Find out more about Pennsylvania's government at congress.org State legislature page State Constitution Department of State website

Deb Wells [Message]

If your not a member of the Campaign for Liberty, click Here to Signup.  Be a part it.

1. FIND your COUNTY........by looking in the column on the right.  If you don't see a coordinator listed, please nominate someone you believe would make a good county or district coordinator.  Members can nominate someone via links toward the bottom right hand corner of your dashboard page at http://www.campaignforliberty.com/grassroots-home.php

2. See how your congressman Voted on the Bailouts by scrolling toward the bottom of this page.  Then CONTACT your U.S. CONGRESSMAN and SENATORS and let them know how you feel.

3. Find your State Representative or State Senator by entering your zip code in the box at the top right corner of this page. 

FBI Announces Creation of Biometric Database "Next Generation Identification"--people's bodies will become de facto national identification cards Posted by silverfalcor

Posted 03/23/11 Last updated 04/05/11

Dear Readers, To steal a paraphrase: "Constitution? What Constitution? We don't need no stinkin Constitution." There will be no end to this until "they" accomplish total control or We The People do something about it. Please contact your state legislators to enact 10th. Amendment protections, and contact your Federal legislators and demand action to stop eroding our inalienable rights. Insist they abide by their Oath of Office to the Constitution! If we lose, well, welcome to Amerika. Blessings, Dona Witmer

Written by Daniel Sayani   Monday, 21 March 2011 15:04
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/constitution/6771-fbi-announces-creati
on-of-biometric-database 

The FBI announced last week that its new identification system has reached its initial operating capacity. Known as Next Generation Identification (NGI), the Lockheed Martin-built program serves as an incremental upgrade of the FBI's Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System, or IAFIS- which will revolutionize law enforcement's ability to process fingerprints. NGI provides automated fingerprint and latent search capabilities, electronic image storage, and electronic exchange of fingerprints to more than 18,000 law enforcement agencies and other authorized criminal justice partners 24/7. Upon completion, the system will have the ability to process fingerprint transactions much more effectively and accurately.

"The implementation announced today represents a tremendous achievement in enhancing our identification services. Already, we're seeing how the NGI system is revolutionizing fingerprint identification in support of our mission," said Louis E. Grever, executive assistant director of the FBI Science and Technology Branch.

"Lockheed Martin was there supporting the FBI when IAFIS went live in 1999, and we're thrilled to be here for NGI today," affirmedLinda Gooden, executive vice president of Lockheed Martin Information Systems and Global Solutions. "Technology like this is a powerful tool when it comes to protecting America's citizens, and we're proud to serve as a partner in that mission."

"While IAFIS has been effective, criminal and terrorist threats have evolved over the past decade. Today's environment demands faster and more advanced identification capabilities," said Assistant Director Daniel D. Roberts, of the FBI Criminal Justice Information Services Division. "NGI represents a quantum leap in fingerprint identification that will help us in solving investigations, preventing crime, and apprehending criminals and terrorists."

Lockheed Martin, the nation's largest recipient of defense industry contracts, and a leader in the field of biometrics, says that the new technology enhances the FBI's background-check programs by giving investigators expanded and more timely access to fingerprints. They also note that they see the FBI contract as a means by which biometric surveillance can be increased:a press release from the defense contractor states that "[W]hile this meets the challenges of today, tomorrow holds the possibility of developing iris scanners, genetic scanners, and other advanced biometric solutions."

The biometrics company was awarded the $1 billion contractto develop the new, enhanced identification system in February 2008. According to Leslie Holoweiko, a Lockheed representative, the company has also received government contracts to open the Biometric Experimentation and Advanced Concepts (BEACON^TM) center in White Hall, W.Va., to serve as a collaborative center in the development of integrated biometrics solutions for both current and future initiatives. She also indicates that the company is the lead systems integrator for the Registered Traveler program led by Verified Identity Pass, Inc. Lockheed is also the lead contractor for the Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) program, a TSA initiative to protect ports by issuing a biometrically-based credential to vetted workers requiring unescorted access to the ports.

To date, the NGI system is the world's largest biometric database, which the FBI expects to make available to a wide variety of federal, state, and local agencies, all in the name of keeping America safe from terrorists (and illegal immigration). The FBI also intends to retain (upon employer request) the fingerprints of any employee who has undergone a criminal background check, and will inform the employer if the employee is ever arrested or charged with a crime. (Note--you don't own your own fingerprints!!!)

The Washington Post also says that the NGI database relies heavily upon real-time (or very nearly real-time) comparisons. This could include general face recognition, specific feature comparison (notable scars, shape of the earlobe, etc.), walking stride, speech patterns, and iris comparisons. To date, facial-recognition technology hasn't exactly reshaped the face of law enforcement.

The increasing use of biometrics for identification is raising questions about the increasing inability of Americans to avoid unwanted scrutiny. It is drawing criticism from those who worry that people's bodies will become de facto national identification cards. Critics say that such government initiatives should not proceed without proof that the technology really can pick a criminal out of a crowd.

The use of biometric data is increasing throughout the government. For the past two years, the Defense Department has been storing in a database the images of fingerprints, irises, and faces of more than 1.5 million Iraqi and Afghan detainees, Iraqi citizens, and foreigners who need access to U.S. military bases. The Pentagon also collects DNA samples from some Iraqi detainees, which are stored separately.

The Department of Homeland Security has been using iris scans at some airports to verify the identity of travelers who have passed background checks and who want to move through lines quickly. The department is also looking to apply iris- and face-recognition techniques to other programs. The DHS already has a database of millions of sets of fingerprints, which includes records collected from U.S. and foreign travelers stopped at borders for criminal violations, from U.S. citizens adopting children overseas, and from visa applicants abroad. Therefore, there could be multiple records of one person's prints.

"It's going to be an essential component of tracking," warned Barry Steinhardt, director of the Technology and Liberty Project of the American Civil Liberties Union. "It's enabling the Always On Surveillance Society."

Advocates of civil liberties (inspired by John Locke's belief that one's natural rights to life, liberty, and property entail a fundamental right to be free from government intrusions into bodily autonomy) also are concerned that the creation of this biometric database can unconstitutionally infringe on the Fourth Amendment rights of the American people. (The New American discussed many of these concerns in a previous analysisof the DHS's creation of a genetic scanning program, which could easily metastasize into a government DNA database.)

Privacy advocates also are concerned about the ability of people to correct false information. "Unlike say, a credit card number, biometric data is forever," noted Paul Saffo, a Silicon Valley technology forecaster. He voiced his concern that the FBI, whose computer technology record has been marred by expensive failures, could not guarantee the data's security. "If someone steals and spoofs your iris image, you can't just get a new eyeball," explained.

By 2013, the FBI says that it hopes to expand the NGI system to "fuse" fingerprint-, face-, iris-, and palm-matching capabilities into one mega-database,according to Kimberly Del Greco, the FBI's biometric services section chief. In addition, Lawrence Hornak, directorof the West Virginia University Center for Identification Technology Research (CITeR), indicated that the government's goal is "ubiquitous use of biometrics." A traveler may walk down an airport corridor and allow his face and iris images to be captured without ever stepping up to a kiosk and looking into a camera, he said.

For those who champion constitutional rights, this latest milestone represents yet another step in the erosion of natural rights and individual liberties, and a turn toward a more robust, authoritarian police state.

Other articles: Think tank slams plan for biometric database in Israel: If implemented, Interior Ministry will convert Israelis' identity cards into smart cards with digital chips storing biometric data., Feds Plotted Invasion of Social Media, UK National Identity Register DESTROYED, ID Cards are SCRAPPED, Sam Rohrer on REAL ID: CONNECTING THE DOTS TO AN INTERNATIONAL ID, Opposition Forces In Pennsylvania Moving On REAL ID: Sen. Folmer introduces bill SB 354, Gov. Corbett, PennDOT not talking , PA REAL ID Update--PennDOT is Violating our Right to Privacy!,  University receives Department of Defense grant to grow bomb-sniffing plants,  Fox News: Spanish Researchers Want to Tag Human Embryos With Bar Codes ,White House: Science of man-made life can proceed--read "tinkering with our DNA";Federal Judge Blocks Federal Funding of Embryonic Stem Cell Research; How to Remake Life: Venter Institute Researchers have made the first viable cell with a synthetic Genome. ; The F.D.A. is Using a Unique G.M.O. Salmon Approval Process to Bypass U.S. Regulations; Soylent Green? First Human Embryonic Stem Cell Test Begins; Cancer 'is purely man-made' say scientists after finding almost no trace of disease in Egyptian mummies; Bio-Piracy: Colgate Accused of Stealing Thousand-Year-Old Toothpaste; Bio - Piracy: Gene Giants Stockpile Patents on "Climate-Ready" Crops in Bid to Become Biomasters; DNA barcoding aims to protect species, food -- Call it a DNA digital Dewey Decimal System for all life on Earth.; Will US Patent Office end gene patent enslavement of the human race?;  Attack of the Zombie Databases: Banks spying on your bills, rent payments, paychecks, Watch Where You're Going: Businesses are quietly buying mobile-phone data to discover the paths that consumers take. ; Who Is Watching You? Nine Industries That Know Your Every Move ; Top Secret America: A hidden world, growing beyond control.

Pushing for Transparency Posted by Tim Shoemaker

Posted 03/21/11 Last updated 03/21/11

Bloomberg LP and News Corp won an appeal against their FOIA request on the Fed's emergency lending during 2008.  The Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal, meaning the lower courts ruling in favor of the disclosure was upheld.

Bloomberg is suggesting the information must be released within five days as the lower court ruling stated, although Fed officials have not signaled how quickly they will comply. According to The Wall Street Journal, the information release may be seen as subject to the Dodd/Frank requirements, which would delay the release for two years.

It's time for a full audit of the Fed. Contact your Congressman and sign our petition to urge them to cosponsor H.R. 459!

PA School Choice Bill SB1-Salvation? or Boondoggle? My analysis, Part 2: Unintended Consequences of 2011 School Choice PA SB1 and the 1997 PA Charter Schools Bill Posted by silverfalcor

Posted 03/20/11 Last updated 03/20/11

Dear Readers,

Frankly, I'm perplexed over PA SB1 School Choice Bill (please read my analysis of SB1 here: PA School Choice Bill SB1-Salvation? or Boondoggle? My analysis, Part 1.). We (Lisa Armellino 16th. Senatorial District and I) have met with several Senators who are co-sponsors of this bill. The Senators' logic is so illogical, the bill is so convoluted, and the Senators are so dug into passing this bill with no amendments. Something just doesn't add up.

I was told by my legislative Senator Smucker (3/14/11) that if this bill isn't passed it will not be reintroduced. What? Bills are reintroduced all the time. I'm not a politician but my gut instincts tell me something is not "right". I've been researching all kinds of angles and talking to many different people trying to get a proper perspective.

Here are some illogical comments made to me by PA legislators/aides (but I won't say who said what) are:

"If you are not for this bill than you are against school choice."

"If you are not for this bill then you favor bigger government."

"This is the best we can do."

"While the Senator does not believe SB 1 is ideal, he does believe it is far better than the status quo, which is represented by a failed, multi-billion dollar education system that is detrimental to taxpayers, children, and parents."

"The Bill would never pass if it were for ALL children."

"Private schools won't accept any money with mandates attached, i.e. accountability."

At no time did I hear, "My constituents say . . ."

Frankly, if these are the best arguments from our elected officials I fear we are in big trouble. More questions have been raised in my mind such as: Why School Choice when PA has Charter Schools that are a choice? What are the advantages to the Commonwealth with the passage of SB1 School Choice? Who really benefits? Outside interests or families?

So, I went back to the basics and have been researching Charter Schools, authorized in PA in 1997, SB123, with the hopes of understanding what it is our legislators are hoping to accomplish with the School Choice Bill. Here is the link to SB 123 which created Charter Schools in 1997.
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&sessY
r=1997&sessInd=0&billBody=S&billTyp=B&billNbr=0123&pn=1174 This is commonly referred to as Title 22 (22 PA. CODE CH. 711) http://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol38/38-26/1245.html)

Charter Schools were/are supposed to give parents choices. These schools are accountable to the parents and community, and are exempt from regulation from the State Department  of Education. Many things I read in the 1997 SB 123, sound very similar to what I read in SB1 except for one major change -- the schools covered by SB1 have NO accountability, except to parents. Keep in mind, choice vouchers (Opportunity Scholarships) are financed through tax dollars (General Revenue). Please read my analysis of SB1 for more information. (PA School Choice Bill SB1-Salvation? or Boondoggle? My analysis, Part 1.)

I have decided to share some background information with you before going into the expose'. This may seem complicated and some may be asking, what's the connection? The connection in my mind is this:

School Choice is just one more government program to fix another failed government program. Government is the PROBLEM, not the SOLUTION. I fear SB1 will have far reaching "unintended consequences" as did the 1997 School Choice Bill. As will be shown in here, "charter schools are just public schools on a slightly longer leash. A dog on a long leash is still a dog on a leash." By Marshall Fritz, founder of the Alliance for the Separation of School and State.

No matter how well meaning our legislators are, the theory that the government, rather than the taxpayers, know what is best, is fundamentally a flawed perspective and the antithesis of a Constitutional Republic. What is not at issue is the need of an educational overhaul based on failing Public Schools.

Please note that unless referenced, all information is pertinent to PA.

What is a Charter School?

"Charter Schools are independently operated PUBLIC schools that are funded with federal, state and local tax dollars. These schools are established to provide families with more educational alternatives for their children. Charters are non-profit, non sectarian, organizations that are approved by the local Board of Education (the "authorizer") or the State Appeal Board. Each charter has its own Board of Trustees and administrative staff and operates as a separate, independent  local educational agency (LEA) within Intermediate Unit 26 (IU 26).  The Pennsylvania Charter School Law - Act 22 of 1997 - set up charters to operate free of many of the local and state requirements that apply to traditional public schools. "http://webgui.phila.k12.pa.us/offices/c/charter_schools/

From the Pennsylvania Coalition of Public Charter Schools comes this definition:

"Charter schools are public, nonsectarian schools that operate under an agreement (the "Charter") between the charter school and the sponsoring local school board (or state board in the case of "Cyber" charter schools.) Charter schools have the flexibility, authority, and responsibility to innovate in exchange for greater accountability for results-student learning. The "charter" establishing each school is a legal agreement detailing the school's mission, programs, methods of assessment, finances, and measures of success. While free from many state regulations, students in charter schools take state tests required of other public schools students, to help assess the students' progress. Charter schools may not discriminate in admission and all students are selected by lottery." http://www.pacharters.org/content/why-charters

In a nutshell, charter schools are independent, non-sectarian, taxpayer-funded schools that are free from many of the requirements facing traditional public schools.

PA Charter Schools' Facts & Figures:

In Pennsylvania, at the start of the 2010-2011 academic year, there were 135 public charter schools-including 11 "Cyber" charter schools-educating nearly 75,000 students. If all Charter schools were combined to form a school district, it would be the 2nd largest district in the state (second only to Philadelphia). At present, there are an estimated 30,000 students on charter school waiting lists. http://www.pacharters.org/content/why-charters

Who can start a Charter School?

"Parents, community leaders, businesses, teachers, school districts, and municipalities can submit a charter school proposal. In Pennsylvania, individuals or groups seeking to establish a public charter school must apply to the local school board of the district in which the school will be located. If a school district rejects a charter school application, the applicant can then appeal to the state's Charter Appeals Board (CAB). Cyber charter applicants apply to the Pennsylvania Department of Education." http://www.pacharters.org/content/why-charters

How are Charter Schools funded?

As public schools, charters are funded in the same way that district-run public schools are funded, namely through tax dollars.  Charter schools are not allowed to charge tuition. http://www.pacharters.org/content/why-charters

You may still be asking, so what is the issue?

A read of "Fraud & Special Investigations by the Office of the Philadelphia Controller" titled Review of Charter School Oversight: A Fraud Vulnerability Assessment written in April 2010 makes clear what "unintended consequences" can happen in a system freed from oversight! The City Controller is one of nine popularly elected offices in the executive branch of City of Philadelphia government. The city controller for Philadelphia is Alan Butkovitz. The City Controller is independent of the Mayor and City Council, whose operations the City Controller audits. http://www.philadelphiacontroller.org/

Here is a listing from the Executive Summary found on page I
http://www.philadelphiacontroller.org/publications/other%20reports/CharterSchoolInves
tigation_FullReport.pdf :  

"As a result of the systematic breakdown of oversight, in a review of charter schools we found: 

• One individual had been receiving in excess of $500,000 per year in salary alone, was running three separate charter schools, a state chartered cyber school, a private non-profit school, and three separate for-profit entities with the boards, employees, and funds intermingled.
• Charter schools were setting up associated non-profits to own their school properties which allowed them to receive additional funds from the state, transferred taxpayer funded property as well as lease payments to the associated non-profits, and removed the property and funds from any SDP oversight. (SPD School District of Philadelphia)
• Corporate separateness often did not exist between these associated non-profits and the charter schools with Board members and personnel of the school often intermingled.
• Charter schools had leased buildings that were owned by the charter school CEO and founder, some leases were signed by the same person as landlord and tenant and some leases were passed through a third party for no apparent legitimate reason.
• Two charter schools had management agreements for a percentage of "profits" instead of set fees.
• A charter school had guaranteed loans not associated with the school for an associated nonprofit, thereby obligating taxpayer funds should the associated non-profit not make the required payments.
• Board members and other required employees were not filing state mandated financial disclosure forms, forms were not completed correctly and some forms had misleading information.
• Some Charter school officials were receiving salaries in excess of SDP Assistant Superintendents.
• Many schools had related party transactions that were not reported on their IRS reports or annual audit reports.
• Some schools appeared to be "family businesses" with legacy accession, questionable hiring practices and bonuses.

All schools were not in compliance with the Pennsylvania Right to Know Act."

"Charter schools are an experiment in using private business models in the educational field, but this is not private money," Butkovitz said. "Charter schools are spending tax dollars as if it's nobody's business - as if they were private fiefdoms."
http://www.philly.com/philly/education/20100405_Report_cites_questionable_charter-sch
ool_practices.html?page=1&c=y

Dear Readers, this is the tip of the ice-berg. I don't recall any of the information I am about to present in our local news. This isn't to say it was not reported, but I would hazard a guess that many Pennsylvanians were unaware that there were any problems with the Charter Schools.

U.S. probe widens to 18 city charters: Details are sought on the use of public money. By Martha Woodall, Posted on Mon, May. 3, 2010 Inquirer Staff Writer
http://www.philly.com/philly/education/20100503_U_S__probe_widens_to_18_city_charters
.html?c=r (I edited the article but you can read the full article at this link.)

"What began as a federal probe of a single charter school in Northeast Philadelphia two years ago has spread to at least 18 schools and may be the largest federal charter investigation in the country, experts say. "I can't think of a similar situation" anywhere else, said Nelson Smith, president and chief executive officer of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools in Washington. "There has not been any other state or city that has had this kind of charge made against so many [charters] in a confined period of time," said Jeanne Allen, president of the Center for Education Reform, also in Washington. In recent weeks, a flurry of federal subpoenas has been served on schools across the city seeking five years' worth of financial records to show how the charters have spent taxpayer money."

The federal probe was launched in May 2008, shortly after The Inquirer reported allegations of financial mismanagement, nepotism, and conflicts of interest at Philadelphia Academy Charter School in the Northeast. Two former officials are in federal prison after pleading guilty to fraud charges.

But the document summarizes the probes that have resulted in indictments; California, Illinois, and Wisconsin have each had a case involving a single charter operator. In Texas, officials at two charter schools were charged.

Pennsylvania is the only state mentioned in the federal report that has had three charter investigations. All were in Philadelphia, and the cases resulted in five charter officials pleading guilty or being convicted of federal fraud charges.

Some other findings in Butkovitz's draft report can be found here:
http://www.philadelphiacontroller.org/publications/other%20reports/CharterSchoolInves
tigation_FullReport.pdf

• Questionable financial management, incomplete or missing records, and ethical lapses were seen at all 13 charter schools examined.
• Average salaries for chief executives of charter schools were higher than those of public high school principals, and average salaries among the 10 highest-paid charter-school chief executives easily topped salaries paid to public school assistant superintendents.
• Ten of the charter schools examined, lease space from related nonprofit groups, and several are involved in complicated arrangements in which taxpayer funds are used to buy buildings that are controlled by nonprofits that have no accountability to the school district or to taxpayers.
• Rhonda Sharif, the school's (Harambee Charter School), chief financial officer also served as business manager for two other charter schools and was paid $700,561 over four years by those three schools. She claimed to have worked more than 365 days in each year and collected $101,587 in reimbursement for "unspecified" credit-card expenses in 2008.
• Veronica Joyner, the school's (Math, Civics and Science Charter School) founder and chief executive, is also the founder and president of a nonprofit PUBS (Parents United for Better Schools). Joyner signed the documents for the lease in 2003 as both the landlord and the tenant, the report says.
• The above mentioned school is paying $636,000 a year in rent under the terms of a 20-year lease. The Controller's Office notes that over the life of the lease, the school is scheduled to pay about $12 million to the nonprofit by 2023, though the 10-year mortgage is scheduled to be paid off in 2014.
• The building housing Multi-Cultural School is one of four buildings that Thuy (founder & CEO) and his wife own, including one at 4929 N. Broad that is leased to the Indochinese-American Council. Thuy founded that group and serves as its executive director and his wife is employed as its program director. Thuy rents out the two apartments on the top floors, and tenants in at least one of the apartments were directed to send rent payments to him at Multi-Cultural Academy. "It appears that Dr. Thuy was using the school facilities to receive and collect rent on his personally owned properties," according to the draft.
• Nine schools had leasing agreements with related organizations, six of which listed their only source of income as rental revenue from the charter school.
• Eight schools had related party transactions involving construction, maintenance and/or management contracts: one school's management company's owner also owned the construction company that did work on some of the schools under its management purview.
• Joseph Caruso, who was paid $80,000 as legal counsel to the Preparatory Charter School, was listed as a full-time teacher at the charter school and received retirement benefits under the Public School Employees Retirement System (PSERS).
• Imani Education Circle Charter School was located on a property owned by the school and leased to the Imani Foundation, which housed six for-profit entities but was receiving a 100 percent property tax exemption by the Board of Revision of Taxes.
• A car was bought by an associated non-profit but was used by the charter school CEO. Later, the associated non-profit allegedly gave the car to the charter school CEO as a "bonus" yet the IRS filings do not indicate this transaction and further documentation concerning this transaction has, to date, not been provided. (Pg. 7 Review of Charter School Oversight: A Fraud Vulnerability Assessment)

"In addition, The Controller's Fraud and Special Investigations Report notes the "following additional issues were uncovered that also need to be addressed by both the SDP Charter School Office, the charter schools themselves and to be considered as additional charter school legislation is contemplated. 

• IRS reports, annual financial statements and salary data on file with PSERS is not consistent.
• Many charter schools have related party transactions that are not reported on their IRS filings.
• Some of the individuals preparing IRS filings are not including related transactions, some of which they should be aware of or which they are directly involved in.
• Of the 60 charter schools which have websites, none of them had the required Pennsylvania Right to Know Act notices on their websites.
• Some individuals were listed as charter school employees who were clearly outside professional service providers yet earning PSERS retirement benefits.
• Some former employees were retained under consultant or services contracts so they could continue to receive salaries while also receiving PSERS retirement payments.
• Some employees were working "full time" at more than one charter school.
• Some charter schools or associated non-profits appear to have paid questionable bonuses.
• One charter school was paying what appeared to be an auto insurance policy yet had no vehicle assets. These instances have been identified to PSERS for their investigation and resolution.
• One charter school had a 20 year lease agreement with its associated non-profit where the lease payments were equal to the mortgage payments. However, the mortgage was for 10 years leaving the non-profit to receive an additional 10 years of payments from the charter school after the property was paid off.
• In at least two instances, information provided to the Controller's Office concerning certain financial transactions appeared contrived as they were contradictory to other records uncovered.
• Payments for employee benefits (unused leave) were being made as "vendor invoices" without any of the required tax withholding.
• Financial transactions, including credit card bills, some with almost daily restaurant charges, are being reimbursed with little or no justification.
• In one instance, a bill for a beach area resort hotel in excess of $30,000 did not have any justification for the expense and, even though additional information has been requested, to date, no additional information has been provided.
• Payments were being authorized by an individual to pay their privately owned for-profit company.
• Some payments were being certified as received by the same individual who signed the payment check.
• One charter school was running a for-profit parking facility yet was not licensed, city taxes were not being paid and the collected funds were could not be found in any IRS filings.
• One charter school facility had six for-profit entities that were leasing part of the facilities yet the building had a 100% property tax exemption.
• One charter school facility that was owned by a private individual and leased to the school had a 100% property tax exemption.
• A charter school's attorney established a for-profit entity that entered into a multi-year consultant contract with the charter school with annual payments in excess of $170,000. The attorney's involvement with the company was not disclosed in the board minutes and another individual had made a representation to the board that the company belonged to him.
• A for profit entity was in a building that was purchased by a charter school. The for profit entity was owned by the charter school founder and CEO. After the facility was purchased by the charter school, the monthly lease payments of the for-profit appeared to have been cut almost in half yet they were given more space.
• A charter school's associated non-profit was receiving some funding from the City of Philadelphia, Mayor's Commission on Literacy, which included payments for salaries as well as facilities. The non-profit was leasing the facilities from the non-profit's Executive Director based on a fair market value assessment that appears to be for the entire building. However, there are two apartments that are separately rented by the owner with rents paid directly to him in addition to the total "fair market value" rent also being paid by the non-profit."
  http://www.philadelphiacontroller.org/publications/other%20reports/CharterSchoolInves
  tigation_FullReport.pdf

(Please note that the referenced abuses are not comprehensive, but an edited compiliation.)

Conclusion:

Charter Schools, through loop holes in the law, are transferring taxpayer funds into lucrative gravy train businesses. Taxpayer money was shuttled to: private home renovations, cars as bonuses, jobs for family and friends, expensive trips and dining, payment of undocumented exorbitant credit card expenses, and individuals building private fiefdoms in the for profit and nonprofit world.

SB1 will have even LESS oversight than the Charter Schools! It is hard for me to fathom why our legislators would want to create another system with even less oversight, given the problems generated by the existing Charter Schools! Are Charter Schools a failure in PA?

What will be the "unintended consequences" of SB1 with no oversight? Charter School legislation should be a warning to those who draft even looser legislation. I predict that if SB1 passes, we will see even greater misuse of OUR money and ever increasing taxes!

Do the citizens of Commonwealth deserve better? In my opinion, yes we do.

Senators, you can do better! This is NOT THE BEST you can do! We at C4L would help you draft a bill fair to taxpayers and that would help ALL Commonwealth children get a quality education without fleecing and squandering our money.

Stay tuned for Part 3-It's all about the MONEY! 

Blessings,

Dona Witmer

Other Posts: Dept. of Education: 82% Of US Schools May Be Labeled 'Failing' , The PA public school crisis: There will be a financial crisis that threatens the future of public schools in Pennsylvania. , PA School Choice Bill SB1-Salvation? or Boondoggle? My analysis, Part 1., Pennsylvania school districts brace for severe cutbacks: 3 of 4 spend more than they take in!, Zero Tolerance Policies: Are the Schools Becoming Police States? Are students being taught to be good slaves?, TX State Board of Education, Dunbar, seeks to nullify federal education laws ,  Schlafly co-author, Venker, says parents need to be parents: Why America needs 'tiger mom', DPS (Detroit Public Schools) I.D. system worries parents, NJ Town Proposes Random Drug Test - Of 6th Graders , 5200 Pentagon Employees PURCHASED Child Pornography! (Why Is This Not A Bigger Story?) , Phyllis Schlafly: Big Government Nannyism -- Government Trampling on Constitutional Rights of Parents , Tracking devices used in school badges--Texas , CONFIRMED: Court Did Rely on Oath Keeper Association to Take Baby , Updated: RED ALERT: Oath Keepers statement about video titled, "Government Agents Seize Oath Keeper's New Born From Hospital" , Governor Schwarzenegger Signs AB 354; Students Required to be Immunized Against Pertussis , Rutherford Institute Files Fourth Amendment Lawsuit Against Missouri School Demanding End to Mass Student Searches, Random Lockdowns , House Democrats Pass Bill to Grill School Children about Sexual Preference , Tracking Preschoolers With RFID Tags?: County gives jerseys with tracking microchips to preschoolers , RFID: Tracking students, district property a way of the future? , Pennsylvania School Districts Lead in Teachers' Strikes , Drug tests in schools pass/fail? by Chip Smedley .

Should the FBI Know How Many Guns You Own? Posted by silverfalcor

Posted 03/21/11 Last updated 04/13/11

Dear Readers, Amerika will never be content until "they" control every aspect of our lives. There are some of us who are still fighting for our Republic, America, and will never give up. Blessings, Dona Witmer

Posted by John Markley, March 21, 2011 http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/should-the-fbi-know-how-many-guns-you-own

The "library records" provision of the so-called Patriot Act could also be known as the "gun records" provision, because it also allows the FBI to seize the forms you use to buy guns.

This infamous provision, Section 215, is a direct assault on your Fourth Amendment rights because it allows the FBI to obtain personal information about you, without a warrant and without your knowledge.

Section 215 is set to expire in May, along with two other provisions. But Congress will probably renew these provisions unless it hears from YOU.

Tell Congress to repeal the ENTIRE Patriot Act, and renew NONE of its provisions.

You may borrow from or copy this letter . . .

The FBI already had powerful tools to combat terrorism before the Patriot Act. The FISA court would allow the FBI to obtain records of suspected terrorists from motels, car rental agencies, storage facilities, and similar businesses.

But the Patriot Act's Section 215 dangerously broadens this power. Now, the FBI can . . .

* Merely claim, without providing ANY evidence, that the information it seeks is "relevant" to a terrorism investigation
* Acquire personal information on anyone, including U.S. citizens not suspected of terrorism (or any other crime)
* "Gag" institutions and businesses so they can't tell people they are being investigated 
* Obtain even the most private information, such as emails, medical records, library history, and gun purchase forms

Section 215 violates not only the Fourth Amendment, but also the First and Second Amendments. The federal government has no business knowing what I read or how many guns I own.

The Justice Department's own Inspector General has found that the FBI uses Section 215 powers tens of thousands of times per year, mostly targeted at innocent Americans.

This makes me suspect that the real purpose of Section 215 isn't to protect me, but instead to allow the FBI to spy on, intimidate, and blackmail people it doesn't like, just as it did in the J. Edgar Hoover days.

If you don't want to be compared to J. Edgar, then don't allow the FBI the power to invade the privacy of innocent Americans. Oppose renewal of Section 215. Instead, repeal the Patriot Act!

END LETTER

You can send your letter using DownsizeDC.org's Educate the Powerful System.

James Wilson
Assistant Communications Director
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

Other Posts: Expanded Castle Doctrine passes state House, again,   PA Open Carry - Yes, It's Legal , SHOCKING AUDIO: Philadelphia Police violate rights of open carrier at gunpoint , Keep Second Amendment Liberty in Pennsylvania, Second to None: Pennsylvania Annual Right to Keep and Bear Arms Rally  , Should the FBI Know How Many Guns You Own? , 2nd. Amendment Update: PA Senate Passes Alloway Castle Doctrine Legislation , Re-Introduction of the Castle Doctrine would save Pennsylvania lives , Wyoming Adopts Constitutional Carry of Firearms , Do you need the Patriot Act? Send a free fax to your legislators. , Montana to Enpower the Constitutional Office of the Sheriff: Tells IRS, DEA, BATFE agents to get authorization for arrests from sheriffs, RFID for Guns , Pennsylvania Homeland Security office engaged in domestic surveillance, compared political groups to Al Qaeda , Pennsylvania Revolution to hold a Press Conference regarding the PA Terror Bulletins in the Capitol Rotunda Monday at 10 a.m. , Rep. Daryl Metcalfe: Israeli Company Listed 2nd Amendment Group As Terrorist! - Alex Jones Tv  , 2nd. Amendment Rights Protected: Castle Doctrine Clears State Senate , High Court's Big Ruling For Gun Rights , Castle Doctrine Update--HB 40 .

PA School Choice Bill SB1-Salvation? or Boondoggle? My analysis, Part 1. Posted by silverfalcor

Posted 03/07/11 Last updated 04/05/11

Dear Readers,

This report has been in the making for several weeks and has behind it untold hours of investigation and thinking. The Pennsylvania Senate has unfurled a School Choice bill, SB1, providing for "Opportunity Scholarships" and "Educational Improvement Tax Credits". The bill is still in committee but is on its way to a vote in the Senate, soon.

Being true to the Constitution, as Ron Paul would say, I researched his thoughts on School Choice. He is not against School Choice at a state level, but vehemently opposes it at the Federal level for many reasons, and you can read one such article at this link. http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul132.html

The PA Constitution mandates education under Article III, Sections 14 and 15;

14: The General Assembly shall provide for the maintenance and support of a thorough and efficient system of public education to serve the needs of the Commonwealth.

and 15 No money raised for the support of the public schools of the Commonwealth shall be appropriated to or used for the support of any sectarian school.

It is commonly believed that public education is a failure. Many of our children can't read, reason, or cipher, etc. Just as Ron Paul would like to abolish the Department of Education, so do some of our legislators (and I admire that spirit). But in their quest to "strike a blow at failing public education", have they gone too far in just enabling another public welfare entitlement program? For a brief overview of the dire plight of PA students go here:
http://blogs.phillymag.com/the_philly_post/2011/03/01/whats-wrong-with-pennsylvanias-
school-choice-bill/ .  

I submitted written testimony to the Education Committee on 2/14/11, http://piccola.org/education/2011/021611/agenda.htm , stating our local C4L concerns. This link also includes audio and video files of the day long testimony.

Dear Sen. Piccola,

I am the Campaign for Liberty Lancaster County chairman. I attended the Commonwealth Foundation Seminar on 1/17/10.

Disappointed is the only word that comes to mind in reference to SB1. Our organization supports School Choice, but not SB1.

We support any parent's right to send their child to the school of their choice in the pure form, i.e. that child's tax dollars are paid to the school of the parent's choice.

We do not support legislation to create another layer of bureaucracy that benefits only a select few, regardless of the rationale. In this case, taking from all taxpayers to benefit select, low income parents.

After careful review, the consensus is that SB1 does not treat all parents equally and does not address the root causes of the problem.

We believe all parents should be able to spend their "educational tax dollars" on the school of their choice. We think this is the best way to let the marketplace decide quality and encourages competition.

Please place these comments in the testimony against SB1.

Sincerely,

Dona Witmer

Campaign for Liberty

Lancaster County

Last week, Lisa Armellino (PA 16^th. C4L District Chairman,) and I met with Sen. Folmer, Education Committee, to discuss our questions and offer alternatives to SB1. You can find the rather lengthy bill here: 
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&sessY
r=2011&sessInd=0&billBody=S&billTyp=B&billNbr=0001&pn=0721.

Concerns: 

Eligibility:

• SB1s Preliminary Provisions repeatedly states that School Choice will benefit all citizens of the Commonwealth. Page 3, section (7) "It is the long-term goal of the General Assembly to offer assistance to all families in the Commonwealth, so as to provide every child in this Commonwealth with diverse educational opportunities and options.(8) As an initial step toward the long-term goal of offering assistance to all Pennsylvania families, this subarticle provides assistance to disadvantaged school-age children in this Commonwealth who would otherwise attend persistently lowest achieving schools."
• Funding is earmarked for the first 3 years for low income children ONLY. Page 8 (3) "During the 2013-2014 school year and each school year thereafter, the opportunity scholarship shall be available to all low-income children residing in this Commonwealth." (notice there is no provision for ALL children)
• Home schooled children are expressly prohibited from receiving scholarships. Page 16 (1) "Opportunity scholarships shall not be awarded for enrollment in a home education program . . ." (ALL children?)
• Parents don't get to choose the school-their child would go to if they stay in the "resident school district". Page 12 (iii) "If the child is not enrolled in a nonresident public school, THE CHILD'S RESIDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT SHALL DETERMINE THE PUBLIC SCHOOL WITHIN THE RESIDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT TO WHICH THE CHILD WILL BE ASSIGNED." (Caps are for emphasis.)

Funding:

• SB1 creates a new bureaucracy, The Education Opportunity Board, with three members appointed by the Governor. Page 24 (a) "The board will hire an executive officer and secretary of the board." Page 24 (2) "The executive director, with approval of the board, may employ additional professional and clerical personnel as may be necessary to carry out the duties and responsibilities of the board."
• Page 25 (1) "The board shall employ and fix the reasonable compensation of the executive director."
• Page 25 (3) "The Department shall provide adequate funding, space and equipment to facilitate the activities of the board."
• Note, expenses are opened ended on how much this will cost.
• Note, these monies will come from the general funds of the Commonwealth, not existing school property taxes. THIS IS A NEW PROGRAM FOR EDUCATION AND TAXPAYERS WILL BE DOUBLE TAXED. This is my understanding -- So if an eligible child is pulled from a "failing" school, that school still receives tax dollars as if the child were enrolled, and the child's "new" school receives money through this program.
• There are only guestimates on how much this program is going to cost. Sen. Jeffrey Piccola (R., Dauphin), one of its co-sponsors and chairman of the Education Committee, puts the cost at $50 million. Opponents say $100 million plus, up to $ 1 billion. Who's correct? I don't know but you can read more here:
  http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/02/pennsylvania_lawmakers_suggest.htm
  l
• EITC (tax credits for businesses) will fund some of the scholarships. Note this is lost revenue for Pennsylvania.
• Page 15 Transportation will be provided up to 10 miles from the resident school district. This cost is to be reimbursed by the taxpayer. Page 15 (2)
• Even if a student no longer qualifies as low income, "the child shall continue to receive a partial scholarship until completing the eighth grade, provided that the child continues to meet all other eligibility requirements." Page 22 (2)
• In order to be compliant with the PA Constitution (see above), checks for sectarian schools are made out to the parents who endorse them for the schools.

Accountability:

• There is no plan to rate the success of the program.In my conversations with PA Education Committee members Sens. Folmer and Smucker, it is "planned" that there is no accountability as they don't want to burden the schools with mandates. They say the success of the program rests with individual parents and that is determined by the school they choose (or are assigned-see point above, Page 12 (iii). Keep in mind, that many low income people pay very little or no taxes. Property taxes fund public education in PA. Tax payer funded agencies must be accountable to the taxpayer.
• "Persistently lowest achieving school." Page 7 (3) "The term does not include a charter school, cyber charter school, area vocational technical school, A SHOOL THAT DOES NOT DRAW ITS STUDENT BODY FROM A PARTICULAR ATTENDANCE BOUNDARY OR A SCHOOL WITH A SPECIALIZED ACADEMIC PROGRAM THAT HAS SPECIFIC ADMISSION CRITERIA." (Caps are a change in wording in the bill, not for emphasis.) Keep this thought in mind when I post my next article on one of the Bill's main co-sponsors who runs a FAILING CHARTER SCHOOL (caps for emphasis). Now, this school would be exempt to be labeled a failing school under SB1. Coincidence?
• Therefore, even though a Charter School cannot be labeled as a failing school, it can participate in this draconian behemoth and receive taxpayer funding with NO accountability to We The People.
• Some of the schools cannot document how well their students are doing educationally vs. testing done in public schools.
• Page 23-24 (c). "State Board of Education.-Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, the programs, procedures and guidelines authorized by this subarticle shall not be subject to review, regulation or approval by the State Board of Education" This indicates to me that there will be two Boards (bureaucracies) funded by taxpayers-double taxed.
• I was told by Sen. Folmer and his staff that Charter Schools would not receive money from this bill (I mentioned the failing Charter School funded by taxpayer funds). I found this in SB1-Page 24 Section 2508-B Reduction in School Aid. "Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary . . . an opportunity scholarship recipient who was enrolled in the recipient's resident school district OR IN A CHARTER SCHOOL OR CYBER CHARTER SCHOOL (caps are a change in the bill and the amended bill was not available when we met) when the recipient first received an opportunity scholarship . . ." It is plain that Charter Schools will be eligible for opportunity scholarships.

Conclusion:

Many of us at C4L are conflicted by this bill. On the one hand, we ALL want to see the abolition of the existing public school monopoly, we want to have choices with our school tax dollars and we want to see an end to many children graduating as functioning illiterates. We also want to support those legislators who want to do the right thing for the families of our Commonwealth. It is my opinion this Sb1 has some fatal flaws -- unintended consequences, that I think will be devastating to children, parents, taxpayers and our state economy, and is not the way to further progress towards these goals. In essence, SB1 affects only a small minority of students with the vast majority still in their home districts. The hearings mentioned 10% of students would meet the eligibility guidelines, leaving 90% of the students in the same predicament as before despite up to $1 billion being expended. (I know these are all guestimates, but the numbers should awaken the PA taxpayer!)

We are especially concerned about a government solution caused by a problem created by the government. In today's bleak economic outlook with high unemployment, underemployment, and failing businesses, is it wise to create another money eating, open-ended bureaucratic entitlement program that benefits 10% of the school age children?  

Salvation? or Boondoggle? My analysis of SB1 leads me to the conclusion that it is a boondoggle. Please contact your State Senator and share your views today!

How can we effect school reform?

I believe true school choice would do that. Allow every parent to decide where to send their child and allow the parent to keep their money. It isn't THEIR money it is OUR money. Any program must include ALL children. Government must get out of the way of the free market and release the governmental stranglehold on education. It reminds me of Ronald Reagan's famous saying, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you!" Listed below are some steps that we could take to work toward true school choice.

• Scholarship money for all children to attend the school of the parent's choice.
• Educational tax credits for home schooled children, $500-1,000/child.
• Roll back mandates on schools.
• Teach the basics like English, Math, Reading, and OUR history. We are grooming citizens.
• Stop being social service institutions.
• Abolish the Department of Education.
• Let the marketplace decide which schools remain open and which do not.
• Above all, for any large change to take place, place it on a state-wide referendum to allow We The People to decide.
• Take a look at Parent's Unions, a unique way to effect school reform: http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/2010/nov10/reform.html . 

Part 2 will highlight the abuses that can occur when there is no oversight over large amounts of taxpayer money going to private Charter Schools.

Blessings,

Dona Witmer

(Thank you to Lisa Armellino 16^thDistrict C4L Chairman, David Jahn, PA C4L State Coordinator, Sharon Cherubin of UnitePA, Sen. Folmer, & Sen. Smucker for their advice and time for this post.)

Other Posts: The PA public school crisis , Pennsylvania school districts brace for severe cutbacks: 3 of 4 spend more than they take in!, Zero Tolerance Policies: Are the Schools Becoming Police States? Are students being taught to be good slaves?, TX State Board of Education, Dunbar, seeks to nullify federal education laws ,  Schlafly co-author, Venker, says parents need to be parents: Why America needs 'tiger mom', DPS (Detroit Public Schools) I.D. system worries parents, NJ Town Proposes Random Drug Test - Of 6th Graders , 5200 Pentagon Employees PURCHASED Child Pornography! (Why Is This Not A Bigger Story?) , Phyllis Schlafly: Big Government Nannyism -- Government Trampling on Constitutional Rights of Parents , Tracking devices used in school badges--Texas , CONFIRMED: Court Did Rely on Oath Keeper Association to Take Baby , Updated: RED ALERT: Oath Keepers statement about video titled, "Government Agents Seize Oath Keeper's New Born From Hospital" , Governor Schwarzenegger Signs AB 354; Students Required to be Immunized Against Pertussis , Rutherford Institute Files Fourth Amendment Lawsuit Against Missouri School Demanding End to Mass Student Searches, Random Lockdowns , House Democrats Pass Bill to Grill School Children about Sexual Preference , Tracking Preschoolers With RFID Tags?: County gives jerseys with tracking microchips to preschoolers , RFID: Tracking students, district property a way of the future? , Pennsylvania School Districts Lead in Teachers' Strikes , Drug tests in schools pass/fail? by Chip Smedley .