Citizens Voice Disapproval of Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS)

Because Idaho State Representative Heather Scott is doing the fine job for which she was elected, her constituents were informed by her and spread the word, with a two day notice, with several people even driving over eight hours from South Idaho, and showing up on Veteran’s Day for a public hearing in Coeur d’Alene by the Idaho Department of Education on proposed new standards, named the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS).

In spite of the short notice for a morning meeting on Veteran’s Day the turnout was impressive with most of the attendees reading written statements presented to Porita Flynn, executive assistant, to the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. As per the department’s rules, no discussion was permitted, only written statements which Ms. Flynn accepted and audio recorded to be put into a report for the Education Committee of both the House and Senate.

Vice-chairman of the Senate Education Committee, District 8 Senator Steven Thayn and committee member, District 4 Senator Mary Souza were in attendance. Senator Thayne said that he is neutral on this issue and Senator Souza stated, “Last year our efforts were trying to attack the testing because it was the easiest one to get to. The whole Common Core standards are certainly a question.” Senator Souza mentioned that she believes that new Idaho Superintendent of Public Education Sherri Ybarra wants to do a good job for the citizens of Idaho and is taking this issue seriously.”

When asked if such a meeting was held in south Idaho, Ms. Flynn answered, yes. When asked how many people attended the meeting she answered, none. When asked how the meeting was announced to the public her answer was that it is posted on their website. Now, this reporter is just saying…, how effective is that? In this crazy age of big government wasting the kind of money it does on so much, why can’t a paltry small sum be spent on public newspaper ads for announcing these hearings on such important issues? A must read on our necessary vigilance is our last issue’s article from Representative Scott “Idaho Legislative Update from Rep. Heather Scott.”

Please read Representative Scott’s article in this issue, “Idaho’s Administrative Rules” relevant to this meeting as well as the article from Bob Compton, DVM, PhD, “Common Core and the Upcoming Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS)” also in this issue.

Many of the statements read in this hearing were from current and retired teachers: Some of the comments read were:

This is already approved by the Board of Education. • It would be nice to be able to sign up for emails for these meetings. • Can schools let us know about these meetings? • I’m concerned because these standards were developed by the same group that gave us the Common Core standards. • The way Common Core is being taught is very confusing, even parents and teachers don’t understand them. • Are these rules copy-righted? • What happens if teachers don’t like it? • Is it an improvement or a bad thing? • Was independent research done? • Can you provide me any pilot studies that were done to show how these standards are actually going to raise performance and knowledge? • What evidence can you provide that NGSS solved the problems of the previous standards • Can you give us specific examples of how these new standards will improve scientific understanding? • How will our students be better prepared to take college chemistry, biology, etc.? • Has any community reviewed the comments or content of Idaho’s college courses to evaluate if we are going to be better preparing our students? • Was there independent research consulted, if so, when and whom and can we get a link to these presentations? • We have real concerns with the value system. • What kind of fiscal report has been done to determine the cost of implementation? • How much new curriculum, new learning apps, new tests, prep, materials and teacher training will be needed? • How much can be saved by just adding or amending the old standards? Maybe that money could be better spent in classrooms for actual experiments and teacher supplies. • What kind of guarantee do I get to ensure my child or grandchild will be that much better off with these standards than the old ones to do well in college? • How can we justify something that has never been tested? • Pushing these types of huge expensive changes through the rules process is not an ethical way to do the peoples’ work. It seems the only thing the people are involved in is paying the bills. • I encourage the Education Committees to put the brakes on this type of decision making, they were voted in to represent me, not to circumvent me to do the Fed’s bidding. • If a state body such as the Board of Education codifies a scientific principle in their curriculum, then they are giving great weight to that and somebody’s going to make a lot of money out of it. • I can’t see any reason for codifying global warming or global cooling or anything of that nature in any kind of educational process and saying this is the Holy Grail. • There are numerous lawsuits already being filed in court as to the constitutionality implementing NGSS, not to mention the Common Core state standards as a whole. If the NGSS is deemed unconstitutional then the requirement article will need to be revisited and perhaps repealed. • In March of 2014 Wyoming rejected NGSS. • By adopting these standards this year the IDOE will face opposition from multitudes of concerned parents and citizens who do not have the same views on global warming, uses of natural resources and evolution as the NGSS standards • Ever since Jimmy Carter created the DOE in 1980 the quality of our education and our standing in the world has been going down the tube. • I object to holding this meeting on Veterans’ Day. • The state DOE claims that the rules are negotiated, so with whom were they negotiated? • In these new science papers global warming is promoted as fact again and again and again; in science, there is no settled science. There are theories that explain lots of things until they don’t explain something. • Data on global warming models that project are not even accurate enough to even begin to make the claims they are making for it. • The state has a big enough mess with the Common Core that they already adapted so they don’t need a bigger mess now with more stuff that will be going against the wishes of parents of the state. • Exactly why is the NGSS being brought to the Education Committees through the rules process and not through a more transparent process? I feel parents and teachers have been left out of this process. • Why the rush to implement this? • It is inappropriate to put it into rules at this time or anytime, actually. It boils down to indoctrination and we don’t want our education to be indoctrination in Idaho. • The weakness of the documentation regarding the NGSS is glaring. • We are tired of being treated like citizens that are not important and that whoever is running things knows best about how they want to brainwash our children. • I know that this education system of Common Core is being instituted so the state can get federal money which would cause us to sell our souls or we have to reject it. • Kids should hear both sides of issues especially on religion. • It’s unconstitutional. • It’s not religiously neutral. • This is a religion in a sense, answering questions that we really don’t have the answers to. • Many more people would have attended but they could not take time from work and could not travel so far on a weekday morning. This treatment is not only disrespectful but unacceptable. • We don’t even know the entire standards being proposed. • When we are told that our schools are focusing on career and college readiness, it would be very wise to heavily include real world employees and employers in various science fields. • When ELA and math standards have not been rectified, why would we want to hastily expand into more subjects? • The bottom line is that we want it to be true, we want answers and we want to hear the truth. • What is lacking in our current set of science standards? Please be specific, don’t say they need to be updated. • Have the proposed standards been pilot tested, for how long, what was the demographic and what was the metrics used to show improvement or as a baseline to be benchmarked against other states in the country that you feel confident were successful with this particular discipline, and what are those metrics? • What are the pieces that are missing from the current standards? For example the NGSS does not address life systems, specifically body systems or computer science. • Climate change is heavily emphasized but electric circuits are briefly mentioned. • Are these standards developmentally age appropriate? • Will intelligent design be given equal time and fairness next to evolution? Is evolution being taught as a theory or a fact? • More and more is being added and class periods are becoming shorter. This has to stop, laboratory experience cannot be reduced to a sound bite. Experience cannot be reduced to a soundbite. • I continue to support the National Science Education Standards (NSES). These voluntary standards were crafted by professional science teachers and copyrighted in 1996 by the National Academy of Sciences. These address more than the narrow academic standards of NGSS. NSES addresses content, process, content, assessments and teaching standards. • Know that it is more politically expedient to pass new standards and then blame students and teachers. This old science teacher says it is time to put a stop to smoke and mirrors. • The only thing I see coming from these standards is more spending for the new curriculum, which we all know isn’t that new. • Unless the conditions for learning and teaching are addressed before the adoption of any new standards, Idaho will continue to see an exodus of great science teachers and money flowing to the corporations profiting off the manufactured crisis in education. • If this board adopts the Next Generation Science Standards out-of-hand, you’re addressing the wrong variables unless, you’re setting good teachers up for failure. • Everything points to engineering failure so Idaho can be populated by charter schools in education privatized and run by investors. • I would ask if the NGSS includes the disputed evidence on Climate Change, see: ‘Former Greenpeace Director Speaks Out on Climate Change,’ ‘Over 31,000 Scientists Sign A Petition Against The Faulty Science of Climate Change,’ including Idaho Scientists, ‘NASA Scientists Dispute Climate Change,’ and ‘The Missing Science from the Draft National Assessment on Climate Change’ from The CATO Institute.‘ • The state of Kansas is involved in a lawsuit now over these standards on First Amendment grounds and Idaho should not have to go through with the expense of the same. The thinking is that if you oppose these standards it is because you are a religious zealot who doesn’t want your child to understand real science • Schools should not able to teach religion, but they should not be able to teach anti-religion either. • We are told that with these new standards our kids will know how to ask questions better, however, if you read all the material you’ll find that the questions our kids will be asking will be limited and directed into a particular world view. • 77% of the population of the U.S. considers themselves Christians. Why is it necessary to prohibit this world view in a science class? Why must any world view be adopted in science class? • Why can’t we just provide for what we know, what we don’t know and teach the scientific method? • We should never, ever try to convince children that science is settled, that there is no room for questioning, that there is only a certain set of appropriate questions. But that is what I see. We are using the cover of science to manipulate the belief and values of our children, not to teach them how to become scientists and understand the world around them. • This is all very strict and rigid and all tied into Common Core. • I don’t see any room for teachers to use their own ingenuity, it’s all funneled into to doing things only one way. • Every student has different ways of learning things, some are hands on and some by reading. • Common Core is just another program like ‘Race to the Top’ and ‘No Child Left Behind’ that doesn’t work. • We need the Education Committees down in Boise to answer all these questions truthfully and then reject NGSS. • 35 of the 44 Central Committees in Idaho voted to oppose Common Core. • All Constitutions in all states, including Idaho, mention God. • I’m concerned about this part here where it talks about the Next Generation Science Standards are religiously neutral, yet they teach foundational materialistic doctrines that are fundamental to atheism, humanism and Buddhism. That disturbs me, they won’t teach about Christianity but they will teach about those things. • Common Core has never been field tested. It has been estimated that it will take 12 years to evaluate how well it is working. • Many states accepted Common Core sight unseen. Kentucky was one of the first t is now considering opting out. Many college professors there are complaining that their students, in math especially, are woefully untrained. • Many students fail Common Core tests because the ‘passing bar’ is set very high. In New York State only 30% of students pass the tests. What happens to those students, and teachers and school districts when the students don’t pass? No one really has said what will happen. • Common Core doesn’t allow for individual circumstances when they either pass or fail. So if a student is not good at taking tests, what is the alternative? • The chief of staff for Arnie Duncan, The Secretary of the Department of Education, wrote, ‘Common Core was intended to create a national market for the book publishers, tech companies, testing companies and others, hence, the money from Bill Gates. • With all the tests on-line schools need to buy more computers, software, bandwidth and only certain books. • There is no agency or organization you can go to fix this. • This should be flexible, I would like Idaho to say ‘This is the kind of state we are and this is the kind of curriculum that will help us in our state. • In regards to math we should be able to use proven math that we grew up on and I know that my professors did pretty well too in learning the way the learned and that’s probably been pretty well evaluated. • My grandchildren have a lot a trouble with math, my granddaughter actually cries over trying to do math, so we are going to homeschool them. • I am a teacher from another state and Common Core is not very easy as a teacher when they throw you into a new curriculum, probably in August, and then you go in and have to teach the students immediately. It’s very difficult. • As science is concerned, I haven’t seen the new curriculums yet, but if we are trying to teach our students to think critically with open minds to whatever is going on in the world trying to teach them things that they respect from the teachers. They think that everything the teacher says is true. • I don’t like the way the Common Core standards were written. They say they are supposed to be more rigorous, that’s a big term that the educators like to use, but looking at the standards and the Kentucky evidence they are not any more rigorous, children are not learning more, they are just being bogged down trying to learn differently. • Specifically, I have not seen with my children and with the school district that the English and math courses of Common Core that are in place have been successful. • I know many parents who have started home schooling and pulled their children out of public education because they do not agree with them and teachers that don’t like teaching them so they have great concerns. • I am personally concerned with the content of these science standards and I don’t believe they are objective truth.

The well written statement from Johanna Gehlker from Rathdrum, gives some in-depth insight to a segment of these, as she says, ‘poorly designed standards:’ “Thank you for the opportunity to voice my concerns. I was fortunate to have a good early science education in my elementary years. I remember learning that science is objective, verifiable and repeatable. I am concerned that the proposed standards do not pass this basic test. One of the larger problems in our society is that science is being politicized and corrupted. This is exacerbated by our methods of funding scientific research. We do our children a disservice by drawing them into this politicized quagmire.

“I have two examples:

1. Page 3 W.K.7 ELA/Literacy Idaho Common Core ConnectionsParticipate in a shared research and writing projects (e.g. explore a number of books by a favorite author and express opinions about them (PS1-K-1)This fails the objective test. This standard is for kindergarten aged students, many of whom will still be magical thinkers. They have difficulty at this age from separating fact from fiction. Few children’s books at this developmental age are objective. There is a great potential for anthropomorphized stories to inject political content into these young minds, which they will accept as fact. This is not appropriate. The standards should work to teach the difference between fact and fiction at this developmental age, not murky the waters for impressionable minds.
2. Page 65 MS2 I believe this is for middle school aged students.ESS3 A Analyze and interpret data on natural hazards to forecast future catastrophic events and inform technologies to mitigate their effects.This performance standard fails the verifiable test. It raises the questions of computerized modeling accuracy, data integrity, and statistical inference beyond the scope of middle school math. This standard and accompanying activities promote blind acceptance of graphs, charts and other materials – and blind acceptance is the antithesis of a science. This standard and accompanying learning activities could be easily manipulated by unscrupulous educators to meet political ends. We should be teaching our students to think for themselves – not brainwashing them.

“Science education has a great opportunity to teach children to be logical thinkers, to learn to investigate the world, to question, explore and build for themselves. We should not squander this opportunity by adopting poorly designed standards.” Unquote Johanna Gehlker

In Kentucky, the first state to adopt Common Core, college professors are protesting that it means teaching woefully unprepared students.

Quoting Jane Robbins and Emmett McGoarty in their article ‘College Professors Begin Revolt Against Common Core’ in TheFederalist.com, “It’s been obvious from the beginning of the Common Core scheme that one of many weak links in the enterprise was college professors. What would happen when their classes were flooded with increasingly ill-prepared Common Core-“educated” students? That problem is now becoming apparent, and a professors’ revolt has now begun in Kentucky—the first state to adopt and implement the national curriculum mandates.”

Also, read ‘What Idaho educators are saying about Common Core’ and read about the on-going effort in Kansas to Opt out of Common Core in a lawsuit ‘Kansas Against Common Core.’

On the Climate Change issue that is promoted in these standards here is an important read as stated by the CATO institute in their ‘The Missing Science from the Draft National Assessment on Climate Change:’

“This National Assessment is much closer to pseudoscience than it is to science. It is as explanatory as Sigmund Freud. It clearly believes that virtually everything in our society is tremendously dependent the surface temperature, and, because of that, we are headed towards certain and inescapable destruction, unless we take its advice and decarbonize our economy, pronto. Unfortunately, the Assessment can’t quite tell us how to accomplish that, because no one knows how.

“In the Assessment‘s 1200 horror-studded pages, almost everything that happens in our complex world — sex, birth, disease, death, hunger, and wars, to name a few — is somehow made worse by pernicious emissions of carbon dioxide and the joggling of surface average temperature by a mere two degrees.

“Virtually every chapter in the Assessment perseverates on extreme weather, despite the U.N.s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change statement that:

“There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change

“The Assessment is woefully ignorant of humanity’s ability to adapt and prosper in response to challenges. The quintessence of this is the truly dreadful chapter on human health and climate change.

“While death, disease, poverty and injustice are all conjured by warming, there is not one mention of the fact that life expectancy in the U.S. is approximately twice what it was in the year 1900, or that per-capita income in real dollars is over ten times what it was then. It emphasizes diseases that will somehow spread because of warming, neglecting the fact that many were largely endemic when it was colder and were eradicated as we warmed a bit.

“Further, it conspicuously ignores the fact that doubling the life expectancy of some 200 million Americans who lived in the 20th century is the same as saving 100 million lives. The society that achieved this powered itself on the combustion of fossil fuels. Does this community of experts understand that the number of lives that it effectively saved is orders of magnitude above and beyond it could possibly cost? It seems, given the panoply of horrors due to start pronto, to prefer that we not have emitted carbon dioxide in the first place. Perhaps they ought to look a place that didn’t. Surely part of the $3.5 billion that the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) consumes per year could finance a field trip to Chad, so they can see the world without cheap and abundant energy.

“And what is the purpose of this Assessment? The motto of the USGCRP says it all:

“Thirteen Agencies, One Mission: Empower the Nation with Global Change Science.

“The operative word is “empower,” which is the purpose of the Assessment. It is to provide cover for a massive regulatory intrusion, and concomitant enormous costs in resources and individual liberty. History tells us that when scientists willingly endorse sweeping governmental agendas fueled by dodgy science, bad things soon happen. To borrow the meter of Winston Churchill:

“‘Never in the history of pseudoscientific consensus will so much be done to so many by so few.’” – Unquote from the CATO Institute’s ‘The Missing Science from the Draft National Assessment on Climate Change:’

Summing all this up is my most critical words about what all this is really about. Money. Money on two fronts.

Money for our state: As a state, Idaho cannot find a way around the ‘Otter nonsense’ of accepting the role of a Washington puppet instead of ‘Patrioting Up’ and doing the hard creative work of finding methods to do without the Common Core extortion scheme.

Money for the Climatiers (my word): Al Gore and his ilk in high places globally are poised to make billions on the hoax of Climate Change promoted in these NGSS standards.

It is important that all concerned Idaho citizens on this topic spread the word to others and contact not only their own district’s senators and representatives but particularly contact the members of the two houses’ Education Committees. This most important matter needs to die quickly in the committees, “Otherwise,” as Representative Scott says, “there should be no complaining when the science our children learn is dictated by the United Nations and the International Convention on Climate Change.”

---

HOUSE EDUCATION COMMITTEE MEMBERS

• Chair Reed DeMordaunt
• Vice Chair Julie VanOrden
• Paul E. Shepherd
• Richard Wills
• Judy Boyle
• Lance Clow
• Terry Gestrin
• Steven Harris
• Ron Mendive
• Patrick McDonald
• Sage Dixon
• Ryan Kerby
• Donna Pence
• Hy Kloc
• Ilana Rubel

Education Committee Office
Public schools, colleges, universities
Daily, am, Room EW41
Secretary: Jean Vance
Email: hedu@house.idaho.gov
Phone: 332-1148

SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE MEMBERS

• Chair Dean M. Mortimer
• Vice Chair Steven P. Thayn
• Bob Nonini
• Jim Patrick
• Mary Souza
• Lori Den Hartog
• Kelly Anthon
• Cherie Buckner-Webb
• Janie Ward-Engelking

Education Committee Office
M, T, W, Th, 3:00 pm, Room WW55
Secretary: LeAnn South
Email: sedu@senate.idaho.gov
Phone: 332-1321

“Greed, for lack of a better word, is good.” Those are the ‘all too memorable words’ spoken by the character Gordon Gekko, portrayed by the actor Michael Douglas in the 1987 movie ‘Wall Street.‘ A much better word would simply have been ambition. Ambition is extremely good. Not so much with the word greed.

Merriam Webster’s definition of greed: ‘a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed.’ Merriam Webster’s definition of selfish: ‘concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself: seeking or concentrating on one’s own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others.’

THE PURSUIT OF CONTROLLING YOUNG MINDS

Unfortunately, young minds are just too impressionable and that fact has been exploited for decades by socialists with Marxist and Communist schemes. Hollywood has become most exploitative in recent years. The late Senator Joseph McCarthy’s famous outing of the Hollywood 10 in its day (the 50’s) was like ‘Hollywood 10 Lite’ compared to today’s hidden socialist propaganda programmed into many of today’s media messages in movies, sitcoms, made for TV specials, documentaries and even cartoons. Clandestine socialist issue messages being woven into media outlets’ output can be equated to the equally clandestine propaganda being fed our children in our schools through Common Core, or as we call it here, Idaho Core (sponsored by the UN and their very clandestine comrades at the Council of Foreign Relations).

From his article ‘The Real McCarthy Record,’ author James J. Drummey wrote: ‘McCarthyism was a serious attempt to remove from positions of influence the advocates of Communism, the willing and unwilling supporters of Communism and Communists, and persons who would prevent the removal of those who give aid and comfort to the enemies of America. Communist conspirators and their friends do not fear those who denounce Communism in general terms; they do greatly fear those who would expose their conspiratorial activities. That is why they hated and fought Joe McCarthy more than any other public figure in this century. That is why they have preserved his name as a club to hold over the head of anyone who dares to expose Communism.

“The events of the past 30 years have proved McCarthy right, and those who want to halt the communist juggernaut today had better know the true story of McCarthyism. The war against Communism cannot be won by wavering apologists,” said Mrs. J. B. Matthews back in 1961. “Victory begins with a realization that no one who fights Communism — not even a hypothetical god-like perfect man — can escape the liberaloid smear, and that smear image bears no relation to reality.”

“Joe McCarthy was a brave and honest man. There was nothing cynical or devious about him. He said and did things for only one reason — he thought they were the right things to say and do. He was not perfect; he sometimes made errors of fact or judgment. But his record of accuracy and truthfulness far outshines that of his detractors. His vindication in the eyes of all Americans cannot come soon enough. Medford Evans put it well when he said: “The restoration of McCarthy … is a necessary part of the restoration of America, for if we have not the national character to repent of the injustice we did him, nor in high places the intelligence to see that he was right, then it seems unlikely that we can or ought to survive.” – Unquote James J. Drummey

GREED IS DEFINITLEY NOT GOOD!

From his article in the Atlantic, ‘Greed Is Good: A 300-Year History of a Dangerous Idea,‘ John Paul Rollert states, “I think greed is healthy,” an apparent acolyte told the graduating class at Berkeley’s business school in 1986. “You can be greedy and still feel good about yourself.” The speaker was Ivan Boesky, who shortly thereafter would be fined $100 million, and later go to prison, for insider trading. His address was adapted by Oliver Stone as the basis for Gordon Gekko’s “greed is good” speech in Wall Street. An exhortation to shareholders of a sagging company, it reads like a corporate raider’s war cry, with Gekko the grinning avatar of Agency Theory.

“Such a blunt endorsement of greed today remains far beyond the mainstream. If we tolerate greed, it is because we accept the hard bargain of the Invisible Hand. We believe that greed can do good, not that it is good. That, we are unwilling to say.

“But for the most part, I don’t think we don’t say very much about greed, not comfortably at least. Perhaps that is the inevitable price of an economic system that relies on the vigor of self-interested pursuits, that it instills a kind of moral quietism in the face of avarice, for whether out of a desire to appear non-judgmental or for reasons of moral expediency, unless some action verges on the criminal, we hesitate to call it greed, much less evidence of someone greedy. We don’t deny the existence of such individuals, but like Bigfoot, they tend to be more rumored than seen.

“Moral revolutions come about in different ways. If we reject some conduct but rarely admit an example, we enjoy the benefit of being high-minded without the burden of moral restraint. We also embolden that behavior, which proceeds with a presumptive blessing. As a matter of public discourse and polite conversation, “Greed” is unlikely to be “Good” anytime soon, but a vice need not become a virtue for the end result to look the same.” – Unquote John Paul Rollert

AMBITION: ‘THE REAL THING’

Ambition is a strong desire to do or to achieve something, typically requiring determination and hard work. Most of what has been accomplished in this world stemmed from the element of sheer ambition fueled by an unrelenting drive to succeed, believing as I read somewhere years ago, that obstacles are just those frightful things you see when you take your eyes off the goal. With ambition, all can be really good.

Nothing so sickens moral ethical people as do poker face liars, and chronic liars are to be avoided if at all possible. But people like Hillary Clinton take the art to heightened levels hardly comprehendible by trusting Americans. As I have said on several occasions, I believe that the violation of the public trust and the violation to a sacred oath to our Constitution should be recognized as the most heinous of crimes.

Americans who vet their news and follow original sources are sick and tired of Hillary and her sorry treasonous husband (check out Chinagate [from the book ‘Year of the Rat’] – it is the very treasonous scandal for which many believe the Monica Lewinski debacle served as a cover-up). These felonious Clintons could be viewed as ‘idolized models’ by imprisoned felons everywhere and are only successful at the level they enjoy because of the support and cover-ups afforded them by a duplicitous and equally sorry media and political comrades.

Scheming and manipulating might seem standard operating procedure to hardened politicians of a liberal or neocon bent but to Constitutional conservatives and folks that value traditional American values with religious upbringings Hillary and her highly successful partner in crime are revolting. Americans expect and deserve highly principled dedicated leaders, but we probably are getting these corruption unlimited types because as has been said before we get the government we deserve. In other words, we haven’t been paying attention and have been way too trusting of these poker faces and the sorry media. Americans must find their vigilance and start becoming wary of all that is said by politicians, start watching actual voting records by following the Freedom Indexes for the U.S. Congress at TheFreedomIndex@JBS.org and for the state of Idaho at IdahoFreedomIndex.com and fire elected officials who are not following our rule of law through the Constitution.

Nowhere in recent history are there people in public office with such high visibility and outright transparency that have committed so much outright crime against the state and continually not had to answer for them as these two Clintons. But for this column, just speaking about Hillary, you should check out: HILLARY’S 22 BIGGEST SCANDALS EVER.

FROM THE JUDGE

Most recently, bombshell statements were made by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano as a guest on Fox News’ Your World With Neil Cavuto identifying the grounds on which Hillary should be indicted.

The transcript from Judge Andrew P. Napolitano’s appearance on Neil Cavuto’s show on Monday, Nov 1, 2015: “We know from the most recent email dump that always seems to come out on a Friday, that not only was she informed by the CIA that Ambassador Stevens was killed by Al Caida and she learned that within 12 hours of his death and she told her daughter, Chelsea in an email and the then Prime Minister of Egypt in an email, but we now know that her own embassy staff, people who work for her in Tripoli, Libya were saying ‘Don’t push the video. The Libyans haven’t seen the video. This video might be a big deal in the media in the United States, but we haven’t even seen it here. Chris was killed by really bad guys, he wasn’t killed by demonstrators upset by a video.’ So she knew what the truth was, she knew her own people were rejecting the video.

“Fast forward two days now, Andrews Air Force Base, Chris Steven’s body and the bodies of the three guards are received there by her. She receives them in her capacity as their boss in the State Department, they work for her. What does she say to the families and to the military and to the diplomats gathered there? ‘They were killed by demonstrators who watched a video about Mohammed.’ So she perpetuated this lie, knowing full well that it was untrue to the families of the deceased, to the media, to her own colleagues in the State Department, many of whom were there and knew she was lying.

“She has given the FBI additional grounds because of the deception before Congress. It is not a crime for her to deceive the rest of the State Department or the public, but it is when she goes before Congress. And because of her lying about whether or not she knew that weapons were getting into the hands of rebels, Al Caida, who eventually killed Chris Stevens with American weapons and American bullets.

“If the FBI recommends an indictment and the West Wing of the White House puts the kibosh on it, I predict that you will see a copy of the indictment leaked and I predict that you will see the evidence behind the indictment leaked and you’ll see resignations in the FBI. And the political fallout from that will be as disastrous to her Presidential aspirations as if she had actually been indicted. And that is because she will have been saved from indictment, not because she was innocent but because she was the President’s friend.

If the White House stays out of this, I think she gets indicted on these grounds:

• Espionage
• The failure to secure national security secrets
• Destruction of government property
• The failure to return to the government all the emails that she stole
• Lying to a federal judge about whether or not she surrendered all the emails in her custody
• Lying to Congress about her awareness of the arms to rebels deal, which she authored, authorized and denied under oath.”
• Unquote from Judge Napolitano

Wrapping this up is another Judge Napolitano quote from his ‘The Freedom Answer Book,’ “If we wish to survive the near future with our rights intact, we need to understand the size and scope of the threat. We must also understand its true identity: a government that breaks its own laws.”

So where is America’s moral compass pointing and where is our will?