The following information was sent to NCFreedom by wakeactive.com (including the title of this article). Some days it seems like Cloward Piven is the goal of the “ruling class”.

Raleigh, NC – Beyond their manufactured turmoil and attempts to sully Wake County’s image are very tangible costs brought on by the NAACP and Great Schools’ antics. Data provided by the Wake County Public School System shows dramatic security cost increases directly attributable to their ongoing chaos creation activities.

 Unfortunately these costs have undoubtedly increased significantly since April and show no signs of abating. 

Total July 2009 – November 2009: $451.58

Total December 2009 – April 2010: $14,719.39

 Since the December 1, 2009 Board of Education Meeting the system has spent $14,719.39 on hiring both private security officers and off duty police officers for security for the Board of Education Meetings.  These funds are paid from our Security Department’s contracted services budget.  I have attached a month by month breakdown of these expenses.

Michael Evans
Chief Communications Officer
Wake County Public School System

Source: Wake County Public School System

The following is an email sent to NCFreedom concerning the Islamic religion/culture as part of our country’s story. This article is only presented to show that our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian religious concepts. Why our president is rewriting history is left up to the reader.

President Obama, during his Cairo speech, said: “I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America ‘s story.”

Dear Mr. Obama:

Were those Muslims that were in America when the Pilgrims first landed? Funny, I thought they were Native American Indians.

Were those Muslims that celebrated the first Thanksgiving day? Sorry again, those were Pilgrims and Native American Indians.

Can you show me one Muslim signature on the United States Constitution?

Declaration of Independence ?

Bill of Rights?

Didn’t think so.

Did Muslims fight for this country’s freedom from England? No.

Did Muslims fight during the Civil War to free the slaves in America? No, they did not. In fact, Muslims to this day are still the largest traffickers in human slavery. Your own half brother, a devout Muslim, still advocates slavery himself, even though Muslims of Arabic descent refers to black Muslims as “pug nosed slaves.” Says a lot of what the Muslim world really thinks of your family’s “rich Islamic heritage,” doesn’t it Mr. Obama?

Where were Muslims during the Civil Rights era of this country? Not present.

There are no pictures or media accounts of Muslims walking side by side with Martin Luther King, Jr. or helping to advance the cause of Civil Rights.

Where were Muslims during this country’s Woman’s Suffrage era? Again, not present. In fact, devout Muslims demand that women are subservient to men in the Islamic culture. So much so, that often they are beaten for not wearing the ‘hajib’ or for talking to a man who is not a direct family member or their husband. Yep, the Muslims are all for woman’s rights, aren’t they?

Where were Muslims during World War II? They were aligned with Adolf Hitler. The Muslim grand mufti himself met with Adolf Hitler, reviewed the troops and accepted support from the Nazi’s in killing Jews.

Finally, Mr. Obama, where were Muslims on Sept. 11th, 2001? If they weren’t flying planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon or a field in Pennsylvania killing nearly 3,000 people on our own soil, they were rejoicing in the Middle East. No one can dispute the pictures shown from all parts of the Muslim world celebrating on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and other cable news networks that day. Strangely, the very “moderate” Muslims who’s asses you bent over backwards to kiss in Cairo, Egypt on June 4th were stone cold silent post 9-11. To many Americans, their silence has meant approval for the acts of that day.

And THAT, Mr. Obama, is the “rich heritage” Muslims have here in America.

Oh, I’m sorry, I forgot to mention the Barbary Pirates. They were Muslim.

And now we can add November 5, 2009 – the slaughter of American soldiers at Fort Hood by a Muslim major who is a doctor and a psychiatrist who was supposed to be counseling soldiers returning from battle in Iraq and Afghanistan.

That, Mr. Obama is the “Muslim heritage” in America.

The North Carolina Independence Caucus has the pleasure of hosting Frank Anderson, a key founder of the Independence Caucus. On Monday, August 2, 2010, join us at The Golden Corral in Cary, NC from 5:00 PM to 9:00 PM. Frank Anderson has distilled his successful campaign experience and research into two presentations: “What’s wrong with Washington and how to fix it” and “How to LOSE grassroots campaigns…and how to win them, too!” He will be presenting both to us in North Carolina. As an added benefit, BJ Lawson, Independence Caucus endorsed, Republican nominee for the NC 4th US Congressional District, will be joining us. Please RSVP at one of the following sites:

• http://www.resistnet.com/events/how-to-win-an-election-with-1
• http://icaucus.ning.com/events/how-to-win-an-election-with-1
• http://www.triangleconservativesunite.com/calendar/14031599/?eventId=14031599&action=detail

Please join us to learn about this truly grassroots organization working to find, vet, endorse, and elect candidates that will listen to their constituents and adhere to the US and NC Constitutions.

N.C. officials insist money spent on developing state standards not wasted

By Jim Stegall

June 30, 2010

RALEIGH — North Carolina has become one of the first states officially to adopt a newly developed set of national curriculum standards for use in the state’s public schools. When fully implemented, the “Common Core State Standards” will guide the development of everything from teachers’ lesson plans to final exams, and make it easier to compare North Carolina’s progress in education to that of other states.

Critics warn that the move may cost state officials the ability to determine what North Carolina school children should be learning. They also question the wisdom of jumping onto the national standards bandwagon in the middle of a five-year state initiative to develop new curriculum standards of our own.

That project, known as the Accountability and Curriculum Reform Effort, grew out of a 2008 study recommending a complete overhaul of the standard course of study for students in kindergarten through 12th grade. State education officials had completed work on the new standards for mathematics, and were putting the finishing touches on those for English language arts, when the U.S. Department of Education announced that states using the common core standards would receive extra points in the Race to the Top education reform initiative.

Although the ACRE project is described on the Department of Public Instruction’s website as “the most important and significant work of the State Board of Education and Department of Public Instruction in a generation,” education officials warmed quickly to the idea of adopting the national standards instead. DPI could not say how much has been spent on the ACRE project to date.

DPI’s Chief Academic Officer Rebecca Garland credits the federal reform initiative with helping spur action on national standards. Noting that states had been considering the idea of developing a common set of curriculum standards for years, she said, “It’s not like Race to the Top initiated the conversation, but it may have caused folks across the states to say it’s time to stop talking and start doing.”

In an interview, Garland rejected the idea that the two years DPI spent working on new mathematics and English language arts via the ACRE project were wasted. She pointed out that the new common core standards for both subjects are very similar to those developed by ACRE. In the case of the math standards, she said that one of the key contributors to the national standards project (a North Carolina State University mathematics professor) was also working with DPI’s ACRE project.

“The English language arts [national standards] were actually being developed at the same time that our standards were,” Garland said, “so we had our groups looking at what they thought were important.”

But not all educators are comfortable with the move to national standards. Some think that “national standards” could eventually spell “national control.”

“I don’t think it’s the right way to go,” says John Locke Foundation director of education studies Terry Stoops. He cited the recent controversy over the State Board of Education’s attempt to adopt new social studies standards — which some felt slighted U.S. history. “There’s always a potential for ideological manipulation on a national scale,” Stoops said, “and that’s a concern.”

Garland says that should not be a problem. “A state can sign on or a state can pull out if anything goes in a direction that makes them uncomfortable.” She said that the standards are flexible enough to allow states to add things that they feel are particularly important to them.

DPI plans to start using the new standards in the 2012-13 school year. But before that can happen, new tests aligned with the curriculum will have to be designed. Garland says that those tests will be designed by a consortium of states to be chosen by the U.S. Department of Education later this year. “In essence it will give us a national assessment, but it will be an assessment controlled by the states,” she said. “None of us are interested in a federally mandated assessment.”

Stoops says the assessments bear close watching. “It’s no good to have great standards and horrible assessments,” he said. Referring to North Carolina’s history of problems with standardized testing, he said, “We have seen what poor assessments can do.”

Jim Stegall is a contributor to Carolina Journal

Read more »

An “open letter”, filed under “personal gripes”.

Dear Republicans

Please stop wasting your resources and my time with pointless mailings that ask whether I think Nancy Pelosi should be replaced, or whether I believe Barack Obama is a militant Marxist, or …

I receive more than one bulk mailing a week from some Republican sponsor, National Referendum, candidate, or advocacy group who want to know my opinion about people or events where no such inquiry is necessary.

This is a constitutional republic, not a social democracy, or a TV game show.  The foundation documents clearly support individual liberty, limited government and free markets.  This is what I expect you to acknowledge and defend.

You don’t need to poll the opinion of anybody to know how to behave and what actions are necessary to obtain the support of constitutional conservatives at the ballot.  If you need a refresher regarding “first principles”, I suggest you read Article III on the About page of NCFreedom.

If you believe there are not enough constitutional conservatives among your constituents to win an election, then I suggest you focus your treasure and energy on education to communicate the benefits of “laissez faire” to those who oppose.

In parody of a famous line from SouthPark:  “uhhh, collectivism’s bad, mmmkay?”

While at Duke University to protest the presence and message of Al Gore, the following arrived for my reading pleasure.

I’m sure you will be thrilled to read this statement of support for policy and direction from our CongressCritter, D. Price.  His clear goal is to tax fossil based energy production to subsidize government directed investment in new energy technology.  

Did I mention the net result of his support for Gore’s energy policy will be higher taxes ? 

I hope you will accept the CongressCritters’ invitation and give him your comments.

(bold and maroon highlights are my addition to original text)

From: Congressman David Price [mailto:nc04ima@mail.house.gov]
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 4:29 PM
To: hans@ncfreedom.us
Subject: Reply from Congressman Price April 8, 2010

Mr. John Mentha
xxx yyyyy
Raleigh, NC    

Dear Mr. Mentha: 

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) role in regulating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.  I appreciate knowing of your concerns. 

With respect to global warming, I will continue to support additional scientific research in this area, but I believe that the scientific process has already resulted in an understanding of climate change that is increasingly robust and has withstood a number of challenges. In light of the evidence, I believe Congress and the Administration must act to address climate change and move our country towards a green energy economy.  There is progress being made on both fronts. 

In April 2009, Administrator Lisa Jackson issued a proposed finding that GHG emissions endanger public health and welfare and that vehicles contribute to the concentration of GHG in our air.  Development of the proposed finding was in response to the directive of a 2007 Supreme Court ruling (Massachusetts v. EPA), which is the only time the Court has ruled on the Clean Air Act (CAA).  The Court found that GHG are air pollutants covered under the CAA, and that the agency does have the authority to regulate them.  The Court held that the EPA Administrator must make a scientific determination as to whether or not GHG pollutants from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution that endangers public health and welfare.  

In April 2008, the EPA proposed an endangerment finding for GHG emissions from new motor vehicles, which underwent a 60 day public comment period, during which the EPA held two public hearings.  The determination by EPA that GHG emissions do endanger Americans’ health and welfare was made final on December 15, 2009, triggering a CAA requirement that EPA promulgate emission standards for new motor vehicles.  However, it may interest you to know that industry groups, conservative think tanks, lawmakers, and three states filed 16 court challenges to EPA’s endangerment finding. 

In addition to its finding that GHG from new motor vehicles endanger public health and welfare, the agency has proposed a separate draft rule, called the tailoring rule, which would require permits from large industrial stationary sources that emit more than 25,000 tons per year of GHG emissions.  This draft rule is not yet finalized, and EPA Administrator Jackson indicated in a recent letter to some Members of Congress that the agency intends to phase-in CAA permit requirements over several years, and will initially raise the threshold for large facilities to 75,000 tons, a substantial increase from the 25,000-ton limit in the draft rule.  In her letter, she also stated that “EPA does not intend to subject the smallest sources to Clean Air Act permitting for greenhouse gas emissions any sooner than 2016.”  As you may know, both industry and environmental groups question whether the tailoring rule will stand up to legal scrutiny over the GHG thresholds and the timetable adopted by EPA.  

I also understand many are concerned that EPA’s proposal could impose costs on American businesses and consumers.  I am pleased that the agency has indicated that it will consider any economic impacts when crafting its regulations, and is “committed to fashioning any Clean Air Act rules in a manner that minimizes any job losses and enhances the U.S. economy’s potential for job growth to the maximum extent allowed by law.” 

At the same time, both houses of Congress are working on legislation to address climate change.  The House version of this legislation, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454), would establish a market-based incentive system to reduce carbon emissions.  The bill would enable the U.S. to achieve the 80 percent reduction that scientists say we must reach by mid-century to avoid a dangerous climate tipping point. H.R. 2454 would help us open the door to a clean energy economy by providing incentives for the production of energy that is clean, domestically-produced and affordable by investing in energy efficiency and renewable energy, carbon capture and sequestration, electric and other advanced technology vehicles, and basic scientific research and development. 

Many have expressed concerns about the potential cost to taxpayers of a “cap-and-trade” system, but less attention has been paid to the numerous provisions of this legislation designed to ease the burden of energy costs on consumers and businesses through incentives, rebates, and other measures.  In fact, over the long run, the bill would reduce U.S. energy use by about 10 percent and save the average household nearly $4,000 per year.  

In assessing the costs of the bill, it is also critical that we consider both the costs of inaction and the economic benefits of clean energy.   Already, our failure to shift to a clean energy economy has been expensive, threatening our public health, our infrastructure, food and water supplies, and our national security.  In the last year, Americans have felt that most acutely at the gas pumps, where they’ve paid over $4 per gallon to fill up.  That is like a tax Americans are paying directly to the oil companies, and it is not money well-spent.  Instead, we should make investments in clean energy, which can spur economic growth and create entirely new industries, with millions of new American-based jobs.  I see indications every day that the Research Triangle area of North Carolina is poised to be a major winner in this new economy. 

As you know, legislation has been introduced in Congress which would limit EPA’s ability to regulate GHG.  It is likely that EPA’s actions will be the subject of additional Congressional action, and litigation has been threatened by interested parties.  I will continue to monitor this situation closely, and welcome your comments as this process moves forward. 

Sincerely, 

DAVID PRICE 

Member of Congress

April 2, 2010  -  posted on MoonBattery.com

Doctors Begin to Rebel

Posted by Van Helsing at April 2, 2010 9:04 AM

Will ObamaCare destroy the medical profession, driving the capable away from the field and leaving us with a handful of foreign-trained Third-World immigrants given to car-bombing airports, as socialized medicine has done to Britain? Or will the State be turned back? At least some are showing signs of resistance:

 

“I’m not turning anybody away — that would be unethical,” Dr. Jack Cassell, 56, a Mount Dora [Florida] urologist and a registered Republican opposed to the health plan, told the Orlando Sentinel on Thursday. “But if they read the sign and turn the other way, so be it.”

But of course, even if Cassell did refuse to see Obamunists, our liberal lawyer rulers could just override his wishes and force him to do whatever they demand:

Cassell may be walking a thin line between his right to free speech and his professional obligation, said William Allen, professor of bioethics, law and medical professionalism at the University of Florida’s College of Medicine.

Allen said doctors cannot refuse patients on the basis of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation or disability, but political preference is not one of the legally protected categories specified in civil-rights law. By insisting he does not quiz his patients about their politics and has not turned away patients based on their vote, the doctor is “trying to hold onto the nub of his ethical obligation,” Allen said.

“But this is pushing the limit,” he said.

That is, physicians are advised not to get uppity.

The next challenge for our rulers is how to force the intelligent and industrious to become doctors in the first place, after the profession has been reduced to slave status.

Cassell’s patients are reportedly “overwhelmingly supportive” of his position. But ObamaCare isn’t about doctors or patients. It’s about bureaucratic rodents grinding their loafers into our faces.

The story comes with a poll. Check out the results:

On tips from Wiggins and Henry.

Poll: OK for doctor to protest health-care bill by shunning Obama voters?

Lake County urologist Dr. Jack Cassell has put up a sign on his office door reading, “If you voted for Obama seek urologic care elsewhere.” What do you think?

What is your reaction to Dr. Jack Cassell’s actions?

• Good for him. Obamacare will be a disaster, and we should keep fighting it. (42848 responses)

  82%

• Get over it, Doc. Health-care reform was badly needed, and this is just more sour grapes from the GOP. (2995 responses)

  6%

• Prescription for trouble. No matter what you think of the health-care overhaul, doctors should not impose their political views on patients. (6116 responses)

  12%

51959 total responses

Over the past weeks I’ve sent several emails to David Price regarding the health care bill.  This past Friday I received a response. 

Price’s email reply contains no fewer than four “untruths”.  Three of these are straight forward examples of  misinformation.  The remaining untruth is far more serious.  It is a blatant misrepresentation of the text and meaning of our Constitution. 

The complete text of David Price’s email is appended below the horizontal rule.  I have inserted paragraph numbers [#] to enable easy reference.

Let’s deal with the simple lies first:

[4] “For the first time, individuals will control their own health care – not insurance companies.”

This is an attempt at illusion.  Under this new law, National government controls the terms and conditions of health care.  Individuals who “choose” options that do not comply with government regulation will be subject to punitive “excise taxes” and / or incarceration.

[9] “Health insurance is much like automobile insurance.”

Not at all.  Requirements for auto liability insurance were established to provide compensation for damage to other persons or property.  Additional auto insurance coverage is optional.

[10] “…reconciliation was not used to enact…but to pass a more limited measure to correct several controversial Senate provisions.” 

The process of “reconciliation” was designed to adjust financial discrepancies between similar versions of legislation passed in the House and Senate.  The process was never intended to bypass established protocol in Congress.

Now lets examine the really BIG, really IMPORTANT lie.  This is a lie of “omission”, intended to distort the meaning of the passage quoted.  Notice the ellipsis (…) in the following statement from David Price’s email.  Something (important) was removed:

[8] “Thus, Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power ‘to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution … [the] Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States’.”

The unaltered passage from our Constitution reads:

“To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

So what was missing from David Prices’ quote?  A clear reference to the limitation of Government authority to only those Powers enumerated earlier in Article I Section 8. 

Our National government was never given the authority to enact this law.

The struggle between expansion vs limitation of the Powers of National government has been ongoing since the establishment of our Constitution.  Where should we look for guidance about the original meaning of this passage?  Let us consult the literary architect of our Independence, Thomas Jefferson:

 NECESSARY AND PROPER: “…the Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient’ for effecting the enumerated powers.  If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other…”

ASSUMED POWERS: “Whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.”   “Where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.” – Kentucky Resolutions.

Jefferson anticipated the potential abuse of power through misrepresentation of several clauses in the Constitution.  The “Necessary and Proper” clause had specific meaning to the framers.  We should hold it just as dear.

Is there some wierd twisted irony that the paragraph number of Price’s BIG LIE matches the section number in the Constitution he seeks to pervert?

David Price distorted the meaning of our Constitution.  My legislator lied to me.  

John (Hans) Mentha

(References to passage from Article I Section 8 and Jefferson’s opinions are in this PDF)

Mr. John Mentha
xxxx yyyyyyyyyy
Raleigh, NC

Dear Mr. Mentha:

[1] Thank you for contacting me to convey your concerns about health insurance reform legislation.  I appreciate the opportunity to explain my views on this complex issue.

[2] The skyrocketing cost of health care represents one of the greatest threats to families, small business owners, state and federal budgets, and the overall economy.  Over the past ten years, Americans with employer-sponsored insurance benefits have seen their premiums more than double, and small businesses are being priced out of the market altogether.  This trend is projected to continue, and it simply is not sustainable. 

[3] The American people need a health care system that works for them – one that provides access to stable coverage, quality care, and affordable premiums and copayments.  That’s what health insurance reform is all about.  The reform legislation will correct the failures of the current system without compromising its many strengths – or adding to the deficit. 

[4] Under the new law, the existing system of employer-provided coverage, which works so well for millions of Americans, will be maintained and improved.  If you have insurance through your employer, you can keep it, but you will have the peace of mind of knowing that losing or changing jobs won’t mean losing access to affordable coverage.  For the first time, individuals will control their own health care – not insurance companies.  The new law prohibits insurance companies from denying coverage or care because of pre-existing conditions.  It bars them from imposing annual or lifetime caps on benefits.  And it requires them to cover children on their parents’ plan until age 26. 

[5] For those who don’t have insurance at work, the new law will allow small business owners, the self-insured, and the uninsured to purchase coverage through state-based insurance exchanges at the same low group rates that big businesses have always negotiated for their employees.  If even group rates are out of reach, the bill will provide tax credits to businesses and individuals to make coverage affordable. 

[6] I want to address several specific concerns about reform that I have heard frequently over the course of the last few months:  the potential impact on seniors, the constitutionality of both reform and the individual mandate, and the use of the so-called reconciliation process to make changes to the Senate version of the reform legislation.

[7] First, the reform law maintains the promise of Medicare for seniors and improves benefits.  Seniors will see an end to the prescription drug “doughnut hole” and receive free preventive care and annual check-ups with their doctor.   Seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage (MA) will still have access to these private plans as well.  The only change is that the private companies will have to deliver on the cost-effectiveness commitment they made when Medicare Advantage was created.  There will be no more taxpayer overpayments to subsidize these plans, which cost an average of 14% more than traditional fee-for-service Medicare.

[8] Secondly, some have claimed that the health insurance reform is unconstitutional because the Constitution does not expressly give Congress the authority to regulate health insurance or health care.  But the absence of such authority cannot be viewed as a deliberate omission; the health insurance and health care systems did not exist at the time the Constitution was written.  The Founding Fathers wrote a governing document that could withstand the test of time.  Thus, Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power “to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution . . . [the] Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States.”  The Supreme Court has interpreted these powers to include efforts to “insure domestic Tranquility . . . [and] promote the general Welfare,” which are referenced in the Preamble, and has found federal health care initiatives to be consistent with this authority.  There is no constitutional authority assumed or granted in this bill that goes beyond that assumed by Social Security, Medicare, or scores of other federal statutes.

[9] There have also been charges that the bill’s requirement that individuals take responsibility for their health care by maintaining health insurance violates the principle of individual liberty.  I believe it does just the opposite.  Health insurance is much like automobile insurance.  We need it because, when unforeseen things happen, it is unfair to force someone else to pick up the tab.  Under the current health care system, hospitals are providing billions of dollars annually in care to the uninsured, and everyone who has insurance is paying higher premiums as a result.  In my view, that constitutes a significant infringement on the individual liberty of the insured, which the bill would correct.  Whether to obtain insurance will still be a matter of choice, but one choosing not to cover himself will pay an excise tax to cover the costs to the insured should he have to utilize the system.

[10] Finally, some have objected to the use of the reconciliation process to make changes in the Senate legislation.  Reconciliation bills can only be used to enact changes that directly affect federal spending.  They are subject to limits on debate (20 hours in the Senate) and must be passed by majority support (51 aye votes in the Senate).  Reconciliation has been used a variety of times to alter not only the minutiae of budgetary provisions, but indeed significant policy decisions that have affected nearly every American, such as the creation of COBRA; the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP); Medicare Advantage; and the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003.  In the case of health care, reconciliation was not used to enact the bill itself (which passed with 60 votes in the Senate) but to pass a more limited measure to correct several controversial Senate provisions.  A separate controversy concerned the possible use of a “deem and pass” rule in the House to pass the Senate bill and reconciliation corrections concurrently.  In the end, this rule was not used and votes were taken on the two measures separately.

[11] If you would like more information about health care reform, please visit my website at http://price.house.gov/issues/health/health_insurance_reform.shtml.  Again, thank you for contacting me, and please continue to keep in touch on issues before the Congress.

Sincerely,

DAVID PRICE

Member of Congress

The new neighborhood policy that will be instituted in Wake County is attracting national media attention. The following article is from FoxNews.com.

A North Carolina school system voted to ditch a longstanding controversial policy of busing children to schools outside their neighborhood to achieve diversity, WRAL.com reported Wednesday. Read more »