Dick Morris Helps Sell The Race To The Top, School Choice Snow Job
I attended the School Choice festivities at Loyola Academy in St. Louis, last night. This is the second year for national School Choice activities.
Loyola Academy is a privately funded charter school for at risk youth in the heart of St. Louis City. Their academic achievement and graduation rates are very impressive, but without government mandates, of the state or federal kind, that’s no surprise.
A four person panel spoke on the value of school choice and how to enhance education reform in Missouri, last night. Dick Morris, headlined the panel and clearly advocates for vouchers and charter schools as school choice. While he and the panel spoke to the virtues of parental involvement, freedom from teacher’s unions and local control of schools, they never made the connection that publicly funded charter schools are not independent or free to operate without government mandates when they receive government money. What about common core?
While common core was discussed lightly, by the panel, no one seemed to connect the dots to charter schools. They did, however, make it very clear that charter schools are public schools and voucher money would follow the students where ever they chose to attend. Watch the video.
Charter schools are the cornerstone of the Obama administration’s race to the top educational reform initiative. Government always seems to have ways to build a better mouse trap when it comes to inventing educational reform, but that mouse trap never includes letting go of the money, so that it is never take from taxpayers in the first place, and letting privatization drive the market in education.
Most still believe education is an entitlement and that government must be the nanny state over your child’s education. Until that changes there will never be true educational reform.
RNC Adopts Resolution Exposing Agenda 21 / Set You Free News
RNC Adopts Resolution Exposing Agenda 21 / Set You Free News.
Please read as much as you can, here, and anywhere else, about Agenda 21. I see this as the panacea of all things bad in liberty loving government. Please share with your friends.
On The Balanced Budget Amendment, Dwight Is Right!
On Sunday, I posted here concerning legislators bringing forth pleas for legislation to initiate Article V conventions. In my last post, I identified HCR3, brought by Dwight Scharnhorst, as such legislation. I would like to update and clarify some misconceptions about this effort and help others understand the differences between HCR3 and other calls for Article V Conventions.
As this issue was hotly debated in Missouri last year, and continues to be so, there are some fine points that are easy to misconstrue in the language of the bills, where there are actually vast differences. Most opponents of Article V fear an open convention which would place the Constitution at risk for rewrite or restructure of previous amendments. The solution, in the minds of many, is to run single amendments through congress, which would address only the amendment submitted and protect the rest of Constitution from alteration, which could come forth in an open Article V convention. Proponents of Article V argue, IF conventions were handled legitimately, the possibility on focusing on the single issue is present, but Article V opponents don’t have the faith the process will operate free from corruption, and given the present state of affairs in government across the country, it’s hard to blame them. There is no guarantee that Article V can maintain a single focused amendment consideration.
HCR3 is different from HCR4 in that it calls for a proposed amendment through the congress. HCR4 is a call for an open Article V convention, as proposed by Representative Chuck Gatschenberger. It takes 2/3 of both houses of Congress to call for amendments to the constitution, and it takes 2/3 of the states to call for an Article V Convention. In the instance of a convention, it would take 3/4 of the states to ratify the product which comes from the convention . The difference between the two is that a congressionally proposed amendment protects the entirety of the Constitution while considering only one amendment. Article V does not.
Article V – U.S. Constitution
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments,
which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Dwight Scharnhorst has it right in proposing HCR3. The efforts of legislators and patriots are better spent on directed elected representation in Washington D.C. to advance the will of the people than risking a deconstruct of the present U.S. Constitution by a run away convention. The same desired outcome, of a balanced budget, can happen without potential devastating effects to liberty and freedom that our founders worked and fought so hard to give us.
Call and/or email Representative Scharnhorst ( Dwight.Scharnhorst@house.mo.gov 573-751-4392) and support his effort to get government to work for the people, the way it is supposed to. It might not be a bad idea to encourage your own legislator to do the same.
Additional information on this story can be found here.
What Part Of “No Article V” Didn’t Missouri Legislators Understand?
Last year, the citizens of Missouri made it very clear they didn’t want any form of Article V legislation coming from Missouri legislators. Town halls were hosted. Emails and phone calls were sent. Public debates were held. Speeches were made. At the end of the session, Article V, in any form, died. So the question remains, why not push to rescind previous calls for a con-con and why the push to advance Article V when the people have clearly said they don’t want it? Notice the uncomfortably long, pregnant pauses to the question proposed at the Lincoln County Town Hall, called last year to address this issue?
Fast forward to the 2012 legislative session. Despite the push back from constituents, Chuck Gatschenberger has declared his intent to move forward with Article V again.
So, once again, it looks like it will be up to the citizens of Missouri to real in, so called, conservative representatives because their voices were not taken seriously last year on this issue.
Chuck Gatschenberger has introduced HCR4 calling for a convention for proposing amendments to the U.S. Constitution. His bill has received two readings on the house floor.
Last session, Tim Jones, House Majority Floor Leader, allowed discussion of Gatschenbergers bill on the floor, but promised it would not move to a vote. Will he protect and represent the people’s wishes again this year? It’s time to call your legislators out and put them on record. Article V wasn’t a good idea last year and it’s still not a good idea.
Dwight Scharnhorst has also submitted submitted legislation calling for an amendment to the Constitution. HCR3 calls for congress to add a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. It has had 2 readings on the House floor and is scheduled for hearing on Tuesday morning.
You can copy and past the following lists to email your reps and senators to let them know how you feel about this legislation. It has received 2 readings on the House floor.
Republican House Members:
Sue.Allen@house.mo.gov, Bert.Atkins@house.mo.gov, Kurt.Bahr@house.mo.gov, Jay.Barnes@house.mo.gov, Mike.Bernskoetter@house.mo.gov, TJ.Berry@house.mo.gov, Ellen.Brandom@house.mo.gov, Rick.Brattin@house.mo.gov, Cloria.Brown@house.mo.gov, Wanda.Brown@house.mo.gov, Eric.Burlison@house.mo.gov, John.Cauthorn@house.mo.gov, Mike.Cierpiot@house.mo.gov, Kathie.Conway@house.mo.gov, Steve.Cookson@house.mo.gov, Stanley.Cox@house.mo.gov, Sandy.Crawford@house.mo.gov, Gary.Cross@house.mo.gov, Paul.Curtman@house.mo.gov, Charlie.Davis@house.mo.gov, David.Day@house.mo.gov, Charlie.Denison@house.mo.gov, Scott.Dieckhaus@house.mo.gov, John.Diehl@house.mo.gov, Tony.Dugger@house.mo.gov, Kevin.Elmer@house.mo.gov, Sue.Entlicher@house.mo.gov, Thomas.Flanigan@house.mo.gov, Lyndall.Fraker@house.mo.gov, Diane.Franklin@house.mo.gov, Ward.Franz@house.mo.gov, Keith.Frederick@house.mo.gov, Gary.Fuhr@house.mo.gov, Doug.Funderburk@house.mo.gov, Chuck.Gatschenberger@house.mo.gov, Don.Gosen@house.mo.gov, Jeff.Grisamore@house.mo.gov, Casey.Guernsey@house.mo.gov, Marsha.Haefner@house.mo.gov, Kent.Hampton@house.mo.gov, Galen.Higdon@house.mo.gov, Dave.Hinson@house.mo.gov, Lincoln.Hough@house.mo.gov, Jay.Houghton@house.mo.gov, Delus.Johnson@house.mo.gov, Caleb.Jones@house.mo.gov, Tim.Jones@house.mo.gov, Shelley.Keeney@house.mo.gov, Mike.Kelley@house.mo.gov, Glen.Klippenstein@house.mo.gov, Andrew.Koenig@house.mo.gov, Bart.Korman@house.mo.gov, Mike.Lair@house.mo.gov, Bill.Lant@house.mo.gov, Scott.Largent@house.mo.gov, Brent.Lasater@house.mo.gov, Jeanie.Lauer@house.mo.gov, Melissa.Leach@house.mo.gov, Mike.Leara@house.mo.gov, Donna.Lichtenegger@house.mo.gov, Tom.Loehner@house.mo.gov, Thomas.Long@house.mo.gov, Thomas.Long@house.mo.gov, Nick.Marshall@house.mo.gov, John.McCaherty@house.mo.gov, Mike.McGhee@house.mo.gov, Cole.McNary@house.mo.gov, Chris.Molendorp@house.mo.gov, Bob.Nance@house.mo.gov, Myron.Neth@house.mo.gov, Jerry.Nolte@house.mo.gov, Mark.Parkinson@house.mo.gov, Don.Phillips@house.mo.gov, Darrell.Pollock@house.mo.gov, Craig.Redmon@house.mo.gov, Bill.Reiboldt@house.mo.gov, Todd.Richardson@house.mo.gov, Jeanie.Riddle@house.mo.gov, Lyle.Rowland@house.mo.gov, Don.Ruzicka@house.mo.gov, David.Sater@house.mo.gov, Rodney.Schad@house.mo.gov, Dwight.Scharnhorst@house.mo.gov, Dave.Schatz@house.mo.gov, Ronald.Schieber@house.mo.gov, Vicki.Schneider@house.mo.gov, Shane.Schoeller@house.mo.gov, Lindell.Shumake@house.mo.gov, Ryan.Silvey@house.mo.gov, Jason.Smith@house.mo.gov, Sheila.Solon@house.mo.gov, Chrissy.Sommer@house.mo.gov, ick.Stream@house.mo.gov, Mike.Thomson@house.mo.gov, Steven.Tilley@house.mo.gov, Noel.Torpey@house.mo.gov, Wayne.Wallingford@house.mo.gov, Don.Wells@house.mo.gov, Raymond.Weter@house.mo.gov, Bill.White@house.mo.gov, Paul.Wieland@house.mo.gov, Billy.Wright@house.mo.gov, Zachary.Wyatt@house.mo.gov, Anne.Zerr@house.mo.gov
Democrat House Members:
Ira.Anders@house.mo.gov, Bert.Atkins@house.mo.gov, Joe.Aull@house.mo.gov, Linda.Black@house.mo.gov, Michael.Brown@house.mo.gov, Susan.Carlson@house.mo.gov, Susan.Carlson@house.mo.gov, Chris.Carter@house.mo.gov, Ron.Casey@house.mo.gov, Mike.Colona@house.mo.gov, Pat.Conway@house.mo.gov, Rory.Ellinger@house.mo.gov, Brandon.Ellington@house.mo.gov, Joe.FallertJr@house.mo.gov, Barney.Fisher@house.mo.gov, Paul.Fitzwater@house.mo.gov, Ben.Harris@house.mo.gov, Steve.Hodges@house.mo.gov, Jason.Holsman@house.mo.gov, Denny.Hoskins@house.mo.gov, Penny.Hubbard@house.mo.gov, leonard.hughes@house.mo.gov, Jake.Hummel@house.mo.gov, Tishaura.Jones@house.mo.gov, Jason.Kander@house.mo.gov, Chris.Kelly@house.mo.gov, Jeanne.Kirkton@house.mo.gov, Michele.Kratky@house.mo.gov, Sara.Lampe@house.mo.gov, Karla.May@house.mo.gov, Gail.Beatty@house.mo.gov, Tom.McDonald@house.mo.gov, Eileen.McGeoghegan@house.mo.gov, Kevin.McManus@house.mo.gov, Margo.McNeil@house.mo.gov, Tim.Meadows@house.mo.gov, Genise.Montecillo@house.mo.gov, Judy.Morgan@house.mo.gov, Jamilah.Nasheed@house.mo.gov, Stacey.Newman@house.mo.gov, Mary.Nichols@house.mo.gov, Jeanette.Oxford@house.mo.gov, Sharon.Pace@house.mo.gov, Tommie.Pierson@house.mo.gov, Paul.Quinn@house.mo.gov, John.Rizzo@house.mo.gov, Ed.Schieffer@house.mo.gov, Jill.Schupp@house.mo.gov, Tom.Shively@house.mo.gov, Scott.Sifton@house.mo.gov, Clem.Smith@house.mo.gov, Churie.Spreng@house.mo.gov, Mary.Still@house.mo.gov, Jay.Swearingen@house.mo.gov, Terry.Swinger@house.mo.gov, Mike.Talboy@house.mo.gov, Sylvester.Taylor@house.mo.gov, Rochelle.Gray@house.mo.gov, Steve.Webb@house.mo.gov, Stephen.Webber@house.mo.gov,
Independent House Members:
Here is the link to the House Member Directory Page.
Phyllis Schlafly released a series of youtube videos explaining why Article V legislation is a bad idea:
Are Family Courts Fabricating Evidence To Take Your Children Away?
This story was cross posted, yesterday, on GuardianAdLitemReform.wordpress.com
An appeals court in California thinks so. A landmark case for parental rights was decided in favor of the the mother in this case, which is almost unheard of. In fact, most Americans don’t really understand what goes on in family courts. Many, who have been entangled in there, across the country, have experienced intrusive and abusive treatment by family court government agencies. Many parents have their children taken away and many have experienced situations where the government agencies have fabricated evidence in order to do so. This case is typical of what many experience in America today. I hope to be able to bring you more good news, like this, in the future, and educate you on what the “system” has worked so hard to conceal.
In its opinion, the Court of Appeal voiced its concerns over what happened to Ms. Fogarty-Hardwick: “Stated plainly, the outcome of this case cannot be dismissed as merely the unfortunate product of a runaway jury. The evidence adduced at trial obviously caused both the jury and the judge to conclude not only that something seriously wrong was done to Fogarty-Hardwick in this case, but also that the wrongful conduct was not an isolated incident. That conclusion is something the County should be taking very seriously.”
LDS/Government Use Your Children To Invade Your Privacy In The Name Of Educational Excellence
Big brother is here, in 2012, and he is learning everything about you through your children, via the public schools. How would you like the public schools to track information about you and your children such as health care history, family income and voting status? In an article published, last week in the New York Post, Emmet McGroarty and Jane Robbins outline how the Obama administration put into place, regulations that allow for public schools to gather data all in the name of supporting and evaluating educational programs. The kicker is, it’s happening in all 50 states, and they can share the information without your consent or knowledge.
The administration wants this data to include much more than name, address and test scores. According to the National Data Collection Model, the government should collect information on health-care history, family income and family voting status. In its view, public schools offer a golden opportunity to mine reams of data from a captive audience.
The article caused such a stir throughout the country that FOX and Friends picked up the story and interviewed McGroarty about the issue, however, they didn’t seem to treat him with much credibility as they tried to paint the problem with a conspiracy theory brush.
Perhaps they should have given McGroarty’s article a little more respect and inquired as to why would the collection of such data be of interest to the government.
In July of 2010, the Joyce Foundation released a report outlining the benefits of collecting data for the improvement of workforce programs. On page two of the report they state:
By linking their education with workforce data and tracking education and employment program participants over time, states can see how well students in education programs are securing career-path jobs in fields of importance to local economies.
Page one reports how data systems will be funded through a federal grant and some information to be utilized will incorporate data from the Federal Employment Data Exchange System (FEDES).
The WDQI will provide funding to selected state workforce agencies (SWAs) to strengthen and expand longitudinal data systems (LDSs) to facilitate the tracking of individual participants through education and employment programs and into the labor force.
Page 9′s endnotes state clearly they also intend for states to share the data with the Federal Employment Data Exchange System.
2While the Department of Labor Solicitation for Grant Applications (SGA) does not include FEDES in the list of sources which must be incorporated in the longitudinal data system, the SGA does require states to discuss how they will link to FEDES.
Longitudinal Data Collection been a reported on extensively by Missouri Education Watchdog. In a March 2011 posting MEW chronicled how a study in St. Louis tracked children from birth to age 21 for the CDC and National Institutes of Health. In May of the same year, MEW reports how Obama’s Education Secretary, Arne Duncan, instituted regulations to change FERPA laws to facilitate data collection between schools and workforce institutions. As long as its all done in the name of educational research, it’s perfectly legit in the eyes of Big Brother. Are you seeing the common linking threads?
And if you still think this would never happen in your own back yard, think again. Watch this video of the Parkway School Board as they approve monitoring devices (50 minutes into the video) for their students. Parkway is a school district in the suburbs of St. Louis and it would seem that data collection concerns here, mirror issues raised the New York Post article.
St.LToday published an article detailing the concerns and questions surrounding the need to monitor the activity and sleep patterns of its students in an effort to enhance fitness and raise student achievement. Apparently, parents were not involved in the decision process to implement the program, but parental consent will be required to participate due to the fact they will be responsible for care of the monitors while their children wear them 24/7 for a week at a time. Yes, that’s right. Students will be monitored outside of the school day, evenings and weekends. In fact their every activity and even their sleep patterns will be tracked for a week, straight.
Similarities in data collection in Parkway seem mirror concerns outlined in the New York Post article. Not only were parents alarmed at not being notified about the devices being used during the school day, they want to know what the long range ramifications are of such intrusive information gathering.
Beth Huebner, PTO co-president at Ross and mother of sons in first and fourth grades, said she wasn’t aware of her older child wearing one of the devices and she was never asked for consent.
“I’d want to see data generated to help me understand calories burned and sleep patterns,” said Huebner, a professor at the University of Missouri-St. Louis. “I would ask the district tell me about it particularly if the information would be used for district analysis.”
Cara Bauer, PTO president at Shenandoah Valley and mother of a son in first grade and a daughter in fifth grade, said she’s heard about the monitors from her daughter, Caroline. She said her daughter doesn’t like wearing one and calls them “the funny watch.”
“I wish Parkway would let parents know what’s going on with the program,” Bauer said. “I feel they’re getting into privacy issues, into people’s personal lives, when they have to be worn at home. That kind of makes me a little leery, and, though I think the monitors are a fantastic idea in school, I don’t want that at home.”
She questioned how the data will be used.
“What will they do with all this information they’ll glean from my kid?” Bauer asked. “I’d be curious to see what information they’re getting off these contraptions. They’re OK in PE, but they make me question why the district isn’t being up front with parents about what the program will be at home.”
Neil Richards, a professor of law with Washington University in St. Louis who teaches privacy and civil liberties courses, said he feels the plan for the devices constitutes “a major privacy issue.”
“The school district eventually will be engaging in surveillance of kids’ sleep and exercise patterns outside the school day,” he said. “Though physical activity is important and obesity is a problem, the district could not require kids to wear them because I think it would be a violation of their and their families’ Fourth Amendment rights, which is pretty easily unconstitutional.”
And wearing them voluntarily doesn’t eliminate privacy concerns, Richards said.
“They’ll create a record of medical information about children around the clock,” he said. “Even if it serves laudable public health goals, it’s a fairly Orwellian step for a school district to engage in.”
Neil Richards, a Washington Law School professor, raises several questions in the article about privacy issues and invasion of constitutional rights.
Still, parents should be asking what data is being collected from those devices and when, Richards said. They should ask what rights they have to control the data, whether data is anonymous, what safeguards will be in place to protect data, whether the district is going to give it or sell it to anyone, when data will be destroyed, and whether the district has a privacy policy available to parents.
“If a university would do this study, they’d need to have lots of approval and consent from our internal review board, because this is a form of human subject research,” Richards said. “Though the district should be applauded for ensuring kids are healthy, this kind of biological surveillance seems to go far beyond what they should be concerned with.”
He wonders what’s next.
“Will they start monitoring kids’ nutrition at home or how many hours they spend reading at home?” Richards asked.
The bottom line here? No one is explaining clearly how the collection of data that tracks eye color, sleep patterns, voting trends, and family income helps children memorize math facts or read and write with greater proficiency. And wasn’t student achievement greater when students had less technology in the class room and taxpayers had less government in education? Perhaps, if you want to make sure Big Brother doesn’t have his nose in your business it would be a good idea to start asking some of these questions at your local school because it is apparent the local school isn’t going to ask you first for your consent to pry into your personal business.
All I Want For Christmas …
Here’s wishing you, and your family, a very Merry Christmas and bright and prosperous new year. Since I know you have all been good, this year, I am sure you will get everything you asked Santa for, with very few exceptions. Here’s what I am asking for, this Christmas:
Dear Santa,
I have tried to be very good, this year. I voted in every election. I worked for political candidates and causes that advance conservative values and I always paid my taxes in full and on time, even when I really didn’t want to. Could you please just manage to put a couple of the following under my tree this year?
There are cookies and milk for you in the kitchen, and carrots on the patio for the reindeer. As you work hard on Christmas Eve, and throughout the year, I just wanted to show my appreciation, in this small way, with this non-tax deductible donation.
Yours in conservatism,
Culture Vigilante
A state legislature that doesn’t spend its time writing in excess of 2000 pieces of legislation yearly, at least 130 of which are related to education, and none of which promotes local control of schools.
A real conservative talk radio station. One that doesn’t promote tax credits or establishment republican politicians, please.
Elected leaders, on the local, state and federal level, that at least seem to remember they work for the people, and are there to promote and enforce policy (the constitution) that supports the people and not big government or special interests. Oh yeah, Santa, would you please give me political leaders who really read the Constitution, both state and federal, believe in their principles and will work to uphold those values, and not just use it as campaign rhetoric.
If you could manage to park your sleigh on top of Chuck Gatschenberger so he can’t file that Article V legislation, this year, that would be great, Santa.
The state of Missouri is gonna be a little short of funds this year. Almost a billion dollars, I hear. Something to do with Chinese money. So if you have some cash, that doesn’t come with federal mandates attached to it, perhaps it could find its way into the state coffers? And/or you could help the legislature see the wisdom in cutting entitlements, like the Department of Education.
A little judicial reform would be nice. Also, please remind the House of Representatives that they have the power to do that. I think they forgot, since they haven’t done anything close to imposing consequences on out of control judges since the civil war. Perhaps that’s why things are so out of control.
Please help candidates and the elected see the wisdom in signing Homeschooling United’s Educational Freedom Pledge. Also please help them live up to it. You see, Santa, homeschoolers just want to be left alone to educate our children the way we see fit, without common core, longitudinal data systems and ridiculous regulation. We can do it ourselves; we don’t need or want help from the government. We are doing a good job too, Santa. You would be proud. We would like politicians/government to stay out of our parenting too.
Could you please bring prescription free pseudo-ephedrine back to St. Charles County? Perhaps if there is still enough room under your sleigh, after parking it on top of Chuck Gatschenberger, you could also put Joe Brazil under there as well, just to keep him from eroding away any more conservative values, here in St. Chas. Co.
Could you please convince Missouri legislators to dump their memberships with ALEC so they will go to their constituents to help them set their legislative agendas instead of private think tanks funded by large corporate sponsors.
And while we are talking about conservative values, Santa, could you please help the elected and campaigning understand what that really means. Just because they label themselves as “conservative” doesn’t really mean they are, if they don’t “behave” like conservatives. That seems to be a hard one for some to understand.
If you could help people see the urgency in voting in the coming election cycle, that too would be great, Santa. I just don’t think another four years of Obama will afford me the rights and privileges to write another blog post like this one, for next year, and we really need a conservative in the White House. By the way, Romney is not the one.
Would you please give Rick Perry back his memory. I really think he would eliminate the EPA if he could remember how bad it is for the country. And Rick Perry is not the one, either.
Well, that about covers it. I am gonna leave comments open for others to add their wishes too, Santa. (Remember, Santa is watching, so no flaming).
Don’t Let The Media Choose Your Candidates And Judicial Reform Platforms
Missouri gubernatorial candidate, Bill Randles, faces many challenges if he hopes to win the GOP nomination in the upcoming 2012 election, even if he is the only officially declared candidate in the race.
First, the republican king-making hierarchy hasn’t blessed his candidacy and that’s probably because Randles has not paid his dues in the republican gristmill. This is his first attempt at elected office, so he hasn’t worked his way up through the ranks, and the chain of command hasn’t had a chance to mold and influence him the way they are used to doing with traditional establishment republicans. They haven’t had the opportunity to beat the independence out of him, and thus he may be a bit too maverick(ish) for the established republicans. He is conservative, which is a characteristic most modern-day republicans have lost.
This brings me to the second reason Randles faces an up hill battle in the primary. He is conservative, therefore he will not, and has not, received so much as a mention of his name in the state’s largest newspaper, the St. Louis Post Dispatch. As the state’s only declared candidate for governor, he has been omitted from every story about the governor’s race published to date. Knowing name recognition is key in political races, the Post has taken it upon themselves to try to stack the deck against Randles by not advertising his name. That tells me something. The democrats don’t want to run against him and he is probably a great candidate for the governor’s office. Of course, I am not using the Post as my only barometer in my decision-making process, and I reserve the right to change my mind, but because knowledge and information are good instruments when making choices, here is some info on Randles that may help you to become acquainted with him.
I attended a town-hall meeting a couple of weeks ago and was impressed with what I heard and saw. Randles is a Harvard Law School graduate and successful attorney. It is first surprising that a lawyer would step outside the “brotherhood” to address corruption in the judiciary. No one, and I mean no one is talking judicial reform, on any level, as part of their campaign platform. Watch this clip on his plans to hold the judiciary accountable and put more law back into the hands of the people.
No wonder the Post Dispatch is afraid of Randles. Someone like him, in the governor’s office, would do some serious damage to the socialist state we have become, at least as far as our judicial branch of government is concerned.
Don’t let the media choose your candidates. Spread information so voters can choose for themselves whom they will support in the 2012 elections.
This video is burning up the internet and couldn’t illustrate better the problem with today’s culture and where the problems began. It isn’t only parents in Philadelphia or in the black community that need to step up and engage.
At This Point, Is There Anyone Who Doesn’t Understand Why The UN Is Bad For America?
There is so much information about how the UN is bad for America’s and other freedom loving governments, that it’s almost impossible to walk three feet without tripping over it. Shouldn’t we be asking why elected American leadership isn’t fleeing and pulling all support from the UN? Perhaps in the coming election cycle patriots will see the value in making this a campaign issue.
