Christie Thanks Teachers’ Union for their Co-operation in Accepting Needed Change

And so, I repeat again, I Love Chris Christie.   I am very fond of people who say what they mean, and mean what they say.    It’s a reason I vote Republican these days, as well, and why I especially like Paul Ryan as Mitt Romney’s running mate.   Mitt appears to be more cautious about what he means and what he says.   He is not at all deceptive like our temporary president, Mr. Obama.  Mitt  is cautious.   He wants to succeed in his tasks….and usually that means pleasing people he likes or serves.

He is a hugely decent man with an admirable religious devotion.   And, I believe he has discovered that it is important occasionally to be passionate over something very important in which one believes.    Vice President Ryan as a running mate, will have a tremendous effect on keeping Mitt’s passion  well tuned.

We conservatives have a good pair  to win the presidency and save America from more Marxism.

Now a  few words from a man who freely means what he says and says what he means:

from the National Review Online:

Governor Christie Thanks a Teachers’ Union
New Jersey takes a small step in the right direction.

By Noah Glyn

I want to thank the folks at the New Jersey Education Association. . . . The fact of the matter is that this was not going to get done without their input, their support, and their help, and so I want to thank them for their willingness to come to the table.” So said Chris Christie, scourge of the teachers’ unions, of his most recent legislative accomplishment, a reform of the state’s teacher-tenure system.

Did hell freeze over? Can pigs fly? Did Chris Christie really thank a teachers’ union in public?

He did indeed, because the NJEA supported the Teacher Effectiveness and Accountability for the Children of New Jersey (TEACHNJ) Act, a small but significant step in the right direction.

New Jersey previously had the oldest teacher-tenure laws in the nation. Teachers were guaranteed tenure after three years on the job. But now, under Christie’s reform, all New Jersey schools must “convene a school improvement panel” that will “oversee the mentoring of teachers and conduct evaluations of teachers, including an annual summative evaluation,” which will be based at least in part on student performance. Before teachers, principals, or vice principals receive tenure, they have to be evaluated as “effective” or “highly effective” for three straight years, beginning in their second year of employment. Tenure can be revoked for those deemed “ineffective” for two straight years.

The NJEA supported the law only when all sides agreed not to touch “last in, first out,” a policy that requires school districts to conduct teacher layoffs based on seniority rather than merit. New Jersey is one of only eleven states with “last in, first out.” The TEACHNJ Act affirms that decisions about which teachers to let go “shall be made on the basis of seniority,” and that “if any teaching staff member shall be dismissed . . . such person shall be and remain upon a preferred eligible list in the order of seniority for reemployment.” In other words, New Jersey schools will continue to lay off newer teachers before older ones and rehire older teachers before newer ones.

Bob Bowdon, the director of the pro-school-choice documentary The Cartel and head of Choice Media, a nonprofit website that advocates school choice, downplays the significance of the law. He calls it a “watered-down bill” that will have only a small effect. Because the law maintains teacher seniority, Bowdon argues, “it certainly doesn’t match with the goal of doing what’s best for children.” He asks, “If you ran a business, would you keep somebody who doesn’t do as good a job, simply because of seniority?”

Immediately after signing the bill into law, Governor Christie, who has said that The Cartel “helped mold” his opinion on education reform, called for an end to “last in, first out” and promised to push for further reform. Bowdon is cautiously optimistic. “‘Push for’ is a poorly defined term,” he explains, but “it certainly seems, based on Christie’s record, that he believes in merit pay for teachers.”

Lindsey Burke, an education expert at the Heritage Foundation, calls the law “pretty good,” and notes that it’s “pretty amazing that Christie was able to broker a deal with the union.” Burke believes that the teachers’ unions’ power is decreasing. The National Education Association (NEA), the NJEA’s parent union, has lost 150,000 members in the past year, and Christie, according to Burke, has the momentum in the fight against the teachers’ union.

Before it received promises that “last in, first out” would be protected, the union listed its “concerns” with the TEACHNJ Act in a five-page memo, which consisted mostly of unsubstantiated arguments and clichéd talking points about “advocating for students” and “defending curriculum.” The NJEA’s change of position means not that they eventually saw the light on education reform, but that they felt the political pressure.

Bowdon sees the NJEA’s newfound support as political triangulation. “If they could pass a law that says ‘Reform’ on the cover, and do nothing in the bill, they would love that.” The NJEA sensed that commonsense tenure reform is an easy sell to the electorate. The TEACHNJ Act had strong bipartisan support (Democratic state senator Teresa Ruiz sponsored it), so going along with it was simply a public-relations move for the NJEA, according to Bowdon. The union will continue to “politically undermine anyone who stands in the way.”

That’s certainly true, but recent history suggests the union’s power is waning. Christie has scored victory after victory against the NJEA, and his passion for reform is remarkably sincere. There’s little reason to believe that Christie won’t continue to push for reforms, including an end to “last in, first out.” It’s also true that the TEACHNJ Act doesn’t solve many problems for the New Jersey school system, but it could serve as a sturdy foundation for more substantial reforms in the future.

The NJEA’s support for the TEACHNJ Act is more than a minor political achievement. Just a few years ago, the union fought viciously against minor reforms of teachers’ pay and pension plans, but the education-reform movement nonetheless continues to advance.

— Noah Glyn is an editorial intern at National Review.

Commentary: Simple Question: Why do citizens support I.D. Requirement when they vote?

THE SIMPLE ANSWER IS:   BECAUSE IT WILL REDUCE THE NUMBER OF DEAD DEMOCRATS FROM VOTING!

THE SIMPLE ANSWER AT COMMENTARY IS:   BECAUSE IT IS COMMON SENSE!

Yet, Democrats claim it is racism.    Democrats have a right to permit their dead to vote and vote often.

Jonathan S. Tobin at Commentary writes:

 

Why Do Voters Back ID? Common Sense

Liberals have spent most of the year trying to convince Americans that voter ID laws are a false front for racist voter suppression. They argue there’s no such thing as voter fraud and that legislation aimed at combating election cheating is merely a Republican plot to steal the election. But, as a new Washington Post poll on the subject demonstrates, the majority aren’t buying it. Almost three quarters — 74 percent — believe voters should be required to show official, government-issued identification when they vote. A clear majority of those polled also think, contrary to liberal allegations, that voter ID laws are rooted in concern about a genuine problem.

These numbers have to concern Democrats who are hoping to whip up a backlash against voter ID legislation by falsely claiming they are a new form of “Jim Crow” laws intended to foster discrimination. Indeed, given the drumbeat of incitement against voter ID laws in the mainstream media, you have to wonder why there is so much resistance to the liberal line on this topic. The answer, however, is quite simple. The public knows that claims that voter fraud is nonexistent run counter to everything they know about politicians, elections and human nature.

The huge numbers supporting voter ID isn’t hard to figure out. Anyone who travels or has to conduct any sort of transaction with a bank or the government know they are going to be asked to identify themselves in this manner. The notion that something as important as voting should be exempt from such a requirement makes no sense to most people.

And though a not insignificant number worry about voters being discouraged or wrongly having their franchise denied, far more understand it is more likely that politicians and parties are looking to find a way to cook the books and steal a close election than their right to vote will somehow be taken away.

After all, the vast majority of Americans already have a state-issued card with a photo, and states that have passed voter ID laws have made provisions for those without them to get one free of charge. They also know it is no harder to get one of these free ID cards than it is to register to vote in the first place. They rightly wonder why it is some think there is something sinister in having a voter prove they are eligible to vote, because it appears as if opponents of voter ID seem to be taking the position that citizens should never be asked to produce proof of residence in a state, city or district or even that they are actually American citizens. Interestingly enough, as the Post notes in their own analysis of the poll, a solid majority of both the elderly and the poor — groups it is believed will be impacted by such laws — also support voter ID.

The problem for liberals is their repeated claim that voter fraud never happens is given the lie by the controversies that bubble up every time there is a close election. Neither Republicans nor Democrats trust each other not to cheat, as the debacle of Florida in 2000 and the fight about paperless touch screen voting machines showed.

Inclusion is important, which is why states and the parties should promote voter registration drives to ensure that every qualified citizen who wishes to vote has the opportunity. But it is no less important than the need to ensure that our elections are fair and honest. The Post poll demonstrates that when it comes to fraud, most people weren’t born yesterday. They realize that protecting democracy requires vigilance against both exclusion and cheating.

Most voting Democrats Pay NO Federal Income Tax ….Is that their fair share?

Do the Rich Pay Their Fair Share in Taxes?

 

The central theme of President Obama’s tax policy has been that “the rich” do not pay their fair share of federal taxes, and the middle class pays more as a result.  But a report issued by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in July 2012 shows this to be false, says Peter Ferrara, a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis.

• According to the CBO, the top 1 percent of income earners paid 39 percent of federal individual income taxes in 2009, while earning 13 percent of the income.
• That is down from 2007, before President Obama was elected.
• In 2007, after 25 years of Reagan Republican tax policies, the top 1 percent paid 40 percent of federal individual income taxes — more than double the 17.6 percent share of taxes paid by the top 1 percent when President Reagan entered office in 1981.

The CBO also reports that:

• In 2009, the bottom 40 percent of income earners were paid cash equal to 10 percent of federal individual income taxes by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), net of any federal income taxes they paid.
• In that same year, the middle 20 percent of income earners — the true middle class — paid a net 2.7 percent of total federal individual income taxes, while earning 15 percent of before-tax income.
• And the top 20 percent of income earners — those earning more than $74,000 — paid 94 percent of federal individual income taxes, 85 percent more than the share of national income they earned.

Even counting payroll taxes in addition to other federal taxes, the story is the same.  The “rich” and upper income workers still pay almost all federal taxes, with the middle class and lower income workers paying far lower proportions and rates.

Indeed, in 2009, according to the CBO:

• The middle 20 percent of income earners paid just 9 percent of federal taxes, less than two-thirds their share of income.
• By contrast, the top 1 percent alone paid over 22 percent of all federal taxes, while earning 13 percent of the income.
• And the top 20 percent of earners paid nearly 70 percent of all federal taxes, while earning 50 percent of the income.

Source: Peter Ferrara, “Do the Rich Pay Their Fair Share in Taxes?” National Center for Policy Analysis, August 15, 2012.

The Obama Film, “2016”, is Coming to Minnesota August 24, 2012

Will be playing at the following locations….click on http://www.fandango.com/2016obamasamerica_157117/movietimes?date=8/23/2012  for sites other than listed below.   Notice that many theaters are showing Obama’s America, 2016 beginning August 23:

Brooklyn Center Stadium 20   763 560 6300
Brooklyn Cente, MN

Egan Stadium 16                                 651 452 8329
Egan, MN

Lakeville 21       
Lakeville, MN          August 23 at 12:01 AM

Monticello 15
Monticello, MN

Wynnsong 15                                         763 785 1855
Moundsview, MN

Oakdale 20                                              651 714 4800
Oakdale, MN

Rochester Galaxy 14 Cine             507 529 1730
Rochester, MN

Rogers 18                                                       651 777 3456
Rogers, MN

White Bear 17                                             651 777 3456
White Bear Lake, MN

Will the Left’s Assault on Christian Values Doom this Outstanding GOP Ticket?

Will a Weakened American Character

Defeat Paul Ryan?

by Dennis Prager, radio talk show host:

ShareThis

“The Republican vice-presidential candidate, Congressman Paul Ryan, is the Democrats’ political version of the Anti-Christ. He believes in self-reliance; the left believes in reliance on the state. His moral values are shaped by religion (Catholicism); the left is frightened by religious Christian politicians (and athletes, and members of the armed forces, and talk show hosts, and, for that matter, clergy). He believes in individualism; the left believes in collectivism. He believes in small government and powerful citizens; the left believes in large government and dependent citizens.

Nevertheless, the Democratic Party claims to be overjoyed at his selection as the Republican vice-presidential nominee.

The Democrats’ glee — even if exaggerated — emanates from their belief that Americans will reject Ryan’s economic and social plans to reduce the American debt, unleash private economic growth (the only type there is), and reform unsustainable government programs such as Medicare.

Democrats believe that if Americans perceive that their entitlements may be affected — even if only beginning a decade from now, and even if the American debt is thereby cut by one third, and even if they, as well as the country, will ultimately benefit — so many Americans have become so used to government benefits, the Republicans stand little chance of winning the upcoming elections.

In other words, and tragically, the left and Democrats are relying on the decline of the American character that left-wing policies have produced (not only here but in Latin America, Europe, and everywhere else). The Democrats are hoping that older Americans are (irrationally) frightened by Medicare reform even though these reforms will not affect them, and that younger Americans will likewise reject these reforms because they are counting on receiving Medicare as it now exists.

Left-wing social policies are predicated on giving more and more Americans more and more benefits and demanding less and less from them.

The left’s party, the Democratic Party, seeks to have the state pay for Americans’ health care, give record numbers of Americans food stamps (now in a form similar to ATM and credit cards so that no stigma be involved), provide their children with school meals and provide women with child care and contraceptives, while enabling more and more Americans to pay no federal taxes to pay for any of these benefits.

The negative impact these policies have had on the character of Americans is indisputable. Every parent — and probably most adults who are not parents — knows what giving things they have not earned and demanding nothing from them in return produces: spoiled children.

Left-wing, Democratic Party policies have negatively impacted the American character in another way. Whenever possible, the left and the Democrats have de-stigmatized irresponsible behavior.

One example is women who give birth to and raise children without fathers in their children’s lives. This past Sunday’s New York Times opinion section featured another attack on those who stigmatize out of wedlock birth and single motherhood.

Another example is the cultural left’s glorification of graffiti — once regarded as vandalism of public and private property — as “street art.”

A third example is how difficult the Democratic Party and the left-wing education establishment have made it for teachers and principals to discipline disruptive and foul-mouthed students. The Department of Education has just declared education the “civil rights” issue of our generation” because black students are disproportionately suspended and otherwise punished by school officials. The effect? Black young people who abuse their teachers and schools feel empowered to continue their anti-social behavior.

At the same time, the left works to weaken the single most effective device for character building in American history: Judeo-Christian religions. Increasingly, the American motto “In God We Trust” has been replaced by “In Government We Trust” and “In Experts We Trust.”

Since the Democrats could not win any national election with the votes of liberals alone — according to Gallup, self-described liberals constitute just 21 percent of the electorate — the great question of the 2012 American presidential election is this: Have the left and Democratic Party sufficiently weakened the character of enough Americans to enable the demonization of Paul Ryan to lead Barack Obama to victory?

I don’t believe so. But given the enormity of the national debt incurred by this administration, its spectacular failure to improve the nation’s economy, and its commitment to weakening American defense, if there were a better explanation for a Democratic victory, I would welcome it.”

Comment:   Perhaps it is the spirit of Dennis Prager himself, but I do feel that this  combination of Americans running for the White House  will return honesty, integrity,  and achievement to the office with gusto…..if there is enough honesty and integrity left in the American voter.

I admit, that I am not confident about the educational and moral development of  the American college graduate over the past 20 years….perhaps more.   Thke ignoraant, arrogant, unaware, and drugged have become   standard traits  which apparently have  not yet  peaked, coupled with the one- party racist  dictatorships emanating from the black inner city plantations, are formidable in their numbers.

As one who bleeds American, I am very proud of the GOP pair campaigning to save the nation from Obama’s Marxism.

Mitt Romney and his Religion

ROMNEY”S MORMON STORY

by Ross  Douthat   at the New York Times:

THERE’S an interesting dilemma facing the filmmakers who are presumably hard at work, in some well-hidden editing room, on the biographical movie that will play just before Mitt Romney accepts his party’s nomination: What should the movie say about Romney’s Mormonism?

So far, Romney has said very little about his faith in this campaign, which is clearly how he likes it. Indeed, his campaign has pushed back vigorously against even innocuous press coverage of Mormon folkways and beliefs, on the theory that trying to explain a much-distrusted, much-misunderstood religion could only distract from the economic message.

But across a long summer of negative attacks, the Obama campaign has succeeded in weakening that message, and turning the conversation to Romney’s character instead. This means the Republican convention can’t just offer an extended indictment of the Obama record; it also needs to reintroduce Romney in a more thoroughgoing way. And if his faith ends up on the cutting-room floor, this reintroduction will be missing something that’s not only essential to the candidate’s life story, but also helps makes the case for his worldview.

Start with Romney the man, so often dismissed as hollow, cynical and inauthentic. His various political reinventions notwithstanding, Romney clearly does have deep convictions: the evidence is in his intense commitment to his church, as a local leader and as a philanthropist. Between the endless hours of unpaid, “love thy neighbor” efforts required of a Mormon bishop and the scope of his private generosity, the caricature of the Republican candidate as a conviction-free mannequin mostly collapses.

If Romney were a Presbyterian, Methodist or Jew, this would be an obvious part of his campaign narrative. Like George W. Bush’s midlife conversion or Barack Obama’s tale of “race and inheritance,” Romney’s years as a bishop would be woven into a biography that emphasized his piety and decency, introducing Americans to the Romney who shut down his business to hunt for a colleague’s missing daughter, the Romney who helped build a memorial park when a friend’s son died of cystic fibrosis, the Romney who lent money to renters to help them buy a house he owned, and so on down a list of generous gestures and good deeds.

The broader Mormon experience, meanwhile, could help make the case for his philosophy as well as illuminate his human core. The presumptive Republican nominee is not naturally ideological, but he’s running as a critic of Obama’s expansive liberalism, and as a standard-bearer for a conservative alternative.

Conservatism sometimes makes an idol of the rugged individual, but at its richest and deepest it valorizes local community instead — defending the family and the neighborhood, the civic association and the church. And there is no population in America that lives out this vision of the good society quite like the Latter-day Saints.

Mormonism is a worldlier, more business-friendly religion than traditional Christianity, but it does not glorify wealth for wealth’s sake, in the style of many contemporary prosperity preachers. Instead, as Walter Kirn suggested in an essay in The New Republic, Mormonism represents “our country’s longest experiment with communitarian idealism, promoting an ethic of frontier-era burden-sharing that has been lost in contemporary America.”

To spend some time in Salt Lake City and its environs, as I did earlier this summer, is to enter a world where faith, family and neighborliness really do seem to fill the role that liberals usually assign to the state. There you can tour the church-run welfare centers, with supermarkets filled with (Mormon-brand) products available to the poor of any faith and assembly lines where Mormon neurosurgeons and lawyers volunteer to can goods or run a bread machine. You can visit inner-city congregations where bank vice presidents from the suburbs spend their weekends helping drifters find steady work, and tour the missionary training center where Mormons from every background share a small-d democratic coming-of-age experience.

And then you can read the statistics: the life expectancy numbers showing that Mormons live much longer than other Americans, the extraordinary rate at which they volunteer and donate, their high marriage rates and low out-of-wedlock birthrates — even the recent Gallup survey showing Utah leading all other states in a range of measures of livability.

Of course, a visit to Mormon country also provides reminders of why Romney has been wary of talking about his religious background. There’s the Mormon Temple, whose interior can be viewed in scale-model form but not actually entered; the defensiveness that surfaces around issues like polygamy and race; the fine line Mormon society walks between a healthy solidarity and an unhealthy conformism — and hanging over everything, the burden of defending Joseph Smith’s revelation, which offers not only bold metaphysical claims (as all religions do) but an entire counterhistory of the Americas, which no archaeologist has yet managed to confirm.

It’s understandable that Romney would prefer to keep these aspects of his religion off the table. But by trying to insulate his campaign from the things that make his faith seem alien, he’s cut himself off from things that make his life story impressive, and his message compelling. If his personality seems hollow and his philosophy insincere, maybe it’s because he’s hidden the story of his people, and the deepest longings of his heart.”

Comment:   Mitt Romney is a product of his Mormon background.   Barack Hussein Obama is a product of his Marxist education and all of the dishonesty that accompanies such tyranny.