February 3, 2010

Elite-Controlled Education System is Brainwashing Our Youth

Obama to Propose $3.8 Trillion Budget Boosting Education, Energy

By Jackie Calmes, The New York Times
February 1, 2010

The budget projects that the deficit will peak at nearly $1.6 trillion in the current fiscal year, a post-World War II record, and then decline but remain at economically troublesome levels over the remainder of the decade. In the coming fiscal year 2011, which begins in October, the projected shortfall would be under $1.3 trillion.

Over 10 years, according to the administration, the budget would save an estimated $1.2 trillion, mainly by ending the Bush tax cuts for the richest Americans and freezing some domestic spending for three years. But that total is roughly one-fifth of the size of the debt that will pile up from now to 2020, the budget shows.

In the short run, some relatively minor domestic programs as well as big-ticket military equipment would be cut or eliminated, while education and civilian research would get big increases. Wealthy Americans, big banks and oil and gas companies would pay more in taxes, but the middle class and small businesses would get additional tax cuts worth hundreds of billions of dollars ...

His $3.8 trillion budget for fiscal year 2011 incorporates his signature proposals to overhaul the health care system and energy policies, though they are languishing in Congress. Education, civilian research, food and drug safety and biomedical research would all get more money. For NASA, Mr. Obama proposed to cancel plans to return to the moon but sought $18 billion in spending for new technologies that could take humans farther into space.

The budget request for the Department of Health and Human Services was $81.3 billion, up from $79.6 billion a year ago. The National Institutes of Health’s budget request rose by $1 billion, to $32 billion, more than was requested last year.

Few reductions he called for would be easy or politically painless. Dozens of the 120 programs Mr. Obama has proposed to cut or kill are retreads because Congress rejected or ignored them last year. Mr. Obama said it was “just common sense,” for example, to kill a program to restore lands at abandoned mines that already have been cleaned up. But Western senators of both parties blocked that idea in 2009.

Mr. Obama does not make the really hard choices about entitlement programs — Medicare and Medicaid, especially — and about taxes that most budget analysts say are essential to cut annual deficits and to begin paying down an accumulated debt.

The nation’s publicly held debt, much of it owed to China and other foreign creditors, by 2020 would equal 77 percent of the gross domestic product, the highest level since 1950. Then the postwar debt was on its way down; now it is on its way up to unsustainable heights.

While the president has proposed to save hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicare as part of his health care overhaul, he would expand Medicaid, which covers low-income people and many nursing home residents. Both government health programs are exempt from the three-year domestic spending freeze that Mr. Obama proposed, as is spending for national security and veterans programs.

Many budget analysts say that the president’s campaign promise against raising taxes on any Americans making less than $250,000 also is a big hurdle to significant deficit reduction. But administration officials dismiss the criticism, saying that Republicans would not support such tax increases anyway.

Mr. Obama, though, will direct the proposed bipartisan commission to consider changes to both taxes and entitlement benefits. His budget director, Mr. Orszag, declined at a press briefing to rule out tax increases for the middle class as part of a commission’s charge. “Let’s let it do its work,” he said.

The president will ask the commission to recommend by December a plan to balance the budget by the 2015 fiscal year, not counting interest payments on the national debt. But that still would leave a deficit of nearly 3 percent of gross domestic product — reflecting just how large a share of the budget the debt costs are growing to be.

Congressional Democratic leaders have committed to hold a vote on whatever plan a commission produces.

Robert Greenstein, president of the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which supports lower deficits, said that because of the quick opposition in Congress to many of the proposed spending cuts and tax increases, “I found myself concluding that I was glad that they did not propose more deficit reduction.”
“You are better off trying to find out if there’s any chance that some things can emerge on a bipartisan basis from the commission,” Mr. Greenstein said, “rather than throwing them out there and having them killed off first so that the commission effectively can’t even consider them.”

States to Government: Hands Off Education

As the U.S. government discusses reauthorizing a sweeping education law and prepares to distribute billions of stimulus dollars for school reform, state legislatures are sending it a strong message: hands off.

By Lisa Lambert, Reuters
February 1, 2010

Education policy has always been the territory of state and local governments, but in the last decade the U.S. government has interjected itself into curriculum and school reforms, the National Conference of State Legislatures said on Monday.

The group, which represents state legislatures, suggested using a federal model to fund education akin to that used to build the interstate highway system, whereby money is given to states, which then pass it on to local governments. It would also like federal funds concentrated in areas where students are the most disadvantaged and not handed out equally to every congressional district.
Vast Majority of Federal Transportation Dollars Get Divided Among States

Hundreds of public and private groups spent more than $19 million on lobbying teams focused solely on surface transportation, but that drastically understates the total amounts being spent by local governments, businesses, and other interest groups around the nation... Transportation policy and transportation bills provide depressingly stark proof that all politics is local. Each city, state, and more specifically, congressional district, has its own battles to fight...

The vast majority of federal transportation dollars get divided among states and localities to spend as they see fit. Congress has created dozens of programs through which those dollars flow from Washington. But there’s no overarching national strategy, and few goals. Beyond that, though, a portion of the pot is doled out project-by-project in Washington. So lots of groups end up hiring lobbyists to bypass local and state decision-makers and get projects funded federally...

House leaders proposed some nontraditional ways to collect more money, such as a tax on oil speculators, a national sales tax, or the use of more tolling and private partnerships. A "miles traveled" tax, which levies specific charges on drivers based in part on the number of miles they drive, has gained the support of Congress’ two national policy commissions, but that option would require years to implement and would likely be a tough sell to the public. - Matthew Lewis, Center for Public Integrity, October, 5 2009

The education law passed under former President George W. Bush and known as "No Child Left Behind" created a system of standards by which schools and school districts would be judged and federal funding awarded.

The law has been criticized for having lengthy and impossible standards and for inadvertently punishing poor performing schools by withholding money.

Last week Education Secretary Arne Duncan said the administration will change the standards when the law is renewed and increase requirements for how schools report on achieving those standards. It will also dedicate "unprecedented resources" to rewarding schools that attain those standards while focusing on improving the "bottom 1 percent" of schools, he said.

But for the legislatures' group, "neither federal top-down mandates nor categorical and competitive grant resources have significantly affected student achievement."

The group contends that local school districts and states are closer to students' lives and understand their needs better, while the U.S. government is too removed.
"If we continue on our current policy path, federal resources, which now account for slightly more than 7 percent of the enterprise, will drag the entire system into the rabbit-hole world where compliance with federal dictums masquerades as reforms," the group said.
The legislatures would like to see a new form of debt created in the two-year economic stimulus plan for building and renovating schools continued past the plan's expiration date. Tax credit bonds, which offer tax credits in lieu of interest payments, would save schools billions of dollars in debt service costs.

But the group is wary of other parts of the stimulus.

In April, the U.S. government will award up to $4 billion in "Race to the Top" grants to fund innovations in semi-autonomous public schools known as "charters" and pursue other reforms. President Barack Obama will include another $1.35 billion for the program in the budget he proposes next week.

At the same time the $787 billion stimulus plan dedicated billions to a state fiscal stabilization fund that allowed states to keep educators employed.
"The spike in federal funding has shored up needed fiscal support for public education but is unlikely to outlast the state fiscal crisis," the report said. "The task force believes that lasting education reforms are not likely to be initiated or to survive when states are scrambling just to focus available funding on proven reforms already in place."
The group also said that the U.S. government only provides thin funding in exchange for meeting its requirements, and estimated it would cost the federal government $500 billion to take control of all of the nation's public schools.

Agenda 21 Alert: Obama’s $250 Million Plan to Brainwash Your Children

By Cassandra Anderson, Infowars.com
January 7, 2010

On January 6, 2010, Obama proudly unveiled his “Innovative Agenda.” Financed by Public-Private Partnerships, the goal is to train over 100,000 elementary school math and science teachers. The Intel Foundation has committed to spending $200 million dollars to this venture, with four other companies providing another $50 million dollars.

The mainstream media’s spin on this story was that this is a gift to increase American children’s test scores. And most people believe this is a wonderful investment in the future and don’t understand the real intention behind the “gift,” with strings attached.
Do you think that depopulation of the planet is wonderful?

Do you think that the destruction of individual rights and the Constitution is wonderful?

Do you think that clearing humans from 50% of America’s landscape is wonderful?
Anytime you here the phrase “Public-Private Partnership,” you can be sure that a corporation or foundation is benefiting, as PPP’s are the tool of fascism. The “Private” component of the PPP is the money partner and is always interested in profit and power. When they couple with the government (the Public component of the PPP), the benefit is enforcement of policies, tax breaks, fees, etc. Please find out more by watching Joan Veon’s videos featured on InfoWars December 3rd (see story below).

After doing a little research on Intel’s website and its affiliation with the EPA and the United Nations, the implications are clear: Intel is preoccupied with the global warming hoax and intends to institute Agenda 21 Sustainable Development by indoctrinating children through education.

Lori Wigle, Intel’s Eco- Technology General Manager and “Green Queen” went to the Copenhagen convention and wrote in her blog that technology could provide a structure for people to telecommute from home so that “ultimately we may need fewer roads.” Remember that the collectivists’ agenda is to concentrate people in cities and remove them from the land. If there are no roads, the land becomes ‘off-limits.’

Further, Intel’s Corporate Responsibility Director, Michael Jacobson, glorifies the alliance between Intel and the United Nations in his blog regarding the United Nations Global Compact.

The United Nations Global Compact is based on the Rio Declaration of Environment and Development from 1992, and IS Agenda 21 Sustainable Development. Soft language is used, but the underlying message is that an international governing body should regulate all things concerning human interaction with the environment. The man-made global warming hoax is one of the biggest weapons of propaganda and legal action that the collectivists use.

Lastly, education is a tool that the globalists use to promote their programs, and is clearly documented in their own materials. For example, in California’s Assembly Bill 32 (Cap & Trade), the final report states:
“ARB will also rely on partners throughout the state to develop and display options for curricula that will enhance the K-12, community college, trade technical training programs, and programs at four-year colleges” (page 102).
The Good News:
Being forewarned is being forearmed. You can teach your children about “Climategate” and get other parents involved. You can educate the educators and become more involved in what your child learns.

Agenda 21 Alert: Public-Private Partnerships

Cassandra Anderson, Infowars
December 3, 2009

Based on an interview with Joan Veon

Joan Veon is an author, journalist and expert on globalization; she also hosted her own radio talk show and is a successful businesswoman. In these two videos she explains the mechanism by which corporations gain power over all levels of government: local, county, state, federal, foreign and the United Nations, thus creating corporate fascism on a global level.

Public-Private Partnerships are one of the most effective tools that are used by the globalists to implement Agenda 21 Sustainable Development, with the goal of destroying the structure of governments that represent the people, and puts profits and resources in the hands of the private interest collectivists.

The public part of the Public-Private Partnership (PPP) is the government, which becomes corrupted and no longer represents the taxpayers when it accepts funding from private interests. Further, the government becomes silent against abuses to the public when they have been compromised by PPP business arrangements; and, worse yet, may also sell off resources and utilities that were owned by the taxpayers. The government does this because they are broke and more taxation is unpopular.

The private part of the PPP is often a combination of these entities:

- Corporations (usually multinational)

- Foundations (like Rockefeller)

- Associations

- Universities

- Any entity with a lot of money

- Non-Governmental Agencies (NGO’s are usually environmental agencies like the Sierra Club and the Nature Conservancy)

The private stakeholder in the business arrangement always has profit as its goal, not service. Service was formerly the role of the representative government. The assets once belonging to the taxpayers are then transferred to private interests--this is a transfer of wealth, through the assets, to private parties that seek profit at any price. Frequently, deceit, deception and distortion are used to fleece the taxpayer into this ’solution’ for governments that are broke.

American local, county, state and the federal governments have gone broke and are ripe for the sale of their assets to PPP’s because of deficit spending and a lack of economic common sense. John Maynard Keynes promoted deficit spending to Roosevelt as a way to escape the Depression. This results in diluted government and loss of power.

Ms. Veon reports that the only way to combat this is:

1. Being alert and recognizing this scam

2. Understanding the structure and intent of the PPP

3. Taking action by exposing the PPP deceit at government meetings

For a wealth of information on PPP’s and other related topics, visit Joan Veon’s website.

Is It Public, or Is It Private?
Foundations Continue to Mandate American Children's Indoctrination
Education: Too Important for a Government Monopoly
Today we spend a stunning $11,000 a year per student—more than $200,000 per classroom. It’s not working.
Federal Government to Take More Control of Public Education from States
For most public schools, the perceived heavy hand of the federal government would become a lighter touch under President Obama's plan to rewrite the No Child Left Behind law. But for others, the consequences of academic failure would stiffen considerably. The proposal to update what is formally known as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act divides nearly 100,000 schools into three broad categories: those rewarded for high performance; those challenged and shaken up because they are struggling; and the huge number in the middle that are pushed to improve but given freedom to innovate... High-flying schools would be rewarded with funding and increased flexibility and autonomy.

Updated 3/15/10 (Newest Additions at End of List)

No comments:

Post a Comment

Go to The Lamb Slain Home Page