forms of abuse," and "arbitrary arrest and detention remained serious problems." To compare in any way the lawful and democratic act of the government of the state of Arizona with the arbitrary abuses of the unelected Chinese Communist Party is inappropriate and offensive.

There is no place for moral equivalency in democracy and human rights policy. The United States is the world's leader in defending the rights of all people. Someone in your position should be proud to proclaim that.

Sincerely,

JON KYL & JOHN MCCAIN

This is an excellent letter that deserves a serious response. Let's say it one more time: "To compare in any way the lawful and democratic act of the government of the state of Arizona with the arbitrary abuses of the unelected Chinese Communist Party is inappropriate and offensive."

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/05/026323.php

"Arlen Specter -- Profile in entitlement

"Thousands Sterilized In China Population Crackdown

May 17, 2010

Napolitano Admits She Hasn't Read Arizona Law But Says She Wouldn't Sign It 

****VIDEO****

"Candidate’s Words on Vietnam Service Differ From History

Source New York Times

Please note the correct title Constitutional*ist* would not post so I abbreviated it.  Great article.

____________

 

"America's Constitutionalist Revolt  
 
By Larry Kudlow  16 Apr 2010  
Souce TCS Daily

"So much is being written in the mainstream media about who the tea partiers are, but very little is being recorded about what these folks are actually saying.

We know that this is a decentralized grassroots movement, with many different voices hailing from many different towns across the country. But the tea-party message comes together in the "Contract from America," the product of an online vote orchestrated by Ryan Hecker, a Houston tea-party activist and national coordinator for the Tea Party Patriots.

With nearly 500,000 votes recorded in less than two months, this Contract forms a blueprint of tea-party policy goals and beliefs.

Of the top-ten planks in the Contract, the number-one issue is protect the Constitution. That's followed by reject cap-and-trade, demand a balanced budget, and enact fundamental tax reform. And then comes number five: Restore fiscal responsibility and constitutionally limited government in Washington.

Note that two of the top-five priorities of the tea partiers mention the Constitution.

Filling out the Contract, the bottom-five planks are end runaway government spending; defund, repeal, and replace government-run health care; pass an all-of-the-above energy policy; stop the pork; and stop the tax hikes.

What's so significant to me about this tea-party Contract from America is the strong emphasis on constitutional limits and restraints on legislation, spending, taxing, and government control of the economy. Undoubtedly, the emphasis is there because no one trusts Washington.

As I read this Contract, tea partiers are reminding all of us of the need for the Constitution to protect our freedoms. They're calling for a renewal of constitutional values, including -- first and foremost -- a return to constitutional limits on government. The tea partiers who responded to this poll are demanding a rebirth of the consent of the governed. The government works for us, we don't work for it.

All this makes me think of President Reagan, who never quite succeeded in gaining a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget, or for limits on spending, or for a two-thirds congressional majority for any new tax hikes. But throughout his presidency, and for many years before, the Gipper argued for constitutional limits on government, especially government spending.

And now this message is being echoed perfectly in the tea-party Contract from America. In effect, it picks up where Reagan left off.

The tea partiers, whom I call free-market populists, desire a return to Reaganism. In particular, their demands for a balanced budget (third plank), for restoring fiscal responsibility (5th plank), for ending massive government spending (6th plank), and for stopping the pork (9th plank) all underscore the populist revolt against runaway government spending, and therefore runaway government power.

There are mentions in the Contract of tax reform and stopping tax hikes. But it is pretty clear to everyone nowadays that the massive run-up in spending of recent years will inevitably result in an equally massive tax-hike movement -- that is, unless the spending is strictly curbed and reduced.

Yet the tea partiers don't trust Congress to do this, so they want to bring in constitutional restraint.

A recent survey by the Brookings Institution spells out this spend-and-tax problem with great clarity. Under current spending trends, tax-the-rich efforts to bring the deficit to just 3 percent of GDP -- not balance, mind you, but 3 percent deficit -- would require a nearly 80 percent marginal tax rate on the most successful earners. And if taxes are raised across-the-board, the marginal rate would rise to nearly 50 percent for the top earners, with state and local tax burdens bringing it up to 60 percent. Otherwise, a European-style value-added tax (VAT) would become necessary.

The tea partiers know this and they don't like it one bit. And so, at bottom, they have formed a constitutionalist movement to revolt against big government and big taxes -- and oh, by the way, to stand against big-government control of large chunks of the economy, such as energy and health care.

Harking back to the Founders' principles of constitutional limits to government is a very powerful message. It's a message of freedom, especially economic freedom. The tea partiers have delivered an extremely accurate diagnostic of what ails America right now: Government is growing too fast, too much, too expensively, and in too many places -- and in the process it is crowding out our cherished economic freedom.

It's as though the tea partiers are saying this great country will never fulfill its long-run potential to prosper, create jobs, and lead the world unless constitutional limits to government are restored.

Now, as the tea partiers rally across the country, the big question is only this: Will the political class get it?"

http://techcentralstation.com/