Our Present Educational Crisis, Part One, Common Core

In the above video, a mother from Arkansas destroys common core education in front of her local
officials.  Watch the video.  It's pretty shocking, especially if you do not really know what common core is about.  It's not about education folks.  It's about the full fledged dumbing down of our youth.  It makes no sense whatsoever.  And the school boards all across this country are all screaming for more money.

  Here is the bottom line on what is really going on.  For the past 100 years education has been on a very steady downhill curve.  It's by design.  Can you think of a better plan to pull more money from people than to tell them you need more money to fix issues with education?  This ploy has been used on us for the same amount of time.  The state of education is falling, we need more money to fix it.  It never gets fixed.  It continues to get worse.  We need more money to fix this.  For a century we have been throwing money at a system that just keeps getting worse.  Blame the parents.

  Over the next few months we are going to cover many areas on the present state of education in this country and in Gloucester.  That is if you want to call it education.  It's going to offend a number of people, especially those employed in the field.  But hey don't worry about that, we are working on a new sensitivity program for you so that you will no longer be offended, instead you will back everything we say.  On some early advice, we recommend a mass exiting of all students from the public school system as fast as possible.  You will fully understand why when we are done with this series.

Related articles

• Public Support for Charter Schools Plummets, Poll Finds
• Exclusive: Music exam board accused of 'dumbing down' with multiple choice questions
• Chronic Disorganization Is Turning Conservation Into a Rich Person's Profession
• Trump joining with GOP senators to push immigration changes

Governor McAuliffe Signs Executive Order Protecting Virginia’s Coastal Resources

Today Governor Terry McAuliffe signed an Executive Order continuing the Virginia Coastal Zone Management Program, a network of Virginia state agencies and local governments designed to protect the natural and economic assets located within Virginia’s coastal regions.

“From protecting the wildlife and fisheries of the Chesapeake Bay to meeting the threat of sea level rise, Virginia has a responsibility to protect our coastal areas and the vital natural and economic resources they offer,” said Governor McAuliffe. “The Coastal Zone Management Program is a critical framework for our Commonwealth’s stewardship of these important assets, and I intend to give it the full support of my administration.”

U.S. Representative Robert Wittman continued, “For over 25 years Virginia’s Coastal Zone Management Program has helped coordinate the Commonwealth’s efforts to protect  and restore coastal communities and natural resources. Virginia’s Chesapeake Bay, wetlands, and beaches are national treasures; these efforts to enhance coastal communities and ecosystems benefit us all.”

Below is the full text of the executive order:

NUMBER THIRTY FIVE (2014)

CONTINUATION OF THE VIRGINIA

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

Importance of the Initiative

           

            The Virginia Coastal Zone Management Program's (“Program”) mission is to create more vital and sustainable coastal communities and ecosystems. The Department of Environmental Quality will serve as the lead agency for this networked program and will be responsible for allocation and assignment of all federal funds received for the Virginia Coastal Zone Management Program Implementation Grant.

            By virtue of the authority vested in me as Governor under Article V of the Constitution of Virginia and under the laws of the Commonwealth, including but not limited to Sections 2.2-103 and 2.2-104 of the Code of Virginia, and subject to my continuing and ultimate authority and responsibility to act in such matters, I hereby continue the Virginia Coastal Zone Management Program.

POLICY GOALS

            State agencies having responsibility for the Commonwealth's coastal resources shall promote the Coastal Zone Management Program consistent with the following goals:

Coastal and Ocean Resource Protection

            Goal 1: To protect and restore coastal and ocean resources, habitats, and species of the Commonwealth. These include, but are not limited to, wetlands, subaqueous lands and vegetation, beaches, sand dune systems, barrier islands, underwater or maritime cultural resources, riparian forested buffers, and endangered or threatened species.

            Goal 2: To restore and maintain the quality of all coastal and ocean waters for human and ecosystem health through protection from adverse effects of excess nutrients, toxics, pathogens, and sedimentation.

            Goal 3: To protect air quality.

            Goal 4: To reduce or prevent losses of coastal habitat, life, and property caused by shoreline erosion, storms, relative sea level rise, and other coastal hazards in a manner that balances environmental and economic considerations.

Coastal and Ocean Resource Sustainable Use

            Goal 5: To provide for sustainable wild fisheries and aquaculture.

            Goal 6: To promote sustainable ecotourism and to increase and improve public access to coastal waters and shorefront lands compatible with resource protection goals.

            Goal 7: To promote renewable energy production and provide for appropriate extraction of energy and mineral resources consistent with proper environmental practices.

Coastal and Ocean Management Coordination

            Goal 8: To ensure sustainable development on coastal lands and support access for water-dependent development through effective coordination of governmental planning processes.

            Goal 9: To avoid and minimize coastal and ocean resource use conflicts through research, planning, and a forum for coordination and facilitation among local, regional, state, and federal government agencies, interest groups, and citizens.

            Goal 10: To promote informed decision-making by maximizing the availability of up-to-date educational information, technical advice, and scientific data including the use of new tools such as marine spatial planning.

IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT

            The following agencies, in cooperation with local governments, as appropriate, shall have primary responsibility for implementing the enforceable policies of Virginia's Coastal Zone Management Program as approved by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:

Responsible Agency and Enforceable Policies

Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)

Point source water pollution management and nontidal wetlands management

Air pollution

Nonpoint source pollution management

Coastal lands management

Marine Resources Commission (MRC)

            Primary sand dunes management

            Tidal wetlands management

            Subaqueous lands management

            Fisheries management (shared with DGIF)

Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (DGIF)

Fisheries management (shared with MRC)

Department of Health

Shoreline sanitation

The following agencies are responsible for assisting with the program:

Department of Conservation & Recreation

Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

Department of Forestry

Department of Historic Resources

Department of Mines, Minerals & Energy

Department of Transportation

Virginia Economic Development Partnership

Virginia Institute of Marine Science

Virginia Department of Emergency Management

            In addition, other agencies that conduct activities that may affect coastal resources shall conduct such activities in a manner consistent with and supportive of Virginia's Coastal Zone Management Program. For purposes of this Program, the Coastal Area shall mean Tidewater Virginia as defined in Section 28.2-100 of the Code of Virginia, inclusive of all tidal waters out to the three nautical mile Territorial Sea Boundary.

            The Director of the Department of Environmental Quality shall monitor all state actions that affect coastal resources. When, in the judgment of the DEQ Director, a state agency, regulatory board, or commission is about to act in a manner that appears to be inconsistent with the Program or has established a pattern of actions that appears to be inconsistent with the Program, the Director shall discuss the situation with the head of such agency, board, or commission to determine if a consistency problem exists.

            If, after discussion, the head of such agency, board, or commission and the Director of DEQ are in disagreement about the existence of a consistency problem, the Director will inform the Secretary of Natural Resources of the disagreement. The Secretary shall then determine if a state interagency consistency problem exists.

            If the head of such agency, board, or commission and the Director of DEQ agree that a consistency problem exists, they shall attempt to resolve the problem. If they cannot resolve the problem, the Director shall advise the Secretary that an unresolved interagency consistency problem exists.

            Upon notification of the existence of an unresolved consistency problem, the Secretary shall review the problem, determine how it should best be resolved, and affect such resolution within the Secretariat of Natural Resources or consult with other Cabinet Secretaries to resolve a consistency problem with agencies, boards, or commissions not within the Secretariat of Natural Resources. If unable to resolve the problem, the Secretary shall report to the Governor and recommend appropriate action. The Governor shall have the ultimate responsibility for resolving any interagency consistency problem that cannot be resolved by the Secretary of Natural Resources.

            Any person having authority to resolve consistency problems under the terms of this Executive Order shall resolve those problems in a manner that furthers the goals and objectives of the Program as set forth above and in accordance with existing state law, regulations, and administrative procedures.

Effective Date of the Executive Order

            This Executive Order rescinds Executive Order No. 18 (2010), issued by Governor Robert F. McDonnell. This Executive Order shall be effective upon its signing and shall remain in full force and effect until June 30, 2018, unless amended or rescinded by further executive order.

            Given under my hand and under the Seal of the Commonwealth of Virginia on this 2nd day of December, 2014.

____________________________________________

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Terence R. McAuliffe, Governor

Attest:

____________________________________

           Secretary of the Commonwealth

(Please note:  This only applies to government entities and those who contract with the government.  Not one area of this applies to the people or to any businesses, unless they contract with the government.  With that said, who cares?)

Related articles

• Governor McAuliffe Affirms Virginia's Commitment to River, Chesapeake Bay Public Access
• Governor McAuliffe celebrates signing of New Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement
• Governor McAuliffe Announces November as Virginia Oyster Month
• Virginia Agriculture and Conservation Leaders Applaud Virginia's New Resource Management Plan
• Governor McAuliffe Announces Creation of Virginia Oyster Trail
• Governor McAuliffe and State Leaders Tout New Agricultural Resource Management Plan

Preferential treatment of one elected official by other elected officials.

Submitted by:  "We The People".

In general, the BOS must have at least two public discussions about anything they vote on. Don't know if any of you picked up on it or not, but when they had the public hearing on Charles Records' project they had Mr. Records' give his presentation, then Board members asked a couple of questions. That appears to have been public discussion #1. Then they had the citizen comment period for the public hearing. The 2^nd public discussion appears to have taken place when Mr. Records returned to the podium and began addressing the concerns raised by the People who spoke. Then Anne Duecy-Ortiz gave a presentation, noting staff recommended approval. As those of you who have been following the BOS meetings know; the issue of changing animal control ordinances was first publicly discussed during the October Board meeting and the public hearing was conducted during the November meeting. Based on the non-questioning, non-analytic and out of character posture the BOS demonstrated during the public hearing; had Mr. Records fulfilled the planning commission's one and only stipulation before the meeting or if none of the adjacent landowners who spoke during the public comment period had not shown up at the meeting, the Board would have certainly voted in favor of the project. On top of all of that, by the BOS combining the two public discussions into one public meeting, they effectively restricted transparency and public involvement.  

A couple of questions everyone should be asking are, firstly, why the BOS allowed the public hearing to happen in the first place. The planning commission approved Mr. Records’ proposal on the condition that he resolve issues with adjacent landowners. It seems like County staff would have verified whether or not Mr. Records had fulfilled the planning commission’s requirements before a public hearing date was set. The second question is; why didn’t the BOS question Mr. Records about his proposal in the same manner they have questioned everyone else who has appeared before them with proposals since January 2014?

We The People 

Are Watching You Diligently

Our Own Notes:

Why do we even need this project?  High end garden apartments that will cost probably more than a house rental in the area?  We have had restaurants and a bank close doors recently which shows the economy in Gloucester is continuing to fall, not rise.  We already have a large supply of rentals in the area that are not being filled.  Actually this is all out of a playbook called Growing Smart which is produced by a company in Germany and used in localities throughout the world as mandated by the United Nations.  One has to ask, what does the United Nations have to do with local planning?  These days since you have not been paying attention, everything.  Below is that playbook.  

Growing Smart, Legislative Guide, (Part 8 of 19) 

Again, this is the United Nations mandating what and or how local government as well as state government is to be run.  Our liberties are being destroyed by these folks as well as our property rights.  Thank a local official next time you see one.  They are all following this playbook very well.  Anyone remember what George H W Bush once said?  It's time for a new world order and we will be successful.  Bet you didn't know that they have been successful and that New World Order is already here and in full play.  

  You thought you were still living in the USA?  Those days are gone.  We are all living in the UN now.  The USA is nothing but a designation on a map.  Oh, that was all done back in 1992 by George H W Bush in case you didn't know this.  

Related articles

• Help the UN? By Sue Long
• Open Letter to the Citizens of Gloucester County Virginia
• President Obama speaks on airstrikes against ISIL in Syria
• What is happening in our Public Schools? And can happen in Home-schooling and Private Schools
• Popular Communist Plan Email Propaganda Exposed
• Beware The Agenda 21 Protesters

Construction Begins for Amtrak Service to Roanoke

~ Northeast Regional service expanding in Virginia ~

RICHMOND –  Governor McAuliffe announced that the Commonwealth of Virginia, Amtrak, Norfolk Southern and the City of Roanoke are beginning the first phase of construction for the platform that will serve intercity passenger rail service to the Star City.

Amtrak service to the city will be an extension of the successful Northeast Regional train from Lynchburg and is anticipated to start in 2017. The service will provide a same-seat trip from Roanoke to Lynchburg, Washington, D.C., Baltimore, Philadelphia and cities as far north as Boston. 

“Bringing passenger rail service back to Roanoke will be an enormous economic driver for the region and the entire Commonwealth,” said Governor McAuliffe. “I look forward to working with the parties involved to get this project completed so that Virginia families and our economy can benefit from this expanded service as soon as possible.” 

It has been 34 years since intercity passenger rail service has served Roanoke.

“Construction is a major development in our efforts to bring Amtrak service to Roanoke,” said Jennifer Mitchell, Director of the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation.“This new service is an example of the significant expansion of the Commonwealth’s passenger rail service. I appreciate the commitment of Amtrak, Norfolk Southern and the City of Roanoke to make this new service a reality.”

Virginia continues its ongoing commitment to congestion mitigation by offering the public alternate transportation choices to driving on congested highway corridors like I-81, Route 29, I-95, and Route 460 while expanding mobility and increasing connectivity for travel throughout the regions served by and along the Northeast Corridor.

“There is high demand for passenger rail service in Virginia as demonstrated by considerable ridership growth throughout the Commonwealth,” said Jay McArthur, Amtrak Principal Officer, State Partnerships. “We have developed a strong partnership with the Commonwealth and look forward to Roanoke as another service expansion in Virginia’s successful rail program, providing passengers with a convenient and pleasant service to Washington and other Northeast Corridor destinations.”

Roanoke is the latest step for Virginia to lead the way as one of the few states in the country to successfully negotiate the addition of new intercity passenger rail service in major rail corridors, balancing freight and economic development needs with additional intercity passenger rail options.

“Norfolk Southern and DRPT have a track record of success in implementing passenger service in Virginia,” said James A. Hixon, Executive Vice President, Law and Corporate Relations, Norfolk Southern Corporation. “We have made investments in our network, here in Roanoke and across the state, to ensure that passenger service is done safely and efficiently.”

“Given our history as a railroad town, the return of passenger rail is very exciting for the citizens of Roanoke,” said Roanoke Mayor David A. Bowers. “We are thrilled to see this initiative move forward, and anticipate the time when passenger service will once again be available to those who want to make connections, both inside and outside The Star City.”

(Never mind improving highways or building better roads.  Never mind the high fuel prices.  Traffic is actually down yet congestion is up?  How does that work?)

Related articles

• Governor McDonnell Announces Amtrak Ridership Grows
• Governor McAuliffe Names Six Members to Commonwealth Transportation Board
• Governor McAuliffe Announces 75 New Jobs in Botetourt County
• Governor McAuliffe Announces 135 New Jobs for Northampton County
• Governor McAuliffe Announces 37 New Jobs in Charlotte County
• Governor McAuliffe Announces Eight 2015 Virginia Regional Teachers of the Year

FEDERALIST PAPERS No. 49. Method of Guarding Against the Encroachments of Any One Department of Government by Appealing to the People Through a Convention.

For the Independent Journal. Saturday, February 2, 1788.

MADISON

To the People of the State of New York:

THE author of the "Notes on the State of Virginia," quoted in the last paper, has subjoined to that valuable work the draught of a constitution, which had been prepared in order to be laid before a convention, expected to be called in 1783, by the legislature, for the establishment of a constitution for that commonwealth. The plan, like every thing from the same pen, marks a turn of thinking, original, comprehensive, and accurate; and is the more worthy of attention as it equally displays a fervent attachment to republican government and an enlightened view of the dangerous propensities against which it ought to be guarded. One of the precautions which he proposes, and on which he appears ultimately to rely as a palladium to the weaker departments of power against the invasions of the stronger, is perhaps altogether his own, and as it immediately relates to the subject of our present inquiry, ought not to be overlooked.

His proposition is, "that whenever any two of the three branches of government shall concur in opinion, each by the voices of two thirds of their whole number, that a convention is necessary for altering the constitution, or CORRECTING BREACHES OF IT, a convention shall be called for the purpose."

As the people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter, under which the several branches of government hold their power, is derived, it seems strictly consonant to the republican theory, to recur to the same original authority, not only whenever it may be necessary to enlarge, diminish, or new-model the powers of the government, but also whenever any one of the departments may commit encroachments on the chartered authorities of the others. The several departments being perfectly co-ordinate by the terms of their common commission, none of them, it is evident, can pretend to an exclusive or superior right of settling the boundaries between their respective powers; and how are the encroachments of the stronger to be prevented, or the wrongs of the weaker to be redressed, without an appeal to the people themselves, who, as the grantors of the commissions, can alone declare its true meaning, and enforce its observance?

There is certainly great force in this reasoning, and it must be allowed to prove that a constitutional road to the decision of the people ought to be marked out and kept open, for certain great and extraordinary occasions. But there appear to be insuperable objections against the proposed recurrence to the people, as a provision in all cases for keeping the several departments of power within their constitutional limits.

In the first place, the provision does not reach the case of a combination of two of the departments against the third. If the legislative authority, which possesses so many means of operating on the motives of the other departments, should be able to gain to its interest either of the others, or even one third of its members, the remaining department could derive no advantage from its remedial provision. I do not dwell, however, on this objection, because it may be thought to be rather against the modification of the principle, than against the principle itself.

In the next place, it may be considered as an objection inherent in the principle, that as every appeal to the people would carry an implication of some defect in the government, frequent appeals would, in a great measure, deprive the government of that veneration which time bestows on every thing, and without which perhaps the wisest and freest governments would not possess the requisite stability. If it be true that all governments rest on opinion, it is no less true that the strength of opinion in each individual, and its practical influence on his conduct, depend much on the number which he supposes to have entertained the same opinion. The reason of man, like man himself, is timid and cautious when left alone, and acquires firmness and confidence in proportion to the number with which it is associated. When the examples which fortify opinion are ANCIENT as well as NUMEROUS, they are known to have a double effect. In a nation of philosophers, this consideration ought to be disregarded. A reverence for the laws would be sufficiently inculcated by the voice of an enlightened reason. But a nation of philosophers is as little to be expected as the philosophical race of kings wished for by Plato. And in every other nation, the most rational government will not find it a superfluous advantage to have the prejudices of the community on its side.

The danger of disturbing the public tranquillity by interesting too strongly the public passions, is a still more serious objection against a frequent reference of constitutional questions to the decision of the whole society. Notwithstanding the success which has attended the revisions of our established forms of government, and which does so much honor to the virtue and intelligence of the people of America, it must be confessed that the experiments are of too ticklish a nature to be unnecessarily multiplied. We are to recollect that all the existing constitutions were formed in the midst of a danger which repressed the passions most unfriendly to order and concord; of an enthusiastic confidence of the people in their patriotic leaders, which stifled the ordinary diversity of opinions on great national questions; of a universal ardor for new and opposite forms, produced by a universal resentment and indignation against the ancient government; and whilst no spirit of party connected with the changes to be made, or the abuses to be reformed, could mingle its leaven in the operation. The future situations in which we must expect to be usually placed, do not present any equivalent security against the danger which is apprehended.

But the greatest objection of all is, that the decisions which would probably result from such appeals would not answer the purpose of maintaining the constitutional equilibrium of the government. We have seen that the tendency of republican governments is to an aggrandizement of the legislative at the expense of the other departments. The appeals to the people, therefore, would usually be made by the executive and judiciary departments. But whether made by one side or the other, would each side enjoy equal advantages on the trial? Let us view their different situations. The members of the executive and judiciary departments are few in number, and can be personally known to a small part only of the people. The latter, by the mode of their appointment, as well as by the nature and permanency of it, are too far removed from the people to share much in their prepossessions. The former are generally the objects of jealousy, and their administration is always liable to be discolored and rendered unpopular. The members of the legislative department, on the other hand, are numerous. They are distributed and dwell among the people at large. Their connections of blood, of friendship, and of acquaintance embrace a great proportion of the most influential part of the society. The nature of their public trust implies a personal influence among the people, and that they are more immediately the confidential guardians of the rights and liberties of the people. With these advantages, it can hardly be supposed that the adverse party would have an equal chance for a favorable issue.

But the legislative party would not only be able to plead their cause most successfully with the people. They would probably be constituted themselves the judges. The same influence which had gained them an election into the legislature, would gain them a seat in the convention. If this should not be the case with all, it would probably be the case with many, and pretty certainly with those leading characters, on whom every thing depends in such bodies. The convention, in short, would be composed chiefly of men who had been, who actually were, or who expected to be, members of the department whose conduct was arraigned. They would consequently be parties to the very question to be decided by them.

It might, however, sometimes happen, that appeals would be made under circumstances less adverse to the executive and judiciary departments. The usurpations of the legislature might be so flagrant and so sudden, as to admit of no specious coloring. A strong party among themselves might take side with the other branches. The executive power might be in the hands of a peculiar favorite of the people. In such a posture of things, the public decision might be less swayed by prepossessions in favor of the legislative party. But still it could never be expected to turn on the true merits of the question. It would inevitably be connected with the spirit of pre-existing parties, or of parties springing out of the question itself. It would be connected with persons of distinguished character and extensive influence in the community. It would be pronounced by the very men who had been agents in, or opponents of, the measures to which the decision would relate. The PASSIONS, therefore, not the REASON, of the public would sit in judgment. But it is the reason, alone, of the public, that ought to control and regulate the government. The passions ought to be controlled and regulated by the government.

We found in the last paper, that mere declarations in the written constitution are not sufficient to restrain the several departments within their legal rights. It appears in this, that occasional appeals to the people would be neither a proper nor an effectual provision for that purpose. How far the provisions of a different nature contained in the plan above quoted might be adequate, I do not examine. Some of them are unquestionably founded on sound political principles, and all of them are framed with singular ingenuity and precision.

PUBLIUS

Learn More About American History:  Visit Jamestown, Yorktown, and Colonial Williamsburg Living History Museums In Virginia:  History Is Fun!

Related articles

• Is Our Constitution Outdated ? By; Sue Long
• September 2014 General Fund Revenue Collections Up 5.3% From Previous Year Fiscal-Year-To-Date Collections up 6.7%
• Virginia Receives $9.3 Million Grant to Help Virginians Access Health Coverage
• Governor McAuliffe Formally Unveils 2014 Virginia Energy Plan
• Governor McAuliffe Announces Federal Grants to Improve School Safety and Mental Health Services for Students
• Va. makes minimal progress on its climate change plan