The Common Core State Standards Initiative is an educational initiative in the United State The initiative is sponsored by the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO).
Five People Wrote State-Led Common Core – David Coleman and Susan Pimentel in English, and Jason Zimba, Phil Daro, William McCallum in math and funded by The Bill And Melinda Gates Foundation.
Common Core represents the latest and most comprehensive step in the move toward governmental control and management of our children’s education. Common Core is a non-partisan issue that affects all Americans, even those without children.
Join us for an April 2014 presentation examining Common Core and the ongoing struggle to roll back its implementation. Our speaker will provide examples of how Common Core threatens to further undermine, weaken, and centralize public and private education in our country.
Speaker Bio–Dr.Duke Pesta received his M.A. in Renaissance literature from John Carroll University and his Ph.D. in Shakespeare and Renaissance literature from Purdue University. He is a professor of English at the University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh and the Academic Director of FreedomProject Education. – https://www.fpeusa.org/
This audio file, documenting the mainstream media news coverage from Election Night 2008, is crucial listening. Consider this information as you sit glued to your TeeVee set Tuesday waiting for the results from Election Night 2012.
The 2012 Presidential Election Debate (Part 1)
Under The Radar Media
So what did you think of tonight’s first presidential debate/reality show? The two candidates sure did come across as awful convincing and quite caring about the concerns of the average American citizen didn’t they?
It’s obvious that the economy is the most important issue on the table at this time, so it goes without saying that this key domestic issue will dominate the first debate, if not all three of them. The candidates and the media-sponsored talking heads are perfectly comfortable in discussing taxes, tax cuts, job creation, Medicare/Medicaid etc, but there is no point in debating the current state of the economy if none of the key fundamental causes of the problems aren’t going to be addressed.
Another issue that won’t be discussed is a topic that the majority of Americans simply will not face; the issue of Jewish/Zionist dominance of the American political system. In fact, on December 4, 2009, the Israeli news service Ha’aretz reported that “every appointee to the American government must endure a thorough background check by the American Jewish community.”
This stipulation is not limited to just US-Israeli policy; it has enumerable effects on both US domestic as well as US foreign policy issues. Perhaps some of the effects of those issue will be addressed over the next few posts.
What’s also most interesting is that the debate moderator Jim Lehrer, had to try to create and present a contrast between Obama and Romney. The not-so-dirty-secret is how similar these two clowns are on most if not all of the key issues that are likely to be addressed during the debates.
“In American politics we have several parties included under the blanket words “Democratic” and “Republican.” In oversimplified terms, as I have said, were the party of the middle class, and the Democrats were the party of the fringes. Both of these were subdivided, each with a Congressional and a National Party wing.
The Republican Congressional Party (representing localism) was much further to the right than the National Republican Party, and as such was closer to the petty-bourgeois than to the upper-middle class outlook. The Democratic Congressional party was much more clearly of the fringes and minorities (and thus often further to the Left) than the Democrat National Party.
The party machinery in each case was in Congressional party control during the intervals between the quadrennial presidential elections, but, in order to win these elections, each had to call into existence, in presidential election years, its shadowy National Party. This meant that the Republicans had to appear to move to the Left, closer to the Center, usually moving to the Right.
As a result, the National parties and their presidential candidates, with the Eastern Establishment assiduously fostering the process being the scenes, moved closer together and nearly met in the center with almost identical candidates and platforms, although the process was concealed, as much as possible, by the revival of obsolescent or meaningless war cries and slogans (often going back to the Civil War).
As soon as the presidential election was over, the two National parties vanished, and party controls fell back into the hands of the two Congressional parties, leaving the President in a precarious position between the two Congressional parties, neither of which was very close to the brief National coalition that had elected him.
The chief problem of American political life for a long time had been to make the two Congressional parties more national and international.
The argument of two parties should represent opposed ideas and policies, one perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinate and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can “throw the rascals out” at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. The policies that are vital and necessary for America are no longer subjects of significant disagreement, but are disputable only in details of procedure, priority, or method.”
Carroll Quigely – “Tragedy and Hope” pp. 1247-1248
Quigley was born in Boston, and attended Harvard University, where he studied history and earned B.A, M.A., and Ph.D. degrees. He taught at Princeton University, and then at Harvard, and then at the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University from 1941 to 1976.
From 1941 until 1969, he taught a two-semester course at Georgetown on the development of civilizations. According to the obituary in the Washington Star, many alumni of Georgetown’s School of Foreign Service asserted that this was “the most influential course in their undergraduate careers”
In addition to his academic work, Quigley served as a consultant to the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Navy, the Smithsonian Institution, and the House Select Committee on Astronautics and Space Exploration in the 1950s.
In his freshman year in the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown, future U.S. President Bill Clinton took Quigley’s course, receiving a ‘B’ as his final grade in both semesters. Clinton named Quigley as an important influence on his aspirations and political philosophy in 1991, when launching his presidential campaign in a speech at Georgetown.
Click here to read “Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time”
While at International Media Partners (IMP) we also created CEO Institutes, which ran events on global themes for the chief executives of big companies. Some of these business leaders were chillingly deal oriented, as I saw at a dinner one night when I was seated between the CEO of a leading aircraft manufacturer and Representative Pat Schroeder, then the ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee. The CEO leaned across me to speak to Representative Schroeder.
“Here’s the deal,” he said. “I want to sell a plane to Muammar Qaddafi and he wants to buy one. But we have sanctions in place that won’t let me sell to him. The U.S. wants this guy dead. So what I’m thinking is, if you help me get the okay to sell him the plane, I’ll build it with explosive bolts connecting the wings to the fuselage. Then, one day he’s up flying over the Med and we push a button. He’s gone. I make my sale. Everyone’s happy.
Globalist insider David Rothkopf alleges the possibility of a quasi-extrajudicial killing of Muammar Qaddafi, the fallen leader of soon-to-be-occupied Libya, which by my guess is a conversation would have had to have taken place in the early to mid 1970’s. Any takers on which company it was whose CEO actually proposed this vile, criminal conspiracy? It seems that the plan has always been that the United States would assassinate Qaddafi someday, and for what?
Those who aren’t afraid of a little research are coming to the conclusion that he is not quite the “evil-doer” that the mainstream media has portrayed him to be over the years. While it may be hard for one to argue that any world leader is a necessarily a “good guy,” I’d be willing to put Qaddafi’s accomplishments next to that of Mr. Obama, George W. Bush or any other stooge that has acted as president of the United States any day.
Besides, if the Zionist mass media is trying to convince us to hate the latest “evil-doer,” one should, by default be immediately skeptical as to why. Especially when they are trying to sell us on a shiny brand new war. Kinda makes you wonder about those who continue to carry the water for the UN/NATO corporate takeover of Libya, right?
Thanks to Jackie Jura of Orwell Today for her meticulous research on the modern history of Muammar Qaddafi and Libya