Cherilyn Eagar: Wake Up Utah! "Republican" State Legislator Resigns to Join UEA: Ethics Reform Petition is Trojan Horse

From her facebook page:

Wake Up Utah! "Republican" State Legislator Resigns to Join UEA:
Ethics Reform Petition is Trojan Horse
Share
Wed at 11:17am
It should be another wake up call to Utahns, especially in the
Taylorsville area, to note that their state representative Kory
Holdaway has just resigned to join the state's most liberal and vocal
union in Utah - the Utah Education Association.

Now a special election will be held among Republican delegates in Salt
Lake County to nominate and elect a replacement. The problem is: Salt
Lake County has been infested and infiltrated with an over-abundance
of Kory Holdaways: union members who have no affinity with the
principles of the Republican Party.

Don't get me wrong. I'm a former teacher. I think education is a good
idea. It's just that I don't endorse the social justice and
politically correct curriculum that has infested our schools. As a
teacher, I received the highest ratings at a top charter school in
Southern California and also at Brigham Young University. I've studied
education for many years and have researched and written legislation
at the state level. Senator Hatch has used my research on the Senate
floor to argue against politically correct national standards.

It's also that education is simply not an enumerated Federal power. I
would like someone reading this note to show me where education is a
Congressional responsibility. I agree with Ronald Reagan that the
Department of Education should never have been established in the
first place and that it is long overdue to be dismantled. It is one of
the many reasons why our Federal government is now bankrupt.

THE LEFTIST/BIG GOVERNMENT GOALS OF THE NEA
The NEA posts its liberal legislative goals on its website. You can
also Google the goals by state to get a clear perspective.

At the national level, which is also reflected locally in the various
states (including Utah) here is just a snippet of the agenda:
This union's top priority is nationalized health care. (Oh good. But
of course, it will give schools more $$$ when the comprehensive
school-based clinics are set up in every school to undermine the
private market.)

The NEA lobbies for more federal funding. (Nothing new there.)

It is now demanding mandatory full-day kindergarten and "optional"
universal pre-K. (Remember when full-day K was introduced as
"optional." Beware. Children belong with their families for as many
hours of the day as possible during their formative years.)

The NEA opposes private contracts in favor of more public employees,
and of course it opposes any competition of any form - whether in the
form of tuition tax credits (my preference) and vouchers. (No surprise
here.)

THE TROJAN HORSE OF THE CHARTER SCHOOL
It may come as a surprise to my fellow conservatives that both
President Obama and the NEA wholeheartedly endorse the increasingly
popular charter school movement. Now, why might that be?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to note that any business receiving
a government subsidy is going to compete unfairly with the private
sector that does not receive the same subsidy.

Tax reformers and limited government proponents are opposed to
interfering with the free market, so why would they interfere with the
free market here?

An example of how this plays out is what has happened in Arizona.
Because of the strong charter school movement there, private schools
that wish to remain private and free from government subsidy are all
but disappearing. Those who call themselves "conservative" ought be
alarmed about that unintended outcome. A free market approach will not
intefere with the private sector and put it under unfair market
competition burdens, which the charter school does.

Another example: I taught in a charter school in California - one of
the top eight arts schools in the country. No doubt it was a superior
school to others in the community. But that was "the problem,"
according to the California Assembly. The state took one look at the
"inequity" of the audition-only admission policy, and demanded that
the school admit a student body that reflected the demographics of the
community, or lose its charter. So students were admitted that neither
had an interest in the arts nor were they skilled in the arts. Leave
it to government to be so "common sense."

Another truism: Always follw the money, and the government's Golden
Rule: He who has the gold, rules.

Reagan said it best: The nine most terrifying words in the English
language are "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

Private schools that understand this Golden Rule and that wish to
remain independent of government assistance are now under added stress
to survive. So I just need to ask my conservative colleagues: Is
giving a public school charter an advantage with a subsidy a free
market solution? I don't see it that way. If you disagree with me and
can show me otherwise, I'm listening, I'm listening.

UTAH-UEA AND THE PTA
In Utah, the largest teachers union is the UEA. The largest
cheerleader for the UEA is, unfortunately, the Utah PTA, an
organization that once provided a favulous venue for parents and
teachers to network in the classroom and to organize school events and
fundraisers.

However, the legislative agenda has taken over and has introduced a
liberal-government entitlement agenda to which most parents and
teachers object to when they become aware of it. It is now the vehicle
which the Union uses to "spin" the issues and to lobby. Did you know
that your school is the hot-bed for lobbying? Parents, Grassroots,
wake up and unite! This is where the greatest "community organizing"
takes place.

For example, Ronda Rose, a Utah PTA leader, has just endorsed a
petition called "Ethics Reform." It sounds great, but after reading
the details, I'm astonished that the Lt. Governor and his legal
advisors did not render this petition absolutely unconstitutional on
the spot before it could be distributed.

No one denies that government is in need of an ethics overhaul. It is
why I'm running for U.S. Senate in Utah. Transparency is a start, but
those problems are best solved with the Independence Caucus approach.
Go there to read about it. www.ICaucus.org

THE RADICAL AGENDA BEHIND UTAH'S PTA
I attended the Utah PTA convention in 2008 and its plenary session
where a resolution in support of "initiative and referendum" was
presented and which passed unanimously. This was a resolution
supporting direct democracy. It sounded benign. Really, now, aren't we
a Democracy?

Actually, no, we're not. But if you attended public school, you
probably didn't get that lesson. If we read history, however, you will
discover that we are a constitutional representative republic and that
our Founders despised direct democracy.

Yes, we do have a popular election where every adult citizen is
allowed one vote. That is the "democracy" side of our election
process. But our form of government and the system itself is not a
direct democracy.

Direct democracy has found its home in initiative and referendum, and
I oppose it, except in rare instances of Constitutional Amendment. The
reason this radical resolution passed the Utah PTA was because the UEA
cannot get its oppressive centralized government proposals past our
"limited government" majority in the state legislature. So, in effect,
it is the PTA's goal (along with their cohorts at the UEA) to
over-ride our elected, representative government by running petitions
and initiative and referendum.

This year's UEA and PTA goal is to pass so-called "ethics reform." If
you'd like to read the text of the proposal, I will post it soon.

GRASSROOTS CALL TO ACTION
The UEA has been infiltrating the Utah Republican Party in conventions
and in statewide elections. The grassroots needs to wake up now. Cory
Holdaway was no "Republican," and by resigning and becoming the UEA
lobbyist, he has now come out of the closet as the liberal, Big
Government lobbyist that he really is.

912ers, TeaPartiers - are you listening? Let me know what you think
and let your state legislators and Congress know what you think too -
at the caucuses on March 23, 2010.

Senate Finance Dem: Health Care Bill Text Is 'Gibberish,' 'Incomprehensible,' 'One of the More Confusing Things I've Ever Read'...

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/54930

(CNSNews.com) - Sen. Thomas Carper (D.-Del.), a member of the Senate
Finance Committee, told CNSNews.com that he does not "expect" to read
the actual legislative language of the committee's health care bill
because it is "confusing" and that anyone who claims they are going to
read it and understand it is fooling people.

"I don't expect to actually read the legislative language because
reading the legislative language is among the more confusing things
I've ever read in my life," Carper told CNSNews.com.

Carper described the type of language the actual text of the bill
would finally be drafted in as "arcane," "confusing," "hard stuff to
understand," and "incomprehensible." He likened it to the
"gibberish" used in credit card disclosure forms.

Last week, the Finance Committee considered an amendment offered by
Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) that would have required the committee to
post the full actual language of the proposed legislation online for
at least 72 hours before holding a final committee vote on it. The
committee defeated the amendment 13-10.

Sometime in the wee hours of this morning, according to the Associated
Press, the Finance Committee finished work on its health-care bill.
"It was past 2 a.m. in the East--and Obama's top health care adviser,
Nancy-Ann DeParle in attendance--when Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the
committee chairman, announced that work had been completed on all
sections of the legislation," said the AP.

Thus far, however, the committee has not produced the actual
legislative text of the bill. Instead the senators have been working
with "conceptual language"—or what some committee members call a
"plain English" summary or description of the bill.

Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), who sits on the committee, told
CNSNews.com on Thursday that the panel was just following its standard
practice in working with a "plain language description" of the bill
rather than an actual legislative text.

"It's not just conceptual, it's a plain language description of the
various provisions of the bill is what the Senate Finance Committee
has always done when it passes legislation and that is turned into
legislative language which is what is presented to the full Senate for
consideration," said Bingaman.

But Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tx.), who also serves on the committee, said
the descriptive language the committee is working with is not good
enough because things can get slipped into the legislation unseen.

"The conceptual language is not good enough," said Cornyn. "We've seen
that there are side deals that have been cut, for example, with some
special interest groups like the hospital association to hold them
harmless from certain cuts that would impact how the CBO scores the
bill or determines cost. So we need to know not only the conceptual
language, we need to know the detailed legislative language, and we
need to know what kind of secret deals have been cut on the side which
would have an impact on how much this bill is going to cost and how it
will affect health care in America."

Carper said he would "probably" read the "plain English version" of
the bill as opposed to the actual text.

In a Thursday afternoon interview outside the hearing room where the
Finance Committee was debating the final amendments to the
still-unseen bill, Carper explained why he believes it would be
useless for both members of the public and members of the Senate to
read the bill's actual text.

Committee members did not have a "clue," he said, when one senator
recently read them an example of some actual legislative language.
When you look at the legislative language, he said, "it really doesn't
make much sense."

"When you get into the legislative language, Senator Conrad actually
read some of it, several pages of it, the other day and I don't think
anybody had a clue--including people who have served on this committee
for decades--what he was talking about," said Carper. "So, legislative
language is so arcane, so confusing, refers to other parts of the
code—'and after the first syllable insert the word X'--and it's just,
it really doesn't make much sense."

Carper questioned whether anybody could read the actual legislative
text and credibly claim to have understood it.

Were it to become law, this bill would mandate dramatic changes in the
U.S. health care system.

"So the idea of reading the plain English version: Yeah, I'll probably
do that," said Carper. "The idea of reading the legislative language:
It's just anyone who says that they can do that and actually get much
out of it is trying to pull the wool over our eyes."

Carper compared the full legislative language of the bill to credit
card disclosure documents that he described as "gibberish," meaning
that "you can't read it and really know what it says."

When asked if Republican members of the committee should have a chance
to read the full text of the bill if they believe they are capable of
understanding it, Carper suggested Republicans would only pretend to
understand the bill when in fact they would not understand it.

"They might say that they're reading it. They might say that they're
understanding it," said Carper. "But that would probably be the
triumph of man's hope over experience. It's hard stuff to understand."

Carper said if Americans were given the chance to read the actual text
of the bill he believes they would decide that it made little sense
for either them—or members of Congress—to read such texts because of
the difficulty in understanding them.

"I think if people had the chance to read that they'll say you know
maybe it doesn't make much sense for either the legislators or me to
read that kind of arcane language," said Carper. "It's just hard to
decipher what it really means."

Judge: Texas Ban On Gay Marriage Unconstitutional

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/politics/Dallas-Judge-Texas-Ban-On-Gay-Marriage-Unconstitutional--63182762.html

A Dallas judge ruled Thursday that Texas' ban on gay marriage is
unconstitutional as she cleared the way for two gay men to divorce,
the Dallas Morning News reported.

State District Judge Tena Callahan said the state's bans on same-sex
marriage violates the constitutional guarantee to equal protection
under the law.

While the Texas attorney general had stepped into the case to say that
because a gay marriage isn't recognized in Texas, a Texas court can't
dissolve one through divorce, Tena denied the intervention.

The two Dallas men in the case married three years ago in
Massachusetts, the first state to allow gays to marry.

Ruling Clears Way for Gay Dallas Couple to Divorce
Ruling Clears Way for Gay Dallas Couple to Divorce
WATCH

Ruling Clears Way for Gay Dallas Couple to Divorce

"This is the first time that a same-sex marriage is allowed to be
divorced in Texas, which is big," said Pete Schulte, the attorney who
represents one of the men.

Schulte said Texas was the only place where they could file for
divorce because they live in the state and have established residency.

"I have a feeling there are going to be opponents who say this is
going to allow the floodgates of gay marriage to open, and I disagree
that," he said. "Gay marriage and gay divorce are two different
things."

Attorney General Greg Abbott released a statement saying that he will
appeal the ruling.

"The laws and constitution of the State of Texas define marriage as an
institution involving one man and one woman. Today's ruling purports
to strike down that constitutional definition -- despite the fact that
it was recently adopted by 75 percent of Texas voters," he said.

Lashard Williams, a supporter of gay marriage, said he believes the
judge's ruling is a step in the right direction.

"One day, I might decide to get married, and I'm born and raised here
in Dallas, and I'd like to do it here in Texas," he said.

Who's the problem, here, Nancy?

http://patrioticbear.blogspot.com/2009/09/whos-problem-here-nancy.html

"PITTSBURGH — Several thousand demonstrators espousing and denouncing
a host of causes converged on downtown Pittsburgh on Friday, chanting,
pumping up signs and playing instruments in a peaceful and permitted
march calling for solutions to a range of problems that they
attributed to the economic policies of the world leaders at the Group
of 20 meeting." The article goes on gushing about this cuddly protest
in similarly nauseating prose and closes, "

"After more than an hour, the crowd began to disperse, some wondering
aloud if the G-20 leaders would hear their messages.

"Cory Perrotte, 20, a student from Duquesne University, was optimistic
that it would be hard to ignore thousands in the street.
"'They will listen to a certain degree,' he said. 'They might not
necessarily do anything.'"

Wow. Here's the part they left out of that story:

"A group of close to 500 left arsenal park about four miles north of
the convention center and began an un-permitted march towards the
convention center. They reached a police roadblock where an automated
message was broadcast through speakers from a riot control vehicle.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/26/world/26pittsburgh.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=G20%20protests&st=cse)

"Marchers then rolled a dumpster down the street towards police who
responded by firing tear gas. The crowd then broke up, retreating in
the other direction."
(http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/09/24/protestor-less-in-pittsburgh/)
The latter report goes on to mention that there were likely far less
anarchists present than reported.

Additionally, we've all seen the video clips of the clowns at that
protest, jumping up and down on police cars, being gassed and
arrested, etc. I haven't seen any photos of the aftermath, but I
suspect the protestors left a bit of a mess, since they caused
thousands in property damage.

Now, let's contrast that spectacle with the reporting and realities of
the event in DC on 9/12. Here's the NY Times' take on it:

"WASHINGTON — A sea of protesters filled the west lawn of the Capitol
and spilled onto the National Mall on Saturday in the largest rally
against President Obama since he took office, a culmination of a
summer-long season of protests that began with opposition to a health
care overhaul and grew into a broader dissatisfaction with government.
[Oh, horrors!]

...

"The atmosphere was rowdy at times, with signs and images casting Mr.
Obama in a demeaning light. One sign called him the "parasite in
chief." Others likened him to Hitler. Several people held up
preprinted signs saying, "Bury Obama Care with Kennedy," a reference
to the Massachusetts senator whose body passed by the Capitol two
weeks earlier to be memorialized."
(http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/us/politics/13protestweb.html?scp=16&sq=Jeff%20Zeleny&st=cse)

Interestingly, no matter what the estimates of attendance of the 9/12
event are, there were certainly more people there than at the G20
protests. More importantly, there were ZERO arrests and ZERO property
destruction. The Obama Maniacs that attended the "immaculation" and
the dawning era of hope, change and enviro-supremacy absolutely
TRASHED the National Mall. Yet we left the place clean.

So, which group is the most sinister, more prone to violence and more
deserving of Nancy Pelosi's hand-wringing and tears? Of course, she's
welcome to weep all she wants when her "reign" is ended by these
"maniacs" peacefully and quietly --maybe even smilingly--walking into
the voting booth in November, 2010.

Montana Gun Suit Challenges Federal Authority

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/10/01/taking_liberties/entry5356494.shtml

A Montana lawsuit filed on Thursday challenges federal authority to
regulate guns manufactured and sold within the state, an argument that
would effectively invalidate federal firearm laws in Big Sky Country
if adopted by the courts.

The lawsuit arose out of a state law signed by Democratic Gov. Brian
Schweitzer that took effect on October 1. It says that firearms,
ammunition, and accessories manufactured entirely inside Montana are
not subject to federal regulation, including background checks for
buyers and record-keeping requirements for sellers. They would remain
subject to state regulation, and machine gun manufacturing is not
permitted.

This is part of a new grassroots movement that's seeking to invoke the
principle of states' rights -- including states' authority to regulate
firearms within their borders -- to thwart what backers view as an
increasingly overreaching federal government.

One of the plaintiffs is Gary Marbut, president of the Montana
Shooting Sports Association. The complaint (PDF) says Marbut "wishes
to manufacture and sell small arms and small arms ammunition to
customers exclusively in Montana" without complying with federal laws
but has been told by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and
Explosives that the federal laws "continue to apply." (See related
CBSNews.com story about the Obama administration's position.)

While this federalism-inspired revolt has coalesced around gun rights,
the broader goal is to dust off a section of the Bill of Rights that
most Americans probably have paid scant attention to: the Tenth
Amendment. It says that "powers not delegated to the United States by
the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to
the States respectively, or to the people."

"We feel very strongly that the federal government has gone way too
far in attempting to regulate a lot of activity that occurs only
in-state," said Marbut. "It's time for Montana and her sister states
to take a stand against the bullying federal government, which the
legislature and governor have done and we are doing with this
lawsuit."

The case was filed by Quentin Rhoades of Sullivan, Tabaracci, and
Rhoades in Missoula, Mont., with the support of the Second Amendment
Foundation. The U.S. Justice Department, which will be defending the
suit in court, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on
Thursday.

Read literally, the Tenth Amendment seems to suggest that the federal
government's powers are limited only to what it has been "delegated,"
and the U.S. Supreme Court in 1918 confirmed that the amendment
"carefully reserved" some authority "to the states." That view is
echoed by statements made at the time the Constitution was adopted;
New Hampshire explicitly said that states kept "all powers not
expressly and particularly delegated" to the federal government.

More recently, federal courts have interpreted the Tenth Amendment
narrowly, in a way that justifies almost any law on grounds that it
intends to regulate interstate commerce. In the 2005 case of Gonzales
v. Raich, for instance, the Supreme Court ruled that a person growing
marijuana for her own medicinal use could have a "substantial effect
on interstate commerce." (In an pointed dissent, Justice Clarence
Thomas wrote: "If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce
Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything -- and the federal
government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.")

One possibility is is that the composition of the U.S. Supreme Court
has changed enough in the last four years to make a repeat of Gonzales
v. Raich unlikely; on the other hand, some justices that might have
been sympathetic to a sick mother using medical marijuana may not be
as willing to embrace federalism if it means zapping gun laws that
have been around for over a generation.

Another possibility is that proponents can argue -- as Marbut plans to
do -- that this case is different. In Gonzales v. Raich, the Supreme
Court noted "it is not feasible to distinguish" marijuana that's
"manufactured and distributed interstate and controlled substances
manufactured and distributed intrastate." The Montana law, by
contrast, says that all state-made firearms "must have the words 'Made
in Montana' clearly stamped on a central metallic part, such as the
receiver or frame."

Still, the case amounts to a long shot squared. Perhaps, in a slightly
different universe where the Tenth Amendment were not virtually
ignored by courts, the plaintiffs would stand a good chance of
winning. In this post-Raich reality, even pro-Second Amendment types
are skeptical.

"I think they probably should succeed and I think they probably
won't," Nelson Lund, a professor of constitutional law at George Mason
University who specializes in the Second Amendment, told me over the
summer. "The Supreme Court has strong precedents that would render
this statute invalid."

But this is as much as political maneuver as it is a legal one. Even a
courtroom defeat would galvanize the burgeoning federalist movement
and could lead to more states adopting sovereignty and Tenth Amendment
resolutions, a trend that has been documented by the Tenth Amendment
Center (and anticipated by forecaster Gerald Celente). If enough state
governments vote to resuscitate the Tenth Amendment, even federal
courts eventually may pay attention.

Utah's Governor wants to prevent out of state residents from getting Utah permits

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2009/09/utahs-governor-wants-to-prevent-out-of.html

Utah's Governor is pushing for a change in their permitting laws. If
the permit fees aren't covering the costs of renewal, that seems easy
to fix. As to monitoring certified instructors in other states, that
seems easy to fix by just requiring that they are certified by the
state that they are in and requiring that they show proof of good
standing ever so often. Anyway, Utah isn't the only state that offers
this option for nonresidents.

The governor told a news conference the other day that he's all
for Utah standing tall for the Second Amendment. But he thinks what
happens in Utah, in terms of concealed-carry permits, should stay in
Utah.

He said he doesn't want the Beehive State to be the wholesale
clearinghouse for anyone outside the state who wants a permit,
particularly when the state can't track an outlander's activities and
he might do something "inappropriate." The governor's right. . . .

Under the principle of reciprocity, Utah's concealed-carry permit
is recognized in 33 other states. Because Utah's permit is relatively
cheap ($65.25, plus the cost of photos and a one-session training
course), and the class is rudimentary, out-of-staters have made a run
on Utah permits. So far this year, the state has received 57,000
applications for permits, and for the first time, the state issued
more permits to people from outside the state than to Utahns in the
fiscal year ended June 30. At that time, Utah was riding herd on about
177,000 active permits.

The situation with instructors is similar. Last fiscal year there
were 516 certified instructors outside the state and only 346 inside
it. . . .

Safe School Czar admits he knew of 15 yr old Sexual Relationship with Older Man

Kevin Jennings was teaching high school in 1988 when a gay student
confessed an involvement with an older man. Rather than reporting it,
he told the boy, "I hope you knew to use a condom."

http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2009/09/30/kevin-jennings-arne-duncan-release-statements-on-controversy.aspx

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/30/obamas-safe-schools-czar-admits-bad-handling-teen-sex-case/

"Twenty one years later I can see how I should have handled this
situation differently. I should have asked for more information and
consulted legal or medical authorities. Teachers back then had little
training or guidance about this kind of thing. All teachers should
have a basic level of preparedness. I would like to see the Office of
Safe and Drug Free Schools play a bigger role in helping to prepare
teachers."

-Kevin Jennings, Assistant Deputy Secretary, Office of Safe and
Drug-Free Schools

Education Secretary Arne Duncan also released a statement. Read it below:

"Kevin Jennings has dedicated his professional career to promoting
school safety. He is uniquely qualified for his job and I am honored
to have him on our team."

-Arne Duncan, Education Secretary

From ABC's Jake Trapper:

That Jennings knew of a sexually active 15-year-old, of any
gender, involved with "an older man" and didn't take steps to report
that relationship to the student's parents or to authorities has made
him a target for criticism -- long before he was put in charge of the
Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools. . . . .