Indiana has been a leader in health care reform under Governor Mitch Daniels, but the passage of Obamacare threatens much of that good work. Now, Governor Daniels is speaking out and urging his fellow governors to take a serious look at the threat posed by Obamacare.

Learn more about the effects of Obamacare at www.heritage.org/ImpactOfObamacare

from John:

Friends,

With grateful appreciation, I thank all who have supported our efforts over the past few years to strengthen the state’s largest school system and the 16th largest in America. Through strong leadership we chartered a course “from good to great” as we managed Wake County’s 165 schools, 18,000 employees, 147,000 students, and $1.5 billion budget. Together we trimmed tens of millions of dollars while we protected our dedicated teachers, raised academic outcomes, launched innovative programs and developed one of the largest parental choice assignment plans in our nation.

While these results have been good for the children and taxpayers of Wake County, community leaders from the coast to the mountains recognize that the state of education throughout much of NC remains significantly more challenged. In North Carolina we have had a proud historic commitment to education, however, over the past 10 years we have struggled to keep pace as the digital age unfolds. This reduces opportunities for our children and impacts the strength of our educated workforce. Too many of our NC children still cannot read and nearly 30% are not graduating on time. We rank 4th in the nation in suspensions while we continue to exacerbate a serious school-to-prison pipeline costing our state hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

Over the last decade our educational outcomes continued to fall behind international standards and, at best by various selected measures, have climbed only to the middle of the pack among the states. In 2008, our newly elected Governor claimed to be the next “Education Governor”. During her first two years in office, with a Democrat controlled General Assembly by her side, we lost more teacher jobs in this state than we had in the previous quarter century. Short of lotteries and repeated calls for tax increases where our children are used as shields for political gamesmanship, we have seen no real leadership or solutions on these critical issues. The future of our children and our state is too important for gambling and games. More than ever we need real leadership and our teachers need our support. Our children deserve better and our state depends on it.

During recent months community leaders whom I admire and respect from across this great state have asked me to consider bringing my dedication, leadership, and lifetime of passion for helping children to the office of State Superintendent. I am honored by their belief in my tenacity and track record of success. I truly believe that together we can strengthen education in NC. We can and must produce significant measurable results for our students, support parents, empower teachers, reduce bureaucracy, and increase local controls.

In respect to these urgent matters I plan to announce my decision by Thursday, January 26th. Over the coming week my wife and I will be joined by family and friends in serious and prayerful consideration of this state-wide campaign to champion a better education for the children of North Carolina. As I consider this run for State Super-intendent I ask that you keep me and my family in your prayers as well.

Humbly yours,

John Tedesco

Wake County Public School System

Board of Education Representative District 2

Connect with John:

facebook.com/JohnTedescoNC

twitter.com/JohnTedescoNC

Update-
http://www.ncteaparty.com/2012/01/dale-folwell-to-run-for-lieutenant-governor-2012/

more info can be found at CanFixNC.com

I’m sitting at the Forsyth County Republican Party Headquarters in Winston Salem, NC. Speaker Pro Tem Dale Folwell is about to announce what his intentions for the 2012 election cycle. Numerous speculations have been made about what position would attract a leader of his caliber. Those in Forsyth County have been anxiously awaiting this announcement ever since he made it public he did not intend to seek reelection for his current House district that he has served four terms including this current term.

Stay tuned!

Video to follow.

What do you believe his announcement will be? What do you HOPE it will be?

Two pieces of dangerous legislation are currently being debated in Congress that could forever change the Internet: the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect IP Act (PIPA). The proponents of these harmful bills claim that it is necessary to stop online piracy, the illegal sale and/or distribution of copyrighted and trademarked products on the Internet. Regardless of how well-intentioned the pieces of legislation may be or one’s perspective on intellectual property laws, SOPA and the Protect IP Act would severely cripple free speech and stifle innovation online.

The Internet is a prime example of what Nobel Prize-winning economist F.A. Hayek called spontaneous order. One single institution does not control the Internet. This is primarily what makes the Internet so great. Billions of individuals all over the world are free to spread unrestricted information on the Internet. I actually became a libertarian largely because I was exposed to ideas that I never heard before on the free Internet. Can you imagine how terrible the Internet would be if it was centrally-planned by the government? A centralized institution cannot possibly know or satisfy the unique wants of billions of individuals across the globe.

read more

article by By: Julie Borowski, Freedomworks Staff Writer

By Scott Cumbie

The discussions this week over the constitutionality of the presidential “recess” appointments have revolved around whether the Senate was in recess or not.  In actuality, the “recess” issue is irrelevant to the question of constitutionality.  For the purposes of this discussion, let us take the President’s position and assume that the Senate was in recess.  Then, let us look at the text of the Constitution to determine if the President’s actions were lawful.

Article 2 Section 2 Paragraph 2 says that the President “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, … which shall be established by Law.”  Since the departments in question were established by law, the Constitution very clearly states that the President nominates and the Senate approves.  The arguments revolve around the next paragraph.

“The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.”

There are 2 very important items stated in this paragraph:

First, when can a President fill a vacancy?  Answer: when the vacancy occurs during the recess of the Senate.  The vacancies for all four of the positions that were filled by the President existedbefore the recess.  None of these vacancies happened or occurred during the recess.  A clear reading of the text tells us that these appointments were unlawful.

Secondly, any recess appointment expires at the end of the next session of the Senate.  Once the Senate assembles after a recess appointment is made, if the Senate takes no action then the appointment expires immediately upon the next recess.  In the current case, the Senate could have opened after this latest recess and immediately gone into recess again which would have caused these four appointments to expire.  The Senate would not have had to even discuss the recess appointments.

Why would the framers of the Constitution allow a President to make recess appointments and why only if the vacancy occurs during a recess of the Senate?  Why, also, would they want these recess appointments to expire in the manner stated above?

At the time the Constitution was written, the framers were only expecting Congress to be in the capital for part of the year.  In fact, they were more concerned that Congress would not meet often enough, so in Article 1, Section 4 they state that “The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year.”  The framers were expecting that there would be long periods of time when the Congress would not be in the capital and would not be available to approve a nomination for a vacancy.  These recess appointment were intended to allow the President to be able to conduct the business of the government until the Senate could return to the capital and take action on the nomination / appointment.

If a vacancy occurred while Congress was in session, and the President did not nominate and the Senate did not approve the nomination before a recess, then the President was not given the power to make a recess appointment.  By the Senate not acting on a nomination before the recess, the Senate effectively states its will by not giving consent.  In this case, the President cannot act until the Senate reconvenes.

This is exactly the same reason that the Constitution states that a recess appointment will expire at the end of the next session.  If the Senate comes out of recess and decides not to provide consent on a recess appointment before their next recess, then they have stated their will by not giving consent.  The Constitution does not allow a President to act independently of Congress or to circumvent the will of Congress.

Joseph Story, who was appointed to the Supreme Court 200 years ago by President James Madison, wrote a series of commentaries on the Constitution.  In discussing recess appointments, Story states that “The propriety of this grant is so obvious, that it can require no elucidation. There was but one of two courses to be adopted; either, that the senate should be perpetually in session, in order to provide for the appointment of officers; or, that the president should be authorized to make temporary appointments during the recess, which should expire, when the senate should have had an opportunity to act on the subject. The former course would have been at once burthensome to the senate, and expensive to the public. The latter combines convenience, promptitude of action, and general security.”

In other words, the reason for recess appointments was obvious and required no explanation.  This grant allows the President “temporary appointments” in order to conduct the business of the government until “the senate should have had an opportunity to act.”

Story continues by stating that “The appointments so made, by the very language of the constitution, expire at the next session of the senate; and the commissions given by him have the same duration.”  Again, if the Senate does not act on the appointment, then the appointment expires at the next recess.  Clearly, if the Senate does not give consent, the President does not have Power to appoint.

Concerning the requirement that a vacancy occurs during a recess, Story states, “The language of the clause is, that the president shall have power to fill up vacancies, that may happen during the recess of the senate…  By “vacancies” they understood to be meant vacancies occurring from death, resignation, promotion, or removal. The word ‘happen’ had relation to some casualty, not provided for by law. If the senate are in session, when offices are created by law, which have not as yet been filled, and nominations are not then made to them by the president, he cannot appoint to such offices during the recess of the senate, because the vacancy does not happen during the recess of the senate.”

This last sentence discusses the exact situation we have with the President’s recent appointment of Richard Cordray to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).  The other 3 appointments were for vacancies in existing offices that occurred before this latest recess (and not during this recess).

Based on the clear text of the Constitution and the intent of the framers, the four recent recess appointments by the President are clearly unlawful.  When the President stated that, “I’ve got an obligation to act on behalf of the American people, and I’m not going to stand by while a minority in the Senate puts party ideology ahead of the people that we were elected to serve,” it is clear that his intent is to circumvent the Constitutional requirement that he obtain the advice and consent of the Senate.  This is acting outside the power granted to him in the Constitution.

republished with permission of the author