Alaska State Senator Bettye Davis Sponsors SB109 To Abolish The High School Exit Exam, But Former Students Defend The Exam

Democrats tend to be more obsessed with equality than Republicans. The problem is that some of them seek to dumb everything down to the lowest common denominator in order to attained that cherished "equality".


One such Democrat is Alaska State Senator Bettye Davis (D-East Anchorage). A former Anchorage School Board member, she's been a critic of Alaska's High School Graduation Qualifying Exam (HSGQE), commonly referred to as the "exit exam", complaining that it's "too hard" for too many. The exit exam was conceived in order to restore the value and prestige of a high school diploma, attributes which were diluted by affirmative action, political correctness, and social promotion within our nation's public schools. So just as law school graduates must pass a bar exam in order to get a license to practice law, so our high school students must pass an exit exam to certify that they are indeed high school graduates.

But Senator Davis is more concerned about "self-esteem" and other such psychobabblery than she is about guaranteeing the value of a diploma. So she's taken off the mask and is sponsoring a bill, SB109, that would abolish the exit exam effective July 1st, 2011. Here are the highlights of her reasoning in the sponsor statement:

(1). Lack of need. Senator Davis argues that the state does not need the HSGQE, as the state and all school districts already require many assessment tests to determine student progress and competency. While it's true that school district do administer assessments along the way to determine progress, these are merely progress exams to reduce the chance of a student slipping through the cracks and falling hopelessly behind; they don't hold students accountable. They are not certification exams. In contrast, the HSGQE fulfills the need for a certification exam and holds students accountable.

(2). Too many failures. Senator Davis reports that in 2007, over 1,100 students statewide failed to pass the HSGQE after five opportunities, while 8,524 passed. On the other hand, graduation rates have risen since the exit exam requirement took effect in 2004, from 62.9 percent to 67.5 percent in 2009, according to the Department of Education. Much of the reason for failure was initial growing pains with the testing process; the Department of Education and Early Development made adjustments to the tests to simplify them. It should also be noted that the exit exam is not an "all or nothing" proposition; students can first take it as early as the spring semester of the student's first sophomore year, as determined by a given district. This gives ample time to re-test later in their junior or senior year in the event of initial failure.

Sarah Palin Assails Barack Obama's Policies And Proclaims A Second Revolution Before 1,100 Activists At National Tea Party Convention In Nashville

Sarah Palin wound up the three-day National Tea Party Conference in Nashville, Tennessee by declaring that "America is ready for another revolution" and repeatedly assailed President Barack Obama's policies on Saturday February 6th, 2010 before a group of 1,100 tea party activists who coughed up at least $349 a whack (600 of them paid $549 each for the entire conference) to listen to her keynote address. Local media story with Alaskan reaction in the Anchorage Daily News. Other stories from the Nashville Tennessean, ABC News, the Weekly Standard, Fox News, and WorldNetDaily.

Plenty of red meat for the activists had already been served up by former Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo, who ripped John McCain and proclaimed that Barack Obama was elected because of "people who could not even spell the word ’vote’ or say it in English’", and WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah, who renewed his perennial call for Barack Obama to show proof of natural U.S. citizenship. But Palin served up even more when she repeatedly criticized Obama, saying that his big spending agenda has made the country less secure. She characterized Obama's deficit spending as "immoral" and "generational theft. Palin also chided Obama for Democratic losses in New Jersey and Virginia governor's races last fall and in a Massachusetts Senate race last month, saying that he's 0-and-3. But while Palin welcomed tea party activists regardless of their formal political affiliation, she specifically encouraged "tea party"-aligned candidates to compete in GOP primaries, saying, "Contested primaries aren't civil war; they're democracy at work and that's beautiful."

C-Span has made a video of the entire speech, to include the Q&A at the end, available:



Palin didn't indicate whether her political future would extend beyond cable news punditry and paid speeches to an actual presidential candidacy. All she offered was a smile when a moderator asking her questions used the phrase "President Palin." This ambiguity has given rise to questions as to whether she eventually intends to be a candidate or merely wants to be a celebrity. Various polls indicate Sarah Palin is taken just as seriously as a candidate by Republicans as Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee.

There was one note of discord, though. The Tennessee Tea Party Coalition, which formed independently of the National Tea Party, criticized the National Tea Party for charging so much money to attend the national conference. They characterized the national group as "a bunch of snakes", and said it is fishy, at best, to have such a large amount of money involved for a movement that is of this nature. The Tennessee group packs a punch as it claims a membership of 18,000 people scattered among 34 local Tea Party organizations. There was also a brief flare-up between Joseph Farah and Andrew Breitbart over the "birther" issue; Breitbart thinks it's a loser, while Farah wants to keep it front and center.

In response to this criticism, it should be noted that the intent of the conference organizers was not to throw the door open to every Tom, Dick, and Harriet on the street. They envisioned that the various tea party organizations would select the best of their numbers to attend the convention, and to raise money locally if necessary to help defray the expenses of attending. Sarah Palin has already said she will plow her $100,000 fee back into the movement.

E-Mails Show Todd Palin Was "Shadow Governor" In Sarah Palin's Administration, But MSNBC's Motives Also Under Scrutiny

Will the real Governor of Alaska please stand up?

The Anchorage Daily News has picked up on the story from MSNBC about excerpts of a series of e-mails received by MSNBC which seem to indicate that Todd Palin was more than just a "First Dude", instead indicating he could be considered to have been a fully-blown "Shadow Governor" in Sarah Palin's administration. This comes hard on the heels of another controversial story about two of the Palins' remote Alaskan cabins not being included on property tax assessments, although the land beneath was taxed (the issue in dispute is whether or not the Palins had an obligation to inform the borough of the existence of the cabins, so the borough could UPDATE its assessments). But MSNBC's motives in pursuing and releasing this information, to include the timing of the release, are being called into question as well.

The e-mails have been organized into a collection by Crivella West and can be accessed at the following link:

http://palinemail.crivellawest.net/

According to MSNBC, the 1,200 separate e-mails covering 3,000 pages released this week "draw a picture of a Palin administration where the governor's husband got involved in a judicial appointment, monitored contract negotiations with public employee unions, received background checks on a corporate CEO, added his approval or disapproval to state board appointments and passed financial information marked "confidential" from his oil company employer to a state attorney". The subject lines of those e-mails provide a snapshot of how the Palins divvied up their responsibilities when she became governor in December 2006, less than two years before Republican Sen. John McCain pulled her onto the national political stage by nominating her as his vice presidential candidate.

In addition, 243 other e-mails were withheld by the state under a claim that executive privilege extends to Todd Palin as an unpaid adviser to the government. The court-upheld goal of the policy to allow government officials to make well-informed decisions without being impeded by making public every possible course of action discussed. Serial ethics complainer Andrée McLeod has filed a lawsuit against the state on this issue. In it, she argues that if one private citizen in the state of Alaska can be privy to all these e-mails about the workings of state government, then the state has waived the privilege. But Palin's chief of staff, Michael Nizich, rejected that argument in a denial letter to McLeod's attorney. Nizich said that Todd Palin was not a third-party outsider, but an insider, "an invited advisor and participant in the actual decision-making protected by the privilege." Thus we see a dispute in the interpretation of the First Dude's role; while McLeod is a strict constructionist, Sarah Palin tended to take a broader view.

The Palin camp has responded to this story. Palin attorney Tom Van Flein said in an e-mail Friday to NBC News that Todd Palin's role as an "active advisor" to his wife should come as no surprise "to most Alaskans, and to the millions of people who read "Going Rogue", Palin's autobiography. "Like many married couples, including political 'power couples,' it is common for a spouse to play the role of key advisor to the other spouse," he wrote. "The Palins were no different. Todd Palin had official and unofficial duties, but one thing was clear: he was a key advisor to Governor Palin and involved in her efforts to improve the State of Alaska." Van Flein's full statement is available HERE.

Thomas More Law Center Files Federal Suit To Overturn The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act Based Upon Unconstitutionality

The Thomas More Law Center, a public interest law firm which defends and promotes America’s Christian heritage and moral values, including the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life, announced on February 2nd, 2010 that it has filed a federal lawsuit against U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., challenging the constitutionality of the recently-enacted federal Hate Crimes Act, officially entitled the “Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act”. The Act criminalizes so-called “bias” crimes motivated by a person’s “actual or perceived” “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” and thus elevates those engaged in certain deviant sexual behaviors to a special, protected class of persons under federal law.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, on behalf of Pastor Levon Yuille, Pastor Rene Ouellette, Pastor James Combs, and Gary Glenn, the president of the American Family Association of Michigan (AFA-Michigan). Read the full story HERE and the 27-page lawsuit HERE.

Other media reports on this development published by WorldNetDaily and CNSNews.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, and a former county prosecutor, explained, “There is no legitimate law enforcement need for this federal law. Of the 1.38 million violent crimes reported in the U.S. by the FBI in 2008, only 243 were considered as motivated by the victim’s sexual orientation. Moreover, Eric Holder himself testified at a Senate hearing that the states are doing a fine job in this area.” Thompson believes the ultimate purpose of this law is to criminalize the Bible and use the threat of federal prosecutions and long jail sentences to silence Christians from expressing their Biblically-based religious belief that homosexual conduct is a sin. He also contends it elevates those persons who engage in deviant sexual behaviors, including pedophiles, to a special protected class of persons as a matter of federal law and policy.

Why does the Thomas More Law Center consider the Hate Crimes Act unconstitutional? The lawsuit alleges that this new provision of the law violates the plaintiffs’ rights to freedom of speech, expressive association, and free exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment, and it violates the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment. The lawsuit also alleges that Congress lacked authority to enact the legislation under the Tenth Amendment and the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.

The lawsuit expresses concern that the Hate Crimes Act “provides law enforcement with authorization and justification to conduct federal investigative and other federal law enforcement actions against Plaintiffs and others deemed to be opponents of homosexual activism, the homosexual lifestyle, and the homosexual agenda,” thereby expanding “the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and other federal law enforcement and intelligence gathering agencies.”

Consequently, the new hate crimes law “subjects Plaintiffs to increased government scrutiny, questioning, investigation, surveillance, and intimidation on account of their strong, public opposition to homosexual activism, the homosexual lifestyle, and the homosexual agenda, thereby causing a tangible and concrete deterrent, inhibitory, and chilling effect on Plaintiffs’ activities and their rights to freedom of speech, expressive association, and the free exercise of religion” in violation of the United States Constitution.

The Law Center could also argue that any need for "hate crimes legislation" is already amply covered by individual state laws. The Anti-Defamation League reveals that Wyoming is the only state without any laws or avenues of legal redress for hate crimes. Ironically, the ADL was one of the most vocal champions of the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Law.

Alaska Among 39 States Seeking To Ban Mandatory Health Insurance As Prescribed Through "Obamacare"

Update March 22nd: The total is now 39 states; the title has been changed to reflect it.

An Associated Press story published February 1st, 2010 in the Salt Lake Tribune details legislative attempts in 34 states at the time to stop federal health care legislation that would effectively force all Americans to buy health insurance, even though the proposed Federal legislation, tagged as "Obamacare" because of Barack Obama's enthusiastic support for it, appears to have stalled and may end up being derailed. Specifically, the mandate is incorporated into the separate bills passed by the U.S. House and Senate. It would impose a penalty on people who don't have health insurance except in cases of financial hardship. Subsidies would be provided to low-income and middle-income households. The intent of the mandate is to expand the pool of people who are insured and paying premiums and thus offset the increased costs of insuring those with preexisting conditions or other risks.

In general, the various state proposals would assert a state-based right for people to pay medical bills from their own pocketbooks and prohibit penalties against those who refuse to carry health insurance. A complete list of all states pursuing this legislation is available at the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) website. ALEC's Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act has served as model legislation for these efforts.

Alaska is one of the 34 states (now 39 as of March 22nd) attempting to stop the Federal mandate. The bill, designated HJR35, proposes amendments to the Alaska State Constitution prohibiting passage of laws that interfere with direct payments for health care services and the right to purchase health care insurance from a privately owned company, and that compel a person to participate in a health care system. The primary sponsor is Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Fairbanks); co-sponsors include Rep. Wes Keller (R-Wasilla), Rep. Peggy Wilson (R-Wrangell), Rep. Carl Gatto (R-Palmer), and Rep. Jay Ramras (R-Fairbanks). Read the full text of HJR35 HERE.

Ironically, there's also SB61, a bill sponsored by Senator Hollis French (D-Anchorage) that, if passed, would force all Alaskans to buy health insurance. However, this bill has received no traction in previous legislative sessions.

Supporters of the state measures portray them as a way of defending individual rights and state sovereignty, asserting that the federal government has no authority to tell states and their citizens to buy health insurance. But it's questionable that such the measures could shield state residents from a federal health insurance requirement. "They are merely symbolic gestures," said Michael Dorf, a constitutional law professor at Cornell University. "If this Congress were to pass an individual mandate, and if it is constitutional - which I believe it is - the express rule under the supremacy clause (of the U.S. Constitution) is that the federal law prevails." But the Tenth Amendment Center suggests a Federal health care mandate may be, in and of itself, unconstitutional.

Nevertheless, if the Federal government implements "Obamacare" with a mandate in the face of this widespread grass-roots opposition, it will illustrate the divide that exists between the American people and their Federal representatives.