WikilLeaks Common Core Email: DNC Believes It’s a “Political Third Rail”
Share and Enjoy
Twitter’s abuzzing about the thousands of The Democrat National Committee Wikileaked emails. There were allegations that Twitter suppressed the hashtag #DNCLeaks and removed it from the trending bar:
Friday afternoon, users noted, “#DNCLeaks” was trending, with more than 250,000 tweets about it on the platform. By Friday evening, it vanished completely from the site’s “trending” bar for at least 20 minutes. It returned as “#DNCLeak” after users erupted, though it was too late to quell their rage.
The modified hashtag was pulled from the trending bar, too:
You can access Wikileak’s database of emails here:
Search the DNC email database
Today, Friday 22 July 2016 at 10:30am EDT, WikiLeaks releases 19,252 emails and 8,034 attachments from the top of the US Democratic National Committee — part one of our new Hillary Leaks series. The leaks come from the accounts of seven key figures in the DNC: Communications Director Luis Miranda (10770 emails), National Finance Director Jordon Kaplan (3797 emails), Finance Chief of Staff Scott Comer (3095 emails), Finanace Director of Data & Strategic Initiatives Daniel Parrish (1472 emails), Finance Director Allen Zachary (1611 emails), Senior Advisor Andrew Wright (938 emails) and Northern California Finance Director Robert (Erik) Stowe (751 emails). The emails cover the period from January last year until 25 May this year.
When searching for ‘common core’ in the database, this email popped up instructing recipients on what to put in a Democratic video about education:
Common Core is seen as a political third rail that we (the Democrats) should not be touching at all. Get rid of it. So apparently, the Democratic party will not listen to Democrat grass roots voters when they raise questions and concerns about the special interest groups dictating educational policy, direction and development. Deflection is the preferred method of the DNC in speaking about education and avoiding Common Core. What exactly is a political third rail?
Wouldn’t you love to see the emails between NGOs and the US Federal Department of Education on Common Core? You wonder if the DNC emails are similar to those organizations corresponding with each other and if they used the ‘third rail’ reference to various news organizations supporting that agenda. The idea that Common Core is unfairly designated as a third rail is referred to by several sources approving of the standards:
- http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2015/09/why_arent_democratic_president.html **Excerpt: Patrick McGuinn, a professor of political science at Drew University, in Madison, N.J., who has studied K-12 education and elections, gave me three possibilities. One, Democrats are staying mum in part because Republicans are talking about the issue but in an “ideologically extreme way to appeal to the Tea Party wing of the GOP that dominate[s] the primaries.” The GOP contenders are creating “self-inflicted wounds” that will come back to haunt the eventual nominee, according to McGuinn. “No Need for the Dems to say much when the Repubs are making themselves look bad all by themselves!” McGuinn wrote in an email. Two, he said, K-12 has been a “tricky” issue for Democratic presidential candidates because of the divide between the “reform” wing of the party and teachers’ unions on issues like ending teacher tenure and expanding charter schools. It’s easier to focus on the areas where most primary voters are in agreeement, like ending student loan debt, McGuinn wrote. Finally, this past year has seen a big backlash around the federal role in education and Obama’s K-12 agenda, particularly when it comes to the common core and standardized testing. “I don’t think any of the Dem candidates want to be too closely associated with all that,” McGuinn wrote.
We now can confirm why politicians don’t listen to the valid concerns of citizens on the centralization of education by NGOs and complicit governmental agencies. They are instructed not to speak about it in a DNC created video. Is the Democrat party complicit in this avoidance of voter concern? Maybe it’s because the presumptive Democratic nominee orchestrated a proposed national takeover of education with Marc Tucker in the early 1990’s? Maybe it’s because her husband’s educational programs (Goals 2000, School to Work, Workforce Credentialing) laid the foundation for the standards? From The Federalist and How Common Core Fulfills Hillary Clinton’s Education Dreams:
What about Hillary? She was right there the whole time. It’s well-known that Hillary and Magaziner worked together to write and push HillaryCare, Clinton’s health-care nationalization scheme. That the duo also worked on an education nationalization scheme is less well-known—oddly so, because it was more effective. The two initiatives were also deliberately linked, just as Common Core has been: The health and education policies of both eras feed a system of networked government databases designed to track citizens for life.
NCEE, the agenda-setting nonprofit on whose commission Hillary sat once her husband was elected, issued a 1990 report that essentially outlined what would become Bill Clinton’s education agenda as president, NCEE itself says:
almost the entire agenda advanced in the report was enacted into legislation by the Congress and signed into law by the President, including the School-to-Work Act, the National Skill Standards Board, and the Workforce Investment Act. At the Rose Garden ceremony at which President Clinton signed his signature education legislation, the President departed from his prepared remarks to single out the contribution made by NCEE to the national education reform agenda. Subsequently, many states also enacted policies designed to support the recommendations made in the America’s Choice report.
In March 1992, Clinton and Magaziner co-authored a journal article that essentially paraphrases the national education policy schemes in this report and which Tucker repeated to Hillary in a letter he sent her the week after her husband won the presidency in 1991. It’s known as the “Dear Hillary” letter. All of these documents stress the need to “comprehensively” “reorganize” America’s economy and schools. As Tucker wrote to Hillary in 1991: “Nothing less than a wholly restructured school system can possibly bring all of our students up to the standards only a few have been expected to meet up to now.”
Tucker is still chanting this mantra. In the face of evidence that Common Core is not improving student achievement, as he and its myriad other backers promised, he wrote this March that Common Core “will make no difference at all to student performance unless the other parts of the education system are crafted to use those standards to get the desired results” (emphasis added).
It’s not just about the curriculum mandates, and it never has been. It’s about using them as leverage to change—and control—everything. The Obama administration made it very clear that it intended Common Core to “leverage systemic reform”—e.g., get states in line with its agenda despite lacking the legal authority to do so. How did the Clinton cabal want to “restructure” U.S. education? Similarly to the way Common Core has.
The leaked email deflects Common Core concerns to the GOP (make it look bad according to Professor McGuinn), alleging it doesn’t appreciate teachers, and away from Clinton’s role in setting up a national educational system and an explanation of why she supports the CCSSI. Is it any wonder the Democrat party is unresponsive to concerns from the population that funds the CCSSI but whose questions/concerns are ignored?