Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: longnshort who wrote (841488)	3/9/2015 6:51:48 PM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 1578706

<a href="http://www.publiusforum.com/2015/03/09/nh-scholar-admits-he-crafted-state-common-core-standards-to-attack-white-people/" title="Permanent Link to NH Scholar Admits He Crafted State Common Core Standards to Attack White People">NH Scholar Admits He Crafted State Common Core Standards to Attack White People March 9, 2015 \| -By Warner Todd Huston A scholar in New Hampshire has admitted that he helped develop the state’s Common Core testing standards in order to attack the “white privilege” of the state’s white population. His goal was to knock white people down a few pegs in the Granite State. Patricia L. Dickson reports that Dr. David Pook, a professor at Granite State College and chair of the history department the Derryfield School in Manchester, New Hampshire, admitted to an audience at an event at New Hampshire Institute of Politics that he had a goal that was far different than education when he helped write the state standards. The reason why I helped write the standards and the reason why I am here today is that as a white male in society I am given a lot of privilege that I didn’t earn[.] Amusingly, Derryfield, the very school Prof Pook works for, feels that the standards are inferior and will not use them! Regardless, this is yet another example of how our schools are used for extremist, left-wing social engineering instead of education. “Teachers” like Pook want to use our schools as a means to indoctrinate kids with anti-American, left-wing garbage. And don’t be fooled. This guy may be one of the few who openly admits that Common Core is meant to undermine the US, but he isn’t alone in that goal. Sadly, these creeps are succeeding in undermining our system of education and aiding in tearing down the United States. But, folks, we can blame ourselves–we conservatives–for this happening. Since the turn of the last century the left has proudly and loudly announced its plans to warp our educational system into a hate-filled, left-wing indoctrination machine that will disgorge millions of good little socialists every year. The left has succeeded amazingly well in doing this. Yet conservatives have stood idly by and allowed this to happen without even entering the field of battle to oppose the leftwingery being forced upon our children. It’s no wonder that we have had several generations of students who have emerged from school with no knowledge of our American ideals, our culture or our civil institutions and immersed in the hate for America that passes for “history” in our classrooms. Then conservatives suddenly try to convince them that the left is wrong when these kids are in their late 20s and early 30s? The right ignores these kids for nearly 30 years then belatedly tries get their vote at such a late date? Then wonders why they can’t make headway?? Come on. What the right needs to do is re-invest in our system of education and teach our children properly when they’re children, not when they are adults. If the right utterly cedes the battleground for our kids’ minds and souls to the far left, then why should they expect to win later on? ____________

To: longnshort who wrote (841488)	3/9/2015 8:01:56 PM
From: joseffy	2 Recommendations Recommended By FJB TideGlider Respond to of 1578706

Justice Department giving away the public’s money to third-party interests ........................................................................... By Paul J. Larkin Jr. - - Monday, March 9, 2015 For the past decade, the U.S. Justice Department has engaged in the dubious practice of giving away the public’s money when it settles a case, by sometimes conditioning a settlement on a company’s agreement to donate money to a third party of the government’s (or the defendant’s) choosing. For example, the Justice Department settled cases last year with Bank of America and Citigroup over unlawful mortgage lending practices. The settlements required the banks to pay money to outside organizations — such as legal aid societies — from a government-approved list. In another instance, the Gibson Guitar Corp. had to contribute to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to end a criminal investigation. That practice is of questionable legality and clearly is bad public policy. Government attorneys are obligated to represent the interests of the public, not those of selected groups. Moreover, when federal agencies collect money, that money should be spent as Congress directs that it be spent, not according to the whim or the agencies. The U.S. legal system rests on the principle that every lawyer owes a duty of loyalty to a client and cannot engage in self-dealing. For example, if John Doe’s attorney settles a case for Doe, the attorney cannot tell the opposing counsel to write a check for 95 percent of the settlement to Doe and to give the rest to someone else. The attorney general occupies a similar position for the public — the attorney for the federal government, which means the responsibility of representing the public in court. No law authorizes the attorney general to act like Bill Gates and dispense money to private organizations, but that is what sometimes happens when the federal government settles a case. That money is not the attorney general’s to give away. It belongs to the public and should be paid in full to the U.S. Treasury. What is worse is that these giveaways violate federal law. Federal statutes, such as the Miscellaneous Receipts Act, require that all money received by the Justice Department be paid into the Treasury. It then becomes Congress‘ duty, under the Constitution’s appropriations clause, to decide how to spend it. Those laws are not hypertechnical accounting requirements. They reflect a basic allocation of federal decision-making authority regarding the proper expenditure of the public’s money. The Justice Department’s third-party contribution requirements in settlement agreements enable the executive branch to perform an end run around Congress‘ paramount role in the appropriations process. Justice’s practice also denies the public the opportunity to hold representatives and senators accountable for their spending choices. Executive branch officials cannot spend money without Congress‘ approval, which forces every member of Congress to vote for annual appropriations bills. That practice informs every voter what each member does with the public’s money, knowledge that voters can use every two or six years to decide whether to “throw the bums out.” Third-party contribution requirements are also rife with opportunities for political cronyism. There are scores of organizations that benefit the public, but this practice permits Justice to disburse funds to particular favored groups that benefit the political party in power, clearly an unseemly and illegitimate practice. At a minimum, the practice creates an obvious appearance of impropriety. The public’s money belongs to the public, not to whatever recipients an attorney general may decide to favor, and Congress is responsible for saying how it can be spent. Congress does not give the president a lump-sum allowance to spend as he sees fit. Instead, in the annual appropriations bills Congress specifies in detail exactly who can receive appropriated funds, how much money each one may be paid and for what purposes that money can be used. Congress should reclaim that responsibility by ending this Justice Department practice. Congress has signaled that it is aware of this practice. The public would be well-served if Congress puts an end to it. • Paul J. Larkin Jr. is a senior research fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. Read more: washingtontimes.com