Tax-exempt Foundations in the U.S. Operate to Promote Collectivism (Communism)

Tax-free Foundations Conspiring to Soviet-ize AmeriKa

Canada Free Press
December 16, 2010

In 1953 and 1954, the United States House of Representatives conducted an investigation of Tax Exempt Foundations to see why these Foundations should enjoy an exemption from paying taxes that are exacted from American citizens.

The Chairman of this House committee was Congressman Carrol Reese of Tennessee, after whose name this Congressional investigating committee is known (Reese Committee Investigations). Congressman Reese’s chief investigator was a man named Norman Dodd (a former banker) who held the title “Director of Research.”

In 1978 the Illinois Legislature established a commission to study “regionalism” (the American version of “soviet”- ism) in that State. The following is taken, for the most part, from a transcript of a public hearing conducted by The Illinois Joint Committee on Regional Government on September 26, 1978, at Edwardsville, Illinois. There Mr. Norman Dodd was interviewed and questioned about his experiences and findings as an investigator with the Reese Committee.

In 1953 Mr. Dodd was extended an invitation to meet with the then President of the Ford Foundation, a Mr. Rowan Gaither, who proceeded to tell him that these Tax-Exempt Foundations operate under orders emanating from the White House, the essence of which is that these Foundations are to use their grant making powers to contribute to altering (”CHANGING”) life in the United States so that it could some day be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union. GOT THAT?

Ford Foundation, Regional Governments

Mr. Dodd was of course shocked and dismayed at hearing this. The Ford Foundation was the largest aggregate of privately directed wealth in the United States. Its grants were responsible for the development of what is known as “regional government” which is surreptitiously replacing lawful constitutional government in the United States.

Mr. Dodd testified that he told Mr. Gaither that he thought that legally the Ford Foundation could make such grants, but did not think it is entitled to withhold that information from the People of this country to whom it is indebted for its tax exemption, and asked why the American people weren’t informed of this Foundation policy and agenda? Mr. Gaither is said to have replied:

“We would not even think of doing such a thing.”

Incredible as it sounds, this Foundation agenda seems to have become our official federal “public policy.”

Is it the official “public policy” of the United States (of the federal government) to abolish the United States (our Constitutional Republic)? How else can one translate this? How can such a thing be described as anything but treason?

By granting these seditious Foundations tax free status, are we Americans being duped into financing, subsidizing, and enabling the orchestrated destruction of our own freedom by oligarchic elites? [See Bill Gates' Agenda for the 21st Century]

In response to a letter Mr. Dodd had written to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace seeking an inquiry into and the clarifying of questions the House Committee sought answers to, he received an invitation to send a member of his staff to review the minute books of the organization from its inception in 1908.

Norman Dodd had an attorney, one Kathryn Casey, assigned to his staff to ensure that all Congressional rules and procedures were complied with who was the ideal candidate for this assignment. After two weeks of diligently examining the minutes of the Carnegie Foundation, she returned with her analysis recorded on Dictaphone belts.

In the year 1908, when the Carnegie Foundation began operations, the Trustees discussed -- as recorded in their minutes -- the question of whether there is a more effective means than war to alter (”CHANGE”) the life of an entire people. The conclusion reached was that there was no known better means to that end.

The next question to be raised was how to involve the United States in a war? The answer to that question was a need to control the State Department,which was to be done by controlling the diplomatic machinery of the country.

We eventually became involved in WWI, at which time their minutes show that they had dispatched a telegram to President Wilson cautioning him to see that the war does not end too quickly. After WWI -- as their minutes also show -- their interests shifted to preventing what they referred to as “a reversion of life in the United States back to what it was prior to 1914” when WW 1 broke out.

The conclusion arrived at here was that they must control the education system in the United States. This task was thought too big for them to handle alone so they approached the Rockefeller Foundation for assistance.

They decided that the best way to succeed in this operation was to alter the teaching of American History. They approached four of the most prominent history teachers in the country with the suggestion that they alter the manner in which they present their subject and got turned down flat. They discuss in the minutes, the necessity of having to “build our own stable of historians.”

They then approached the Guggenheim Foundation, which specializes in fellowships, with the proposal of finding influence-able young men in the process of studying for Doctorates in the field of American History who could be induced into prostituting their academic integrity by distorting the teaching of history and grant them fellowships on their (Carnegie Foundation’s) recommendation, to which they agreed.

Eventually they recruited some twenty individuals and took them to London where they were briefed on what was to be expected of them, as a condition of keeping the Doctorates they would be assisted in acquiring.

This group of twenty historians ultimately became the nucleus of the American Historical Association. It received a grant of $400,000 from the Carnegie Endowment in the late 1920’s which provided funding for revisionist research that produced a 7 volume study of our history, presented in a manner consistent with the way the Endowment wished it to be taught here in the future.

This policy diverted away from support of the “out dated” and “no longer practical” principles and “self evident truths” embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and insinuated instead one of “collectivism” (communism), the so called wave of the future, and how this country should be, as they wished to have it be.

Norman Dodd’s testimony stated that the impact of the shock of learning the content of the Carnegie Endowment’s foundational minutes was too much for attorney Kathryn Casey. She was never able to return to her law practice, and eventually suffered an emotional breakdown as a result of it.

In a later subsequent interview, Mr. Dodd was asked why these Foundations (of capitalist interests) so generously support communist causes in the United States. His answer was: to them, communism represents a means of developing an organized monopoly of large scale industries into a manageable, administrable unit. Communism has been best described as the consolidation and control of the world’s resource wealth into the hands of a select elite few. This is what the “redistribution of wealth” scam is really all about -- a forced transfer from the money “makers” to the money “getters.”

The Reese Committee Investigation has painted us a clear picture of what our federal government’s “public policy” is, and what its goals are. It also shows who dictates the terms and agenda of this policy to those whom we have naively entrusted the administration of our government. Though political party dominance trades positions occasionally, no significant meaningful reform ever seems to happen.

Future series of articles will examine and expose the nature and make up of the “beast” itself. The proof is in the pudding and the pieces eventually will all come together and fall into place.

This thing we call communism, also known as socialism, or liberalism, is of course Marxism. The next article in this series will begin by examining the Marxist manifesto, and go on to expose, piece by piece, the Liberal’s mantra and agenda, a literal blueprint for the overthrowing of the free societies of the world, in particular, the United States of America.

Once one has learned what to look for, it is thereafter impossible not to see the pattern and understand what is going on in government.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

"A key question for Melinda and me is, Where are foundations uniquely suited to causing positive change? Foundations provide something unique when they work on behalf of the poor, who have no market power, or when they work in areas like health or education, where the market doesn’t naturally work toward the right goals and where the innovation requires long-term investments. Foundations are unusual because they don’t have to worry about being voted out at the next election or board meeting. Another way that running a foundation is not like running a business is that you don’t have customers who beat you up when you get things wrong or competitors who work to take those customers away from you. You don’t have a stock price that goes up and down to tell you how you’re doing. This lack of a natural feedback loop means that we as a foundation have to be even more careful in picking our goals and being honest with ourselves when we are not achieving them." - 2009 Annual Letter from Bill Gates

"If we project what the world will be like 10 years from now without innovation in health, education, energy, or food, the picture is quite bleak. We will have to increase the price of energy to reduce consumption, and the poor will suffer from both this higher cost and the effects of climate change. In food we will have big shortages because we won’t have enough land to feed the world’s growing population and support its richer diet. However, I am optimistic that innovations will allow us to avoid these bleak outcomes. In the United States, advances in online learning and new ways to help teachers improve will make a great education more accessible than ever. With vaccines, drugs, and other improvements, health in poor countries will continue to get better, and people will choose to have smaller families. With better seeds, training, and access to markets, farmers in poor countries will be able to grow more food. The world will find clean ways to produce electricity at a lower cost, and more people will lift themselves out of poverty. Melinda and I see our foundation’s key role as investing in innovations that would not otherwise be funded. This draws not only on our backgrounds in technology but also on the foundation’s size and ability to take a long-term view and take large risks on new approaches." - 2010 Annual Letter from Bill Gates

Although Bill Gates might try to say that his Foundation is not linked to his business, all it proves is the opposite: most of their donations end up favoring the commercial investments of the tycoon, not really "donating" anything. Instead of paying taxes to the state coffers, he invests his profits where it is favorable to him economically, including propaganda from their supposed good intentions. On the contrary, their "donations" finance projects as destructive as geoengineering or replacement of natural community medicines for high-tech patented medicines in the poorest areas of the world. - Three Sides of the Same Figure: Blackwater, Monsanto and Gates, Pravda October 14, 2010



"If we do a really great job on new vaccines... we could lower [world population] by 10 or 15 percent." - Bill Gates

See: The World's Richest Give Billions to Remake the World in Their Image

International Baccalaureate (IB): New Global Citizens After School Program

Has the Time Finally Come to Stop Funding Our Own Insurrection?

By sonorannews.com
May 13, 2010

MEChA clubs have infiltrated college and high school campuses from coast to coast since the late ‘60s and early ‘70s, promoting anti-white racism in favor of a “bronze continent,” while teaching Latino, Chicano or Hispanic students that assimilation into American culture, language and customs is tantamount to becoming white.

We’ve piled “Raza (Race) Studies” on top of this anti-American, anti-white agenda in our public schools, which promotes overthrow of the U.S. government and resentment against American citizens of European descent as oppressors of people of color.

In March, a group from Mesa formed the East Valley Education Action Committee (EVEAC). Only two weeks into their research, they discovered “a lot of information regarding the indoctrination of our school children through the taxpayer funded International Baccalaureate (IB) school program and the New Global Citizens (NGC) after school program.”

The EVEAC notes that the IB program promotes world citizenship; views state education standards as being subservient to the worldview of IB.

The International Baccalaureate Organization (IBO) endorses the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which, through that endorsement, promotes the United Nations along with actions and treaties of the United Nations, including treaties not ratified by the United States, including: Biodiversity Treaty, Treaty on the Rights of the Child, Agenda 21, Kyoto Treaty and the Treaty establishing the United Nations International Criminal Court.

According to the EVEAC, by endorsing the UDHR, IBO promotes the United Nations as being the highest court of appeals on human rights and undermines the foundation principles of the United States.

The IBO endorses the Earth Charter, also not ratified by the United States.

The Earth Charter is identified by the World Pantheist Association as a Pantheistic (worship of nature instead of God) document. Besides Pantheism, the Earth Charter advocates the redistribution of wealth between nations and within nations, same-sex marriage, spiritual education in Pantheism, military disarmament and creation of an international agency to make the Earth Charter binding on all nations.

The New Global Citizen after-school program, which has at least 12 chapters in the Phoenix Metro Area, seeks to create global leaders, change agents and Saul Alinsky styled “locally led solutions to impact change on a global scale.”

The EVEAC says the program promotes Marxism under the banner of “economic and social justice;” transformation of students via “brainwashing;” sustainable solutions for “environmental justice;” and creation of global entitlements.

Quoting from the New Global Citizen’s pitch to the Mesa Rotary Club, EVEAC wrote:

“Last Year, New Global Citizens supported 76 teams on high school campuses in over 20 states across the U.S.A. this means that through our program over 1,000 young people took action to raise $37,000 to send to grassroots organizations around the world, educate 100,000 community members about global challenges, and launch 35 advocacy initiatives to support 33 grassroots organizations in 25 countries that are on the front lines of rectifying issues related to global poverty.”

As the Arizona legislature boldly passed SB 1070 to make it a state crime to be in the country illegally, it also passed HB 2281, prohibiting public schools from including courses or classes, which promote overthrowing the U.S. government, resentment towards a race or class of people, are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic race, and advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.

The law requires districts to be in compliance within 60 days of receiving a notice of violation and allows the Arizona Department of Education (ADE) to withhold up to 10 percent of the monthly apportionment of the district’s state aide and requires the ADE to adjust the apportionment accordingly.

It allows the Superintendent of Public Instruction to withhold monies from the date of determination of noncompliance until ADE determines the school district is in compliance.
The bill also contains a declaration of policy stating public schools should teach pupils to value each other as individuals and not foster hate toward other races and classes of people.

HB 2281 was passed with a delayed effective date of Dec. 31, 2010.

Section 4 of the 14th Amendment states:

“The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.”

However, American taxpayers have been funding their own insurrection for over four decades through indoctrination disguised as education, utilizing social engineering to promote “social justice” and excluding American history and civics from the process.

The Truth About IB
The International Baccalaureate (IB) program's primary purpose is to promote globalism and turn our children into global citizens. The Truth About IB's (TAIB) primary purpose is to celebrate what it means to be American and to preserve freedom for our children and grandchildren. TAIB represents the most comprehensive compilation of investigative research on the IB available on the Internet. The purpose of this site is to provide factual information and resources to parents and taxpayers who have unanswered questions about IB.
Exposing IBO's Financials

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)

Return to The Lamb Slain Home Page