A conservative editor allows for the viability of Common Core. Here is his thinking on this issue:

Arizona Ditches Common Core Testing Cosortium

Editor’s notes:  Two considerations: 

First,  there is no reason to believe that Common Core is an end all to educational failures.  It is not as if there are no competing programs that are potentially and equally effective. 

Secondly,  I have two daughters who are teachers (here, in California).  Both agree that Common Core does not take away their independency as teachers or their ability to make changes in what they teach,  should that be their intentions. 

Those teachers who are hell bent on social justice as defined by modern-day Marxism,  will use any educational tool,  to pursue their personal agenda,  whether that be Common Core or not. 

Me?  I believe my very conservative minded daughters.  

Hegal tells China, “Back off," which leads us to ask this question:

"In recent months, China has undertaken destabilizing, unilateral actions asserting its claims in the South China Sea," Hagel said.

He warned Beijing that the United States was committed to its geopolitical rebalance to the Asia-Pacific region and "will not look the other way when fundamental principles of the international order are being challenged"   . . . .   http://news.yahoo.com/u-backs-japans-abe-tells-china-stop-destabilizing-022309858.html;_ylt=AwrBEiHMyolTByUAbUbQtDMD

Editor’s notes:  You cannot use your enemies for debt relief,  disarm your military as your enemies double down on the increase of their armies, jump in bed with their trade policies,  and spend  six years backing down from your threats and commitments,  and do anything other than ask the same question the Communist Chinese are asking,  “Or what?”  

Obama has been in a position of responsibility for Veteran's affairs since 2005; three years as Senate committee member and 5 years as "president." Blaming Bush is just plain silly. (no article, just this informative headline and a brief comment).

Understand that a politician cannot "accept responsibility" for an issue or problem and blame his predecessor,  at the same time; the two are mutually exclusive  . . . . . . . . .   period.  

Why this editor no longer watches The Five.

<<< Bob "Who the hell is this guy" Beckel,  is second from the left,  and I do mean Left.  

FromBreitbart:  Friday on Fox News Channel's "The Five," co-host Bob Beckel responded to today's release of Hillary Clinton’s "Hard Choices" Benghazi chapter saying, "First of all, the idea that anything is infamous about those ridiculous Sunday talk shows, there's a small clack of people here and in Washington paying attention to it. Secondly I think it was the most brilliant political chapter I have ever read in answering questions."

Beckel continued, "She did exactly right, she laid it where it should be laid, which is on every Republicans now making politics, everyone, over dead bodies. She laid it out when she talked about these cretins and deceitful people starting with Darrell Issa, he is a deceitful man."

Beckel wrapped his rant by declaring "I want to say this, this is the last time I'm ever going to talk about Benghazi, and I hope every other patriotic American joins with me." 

Editor’s notes:  There was a time when I actually defended this pig of a liberal,  but no more.  My change of attitude is directly related to the comments above,  stated in differing contexts,  over the past four weeks.  Bob “Who the hell is this guy” Beckel was the campaign manager for Walter Mondale,  and is responsible for conducting one of the most feckless national presidential campaigns in US history. 

Obviously, Beckel knows no more about election politics than he cares about four men screaming for help while their Commander writes them off,  goes to bed,  rises the next morning,  flies to Nevada,  and gives a campaign speech,  all while people were fighting and dying at the hands of Radical Islam, not aware that Obama and Hillary had written them off for the sake of election politics.    Beckel has written this (Benghazi)  off,  and couldn't care less about the truth of the matter,  or the fact that he defends a cold blooded politician in the Muslim sympathizer,  B Obama. 

Understand that I do not care about the video fantasy of the Socialist Left.  The fact remains,  video or not,  that these people went to bed and slept,  while men were screaming for help.  If only Beckel would find himself in that same situation.     

Me?  I have enjoyed The Five,  since its inception on Fox News,  but no more.  I no longer watch the program,  because and only because,  of this fat ass and his know-nothing,  heartless rantings about Benghazi.  

Before the serious debate from the Left about immigaration reform, 20 to 30 million immigrants; aft serious efforts began, Left touts (only) 11 million immigrants in country. Why?

Here is what will be and is,  wrong with Democrat immigration reform:  1) It will put reform and amnesty ahead of border security; 2) there will be no cap on future immigration into this country from our southern border; 3) as many as 40 million immigrants will be effected,  not the bogus 11 million,  being touted as the official estimate from the Left; 4) under Democrat/Obama rule,  the new law,  should it be written,  will be ignored as the Dems see fit,  effecting and affecting a borderless national pathology;  5) under Obama,  de facto amnesty  is already the case,  and the promise of amnesty** is creating so large a border crossing, as we speak,   that our border patrol is nearly and completely overwhelmed as per the video report on the Kelly Files.

____________________

**  Understand that "amnesty" and "path to citizenship" are two very different things, or should be. The concern of the Conservative Nation is that Progressive Socialists will use "amnesty"  (the right to remain in this country until citizenship requirements can be fulfilled),   as a de facto path to citizenship.  Their argument will be:  "It is not fair that these people cannot vote while waiting in line to become citizens.  Let's give them that right, now,  and all the benefits of citizenship,  since they have entered the process to become Americans,  already."  The reader needs to accept reality,  at this point.  Socialist Progressives,  believing that the "ends always justifies the means,"  cannot be trusted with the application of any law that can be turned into a political plus for the advancement of their world view.   

You should know that the waiting period,  admittedly too long,  insures that these "new citizens" will have been exposed to our laws,  and our reverence for US Constitutional law  . . . .  considerations the Radical Left does not honor.

Related news from Breitbard.com:   

Facing pressure from immigrant advocates and seeking to fulfill a commitment to “transparency,” Customs and Border Protection Friday released a consultant review of its officers’ use of force and a revised Use of Force Policy handbook.

“This release and, most importantly, the policy and training changes they represent are the beginning of a continuous review of our responsibility to only use force when it is necessary to protect people,” CBP Commissioner R. Gil Kerlikowske said.

According to CBP, the handbook revisions used "most" of the recommendations from the commissioned Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) review, which encouraged placing more limits on the use of force based on a review of 67 use of force incidents from January 2010 through October 2012, as well as an Inspector General review.

Thanks to our readership for our first 1 millionth pageview, today, May 30. As a small time blog, we hope we are doing a service for this country.

This blog just crossed the 1 millionth pageview mark.  Add 330,000 to this total,  and you have a close approximation of our total pageview since mid-2008.  The blog was shut down,  by Google,  using spam guidelines as their excuse.  The shutdown occurred three hours after I had written a blazing criticism of the Democrat control Congress,  giving Obama unrestricted access to Freddie and Fannie funding.  I believed the money was going to be used by Obama to fund ACORN,  a perverse political concern that had lost its congressional funding.  The blog was down on Dec 24, 2009, and, up and running,  using a different URL but with the same name,  on Dec 26. 2009.  

Pageviews today

164

Pageviews yesterday

2,136

Pageviews last month

29,327

Pageviews all time history

1,000,887

Hillary, incredibly, has decided to defend the "video explanation" on Benghazi. Has she sealed her political doom? Time will tell.

43 share

In Hillary's newly released book,  Hard Choices,  she gives explanation and a defense to "inside politics" during her time with the Obama Administration as well as talking about her political strategy for the near future.  While not declaring her candidacy in this book,  Hillary sets out to control, if not define and limit,  the coming debate about her involvement regarding Benghazi. 

Understand that Libya was Obama's claim to fame, in the pre-election propaganda of 2012,  but,  before this reality,  Libya/Benghazi was Hillary's responsibility as Secretary of State.  I am saying,  "The Embassy murders were first, under her purview,  then Obama's."  That both had reason to lie about the events of 9/11/2012 (just days before the November elections),  and colluded on their fantasy explanation and their "do nothing, after crisis" policy.  Rather than running from the problem, admitting the truth about the video,  and wishing things had not gotten out of hand,    she has embraced the Obama strategy,  and opened the door to the same beating Obama has experienced in these,  pre-Select Committee, days.   

Others have tried to do what Hillary sets forth,  in the following paragraph  . . . . . .   tried and failed,  I might add.  

“I will not be a part of a political slugfest on the backs of dead Americans. It’s just plain wrong, and it’s unworthy of our great country. Those who insist on politicizing the tragedy will have to do so without me.”

Kind of funny,  don't you think?  To imagine that Hillary,  every bit the Leftist Wacko, Obama is, and just as responsible for the Embassy murders as Obama,  can stay out of the fray that will be the news of the day,  after the November elections,  is wishful thinking on her part.  

The House Select Committee on Benghazi will begin public hearings and closed door depositions, probably just after the November elections.  House leadership has no fear of a Democrat take-over due to the mid-term elections. Waiting until after the elections,  has some risk to it,  but the Select Committee could not finish its work before November, anyway,  so the strategy is well advised.   Of course,  if the Dems were successful in taking back the House,  that would be the end of Bengahzi and Hillary would get a free pass on the issue.  

In her chapter on Benghazi,  Hillary makes a huge mistake,  in my opinion.  Rather than giving up on the video explanation,  she has decided to "double down" on that point,  and,  with that decision,  insures that she will be at the center of the Benghazi revelations,  leading up to the 2016 elections  . . . . .  and deservedly so.  

Politico gives us this summary of Hillary's defense,  with the following:  

Clinton defends the intelligence at the time preceding the attack on the American compound in Benghazi. An anti-Islamic video that had sparked a protest at an embassy in Cairo was proved in “later investigation and reporting,” including by The New York Times, to have been “indeed a factor” in what happened in Benghazi, Clinton writes.

“There were scores of attackers that night, almost certainly with differing motives,” she writes. “It is inaccurate to state that every single one of them was influenced by this hateful video. It is equally inaccurate to state that none of them were. Both assertions defy not only the evidence but logic as well.”

Her explanation is no longer credible,  and, by the time she officially enters the presidential contest,  she will have nowhere to turn,  if she continues such stupidity.  

If she wants to swim with this millstone around her neck,  she proves herself to be no more literate, in a political sense,  than Barack,  and deserves to be defeated,  on those grounds,  alone.  

All we can do is hope for the best,  on this account.  

If we didn't know better, this fellow sounds like the conservatives, Dems love to hate (video)

Speaking of the Hispanic/Republican Governor of New Mexico,  Susan Martinez,  the Democrat 

candidate for Governor, suggest that "We need to send her back to wherever she came from."  

In view of the fact that Dems created the KKK,  wrote all of the Jim Crow laws,  segregated

the military under Progressives Woodrow Wilson (WW I) and FDR (WW II) and forced the 

nation into a Civil War.  

A recent headline tells us this: The next horizon event for the Civil Rights Movement is the case for transgender acceptance. If so, now is the time to have "the talk."

<<<   Caroline Cossey is a British actress best known for her role as a Bond girl in the movie For Your Eyes Only. (Time & Life Pictures/Getty Images). She was born a male.  

You should note that very few transgendered women look like this,  when all the silicone and operative slicing is complete.  They (transgenered women) suffer from male patterned baldness,  are subject to prostrate cancer,  have male appearing feet,  must have their boobs "serviced" throughout their lives, and, internally,  are 100% male,  right down to their "Adams apple"  and the never ending aging process.  

The politics of "transgender" :   Cossey will age as a man,  not a woman, but, if she knows this (and even if she does not), she should be free to make such decisions.  Our American/Constitutional system,  does not prevent Cossey from doing so,  or reversing previous decisions.  As long a she allows me to voice my concerns,  I am fine with whatever she does.  Our political/societal system is not a theocracy.  We should never forget that or use our biases (mine included),  to give reason to act as if "theocracy" is the rule of the day.  At the same time,  the Left must leave my 1st Amendment rights alone.  Don't care for my bias (we all have them,  you know),  get over it. 

In 2010, President Obama made Amanda Simpson the first openly trans woman named to a presidential administration when he appointed her Senior Technical Advisor to the Bureau of Industry and Security.  (Arizona Daily Star/AP).  

Turns out,  Obama has been aligned with "gayness" at all levels,  as long as he as been a militant abortionist.  No one,  absolutely no one,  makes the about face he has, after saying all the socially acceptable words necessary to achieve his political goals, without being a closet (gay) ally,  all or most of his life.  I am saying, that he was "gay minded" long before he became president.  His 180,  after becoming president,  was no surprise to those of us who who have followed this man over the past decade.   

More from the Editor:  

Having written the above,  I do not make a case against these folks doing with their bodies,  what they want to do.  I believe it is a gross disservice, however,  to share their decisions,  without discussing the inherent physiological concerns shared above, in my post to the readership.  

If Amanda Simpson does her job well,  I don't care how she looks without clothing.  

My only complaint/concern is this:  I believe that,  in time,  my stated concerns will be considered "hate speech," criminalized and forbidden under that otherwise useless law,  to the detriment of those considering a similar path in life,  but,  without an opposing view or the manifest caveat of a continued and completing male biology,  even after "transgendered" results have been realized.   
________________
Important side note:

I am taking the time to write this article because of the following lede:  

Katy Steinmetz / TIME:

Laverne Cox Talks to TIME About the Transgender Movement  —  The Orange Is the New Black star on politics, happiness and why genitalia isn't destiny  —  On TIME's cover this week is an unlikely icon: Laverne Cox.  Bullied and harassed for appearing feminine while growing up in Mobile …

If considering transgender surgery,  the candidate should learn more about the following,  and the potential impact on his or her life,  over the years:  

Research suggests that there appears to be less muscle hypertrophy with strength improvement in women when compared to men. The data suggest that there are no differences between genders in central or peripheral cardiovascular adaptations to aerobic training. However, women in general have a reduced O2 carrying capacity. Another factor that may be responsible for the sex differences seen in the metabolic responses to exercise may be the greater, essential sex specific fat of women . . .   men gain weight, typically,  in different ways than women.  More “fat men,” for example,  experience “belly fat” in ways unique to men. 

Hormonal considerations are vastly different between the two sexes and may effect future treatment programs.    

Transgendered women will never have children as do their birth-women countparts. 

Men have a different chromosomal  make up,  with an X and Y chromosome reality,  while women have only X and X chromosomes. 

Autoimmune diseases affect 8% of the population, 78% of whom are women. The reason for the high prevalence in women is unclear. Women are known to respond to infection, vaccination, and trauma with increased antibody production and a more T helper (Th)2-predominant immune response, whereas a Th1 response and inflammation are usually more severe in men.  All of this remains the case for men transgendered to women. . . . . .  

acute and chronic phases of disease are regulated differently in males and females.

None of the above changes,  in the face of “realignment surgery.”  All such surgery is cosmetic,  none of it represents changes in the biology of the individual.  

  

Featured Article Review: Even network news is forced to admit the obvious: Obama's foreign policy has done nothing to advance America, but, maybe that is the point of his foreign policy (seriously).

<<<<    NBC's Richard Engel: U.S. Relations Have Not Improved With a Single Nation During Obama Presidency

By Connor Williams | May 29, 2014 | 14:50

A  A

On the May 29 edition of CNBC’s Squawk Box, Richard Engel, NBC’s chief foreign correspondent, conceded that he could not name a single nation where relations have improved with the United States since President Obama took office six years ago. Engel generally stays above the political fray, so this admission about the president’s  foreign policy is revealing.

Responding to further questioning by Home Depot co-founder Ken Langone, Engel asserted that the reason why relations with foreign nations haven’t improved is due to the fact that “our allies have become confused.”

Engel went on to elaborate on a very common argument against this president’s foreign policy; that, oftentimes, it lacks purpose and seems aimless:

You now have a president who is pulling out very rapidly. And that is creating a kind of pump action, a vortex of instability that has left allies like Saudi Arabia, like Egypt, like even some European countries very confused. Are we going in? Are we pulling out? Are we leading? Are we trying to set the agenda? There has been a lot of frustration.

In 2009, Engel was quick to note how receptive the Muslim world was to Obama’s speech in Cairo. Now, it seems the reporter has done a 180, recognizing not simply that the president’s foreign policy has largely failed to ingratiate America with the Islamic world, but that the Middle East in now in a state of chaos:

Right now we have a black hole in Syria. Iraq is in a state of collapse. Libya is about to go back into a civil war. And this was the one case where we intervened militarily. So I think there is a lot of problems on the horizon in the foreign policy world just because you are off-ramping in Afghanistan.

It is certainly a positive sign that at least some in the media are taking a more critical look at the president’s foreign policy, although it remains to be seen how much of this will work it’s way into Engel’s reporting. CNBC has nowhere near the viewership as the NBC Nightly News.

Too often the media are unwilling to admit their mistakes, but Engel did so here–albeit tacitly. Being unable to name a single nation with which U.S. relations have improved is quite a powerful indication– as Mr. Langone noted– about the president’s foreign policy.

 Below is a transcript from a portion of the Squawk Box segment  . . . . . . . . . .   

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/connor-williams/2014/05/29/nbcs-richard-engel-us-relations-have-not-improved-single-nation-dur#ixzz33AneHOip

Editor's notes:  Maybe,  just maybe,  many of us on the Right  (me included) need to rethink the notion that there is no sense of patriotism and allegiance to our founding principles, on the Left.  We might begin by admitting that the big government/small government debate has been THE classic American debate,  from its very beginnings.