Stand and Fight

I grew up with and around guns, mostly shotguns and .22, 30-30, 30-06 rifles (and, in my case, a M1 Garand). Just about everyone had a couple or three. And us kids were always after someone to let us shoot their gun - even if we had our own. Most of us had a .22 rifle, and at least one shotgun by age 13. Then there was deer season, duck season and all-season on just about any small wild animal, if we felt like going after them. Squirrels were a prize. Cottontails were just for target practice - you try hitting one of them little suckers with a single-shot .22, as he zig-zags and leaps across a field. Today, I wouldn't think of shooting any animal for sport, not even prairie dogs, which out west here, are about the equivalent of big rats.

But for us boys, the biggest thrill was getting to go with the grown-ups on a hunt; up before dawn, dogs wildly ecstatic, they knew what was coming. And we learned gun safety from our elders at a early age - by the age of ten or eleven, we could climb a fence with a loaded gun - without shooting ourselves or anyone else, break the guns down, clean them, shoot them all. Rule of thumb: if you were able to shoot a shotgun without getting knocked on your butt, you were old enough to shoot it. But then that's just the way it was.

But oddly enough, after my short stint with the M1, I didn't fire another gun until two months ago, fifty years later.

So when my sister stopped by to visit me out here on the High Plains, and handed me a Rem 870 20 Ga. shotgun, saying,"I don't need this anymore - you just might need it", it got me to thinking seriously about home defense. My sister is a retired county judge in Florida - but when she was still the judge, the occasional miffed miscreant would see fit to drop by her home, unannounced - thus the shotgun handy by the door. She carried then, and still does, a S&W .38 snubbie tucked away "on or about" her person.

Now a pump shotgun is a dandy home/self-defense gun (the sound of a shell being racked in a shotgun is a real attention-getter), but you can't lug the thing around with you all the time. Walmart frowns on such boldness; so instead, I bought a handgun from the gun shop in La Junta- and took a NRA home defense course, and spent a month at the range (way, way out on the prairie) acclimating myself to a handgun, until I felt comfortable with the gun...and I don't feel like a victim. I don't feel like a victim, because I am no longer helpless. Now, I didn't feel like a victim before I had the guns, either - but for sure I felt helpless to defend myself against attack. Now I don't feel helpless, because I'm not helpless.

Incidently, I took my shotgun to the gun shop in La Junta to have the choke checked, and had to park a couple of blocks away from the shop. I had forgotten and left the case at home, so I walked the two blocks to and from the gunsmith, busy street, people everywhere, but no one even glanced at the gun. But then, these are the Eastern Plains of Colorado, and it takes more than sight of a shotgun, carried casually, to spook these people. These Colorado range inhabitants - tough, independent, enduring, deserve respect.

But the world we live in is an increasingly dangerous place to live. One way to make schools safer is to have responsible staff, teachers, administrators carry guns. Even 5th graders agree. Having a carry policy in schools doesn't make the children and teachers immune to violence, but it sure would give a predator reason to look elsewhere to act out any violent tendencies against otherwise helpless victims. Current policy prevents trained, law-abiding, intelligent people from carrying a weapon onto school grounds. This no-gun policy makes our children more, not less, vulnerable to senseless attack. It's common sense.


I have been feeling a kind of dread that Islamic terrorists might do here, what was done in Beslan, Russia. Now, I realize that a couple of .38-carrying math teachers won't prevent these monsters from carrying out such fiendish plans, but you have to admit that under current law, our children and teachers are helpless from such an attack, or indeed, any attack. Helpless children make easy prey, as has been amply demonstrated over the past several years. The "no guns on school property" laws make such terrorist plots a cake-walk for the terrorists. And that's not right. We have a duty and a right to protect our children and ourselves.

And we need to make that very clear to the limp-wristed politicians still holding fast to senseless no-gun policies. They will listen, not because they want to, but because they desperately want to keep their pathetic jobs. Let's get the message to them: untie the hands which can protect our children. Or we will elect someone who will. Never mind the cry-baby liberals. In America, right now, we have a pro-gun momentum going. Let's keep it going, push it to the next level. Not because we're cowboys, but because we're men and women who, when the time comes, are willing to stand and fight.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

from The Conservative Voice

by Kevin Roeten

Who is Against a "Packing" Teacher?
November 23, 2007

Schools are different than they were 30 years ago. Now you walk in and you question if today is the day somebody will shoot you. The real problem lies in the fact that if someone decides to whip out a semi-automatic and start blowing you and your friends away, there’s not a thing you can do about it.

When the writer went to school, if the freshman teacher did not like you cutting up in class with your partner, you might be surprised by his reaction. Picking both of the instigators up by the collar, banging their heads together, and physically throwing them out of the classroom actually happened.

Today, that teacher would be brought up on charges, the guilty kids would receive profuse apologies, and the teacher would likely loose his job. But those were the days when teachers were respected or even feared, when you came to learn and not to see how you could weasel “out”, when you never worried about a school bully, never thought about pulling a prank in school, and never thought about smoking on the school grounds.

But in the last 18 years, there have been 23 well documented incidents of guns being used to kill---in school. Some of the well known were Columbine(4/20/99), Virginia Tech(4/16/07), and SuccessTech(10/10/07). There’s been at least one/year for the last 18, and we know there’ll be others.

It sounds like it is past time to remedy the situation. We can have every parent change the attitude of their progeny. In other words, we must insure that those parents instill a sense of respect for teachers. Not many agree that this is a short-term goal, however. The only short-term one is fear. And the only way to achieve that is to have teachers ‘pack heat’ - perhaps visibly.

How many cite claims of having a renegade kid somehow wrest control of guns from teachers who have them? First, not every teacher will have a gun. Second, properly trained teachers know where and where not to put their gun. Third, every teacher must be properly trained and equipped to ‘carry’. And fourth, properly trained teachers know you don’t leave your weapon lying on your desk for someone else to use.

Very few kids will bring weapons of mass murder to school if they know their effort will meet known and immediate resistance. But without any packing teachers, the students know that if they do have a weapon they are free to slaughter as many people with as many bullets that they can carry.

How less likely are kids to bring weapons if they know they face armed resistance? Even if only a small percentage of teachers are armed, perpetrators still know that resistance is present. But it seems we have clearly signaled a “loss” in the classroom, or some measure of resignation.

One thing armed conflict teaches you--a signal of resignation in a battle typically invites more killing and mayhem. There are too many teachers who know exactly how to handle firearms—right now.

And for those teachers who want to lead students to a better life, it is indeed a battle. Teachers and administrators need control to teach—total control. Parents need that to teach their young ones almost everything. Per Doug Giles(http://www.clashradio.com), “We can’t afford to rely on chunky security guards with golf carts, pepper spray, whistles and plastic badges to safeguard against these armed little death dealing b--stards from hell.”

Parents of those dead students certainly wish that someone could’ve been there to stop the chaos and the killing. If more students see a visible weapon on a hip of a teacher, more schools will cease to be a shooting gallery for young culprits.

Those perps will likely think twice upon realizing the limited number of potential victims, and their likely demise. If a student actually tries to take a holstered gun from a teacher, he would and should be met with unqualified resistance.

Some people still don’t want teachers carrying weapons. But they’re for ‘free choice’ for abortion, sex, drugs, and marriage---but not for ‘free choice’ with vouchers, or armed teachers. Is there something wrong here?

NBC Refuses to Run "Thank You, Troops" Ad

Normally, I couldn't care less what the TV media is doing. All they seem to care about is tearing down America, so I ignore them. But when I popped over to Stuck On Stupid, they are running a FoxNews clip explaining how NBC (owned by Gen. Elec), declined to run a paid spot by Freedom's Watch, a "Thank-You to our Troops Tribute", short and inoffensive. If I wasn't already not watching NBC programs, I certainly would stop watching them now. That they won't run a thank-you tribute to our troops is inexcusable.

They won't run the spot, because they don't want Freedom's Watch political stance to be recognized. It's "too political". Oh, the irony. Michael Savage is right: liberalism is truly a mental disorder. Check it out.






What Freedom's Watch is about: Conservative media movement to MoveOn.org



On another battle-front, you might also want to check out Michael Savage interviewing David Yerushalmi from Sane on the Savage Nation, in which Yerushalmi explains in detail the Islamic tactic of setting up Jihadist sleeper cells here on American soil, and the purpose of Shari'a law as it relates to the call for violent destruction of the West. (go to the “Available files” at the top of the posting and click on the attached mp3 file).

The Children Have Spoken

Hat Tip to:
Gun Owners of America
and
Women's voice

Oct 2007

By Janalee Tobias

On Monday, June 30, 2003, 1 p.m., the 5th grade class of Miss Erickson, at So. Jordan Elementary, So. Jordan, UT, held a mock trial. The issue at trial: Should guns be allowed in school? So. Jordan Elementary school is in Jordan School District where policy is currently being drafted regarding CCW permit holders taking guns to school.

Each legal team consisted of five brilliant 5th graders. Each side presented charts and facts to the jury which consisted of twelve 5th graders, half boys, half girls. An "expert witness" on each side testified: "me" for the "guns in school" side, and a women from the University of Utah represented "no guns in school." The principal was subpoenaed for the "no guns in school" side, but he didn't show up for trial. Rumor has it that he was afraid to go against me :), and there may be a warrant out for his arrest. :)

After about 45 minutes of intense debate, the jury left the classroom and deliberated behind closed doors for five minutes.

The verdict: 12-0 in FAVOR of guns in schools.

The comments of the jurors reflected their fear of a crazed criminal coming in and shooting up the school. They want teachers to be able to carry a gun for their protection as long as they know how to use it, know the safety rules, and keep it out of the reach of students. They also want the "bad guys" to think that if they come into their school to shoot it up, that a "good guy" is going to shoot them back and protect the children.

The verdict is in: Children think that the best way to "save the children" is to let honest, law-abiding citizens carry guns for protection.

Janalee Tobias is the Founder and President of Women Against Gun Control.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Any questions?

Fuzzy Math Faces Revolt

Back in May, I posted my views, and suspicions, of the "new math" being pushed in the classroom. I was somewhat naive at that point in time, regarding the true intent of the DOE, though I basically had it right. The fuzzy math textbooks such as, Everyday Mathematics, and Mathland texts being used by the educational imbeciles, are guaranteed to lead your child down a cul-de-sac of stupidity.

That is not to say, it's not working. Oh, it's working, alright. It prevents our children from ever developing and honing their natural faculties of logic, reasoning, and independent thinking. And that suits the NEA objectives of developing socialized personalities in the classroom. It is intentional deception. And they lie. And please, don't start with the "good intentions" argument, about how these methods will prepare our children for integration into a more understanding viewpoint. Lies and more lies...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Integrated Math, Everyday Math

By EdWatch

December 05, 2007

Fuzzy math has run into a bit of a buzz-saw recently. When the Texas State Board of Education abandoned it this month, new controversy erupted across America. Texas curriculum sets the framework for the rest of the country.

Fuzzy math's names are Everyday Math, Connected Math, Integrated Math, Math Expressions, Constructivist Math, NCTM Math, Standards-based Math, Chicago Math, and Investigations, to name a few. Fuzzy math means students won't master math: addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. Remind me - why are we sending them to school?

Fuzzy math teaches students to "appreciate" math, but they can't do it. They are to come up with their own ideas about how to compute, lest they come to think there's a single most efficient way. Lessons about racism, sexism, global warming, and American imperialism are melded ("integrated") into math classes. One program calls itself "radical math" to describe its political math agenda. (See "If we really hope to improve mathematics education.")

Hear familiar ideas here? What works, what's true, what is tested isn't the point in education anymore, whether math, history, or literature. That's outdated, because it implies objective knowledge larger than ourselves.

Critics dub fuzzy math an "epidemic." If so, it's been festering for at least twenty years. "New math" goes back farther yet, but the so-called "world class" national math standards embedded fuzzy math into the classrooms by nursing it along with generous amounts of our tax dollars beginning in the early 90s. Now, Fuzzy Math is an open, oozing canker. Armies of graduates are unprepared for college math, or for life, for that matter. (See "AN OPEN LETTER TO UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF EDUCATION, RICHARD RILEY")

Something is stinky with education "experts" and in the halls of education colleges. The sooner the public realizes that the "professionals" have bought nutty fantasy-land drivel and are undermining our children with it, the sooner we can rise to the challenge of restoring knowledge to the classroom.

Hurray for the Texas Board of Education. Send them a thank-you.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And if you missed 10-year-old Madeline's demonstration, here it is again.


Michele Malkin has more on this nationwide epidemic...

"...And then you realize your child has become a victim of "Fuzzy Math," the "New New Math," the dumbed-down, politically correct, euphemism-filled edu-folly corrupting both public and private schools nationwide."

NOT 4 SALE! - Oppose the Army's Piñon Canyon Expansion

Posted from Las Animas

I oppose the Army's Piñon Canyon Expansion Proposal. My reason is simple: The land the Army wants to take, by force if necessary, belongs to American ranchers and farmers who have put their heart and souls into developing and maintaining this land.

Make no mistake, this land is sweet. It is the kind of land that the annual thrill-seeking tourista might likely pass by, without a second glance, in their search for the spectacular. But the inhabitants of the land know better. The high plains along the Santa Fe Trail hold rich memories of the Comanche, Cheyenne, Kiowa, the Arapaho, Ute, and Apache; and memories of the American settlers, Charles and William Bent, Kit Carson, John Boggs, Jim Beckwourth, and many others who for a time, short by historical measure, lived and traded in peace with the Indians who held and lived on the lands here.

None of this means anything to the increasingly global-reaching US government. Nothing at all - just a place for the Army to desecrate, and destroy. They don't even need this land.


Go out on the high plains here - become still and let the land speak it's soft voice, of the memories, the joys and tragedies playing out here. In silence the land will reveal itself - it's harshness the buffer of self-protection. It's sweetness, it's mysteries are slow to reveal themselves to the uninitiated - perhaps experienced only by the fortunate who live and work in harmony with this land.

And of course, in addition to the historic Santa Fe Trail's cultural richness, the land is unimaginably rich in geological, and evolutionary markers. This proposed seizure by the Department of Defense is wrong on so many levels, but none more fundamental than the moral and ethical right to own and work on private property - property which has been held in trust by the dauntless ranchers and farmers for generations.

The protest by the environmental groups is nothing more than a red herring. The politicians like the Salazars and Allard, looking for a "win-win solution", will sell the ranchers out in a heartbeat, of that you may be sure. Who would win? The Front Range Cities, such as Colorado Springs, businessmen might see gains; the Army would certainly win, and the US government will continue to prevail in it's demand to ride rough-shod over local economies, and the lives of it's private citizens.

The nature conservancy groups will probably get to add a large chunk of this proposed take-over land to their growing real estate "trust". When that happens, they can and will dictate their own stringent land-use rules, further making the rancher's lives miserable.

What the American people, not just Coloradans, must come to understand is that the nature conservancy groups are deceptively working hand-in-hand with the government to take land away from those to whom it rightfully belongs: The American people. And it's happening all over America.

But the region under this proposed expansion by the Army - the small towns, schools, the local economy, the people living and working the land itself will lose, irrevocably.

The one-year delay, the protests by the environmental groups will pass, leaving the rancher's families and the towns affected to bear the brunt of eminent domain. For this reason, the protest of this proposed take-over of the land must jump to a higher level, loud - vocally, visually.

The towns, and all Coloradans, themselves must take up the fight, not sit back in a wait-and-see attitude. This region will prevail, the rights of all Americans will prevail only if there is an over-whelming outcry and protest to this unethical, immoral, and unnecessary land grab.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. " - Edmund Burke



Pinon Canyon Expansion Presentation part 2

What's Wrong With Outcome-Based Education?

May 1993 Phyllis Schlafly Report
ourcivilisation.com

Outcome-Based Education (OBE) is sweeping the country in the name of school "restructuring." OBE calls for a complete change in the way children are taught, graded and graduated, kindergarten through 12th grade. Since the American people seem ready to accept drastic surgery on our failed public schools, state departments of education are seizing this opportunity to force acceptance of OBE as the cure. But OBE has parents even more agitated than they are about explicit sex education. Crowds of a thousand or more parents are known to have gathered in Pennsylvania, Oklahoma and Ohio.

Here is a summary of the ten major objections that parents have raised against OBE.

1. OBE is packaged in a deceptive language that appears to be mischievously chosen to mislead parents. Public school administrators have an obligation to present their "reform" plans in plain English so that parents can easily understand the objectives, the methods, the content, and exactly how OBE is different from traditional schooling.

OBE advocates continually use double-entendre expressions that parents assume mean one thing but really mean something different in the OBE context. When they talk about "new basics," for example, they are not talking about academics such as reading, writing and arithmetic, but OBE attitudes and outcomes. When they talk about "higher order thinking skills" or "critical thinking," they mean a relativistic process of questioning traditional moral values.

The following statement from OBE literature is typical: "OBE schools are expected to become `success based' rather than `selection oriented' by establishing the instructional management procedures and delivery conditions which enable all students to learn and demonstrate those skills necessary for continued success." OBE salespersons don't tell parents that "success" for all children means "success" in demonstrating only the dumbed-down outcomes that the slowest learners in the class can attain. OBE means "success" in mediocrity rather than excellence.

2. OBE uses students as guinea pigs in a vast social experiment. OBE advocates are not able to produce any replicable research or pilot studies to show that it works. OBE is being forced on entire state school systems without any evidence that it has been tried anywhere and found effective.

The best test of an OBE-type system was Chicago's experiment in the 1970s with Professor Benjamin Bloom's Mastery Learning (ML), which is essentially the same as OBE. ML was a colossal failure and was abandoned in disgrace in 1982. The test scores proved to be appallingly low and the illiteracy rate became a national scandal. Bloom, the father of ML, is well known for his statement that "the purpose of education is to change the thoughts, feelings and actions of students." (All Our Children Learning, page 180.)

Dr. Bill Spady, sociologist and director of the International Center on Outcome-Based Restructuring, defined the connection between OBE and Mastery Learning in an article entitled "On Outcome Based Education: A Conversation with Bill Spady" (Educational Leadership, Dec. 1992-Jan. 1993): "In January of 1980 we convened a meeting of 42 people to form the Network for Outcome-Based Schools. Most of the people who were there — Jim Block, John Champlin — had a strong background in Mastery Learning, since it was what OBE was called at the time. But I pleaded with the group not to use the name `mastery learning' in the network's new name because the word `mastery' had already been destroyed through poor implementation."

The major OBE/ML experiment, which took place in Utah in 1984-86, shows how federal funding enabled OBE to spread nationwide. A letter applying for the federal grant, written by Utah State Superintendent of Public Instruction G. Leland Burningham to then U.S. Secretary of Education T. H. Bell (July 27, 1984), stated: "This [project] will make it possible to put Outcome-Based Education in place, not only in Utah but in all schools of the nation." Spady's Far West Regional Laboratory received the federal grant and he was made director of this pilot project, which is now implementing OBE/ML nationwide.

3. OBE offers no method of accountability to students, parents, teachers, or taxpayers. Since OBE includes no objective standards of achievement that are measurable, it will be years and millions of tax dollars into the future before we know whether schoolchildren are learning anything important or are wasting their time. Educators admit that OBE is very expensive since each student works at his own pace at mastering every outcome/skill/behaviour until he succeeds. Perhaps this is what they mean by "lifelong learning."

For as long as most of us can remember, secondary schools have been structured on a measurable grid called the "Carnegie units." The traditional high school curriculum includes four units of English; three units each of mathematics, science and social studies; two units each of arts and humanities; a unit of health and physical education; and several electives. After you complete enough units (usually 21), you receive a high school diploma and colleges will admit you.

Outcome-Based Education tosses these traditional units out the window and replaces them with vague and subjective "learning outcomes" that cannot be measured objectively by standardized tests and for which there is no accountability to parents and taxpayers. OBE will make it virtually impossible to conduct any kind of tests that allow comparisons with students in other schools, other states, or prior years. Under OBE, grades have no relation to academic achievement and knowledge. Colleges will have no criteria by which to judge whether students are ready for admission.

In the elementary grades, OBE does not teach children essential reading, writing, and arithmetic skills (such as addition, subtraction and multiplication tables), but pretends to teach them "higher order thinking skills" instead. OBE ignores the obvious fact that one can't engage in "higher order thinking" until one has some facts to think about. For example, an Iowa State OBE assessment test for the 11th grade shows no requirement of math skills beyond the fundamental computations of addition, subtraction, multiplication and division.

4. OBE is a dumbed-down egalitarian scheme that stifles individual potential for excellence and achievement by holding the entire class to the level of learning attainable by every child. To accomplish this, children are placed in Politically Correct groups (race, ethnicity, gender, class) for "cooperative learning" and may be given a group grade instead of individual grades.

Cooperative learning researchers admit that the purpose of this strategy is to eliminate grading and competition in the classroom. This is the essence of OBE and explains why all measurable criteria — standardized tests, the Carnegie units, traditional subject-matter, and report cards — must be eliminated.

OBE is based on the unrealistic notion that every child in a group can learn to the designated level and must demonstrate mastery of a specific outcome before the group can move on. The faster learners are not allowed to progress, but are given busy work called "horizontal enrichment" or told to do "peer tutoring" to help the slower learners, who are recycled through the material until the pre-determined behaviour is exhibited.

Cooperative learning researcher Robert Slavin said in "Mastery Learning Reconsidered" (funded by the U.S. Department of Education in 1987): "If some students take much longer than others to learn a particular objective, then . . . either corrective instruction must be given outside of regular class time, or students who achieve mastery early on will have to waste considerable amounts of time waiting for their classmates to catch up." If OBE were applied to basketball, the basket would have to be lowered so all could score equally.

In order to master all outcomes, children with a particular talent are required to forfeit time in their area of strength. Because no child moves ahead until all demonstrate mastery, the inevitable happens: the faster learners quickly learn to slow their pace in order to avoid extra work, and they just give the answers to the slower learners so the group can move forward. Incentive and motivation are reduced, and boredom and resentment increased. The result is that all students demonstrate "mastery" of mediocrity, and none can aspire to excellence. Every child loses under this system.

5. In an OBE system, academic and factual subject matter is replaced by vague and subjective learning outcomes. According to OBE guru Bill Spady, "the traditional subject-based curriculum disappears" from OBE. New OBE report cards substitute check marks for grades, focusing on general skills, attitudes, and behaviours instead of individual subjects.

A look at the outcomes that have so far been made public show that they are heavily layered with such "Politically Correct" notions as training for world citizenship and government (instead of patriotism), population control, radical environmentalism, and government "solutions" for every problem. (See typical examples below in "OBE in Washington State.")

6. A high percentage of OBE "outcomes" concern values, attitudes, opinions and relationships rather than objective information. A large number of OBE's goals are affective (concerned with emotions and feelings) rather than academic (concerned with knowledge and skills). OBE requires students to meet vague psychological objectives relating to self-esteem, ethical judgment, and adaptability to change. Moving from one level to the next, and even graduation, is dependent on meeting behaviour-change requirements and government-mandated attitudes. (For a sampling of vague and affective outcomes, see below under "OBE in Pennsylvania.")

OBE thus involves a major change in the school's avowed mission. Henceforth, its mission is to conform student beliefs, attitudes and behaviour to prescribed school-mandated social norms, rather than to provide an academic education. Parents are concerned about what methods will be used to change behaviours that are deemed incorrect.

"Self-esteem" is a major attitudinal outcome demanded by OBE. Many of the techniques used to change a child's self-esteem or his adaptability to change are psychotherapeutic. This amounts to practising psychology without a license as well as engaging in unprofessional group therapy. Arizona recently made an attempt to protect its school personnel by providing them with civil and criminal immunity.

Parents who are trying to rear their children with strong religious values are concerned that willingness to go along with the crowd is taught by OBE as a positive rather than a negative attitude. Since "tolerance" is a major attitudinal outcome demanded by OBE, parents are concerned that this includes "tolerance" for extra-marital lifestyles of all kinds. The non-directive, "decision-making" classroom technique leads children to believe they are mature enough to make decisions about sex and drugs that parents believe are unhealthy and may even be illegal.

The public school establishment is highly secretive about the OBE tests, but tests that have come to light include many questions of attitude and opinion for which there are no right or wrong answers. What is the correct answer, for example, to questions about whether the student "understands others" or "applies good consumer behaviour"? Nevertheless, the student is required to conform to the government-mandated outcomes, whatever they are.

OBE raises the fundamental question of who should decide what values, attitudes, and beliefs a child should be taught. Should it be the parents or the U.S. Department of Education, which funded OBE? Should the public schools be allowed to teach values that may be controversial and sometimes even contradictory to values taught to children by their parents?

Behaviour modification is fundamental to achieving OBE-type results. OBE uses a "stimulus-response-stimulus" pattern, a rewards-and-punishment process based on Ivan Pavlov's and B.F. Skinner's programmed learning/behaviour modification techniques. Under OBE, students are recycled through the process until they meet the mandated outcomes.

Educators see computer-assisted instruction (CAI) as a powerful programmed-learning tool to change children's values. Here are some samples of their thinking. "The computer is ideally suited to the role of facilitator in values education. It inherently possesses the Rogerian qualities of genuineness and congruence. . . . Values clarification and values analysis are aptly suited to being used as a basis for software development." ("Can Computers Teach Values?", Educational Leadership, April 1982.)

"will work on the principle that students' attitudes can be changed effectively by using the Socratic method of asking an appropriate series of leading questions logically designed to right the balance between appropriate attitudes and those deemed less acceptable."
(Donald Bushnell, "The Role of the Computer in Future Instructional Systems," AV Communication Review, 1963.)

7. OBE sets up a computer file on each child to track the child's efforts to master the learning outcomes. These "electronic portfolios" will take the place of traditional assessments and test results and will become the basis for the school's efforts to remediate whatever attitudes and behaviours the school deems unacceptable. The portfolios will include all school, psychological and medical records, and are to be available to prospective employers after graduation.

The computer portfolio on each child plays an essential role in the tracking of individual students. The computer records how the child responds to behaviour modification, what is his threshold of resistance to remediation, and whether he develops positive attitudes toward the mandated outcomes.

Parents are concerned about who will have access to these files and what will become of the data compiled on each student. Professional journals describe the goals like this:

"The computer's vast storage capacity permits access to a much broader base of data than just one classroom. In fact, the responses of the entire population of a school system could easily be compiled, stored and shared."
(Educational Leadership, April 1982.)

Student privacy is tossed out the window. Will the child be able to get a job if he has not demonstrated the OBE values and Politically Correct attitudes? Some have suggested that state law should forbid employers to hire anyone who does not have a certificate showing mastery of the government-mandated outcomes.

8. OBE is a method for concealing and perpetuating the number-one crime of the public school system — the failure to teach first graders how to read. OBE is wholly committed to the "whole language," word-guessing method rather than the phonics method. This ensures that children will learn only to memorize a few words that are massively repeated. Teachers are cautioned not to correct spelling and syntax errors because that could be damaging to the student's self esteem and creativity. (For specific OBE reading methods, see below under "OBE in Oklahoma.")

The education elitists who are promoting OBE are perfectly content to have the schools turn out quotas of semi-literate workers who can be trained to perform menial tasks under supervision in order to serve the demands of the global economy. OBE graduates will never be able to aspire to enjoy the great literature in the English language.

The rationale was explained by well-known reading researcher Thomas Sticht, who said in 1987,

"Many companies have moved operations to places with cheap, relatively poorly educated labor. What may be crucial, they say, is the dependability of a labor force and how well it can be managed and trained — not its general educational level, although a small cadre of highly educated creative people is essential to innovation and growth. Ending discrimination and changing values are probably more important than reading in moving low-income families into the middle class."
(Washington Post, Aug. 17, 1987.)

The U.S. Department of Labor is a big player in the OBE movement. OBE will aid in managing and training the work force by tracking all students beginning in the 4th grade and routing them through vocational education tracks as needed. Functional literacy competencies are defined as an ability to read a map and a bus schedule. Sticht is also a member of the Secretary of Labor's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS) and, as Associate Director for Basic Skills at the National Institute of Education, promoted similar techniques called "competency education" and "mastery teaching." (Washington Post, Aug. 17, 1977.).

9. OBE, of course, involves high costs for administration and the retraining of teachers in an entirely new system, which will be reflected in higher school taxes. The computer portfolio system is reported to be five times as expensive as traditional assessment tests. Putting computers into the hands of first-graders to give the facade of moving into modern technology is a gross waste of funds. Computers may actually be a detriment to learning elementary writing and arithmetic skills, but they may be very useful in changing values, as noted above.

10. OBE involves tightened state control at the expense of local control. Although OBE salespersons claim otherwise, the new system tightens the grip of state education officials and federal education laboratories because they write the required outcomes, develop the curriculum, train the teachers, and judge the performance of the students (all of whom must conform to National Goals).

Even though local school districts may be told to develop their own plan for achieving the designated outcomes, the plans must be approved by the state departments of education. Texas Commissioner of Education Lionel Meno gave his definition of local control (Texas Lone Star, June 1991): The state sets the goals, the local districts choose how they will comply.

Teachers will not be able to get around the OBE system, and teach the basics anyway, because the teachers are graded on how their class meets the outcomes. Teachers who do not conform will be phased out, and the schools will be taken over by the state, as is mandated in Kentucky.

OBE in Pennsylvania. When the Pennsylvania State Department of Education first proposed converting to Outcome-Based Education in 1992, it listed 545 outcomes that students would have to meet before graduation. The outcomes were later condensed to 55. Many of the goals are affective, which means that they concern attitudes, values, feelings and emotions rather than academic achievement. A look at some of these outcomes makes clear that they cannot possibly measure students' performance objectively. Here are some examples.

"All students develop interpersonal communication, decision making, coping, and evaluation skills and apply them to personal, family, and community living." "All students understand and appreciate their worth as unique and capable individuals, and exhibit self-esteem." "All students relate in writing, speech or other media, the history and nature of various forms of prejudice to current problems facing communities and nations, including the United States." "All students relate basic human development theories to care giving and child care strategies." "All students apply the fundamentals of consumer behaviour to managing available resources to provide for personal and family needs." "All students make environmentally sound decisions in their personal and civic lives."

OBE in Washington State. Washington State's Performance-Based Education Act of 1993 calls for a new performance-based assessment system to "replace the current state standardized achievement tests." The goals are extremely vague. For instance:

Under Goal 1 - students are to "communicate effectively and responsibly in a variety of ways and settings." No indication is given of what is meant by "responsibly."

Under Goal 2 - students know and apply the core concepts and principles, among other things, of "healthful living." What constitutes healthful living is not disclosed.

Under Goal 3 - students are to "think critically and creatively, and integrate experience and knowledge to form reasoned judgments and solve problems."

It is unclear whether or not "knowledge" includes the kind of specific fact-oriented knowledge that most of us consider an essential part of education.

Goal 4 - instructs students to "function as caring and responsible individuals and contributing members of families, work groups, and communities."

"Responsible" and "caring" are undefined. The outcomes also include "honest and ethical behaviour," which suggests a moral code of some sort, though presumably not a Judeo-Christian ethic.

Another outcome is "citizenship," which is redefined from its traditional sense to include "a multicultural and world view."

OBE in Oklahoma. In 1992, the Oklahoma State Department of Education published five volumes of "Learner Outcomes" for Grades One through Twelve. The Foreword in each volume makes clear that the changes in the school system do not mean teaching the basics (usually defined as reading, writing and arithmetic). The Foreword states: "Oklahoma has joined a national movement in education — not a `back to basics' approach, but an effort to focus and organize all of the school's educational programs and instructional efforts around the clearly defined outcomes we want all students to demonstrate when they leave school."

The Oklahoma Learner Outcomes dictate total subservience to the discredited "word-guessing" method of teaching reading to first graders, and do not allow the use of the proven phonics method. Instead of teaching children to read by learning the sounds and syllables of the English language so that the child can sound out words, the child is taught by endless repetition to memorize a few dozen "sight" words, to guess at new words by looking at the pictures on the page, to "predict" the text instead of reading it, and to skip over words they can't read. The teacher is instructed not to have the child focus on reading actual words, but to let the child substitute any words that seem to fit.

The ability to read a simple story that a child has never seen before is not on the list of Oklahoma "outcomes." Predicting is not reading, nor is asking a friend, nor is guessing at the meaning from the illustrations.

Here are some direct quotations from the official "Oklahoma State Competencies, Grade One," pages 15-22, which confirm that first-graders will reach their "Reading Learner Outcomes" by guessing rather than by reading: "The student attend[s] to the meaning of what is read rather than focusing on figuring out words. . . . Uses context, pictures, syntax, and structural analysis clues to predict meanings of unknown words. Develops a sight vocabulary of high frequency words. . . . Predict[s] unknown words. . . . Uses predictions in order to read pattern books (stories with a repetitive element). . . . Uses fix-it strategies (predicts, uses pictorial cues, asks a friend, skips the word, substitutes another meaningful word). . . . The student will interpret a story from illustrations."

The "Oklahoma State Competencies, Grade Two" reinforce the guessing game rather than teaching the child to read. Here are some additional quotations (pages 7-15): "Use context clues and nonverbal clues to aid comprehension (pictures, type faces, word placement, illustrations). . . . Predict outcomes. . . . Makes, verifies, and/or revises predictions while reading."

Even in the 12th grade, the child is still told that he need not "focus on figuring out words." However, he must nevertheless demonstrate "a positive attitude toward self as a reader." (Grades 9 through 12, page 21.)

The Oklahoma Learner Outcomes for Mathematics, Grade One (pages 25-27) make clear that the child will not learn ordinary arithmetic skills (that will eventually enable him to make change at the grocery store), but will instead be given a mish-mash of "higher order thinking skills and facility in applying technology."

The instructions state: "The longstanding preoccupation with computation and emphasis on rote activities must change to a focus on fostering mathematical insight, reasoning, and problem solving both individually and in collaborative groups." In other words, first-graders must sit around in a group and collaborate on their "insight" without ever learning the sums of 2+2 and 3+3. Learning the multiplication tables is not an outcome specified in any grade.

OBE's behaviour modification techniques are evident from the first-grade "Comprehensive Health Learner Outcomes." They include (page 60): "The student will identify different types of family structures, so that no single type is seen as the only possible one. . . . The student will describe ways family members resolve problems and conflicts."

Throughout the Oklahoma OBE curriculum, many "outcomes" are listed that pertain to feelings, rather than academic achievement. For example (Grade 4, page 70): "The student will enjoy feelings resulting from involvement in physical activity." Here are some of the Oklahoma outcomes that pertain to sex. "The student will identify appropriate expression of sexual feelings." (Grades 6-8, page 195.) "The student will develop communication skills, including being able to talk with one's actual or potential partner about sexual behaviour." (Grades 9-12, page 202.)

Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the famous Russian author and former political prisoner in Soviet Gulags, said in a speech in the mid-1970s:

"Coexistence on this tightly knit earth should be viewed as an existence not only without wars . . . but also without [government] telling us how to live, what to say, what to think, what to know, and what not to know."

Unfortunately, that's what Outcome-Based Education is — a process for government telling our children how to live, what to say, what to think, what to know, and what not to know. What the children say, think and know must conform to the liberal Politically Correct ideology, attitudes and behaviour. What they do not know will be everything else. And because they won't know the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic, they won't be able to find out. OBE is converting the three R's to the three D's: Deliberately Dumbed Down.

Socialism and You

From the August 2001 Idaho Observer:

Why Our Schools Teach Socialism

By Joe Larson

Congratulations America: Today there are over 10,000 openly marxist professors and thousands of humanist professors contolling the universities and colleges that produce America's teachers and other professionals. Varying forms of marxist-humanism are the predominant philosophies of the educational establishment; yet we repeatedly send our most precious gift (our children) off to them for “education” (indoctrination).

Today's schools are filled with sex education, political correctness, environmental extremism, global unity, diversity training (pro-homosexuality) and higher order thinking skills [HOTS]; which boldly claim that to become a higher order thinker one must first believe the fact that there are no absolutes, absolutely! “The Greatest Story Ever Told” based on the greatest book ever written, “The Holy Bible,” about the greatest teacher who ever lived, Jesus, is not allowed, let alone used, in the schools of America. The Bible was America's first textbook; yet today it is referred to as a book of fables.

Our schools are filled with violence, murder, extortion, rape, unwanted pregnancy, drug use, disrespect, foul language, declining test scores and children who cannot read. While the pontificators wonder why, God doesn't; He knows - Hosea 4:6 says, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. I will also reject thee seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God; I will also forget thy children.” Verse 7 says, “As they were increased, so they sinned against Me: Therefore, will I change their glory into shame.”

The problem with America's educational system began with the birth of socialism and given impetus by federal government involvement. Lenin, one of the world's leading experts on socialism, tells us - “Communism is socialism in a hurry.” Socialism, therefore, is communism by gradualism rather than by revolution. The socialist “Fabian Society,” the forerunner of most socialist groups in America, had as their motto “Make Haste Slowly.” “Democratic Socialism” became the battle cry to socialize the United States of America. The socialists' goal was to “permeate and penetrate,” then control this nation from deep within. Their first target in America was our children through public instruction.

In the U.S. their followers would use language as their first line of attack and deceit. They would wear no badge nor socialist label, but were to call themselves “liberal,” “progressive” and even “moderate.” Words were the weapon of choice for this new war. By changing and shifting word meanings the socialists could cover their true purpose. Everything would be done under the banners of “reform” and “social justice,” suggesting all was for the public good, for humanitarian reasons, for true democracy -- and finally -- for the children. The buzzwords of socialism were then, and are today, “social” and “democracy” (i.e. social science, social studies and socialization of the child). Robert Conquest observed, “a communist never does anything under his own name that he can do under someone else's.”

In the early 1900's, because of unrest in Europe, thousands of socialists flocked to America for safety. Large numbers held degrees in the fields of psychology, sociology and psychiatry (behavioral sciences, dealing with behavior and [social] change). Many went on to become college and university professors.

Norman Thomas, socialist and member of the Civil Liberties Union, boldly told the world, “The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened.”

The story of how the socialists took over the American educational establishment would fill a book; so let us just listen to their own words.

John Dewey, called “the father of modern education,” was an avowed socialist, the co-author of the 'Humanist Manifesto' and cited as belonging to fifteen Marxist-front organizations by the Committee on Un-American Activities. Do the words (the father of modern education) now take on new meaning? Remember, Dewey taught the professors who would train America's teachers. He was obsessed with “the group.” In his own words, “You can't make socialists out of individualists. Children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming, where everyone is interdependent.”

Rosalie Gordon, writing on Dewey's progressive (socialist) education in her book “What's Happened To Our Schools,” said, “The progressive system has reached all the way down to the lowest grades to prepare the children of America for their role as the collectivists of the future.

The group -- not the individual child -- is the quintessence of progressivism. The child must always be made to feel part of the group. He must indulge in group thinking and group activity.”

After visiting the Soviet Union, Dewey wrote six articles on the “wonders” of Soviet education. The School-To-Work system in our public schools (all 50 states) is modeled after the Soviet poly-technical system.

In 1936, the National Education Association stated its position, from which they have never wavered; “We stand for socializing the individual.”

The NEA in its “Policy For American Education” stated, “The major problem of education in our times arises out of the fact that we live in a period of fundamental social change. In the new democracy [we were a Republic] education must share in the responsibility of giving purpose and direction to social change.. The major function of the school is the social orientation of the individual . Education must operate according to a well-formulated social policy.”

Paul Haubner, specialist for the NEA, tells us, “The schools cannot allow parents to influence the kind of values-education their children receive in school; . that is what is wrong with those who say there is a universal system of values. [Christians?] Our (humanistic) goals are incompatible with theirs. We must change their values.”

Professor Chester M. Pierce, M.D., Professor of Education and Psychiatry at Harvard, has this to say, “Every child in America entering school at the age of five is mentally ill because he comes to school with certain allegiances to our Founding Fathers, toward our elected officials, toward his parents, toward a belief in a supernatural being, and toward the sovereignty of this nation as a separate entity. It's up to you as teachers to make all these sick children well -- by creating the international child of the future.”

Some politicians agree. Listen to former Senator Paul Hoagland of Nebraska: “The fundamentalist parents have no right to indoctrinate their children in their beliefs. We are preparing their children for the year 2000 and life in a global one-world society and those children will not fit in.”

In the Humanist Review magazine it was observed that, “Education is thus a most powerful ally of humanism. What can a theistic Sunday school's meeting for an hour once a week and teaching only a fraction of the children do to stem the tide of the five-day program of humanistic teaching?”

P. Blanchard, in 'The Humanist” 1983, continues: “I think that the most important factor moving us toward a secular society has been the educational factor. Our schools may not teach Johnny how to read properly, but the fact that Johnny is in school until he is 16 tends toward the elimination of religious superstition. The average American child now acquires a high school education, and this militates against Adam and Eve and all other myths of alleged history.”

John J. Dunphy wrote in the Jan/Feb 1983 edition of The Humanist, “The battle for mankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom . The classroom must and will become the arena of conflict between the old and the new . the rotting corpse of Christianity and the new faith of humanism.”

Our bureaucrats, politicians and educators are constantly on television blaming either parents or lack of funds for our schools' dilemmas. The answer is always more money and more government control. For well over 50 years the American voter has believed this line of crap. Victor Gollancz, a famous socialist publisher tells us why he believed that socialism would take over America; “Christians are not exactly bright, so it will be easy for socialism to lead them down the garden path through their ideals of brotherly love and 'social justice.'”

It's (past) time that Christian men stand up for their families and their faith and put God back in charge of this nation and it's schools.

Joe Larson is the director of Restoring America, a nationwide association of individuals and organizations, including The Idaho Observer, that are dedicated to networking their information, activities and resources to further the effort of a peaceful restoration of our Constitutional Republic.

********************************

Is this what you want?




Because if it is, all you need do is - well, nothing. Just sit back, watch the Idiot Box, and the socialists will continue to devastate everything our forefathers fought and died for.

If it's not what you want, you better stand up and begin to fight back.

-------------------------------------------------

Giving Thanks on Thanksgiving Day

George Washington:
Thanksgiving Proclamation, 1789

Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and

Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me "to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness":

Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the Beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted; for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our national government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally, to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand, at the city of New York,

the 3d day of October, AD 1789

George Washington

Wealthy Elites Rule

PREMEDITATED MERGER

North American Union 'a couple years away'
Bilderberg author who 1st exposed plot in 1996 sees EU replication as imminent

Posted: November 19, 2007

© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

WASHINGTON – The next giant step toward world government will be integration of the U.S., Canada and Mexico in European Union-style merger in the next few years, says the author of a best-selling book on the power of shadowy international organizations promoting the move.

"I would say [it's just] a couple of years away," reports Daniel Estulin, author of "The True Story of the Bilderberg Group."

Estulin, a Canadian now living in Europe, says the original plans for a North American Union involved the U.S. and Canada as the prime participants. It was motivated primarily by the desire to harvest Canada's abundant natural resources.

In his new book, Estulin reveals the first efforts in this plan date back to 1996 when the elite Bilderberg Group first discussed plans for the dismantlement of Canada as an independent nation and proposed its merger – minus Quebec – with the United States into a Greater North America.

"Actually, the North American Union, or rather a Canada-U.S. merger, was initially discussed shortly after the Reagan-Bush candidacy won the White House," he says in an interview with WND. "Upon taking over the reins of the country, George Bush and Ronald Reagan called in the presidents of the key trans-national companies and asked them for the real picture. The money people told them that if the United States were a corporation it would have to be shut down immediately. It was bankrupt."

The solution proposed then, according to Estulin, was merger between the U.S. and Canada.

"Canada is virgin country with a multitude of natural resources, water, mines, oil, gas, etc.," he explains. "They decided that it was going to take 14 or 15 years to put the whole project together. In the interval, the economies, social programs and laws of the two countries would be quietly harmonized as much as possible."

Back then, part of that harmonization plan involved the separation of Quebec as an independent state, he says.

"Actually, when all is said and done, it all comes down to money," Estulin says. "Money makes its own rules. If your goal is to make the most money possible using Canada's natural resources, what would you ask for? Number one, give me control over the sun. Number two, give me control over the air. Number three, give me control over water. Now, we know we cannot control the sun, nor can we control the air. But we can control water. Water, after all, is the most important element that can be controlled."

But the plot for a North American Union, as exposed in detail in Jerome Corsi's new bestselling book, "The Late Great USA," is but a prelude, Estulin says, to the ultimate merger – one-world government.

"Everything is in place," he says. "Europe is now one country, one currency and one constitution. North America is about to become one. The African Union has had its working model going for over a decade. Asia is openly discussing the near-future Asian Union, being sold to us as an economic inevitability beneficial to all its citizens."

Estulin sees the current focus in the U.S. on the presidential election of 2008 as something of a farce in light of this trend.

"Does it really matter who wins?" he asks. "As I make very clear in 'The True Story of the Bilderberg Group,' every politician of note and promise belongs to the Bilderbergers, CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) or the Trilateral Commission. Unless you are one of them, you can hardly hope to win the presidency. If we vote for the lesser evil, forced upon us by the secret oligarchies and the powerful men behind the curtain, we end up playing the game imposed upon us by them. Democracy, I guess what I really want to say, is a fallacy, an unattainable dream, a useless label trotted out and dusted off by the rulers every four years for the benefit of the great unwashed – us. There are two sides in this equation – the powerful elite who control the world's wealth and the rest of humanity."

Estulin "guarantees" today's Republican front-runner Rudy Giuliani will not get the nomination of his party. With less certitude, he speculates the current mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, could still be positioned to head the GOP ticket.

"Bloomberg, according to my sources within Bilderberg, will emerge as a credible candidate of consensus for the discredited American political establishment, your virtual "People's Choice" candidate," he says.

What is the agenda behind these groups, which Estulin says are comprised of "self-interested elitists protecting their wealth and the investments of multinational banks and corporations in the growing world economy at the expense of developing nations and Third World countries"?

"The policies they develop," he writes, "benefit them as well as move us towards a one-world government."

Those questioning Estulin's conclusion as mere speculation need only recall organizational financer David Rockefeller's own words as recorded in his "Memoirs."

"Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will," he wrote. "If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."

Estulin's book, first written in 2005 in Spain, has been translated into 24 languages, most recently this English edition. He has covered the Bilderberg Group as a journalist for more than 15 years.

Why does he singularly devote so much attention to exposing their activities?

"They cannot survive the light, and they know it," he says. "This is why the powerful people have long insulated themselves from that possibility. You see, the greatest form of control is when you think you are free while you are being manipulated and dictated to. People have been disarmed through the greatest hypnotist the world has ever known – the oblong box almost everyone has in the corner of their living rooms known as the television. By persuading ordinary people that what they can see with their eyes is what is there to see, the men behind the curtain have ensured their own survival, because people will laugh in your face when you explain to them that there is a bigger picture they are not seeing."

What is his personal prescription for fighting back? He offers a five-point program:

1. Understanding that governments do not represent the people nor have their best interests at heart.

2. Understanding that corporate media's main job is to hide the transgressions of the most powerful people in the world not shine the light of truth on it.

3. Understanding that the corporate media forms part of the world's elite societies such as the Bilderbergers, the CFR and the Trilateral Commission.

4. Understanding how money works and how through intelligent use of money we can destroy the Bilderbergers of this world.

5. Getting out of debt now.

(emphasis added throughout)

.............................................................................

It is the role of all governments today to package and deliver up these treasonous moves in a way that de-emphasizes the global intent. Here's one of the many, many ways they are doing it:

SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONES

Also,

Glenn Beck Interviews Dr. Jerome Corsi:

Colorado Ranchers Put Their Money On the Line

Ranchers donate cattle to fight Army’s Pinon plans
Auction steers money toward limiting expansion.


By ANTHONY A. MESTAS
THE PUEBLO CHIEFTAIN

LA JUNTA - The fight against the Army's proposed expansion of the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site has invaded the dusty environs of the Winter Livestock Auction sale barn.

Calves and cows donated by ranchers across Southern Colorado were auctioned off Monday to raise funds for landowners who are fighting the planned 414,000-acre expansion.

The battle has been an intense one, pitting the Army's need to train soldiers against ranch families who have been on their land for several generations.

"We are here to sell our cattle to help with the opposition of this expansion. This is something important to all of us here," said Stan White, a rancher from Aguilar who donated a steer to be auctioned Monday.

White and his wife, Dee, also are donating a steer to be auctioned across U.S. 50 at La Junta Livestock on Wednesday.

White, who helped organize the auction, said he and others wanted to give people a new way to help stop the expansion.

"Everyone involved donated something here. Ranchers from all over donated cattle and the two sale barns have donated their time," White said.

La Junta is home to two high-volume livestock auction companies, making it one of the nation’s largest regional cattle markets. Both companies, Winter Livestock and La Junta Livestock, are selling the cattle at no cost.

Approximately 20 head of cattle were sold Monday. Proceeds will go to the Pinon Canyon Expansion Opposition Coalition.

Jerry Winford of Branson said many people also have offered to donate cash in lieu of an animal to help make it possible to continue the fight to save the land.

Kenny Gyurman of Model said he donated money because he didn't have cattle to sell.

"This is a big fight we have ahead of us and we need all the help we can get," Gyurman said.

Winford, who brought seven cattle to be auctioned Monday and Wednesday, said the auctions will help ensure the coalition’s continued success.

"It's absolutely critical that we get this (expansion) stopped. It doesn't only affect landowners out here, it affects the whole state of Colorado, especially Southeastern Colorado. If the Army gets what it wants, this sale barn won't be here in the next 15 years," Winford said.

"If we stop them now, then we hope to stop them for good," Gyurman said.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe so. The ranchers understand that the longer this thing gets dragged out, the less chance of the opposition coalition prevailing. They also understand the Army has deep pockets, and few scruples.

That's why the one-year moratorium is a dangerous proposition, unless the land-owner's opposition coalition presses hard, desperately hard on all fronts. And they need a strategy, with time-line goals and objectives - which need to involve the whole of Colorado. Petition for legislative stumbling blocks to imminent domain. Keep the pressure up on Gov Ritter, Rep Salazar and Senator Salazar, who opened this can of worms in the first place. A mole in the DOD wouldn't hurt either - the Army's real strategy must be uncovered, exposed.

Make full use of the Freedom of Information Act. Had the ranchers known the full extent of the Army's intentions 25 years ago, perhaps they would not have let themselves be bullied into giving up their land. Count on the continuing obfuscation by the DOD, which has no qualms playing hard-ball.

Finally, don't let anyone succeed in making this an environmental issue. It's not an environmental issue. It might be tempting to throw down as many obstacles as possible, but an environmental stand-off will wind up in the courts. Human lives and destiny trump dead animal's remains. The environmental issue is a red herring - a ruse they'll use to break down opposition, by coming up with "an environmental-friendly plan" to "preserve the integrity of the dinosaur tracks", blah, blah.

And for Pete's sake, keep this out of the courts, if that's at all possible. The courts are known to have a very government-friendly attitude regarding the question of imminent domain.

The ranchers need to know who is on their side, and that means digging into information via the FOIA, both at the federal level - (see) Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and at state levels - (see) Open Government Guide.

If the ranchers of Colorado, and by proxy, the whole of Colorado, expect a good outcome, they had better be prepared to kick the Army's butt in the legislature. They will also need to hold the brothers Salazar's feet to the fire. They are, after all, politicians.

It's obvious where Senator Allard is getting his bread buttered. Maybe it's time to remind him he serves at the pleasure of the people of Colorado.

I'm sure the opposition coalition knows all this - I just feel a need to say it.

Oh, and when the Army minions start with the, "Where's your patriotism?" - just remember, when an opponent feels he is losing the argument on sound, rational grounds, he will often drag out the argumentum ad hominem ploy, rather than address the substance of the argument.

These ranchers and farmers are sovereign citizens of the United States of America and are entitled to own their land, with no apologies.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

- Thomas Jefferson