Warning: All schools – even parents at home – may be forced to teach gov't agenda
Warning: Obama Ed aims at U.S. takeover
All schools – even parents at home – may be forced to teach gov't agenda
An organization that monitors the U.S. government's influence on education, and specifically on parents who choose to school their own children, is warning of a pending move in Washington that would result in "de facto national education standards."
The measure could not only require parents who homeschool their children to teach certain government agenda issues but also effectively remove much of the decision-making authority of local school boards and districts, warns the Home School Legal Defense Association.
The organization focuses on issues affecting homeschool students and their parents in the United States and overseas but also keeps an eye on the larger picture of education policy.
The concern is about Democrat-driven plans in the U.S. Senate to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, a massive federal program last reauthorized in 2001 as the No Child Left Behind Act.
"HSLDA's federal relations staff have read this 868-page bill, and we believe that while it does not directly impact homeschool freedom, the bill will 1) increase the federal role in education at the expense of state, local and parental control, and 2) will greatly increase the pressure on states to align their curriculum and standards, resulting in de facto national education standards," said the report compiled by Melanie P. Palazzo, the organization's congressional action program director, and William A. Estrada of the organization's federal relations office.
HSLDA said the Senate Education Commission already has voted to approve the plan, but at the request of Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., there will be a hearing Nov. 8. The homeschooling group is urging its constituents to contact committee members and express concern.
The group fears the bill "will greatly increase the federal government's control over education."
HSLDA said that as an organization it remained neutral on the 2001 NCLB update, "because it included strongly written protections for homeschoolers, and prohibitions on federal funding for national teacher certification, national standards, national testing, and national databases."
"A decade later, nearly all education policy makers agree that NCLB is too inflexible. HSLDA believes this illustrates that the federal government should not be in the business of establishing education policy for the nation's schoolchildren," the report said.
Now the reauthorization plan raises concerns over "the failed 'Washington-knows-best, one-size-fits-all' approach."
One provision of the bill specifically mandates that any state taking federal funds "must put in place 'college and career ready aligned standards.'"
"Mandating that each state have aligned standards with aligned coursework will guarantee the creation of national academic standards, national curriculum, and national testing," this week's report on the controversy said.
"We believe this will result in the eventual requirement that homeschoolers use these national standards, curriculum, and testing," the report said.
While some specifics that could be included in a final bill remain unclear, "the trend of national standards could lead to homeschoolers losing the freedom to choose the curriculum for their children."
An earlier HSLDA report by Estrada pointed out that national standards would remove control from local boards and districts and allow "unelected bureaucrats, not parents" to decide what subjects should be taught.
"National standards are a first step to a national curriculum and national testing," Estrada wrote. "Certain federal education funds to the states would be contingent on the states adopting the standards, which would place incredible pressure on the states to accept these national standards. And if some states resisted efforts to adopt the standards, this could easily lead to calls to make the standards mandatory in the name of being fair to all students. Furthermore, unelected bureaucrats would be able to choose what they believe every school child should be taught."
Just last year, Estrada said that such was the situation with the Washington "Race to the Top" funding for schools.
"If the federal government funds something, the federal government is going to control it. What we have is a de facto set of nationalized education standards being created."
Staggering Number Join Credit Unions Since BofA's Debit Fee Controversy
More People Joined Credit Unions Since BofA's Debit Fee Controversy Than In All Of 2010: Survey
An Occupy protestor holds signs calling for citizens to close their bank accounts at big banks and move their money to credit unions in Hollywood, California November 2, 2011. More customers opened new credit union accounts in October than in all of 2010, a new survey finds.
More consumers flocked to credit unions last month than in all of 2010 combined, likely in part due to the controversy surrounding debit card fees.
At least 650,000 customers opened new accounts at credit unions since September 29, the day Bank of America announced it would charge customers a $5 per month fee to use their debit card for purchases starting in 2012, the Credit Union National Association estimates. If that number holds true, it would be more than the 600,000 consumers that joined credit unions in all of 2010.
More than 80 percent of the credit unions that experienced a boost last month attributed the growth to fees like Bank of America's or a mix of reactions to fees and "Bank Transfer Day" -- a social media-centered movement encouraging consumers to transfer their money from banks to credit unions or other non-traditional lenders, according to CUNA.
The banks are likely feeling the customer anger. A Bank of America official said the bank decided to scrap the debit card fee earlier this week as other banks also dropped their fees in response to the outcry, according to Reuters.
SunTrust Banks and Regions Financial said they were canceling their debit card fees hours before Bank of America made its announcement, according to the Wall Street Journal. Wells Fargo and JPMorgan Chase also halted their fee pilot programs. One-third of consumers said they would leave their bank if it put debit card fees in place, according to a survey released last month from Research Intelligence Group.
Credit unions across the country are benefiting from customers' decisions to make the switch. The 20 biggest credit unions in Massachusetts reported a 50 percent boost in account openings in the past six weeks, compared to the same period last year, according to the Worcester Telegram. Some Minneapolis, Minnesota-area credit unions have seen their new account volumes more than double during the first three weeks of October, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune reports.
Some credit unions are encouraging consumers to make the switch by extending hours and staffing for Saturday's Bank Transfer Day as well as providing current customers with "switch kits" that they can give to friends and family, according to CUNA.
"They are doing whatever their resources will allow them to do to help serve this consumer surge in interest in credit unions," Bill Cheney, CUNA president and CEO said in a statement.
Emergency Alert System Test Nov. 9 2011 + EAS for the Internet?
Emergency Alert System Test Nov. 9 2011 + EAS for the Internet?
And it's not just for people in our area; it's for everyone in the country.
At 1 p.m. Central on Wednesday, November 9, you'll see and hear something akin to the tones you hear when there's a weather warning.
So will everyone else in the country, assuming the system works as it's supposed to.
It's the first-ever test of the Nationwide Emergency Alert System, and FEMA and Homeland Security want you to know it's nothing to panic over.
Up until then, you may see public service announcements reminding you that it's just an effort to see if the digital system works.
The signal will originate in the Washington, D.C. area then, assuming all goes as planned, will be transmitted via all digital broadcast systems in the United States.
Radio, satellite radio, TV, cable and satellite systems will be affected. It will last about three minutes, so it's longer than most alerts.
This is just the start of how FEMA and Homeland Security hope to reach Americans in the event of a nationwide event.
"It's one step toward improving their nationwide system," says Ryan Nicholls with Greene County Emergency Management. "And they have other things coming up. They have other versions so they'll be able to put out alerts nationwide over technology that's now available like phones, text messaging and all that so other software versions are coming up so this is just kind of a step toward that direction."
The point of the exercise is a seamless movement of information; for example, a terror attack, an act of war, or something that would impact either the whole country or a good part of it."
http://ozarksfirst.com/fulltext?nxd_id=547347
Nationwide EAS Test PSA from FCC's YT channel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oigAjokHyEc
CREEPY COUNTDOWN CLOCK @FCC.gov!! LOOK: http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/emergency-alert-system-nationwide-test
http://www.ready.gov/
----------------------
imo? CREEPY. I've got more of these on the way from other news stations. meow
See more at www.youtube.com
Your Big Moment
This adaptation of the world-famous THIS WAS YOUR LIFE is drawn specifically for black women. The emotional art shows we will each have our lives reviewed . . . nothing hidden.
English
Your Big Moment
©2011 by Jack T. Chick LLC
- See this tract in other languages
- E-mail this tract to a friend.
The Awful Truth
Is he really the "Holy Father," or actually something quite different? Not ALL religion is of God.
English
Awful Truth, The
©2011 by Jack T. Chick LLC
- See this tract in other languages
- E-mail this tract to a friend.
Israel Missile Capable Of Striking Iran, Officials Say
Israel Missile Capable Of Striking Iran, Officials Say
An Israeli soldier sits next to an 'Iron Dome' short-range missile defence system deployed near the southern city of Beer Shava on October 30, 2011. (MENAHEM KAHANA/AFP/Getty Images)
JERUSALEM — An Israeli official said Wednesday that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is trying to persuade his Cabinet to authorize a military strike against Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program – a discussion that comes as Israel successfully tests a missile believed capable of carrying a nuclear warhead to Iran.
It remained unclear whether Israel was genuinely poised to strike or if it was saber-rattling to prod the international community into taking a tougher line on Iran. Israeli leaders have long hinted at a military option, but they always seemed mindful of the practical difficulties, the likelihood of a furious counterstrike and the risk of regional mayhem.
The developments unfolded as the International Atomic Energy Agency is due to focus on the Iranian program at a meeting later this month. The West wants to set a deadline for Iran to start cooperating with an agency probe of suspicions that Tehran is secretly experimenting with components of a weapons program.
Israeli leaders have said they favor a diplomatic solution, but recent days have seen a spate of Israeli media reports on a possible strike, accompanied by veiled threats from top politicians.
In a speech to parliament this week, Netanyahu said a nuclear-armed Iran would pose a "dire threat" to the world and "a grave, direct threat on us, too."
His hawkish foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, was dismissive of the reports but added: "We are keeping all the options on the table."
The government official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was discussing sensitive internal deliberations, told The Associated Press that the option is now being debated at the highest levels.
The official confirmed a report Wednesday in the Haaretz daily that Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak both favor an attack, but do not yet have the support of a majority of Cabinet ministers. The official also said Israel's top security chiefs, including the heads of the military and Mossad spy agency, oppose military action.
It is generally understood that such a momentous decision would require a Cabinet decision. Israel's 1981 destruction of Iraq's nuclear reactor was preceded by a Cabinet vote.
Netanyahu spokesman Mark Regev refused to comment on the issue but did say there is a "decision-making process which has stood the test of time. ... There have been precedents, and the process works."
With most of its population concentrated in a narrow corridor of land along the Mediterranean, Israel's homefront could be vulnerable to a counterattack.
Iran's military chief, Gen. Hasan Firouzabadi, said his country takes Israeli threats seriously and vowed fierce retaliation.
"We are fully prepared to use our proper equipment to punish any mistake so that it will cause a shock," he said in comments posted on the website of the Guard, Iran's most powerful military force.
Reflecting the mood in Israel, military expert Reuven Pedatzur wrote in Haaretz that "if anyone can save Israel from catastrophe, it is the Israeli air force commander," who might simply tell Netanyahu that an attack on Iran "cannot achieve its goals."
Several months ago, the newly retired head of the Mossad, Meir Dagan, caused a stir by warning publicly against attacking Iran, saying a strike would be "stupid" and would risk unleashing a region-wide war.
Israel considers Iran to be its greatest threat, citing Tehran's nuclear program, its president's repeated calls for destroying the Jewish state and Iran's support for the Hamas and Hezbollah militant groups. For years, Israeli leaders have implored the world community to impose tough economic sanctions to pressure the Iranians to dismantle their nuclear installations.
The key element now is time. Israeli estimates of when Iran might be able to produce a nuclear weapon have been fluid, with Dagan giving a 2015 date when he left office. But some reports have suggested officials consider the coming months critical.
The successful test Wednesday of an advanced long-range Israeli missile, along with word of a recent air force exercise, seemed to fit into that scenario.
Barak hailed the launch as "an impressive technological achievement and an important step in Israel's rocket and space progress."
An Israeli defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity under government policy, said the military tested a "rocket propulsion system" in a launch from the Palmachim base near Tel Aviv.
Further information about the test was censored by the military. Foreign reports, however, said the military test-fired a long-range Jericho missile – capable of carrying a nuclear warhead and striking Iran.
Also Wednesday, military officials confirmed that the air force conducted a drill last week with Italian warplanes in Sardinia. Israeli warplanes were joined by supply and logistics aircraft.
There were no details on the purpose of the drill. Israeli TV stations ran an interview with one of the pilots who participated, identified only as Lt. Col. Yiftah, who said it allowed the air force to simulate longer-distance missions.
"The advantage here," he said, "is that we can fly in a very large area, much larger than we can in Israel." He said there were "complicated flights with many planes."
A military strike would hardly be unprecedented. Besides the 1981 strike, Israeli warplanes destroyed a site in Syria in 2007 that the U.N. nuclear watchdog deemed a secretly built nuclear reactor.
But attacking Iran would be a much more difficult task. It is a more distant target, and Israeli warplanes would probably have to go over hostile airspace in Syria, Iraq or Saudi Arabia to reach it. Turkey could be an alternative – but its relations with Israel are fraught.
Iran's nuclear facilities also are believed to be spread out across many sites, buried deep underground.
The Iranian military is far more powerful than those of Syria or Iraq, equipped with sophisticated anti-aircraft defense systems as well as powerful medium-range missiles capable of striking anywhere in Israel.
An Israeli attack would also likely spark retaliation from local Iranian proxies, the Hamas militant group in the Gaza Strip to Israel's south and Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon along Israel's northern border. And it would reorder priorities in a region now consumed by the Arab Spring and the Palestinian issue.
Some have speculated that the United States – or even Britain – might be better poised to carry out a strike.
Iran denies it aims to produce a bomb, saying its nuclear program is meant only for energy. It has blamed Israel for disruptions in its nuclear program, including the mysterious deaths of Iranian nuclear scientists and a computer virus that wiped out some of Iran's nuclear centrifuges, a key component in nuclear fuel production.
Western powers, like Israel, do not believe Tehran and already have imposed four rounds of sanctions on the Iranian government in an effort to make it put its program, which can make both nuclear fuel or fissile warhead material, under international supervision.
Israel would like to see the United States and other powers "pressure Iran more seriously ... first with more sanctions, and if they don't work, to go to war with Iran," said Eldad Pardo, an Iran expert at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.
Associated Press writers Amy Teibel and Ian Deitch contributed to this report.