My Personal Blog - Which Way

You can find my personal blog covering non-political topics at http://ruthcarlson.wordpress.com/

Tuesday, March 06, 2012

Study Shows Head Start Preschool Programs Don't Measure Up--to what?

My question is: to what do Head Start Preschool Programs not measure up to? Is it really possible that these kids are less prepared after these programs? I think that should cause us to really start re-thinking how our little ones need more than programing to reach their unique potential throughout their lives.
"In January 2010, after four years of “analysis,” the HHS Department finally released the results on Head Start’s impact on first graders. The study found that, compared to their control group peers, Head Start failed to boost students’ cognitive abilities across 41 measures. Moreover, first grade teachers reported that former Head Start students were actually less prepared in math than the non-Head Start students."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/03/05/parents-deserve-to-know-the-facts-about-head-start/

Monday, March 05, 2012

State Senate Lines - calls and email needed

I've gotten a few emails on this, and with your help, it's possible to put pressure on this committee by Urging them to vote "no" and to go back and adopt the second Judicial Commission map that was constitutional, fairer and only thrown out on a technicality.


Here's the back story: 


Many of you already are aware of the confusion of the re-districting process since the first maps were vetoed by the governor and then sent to the state supreme court.  Most maps have now been resolved except for the state Senatorial boundaries which I am contacting you about.  A new commission (of 4 Dems. & 4 Repubs) was appointed by the governor.  That commission drew yet another map that moved Sen. Cunningham's 7th district to the Kansas City area where she could not move to and is a majority Democrat Party locale. The four Republican members of the Commission caved like marshmallows to the four Democrat members and gave them whatever they wanted in other areas as well.  Was this an act of vengeance within their own party for the St.Louis area China hub, or resistance to Obamacare from Prop. C sponsored by Sen.Cunningham?  Or was it just poor leadership?

Whatever the motivation, please contact these commission members and let them know that they can do better and say no their map and yes to the previous judicial map.

Jean Paul Bradshaw II    jpbradshaw@lathropage.com
Steve Ehlmann                 sehlmann@att.blackberry.net
Marc Ellinger                     mellinger@blitzbardgett.com
Nick Myers                         myerscpa@swbell.net
Lowell Pearson                 lowell.pearson@huschblackwell.com
Lloyd Smith                       lloyd@mogop.org

--------------

The senate redistricting commission recently drew a map that many believe is unconstitutional for reasons listed below.  It also totally eliminates a district for Senator Jane Cunningham to run in.  Not only is the Republican Party hurt by the map, but conservatives are especially targeted. 

Seven concerned plaintiffs around the state have filed a federal lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of the egregious map.  Many have been asking what they can do.

The only avenue for you 
to stop the damage is to send an email no later than 4:30pm on Friday, March 9th to the bipartisan Senate Apportionment Commission at matt.hesser@oa.mo.gov.  Below are some problems with the map that you may want to pick and choose to include in your comments as well as your own thoughts.  It is important to comment in your own words even if you use the ideas below.  It is also important to comment because the more comments there are the better chance there is of either convincing the commissioners to drop the unconstitutional map or for the federal lawsuit to win.  We don't want to get to court and the Commissioners say no one cared enough to comment.

The commissioners have a final vote on this bad map after the public comment deadline of May 9th.  Urge them to vote "no" and to go back and adopt the second Judicial Commission map that was constitutional, fairer and only thrown out on a technicality.  This is what everyone expected in both parties.  Everyone was shocked.

**The map is unconstitutional because it advantages urban regions over rural regions in the state.  Since the map contains much lower populations in the urban districts, it produces more senators from the urban areas.  This regional advantage is discriminatory and not permissible under the U.S. Constitution. 

**Since the rural senate districts are more populated on the redrawn map, that means there are more constituents for a senator to service and therefore less attention to his/her constituents.

**The populations are moving out of the urban areas to the suburban and rural areas, so to overpopulate those rural districts will only exacerbate the population differences in a short number of years.  The map redrawing happens once every ten years after the census and seeks to make all the districts as equally populated as possible. 

**The senate map the judicial commission drew is fair in this regard and has only a deviation of 7.79% between the highest and lowest populated districts while the Democrat and Republican Commission has a larger deviation of 9.6%.  The judges did a far better job than the Ds and Rs. 

**Senate District 7 (Cunningham-Republican, Chesterfield) in St. Louis County which is up for election this year was arbitrarily moved across the state to a very urban, Democrat district in Kansas City that previously had an even number and was therefore not up for election.  This appears purposeful to increase the Democrat vote in a very liberal area for the upcoming critical national and state elections not to mention provide an extra Democrat senator for the next two legislative sessions. 

**That urban Kansas City Senator's District (#10-Jolie Justice) was flip flopped the opposite direction to a very rural area in the central eastern part of the state.  These constituents of the new 10th will have no say in whom their senator is for two more legislative sessions and Sen. Justice will certainly not move to that area. 
 
YOU SHOULD ALSO CALL OR EMAIL YOUR CONCERNS TO THE REPUBLICAN MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION LISTED BELOW.  IN ADDITION TO THE POINTS ABOVE, YOU MAY WANT TO POINT OUT MORE SPECIFIC PARTY INTERESTS.
**The population numbers in St. Louis City and County were changed enough to yield only one Republican Senator from the area in the near future rather than the present four.  Without having vigorous Republican senate campaigns in St. Louis County, the needed 150,000 votes needed to win statewide elections for Republicans is lost.  This map is clearly a Democrat's and a liberal's dream map and unfortunately the Republicans on the Commission gave away the store. 

**St. Louis, the economic engine of the state loses it's influence in the senate with this most recent map.  Not only did St. Louis City and County lose an entire senate district when they lost less than 1/4 of a senate district in population, they increased the likelihood of the representation soon being six Democrats to one Republican senator rather than the present four and four.  Because the Republicans are in the majority and therefore set the agenda and direction of the legislature, St. Louis has even less influence having to depend on the minority party to represent them.  The population decrease of 40,000 (less than 1/4 of a senate seat) did not necessitate the loss of a senate district.  All the Republican and Democrat senators in the St. Louis region submitted a map they had agreed to.  It was not even considered by this second bipartisan commission. 

**The clear advantage given away to the Democrats for the national and statewide campaigns (Obama, McCaskill, Nixon) by transferring District 7 into downtown Kansas City to energize that liberal population not only for the Democrat primary but the general election.  It is hard to imagine Republicans would vote to so benefit the Democrats in such a critical election year.  

The Republican Commissioners are:Jean Paul Bradshaw II jpbradshaw@lathropgage.com 816-460-5507.  Lathrop & Gage in KC

Steve Ehlmann sehlmann@att.blackberry.net 636-949-7520.  The only Republican "no" vote but that needs to be shored up so he doesn't flip to a yes.
 
Marc Ellinger mellinger@blitzbardgett.com 573-230-1192, Vice Chair of the Commission and head of Republican delegation.  No one knows why GOP Chair Lloyd Smith put him on a list from which the Governor chose since Ellinger testified for the plaintiffs against the Republican Congressional maps.

Nick Myers myerscpa@swbell.net 417-623-2214, SW part of state.

Lowell Pearson lowell.pearson@huschblackwell.com 573-761-1115,

Lloyd Smith lloyd@mogop.org573-636-3146, Executive Director, MO Republican Party.  This is where the buck stops since he is well payed to lead the Republican Party in our state.  If any of the commissioners did not understand the repercussions of their decision, it is Lloyd's job to strongly inform them or not put their name on a list of potential commissioners to begin with.  

Thursday, February 23, 2012

Thank you Rep. Ryan Silvey, Rep. Mark Parkinson, Rep. Jeff Grisamore, Rep. Chris Kelly for standing up against Obamacare Exchanges

From Missouri First - Feb. 22:

After grilling representatives from the Department of Social Services and receiving pitiful responses, Rep. Ryan Silvey declaired that the $50 M federal grant that clearly could be used to set up an Obamacare Exchange WILL NOT be in the Budget he takes to the full House.

Silvey had some good help from Reps. Mark Parkinson, Jeff Grisamore, and Chris Kelly, who asked what strings were attached to the grant, how the money would be spent, and why out of state contractors seemed to get the computer system development jobs when we had some of the best talent available right here in Missouri. No answers from the bureaucrats.

Neither the folks from DSS nor the author of the amendment, Rep. Tom Flanigan, could even tell the committee the name of the federal grant they were promoting. Silvey asked if it was, perhaps, the "Affordable Care State Planning and Establishment Grant". The answer from DSS: Ummm... I don't think so, well... maybe it could be... Silvey said he was pretty sure that was the name.

Since DSS couldn't answer the tough questions, Silvey tried to find some state agency who would admit to being the originator of the request to add the $50 M budget item and called for them, one agency at a time, from the crowded hearing room -- there were no takers.

It seems that supporting Obamacare Exchanges is out of vogue!

Silvey's final edict is that he will not even consider adding the grant money to the budget until the governor specifically makes a request for it.

I think the governor's too smart to do that, considering 71% of the voters rejected Obamacare.

What's more, after talking to them, I'm confident that key senators would kill anything that smells of Obamacare, so savvy members of the House won't want to take a political beating supporting a dead cause.

We've cut another head off the Hydra, but don't think for a minute it won't attack again. We need to remain vigilant!

To the 405 of you who sent witness forms and made phone calls with only hours of notice -- THANK YOU!

Together, we're making a difference!

Specal thanks are due to:





For liberty,

Ron Calzone, director
Missouri First, Inc.

Monday, February 20, 2012

Missouri House Ignoring Constitution: Supreme Court Decision is a Wake Up Call

---from Missouri First:

At least twice in the last three weeks red flags have been raised about the lack of respect the Missouri General Assembly has for the Constitution.

First the chairman of an influential committee – the committee responsible for beginning the process of doling out many millions of public dollars to private parties – publicly declared that her committee has no responsibility to evaluate the constitutionality of legislation it considers.

Then, this last week, the Missouri Supreme Court chastised the House and the Senate for their neglect of constitutional responsibilities. Let's take a look at what the Court had to say before we go back to the committee chairman.

SUPREME COURT RULES AGAINST GENERAL ASSEMBLY
Klebba v. Missouri was a challenge to the the 2010 “Ominbus Ethics Reform Bill” (SB 844). Here's the history of that bill:

SB 844 came from the Senate as a one page bill “relating to contracts for purchasing, printing, and services for statewide elected officials”. It was originally a consent bill.
The House General Laws Committee passed it on to the Rules Committee as one page.
When the main ethics bill fell apart and House leadership needed another “vehicle” for the ethics language, the Rules Committee sent SB 844 back to General Laws. (04/28/2012)
Then all in one day, the General Laws Committee amended it with 65 pages, it was sent back to Rules and then on to the whole House. About an hour later, with Rep. Tim Jones handling the bill, the whole body was expected to take it up and vote for its passage. With no time to really determine what was in the bill, they did just that in a party-line vote. (05/06/2012)
Citizen activists complained that the bill contained unconstitutional provisions and that it was unconstitutional in form. Among the unconstitutional provisions was one that would have made class D felons out of anyone who “Attempts to influence any elected official other than an elected official who represents the legislative district where the person resides” if they didn't register as a lobbyist and file the required reports.
In a conference committee including members of the House and Senate, at the insistence of citizen activists, the most offensive language was removed, but the bill was still unconstitutional in form.
Now, 21 months later, the Missouri Supreme Court unanimously ruled that SB 844 was, indeed, unconstitutional because of its multiple subject omnibus form, the fact that it departed from its original purpose, and because it violated free speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment.

COURT'S MESSAGE TO LEGISLATORS
The Klebba decision should be a clear message to the men and women the People send to Jefferson City to represent them: Start respecting the Constitution!

In his concurring opinion, Judge Zel Fischer made that abundantly clear as he pointed out the many recent cases involving the “original purpose” and “single subject” requirements of the Constitution. He wrote, “[the number of cases] continue[s] to rise annually... because the legislature frequently ignores these clearly expressed constitutional provisions.” (Emp. added)

He concluded his opinion with an admonition to the Court which also impugned the General assembly. “...because [the court] has encouraged a lack of legislative accountability and transparency and has permitted the legislature to thwart the will of the people by openly violating clear and express procedural provisions of the Missouri Constitution.” (Emp. Added)

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE CHAIR IGNORES CONSTITUTION
It's disconcerting to think that our legislators are “openly violating” the Constitution as they pass laws that affect the lives of our families, but now some of them are no longer even pretending to be constrained by that document.

At the January 31st public hearing for the Freight Forwarder's bill (HB 1476, part of the China Hub bill), four citizen activists testified against the measure. Among other things, these citizens called to question the constitutionality of the targeted subsidies in the bill.

During his 5 minutes of testimony, Ron Calzone was repeatedly interrupted by Chairman Anne Zerr and told that his comments were not germane and that her committee had no responsibility to consider the constitutionality of bills before it. She implied that it was their job to enact legislation and let the courts sort out the constitutionality.

PASSING THE BUCK
That's a scary proposition for more than one reason! First, if legislators don't have to worry about the constitutionality of legislation, what does their oath to “support the Constitution of the United States and of the state of Missouri” actually mean?

Chairman Zerr's comments were doubly disconcerting when you consider the great deference the courts usually give to the legislative process. Here's a typical statement of the standard of review from the Missouri Supreme Court when statutes are challenged: “This Court's review must begin with the recognition that laws enacted by the legislature and approved by the governor have a strong presumption of constitutionality.” (Emp. added) JACKSON CTY. SPORTS COMPLEX AUTH. v. State, 226 SW 3d 156 - Mo: Supreme Court 2007

In simpler terms, what we have is legislators, like Rep. Anne Zerr, saying, “The courts will do it.” and the courts saying, “The legislature already did it.”, and then there's often no one actually making sure the Constitution is upheld and the People's rights are defended.

THE PATRIOT'S RESPONSE – CALL TO ACTION
The People of Missouri can't let this great shirking of legislative responsibility go unchallenged. We must demand that our representatives uphold the Constitution first and foremost.

Rep. Zerr has been asked to issue a memo to her committee retracting her statements from the January 31st hearing and instruting them to, indeed, consider the constitutionality of bills, but she has declined.

The issue has been brought to the attention of Speaker Steve Tilley's office, and his staff has refused a request for him to clarify the responsibility his committee chairman have to consider the constitutionality of bills. The Speaker's spokesman replied that the Speaker doesn't like to micro-manage the committees. So much for leadership.

CALL TO ACTION: Citizens from across the state should call, write, email and fax Rep. Anne Zerr and Speaker Steve Tilley and demand that they establish clear policy that supports the Constitution, as their oath of office requires. Memos should be sent to all committee chairs.

Letters to editors, blog posts and calls to radio shows are also in order. If our representatives can continue to ignore the Constitution, the People are left with little recourse.

Rep. Anne Zerr
Phone: (573) 751-3717
Email: Anne.Zerr@house.mo.gov
MO House of Representatives
201 West Capitol Avenue
Room 300
Jefferson City MO 65101

Speaker Steve Tilley
Phone: (573) 751-1488
Email: Steven.Tilley@house.mo.gov
MO House of Representatives
201 West Capitol Avenue
Room 308A
Jefferson City MO 65101

Friday, February 17, 2012

Local S. Baptist College, Hannibal-LaGrange University, opposes to the Obama Administration’s mandate that health insurance plans cover contraceptives

February 12, 2012

NEWS RELEASE

Reference: Dr. Terry M. Buster, Chairman, HLGU Board of Trustees

Official Position of the HLGU Board of Trustees

Hannibal, MO – Hannibal-LaGrange University participates in the group medical plan

of GuideStone Financial Resources. The plan is available to all eligible employees of HLGU

and their dependents. It is not available to students of Hannibal-LaGrange.

GuideStone’s group medical plan does not cover abortion, abortifacients, or emergency

contraceptives, procedures, services or medication that would yield similar results.

The health care reform mandated by the Obama administration contains contraception

coverage as part of those requirements. GuideStone’s group medical plan, as is the case with

most plans in the nation, could eventually be subject those contraceptive coverage requirements

unless appropriate religious accommodations are granted. GuideStone does not and will not

provide abortive contraceptives.

Hannibal-LaGrange University is in total opposition to the Obama Administration’s

mandate that health insurance plans cover contraceptives, including ones that can cause

abortions. We believe that this decision to require schools like Hannibal-LaGrange University to

provide to its employees medical coverage which covers abortion-inducing contraceptives is an

affront to our religious liberties. We strongly oppose any Governmental edict that infringes on

fundamentals of our beliefs.

At Hannibal-LaGrange University we firmly believe that God holds human life to be

sacred. We strongly object to legislation that mandates providing abortion coverage (Plan B,

Ella, morning after pill, or RU-486) to our employees and their dependents.

We join our health care provider, GuideStone, in their effort to have this mandate

removed from our health plan.

Thursday, February 16, 2012

Stop Ultra Liberal Judicial Nominee Jesse Furman!

Stop Ultra Liberal Judicial Nominee Jesse Furman!

This Friday, the Senate will vote on a Cloture motion to end discussion and move to final confirmation of Jesse M. Furman, whom President Obama has nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Furman is considered one of Obama’s most radical and controversial nominees. We need you to call your Senators and tell them to vote NO on Cloture on Jesse Furman’s confirmation for the following reasons:

Furman has actively advocated against religious freedom.

In 2001, Furman joined in filing an amicus brief in the landmark Supreme Court case of Good News Club v. Milford Central School, seeking to ban a Christian organization from using public school property, outside of school hours, even when the use was clearly not a school sponsored event. The Supreme Court soundly rejected Furman’s invitation to legislate from the bench.

Furman singled out Christians and declared that First Amendment free speech rights do not extend to Christians because they do not “promote cohesion among a heterogeneous democratic people.”

In his amicus brief in the Good News Club case, Furman argued:

“In short, while the public school is ‘[d]esigned to serve as perhaps the most powerful agency for promoting cohesion among a heterogeneous democratic people,’ the Good News Club is designed to do quite the opposite: to label children as either ‘saved’ or ‘unsaved’ and, thus, to promote religious belief in general and Christian belief in particular. Indeed, the Good News Club expressly teaches that adherence to a particular faith is essential to one's standing in the community — that those who 'have received the Lord Jesus as [their] Savior from sin … belong to God's special group — His family.' "

Furman characterized all of traditional Christianity as intolerant, and arrogantly declared that a “categorical exclusion of that [Christian] speech as both a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral limitation, consistent with the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, and as a limitation mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.”

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

Cool Teachers' Resource - Classroom Videos on entrepreneurship, property rights, free trade, global warming, and personal responsibility

I found out about "izzit.org" reading a Heritage Foundation publication; it's for teachers of 4th - 12th grade students.
Ultimately, Chitester and Mead want to help teachers get their students to think for themselves about the role of government in their lives; they want the kids to always ask themselves: Who’s choosing? 
izzit.org provides teachers with high-quality educational videos and accompanying lesson plans on range of topics. These include entrepreneurship, property rights, free trade, global warming, and personal responsibility.   
Read an entire interview with the creators of izzit.org here.