Mark Begich's Parade of Trans-Democrats aka Fake Republicans

Yes, there is another Begich ad on the airwaves, and yes, it has in it once again a phony Republican. Why is Mark Begich trying so hard to scare up Republican support? Does he think Alaskans are stupid? He must, because he keeps repeating the same mistakes.

First, Mark Begich tried to dress up Jim Whitaker as Republican. Jim Whitaker is nothing more than a Trans-Democrat; he dresses up and pretends to be a Republican at election time in much the same way that some people cross genders for Halloween.

After realizing that most Alaskans remember "Republican" Jim Whitaker giving the nomination speech for Barack Obama at the Democratic National Convention in 2008, Sen. Mark Begich turned his attention south to Anchorage. In his search he produced an almost obscure character, almost sympathetic at first blush, as an "Independent Republican," named Skip Nelson.

Well, at least Jim Whitaker is actually registered Republican. This fellow isn't even registered Republican, he is just another crony capitalist "cashing in" during the Obama years, although at one time, it seems, he was patriotic enough to serve our nation honorably. However, he is still a trans-Democrat today.

Who is Skip Nelson? 

Now, for those readers who are Sourdoughs, you might best remember Robert C. "Skip" Nelson as one of the big honchos for Yute Airlines back in the "PFD Airline Coupon" days of the 1990s. Like Mark Air, Yute was another small commuter service competing for a share of the regional commuter market.  Nelson arrived in Alaska sometime after he retired from the Air Force in 1994 and landed a position with Yute Air.  As some may recall, this was the hay-day of the PFD coupon, where flights could be acquired at a very low cost for a coupon from the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend Airline Coupon. Like all booms and busts in Alaska, this boom went bust in the late 1990s. The airlines went bankrupt and left a bit of a mess in Hanger 11 in Bethel. Now, to his credit, Skip Nelson did get the matter cleaned up, and he attempted to resurrect the airlines through a holding company. He used the trademark YuteAir, and it did have some flights for a time. But since it was clear that the airline coupon days were gone, Skip moved on to bigger and better things.

Fast forward to the Obama environment.  Nelson managed to get in on the ground floor of a deal with  ADS-B systems. This is a satellite based traffic control system that was mandated for full implementation by 2020 in the FAA Reauthorization Act.  With modest accommodations at Merrill Field, a U.S. Senator in his back pocket, and spiffy White House connections from his military days, Skip Nelson was going to change his fortunes through another government boondoggle.

Bundling for Democrats

It seems in March 2011, while the rest of us watched the Japan Disaster, Arab Spring, and Presidential primary speeches,  Skip Nelson and Doug Johnson worked with Mark Begich to assemble a Democratic Party Steering and Outreach Committee. It wasn't exactly secret, people were just distracted by other events. The two men wrote a piece dated 27 March 2011 in the  Alaska Dispatch describing how they were putting together. I'm not sure how it was missed by the GOP in their responses to the Begich Ads, but the article is available here.  Yes, I have a screen shot in case the page magically changes or goes missing.

This is how bundling begins. One gathers one's fellow craftsman for a day of smoozing, or um, learning about how to improve the business environment.




Now, what one has to realize here that it isn't just one contribution that matters. It is the "aggregate" of the industry that counts. There are pages and pages of donations to Mark Begich of Aviation companies, related vendors, and software companies who stand to benefit from the implementation of ADS-B. Furthermore, it isn't just aviation- the key to the success of ADS-B is that there be global internet access. That means getting internet access everywhere. The "Broad-Band for the Bush" initiative that is part of common core? That is a ruse.

Broadband in the Bush is for this program; it isn't for the children after all. But if getting the state to foot the bill through the education budget under the guise of new education standards works, why not?

Amazingly, a fellow who could never contribute more that $10.00 to any political activity before Obama was president, he is now able to spare more than a few pennies for Mark Begich.





For all of the ADS-B system's flaws, like its ease with which it can be hacked, a U.S. Senator named Mark Begich managed to insert into the FAA Reauthorization Act a requirement mandating ADS-B system compliance by 2020. Millions will be made, and you can certain guess that Skip Nelson, or his heirs, will be very comfortable.

Never mind that the system is hackable with very modest level equipment, and that the FAA and ADS-B knew of those security issues when they made their pitch to the FAA. The security of the system is of little concern when a case of Crony Capitalism sets in. What matters is that major Democratic bundlers benefit.

Skip Nelson is going to make millions, because Begich got the FAA to require his product. That is perhaps the most revealing proof of Skip Nelson's true political leanings.

A Republican in Spirit? 

While I could write far more on the crony activities concerning the ADS-B system related industry, but that isn't the purpose of today's entry. I don't begrudge an honest business man making an honest buck in the marketplace. Nor is it my point is to smear a Navy Veteran.  My point is to examine the claim that Robert C. "Skip" Nelson can be considered a Republican by any reasonable standard during his time in Alaska, or at least since 2000.

Let's put the facts together.
1) The man isn't a registered Republican, and appears to have not been in the past 14 years.

2) Nelson, along with another noted Democratic donor, sat on a Democratic Steering and Outreach
    Committee in 2011 for Mark Begich.

3) Nelson has donated to Mark Begich and raised money for him.

4) Mark Begich is so vested in this guy's future, that Begich arranged for Michael Huerta, the Acting Head of     the FAA to come to visit him in May 2014.

5) His fortunes have radically improved during the Obama Administration while other industries languish.

Outside of Nelson's statement that he has been a Republican and grew up playing with stuffed elephants, there is not enough evidence to convict him in a court of law of being a Republican if it was a crime. In contrast, there is enough evidence to convict this man of being a Democrat, or at least,  for Barack Obama and Mark Begich to identify this man as a Democrat.

Trans-Democraticism

I do not understand why Begich's folks try to hide they are Democrats, even to the point of claiming to be Republicans?  If Mark Begich has such strong Republican support, why does he keep trying to dress up Democrats to look and act like Republicans?  If they don't want to be a Democrat, they can switch parties. Why lie about who you are?

Who will be the next Trans-Democrat? Will Vic Fischer himself come out and attempt to claim he is a Republican supporting Mark Begich? No, it will have to be someone so obscure that their business is not in the Google search engine. Attempting to pawn off the man who gave the nomination speech in 2008 for Barack Obama as a Republican supporting Mark Begich is absurd. Dressing up someone on your steering committee for whom you have secured a market monopoly and has never been a registered Republican is equally absurd.

But like every other election in Alaska, Democrats like to disguise who they are and hope that they can trick Alaskans into believing they are "sort of" Republican through the election cycle. They then go back to their typical liberal ways.

Post Script: In all fairness to Mr. Nelson, I am including the bio he submitted during the Yute Air bankruptcy. I will leave it to others to do their due diligence.

A Respite At The New York Post's Kyle Smith & His Review Of Sarah Palin's Channel

This weekend, the  New York Post featured a review of  Sarah Palin's news channel by Kyle Smith. I guess when Eric Holder isn't around to launch a progressive attack, you send out one of the most hated movie critics in America, right?

This is one of the most anti-Catholic, anti-Christian, anti-Jewish Presidents that has ever sat in the White House. Yet Kyle Smith attacks Sarah Palin's Pay-per-view channel? I guess Barack Obama gets a bye from him?



Smith's review  is heavy on snark and weak on substance. While he pens copious amounts of juvenile literary devices, but rather lacks substantive evidence of his claims. In fact, he has no substance at all, no information or basis for anything, he merely uses phrases that he probably picked up at the local tavern.

His opening salvo calls her a "Mad Prophetess."  He attempts to make the case that she is angry and bitter. Honestly, I thought that moniker went to Andrew Halicro, not Sarah Palin. But let's play with Kyle Smith's portrayal for the moment. Is anger wrong in this case? Can anger be righteous in this instance? Let's consider the state of affairs today.  Is Kyle Smith  fine with ISIS having Iraq? Is he good with Obama Care and the way it has been implemented? Is Smith "all good" with Obama's treatment of the Catholic Church? The persecution of Christians that has ensued even in our own military, is Mr. Smith fine with that?

What is the further basis of his critique? It is full of Palin content. Wow, really? If I subscribed to Palin's channel and saw hours of Glen Beck, Shep Smith, Glozella, or Larry King, I think I would be a bit upset. If I subscribe to a Sarah Palin channel, I want to see Sarah Palin. Being "heavy on Palin" means she provides what she advertises, which is actually quite refreshing in this day and age.

Smith characterizes Palin's channel further when he states, "It’s as if “Wayne’s World” woke up one morning and decided to be “Meet the Press.”  Wayne's World? Wayne's World? Gosh, I thought that was the Choom Gang in the White House on Pennsylvania Avenue, not the "Thrilla of Lake Wasilla." But let's just put the optics out there plainly and let the reader decide.

Waynes World Test

1. Which one looks like they would say, "Party on, Wayne!"   

2. Which one looks like they would quote Wayne and say "A gun rack... a gun rack. Shyeah, Right! I don't even own A gun, let alone many guns that would necessitate an entire rack. What am I gonna do... with a gun rack?"

 3. Which one looks like they would quote Garth and say, "If she were a president she would be Babe-raham Lincoln."  

4. Which one looks like they would share Wayne's self description of past private sector employment as "I have an extensive collection of name tags and hairnets" 

PS: Remember the only private sector job Barack Obama ever held was in an ice cream shop.

Hat-Tip Mr. Smith: Wayne's World isn't in Wasilla, Alaska; it is on Pennsylvania Avenue. The Thrilla of Wasilla is more the Unsinkable Molly Brown, than Garth or Wayne. I would expect a good Catholic to see this, but apparently your ability to see across the continent is perhaps clouded by garden of turbulence left in Bloomberg's wake in your city. Perhaps you need to get out of the city more often, where the rest of America lives. 

Mr Smith in Context

As Christians are persecuted world wide, as rawafidh a wholesale slaughtered, as Jews are attacked in Germany, Paris, and the Middle East, as President Obama issues Ramadan Greetings, demands Israel quit defending itself, and engages in Rocky Mountain High visits... Mr. Smith, attacks Palin for pointing out that perhaps it is time to boot this man out of the White House? 

It seems to be a very strange assignment for the New York Post to set upon Smith, who is a movie critic, not a news editor. After all, he doesn't normally write reviews of news organizations. His most recent targets have been really cutting edge stuff like, ScarJo's brain kicks butt in action flick 'Lucy', and Philip Seymour Hoffman's last serious film is a thin spy drama. As Christians globally are being attacked with U.S. dollars, as our borders are besieged, Smith takes on the weighty cultural issues such as Scarjoe.

In all due seriousness, intellectual stuff, really smart stuff, and news organizations are rarely fodder for Smith, for he tends to gravitate toward things that allow him to be sublimely sarcastic. He thrives on penning critiques that are full of alliteration that he gleaned at the pub, assuming there is one that still serves him.  It is what makes Smith feel superior and assuages the little man, and is probably why he is one of the most hated movie critics in the market today according to Studio 360. 

Posters that filled New York Subways

Kyle occasionally enters into cultural areas, but really hasn't been very successful. Recently he wrote an attack piece aimed at waiters and other restaurant servers in the New York area. The result was signs all over the subways and streets of New York began to appear that were not too flattering in their estimation of Kyle Smith. Indeed, his commentary really displayed his elitist mentality when he wrote,

"Frankly, garçon, I don't even need to know your name. You're a servant. So serve."

His clear disdain for the working people who purchase the New York Post drips from his reviews.Given that Kyle Smith likes his servants silently serving, one can only speculate how he likes his women and how many copies of "Shades of Gray" are on his shelf. I don't even understand why he is employed by the New York Post.

But what would one expect from a man who proudly wears the "Torquemada of the Tabloid" moniker with such pride? Yes, that is what he actually told Joe Coscarelli at the New York Post. He stated,

        "...if I can inflict a little bit of pain during the day, I sleep better at night. Call me Tabloid Torquemada."

For those who didn't spend a few years of their life in a library cubical outside the Medieval Institute at the University of Notre Dame, Torquemada was one of the early Inquisitors, noted for torturing thousands and ushered in one of the most regrettable chapters of Catholic and Spanish history.  He was particularly noted for his heinous treatment of women and Jews. As the Grand Inquisitor in the Spanish Inquisition, Torquemada work set the stage for subsequent persecutions of Jews in later generations. Water cures, racks, ropes and scaffolds were the tools of Torquemada's trade, and he wrote the guidelines of torture for the Inquisition.

That is who Kyle Smith is proud to claim as his role model. If one wants to select a Dominican monk, there are hundreds to chose from who are far more scholarly and humane than Torquemada. Yet, Smith selects a Jew-hating celibate known for torture as his hero over other other Dominicans like  St. Aquinas or St. Augustine.

This is the same Kyle Smith who gives Palin a bad review on her pay per view for having "too much Palin." 

Sarah Palin is not accountable to me, and my opinion is unsolicited. She is a private citizen who can do as she pleases. She is her own woman and it is for her to forge her own path. She is answerable to God, Todd, and the mirror and anyone to whom she chooses to be accountable.  I rather doubt the New York Post and Kyle Smith are on the list.

In the meantime, Kyle Smith really needs psychiatric care. I hope that Obama Care is able to accommodate his needs.

Congressman Don Young: This is a Monarch Under This Administration!

For a member of the "old guard," I'd say Don Young still has fire in his belly. Sometimes he gets me angry, but sometimes he redeems himself. This is one of those where he redeems himself. This is epic.

"I wish the people on that side of the aisle would stay out of my state."

Amen and Amen!

"This is a Monarchy under this administration!"

"It isn't Maryland's water, it is Alaska's water"

"You are following that pied piper over a cliff!.. and destroying the Constitution of the United States of America.... it is our body [Congress] that should be running this country. 

Our Body! Not the President! And you say we have to follow the President ...we should be leading this country as the United States Congress, the Congress of the People...."


Anyone who has any doubts as whether President Obama should be impeached should watch this. He doesn't ever use the word, but the conclusion is inescapable. A law suit isn't going to cut it folks, this President needs to be impeached.

Misguided Notions On The Blaine Amendment and Their Application To Vouchers

Recently, it has become popular among some in Alaska to push for the repeal of the Blaine Amendment. It is indeed a very strange thing that advocates of voucher style programs seemed to believe that the Blaine Amendment precludes vouchers. It is also strange that after 50 some odd years, Alaskans are now learning they are anti-Catholic bigots.

Really?

Let's play a fantasy game for a moment. In this fantasy,  let's assume that by fiat, vouchers became the law in Alaska. Why then, does the Blaine Amendment need to be repealed?


It doesn't. There is no need to repeal it at all. There is nothing in Alaska law that is stopping the state from a voucher program. There is nothing to prevent the establishment of a private school in Alaska. There are supreme court cases, but those cases only apply if the school is religious. For a private secular school, there is no barrier.  There is nothing to stop the state from paying for a child to attend that school over another school. Several private companies have had schools in the past, and there is no reason why one or more of these companies could not come up to Alaska and establish, or reestablish a school.

The truth of the matter is that Alaska is a leader in school choice. You can home school with or without public money. You can go to a publicly funded brick school, or use a correspondence academy, work off your tuition at a protestant school, or take a second job and pay for a Catholic school.  We don't "need no stinking vouchers," Alaska has choice. The only place where there isn't choice is in Anchorage, where a few bureaucrats with a tiny bit of authority have abused their authority, or in rural areas where the population size restricts viability of options locally.

Now, the problem emerges when the school is religious; but it does not when it is secular. There are several women across the state who run "academies" in their home. A few  use the virtual academy on line, have computer stations set up in their garage, and they run min-schools. They bill their services for tutoring to the correspondence program. The district pays for the login. The parents provide the transportation. It is already happening without the legislature. They are not religious in teaching but Christian in culture. It is already happening.

How can this be you might ask? Because Alaskan women just do it, that is why. Choice does not require a voucher. A voucher is simply symbolic.

The big obstacle for public funding of religious private school is Everson V. Board of Education 330 U.S. 1 (1947).

There is nothing to stop a non-profit from starting a school. If Green Peace felt so moved, they could open a school. If CPG wanted to organize a private school, they could too. The barrier to opening a school may involve credentials and accreditation, but these are straightforward to obtain. The headache begins with the acceptance of public funds, but still is not that horrible if one is not a religious school.

The sticky part is if you are a private school that accepts public funds, are you then still a private school? But that is an issue of nomenclature and semantics. In the final analysis, there is nothing to stop the legislature from a voucher program, UNLESS the only viable alternatives are religious schools.

They are not the only viable option.

What is all this noise about the Blaine Amendment, then?

How is it in all the battles that Milton Friedman fought to get voucher programs implemented, there is not one mention of the Blaine Amendment?  There is talk of every other factor, but not one time is the Blaine Amendment mentioned.

The Blaine Amendment has nothing really to do with vouchers because in a voucher plan, the money goes to the parents to turn over to the school. If people took the time to learn about Blaine, and vouchers, they would see there is some other agenda here, and it has little to do, ultimately, with vouchers.

Prior to his service in the political world, Blaine was a math teacher at a private academy. He held his first faculty position at the age of 18 and was a leader in mathematics education and a noted historian. He was a voracious abolitionist, and cared passionately about freedom. He helped organized the Maine militia in the Civil War, and came to political service through war efforts.  He was also one of the founders of the Republican party, and is often regarded as the congressman who laid the foundation for the growth of America's naval superiority in this century. He ran for president unsuccessfully against Grover Cleveland, but later served as Sec. of State under Benjamin Harrison.

His followers were devoted and he had a considerable national following. They were often called "half-breeds." He was a deeply religious man, who believed in limited government, except for National Defense, and today would be very comfortable in the conservative movement. As Speaker of the House, he left an indelible mark on America.

Blaine lived in a "pre-Gitlow" world from before the Civil War to 1893.  During the era in which he lived, the court system held that the bill of rights only applied to the Federal government; the courts had ruled that it did not apply to state government. This changed later, first with Gitlow v New York in 1925,  in then in the  1940s with Cantwell v Connecticut.  In that case, the state of Connecticut attempted to require Jehovah Witnesses to get a permit to go door to door to hand out Bible Tracts, and they were jailed by the state of Connecticut for that. The Supreme Court held that Free Speech and Religious liberty applied to the states.

James Blaine was a devote abolitionist. He sought to end slavery not only on U.S. soil, but on foreign shores as well, which motivated his desire to build the Navy that George Washington wrote about. Domestically, he fought for religious liberties and the application of the Bill of Rights to apply to the states, particularly where freeman were being denied those rights. Efforts to paint him a bigot were lodged from at the time by those with financial interests in the slave system, peonage, and those who sought to suppress the rights of former, but they were not particularly successful in their day. Robert Ingersall, who knew Blaine from his days in the Civil War and beyond said of Blaine,

Like an armed warrior, like a plumed knight, James G. Blaine from the state of Maine marched down the halls of the American Congress and threw his shining lance full and fair against the brazen foreheads of every traitor to his country..

For Blaine was adamant that the Bill of Rights should apply to all people by both the Federal Government and the state.  Imagine wanting so novel as having the Bill of Rights apply to State Government? The Blaine Amendment stated:

"No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and no money raised by taxation in any State for the support of public schools, or derived from any public fund therefor, nor any public lands devoted thereto, shall ever be under the control of any religious sect; nor shall any money so raised or lands so devoted be divided between religious sects or denominations."

The intent on the part of the Grant administration was to force state and local governments to provide free public education in their state. The Grant Administration wanted the states to take over the Freedman schools.  The states in the south, under reconstruction, were not willing to do so. In that system, whites attended state funded church schools and others attended federally funded Freedman Bureau schools. The idea was for the state governments to take over the Freedman schools and provide a system of education for everyone.

Senator Edmund, who was a major defender of the Amendment, stated that generalized ideas could receive funds, but not those that were "sectarian" or unique to a particular denomination. Thus, those things that were based on sectarian (denomination unique) principles, such as a papal document or a prophecy by Ellen White, or a decree by a Mormon Elder would make something sectarian. However, relying on generally accepted religious principles of Biblical doctrine would be acceptable.


Those who opposed the Blaine Amendment might have screamed "anti-Catholic bigotry," but the larger question really did not involve Catholics to a great extent. At that time, Louisiana remained the stronghold of the Catholic Church; most of the south was of other faiths.  Most of the states at which the legislation was aimed was in the south, and Catholics were not prolific there. Those in the south who opposed public education used the bigotry argument to attack Northern Republicans who had strongly Catholic urban voting blocks.

There was also the "Mormon Question" but in reality, Blaine (from Maine) was fairly far removed from that. The unexpected battle that emerged from the Blaine amendment was really from Mormons out west, where Mormon schools were funded with in a state that was overwhelmingly Mormon. One could readily argued that the principles of Mormonism were generalized in Utah and most likely would have won had the amendment succeeded just as one could have made the case in Louisiana for Catholicism.

The reality is that the anti- Blaine Amendment argument is grounded in anti-Catholic religious bigotry is propaganda that was used by the Democratic party at that time against Republicans. They were acting on the interest of former slave owners and using that rhetoric in Northern communities to fight the amendment on the ground of the northern Congressman. It wasn't an accusation lodged originally by the Catholic Church but by forces who sought to use the Catholic Church for their own political ends.

Alaska was not a state at this time, and the major forces at the time of statehood in Alaska was not the Roman Catholic Church. The Orthodox Church had a presence, as did the Brethren. The Episcopal Church was well established in the North country, and the south was primarily Presbyterian. There were other religions, but those that were heavily involved in education in the territorial era, the time the Statehood Charter was enacted, were the latter three. There would be no basis for "anti-Catholic bigotry" as such, because they were not a major player in education at that time. The system really hurt was the Episcopal system, and it had a devastating affect on the North County in particular.

But I find no evidence of religious bigotry against Catholics among Alaska's constitutional framers.

Now,  I have often thought they were socialist, but hardly religious bigots. One writer of the constitution, Vic Fisher, is still alive. Every time the Democratic party is losing an argument they wheel out Vic Fisher to contribute his "framers intent" and verify some socialist program or another they are trying to shove down the throats of Alaskans are really consistent with the state Constitution's provisions and reflects the "framers' intent."  It is enough to make a conservative gag at the sound of his name. I can say a lot about Vic Fischer, but this concept that he is anti-Catholic I find rather strange. There is simply no evidence of it.

Indeed, has it escaped the notice of the State legislature that Monroe Catholic Schools and Immaculate Conception have bus service in Fairbanks? And Fairhill? Has it escaped the legislature's notice that Brigham Young University's curriculum was used originally by the FNSB for correspondence education? That Son Light's CDs are available for purchase through correspondence?  Machen's Greek text, which leads to the translation of the Gospel of John, can be purchased with state dollars, as can Wheelock, which is used to teach Latin and involves translating several religious texts.

Bibles can be ordered too, for classes in which the "Bible as literature" are taught. They simply aren't because the notion of a state Bible is repulsive to Christians.

I would think differently of the matter if those who were active in the mission field or those who were known religious leaders were out there advocating for the repeal of this amendment. That is not what I see. I see people who have no particular experience or reputation in the missions community out there suddenly making statements.

What church wants their data in P-20W data base?

 At present, I do not see the religious leaders on this issue at all. In fact, I've seen many register concern that if they accepted state dollars, that they might be subject to state directives, tests, standards, and inspections. While the current governor has Christian values, one can never predict what views future Governors might have. The potential for abuse is enormous. Even with a friendly governor, the federal government, through the data reporting provisions of the No Child Left Behind waiver has seen fit to make the parochial schools who accept vouchers in Louisiana quite miserable. Does someone think that Alaska would be exempt from Eric Holder's inquisitive nature?

Furthermore, vouchers with the common core standards isn't much of a choice, is it? All one is really choosing is the drapes, the carpet, and the environment.

Is this really about "anti-Catholic" bigotry? Or is this about something else? In all the years I attended Catholic universities, I never ONCE heard of anti-Catholic BIGOTRY. This is a strange argument to my ears. The Bigotry Argument was always waged by Islamists at Catholics, not at Catholics toward Protestants and Anabaptist.

Howbeit that this issue emerges out of nowhere right when a Mosque is opening in Anchorage? Perhaps Mr. Gulen is lining the pockets of some...And trying to cause problems where there has been peace among the brethren.

That is how I see it. If you want real change, stop common core. I see nothing preventing the state from implementing a voucher system, except the political will. The notion that one must removed the Blaine Amendment has no foundation unless one accepts the idea that ONLY religious institutions can offer private education.

Joy Reid and MSNBC owe the Palin-Heath family a MAJOR apology.

Joy Reid and MSNBC owe the Palin-Heath family a MAJOR apology.

On the Mr. Ed Show, guest host Joy Reid attacked Governor Palin for having Christmas trees in her photos of Christmas. The basis of the attack was Jeremiah chapter 10. Of course, Reid doesn't consider the entire chapter of Jeremiah or the historical context of the chapter, she merely cherry picks a part of the passage that is useful to her argument. She also ignores other salient Bible verses that give Jeremiah's words meaning.

The attack by Reid is based on photos of Palin's childhood used in a Fox special. Thus, this attack wasn't really on Sarah Palin as much as it was an attack on her parents, the Heaths. Gov. Palin, as a child, did not decide her environment, but her parents did. So Reid is really attacking Gov. Palin's parents, even though it was intended as an attack on Governor Palin herself.

So, let's take a look at the attack.



For reasons that I will not belabor, I am EXTREMELY knowledgeable of this section of Jeremiah.  Joy Reid is wrong. She shows that she did not read the verse herself. She did not research it, and she is speaking as someone not well steeped in the history of the scriptures.  Her error comes from ignorance and a lack of serious study of the scriptures.

Now, notice that Reid uses the NIV (the nearly inspired version) and only uses part of the verse. Here is what Reid claims Jeremiah 10:10 says

"For the practices of the peoples are worthless; they cut a tree out of the forest, and a craftsman shapes it with his chisel. They adorn it with silver and gold; they fasten it with hammer and nails so it will not totter. Like a scare crow in a cucumber field, their idols cannot speak; they must be carried because they cannot walk. Do not fear them; they can do no harm nor can they do any good."

Several issues are salient here.

1) First, the passage is not even Jeremiah 10:10, which just shows that Reid didn't actually find the verse herself in the Bible. She is merely reading a script, and has not done any of the work behind the script.  If she had, she would have known that the passage she read was Jeremiah 10: 3-5. The passage she quotes isn't even Jeremiah 10:10. Jeremiah 10:10 in the NIV states,

"But the LORD is the true God; he is the living God, the eternal King. When he is angry, the earth trembles; the nations cannot endure his wrath."


A wise warning to a nation. It would have been useful had Joy Reid read that passage, but she did not. What she read was 3-5, so she doesn't even know what she is reading.

2) Further note the verse that Reid reads refers to  "shapes it with his chisel." Now, I don't know what Joy Reid does with Christmas trees, but in my humble opinion,  I do not believe that most people shape their Christmas tree with a chisel. That is an activity of a carpenter making something out of the tree.  Chisels are used by carpenters to carve the wood or to debark it.  This is a clear reference to someone making an idol, or furniture, or something from the tree. This is not a reference to a decorated Christmas tree.

3) The passage Joy Reid sites is incomplete. The full passage gives the real meaning of the verse. It begins with verse 2-6, and is a very clear reference to a specific group of people. It was not a reference to Christians, because there were no Christians or Christmas trees at that time. In looking at the complete text, that will become obvious. In the King James version it states,

"2 Thus saith the Lord, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them.

3 For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe.

4 They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.

5 They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good.

6 Forasmuch as there is none like unto thee, O Lord; thou art great, and thy name is great in might."

A close examination of the passage here is very informative and allows the readers to identify who is being referenced in Jeremiah Chapter 10. It begins with "being dismayed at the signs of the heavens." The reference to signs seems more fitting to astrology, or a civilization that relied on astrology, like perhaps the Babylonians, or the Chaldean people, who were about to lay siege to Jerusalem led by this guy named Nebuchadnezzar. Further, notice that type of tree referenced is a palm tree, so these are people of the middle east, or a place where Palm trees grow. They were people who decorate things carved out of wood with gold and silver, using chisels,  nails, hammers  and metal plating on the item Jeremiah is discussing in this passage. Seriously, I don't know many people who hammer and nail a Christmas tree, or chisel a tree.  This sounds more like making a pagan idol or perhaps an ornate chair.


4) The historical context rules out the Jeremiah referencing Christmas anything, from trees to anything else Christmas related. Christmas is Christ's mass. Recall that Christians were not even identified as such during the life of Christ, and they were called followers of "the Way" during the immediate era after the resurrection and regarded as a sect of Judaism. This is long after Jeremiah was alive. He lives long before Jesus Christ, and long before the time of the Maccabees. Mathew 1:17 confirms that there are 14 generations between Jeremiah and Jesus, so there is no way that Jeremiah is speaking to the Christians in that verse.


5) Reid misapplies the historical context of the verses she reads. With  the correct passage identified and the characteristics of the people identified and historical context has been identified, who is Jeremiah talking about?

The passage tells the reader that the people he is referring to a nation that looked to the stars to their fortunes, made idols out wood, plated them with gold, and that they stood upright like a palm tree. The civilization existed 14 generations before the birth of Christ. Is it possible that Jeremiah is referring to the Babylonian-Chaldean people that were outside the gates of the city of Jerusalem attacking them?

Jeremiah is telling them not to be afraid. Recall that Jeremiah was telling the people of Jerusalem to surrender to them and not be afraid of them, but also not to adopt their habits and customs. Jeremiah was writing inside of Jerusalem, as was another prophet of the same time named Habakkuk. Daniel was also alive at the same time, but Daniel was already in Babylonian captivity.

Notice what it says in Habakkuk 2:19, which is often regarded as a companion verse to this passage in Jeremiah. Habakkuk was the son of a Levite writes in   Habakkuk 2:17-19,

"For the violence of Lebanon shall cover thee, and the spoil of beasts, which made them afraid, because of men's blood, and for the violence of the land, of the city, and of all that dwell therein.

 What profiteth the graven image that the maker thereof hath graven it; the molten image, and a teacher of lies, that the maker of his work trusteth therein, to make dumb idols?

Woe unto him that saith to the wood, Awake; to the dumb stone, Arise, it shall teach! Behold, it is laid over with gold and silver, and there is no breath at all in the midst of it."

Or for those who prefer the NIV,

The violence you have done to Lebanon will overwhelm you,
    and your destruction of animals will terrify you.
For you have shed human blood;
    you have destroyed lands and cities and everyone in them.

18 “Of what value is an idol carved by a craftsman?
    Or an image that teaches lies?
For the one who makes it trusts in his own creation;
    he makes idols that cannot speak.
19 Woe to him who says to wood, ‘Come to life!’
    Or to lifeless stone, ‘Wake up!’
Can it give guidance?
    It is covered with gold and silver;
    there is no breath in it.”

There is further confirmation of this in the book of Daniel. There is a discussion in that book of an incident that involves the failure to bow down to an idol when a dulcimer and a sackbut were played. Some guys get tossed into a furnace for their failure to bow to the idol, and they survive the flames.  The reader can find this in Daniel Chapter 3.

Now, there is a chance that Jeremiah was not referring to the Chaldean people. He could have been referring to the Persians. There is an extra-canonical texts called "Bel and the Dragon" that begins with a discussion of an idol believed to be alive. Maybe Jeremiah was referring to Persians? But it is unlikely, because by the time Daniel is with the Persians, Jeremiah is long in Egypt teaching in Alexandria, if he is alive at all. There doesn't seem to be a correspondence between Daniel and Jeremiah at that point.

Whether Jeremiah was referencing Persians or Chaldean people is not certain. What is certain is that Jeremiah was NOT referencing Christians and Christmas trees.

Going back to the original verse in Jeremiah, it is clear that Jeremiah is warning the Jewish people not to learn the ways of the Chaldean-Babylonian people.  The Chaldean people worshiped the stars and constellations, they made idols and plated them with gold and silver. Jeremiah was saying to the Jewish people not to learn the ways of the pagans while they were in captivity, but keep their Jewish faith.

 The reference by Jeremiah is clearly not referring to Christians since there were no Christians at that time and it predates Christ himself by 14 generations. Further, the tradition of a "Christmas Tree" or a yule tree is from Europe, not Africa or the Middle East. It is unlikely that Jeremiah would have had contact with Norseman and followers of Odin, although I won't say it was impossible.Tales of Tea-Tephi notwithstanding, even those tales place Jeremiah's contact with the Irish long after the capture of Jerusalem and long after the reference was written.

Or perhaps Joy Reid is defending the Anglo centered views of Herbert W. Armstrong in her attack on Palin? Is Reid claiming that Jeremiah is Ollam Fodhla? That is the only way that Reid can claim that Jeremiah was referencing Norseman. But even then, one would expect Jeremiah to reference spruce trees, not palm trees.

 If Jeremiah did encounter Norseman, it was likely to have been long after he established the school of the prophets in Egypt after the remnant of the Jews were in captivity by the Chaldean, or Babylonians. The description of the text and the historical context point to Jeremiah referencing idols of the Chaldean-Babylonian time or of the Persians. It is virtually  impossible for it to have been a reference to Christmas trees unless Reid is advocating the Armstrong historic view. Even then, those would be Yule tide logs, not trees celebrating Christ's mass.

Joy Reid owes Governor Palin a major apology. Even more so, she owes the parents of Governor Palin an apology. In every way, Governor Palin has abides by Ephesians 6: 1-2. Palin, in showing those pictures, was paying homage to her parents. She was honoring them, something that seemed to escape Reid.

The next time Joy Reid wants to attack Christmas, she should read some Oliver Cromwell, Hugh Latimer, or Cotton Mathers. They all had cogent Christian arguments against the celebration of December 25th. But the argument Reid poses is historical wrong and reflects the poor scholarship and research of MSNBC.

The Shrinking Private Sector

Research by Hall and Greene show the private sector shrinking in 41 states relative to 2007. The state in worst shape is Nevada, which has a private sector 13% smaller than 2007. My guess? The DOJ's war on gambling.

Kirk Johnson of the New York Times recently wrote a piece describing Governor Palin’s Alaskan legacy as something that Democrats can like. I find the piece troublesome for it leaves out a tremendous amount of information. I am writing to set that record straight. At the outset, I should note that I am writing through the lens of one of the few people in Alaska whom Parnell might regard as an actual “Frienemy.” The term “dear Doctor” has been applied from time to time, I have been a donor, a supporter, and a critic.  I have been deeply disappointed with Parnell on a variety of issues, particularly his deceptive venture into committing Alaska to the Common Core Initiative while denying he has done so. In fact, the only major policy initiative of Governor Parnell that I have supported is the reform of oil taxes, and even that he bungled the marketing miserably.

However, my point at present is to comment on issues surrounding Johnson’s piece with  information  he fails to  present. He paints a picture of Palin based on a man who was incredibly hateful toward Governor Palin, and that is Andrew Halcro.Andrew Halcro's favorite past time is to besmirch the Governor, and he delights in painting her as a leftist socialist wacko. If I was going to ask ANYONE in Alaska about Sarah Palin, the very last person I would talk to is Andrew. A bit of history here is worth noting to understand the history of that resentment.

Governor Murkowski had been elected in an effort to repel from office that horrible evil Governor Tony Knowles. Knowles was without a doubt the worst Governor and a proto-type for Barack Obama, a buddy of George Kaiser and a devoted socialist. Alaskans were desperate to get this man out of office, and Murkowski had agreed to run with Loren Leman grab the governorship. It was a tacit agreement between the populist, the Christian Conservatives and  the GOP establishment. I remember vividly when the deal was struck, and I know the time and place. Murkowski had been what many of us regarded as a good senator. It was tough to lose him, but Alaskans were desperate beyond desperate.

 Murkowski did some good things as governor, and that is deserving of its own op-ed.  We all had high hopes for him, and Alaskans were grateful for an end of the door to door searches, the evening snatch and grab squads, and the goons that preyed upon the people of Alaska with violence and deceit. Murkowski ended that, and I will be forever grateful for that. As time wore on, it became apparent Governor Murkowski was not perfect. For better or worse, Murkowski never grasped the difference between the U.S. Senate and the Governorship. Nowhere was this more evidenced than the DMV. Wait times for simple activities like a title or a license renewal was not a matter of hours, but days. The Governor bought a jet, and the dividend payment to Alaskans dropped to a pittance. The angst on the street was beyond palpable, perhaps more than that felt against Barack Obama today.

If Tony Knowles tapped the fear of every mother in Alaska to political action against him, Frank Murkowski capture the anger of every man against him. Those permanent fund dividend checks go to pay land taxes and top off the tanks that heat Alaskan homes. They are vital to survival. I began to wonder at the time if his name was actually changed to “G-d Damn Murkowski.”

Those among us searching for a replacement for Governor Murkowski initially looked at Andrew Halcro. He was from Anchorage, which was not regarded as a positive thing in the circles I was traveling at the time. However, he was young, good looking, and successful. He presented well, and had some business experience and a few folks rubbed a few dimes together to see what would come of it. He hired consultants to produce a long “ode to Andrew’s Ego” along with air time. I suppose Andrew’s mother liked it, and certainly it was something I would have put together for one of my sons, but honestly, it became apparent that Andrew was a case of a bloated ego on two long legs.

He was the last thing that Alaska needed. He still is.

Support swung to Governor Palin. She was actually qualified, unlike those who believed they were entitled to office by virtue of genetic material or happenstance of birth location. Wasilla thrived under Governor Palin and it was the only part of the state that was doing so. She put the people before her ego, and talked about the people, not herself. Establishment, populist, and Christians gravitated toward Governor Palin and decided that she was the one to propel into office. Andrew never got over it, and he spent her administration blogging hateful commentaries on her and her family. He was mean, vindictive, and a bundle of hate. By the way, that has not changed, but at least he has moved on with his life since she left office. One thing I know about Andrew Halcro,  he never refuses an opportunity to besmirch the name of the lady from Wasilla.

The piece in the New York Times detracts from her legacy. It attempts to align her with socialists would would fashion Alaska into a Norwegian Socialist Paradise that Tony Knowles attempted to create. If anyone has any doubt that this is so, they need only listen to a speech by Hollis French called, “The Very Best Partner” made on the floor of the Alaska Senate in 2012.

In that speech, Hollis French detailed a plan to turn Alaska into a socialist utopia based on the notion that government should control the inner workings of the oil industry like Norway. It harkened back to the Carter era. He claimed Norway uses oil tax revenue to support the state. The problem is that Norway supports its economy on revenue garnered from an EU monopoly LNG contract with the UK, and oil revenues are a small slice of the matter. In other words, the speech, while nice, is based on false assumptions and a political ideology that is so remote from Palin that it is laughable to associate her with it.

These people are in no way aligned with Governor Palin. To use her as a “human shield” for their “backbone” to defend their socialist utopia is despicable. Hollis French would be a return to the very practices of the Knowles Administration, and in no way resembles anything Governor Palin represents. For Andrew Halcro to perpetuate that myth just shows his ignorance and inability to comprehend anything outside the Anchorage bowl.

It is these Alaskan Democrats like Hollis French that Andrew Halcro also attempts to use to besmirch Palin. He is playing off two sides to his own advantage, or so he thinks.  The Times played into his effort to paint Palin as a socialist and dip her in “Hollis French dung.” He believes it vindicates him and perhaps set himself up to run for Govenor. Halcro is hardly the person I would ask about Palin’s legacy. For Governor Palin’s legacy is not ACES, but the philosophy that ACES enshrined. That is her legacy.  That philosophy was never repealed, nor can it be. I rather doubt it could be understood by an elitist like Halcro. What is really her legacy is far greater than a legislative agenda. The agenda was something of the moment that worked in that part of history. The historical circumstances changed that required the policy to change, but the philosophy of Alaskans owning their resources cannot be repealed.

Her legacy is that the government belongs to the people, and that the people decide what is important. It is the idea that the people own the state government, not the federal government, not the oil company, not the unions, not the Tri-laterals, and not the United Nations. Her legacy is that Alaska is owned by the people of Alaska. It is a rejection of colonialism and the assertion of self-determination.

Her notion was that Alaska was a sovereign state owned by the people.  The people chose to be part of  the United States. It was not a colony to be governed by a distant land or exploited by multinationals and state policy should reflect the right of the people and their assertion of the right of statehood detailed in article 4 of the U.S Constitution. That was the Palin Legacy.

Now, many may think that is not much of a legacy. I differ. Alaska has been over-run in its history by those who seek to rape of her resources and repatriate them to distant lands at the detriment of Alaska. The state is replete with enclaves with weak economic linkages to the rest of Alaska. Just forcing these companies to hire Alaskans is an ordeal, for they would rather bring their own people into the state.  These exploiters who have come under various guises, give no thought to the people on the land, to sustenance, to issues of basic survival for the people of the Arctic region. The Russians didn’t care, corporate miners didn’t care, and the oil companies didn’t care, the commercial fisherman didn’t care, and multinational interests didn’t care. Alaskans always seemed to fighting one faction or another over the rights to their coastal areas, land, minerals and air. What Governor Palin asserted was Alaska’s right to her own resources and their right to manage them.

That is not something that anyone can repeal.

Governor Parnell was right to seek changes to ACES through the legislative process. At the time ACES was crafted and passed, Alaska’s major competitors were run by dictators largely in politically risky regions. These nations had tax rates upward of 80%. Most of the oil fields in the lower 48 were no longer in production. At that time, any tax rate under 70% would keep Alaska competitive because while the environment was harsh, there was political stability. At the time that ACES was passed, I was asked what I thought of it, as an economist, by legislators at the time.  I thought it needed some modifications, but I thought that was something that could be addressed later. I thought “later” would be 2015 or 2020, not 2011.  I since have regretted not speaking out more ferociously on that point, for those modifications might have saved the state some heart ache, but it is what it is. My plate was full with family matters at that time, and I had, and continue to have, the utmost faith in Sarah Palin’s judgment on matters. We seldom disagree, and yet we’ve never spoken a word to each other.

 Economic circumstances changed as did the oil industry and that distant someday came much sooner than any of us anticipated. Oil was discovered in North Dakota. Technology changes made old fields in the lower 48 productive. Alaska’s competitors were no longer Saudi Arabia and OPEC, but North Dakota, Texas, Wyoming, and Pennsylvania. These states have similar political freedoms and risks as Alaska, and have lower tax rates and a less harsh environment.  Nobody in their right mind is going to drill for oil in Alaska’s -40 degrees and pay a 70% tax rate when they can do so in North Dakota above zero degrees most of the year at a 15% tax rate.  For Alaskans to remain competitive with their oil, the rate of return for those who produce had to be competitive. For Alaskans to continue to reap the benefits of their resources this tax change, or lease rate change, was necessary. This is a straightforward application of supply side economics, nothing more. It is not a reversal of populist politics, nor is it a repeal of the Palin legacy.

Unlike the Common Core adoption, the oil tax change was not made by executive order. It was done through the legislative process. There were hearings. There was evidence presented. It was not done in a corner in the dark, but in the full light of day. The hearings were on TV and broadcasted on the internet. There was no secrecy here. Alaskans weighed in, and they did so loudly.

If there was any “failure” on the part of the Palin administration, it was the failure to extend this philosophy to other sectors and fully reclaim Alaska for its citizens. There was hope that Parnell would follow through on this. Sadly, Sean Parnell has proved himself to be more a son of Frank Murkowski than an extension of the Palin agenda. He is the very big government Republican that we threw out with Murkowski. Alaskans had hoped he would use action, not words, to protect the state from federal overreach as he promised. Sadly, he has become an enforcer of federal overreach in action and full of words to deny it or justify it.  If I had to give past Alaskan governors a single word, it would be Hickel-vision, Knowles-evil, Murkowsi-hope, Palin-faith, and Parnell-betrayal. There can be no doubt that a proper populist can beat Parnell, particularly since he is cavorting with that evil Tony Knowles and we all know it. The question is who will it be, and can a man or woman be found to do the job? 

However, that populist replacement cannot be found in the person of Andrew Halcro. Andrew is for Andrew and that is all. In the event that might have changed, I watched him recently on the Education Task Force. It was nothing more than apologetics for the old order and him defending his past legislative service. It was Andrew for Andrew and nothing more.

Sorry, New York Times, but you missed the mark on this one. Palin is no socialist, even if Halcro wants to make that case. Besides, to consider Halcro an Alaskan is absolutely ludicrous. Yes, he has an Alaskan address and yes, his body is here, but his mind in somewhere in Seattle. He married a Planned Parenthood activist. He has never held a gun, or so he claims. He also claims to own a pair of jeans, but no one has seen him in them.He might have gone north of the Alaska range a few times to visit the Chamber of Commerce, but generally trips outside of Anchorage are beneath him.  There is no evidence he has ever fished, hunted, or eaten food that did not come from a grocery store. He is like a military wife condemned to Alaska who hides in the Anchorage bowl for fear that the sap of a tree or some wild flower might touch him. Next time, the Times might want to ask someone who is actually an Alaskan.

Common Core Makes Parental Choice Legislation Irrelevant in Alaska

There are a lot of Alaskans under the impression that school choice legislation will allow families to avoid the common core. Sadly, these folks are mistaken, and are actually hurting efforts to drive common core out of Alaska. They are in denial of what is happening and need to get their heads out of the Parental Choice issue and look at the Common Core issue as a precursor to Parental Choice legislation.

There are two prominent Senators who have been remarkably silent on the matter. They are busy beating the drums of Parental Choice. Sadly, it is a wasted effort, and perhaps counter productive to their efforts.

At the present time, under Alaska Law, I may send my children to any school I choose. In addition, I can home school. As a home school parent, I can choose to accept funds or not. If I accept funds via enrollment in a correspondence program, I must then take the children for testing. The state signed an agreement with Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC). This is the Common Core test and the tests are based on the Common Core standards publically licensed by CCSSO and the NGA-Best Practices. According to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act Flexibility Waiver (ESEA) for funding from the federal government to Alaska, teacher pay and retention will be based on the SBAC scores. Thus, teachers have an economic interest in ignoring anything that is not common core.

The undecided question is will parental instruction delivery be evaluated via SBAC tests too?  Will the data set that is imposed on the teachers be imposed on parents too?

Under Alaska's law as they exist today, I can take my child to a private school too. I can choose. I don't need a new law for me to make that choice.

The issue in Alaska is that private schools cannot get state funds if they are religious institutions. However, there is nothing to preclude several churches from operating private schools and accept no state funds. The question that has arisen is the use of state funds for private religious schools. Once a school or institution accepts public money, they will be obligated to administer the SBAC test, teach the Common Core, and evaluate teachers with Alaska's new Race Based Annual Measurable Outcomes for pay and retention of teachers.

For example, under the pre-SBAC system, private schools typically gave the Iowa Test of Basic Skills. I am not aware of any private schools that gave the High School Qualifying Examination. Any schools that did accept money, if they became eligible, would then have to give that exam and any other exam mandated by the acceptance of state money.

At the present time, religious schools are not obligated to give the SBAC test, and I suspect most of them will not. Those who homeschool without state money are also not obligated to administer the SBAC test. However, those schools that accept public funds will be so obligated to do so. That means they will be obligated to teach the common core, for that is what will be tested. Assuming that the state also enforces the Annual Measurable Outcomes (AMO) as a condition of accepting funds, private schools would then also be obligated to fire their entire staff if minority student test scores did not met the expected test achievement results.

The SBAC test will have ramification for the curriculum offered by these schools. Some of these schools believe they can teach the common core through religious readings. That is true, this can be done. However, given that the English Language Arts (ELA) have science literacy examples that mandate the teaching of man-made global warming, accepting public funds could be a deal breakers.  I suspect when they see the strings attached, they will opt out of state funds.  But if they do accept funds, they will be no different than the public schools as far as testing and curriculum is concerned.

Thus, the whole matter of parental choice will be irrelevant.

There are data set implications and varieties of other issues, but a valid discussion requires first acknowledging the major obstacle to any choice education is the system recently adopted.   Parental Choice is moot as long as the current standards and assessment are in place. The first step toward parental choice is getting the state out of the SBAC agreement.

One last tidbit is the whole notion of standards in Alaska. Prior to 2012, the state had Grade Level Expectations, but not standards.  There is a difference. Expectations suggest a direction, and a minimal level of achievement, a desired outcome. It suggests a bare minimum, but but does not define the middle ground or the upper limits. In contrast, standards suggest nothing, but require an outcome, and it has with it the force of the state. With standards, everything is the same, and everyone is identical. The upper and lower band are maintained within the strict guidelines of quality control confidence intervals. While this is fine for canned corn, it is a cruel thing to contain the human spirit within prescribed quality control guidelines. How is American Exceptionalism served by these standards?

It is easy to be lulled into thinking, "Oh, I don't accept money, so this doesn't affect me."

Indeed, I was recently on a radio show and followed an Alaskan who has a private school. She does not accept state funding. Parents pay the full freight of education costs. However, she teaches the Common Core because “she follows what the public school does.” While I think that defeats the purpose of the private school, the reality remains that is what she does to keep clients. She believes that parents want the common core. Is it true? I don't think so, and that could be why she is having a hard time getting clients. While I would do things very differently, the reality is what it is. That is the world of the common core, everything is the same for everyone no matter how big or how small.

Those who homeschool without state funds are at risk. The State of Alaska’s shiny new longitudinal database is a model for the rest of the United States.  Alaska Department of Education and Early Development is the fiscal agent on this monolithic grant and the Alaska Commission on Post-Secondary Education runs the database. Indeed, it is a prominent entry on their web page.  So, if your child does not attend school because you homeschool without state dollars, SBAC can come find you because they will see entries for the child in the PFD data. Since the state signed an agreement to comply with their data requests, you can bet that their “P20 Counselors” will be going around getting information on home school child and trying to compel families to provide it.  It is going on now in Wisconsin. How long before this happens in Alaska?

Indeed, if you have a resume on file with Alaska Job Services and don’t have any children, you have a P20 too.  It includes employment data and all sorts of things nobody has any business knowing.  It is reported in disaggregated form.  By disaggregated, I mean at the individual level; not how many people over the age of 40 does what occupation, but specifically who does what. The disaggregation was a requirement of the grant. That data is transmitted to the federal government and they are then allowed to make this data available to anyone they deem appropriate.

For regular people who go to work and have their children in school, what does this mean? It means your child’s teacher could well have access to sensitive data about that child’s adult associations. Your child's teacher will know your political affiliation. Will they be graded more harshly if the teacher notices mom and dad have a voting preference they disagree with? How about a science teacher who finds a child's parents has religious views of which they disapprove?

Thanks, Governor Parnell for that delightful twist on state education policy (not). It is nice to know that the State of Alaska wants to compete in the snooping business and assist the federal government.

 I, for one, am NOT a happy camper about this. There were “Chinese Walls” between these data sets for a reason. To integrate them is an enormous invasion of Alaska’s privacy.  My granddaughter’s teacher should NEVER have access to MY employment data, or even my grades if I was a college student. Yet, if I choose to participate in Alaska’s economy in a monetized way, that information will be available to her teacher, along with my religious preferences and political affiliation. While I am obviously very vocal about my political preferences, it is for me to chose to make them known, not for others to snoop about and discern them. That is wrong, and a far bigger issue that the school choice issue that the Alaska Senate plans to focus on.

As long as the Smarter Balanced Consortium is running the show, and as long as these standards are in place, and as long as this P20 database is available on a disaggregated level, any talk of Parental Choice is irrelevant. All the choices are spam, spam, spam, or spam.

 As long as this data set exists in a disaggregated way, EVERY Alaskan’s privacy is jeopardized. The data set is integral to the implementation of the common core, but Alaska had it in place without the Common Core. It needs to looked at by the legislature. 

Parental Choice does not fix this. Get the common core out standards and SBAC out of the state and put education back in the hands of parents.  Put the Chinese Walls back between the data sets. Stop implementing the Obama Agenda.  Then the discussion on school choice will be meaningful.