During the dwindling days of his presidency in 1992, GHW Bush not only sold America down the tube by signing Agenda 21, he also participated in selling out our education system.
In August, 1992, Lamar Alexander, U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) Secretary, participated in the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Education Ministerial Meeting. The theme of this cooperation in education was defining "Education Standards for the Twenty-First Century." Identified as common interests were "economic growth and cooperation, development of new technologies in the service of human well-being, protection of the environment, mutual understanding, and promotion of world peace." Internationalization of the world economy was used to justify this change in our education system using examples of common student needs such as developing a strong skills foundation in literacy and numeracy; learning to reason and solve problems; developing an international perspective and understanding, and appreciation, of other cultures; familiarization with technologies that can make human interaction with nature and knowledge more fruitful; and learning to work cooperatively with others.
Beginning on page 5 of this document, Mr. Alexander trashes the school system in the United States, lauding education systems in other countries, and making a bold statement about his impression of our culture, "In the 1950s in this country there used to be a television show called "Ozzie and Harriet," which was the idealized American family mom, dad, and two children named Ricky and David. This is not the Ozzie and Harriet generation anymore in the United States, and our schools should be structured differently." "In the United States, our schools are structured for a different era they're stuck in a time warp." Did he not realize that authority over schools is granted at a local level through school boards?
Perhaps the agenda to nationalize our education system was cleverly disguised as this, "So when we use the word "national" in terms of education, it means coming to some consensus or setting a direction. It means working to gain agreement of states and local governments. We don't give orders from Washington, D.C. about what the national curriculum ought to be." Oh, yes sir, this was the beginning of nationalizing and taking over our education system.
The strategy to decentralize education was outlined by Mr. Alexander, "...first, adopt the National Education Goals; second, develop their own strategy for reaching them; third, issue a report card on that progress; and fourth, think about creating at least one break-the-mold New American School, a school that would address the way children are growing up today."
Responding to a question, Mr. Alexander stated the push for nationalizing our education system was coming from the business community and educators such as the National Council for Teachers of Mathematics. In violation of our Constitution, Mr. Alexander stated standards would be established through "national consensus", not legislation.
Mr. Alexander is now a U.S. Senator from Tennessee. Given he doesn't see legislation as being necessary to execute his agendas, it is rather frightening he is a Senator.
It is unclear if the USDOE continues to participate in APEC, the links on their website don't work and they were not present in the 2017 meeting.
It's here, it is documented that the federal government laid plans to take over and nationalize the education system. What more do our legislators need to have in order to throw Common Core out and re-establish our local school boards and parents as the authority in our schools? Students were better educated during the Ozzie & Harriet days than now, seems like we should go back to those "time warp" days.
Denials come from all over the place that Common Core does not nationalize public education. In reality, the federal government takeover of education began way back in 1989 by Governors who "called for the establishment of clear national performance goals". Six goals were identified "with brief guidelines for the changing and restructuring of the U.S. educational system".
(1) All children in America will start school ready to learn; (2) the high school graduation rate will increase to at least 90 percent; (3) American students will leave grades 4, 8, and 12 having demonstrated competency in challenging subject matter including English, mathematics, science, history, and geography; they will also have learned to use their minds well, so they may be prepared for responsible citizenship, further learning, and productive employment in our modern economy; (4) students will be first in the world in science and mathematics achievement; (5) every adult American will be literate and will possess the knowledge and skills necessary to compete in a global economy and to exercise the rights and responsibilities of citizenship; and (6) every school in America will be free of drugs and violence and will offer a disciplined environment conducive to learning.
Thus began the transformation of our educational system to the mess it is today.
This West Is Our West is a website that provides information on relevant issues not only in western states but on issues that affect all of us. Two recent articles have pertinent information related to conservation easements and our broken education system.
The first article, Save the Cowboy, STOP American Prairie Reserve, gives a first hand account on conservation easements and how they devastate and kill communities. The American Prairie Reserve is an agenda by non-governmental organizations to take land for a bunch of animals, and the Bureau of Land Management is helping them do it. The the true purpose is taking as much land as possible away from Montanans.
The second article, Rescuing Our Children, is a video by Alex Newman that details how the United Nations has been behind the assault on our education system.
Reprinted with permission from This West Is Our West.
For several years there has been much emphasis for a Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) education foisted upon our youth. The question arose, why so much emphasis in these educational areas, especially at the expense of other important, and needed, educational subjects? Although any industry could be used as an example for why a STEM education is promoted, agriculture is a pretty easy case study that explains STEM.
The agricultural industry, including your local farmers, provides food production not only for local needs, but often for regional and perhaps in some cases, global needs. Who doesn't need food? As populations increased, food production became more sophisticated in meeting those increased food needs. Advances in plant health, machinery, and harvesting have kept us well fed. Over time, irrigation methods have also changed to water crops in a more efficient manner. With STEM, a whole new ominous plan is now progressing for crop production.
According to some, the most efficient watering method for crops is drip irrigation. A machine delivers water right on top of or at the plant root at scheduled times, supplying the required amount of water, nutrients, and fertilizer needed for healthy growth while reducing water run off and evaporation. The larger the crop, the larger and more complicated the machine.
There are some drawbacks to drip irrigation including cost, as high as $10k for 1 acre, maintenance requirements, plus the potential for clogging, damage from environmental factors, and restricted water distribution.
According to the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), the average Idaho farm is 486 acres. At $10k per acre, that means an average Idaho farmer would need to fork over 4 million dollars to install a drip irrigation system. Or, according to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), a drip irrigation system requiring pumps can be installed for as little as $1800 to $2500 an acre with additional costs to operate and manage it. For the Idaho farmer the cost is now down from $875k to a little over $ 1 million.
Using drip irrigation as just one example, STEM education fields are necessary for its operation.
No longer can we rely on a farmer, whose experience goes back multiple generations, who understands the land in ways that are not taught in a book, we must now have college educated science experts leading the way on plant management, even though those experts may have never worked a piece of land in their lives. Agribusiness Companies, sometimes called Corporate Farming, require different types of science "experts", or technocrats, determining nutrient and fertilizer amounts needed in drip irrigation for crop production as an example. Thus, agriculture is just one type of science emphasized in STEM. This could imply that current and past generations of farmers have never understood any of this science, even though they have been exemplary in feeding us for decades without a science degree. Workers educated in computer science are also needed, who else will manage all those fancy machine programs?
Watering crops includes drip irrigation systems and other types of technology, such as sensors and other devices, expanding the need for STEM educated workers in engineering and computer sciences. Agricultural technology is for the sole purpose of conserving natural resources, especially water, and boosting production, thus feeding the global population which is anticipated to explode in the next few decades, at least according to some folks. This cost of technology may be enough to end the survival of small farms. Not only is the technology expensive, there is the long term cost of hiring those technocrats to operate it.
Mechanical, civil, electrical, and chemical engineers can be used in agriculture. Different engineers are needed to design machinery, manage land and water use, conserve and store food, consider atmospheric science (no more Farmer's Almanac), manage soil, plant and harvest crops, manage waste, design experiments...these are just a few tasks requiring engineers in agriculture.
As for math, "...the increasing complexity of agricultural technology makes it mandatory that workers"... have the necessary math skills. These math skills may include include land locations, conversion, weights and other types of measurements, yield estimates, calculation of growing days, costs, chemical or nutrient calculations, and certainly calculating water use in the most efficient method possible. There is also more sophisticated agricultural economics, know as agronomics, which focuses on the increase in food production and distribution. How did farmers accomplish the same without that math degree?
In agriculture, the farmer is being forced to move to scientific production through the use of advanced science and technology, sophisticated engineering, and calculated methods on food production, all requiring more workers educated in STEM fields. All fields are needed to just manage a drip irrigation system which might be cost prohibitive for the farmer.
According to the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), farming is now called "sustainable" agriculture for raising farm income, promoting environmentalism, increasing the quality of life, and increasing food production. It is also their desire to "improve the quality of surface water and groundwater resources". "Sustainable agriculture" actually came from the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), a United Nations (UN) non-governmental organization (NGO). Promoting and implementing UN goals are NGO obligations, in this case sustainable development (SD), which is also known as Agenda 21.
Agenda 21, Chapter 14, is devoted to agriculture. The goal is transforming agricultural practices to reduce waste and conserve resources. As UN organizational partners, the United Nations Environmental Program and Food & Agriculture Organization (FAO), focus on an "Activity Cluster" by “Creating the enabling conditions for uptake of sustainable production practices at the national level and through the building of partnerships”. The Agri-Food Task Force was created in 2010 with specific goals to overtake agricultural practices by 2022, of course with participation by our federal government. As part of the President's Council on Sustainable Development, the US Department of Agriculture has been implementing Agenda 21 since 1993, and is now implementing the UN Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG).
Returning to irrigation, the goal is to squeeze out and utilize every drop of water in a sustainable manner and scientifically manage plant growth. Through its partnership with UNEP to implement Agenda 2030 SDG, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will mandate regulatory actions, forcing farmers out of business. Regulations such as requiring clean water prior to application on crops, pest and dust management, even regulating livestock, all for sustainable agriculture in line with the UN. Scientists support this as well by creating technology such as water recovery machines which add nutrients back into used water, requiring STEM educated workers. Idaho might be a particular target for requirements to change to other technologies because of its agricultural water use. The UN promotes drip irrigation, their business partner, Yamaha, even creating the technology for it.
With the expense for technology, ballooning requirement for scientific expertise, regulations, and brainwashing on the UN sustainable agriculture concept, farmers are finding it increasingly difficult to survive. Sustainable agriculture and food security are UN fallacies based on overpopulation and man-made climate change myths. The true goal is corporatism, forcing the death of farming for agri-corporations which have the finances to move in and take over our food production and supply. Monsanto, Noble, Mosaic, Nestle, DuPont, and General Mills are just a few agricultural corporations that join hands with the UN, often merging to advance their monopolies and push the local farmer out. These monopolies also lead to significant power, influence, and control over our food supply. Corporations have the financial resources to move food production towards the STEM principles and meet regulatory demands, along with bank investments in water, such as Citigroup, Goldman Sachs (14)(17), JP Morgan, and Morgan Stanley. The World Bank thinks investment in water is great.
The UN uses climate change as justification for SD, and technocracy, the control of governments and society by science experts, to implement it. "Best practices and evidence based" are terms that insinuate only science holds the answers. As farms are destroyed by the inability to afford regulatory and technological demands imposed by our government in partnership with the UN, UN business partners are ready to take over, implementing SD practices for the UN. The UN is the primary force behind a STEM education to meet those corporate workforce needs, even providing resources for STEM and using it for social change. It is through the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) partnership with the UN that SD was integrated into education, which now includes STEM. The United Nations Educational and Scientific Organization (UNESCO) even has learning objectives for teaching SDGs. As stated in this video, the Western Governor's Association, of which Governor Otter is a member, is in support of "...aligning education and training with industry needs...". This is exactly the purpose of STEM which is part of the UN objectives for corporatism. Pick your industry, the same STEM rubbish is being integrated into those as well.
The trajectory has been the UN, in partnership with our government and corporations, leading us to a STEM education emphasis, which in turn will be used to oust our local farmers, with our food supply eventually being fully controlled by corporations, most of whom partner with the UN. Sound crazy? Well, others have written about it. There is also the question of whether an actual shortage of engineers and scientists exist. Starting on page 26 of this 2017 Congressional Research Service report, it summarizes why a true shortage may not exist. With the UN driving the agenda these facts are hidden. Meanwhile, Idaho children are being surrendered to this deceit, denied the right to an education that provides truth and balance in all subjects for a strong foundation, and robs them of self determination.
It would behoove the Idaho Legislature, Board of Education, and State Board of Education to give serious thought to really understanding the deceitful background behind STEM, and the direction they are taking Idaho children. The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) are loaded with SD ideology. References to climate change in the NGSS have been removed by the Idaho House, it is now up to the Senate to support the House in that decision. Incorporating climate change back into the standards is just advancing UN ideology and objectives. In fact, it would be impressive if our legislature would eliminate NGSS along with Common Core altogether, have Idahoans create its own standards and curriculum, and focus on teaching students the truth while giving them the freedom to make decisions about their future, rather than it being determined for them.
Sustainability. What is sustainability? According to Dictionary.com it is a noun with two definitions:
1. The ability to be sustained, supported, upheld, or confirmed.
2. Environmental Science. the quality of not being harmful to the environment or depleting natural resources, and thereby supporting long-term ecological balance:
Sustainability concepts have been integrated into Idaho university and college programs, and campus living. Below are just a few, University of Idaho (UI), Boise State University (BSU), Idaho State University (ISU), and College of Southern Idaho (CSI).
Starting with UI, they offer an online course on the Principles of Sustainability. Subjects of sustainability include the history, standards, waste, environment, industrial, energy, water, and even measuring sustainability. In their 2011-2015 Strategic Plan Goal 4, Objective C, is to "Be a community committed to productivity, sustainability, and innovation." And last of all, to encourage participation by all students they have a Sustainability Center where students are encouraged to reorganize "our life support systems; climate, energy, biodiversity, food, consumerism and consumption, waste, transportation and built environment" and "that reduce our environmental footprint and increase participation and collaboration...in addressing sustainability-related issues." In 2013 grants were used to encourage "students to limit vehicle transportation and invest in biking, walking and other sustainable forms of transportation." Hmm, reminiscent of United Nations of Idaho cities.
BSU also has a campus sustainability program with a nice short video that summarizes it. At the bottom of the page you can find the different programs that imbed sustainability concepts. If you read the United Nations of Idaho Cities take note of their community and regional planning program.
In this draft document ISU defines sustainability as "...development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." They also have two specific
programs devoted to sustainability, sustainable agriculture and sustainable energy.
In their strategic plan 2012-2016 CSI promotes environmental sustainability on page 10 and even a strategic initiative for global citizenship on page 9. And there is that vision word again on page 3.
Now you are probably sitting there thinking, what is wrong with this? What is wrong with teaching students to take care of their world and how to live more sustainably? For young adults with such impressionable minds it does make a difference. A major difference.
The United Nations (UN) has invested much effort, time, and malfeasance getting their global education agenda, otherwise known as indoctrination, into our education system using their buddy foundations and business partners to force it on to us. Idaho is no exception to this malfeasance.
In 2012 the UN created the Higher Education Sustainability Initiative which outlines their commitment to have higher education teach sustainability concepts and create green campuses. Under "Where the commitment will be implemented", the United States of America is listed. Let's see, going back to just BSU and ISU those concepts are being taught, and BSU announced its intention to go "green". The PDF file at the bottom of that link is the document used for that commitment.
Now it just so happens, the United States Department of Education (USDE) partnered with the UN and agreed to include sustainable development in education. At one time there was a website that showed this partnership and agreement but the USDE has since removed it. Instead, they changed the website to the US Partnership for Education for Sustainable Development. Under "Collaborators" the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and Regional Office for North America (RONA) are listed along with several other UN certified non-governmental organizations (NGO).
But, in this draft speech to be delivered on November 10, 2014, the cat slipped out of the bag. In that speech for the United Nations Educational and Scientific Organization (UNESCO), Maureen McLaughlin, Senior Advisor to the Secretary and Director of International Affairs, USDE, she states, "...I am pleased to represent the United States and highlight our achievements and future strategies to advance education for sustainable development(ESD)." On page 5 she outlines federal government agencies that promote ESD. The now defunct website link showing the UNESCO partnership with the US is on page 6. She proudly announces on page 3, "The U.S. government supports the NGO commitments made under UNESCO’s Global Action Program (GAP)...". The USDE further explains the importance of UNESCO here and have set up an agency, United States Mission to UNESCO, where you can read more.
The UN has several other initiatives to push a global education. Global Education First (GEF) partners with the Global Business Coalition for Education (GBCE), of which Hewlett Packard (HP) is a member. One GEF priority is global citizenship, which HP promotes also. Education for All (EFI) has six goals.
There are some educational "themes" the UN promotes including some that are eerily similar to Common Core such as life long learning, skills for life, and already covered ESD. UNESCO has a "Roadmap for Implementing the Global Action Programme on Education for Sustainable Development". Page 5 outlines the integration of sustainable development through education systems. If you want a more in depth picture this UN document, from The Future We Want, will fill you in.
According to the UN, "Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." Interesting how that matches the draft ISU document. Chapter 14 in Agenda 21, starting on page 125, 14.1-14.24 covers their notion of sustainable agriculture, and Chapter 2, page 4 outlines the invasive methods the UN recommends on promoting sustainable development.
As an extra measure to indoctrinate, one of the largest textbook publishers, Pearson, is a UN business partner having books on sustainability just for higher education. Pearson is also a member of the UN Global Compact. As a UN business partner they are expected to commit to promoting UN ideology.
Bottom line, the UN has a global agenda to reform education, what is taught, and the federal government is implementing it in Idaho schools. Sustainability, also known as sustainable development, is just one grain of sand in the beach of UN ideology being taught to our young. Page 320 in Agenda 21, Chapter 36.2(a) outlines the reorientation of education towards sustainable development. Common Core is the K-12 version of what is happening in higher education, UN ideology on steroids.
Remember the terms sustainable or sustainable development. They represent the UN and are the umbrella language of their agenda.
Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted. Vladimir Lenin
He alone, who owns the youth, gains the future. Adolf Hitler
Welcome to the United Nations of Idaho Education.
Attempting to summarize how our education system is being used to collect and use data on American children, sharing it with the UN, non-profits, and corporations, is no easy task. In essence, data is gathered through school districts and the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) assessments (testing), then shared with the state, who in turn shares it with the federal government. Idaho also shares this data with outside organizations and with the regional data base WICHE. This is being accomplished through computer systems that have now been connected to each other. It is a long read but following are the details and links to the information.
For opponents of Common Core (CC) the data collection and mining are serious concerns. There are now over 400 data points collected on each child. Data systems are being developed for collecting, storing, analyzing, and sharing data at not only the state level but with other organizations. In Idaho the system is called the State Longitudinal Data System (SLDS), a National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) program. The intent is to track your child K-12, through college, and to their eventual job. Another CC goal is using education for workforce development, meeting the needs of corporations. Idaho even applied for a grant with the Idaho Department of Labor to include incorporating workforce outcomes into SLDS, including giving them confidential student information, pg 3.
On March 29, 2012 the following was announced by the White House:
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION UNVEILS “BIG DATA” INITIATIVE:ANNOUNCES $200MILLION IN NEW R&D INVESTMENTS
The most noteworthy paragraph is on page 2 under the National Science Foundation (NSF) heading. The NSF is implementing a comprehensive, long-term strategy that includes new methods to derive knowledge from data; infrastructure to manage, curate, and serve data to communities; and new approaches to education and workforce development. Idaho is a partner with NSF. One major purpose of CC is to use data to create a workforce for corporations, corporate fascism. Part of this money is to be used for:
The UN has already experimented with Interoperability Frameworks (IF). In this report from 2005, on page 43, it defines these frameworks:
"The Interoperability Framework aims to define the set of specifications to facilitate Government systems to communicate and inter-operate with other systems, both within Government and external to it, efficiently and effectively." The report goes on to describe case studies the UN conducted in other countries.
Simply put, computer systems are linked together for a global system of sharing education information with data in the same format and a server interface allowing computers to pull data on demand from multiple locations. These computers need to "speak" the same language in order to communicate with each other, to use the same data elements. All states who are developing data systems have been at different stages of implementation so now a baseline set of elements in each state has been reached and the interfaces can link up at the regional level which will then link up at the national and global level. BHO gave your tax dollar to make this happen.
So, the money has been put in to develop the infrastructure. How is Idaho linking up with an IF? The Common Education Data Standards (CEDS) makes it possible to share education data elements, information on your child, with everyone. Here are the data elements they gather. For a closer look at what those elements mean the CEDS 4.0 Data Model Guide describes what information is gathered starting on page 60. The Assessment Interoperability Framework (AIF) takes data from the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) testing in which Idaho participates as part of Common Core. The AIF document explains what information is collected and shared through the framework. Personal student information & demographics, response data, abuse or suicide alert data, consortia sharing, BI reporting (pg 33-34 AIF document), and analytic engines are used to refer students and evaluate teacher effectiveness (pg 47). Page 49 identifies how curriculum is monitored, that is, how well your child has been indoctrinated on UN ideology, and page 52 lists psychometric analysis of responses. The main reason for the SBAC is to determine if your child has been properly indoctrinated, and if not, the curriculum can be modified to ensure there has been a change in that belief system. This video by Dr. Peg Luksik provides the best explanation. SBAC testing is not being used to determine if a child meets the standards, it is used to gather personal information on that student, whether or not they are meeting a belief system, and what skill they possess to meet a workforce need.
As a side note, the Idaho State Board of Education (ISBOE) agreed to submit data to CEDS (pg 6), and with an agreement between the Idaho Department of Labor and Idaho Department of Transportation (pg 10) your child's SSN is now available to help determine workforce outcomes. See how those computers can talk to each other for spreading data?
In Idaho the school district shares the SLD fileset with the state who in turn shares it with SchoolNet, a program of UN buddy Pearson. The information shared includes student demographics, attendance, and discipline tracking. How about that. Idaho has a direct line with the UN. But if Pearson can't get it from Idaho, they can also retrieve it from NCES, as they are partners.
Now that we can see what data is collected, analyzed, and transmitted, how else is it shared? In an attempt to make this entangled system understandable only two out of multiple areas of data sharing are noted.
States have adopted one of two tests that are aligned with common core. One is the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) test and the other Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Career (PARCC). These tests are to determine if the student is advancing in their progress with common core "standards". The reality is these tests are to determine whether or not the student has been properly indoctrinated.
Using the SBAC as an example let's take a look at just exactly what those questions really ask.
Here is a site where you can look at sample questions.
These are just a few examples. The testing is nothing more than to determine if the student is making the appropriate change in their belief system.
Here is a list of Common Core facts Sandra Stotsky compiled for the Pioneer Institute Center for School Reform. She was on the common core validation committee as the ELA expert. A short biography is at the end of page 2.
If you have any doubt about Agenda 21's intent to globalize you may be interested to know that the United States Department of Education entered into a memorandum of understanding with Russia for that very purpose.
This article by the Independent Sentinel provides more specifics. Be sure to note the objective similarities to Common Core.
And here is the G8 summary.
If there has been any doubt about Common Core coming out of the United Nations or that it is an attempt to globalize education here is an interesting article by the Huffington Post that clearly outlines the objective and who are the active participants. Common Core is not a state led initiative, it is being led out of the United Nations.
This website is non-partisan and is solely dedicated to removing the harmful controls placed on our state and nation through Agenda 21 and its associated programs. We invite all Idahoans to join us in this fight for freedom!