Famous Republicans Targeted For Dumpster

Tea party 'as much a rebellion against the Big Government Republicans' as liberal Dems.

A conservative giant in Washington, D.C., has written a brand-new book that certainly won’t increase his chances of getting invited to cocktail parties inside the Beltway.

Known as the “funding father of conservatism,” Richard Viguerie’s “Takeover: The 100-Year War for the Soul of the GOP and How Conservatives Can Finally Win It” takes sides in what he describes as a century-old war for the soul of the Republican Party.

Set to be published on April 8 by WND Books, it offers a blueprint for how liberty-loving, small government conservatives can win the battle against big-government Republicans.

“Every day you read another story about [how] a candidate for the tea party has embraced becoming the target of the entrenched Republican Party leadership and mindset, and I believe my book offers a practical outline for how principled conservatives can make the stand to finally win this fight,” Viguerie told WND.
In “Takeover,” Viguerie – who in the 1960s and ’1970s pioneered the use of direct mail as a means for conservatives to bypass the liberal media – dares to name names when discussing the big-government Republicans waging the war on the tea party movement and other advocates of limited government.

An appendix to the book presents Viguerie’s view of those whose defeat or abandonment “would advance the cause of conservative governance.”

Target No. 1 is Karl Rove

Viguerie writes that Karl Rove “has grown wealthy by promoting the idea that content-free campaigns, rather than conservative principles, are the path to victory for the Republican Party.”
“His record of 22 losses to 9 wins in 2012 shows the folly of the Republican establishment in following Rove’s advice.”
Other members of the gallery include Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, one-time vice presidential candidate Rep. Paul Ryan and a man, Viguerie writes, who “seems to relish in antagonizing conservatives,” Sen. John McCain.



 More at:

How States And School Districts Can Opt Out Of Common Core

States that want to opt out of the Common Core Learning Standards (CCLS) and/or the tests aligned to or based on its standards are being threatened by a toothless tiger that doesn’t want the states to know the tiger has no claws.

States are hearing, “It’s too late to back out”; “You’ll waste all the money you’ve spent on implementing the [low-level Common Core] standards your state board of education adopted three years ago”; “You’ll waste all the money you’ve spent on [self-described] Common Core consultants who have given [very costly] professional development to your teachers and told them what to change in their classroom curriculum to address Common Core”; “You will have to pay back all the money you got under Race to the Top (RttT)”; or, “You will lose your waiver and not get your Title I money.”

Can the U.S. Department of Education (USED) demand repayment from states that got RttT funds? Can it withhold Title I money from a state that loses its waiver? It is important to recall that Congress didn’t pass legislation requiring Common Core’s standards or tests. All it authorized in 2001 was a re-authorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) called No Child Left Behind (NCLB). ESEA hasn’t been re-authorized since then, so there are no new or different education policies passed by Congress. A variety of conditions have been attached to the recent waivers issued by USED, but they may have no constitutional legitimacy since Congress didn’t approve them. States can certainly raise that objection.

At the national level:
 
If a state received RttT money and spent it, it most likely doesn’t have to pay it back if it now seeks to opt out of using Common Core’s standards (by any name) and any tests aligned to or based on these standards. Neither the RttT application nor the grant award from USED contained a repayment penalty for withdrawing from a commitment. Moreover, the Grant Award Notification from USED implied withholding of future RttT funds, not repayment of RttT funds already expended.

In other words, there seem to be no likely penalties if a state accepted a USED award of RttT funds and now chooses to withdraw from the agreement. States can justify their withdrawal on the grounds that the Common Core standards do not meet the original requirements of “common standards” outlined in the RttT application. These standards were supposed to be “supported by evidence that they are internationally benchmarked.” But they are not. The Common Core Validation Committee never received any evidence.
Nor has evidence been provided by two post hoc attempts to provide such evidence: the 2011 report by David Conley at the University of Oregon and the 2012 report by William Schmidt and a colleague at Michigan State University, Richard Houang. Conley’s report, funded by the Gates Foundation, contradicted the findings in his 2003 pre-Common Core report on college-readiness standards, while Schmidt and Houang’s report has been severely criticized on methodological grounds. It is unclear who funded it.


More at: 

Marching To The Beat Of Condemnation

Humanity seeks to replace Christ for the pursuit of an unconventional uncharted path in order to fulfill life’s void and establish secret bliss that is apparently, yet to be discovered. Off-the-wall culture attributes spirituality to forces in the universe by sending out positive energy which will not return void.

The one true God is no longer good enough because within his framework we discover limits, boundaries and expectations. The modern day approach is that if it feels good we should have the right to divulge as we see fit. “This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil,” John 3:19.

Society’s favorite comeback is ‘don’t judge me’ in order to dodge accountability while others respond by testifying ‘only God can judge me’ without having a clue about God’s judgment as outlined in scripture. We are to call one another to accountability, and sharpen one another through fellowship, “so watch yourselves! If another believer sins, rebuke that person; then if there is repentance – forgive,” Luke 17:3.

Granted, God’s mercy and forgiveness expands far beyond our comprehension. He is a God of clemency, but people purposefully forget and even deny that He is also a God of wrath and judgment. His anger is righteous anger – scripture embodies condemnation for those who do not repent and turn away from their sinful habits. Prove by the way you live that you have repented of your sins and turned to God (Romans 12:2; Matthew 3:8). Those who believe and repent become heirs in the kingdom of God (Romans 8:17).


More at:

Chumley Says He Will Fight Ethics Allegations

S.C. Rep. Bill Chumley will finally get his day in court before the House Ethics Committee – two days before Christmas.

While the 10-member committee was meeting behind closed doors for several hours Tuesday afternoon on an unrelated ethics case, Chumley's attorney said he was notified by his law firm staff that the committee had scheduled a hearing for the Spartanburg County Republican on Monday at 9:30 a.m.

“We wanted to handle it today, but that did not work for Rep. Chumley,” Rep.  Kenny Bingham, R-Lexington and the committee chairman, told The Nerve in a written response after Tuesday’s meeting. “Next Monday works for Rep. Chumley and I can get a quorum to conduct the hearing because the attorneys don’t have court.”

“We’re anxious to get the matter concluded, and we’ve been anxious since June,” Chumley’s attorney, Reese Boyd, told The Nerve Tuesday afternoon.

As of last week, Chumley’s case was on the agenda for Tuesday’s committee meeting at the Blatt Building on the State House grounds, but it was removed from the agenda Monday after Bingham said Chumley had requested a hearing, which typically involves witness testimony.

Bingham told The Nerve in a written response Monday night that the Ethics Committee can “take action without conducting a hearing,” noting, “Generally speaking, hearings are only conducted when there are facts that are in dispute.”

“Based on my discussion … with counsel for the committee, we requested a hearing on a timely basis,” Boyd said Tuesday, though he declined further comment.


More at: