Agenda 21: The BLM Land Grabbing Endgame

Posted by Michael Snyder at D.C. Clothesline

Agenda 21 Map

Why is the federal government so obsessed with grabbing more land?  After all, the federal government already owns more than 40 percent of the land in 9 different U.S. states.  Why are federal bureaucrats so determined to grab even more?  Well, the truth is that this all becomes much clearer once you understand that there is a very twisted philosophy behind what they are doing.  It is commonly known as “Agenda 21?, although many names and labels are used for this particular philosophy.  Basically, those that hold to this form of radical environmentalism believe that humanity is utterly destroying the planet, and therefore the goal should be to create a world where literally everything that we do is tightly monitored and controlled by control freak bureaucrats in the name of “sustainable development”.  In their vision of the future, the human population will be greatly reduced and human activity will be limited to strictly regulated urban areas and travel corridors.  The rest of the planet will be left to nature.  To achieve this goal, a massive transfer of land from private landowners to the federal government will be necessary.

So the conflict between Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the BLM is really just the tip of the iceberg.  The reality is that the BLM has their eyes on much bigger prizes.

For example, Breitbart is reporting that the BLM is looking at grabbing 90,000 privately-held acres along the Texas/Oklahoma border

After the recent Bundy Ranch episode by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Texans are becoming more concerned about the BLM’s focus on 90,000 acres along a 116 mile stretch of the Texas/Oklahoma boundary. The BLM is reviewing the possible federal takeover and ownership of privately-held lands which have been deeded property for generations of Texas landowners.

Sid Miller, former Texas State Representative and Republican candidate for Texas Agriculture Commissioner, has since made the matter a campaign issue to Breitbart Texas.

“In Texas,” Miller says, “the BLM is attempting a repeat of an action taken over 30 years ago along the Red River when Tommy Henderson lost a federal lawsuit. The Bureau of Land Management took 140 acres of his property and didn’t pay him one cent.”

Needless to say, officials down in Texas are not pleased about this.  In fact, just check out what the attorney general of Texas is saying

Gen. Abbott sent a strongly-worded letter to BLM Director Neil Kornze, asking for answers to a series of questions related to the potential land grab.

“I am deeply concerned about the notion that the Bureau of Land Management believes the federal government has the authority to swoop in and take land that has been owned and cultivated by Texas landowners for generations,” General Abbott wrote. “The BLM’s newly asserted claims to land along the Red River threaten to upset long-settled private property rights and undermine fundamental principles—including the rule of law—that form the foundation of our democracy. Yet, the BLM has failed to disclose either its full intentions or the legal justification for its proposed actions. Decisions of this magnitude must not be made inside a bureaucratic black box.”

In an exclusive interview with Breitbart Texas, General Abbott said, “This is the latest line of attack by the Obama Administration where it seems like they have a complete disregard for the rule of law in this country …And now they’ve crossed the line quite literally by coming into the State of Texas and trying to claim Texas land as federal land. And, as the Attorney General of Texas I am not going to allow this.”

Does the federal government actually need more land?

As I mentioned above, the feds already own more than 40 percent of the land in 9 different U.S. states

Nevada: 84.5 percent
Alaska: 69.1 percent
Utah: 57.4 percent
Oregon: 53.1 percent
Idaho: 50.2 percent
Arizona: 48.1 percent
California: 45.3 percent
Wyoming: 42.4 percent
New Mexico: 41.8 percent

The federal government does not need more land.  But there is an obsession to grab more so that the dictates of Agenda 21 can be implemented.

The map that I have posted below is a simulation of what the endgame of Agenda 21 might look like.  If these radical environmentalists get their way, the only areas that will be allocated for normal human use will be the areas in green…

Agenda 21 Map

If you do not go along with the “sustainable development” agenda, you risk being labeled a “threat” to be dealt with.

For example, Senator Harry Reid has used the label “domestic terrorists” to describe those that showed up to support Cliven Bundy at his ranch.

Reid could have used lots of other labels.  But he specifically chose to call them terrorists.  And considering what the law allows the feds to do to “terrorists”, that is quite chilling.

And don’t think that if you just stay quiet that you won’t get labeled as a “terrorist”.  In fact, there is a very good chance that you already fit several government criteria for being a terrorist.  Just check out the list below.  It comes from my previous article entitled “72 Types Of Americans That Are Considered ‘Potential Terrorists’ In Official Government Documents“…

1. Those that talk about “individual liberties”

2. Those that advocate for states’ rights

3. Those that want “to make the world a better place”

4. “The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule”

5. Those that are interested in “defeating the Communists”

6. Those that believe “that the interests of one’s own nation areseparate from the interests of other nations or the common interest of all nations”

7. Anyone that holds a “political ideology that considers the state to be unnecessary, harmful,or undesirable”

8. Anyone that possesses an “intolerance toward other religions”

9. Those that “take action to fight against the exploitation of theenvironment and/or animals”

10. “Anti-Gay”

Read the full article at D.C. Clothesline …


Posted in Active Measures, American Culture, American Patriotism, American Sovereignty, Bill of Rights, Calumny, Communications, Communism, Conservatarianism, Conservatism, Cultural Marxism, Economy, elitism, Energy Policy, EPA, Fascism, First Amendment, Founders, GOP, History, House of Representatives, Ideological Subversion, Indoctrination, Legal/Judicial, Liberal Crap, Main-Stream Media, Marxism, Monetary Policy, National Debt, National Security, Obama Lies, Operant Conditioning, Plantation Liberalism, Politics, Prejudice, Presidential Campaign, Progressive Movement, Psychological Warfare, RNC, Senate, Social Engineering, Social Justice, Socialism, Taxation, Tea Party, Totalitarianism, Tyranny, U.S. Constitution, United Nations | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Texas Rancher Claims Federal Government (BLM) Planning To Seize His Property



Posted in American Culture, American Patriotism, American Sovereignty, Bill of Rights, Calumny, Communism, Conservatarianism, Conservatism, Crime, Cultural Marxism, Economy, elitism, EPA, Fascism, First Amendment, GOP, House of Representatives, Ideological Subversion, Indoctrination, Legal/Judicial, Liberal Crap, Main-Stream Media, Marxism, National Debt, National Security, Obama Lies, Plantation Liberalism, Politics, Prejudice, Progressive Movement, Racism, RNC, Senate, Social Engineering, Social Justice, Socialism, Taxation, Tea Party, Totalitarianism, Tyranny, U.S. Constitution, United Nations | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Is Vladimir Putin the New Reagan?

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

A Special Report from the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism

Pravda, the Russian political newspaper, ran a story with the headline, “The leader of the free world: Obama or Putin?” Patrick J. Buchanan, a veteran conservative commentator who once worked for President Ronald Reagan, has made his choice.

In fact, he argues in his latest column that Putin’s military invasion of Ukraine is comparable to Sam Houston’s “Remember the Alamo” stand for Texas independence. He says, “Compare how Putin brought about the secession and annexation of Crimea, without bloodshed but with popular approval, with how Sam Houston and friends brought about the secession of Texas from Mexico, and its annexation by the United States in 1845.”

Buchanan wants people to believe the founding of Texas and the separation from Mexico is somehow akin to Putin’s brazen attempt to reconstitute the Soviet empire by seizing Crimea. But it seems mighty strange that Buchanan, a critic of illegal immigration from Mexico, would now accuse Americans of using Putin-style tactics to keep Texas free of Mexican control.

Crimea was an assault, using masked men without Russian military insignia, in order to lay the groundwork for a quickie election whose result was guaranteed in advance. This hardly constitutes “popular approval.”

NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, General Philip M. Breedlove, writes in his article, “The Importance of Identity,” that “Many media outlets have reported claims that these troops are ‘local militias’ who are wearing Russian-style fatigues because such attire is available in army shops across the former Soviet Union. Other outlets are repeating an assertion that armed men deployed to Ukraine’s Crimea region are simply ‘self-defense forces.’” The general proceeds to debunk these reports, noting evidence that the Russian military forces are “acting on clear orders to undermine Ukraine forces in Crimea.”

In another article, “Who Are the Men Behind the Masks?,” he writes that “It’s hard to fathom that groups of armed men in masks suddenly sprang forward from the population in eastern Ukraine and systematically began to occupy government facilities. It’s hard to fathom because it’s simply not true. What is happening in eastern Ukraine is a military operation that is well planned and organized and we assess that it is being carried out at the direction of Russia.”

Buchanan fought with Reagan in the 1980s to expose Soviet disinformation and propaganda. Now he accepts Russian disinformation and propaganda.

How on earth can Putin’s illegal power grab in Ukraine, rubber-stamped by a Putin-controlled Russian legislature, compare with a deliberate process that involved a popular vote for a state constitution for Texas, accepted and ratified by the United States Congress?

Lies and More Lies

On top of the false analogies, Buchanan conveniently ignores the 1994 Budapest memorandum, signed by the Russian government, which guaranteed Ukraine’s territorial integrity, in exchange for giving its Soviet nuclear weapons back to Moscow.

Buchanan, in the same column, mocks the work of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a federally-funded group that tries to promote democracy abroad. But there can be no doubt that people around the world, including in Ukraine and Venezuela, can use all the help they can get from the U.S. in organizing against Marxist and authoritarian regimes. The NED basically funds civil society groups and independent media organizations.

Buchanan begins by quoting his former boss President Ronald Reagan’s comments on the Soviet “Evil Empire,” and then spends the rest of his column conspicuously failing to explain how Putin, who worked for that empire, has given up his communist ways.

This bizarre column follows another, in which the veteran conservative commentator insisted that God is on Putin’s side in the global struggle.

It is difficult to understand how Buchanan has come to embrace Putin, except as a reaction to his own loss of faith in the United States. It seems that, for Buchanan, America has become the new “Evil Empire,” something the far-left has been arguing for years, and that Putin is the savior of Christian civilization.

The biggest false assumption in this rationale is that Putin’s recent conservative rhetoric on family values is legitimate, and not propaganda and disinformation.

Yet, as analyst J.R. Nyquist points out, Putin was asked about this topic by Larry King on CNN in 2000. At the time, the Russian president rejected traditional religious belief, except to say he did have a cross and had worn it. King asked, “Do you believe there is a higher power?” Putin replied (through a translator): “I believe in human beings. I believe in his good intentions. I believe in the fact that all of us have come to this world to do good. And if we do so, and if we do so together, then success is awaiting for us. And both with regards to our relations as people to people, or inter-state relations. And most important, we will achieve the ultimate goal, comfort in our own heart.”

So Putin believes in man, rather than God. This doesn’t even qualify as Russian Orthodox Christianity, long dominated by the KGB/FSB in Russia and now advertised as the state church in Russia.

For Putin, going to church and wearing crosses—even his visit to the Vatican—is part of a show. It is sad to see Pope Francis apparently falling for it, too.

As part of the ongoing propaganda show, it has been reported by Pravda that members of Putin’s United Russia party are proposing to put former Soviet dictator Mikhail Gorbachev on trial for the collapse of the USSR. While this indicates the real intentions of Putin and his cohorts, in terms of rebuilding the old Soviet Union, the idea that the ideology of world communism ever died should be addressed.

It was Gorbachev, even while promoting the policy of “perestroika,” or the restructuring of the Soviet state, who declared, “We are moving toward a new world order, the world of communism. We shall never turn off that road.”

Robert Buchar, who wrote the book, And Reality Be Damned, and produced the documentary “The Collapse of Communism: The Untold Story,” says the Russians have had a long-term strategy of “Perestroika” deception—how to fool the West and end the Cold War under Moscow’s terms. “The West was unable to develop any counter-strategy because they refused to believe Moscow had this long-range strategy,” he says.

A political refugee from former Czechoslovakia, Buchar is not optimistic, telling this columnist, “Putin will get the Ukraine back and the West is not going to stop it.”

If this does indeed happen, it will be because Americans conservatives and libertarians like Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul, and others like them in the World Congress of Families, fall in line behind Putin.

Buchanan goes beyond the Marxist materialism and New Age humanist rhetoric of the former KGB spy on the Larry King show to actually endorse Putin’s military aggression against his neighbors.

Buchanan compares “the Russians who are taking over city centers” in eastern Ukraine, on orders from Moscow, to the Maidan Square demonstrators in Kiev, who forced a Kremlin puppet to flee, and the dozens of spontaneous demonstrations around Ukraine, which knocked down dozens of Lenin statues.

This false equivalence betrays the Reagan legacy, which always recognized the need for justice for Ukraine and other former Soviet republics, but also for those suffering under the communist/KGB comrades in Russia as well.

The Reagan Record

Buchanan, who now argues for less, not more, U.S. military engagement around the world, listed in another column, “What would Reagan do?,” several examples of Reagan intervening against dictators and despots.

For example, he discussed U.S. military involvement in the Middle East, noting, “When Gadhafi blew up a Berlin discotheque full of U.S. soldiers in retaliation for the Sixth Fleet’s downing of two Libyan warplanes, Reagan sent F-111s in a reprisal raid that almost killed Gadhafi.”

But then he adds, “On the last day of his presidency, he told aides the worst mistake he made was putting U.S. Marines into Lebanon, where 241 Americans perished in the terror bombing of the Beirut barracks.”

But Reagan made an even bigger mistake by not retaliating against the perpetrators of that bombing—the Iranians and their agents.

Buchanan doesn’t mention the Iranian connection, probably because he now opposes any kind of U.S. military action against the regime over its current nuclear weapons program. Buchanan claims, “The Ayatollah has declared a fatwa against nuclear weapons,” a statement repeated by President Obama that has no basis in fact, and which is in all likelihood a form of disinformation, taught to the Iranians by their Russian patrons.

Admiral James “Ace” Lyons was Deputy Chief of Naval Operations at the time of the Beirut bombing and says the Iranian connection was established by none other than the National Security Agency (NSA). The U.S. was prepared, he said, to take out the Iranian agents in a group known as the Islamic Amal, the forerunner to Hezbollah, but Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger vetoed the mission. “We never got the orders to strike,” Lyons said. “And of course, what was the message? The message became Osama bin Laden’s rallying cry: ‘The Americans can’t suffer casualties. They will cut and run.’”

So this was one of Reagan’s failures and missed opportunities, which Lyons notes could have changed the course of history.

Attempting a rewrite of the Reagan years, Buchanan argued in his column that Reagan “never threatened military intervention in Eastern Europe, as some bellicose Republicans do today.” In fact, Reagan did more than that, threatening to deploy nuclear weapons against the Soviets in Europe. That was a major battle of the 1980s.

Buchanan later admits this, writing, “When the Soviets deployed triple-warhead intermediate-range missiles in Eastern Europe, the SS-20, Reagan countered with nuclear-armed Pershing II and cruise missiles in Western Europe. Only when Gorbachev agreed to take down all the SS-20s, did Reagan agree to bring the Pershings and cruise missiles home.”

So Reagan was indeed “bellicose,” after all. And he won.

The Reagan Doctrine

Buchanan also notes that Reagan “provided weapons to anti-Communist guerrillas and freedom fighters in Afghanistan, Angola and Nicaragua to bleed and break the Soviet Empire at its periphery and make them pay the same price we paid in Vietnam.”

Buchanan’s critical error is thinking that the “Reagan Doctrine” policy of supporting anti-communist freedom fighters could be separated from his challenge of Soviet military power in Europe, where direct military assistance to anti-communist resistance movements was not practical at that time. What was needed in Europe, and which Reagan provided, was the political will to challenge the Soviet Union.

Buchanan has lost the will to resist. Reagan lost it only once, in response to the Beirut bombing, and we have been paying the price.

Reagan’s support for freedom fighters in Latin America and Africa, and his challenge to Soviet military power in Europe, clearly means in the current context that he would not turn his back on anti-communist regimes once they had come to power, such as in Ukraine. Reagan would not have excused Putin’s power grab in Crimea.

“Reagan was an anti-Communist to his core, having fought them in the Screen Actors Guild in the 1940s,” Buchanan notes. That is why Reagan, after exposing and challenging the Evil Empire, would have been supporting the former communist regimes seeking, with American help, their freedom and independence from the Soviet Union/Russia. If the NED is not the proper vehicle for this assistance, then let’s use the CIA. But why turn our backs on the freedom-loving peoples of Eastern Europe and rationalize the aggression of their oppressors, still wielding power in Moscow?

This thinking is not the Pat Buchanan I admired during the 1980s, when he was Reagan’s communications director.

Who Are the Neocons?

“The Gipper was no neocon,” Buchanan writes, using a term of derision that some critics of U.S. foreign policy apply to those acting on behalf of the interests of other countries, most notably Israel, rather than the United States.

But Reagan was in fact a “neocon,” if the term simply means spreading U.S.-style democracy, in the sense that he used the full military force and power of the United States against the communist challenge.

That challenge still exists in the form of Vladimir Putin, who, as veteran journalist Bill Gertz has remarked, dropped the Marxist component of Marxism-Leninism, in order to attract Western capital, but still pursues the Leninist dream of a world dominated by the KGB.

Putin may not call himself a communist, and he may wear a Christian cross and even go to church. But that is clearly part of the deception that Reagan never would have fallen for and which Buchanan has tragically, in his later years, embraced.

If there is a critique to be made, it is that U.S. efforts to promote democracy in Latin America were largely abandoned during the George W. Bush years, in favor of a campaign after 9/11 to focus on transforming the Middle East. The result is that Iraq, after liberation by U.S. military forces, has become a client state of Iran, and Obama’s embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood threw a longtime U.S. ally, Egypt, into turmoil and even into the hands of Putin and Moscow.

Many of Reagan’s gains have been reversed. On April 18, Grenada’s Prime Minister Keith Mitchell “extolled his country’s historical collaboration links with Cuba during a reception on the occasion of the 35th anniversary of bilateral relations,” as noted by communist Cuba’s publication Prensa Latina.

It was a Cuban-backed cabal in Grenada which Reagan had ordered overthrown in 1983, using U.S. military forces.

The countries of Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Ecuador, in addition to Russia, were publicly thanked by NSA traitor Edward Snowden for offering him asylum, as he fled the U.S.

In El Salvador, which Reagan had supported against a growing communist insurgency, a communist named Salvador Sánchez Cerén has just won the presidential election.

With NSA help in monitoring communist communications, as noted by The Washington Post, Colombia largely defeated its terrorists, after 40 years of war. But its current president, Juan Manuel Santos, is negotiating “peace” with the remaining terrorists under the auspices of Cuba, in a deal that may give the far-left a road to political power through elections.

Former President Alvaro Uribe, author of No Lost Causes, has said negotiating with the terrorists is like negotiating with al-Qaeda.

The American Foreign Policy Council argues, “The decline of U.S. influence in Latin America has presented strategic opportunities for external actors, including China, Iran, and Russia. This foreign influence, in turn, has nurtured anti-American sentiment among the countries of the region, and exposed new threats to U.S. security, from proliferation to the spread of Islamic radicalism to political processes that can dramatically reshape allied governments.”

The Venezuelan regime alone has purchased $5 billion of weapons from Russia.

In Africa, the communists got the ultimate prize—South Africa—as Nelson Mandela consolidated power while deceiving the world about his secret membership in the Communist Party. Mandela’s successors have all been communists, with the latest, Jacob Zuma, having made a minerals deal with Vladimir Putin. Indeed, Russia and South Africa have become strategic partners in the BRICS group, referring to Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.

Like Germany, Brazil has been much in the news as a “target” of NSA surveillance. But there is just as good a reason to keep Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, a former communist terrorist, under surveillance, as there is Angela Merkel, who concealed her role growing up in East Germany as an ideologist for a communist youth group.

The Snowden Operation

Writing in the Los Angeles Review of Books from a left-wing perspective, Adam Morris notes that, while Brazil “has not formally offered asylum [to Snowden], senators from both the ruling party and the opposition have campaigned on his behalf. Nor has Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff ruled out granting asylum, cautiously observing that Snowden has not yet requested her country’s aid.” Brazil is where Snowden accomplice Glenn Greenwald is usually based.

Greenwald’s recent receipt of a Pulitzer Prize from Columbia University demonstrates how disinformation and propaganda against the NSA have now become worthy of the highest journalism awards in the nation. This unprecedented development dramatizes the inability of the U.S. media, even by some on the conservative side, to understand what is happening right in front of our eyes.

Greenwald asks, “Is Angela Merkel a terrorist?,” attempting to ridicule surveillance of the German leader. Of course, historically, the NSA has been used to monitor espionage against the United States, as revealed by the Venona counter-intelligence project cracking the codes between Moscow and its agents in the U.S. during and after World War II.

Unmasking foreign agents goes hand-in-hand with exposing the “active measures” operations that have been unleashed, and which may have even enlisted Pat Buchanan as a media conduit for Russian propaganda.

Ironically, however, Buchanan had seen through Snowden, while not seeing through Putin. Snowden “broke his contract, he violated his oath, he betrayed American secrets and I think he damaged the security of the United States,” Buchanan said during a TV appearance. “I think he ought to be prosecuted.” This was the anti-communist Pat Buchanan talking. He went on to refer to the employees of the NSA as mostly patriots.

But once Putin gave Snowden asylum, Buchanan decided it really wasn’t worth a new Cold War and that the NSA was a sinister agency. Now, Buchanan proclaimed, Snowden’s computers “were full of secrets that our National Security Agency has been thieving from every country on earth, including Russia.”

It would seem that telling Putin how the NSA has been eavesdropping on Russian communications was not so heinous after all. Instead, sounding like the left-wing supporters of Snowden, Buchanan was prepared to make the NSA out to be the villain.

The about-face was another indication that Buchanan has become a slavish devotee of all things Putin. For Buchanan, Putin is the new Reagan.

Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at View the complete archives from Cliff Kincaid.

Posted in American Culture, American Diplomacy, American Patriotism, American Sovereignty, Bill of Rights, Calumny, Communications, Communism, Conservatarianism, Conservatism, Cultural Marxism, elitism, Fascism, First Amendment, Foreign Policy, GOP, History, House of Representatives, Ideological Subversion, Indoctrination, Legal/Judicial, Liberal Crap, Main-Stream Media, Marxism, National Defense, National Security, Obama Lies, Plantation Liberalism, Politics, Prejudice, Presidential Campaign, Progressive Movement, Psychological Warfare, RNC, Senate, Social Engineering, Social Justice, Socialism, Taxation, Tea Party, Totalitarianism, Tyranny, U.S. Constitution | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Obama’s Platform Is Eerily Similar to the Communist Party USA’s

The Independent Sentinel

Have you noticed the similarities between Barack Obama’s platform and that of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA)? The correlations are undeniable to anyone who is being honest.

Americans voted for this man not once, but twice! Al Sharpton did say that the American people knew they were voting for socialism when they voted for Barack Obama.

Listen to the Communist propaganda video below which was put out by the Communist Party USA. It puts out an idyllic vision based on the lie that a few people with all the power will allow the collective to thrive.

This is their platform: people before profit – translation, hate the rich; good jobs, green jobs, they’re synonymous apparently; reform prison – leniency for lawbreakers; equality and fairness; nature before profits; healthcare; socialism is a necessity; people, community, harmony, freedom, education, justice, peace; peace and harmony through communism.

Capitalism is the only thing keeping us back, the video claims. We want change, they demand (is that something like Hope and Change?):

Do you like the sleekness of the presentation? They start out zeroing in on a priest and then there is that great music and the blossoming flower.

The video is actually pushing for the overthrow of Capitalism. They need to be tried for treason, instead they get more respect than Conservatives who are demonized as racists, lunatics, and flat-earthers in no small measure due to Obama’s influence.


Communism has at its core a hatred for what they say is an exploitation of the working class and poor on the part of the rich. To achieve equity, the money must be redistributed from the rich to everyone else who didn’t earn it. It’s the class struggle.

Obama likes to play up the class struggle as his policies create an even wider divide between rich and poor by diminishing the middle class. It’s built on the illogical and debunked premise that workers who earn pay for equivalent labor are exploited – there must be income equality no matter who earns what.

Profits, competition, and individual success have no room in their system.

There is also the belief that the government and not the individuals should own the land because private ownership of land drives men to commit offenses, in fact, they believe it’s a driving force of evil.

These selected quotes ascribed to the Communists are excerpted from the CPUSA’s party platform which I will not link to.

COMMUNISTS: “The great wealth of the United States will for the first time be for the benefit of all the people. Foreign policy will be based on mutual respect, peace, and solidarity. The peoples democratic rights will be guaranteed and expanded. Racial, gender, and social equality will be the basis of domestic policies and practices.”

OBAMA: Redistributing healthcare and U.S. resources is a cornerstone of Obamanism. Respect for Putin was the basis of the reset. The equality issue is for all except for Republicans and Conservatives. It’s not for ranchers either, Obama was ready to have them shot in Nevada these past couple of weeks. Income inequality, the war against women and the unfairness towards LGBTs is the mantra for 2014 and 2016.

COMMUNISTS: “We, the working people of the United States, face tremendous problems today: exploitation, oppression, racism, sexism, a deteriorating environment and infrastructure, huge budget deficits, and a government dominated by the most vicious elements of big capital and its political operatives. This government, despite its rhetoric about making Americans safe, has wasted hundreds of billions on the invasion and occupation of Iraq while it cut money for maintaining the levees leading directly to the disaster that Hurricane Katrina wreaked on the people of New Orleans and much of the Gulf Coast.”

OBAMA: He would say exactly the same thing if his words ever reflected his actions.

COMMUNISTS: “We as a country face serious choices: militarism and imperialism or peace, increased wealth for the few or justice and equality for the many, increased power in the hands of the super-rich or expansion of democracy for the vast majority, ultra-right domination of all branches of government which deals with problems by increasing exploitation and oppression or progressive electoral coalitions that seek real solutions in the interests of all working people.”

OBAMA: Obama certainly has no interest in militarism. He’s reducing the size of our Army to slightly larger than Miramar’s as he destroys all our nuclear warheads. He does want to take money from the rich, but this is where the two platforms differ. Obama is no friend to small business but he does like the super rich and his crony friends. He can’t make them rich enough as long as they are engaged in green energy and his other agenda items. He is a fan of Wall Street.

COMMUNISTS: “The ultra-right is led by the most reactionary, militaristic, racist, anti-democratic sectors of the transnationals. They gain support for their ultra-right agenda from other political trends and social groups, most of which are misled as to their real interests, sometimes blinded by the propaganda of fear and scapegoating.”

The CPUSA are opposed to any new sanctions on Iran. That is considered far-right. They want peaceful negotiations.

“We must unite lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and straight people; professionals and intellectuals; seniors; and the disabled; and the mass peoples movements including the peace, environmental, health care, education, housing, and other movements. This all-peoples front to defeat the ultra-right is in the process of developing, learning, and being tested in giant struggles for peace, to protect social programs and services, to win health care for all, and to win control of all three branches of government from the right wing.”

OBAMA: Obama thinks anyone who is not as radical as he is are militaristic, racist and anti-democratic (as in socialist democratic). He is uniting everyone against the right with a divide and conquer technique. If you don’t support gay marriage, you are anti-gay; if you don’t support Obama, you’re a racist; if you want the borders closed, you’re a nativist; and if you want to keep your weapons, you are unforgivably militaristic and violent. Obama wants control of the three branches of government.

Communists believe the legal system is thoroughly racist and anti-working class. “U.S. prisons are bursting with over 2 million prisoners, with virtually no serious efforts at prevention or rehabilitation. Prisoners face widespread abuse and the anti-labor exploitation of prisoners for sub-minimum wages.”

Who can deny that this is Eric Holder’s belief? They want to go easy on crime.

The Communists want:

  • a National Popular Vote;
  • to replace U.S. foreign policy that protects U.S. interests with a policy of international cooperation;
  • replace the Bill of Rights with the U.N. s Universal Declaration of Human Rights;
  • complete separation of church and state;
  • full legal protection from hate crimes and racial profiling and “outlawing of oral and written racist propaganda”;
  • affirmative action; growth of public ownership of industries and a guaranteed right to a job at living wages or full income through government jobs;
  • expansion of union rights;
  • full funding for education, housing, day care, Social Security, universal health care, youth job training and recreation and cultural programs;
  • compensate minorities for previous wrongs;
  • no taxes for workers and low or middle income workers placing the burden on the rich;
  • slash the military;
  • media to be government owned and controlled.

Obama for his part appears to support:

  • voter IDs be eliminated which plays well into the National Popular Vote;
  • he has a policy of “international cooperation” which our enemies are taking advantage of;
  • he has called us a secular nation and supports a radical separation of church and state. There is also the HHS mandate;
  • our new Common Core is a propaganda machine for the U.N.s Marxist “Universal Declaration of Human Rights”;
  • Obama sees racism, hate crimes everywhere. He has been clear about wanting free speech limited if it is offensive to others;
  • his income inequality is all about living wages;
  • he can’t spend enough on entitlements. He thinks our money is his;
  • he has engaged in reparations for minorities. The Pigford settlement is only one example. His push for universal day care is unquestionably extreme;
  • only 2% of the bottom 50% pay federal taxes right now;
  • the military is being slashed;
  • Obama already controls the media.

Is that what Obama meant when he said this?

Glenn Beck has been on this story for several years and though I don’t agree with everything he says, these videos have some very valid information. Listen to his videos from 2010 and see if you think he was somewhat prescient:

Part I

Communism still exists only it’s no longer condemned.

Part II

How did we get here?

Part III

Evan’s law – inadequate paranoia – no matter how bad you think things are, they’re always worse.

Part IV

How to silence Conservatives.


Barack Obama was a “red diaper baby.” His grandfather and parents were Communists. His grandfather allegedly had him mentored by his friend and fellow Communist and pedophile, Franklin Marshall Davis. Davis was on the FBI security list which means he could have been arrested or detained in the event of an attack.

He was thought to be a Haole hater (Caucasian). He worked on at least one committee with Vernon Jarrett for a communist-infested Packing-House Workers’ Union. Vernon Jarrett is the father-in-law of Valerie Jarrett, Barack Obama’s closest advisor.

A key wiki report uncovered an article by Toby Harnden published in the Telegraph on August 22, 2008 which revealed the influence Communist Frank Marshall Davis had on the young Barack Obama.

According to Obama’s Dreams From My Father, Davis told Obama he had “reason to hate white people.” This prompted Obama to write: “To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active Black students. The foreign students. The Chicancos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.”

Obama has refuted the claim that he was mentored by Davis but the two had a minimum of 15 long meetings as he was growing up.

An American Spectator article points out that “there are some truly remarkable similarities between the political actions of Obama and the ideas in Frank Marshall Davis’ columns: rejecting Winston Churchill; vilifying and targeting General Motors, a company Davis would have been thrilled to nationalize; advocating wealth redistribution from greedy corporations to health insurance and public works projects; favoring taxpayer funding of universal health care; supporting government stimulus; bashing Wall Street; trumpeting the public sector over the private sector; lambasting ‘excess profits’; warning God-and-gun clinging Americans about huckster preachers; seeking the political support of the ‘social justice’ religious left for various causes and campaigns; excoriating the ‘tentacles of big business,’ bankers, big oil, the ‘Big Boys,’ corporate profits, fat cats and their ‘fat contracts’; lambasting tax cuts that ‘spare the rich’ and that only benefit millionaires; singling out the ‘corporation executive’ for not paying his ‘fair’ share; and on and on. These thoughts and words of Frank Marshall Davis bear an uncanny resemblance to Obama’s thoughts and words and actions.’”

Barack isn’t a typical American Black. He has more in common with Indonesians and foreign students than Americans and American Blacks. As a young man, he went to the finest Hawaiian schools when he wasn’t being schooled in Indonesia.

Barack spent 20 years in a Black Liberation Theology church with an anti-Semitic, anti-white Marxist preacher, Jeremiah Wright.

He got his political start in the living room of Bill Ayers, the radical Communist who terrorized New York City as a Weatherman in the late 1960?s and early 1970?s.


In all this, I haven’t mentioned his lawlessness. Barack Obama does not enforce the laws he was elected to enforce and the media has applauded him for it. The American people seem apathetic. Are Americans ready for Communism? Was freedom too heavy a burden to bear?

This is all circumstantial evidence but there is so much more. At what point, does one have to seriously consider why Barack Obama’s platform is so similar to that of the CPUSA?

h/t: Noisy Room

Posted in #OWS, Abortion, ACORN, Active Measures, American Culture, American Diplomacy, American Patriotism, American Sovereignty, Bible, Bill of Rights, Border Control, Calumny, Communications, Communism, Conservatarianism, Conservatism, Crime, Cultural Marxism, Debt Ceiling, Economy, Education, elitism, Energy Policy, EPA, Fascism, Fast and Furious, First Amendment, Founders, Global Warming, GOP, Health Care Bill, History, Homosexuality, House of Representatives, Ideological Subversion, Immigration, Indoctrination, Islam, Israel, Legal/Judicial, LGBT Activism, Liberal Crap, Libertarianism, Main-Stream Media, Marxism, Mob Action, National Debt, National Defense, National Security, Obama Lies, Operant Conditioning, Planned Parenthood, Plantation Liberalism, Politics, Prejudice, Presidential Campaign, Progressive Movement, Psychological Warfare, Racism, Rank Stupidity, RNC, Second Amendment, Self Defense, Senate, Social Engineering, Social Justice, Socialism, Taxation, Tea Party, Terrorism, Totalitarianism, Tyranny, U.S. Constitution, Unemployment, Union Actions, United Nations, War | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Comrade Brock … Tax-Exempt ‘Democratic Political Activist’


One of the reasons cited by the federal government for denying an application by a group or organization applying for 501 (c)(4) or 501 (c)(3) tax-exempt status is that the group’s purpose should be for “social welfare,” not “political activity.” Of course, it depends on how you define “social welfare,” huh!

Under our current regime–and by regime, I mean a government or system, esp. an authoritarian one–a group or organization promoting socialism would be put on the fast-track for approval for tax-exempt status by the IRS, since championing socialism is “social welfare,” according to the regime. I realize that’s my opinion, but I’m sticking to it.

Case in point: David Brock of Media Matters fame.


Media Matters is a Soros-funded, far-lefty propaganda mill that enjoys 501 (c)(3) tax-exempt status. Even folks like Eric Holder are wont to cite from the Media Matters cesspool from time to time. The part of the tax code in question, Section 501(c)(3), clearly states a non-profit group like Media Matters may not “attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities” or “participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.”

In a post appearing at Gateway Pundit, Kristinn Taylor writes:

The IRS is demonstrating vigor in enforcing the rules for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations against influencing elections with its recent revocation of the tax-exempt status of the conservative Patrick Henry Center for Individual Liberty for anti-Hillary Clinton and John Kerry articles posted to the group’s Web site.

Perhaps the non-partisan Internal Revenue Service will balance the scales of justice by revoking the tax-exempt status of the Democratic Party front group Media Matters for America.


A look at Tuesday evening’s home page for Media Matters shows several articles attacking and defending potential 2016 presidential candidates. Curiously, Democrat Hillary Clinton is defended in several articles while Republican Ben Carson is attacked.

Fox’s Erick Erickson: Hillary Clinton “Is Going To Be Old” In 2016, “I Don’t Know How Far Back They Can Pull Her Face”

The Hypocrisy Of Peggy Noonan’s “Modest” Attack On Hillary Clinton

Fox Surprised Public Isn’t Buying Its Efforts To Smear Clinton

6 Things You Should Know About Conservative Media Darling Dr. Ben Carson

Several of the recent articles defending Hillary Clinton are listed under the ‘Elections’ page at Media Matters which ought make it pretty clear to the IRS who Media Matters is supporting for the 2016 presidential election.

Keep reading …

Will the IRS revoke Media Matters tax-exempt status for engaging in “political activity”? Once again, if you want 501 (c)(3) or (c)(4) tax-exempt status, become a socialist; it works every time. Geeez! Where’ve you been (cf. sarcasm)?

Carry on, Comrade Brock! The state supports you.

As for those pesky “domestic terrorists,” i.e. Americans?

Well … vee have our vayz.


Posted in Active Measures, American Culture, American Sovereignty, Bill of Rights, Calumny, Communications, Communism, Conservatarianism, Conservatism, Crime, Cultural Marxism, Economy, elitism, Fascism, First Amendment, Foreign Policy, GOP, House of Representatives, Ideological Subversion, Indoctrination, Legal/Judicial, Liberal Crap, Main-Stream Media, Marxism, Operant Conditioning, Plantation Liberalism, Politics, Prejudice, Presidential Campaign, Progressive Movement, RNC, Sarcasm, Senate, Social Engineering, Social Justice, Socialism, Taxation, Tea Party, Totalitarianism, Tyranny, U.S. Constitution, United Nations | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Watcher’s Council Nominations – The Shot Heard ‘Round the World Edition

The Watcher’s Council

Welcome to the Watcher’s Council, a blogging group consisting of some of the most incisive blogs in the ‘sphere, and the longest running group of its kind in existence. Every week, the members nominate two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council.Then we vote on the best posts in each category, with the results appearing on Friday morning.

Council News:

The Council In Action!!

This week, The MidKnight Review, Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion , Jewish American Patriots, Gulag Bound and The Pirate’s Cove earned honorable mention status with some great articles.

You can, too! Want to see your work appear on the Watcher’s Council homepage in our weekly contest listing? Didn’t get nominated by a Council member? No worries.

To bring something to my attention, simply head over to Joshuapundit and post the title a link to the piece you want considered along with an e-mail address ( which won’t be published) in the comments section no later than Monday 6PM PST in order to be considered for our honorable mention category. Then return the favor by creating a post on your site linking to the Watcher’s Council contest for that week when it comes out Wednesday morning.

Simple, no?

It’s a great way of exposing your best work to Watcher’s Council readers and Council members while grabbing the increased traffic and notoriety. And how good is that, eh?

So, without further ado, let’s see what we have this week….

Council Submissions

Honorable Mentions

Non-Council Submissions

Enjoy! And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that!

Posted in American Culture, Watchers Council, Writing | Leave a comment

Journey to the Center of the Common Core – Pt. 1


By: Brent Parrish

There has been a lot of talk and news lately about Common Core (CC)—specifically, the Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI), i.e. national standards for education. Whether you have children in school or not, CCSSI affects every American, in one way or the other.  One could say Common Core represents a radical bureaucratic “revolution” in education. Although proponents claim Common Core is a States’ or local initiative, it is, in many ways, a great “bait and switch” that flew underneath the radar of many Americans.

There are several reasons I decided to write on the subject of Common Core standards. The primary reason was to ask the who, what, why, where, when and how. I know a number of people don’t know much about Common Core. As a matter of fact, the other night I heard Bill O’Reilly say on his show on Fox that he didn’t know much about Common Core standards. Ironically, O’Reilly was also discussing the possibility of Jeb Bush as a potential presidential candidate in 2016. Jeb Bush is a prominent figure behind Common Core, which I will get into later.

A well-informed and educated populace tends toward a well-informed electorate. A sick culture will produce a sick body politic. Teaching children and young adults how to think, and not what to think, is what I believe the goal of learning and education should be. But the very paradigm and definition of “learning” is being redefined in the Common Core standards. As Abraham Lincoln once said,  “The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next.” The authors of Common Core understand and comprehend Lincoln’s words quite well.

Secondly, I discovered quite a bit of interlock in my research into the philosophy and ideology of Marxism with the current proposed Common Core standards. Additionally—and some would say, naturally—I experienced this same interlock phenomenon in examining the aims and goals of the United Nations—specifically, the goals of United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), among other U.N. initiatives, particularly those concerning “climate change” and “environmental sustainability,” i.e. Agenda 21.


The interlock between Common Core and educational goals and initiatives laid out earlier in the Twentieth Century by progressive educators like John Dewey, Charles Hubbard Judd, George Counts, Stanley H. Hall—and even Soviet psychologist Lev Vykotsky, whose theories on learning are based on the communal process (now lovingly referred to as “collaborative learning“)—is quite compelling.

Writing this article has been challenging on several fronts. Not only are there numerous educational issues surrounding CC, there are also a plethora of social, cultural and economic issues swirling around the debate on Common Core. Many of these social, cultural and economic components have already been folded into the Common Core curriculum, hence the controversy.

When one studies who the major players are behind Common Core, I would say more on the left support CC than on the right. But you really have to throw out the right-left paradigm, in my opinion, when it comes to CC. Common Core is not a right-left thing, per se; it is a progressive, globalist, collectivist thing. There are members from both the right-side and the left-side of the aisle who have a stake in pushing Common Core standards, for various reasons and motives. Some of them might be described as the “usual suspects,” but others might surprise you, as we will see later in this article.


Since my intent is to try and provide a detailed, yet concise, overview of the who, what, where, when, why and how on Common Core, while exploring a bit of the philosophy and historical origins behind CC standards, and the corroboration of CC standards with the aims and goals of Marxists from my own research, I decided it might be best to structure the article by stepping back into time from the present to the past—meaning, by first looking at the who, what, where, when, why and how of Common Core, and then exploring its origins, aims and goals.

For those who wish to research Common Core further, a good deal of information contained in this article has been drawn from the following sources: Karen Bracken, Robin Eubanks, Dr. Peg Luksik, Michael Chapman, Orlean Koehle, Glenn Beck—among others I will be citing throughout the article. (FYI: If you follow the links, you can watch or listen to their presentations on CC.)

Question: What are the Common Core standards, and which States have signed up for it?

In a nutshell, Common Core is nationalized education—a federal, top-down approach to education based in “Constructivism,” i.e. Postmodernism. It is sold as a set of “rigorous”  and “internationally benchmarked” standards that will supposedly bring uniformity in education across state lines.  Although proponents of CC cannot seem to define “rigor” or “internationally benchmarked” standards.

Common Core standards are a list of what children should know in English Language Arts (ELA) and math in grades K-12, and replaces existing State standards. Science standards are almost left out—specifically, Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) subjects. Proponents claim CC will only affect ELA, math, and how testing (a.k.a.  “assessment”) is performed. But, in practice, Common Core goes far beyond just English and Math standards.

According to the latest stats in my own research, 45 States have adopted the Common Core standards.


The Common Core standards were adopted by the States (and in some cases before) release on June 2, 2010. By 2011, 45 states had officially adopted Common Core. Yet, by 2013, 62% had never heard of Common Core.

The two D.C. organizations that commissioned Common Core are the National Governors’ Association (NGA) and the Chief Council of State School Officers (CCSSO). The CCSSO has sponsorships located in each State. It is worth noting, in consideration of the claim by proponents that Common Core is simply a local initiative, the NGA is a trade association, not a government agency. Although CCSSI sounds as if it were a voluntary States’ initiative, Common Core is a “national program, written by a national team.”

Orlean Koehle of the Eagle Forum of California explains:

There was no state or national debate, and no Congressional or state legislative approval was given before implementation of CC began. Forty-six state governors thought they were getting a “free lunch” when they volunteered their states as Common Core participants. The governors were enticed with the promise of federal funds for their states.


The NGA has received the majority of its funding from the federal government. Both the NGA and the CCSSO have also received heavy grants from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. I’ll have more on the NGA, CCSSO and the Gates Foundation when we look at the who’s-who behind Common Core a little later.

There was very little public comment on Common Core or any real research done prior to its adoption. The members of the Common Core validation committee were required to sign non-disclosure agreements. There was only one ELA expert, Dr. Sandra Stotsky, and one math expert, Dr. Jim Milgram, on the validation committee, and neither one of them would sign off on it.

More details on the CC validation committee:


One goal often cited in the Common Core standards is to make students college-ready and career-ready by providing them with “21st Century Learning Skills” necessary for a “global economy.” A great deal of ambiguity surrounds just what is meant when a student is assessed to be “college-ready” or “career-ready,” but it appears to be grounded in a communitarian mindset. A lot emphasis is given to the notion of “life-long learning,” i.e. the process of “continuous improvement,” and “global citizenship.”


The new purpose of education under the Common Core standards appears to be the total transformation of society toward a more sustainable future. Knowledge, understanding and comprehension are no longer the primary purpose of learning under the new Common Core standards, but rather redefining “learning” as changes in values, beliefs, feelings or behaviors—sweeping out knowledge and independent thought.

Common Core proponents want students to think about and appreciate all the problems of our current society so that you perceive the need for fundamental transformation in society and the economy, and in the culture at large. Robin Eubanks of describes it this way, “If you see conceptuality, [proponents] want to provide the concept … by concepts they tend to mean oppression, racism, sustainability, animal extinctions—things you can relate to through emotion, not facts.” Creativity and innovation is to be grounded in emotion, not logic and rationality. Emotion trumps logic … “this is what you should believe” … “continuous improvement.”

And this is where the semantic manipulation comes in: terms like “critical thinking skills” or “higher-level critical thinking” (red flags) come to define the point where the student has fully accepted the radical changes in values, beliefs, feelings and behaviors that the Common Core standards require, or demand.


One of the requirements of good “global citizenship” is acceptance of the concept of “shared responsibility” or “shared sacrifice”—meaning: responsibilities must be shared by governments, schools and businesses in order to create a more “sustainable” world. As Michael Chapman states in his presentation on the links between UNESCO, Agenda 21 and Common Core, “It’s not fair for to have your wants me until the entire world has its needs met.” (Emphasis on need.)  Barack Obama has expressed similar sentiments by his belief in “collective salvation”—and it all revolves around wealth redistribution, and the Marxian definition of equality and fairness.

The language (ELA) component for Common Core is proposing grade school students focus about 50% of their time studying information and data (such as reading EPA manuals), and the rest of their time on traditional literature and language skills. But, by the time they reach high school, they are to spend only 30% of their time on subjects like literature and the balance of time on informational texts like Labor Department regulations—information vs. knowledge. Not only is knowledge being swept away, but the most important part of teaching knowledge is being tossed aside—the student’s understanding and comprehension of knowledge.

In the math component for CC, Michael Chapman points out, the Common Core standards does not define mathematics as a self-existing truth discovered by man, but rather a social construction to meet society’s need. There is no right or wrong answer. We simply dialog to a consensus on what we would like the answer to be based on the “common greater good.” This is where we get bizarre concepts like “radical math,” which essentially equates to “social justice,” i.e. redistribution. The answer to the equation can be whatever we want it to be, as long as no animals or minorities were offended or hurt in the process (cf. sarcasm).


The lynchpin of Common Core is systematization, centralization and data collection. Common Core can be described as a “digital learning program to be used to create ‘commonality’ in curriculum in all States,” according to Orlean Kohle. And it is all the proposed data-tracking and data mining that are proving to be one of the most controversial and disturbing aspects concerning the Common Core standards.

The push within Common Core is that all learning should involve computers, not in your mind. The CC documents reflect, if knowledge is in a computer, instead of your brain, you are weaker and more malleable; it becomes more difficult to create the mental scenarios necessary to determine consequences; it weakens conceptualization. Once again, rational, linear, logical thought is discouraged, information vs. knowledge. These concepts are primarily derived from research conducted by Soviet psychologist Lev Vygotsky.

data-mining common-core-data-tracking

One rather pernicious document published by the U.S. Department of Education entitled “Promoting Grit, Tenacity, and Perseverance: Critical Factors for Success in the 21st Century” (download here) recommends using a myriad of sensors and data-collection techniques to monitor students.

(Credits: Dept. of Ed.)

Promoting Grit, Tenacity, and Perseverance, pg. 44 (Credits: Dept. of Ed.)


The Promoting Grit, Tenacity, and Perseverance document also reveals the federal government will monitor things like voting status, healthcare status, family income, religious affiliation, extracurricular activity, along with hundreds of other attributes.

Wait a minute? Doesn’t the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) prevent the government from collecting personal data on me and my children? Obama’s amendment of FERPA takes away the privacy of students and teachers, and allows the federal government to create a nationalized database.


Question: How did all this sneak under the radar?

Barack Obama was sworn into office in January 2009. One month later the $759 billion stimulus bill was passed—the stimulus written by the Tides Foundation, Apollo Alliance and Van Jones. The president promised the stimulus package would be used for reducing the unemployment rate, and for “stimulating” and “creating jobs.” But the stimulus was used to bypass Congress, thus becoming the president’s personal piggy bank, and allowing him to pay off his cronies and fund his pet projects.


The U.S. Department of Education—the prime bureaucracy behind Common Core—was appropriated $4.35 billion dollars to create the Race to the Top (RTTT) competition. The first phase of RTTT began in November 2009. Applications for RTTT grants were due in January 2010, just one month later. To successfully apply for RTTT, States agreed to the Common Core standards … sight unseen.


The federal government threatens to withhold Title I grant money for education to States who do not adopt and comply with Common Core standards. So there are many incentives to join and punishments for not joining. Additionally, it is difficult for a State to leave once they have signed up, due to the exit rules agreed upon during adoption of the national standards, and changes are difficult since all other States must be in agreement.

In Part 2, we will take a deeper look at the questions, who is behind Common Core, where did CC originate, what are CC’s ultimate aims and goals, and much more!

Posted in Active Measures, American Culture, American Diplomacy, American Sovereignty, Bill of Rights, Calumny, Climate Change, Communications, Communism, Conservatarianism, Conservatism, Cultural Marxism, Economy, Education, elitism, Energy Policy, EPA, Fascism, Federal Budget, First Amendment, Foreign Policy, Founders, GOP, Health Care Bill, Homosexuality, House of Representatives, Ideological Subversion, Indoctrination, Legal/Judicial, LGBT Activism, Main-Stream Media, Marxism, Monetary Policy, National Debt, Obama Lies, Operant Conditioning, opinion, Plantation Liberalism, Politics, Prejudice, Progressive Movement, Psychological Warfare, Racism, RNC, Sacrifice, Senate, Social Engineering, Social Justice, Socialism, Sovereignty, Taxation, Tea Party, Totalitarianism, Tyranny, U.S. Constitution, Unemployment, United Nations | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

In Case You Missed It Dept.:

When the Moment Is Right …

Via Winteregg for Congress:


Over the course of 23 years, John Boehner has forgotten that his job was to go to D.C. to fight for you. Despite his campaign promises, as Speaker of the House he has failed to defund ObamaCare, failed to pass timely budgets, failed to protect us from amnesty for criminal illegal immigrants, and even raised the debt ceiling which leaves debt for our children and grandchildren to pay back and puts our national security at risk.

It’s time for a change. It’s time to fight back!

Posted in American Culture, American Patriotism, American Sovereignty, Bill of Rights, Communications, Conservatarianism, Conservatism, Economy, elitism, First Amendment, GOP, Health Care Bill, House of Representatives, Immigration, Legal/Judicial, Politics, Progressive Movement, RNC, Satire, Senate, Socialism, Taxation, U.S. Constitution | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Re: Harry Reid’s ‘Domestic Terrorist’ Comments


By: Brent Parrish

Political terrorist Harry “Cleanface” Reid is doubling-down (per Alinsky, I suspect) on his over-the-top rhetoric by accusing Cliven Bundy of not paying his taxes and labeling Bundy and his supporters “domestic terrorists”:

Funny how Comrade Reid seems to know so much about everybody’s taxes, huh! Amazing thing that NSA and IRS (cf. sarcasm). Just ask Mitt Romney. Still no word from Reid, yet,  on whether alleged author of Barack Obama’s book Dreams From My Father, Bill Ayers, has been labeled by Senate Kommandant Reid as a domestic terrorist or not. But I digress.

Reid and his ilk seem to have a real penchant for singling out private citizens for character assassination and personal destruction in order to further their nefarious political schemes and unconstitutional machinations. Just ask the Koch brothers.

In the video below, Harry “Cleanface” (Reid’s Nevada mob name) Reid makes some very revealing, and quite disturbing, comments. First, he mentions that he has been in contact with Senior U.S. District Judge Lloyd D. George, Clark County Sheriff Douglas Gillespie in Bunkerville, Attorney General Eric Holder and the Secretary of the Interior; he says they just can’t let it go. Huh. Imagine that. Terrible thing that progressive OCD:

The most disturbing comments from Dingy Harry in the video above, at least to me, are his claims the Bundy Ranch protesters wanted to use women and children as “human shields.” The reason I find those comments so disturbing is you would only be concerned about women in children standing in front of the crowd if you were planning on potentially mowing them all down.

As far as the “women and children” are concerned, I don’t know if Reid is referring to comments made by Sheriff Richard Mack in an interview with Ben Swann, but I’ve included the audio below:

Sheriff Mack states in the Ben Swann interview (@4:40 min.) that if women were standing out front (I did not hear anything about children, by the way), and were shot first by federal authorities, it would show the rest of the world just how ruthless the feds really can be. But, let’s not forget how many children were burned alive in the Waco siege. So, it’s not like there isn’t historical precedence for such a scenario. But, at the same time, some may find all this a bit over-the-top.

Let’s consider this: why is anybody even worrying about somebody getting shot over cattle grazing fees and desert tortoises? Well, that should be obvious. Because American citizens are having weapons aimed at them by their own government for no justifiable reason. When an unconstitutional agency like the BLM shows up in full battle kit with weapons drawn, one must ask themselves, what the hell?

Here’s some raw footage of the actual incident between BLM forces and the protesters at the Bundy Ranch. You be the judge:

What is this, Afghanistan? This is just unbelievable. This is the very reason why so many people, including myself, have been so concerned about the militarization of federal alphabet agencies like the BLM, Social Security Administration, NOAA, Department of Eduction–and some 70 other agencies. But Obama said he would be ready to rule from Day One. And we now see why the president wanted an internal security apparatus better funded and more powerful than the U.S. military.

It seems to me the Obama Administration, and staunch supporters like Cleanface, are the ones itching for a fight … a fight against American citizens and their way of life …




Flashback: Obama: ‘Lone Wolf Will Be Sovereign’:

Posted in Active Measures, American Culture, American Patriotism, American Sovereignty, Bill of Rights, Calumny, Communications, Communism, Conservatarianism, Conservatism, Crime, Cultural Marxism, elitism, Fascism, First Amendment, Founders, GOP, House of Representatives, Ideological Subversion, Indoctrination, Legal/Judicial, Liberal Crap, Main-Stream Media, Marxism, National Security, Politics, Prejudice, Presidential Campaign, Progressive Movement, Psychological Warfare, Rank Stupidity, Senate, Social Engineering, Social Justice, Socialism, Totalitarianism, Tyranny, U.S. Constitution, United Nations | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Happy Easter!


Posted in American Culture, Bible, Bill of Rights, First Amendment, Religion, U.S. Constitution | Tagged , | Leave a comment