Analysis of Objectives of Common Core


The following is a critique on the principles embodied in the Common Core national education standards currently being implemented in the United States. There are fundamental problems with the stated goals so one can only assume there is more going on here than we are being told. I think the parents of our current school children feel this “issue” and that is why there is so much opposition developing to the program.

The following is generally accepted as true:

.1% of the population has an IQ of 55 or less

2.1% of the population has an IQ of between 55 and 70

13.6% of the population has an IQ of between 70 and 85

34.1% of the population has an IQ of between 85 and 100

34.1% of the population has an IQ of between 100 and 115

13.6% of the population has an IQ of between 115 and 130

2.1% of the population has an IQ of between 130 and 145

.1% of the population has an IQ of over 145

To get into college and presumed graduate it was understood in the 50’ and 60’s that you would need a minimum IQ of 115; preferably over 120. Based on the accepted IQ distribution that would indicate that only 15.8% of the population could be college ready and of that group probably less than half would graduate for various reasons. The following short paragraphs contain statistics and numbers to show a problem, the actual numbers and percentages will be slightly different than those presented here but the principles presented will hold.

The corollary of that would be that 68.2% of the population would have to find work that would not require college but could be high school graduates. An additional 13.6% could find work but would not graduate from high school. The rest 2.2% would be dependent on others for there well being.

The stated goal of Common Core is to make every high school graduate college ready and the corollary would be, all who would go to college would graduate, otherwise why would anyone go to college. The problem with Common Core is there are only two ways to even come close to achieving the stated gold of all high school graduates being college ready.

The first is that 84.0% of the population could not graduate from high school.

The other way is that the minimum IQ to enter college would have to be lowered to say 100 which would mean that 50% of the population could go to college but only say 8% of the population would graduate. The corollary of that would be that 50.0% of the population would not graduate from high school.

Other combinations are, of course, possible but only 8 to 10% of the population can actually graduate from college unless we lower the standards to graduate from college from what they were in the 50’s and the 60’s

I wrote my undergrad thesis in economics on this very subject in 1965 and I did get an A on it so my professor did not disagree with the conclusions; although I must say that the thesis was written as a academic paper and approached from a slightly different angle, that being that as a technology based society developed jobs would have to be found for those that would not have the mental ability to work in technical fields.

Wow – Details of How Far President Obama Went To Defeat Netanyahu Begin To Surface – Reports From Pollster In Israel….


If he will do this he will do anything — he is a very dangerous man!

The Irrationality of Democracy: Machiavelli’s Copernican Revolution


By Paul Eidelberg

An organic principle of democracy is equality. This principle entails the political principle of “one-adult-one-vote.”  The political principle of one-adult-one vote is irrational and immoral, since it mandates equal votes to intelligent and idiotic citizens, as well as to patriotic and unpatriotic citizens.

The irrationality of democracy was well understood by Plato, as may be seen in Book VIII of his greatest dialogue, The Republic.

The Greek and Roman, as well as the medieval, philosophers scorned democracy as a bad or unjust form of government.

Democracy did not obtain a good reputation from philosophers until Machiavelli, the father of modern political science. Machiavelli initiated a Copernican revolution in his masterpiece, The Prince, the most influential text in the political science departments of the democratic world, including Israel.

Machiavelli’s Copernican revolution is profoundly elucidated by Professor Leo Strauss, and is outlined in my book A Jewish Philosophy of History.

Comment by Centinel2012. When one studies the  US Constitution one finds that the founders realized this and did not create a Democracy but a Republic with limited vote not universal vote. Democracies to not last long for the reasons Paul talks about in the first paragraph. By limiting the vote to land owners initially the founders tried to prevent the destruction of what they created. Since land ownership was not an impediment to the average person the ability to vote was larger in America then elsewhere but still not to the point the politicians could manipulate the vote. That came much later mostly after 1913 the 17th amendment however the 19th amendment is an exception although an amendment was not technically needed to achieve the result.

A Look Inside the Net Neutrality Rules: It’s Worse Than You Think!


What ever the government gets into gets screwed up no exceptions and its directly proportional to how much they get involved.

Let’s see–Bibi is major league, even an IDF commando, bamster is a poseur, a doper with limp wrists.


No argument from me!

Wikipedia Rewrite History – Part II


Control “history” and you control the present!
If you control the “present” the future is yours!

The Criminal Arrogance of Hillary Clinton


30,000 deleted emails… Bill Whittle looks at the lawlessness, the arrogance, and the unmasked contempt that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have for the American people.

Meet the 19th Century American Who Warned About Big Government, Religious Liberty Assaults


By Robert Moffit / March 09, 2015

2015 marks a milestone in American history. One hundred and fifty years ago, Confederate General Robert E. Lee surrendered to General Ulysses S. Grant and ended the Civil War. Shortly thereafter, Orestes Augustus Brownson (1803-1876), a prominent journalist and philosopher, published “The American Republic,” an erudite defense of the Federal Constitution.

As noted in our Heritage Foundation “First Principles” essay, today a fresh reading of Brownson’s masterwork can give Americans a deeper understanding of their precious civic birthright, the unique federal order that guarantees their personal and political freedom.

Prophetically, Brownson warned that the greatest future threats to the Republic were internal. He called upon his fellow Americans to oppose the relentless centralization of power in Washington; a transformation fueled by a new secular ideology—“humanitarian democracy”—that would war against all prescriptions and traditions, as well as state and local powers, in the name of equality, and seek to crush all genuine diversity, individual distinctions, and subordinate even personal conscience itself on the altar of a fully secularized, and thus absolute, state.

The Founders’ genius was in devising a constitutional order that recognized the truth of man’s individuality, his flourishing in freedom, and the sacredness of his person, particularly in his relationship to God: “The American constitution is not founded on political atheism, but recognizes the rights of man, and therefore, the rights of God.”

brownson

Today, when Americans of all religious faiths have just cause to fear government assaults on religious liberty, the wisdom of Brownson—a devout Catholic—is a bounteous benefit for all. Protect the sacred, he warned, from the profane and thus preserve the moral order: “If they [government officials] could subject religion to the secular order, or completely secularize the church, they would reduce themselves to the secular order alone, and deprive themselves of all aid from religion. To secularize religion is to nullify it.”

While a journalist, urgently writing on contemporary topics in his Quarterly Review, many of his opinions, right or wrong, were exclusively relevant to his own time. However, Brownson also developed a sophisticated and consistent philosophical conservatism that imparted a timeless quality to his observations. Those hard hitting commentaries are strikingly relevant to contemporary America. For example:

  • On immigrants’ duty to assimilate: “It is not attachment to American soil, or sympathy with the American nationality, spirit, genius, or institutions, that brings the great mass of foreigners to our shores. No doubt we derive great advantages from them, but the motive that brings them is not advantage to us or service to our country. They come solely from motives of personal advantage to themselves; to gain a living, to acquire a wealth, or to enjoy a freedom denied them in their own country, or believed to be more easily obtained or better secured here than elsewhere. The country, therefore, does not and cannot feel that it is bound either in justice or in charity to yield up its nationality to them, or to suffer the stream of its national life to be diverted from its original course to accommodate their manners, tastes or prejudices…If I from motives of hospitality open my doors to the stranger, and admit him to the bosom of my family, I have the right to expect him to conform to my domestic arrangements, and not to undertake to censure or interfere with them.”
  • On crony capitalism: “Louis XI was not weaker against Charles the Bold than is Congress against the Pennsylvania Central Railroad and its connections, or the Union Pacific, built at the expense of the government itself. The great feudal lords had souls, railroad corporations have none.”
  • On fiscal irresponsibility and debt: ‘The journalists tell us that the country is rich, and we count our millionaires by the thousands, if not by hundreds of thousands; and yet, if called upon suddenly to pay its debts or to redeem its bonds of every sort, it would be found to be hopelessly insolvent, and the reputed wealth of the millionaires would vanish in smoke. Our present wealth is chiefly in evidences of debt, that is, created by mortgages on the future.”
  • On Communism’s false promises: “Communism, if it could be carried out, would not…as the communists dream, secure to all the advantages of wealth, but would result in the reduction of all to the most abject poverty—the very thing which they are ready to commit any crime or sacrilege in order to escape.”

The Civil War was a terrible trial for millions—Brownson himself lost two sons—but the calm courage of the American people prepared them for world leadership:

“With larger armies on foot than Napoleon ever commanded, with their line of battle stretching from ocean to ocean, across the whole breadth of the continent, they never, during four long years of alternate victories and defeats—and both unprecedently bloody—or a moment lost their equanimity, or appeared less calm, collected and tranquil, than in ordinary times of peace…Their success proves to all that what, prior to the war, was treated as American arrogance or self-conceit, was only the outspoken confidence in their destiny as a providential people, conscious that to them is reserved the hegemony of the world.”

That “hegemony” was moral, not militaristic. Rather it was the success, for the entire world to witness, of America’s providential mission to secure the greatest degree of human liberty under law; a unique experiment in self-government realized through the ingenious Federal Constitution, the priceless gift of America’s Founders. This was a recurrent theme in Brownson’s writings. It was a theme that, over a century later, President Ronald Reagan also expressed in his vision of America as a “Shining City on a Hill.” Brownson’s name recognition may be low, but his ideas and insights have endured.

Netanyahu Wins – Official Vote Tallies Not Even Close to Media Reported Exit Polling – A Resounding Victory For Benjamin Netanyahu…


So it wold seem that Netanyahu beat Obama — that is not going to go well in the White house!

WHAT IF ILLEGALS LEFT?


It really simple the “Illegal” aliens that are pouring in are destroying the country which is exactly what Obama wants. Legal immigrants come here to be Americans and have skills that make them valuable like a 100 years ago. . Illegal invaders are not immigrants as they are not here to become Americans they are here to collect the benefits that we created for out progeny not theirs.