Leatherneck Blogger

Archive for the ‘Other’ Category

San Fran Illegal Alien Murderer Used Federal Agent’s Gun

leave a comment »

By Dan Gilmore

Did the illegal alien Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez break into a Bureau of Land Management agent’s car and steal his personal handgun? Or did he find the .40 caliber wrapped in a t-shirt on the beach after loading up on sleeping pills he found discarded in a dumpster? Sanchez admits to killing Kate Steinle at San Francisco’s Pier 14 July 1. But did the gun accidentally go off three times in his hands? Or did he murder Steinle in cold blood? Whatever narrative finally crystalizes from the tales of the unreliable narrator and suspected murderer, one thing is clear: The gun-control crusade cannot blame legal gun ownership on this act of violence. Sanchez had no business with that gun in his hand. But at this point, the federal agent appears to have followed California’s gun laws. If there’s anyone the gun-control-happy California government would be okay with bearing arms, it would probably be a federal agent. No, politicians from Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump have already agreed why Kate Steinle died: San Francisco’s sanctuary city policies let an illegal alien who should have been deported roam free

Written by Leatherneck Blogger

July 17, 2015 at 05:00

Posted in Other

OUCH: Gun Rights Group Auctioning Off James Brady’s Gun To Fight Gun Control

leave a comment »


This has to sting supporters of gun control:  a .31 caliber Colt 1848 Baby Dragoon that once belonged to former White House Press Secretary and gun control supporter James Brady is being auctioned off to benefit the Second Amendment Foundation’s legal battles against the Brady Campaign and other gun control groups.

The auction of an 1849 Colt Baby Dragoon revolver that once belonged to the late James Brady will help the Second Amendment Foundation battle restrictive gun laws and educate the public about the right to keep and bear arms.

A portion of the auction proceeds will be donated to SAF by the historic handgun’s current owner, Jim Copley and GunAuction.com, said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. The revolver is a rare piece of history, reportedly the last one of these particular guns manufactured by Colt, with the serial number of 14152.

Brady was shot and permanently disabled in the attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan in March 1981. Brady’s wife, Sarah apparently turned this gun and some others in the house, to the family’s gardener. The cap-and-ball percussion revolver is a “rammerless” model that has passed through the hands of a few collectors. After the shooting, Sarah became a gun control activist and head of the anti-gun rights group named after her husband.

“We’re honored that Jim and GunAuction.com have decided to donate part of the auction proceeds of this particular revolver,” Gottlieb said. “I can promise that SAF will use every penny to advance the cause of winning firearms freedom, one lawsuit at a time.

“What makes this revolver unique is that it was the last of its line,” he continued, “and that it was once owned by a man whose name is synonymous with gun control. While the nation can sympathize with Mr. Brady’s personal injuries and challenges, gun control extremists exploited that terrible event to unfairly restrict the rights of millions of law-abiding citizens. We all admired President Reagan and his accomplishments, but John Hinckley committed that crime, and American gun owners have been penalized for more than 20 years.

“If the proceeds from the sale of this valuable antique helps overturn just one unconstitutional gun law supported by the Brady Center, then it will be worth it,” Gottlieb concluded.


Written by Leatherneck Blogger

July 14, 2015 at 05:00

Posted in Other

Tom Lehrer: New Math

leave a comment »



Written by Leatherneck Blogger

November 7, 2014 at 00:00

Posted in Other

Follow the Money: Apple Inc.

leave a comment »


Unless you’re completely off the grid, you’ve read about Apple’s most recent releases including updated iPads, their latest operating system for Macs and of course the new iPhone 6 and Apple Pay. As a result of these products that seemingly can’t stay on the shelves, Apple’s earnings, which were released on Tuesday showed a revenue of $42.1 billion.

Clearly, Apple has come a long way from the days when TIME Magazine described Apple in 1997 as “arguably one of the worst-managed companies in the industry.”  The Cupertino design team has turned out winner after winner for years. Our phones, cameras, maps, televisions, books, stereos and plane tickets are all the same object now. You can soon add another item to that ever-growing list, and anyone who is opposed to Common Core should take note, because Apple is quickly inserting itself into an area that will affect parents and students for years to come – classroom materials.

How you ask? In 2013, Apple and Common Core developer Pearson teamed up to win an implementation contract that would preload iPads with Pearson’s Common Core curriculum for Los Angeles United School District. The deal represented the bulk of a technology development plan of over $1 billion that would distribute iPads and computers to students and faculty across the LAUSD for the purpose of aligning curriculum to meet Common Core standards.

Giving kids access to technology to learn is obviously a great thing, and the potential with tools like the iPad in classrooms presents tremendous opportunity to improve learning overall.  However, with that kind of money exchanging hands in just one city, one has to wonder about the obvious conflict of interest and cronyism inherent in Apple supporting a radical transformation of American education and the implementation of technology-reliant standards in the classroom.

Consider the concept of “Challenge Based Learning”, an initiative developed by Apple to study and promote strategies that “encourages learners to leverage the technology they use in their daily lives to solve real-world problems.”  While the stated goals may be noble, a simple analysis shows a company developing a need that will be served by its very own product.

In fact, former Apple Development Executive and current CEO at The Challenge Institute, Mark Nichols wrote in 2012, “Districts and schools will be tempted to simply align existing content or purchase packages and software ‘aligned’ to the standards without fundamentally re-thinking the process. To manage the instructional change inherent in the Common Core different instructional frameworks are necessary.”

In simpler terms, the drive to implement Common Core is two-fold: change the entire concept of curriculum and develop the technology as the new medium in which that curriculum is delivered.  Nichols continued by saying, “CBL provides a concrete framework and set of resources for districts, schools and individual teachers to fundamentally ‘shift’ the way the learning community goes about the business of learning.”

We all learned E=MC2 in our classrooms.  Now there’s a new one to add to our thought process:  Apple + Pearson = National Common Core Implementation.

Knowing this, it is not a surprise to see that Apple has significant involvement with advocacy groups pushing the implementation of Common Core Standards. For example, Apple is listed as a corporate partner with the Center for American Progress, the liberal think tank with close ties to the Obama Administration that has championed Common Core as “one of the most important reforms to American public education in decades.”  Also, Apple is a Strategic Partner for the New Media Consortium which has promoted “Tablet Computing” as a tool for developing “personalized learning environments” as part of a Common Core implementation strategy.

Pushing Common Core’s implementation deserves close examination from conservatives as billions of taxpayer dollars are at stake, not to mention what, and more importantly how, our children are learning in the classroom. Obviously, Apple sees long-term revenue streams from the implementation of a new curriculum and is willing to go to bat to defend Common Core and finance the PR campaign to do so.

Chris Walker is the Executive Director of 2nd Vote, a conservative shopper app. To find out more, download the free app or visit 2ndVote.com.

Written by Leatherneck Blogger

November 6, 2014 at 00:01

Posted in Other

Your Child the Guinea Pig

leave a comment »

Written by

“We are get­ting closer to devel­op­ing effec­tive meth­ods for shap­ing the future and are advanc­ing in fun­da­men­tal social and indi­vid­ual evo­lu­tion.”

Few Amer­i­cans know about this pro­gram unless they were trained in edu­ca­tion. Even fewer know how seri­ously bad this pro­gram was. And very, very few have ever spo­ken out pub­licly and repented (or at least recanted) their indoc­tri­na­tion expe­ri­ences in this dan­ger­ous change agent train­ing. Teach­ers have been trained to become psy­cho­log­i­cal manip­u­la­tors, human­is­tic “change agents” to mod­ify children’s behavior.

Behav­ioral Sci­ence Teacher Edu­ca­tion Pro­gram (BSTEP), 1965–1969, funded by the U.S. Depart­ment of Health, Edu­ca­tion, and Wel­fare, was ini­ti­ated at Michi­gan State Uni­ver­sity. Its pur­pose was to change the teacher from a trans­mit­ter of knowledge/content to a social change agent/facilitator/clinician. Tra­di­tional pub­lic school admin­is­tra­tors were appalled at this new role for teach­ers. Long-time edu­ca­tion researcher Bet­tye Lewis pro­vided a cap­sule descrip­tion and cri­tique of BSTEP in 1984. Her com­ments and ver­ba­tim quotes from BSTEP fol­low, which is taken fromAppen­dix V in my book the delib­er­ate dumb­ing down of amer­ica. This has been adapted, and por­tions empha­sized, for blog posting.

Objec­tives of BSTEP are stated as follows:

Three major goals:

1. Devel­op­ment of a new kind of ele­men­tary school teacher who is basi­cally well edu­cated, engages in teach­ing as clin­i­cal prac­tice, is an effec­tive stu­dent of the capac­i­ties and envi­ron­men­tal char­ac­ter­is­tics of human learn­ing, and func­tions as a respon­si­ble agent of social change.

2. Sys­tem­atic use of research and clin­i­cal expe­ri­ence in decision-making processes at all levels.

3. A new lab­o­ra­tory and clin­i­cal base, from the behav­ioral sci­ences, on which to found under­grad­u­ate and in-service teacher edu­ca­tion pro­grams, and recy­cle eval­u­a­tions of teach­ing tools and performance.

…The BSTEP teacher is expected to learn from expe­ri­ence through a cycli­cal style of describ­ing, ana­lyz­ing, hypoth­e­siz­ing, pre­scrib­ing, treat­ing, and observ­ing con­se­quences (in particular—the con­se­quences of the treat­ment administered)….

The pro­gram is designed to focus the skills and knowl­edge of Behav­ioral Sci­en­tists on edu­ca­tion prob­lems, trans­lat­ing research into viable pro­grams for pre­ser­vice and in-service teach­ers. The tra­di­tional con­cept of research as the­ory is not dis­carded, but the empha­sis is shifted to a form of prac­ti­cal action-research in class­rooms and laboratory.

The human­i­ties are designed to pro­mote an under­stand­ing of human behav­ior in human­is­tic terms…. Stu­dents are to be exposed to non-western thought and val­ues in order to sen­si­tize [read “desen­si­tize,” ed.] them to their own back­grounds and inher­ent cul­tural biases.… Skills ini­ti­at­ing and direct­ing role-playing are devel­oped to increase sen­si­tiv­ity and per­cep­tion. Sim­u­la­tion games are included for train­ing in com­mu­ni­ca­tion skills as lead­ers or agents of social change. (p. 1)

Lewis’s com­ments regard­ing “Sys­tem­atic Analy­sis of Future Soci­ety,” taken from p.
237 of BSTEP:

B.F. Skinner’s behav­ioral phi­los­o­phy is quite appar­ent in this BSTEPDesign which states

Cal­cu­la­tions of the future and how to mod­ify it are no longer con­sid­ered obscure aca­d­e­mic pur­suits. Instead, they are the busi­ness of many who are con­cerned about and respon­si­ble for devis­ing var­i­ous modes of social change.

One can’t help but wonder—who gave the edu­ca­tors the “respon­si­bil­ity” or the “right” to devise modes of social change, to use teach­ers as the “change agents,” and to use the chil­dren as the guinea pigs through which soci­ety is to be changed? One real­izes the extent to which this “future soci­ety plan­ning” has already gone after read­ing through the fol­low­ing lengthy list of orga­ni­za­tions involved in this behav­ioral designing:

1. Depart­ment of Health, Edu­ca­tion, and Welfare—Exploring Pos­si­bil­i­ties of a Social State-of-the-Union
2. Amer­i­can Acad­emy of Arts and Sciences—Commission of the Year 2000
3. Amer­i­can Acad­emy of Polit­i­cal and Social Sci­ence
4. United Nations Future-Planning Oper­a­tion in Geneva, Switzer­land
5. World Future Soci­ety of Wash­ing­ton, D.C.
6. Gen­eral Elec­tric Company—Technical Man­age­ment Plan­ning Orga­ni­za­tion 7. The Air Force and Rand Cor­po­ra­tion [designer of PPBS, ed.]
8. The Hud­son Insti­tute [funded New Amer­i­can School Devel­op­ment Cor­po­ra­tion of the Hud­son Institute’s “Mod­ern Red School House” pro­posal. The Design Team was headed by for­mer Sec­re­tary of Edu­ca­tion William J. Ben­nett and includes Chester Finn, for­mer Assis­tant Sec­re­tary to Edu­ca­tion Sec­re­tary, and for­mer Gov­er­nor Lamar Alexan­der and author of Amer­ica 2000 (Pres­i­dent Clinton’s Goals 2000)]
9. Ford Foundation’s Resources for the Future and Les Futuribles—a com­bi­na­tion of future and pos­si­ble
10. Uni­ver­sity of Illi­nois, South­ern Illi­nois Uni­ver­sity, Stan­ford Uni­ver­sity, Syra­cuse Uni­ver­sity, etc.
11. IBM (Inter­na­tional Busi­ness Machines)

This sec­tion of the report con­cludes with: “We are get­ting closer to devel­op­ing
effec­tive meth­ods for shap­ing the future and are advanc­ing in fun­da­men­tal social and indi­vid­ual evo­lu­tion.”

In the sec­tion enti­tled “Futur­ism as a Social Tool and Decision-Making by an Elite” (p. 248) which Lewis quotes at length. This is a scary sec­tion. BSTEP veered far away from edu­ca­tion into full-fledged orches­trated futur­ism. Note what is high­lighted in red. Obvi­ously a behav­ior­is­tic approach to trans­form­ing soci­ety would rely on press­ing the plea­sure but­tons to con­trol the masses of people:

The com­plex­ity of the soci­ety and rapid­ity of change will require that com­pre­hen­sive long-range plan­ning become the rule, in order that care­fully devel­oped plans will be ready before changes occur.… Long-range plan­ning and imple­men­ta­tion of plans will be made by a technological-scientific elite. Polit­i­cal democ­racy, in the Amer­i­can ide­o­log­i­cal sense, will be lim­ited to broad social pol­icy; even there, issues, alter­na­tives, and means will be so com­plex that the elite will be influ­en­tial to a degree which will arouse the fear and ani­mos­ity of oth­ers. This will strain the demo­c­ra­tic fab­ric to a rip­ping point….

“A Con­trol­ling Elite”

…The Protes­tant Ethic will atro­phy as more and more enjoy var­ied leisure and guar­an­teed sus­te­nance. Work as the means and end of liv­ing will dimin­ish.… No major source of a sense of worth and dig­nity will replace the Protes­tant Ethic. Most peo­ple will tend to be hedo­nis­tic, and a dom­i­nant elite will pro­vide “bread and cir­cuses” to keep social dis­sen­sion and dis­rup­tion at a min­i­mum. A small elite will carry society’s bur­dens. The result­ing imper­sonal manip­u­la­tion of most people’s lifestyles will be soft­ened by pro­vi­sions for pleasure-seeking and guar­an­teed phys­i­cal neces­si­ties. (p. 255)

“Sys­tems Approach and Cybernetics”

…The use of the sys­tems approach to prob­lem solv­ing and of cyber­net­ics to man­age automa­tion will remold the nation. They will increase effi­ciency and deper­son­al­iza­tion.… Most of the pop­u­la­tion will seek mean­ing through other means or devote them­selves to plea­sure seek­ing. The con­trol­ling elite will engage in power plays largely with­out the involve­ment of most of the peo­ple.… The soci­ety will be a leisurely one. Peo­ple will study, play, and travel; some will be in var­i­ous stages of the drug-induced expe­ri­ences. (p. 259)

“Com­mu­ni­ca­tions Capa­bil­i­ties and Poten­tial­i­ties for Opin­ion Control”

Each indi­vid­ual will receive at birth a mul­ti­pur­pose iden­ti­fi­ca­tion which will have, among other things, exten­sive com­mu­ni­ca­tions uses. None will be out of touch with those autho­rized to reach him. Each will be able to receive instant updat­ing of ideas and infor­ma­tion on top­ics pre­vi­ously iden­ti­fied. Rou­tine jobs to be done in any set­ting can be ini­ti­ated auto­mat­i­cally by those respon­si­ble for the task; all will be in con­stant com­mu­ni­ca­tion with their employ­ers, or other con­trollers, and thus exposed to direct and sub­lim­i­nal influ­ence. Mass media trans­mis­sion will be instan­ta­neous to wher­ever peo­ple are in forms suited to their par­tic­u­lar needs and roles. Each indi­vid­ual will be sat­u­rated with ideas and infor­ma­tion. Some will be self-selected; other kinds will be imposed overtly by those who assume respon­si­bil­ity for oth­ers’ actions (for exam­ple: employ­ers); still other kinds will be imposed covertly by var­i­ous agen­cies, orga­ni­za­tions, and enter­prises. Rel­a­tively few indi­vid­u­als will be able to main­tain con­trol over their opin­ions. Most will be pawns of com­pet­ing opin­ion mold­ers. (p. 261)

Lewis com­ments further:

In order to imple­ment this train­ing and to make sure that future ele­men­tary teach­ers accept the “right atti­tudes” and “behav­ioral objec­tives,” the use of com­put­ers and thecol­lec­tion of infor­ma­tion are stressed. The “Cen­tral Proces­sor” or the com­puter pro­grammed to accept or reject on the basis of behav­ioral objec­tives, will be the “judge and the jury” as to who will and who will not be the future teach­ers. For any­one who loves indi­vid­ual free­dom, who desires it for their own chil­dren, and prays for a future Amer­ica with indi­vid­ual free­dom held sacred—BSTEP has to be a most fright­en­ing and dev­as­tat­ing plan. It is indeed the “world” of Orwell’s 1984, the Iden­tity Soci­ety, and the Walden IIof B.F. Skin­ner. In ref­er­ence to the lat­ter, it is indeed Beyond Free­dom and Dig­nity, the title of a B.F. Skin­ner book. It is a “night­mare” cre­ated by the Behav­ior­ists and Human­ists who are fast becom­ing the Major Direc­tors of Pub­lic Education.

Sug­ges­tion: After you read through this the first time in an edu­ca­tion mind­set, then re-read the entire post from the per­spec­tive of a utopian futur­ist dream that turns into an ugly total­i­tar­ian night­mare for chil­dren, teach­ers, and the rest of soci­ety.

Written by Leatherneck Blogger

October 29, 2014 at 00:01

Posted in Other

Common Core Movement is a Trojan Horse and Tied to the United Nations (UN)

leave a comment »

Arizonans Against Common Core

If you cannot see that Common Core is tied to the United Nations you have not done your homework! The major funder of the Common Core Movement is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation which has pledged $60 million dollars to this effort. Bill and Melinda Gates are tied to UN through-and-through and have spent money in America and overseas for UN programs in Africa and all over the world for decades. Wake up and smell the koolaide you have been drinking and wake up that you are being lied to! Common Core is part of the UN’s plan for complete federal control over our education systems and the “Dumbing-down” of America. Again, Wake up!

Here is your proof Arizonans and America! From the Conservative Teachers of American organization, they wrote an article entitled: “Common Core Standards and the Federalization of Education.” In this article we read: “Many are concerned that the Common Core Standards, once successfully implemented, will provide unfettered access of our educational system by the United Nations. Some textbooks and curricula for our public schools have already been written by the [United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization] UNESCO and the International Baccalaureate program, that is currently in many school districts, across the United States. Grabbing additional access is a natural next step. Once they write the curricula, they must have authority to develop all testing tools. They will decide who becomes a teacher and what preparation will be provided for that teacher. The International Baccalaureate curriculum upsets parents and teachers because the focus includes sustainable development, abortion rights, gay marriage, universal disarmament and social justice curricula.”

“The UN involvement in the American educational system has already been facilitated by treaties signed by American presidents from both parties. Those documents include but are not limited to: Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Treaty on the Rights of the Child, Civic Education: Classroom Connections, and Agenda 21.”


Craig Barrett, our so-called Arizona Education Expert, has ties to the United Nations as well. Craig Barrett is theChairman of Achieve, Chairman of the AZ Ready Education Council, and he is also a faculty member of the Thunderbird School of Global Management which is tied directly to the UN Global Compact. This information came to light due to the research of our superb Common Core Members! So what are the goals of the UN Global Compact? According to their website “overview,” “The UN Global Compact is a strategic policy initiative for businesses that are committed to aligning their operations and strategies with ten universally accepted principles in the areas of human rights, labour, environment and anti-corruption. By doing so, business, as a primary driver of globalization, can help ensure that markets, commerce, technology and finance advance in ways that benefit economies and societies everywhere.” They go on to say they are “Endorsed by chief executives, the Global Compact is a practical framework for the development, implementation, and disclosure of sustainability policies and practices, offering participants a wide spectrum of workstreams, management tools and resources- all designed to help advance sustainable business models and markets.”Sustainable policies, where have we heard that before? Oh yeah, that is the UN’s Agenda 21! UN indoctrination through-and-through!

Craig Barrett is also a former member of the United Nations Global Alliance for Information and Communication Technologies and Development (UN GAID). What is this group’s mission? The UN GAID will “launch a set of online tools aimed at providing users around the world with the resources andmeans to accelerate progress on the Millennium Development Goals at the national level by the target year 2015.” What are these Millennium Development Goals (MDG’s)? These MDG’s are all part of the UN’s Agenda 21:


  • Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger [Redistribute Wealth- Agenda 21 Principle #3];
  • Achieve universal primary education [COMMON CORE- Agenda 21 Principles #25 and #36];
  • Reduce child mortality [Agenda 21 Principle #6];
  • Promote gender equality [homosexuality] and empower women [Women’s rights at all costs- Agenda 21 Principle #24];
  • Improve maternal health [Free abortions and birth control- Obamacare- Agenda 21 Principle #6];
  • Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases [Forced Vaccinations- Agenda 21 Principle #6];
  • Ensure environmental sustainability [Agenda 21 through-and-through!]; and
  • Develop a global partnership for development.[Agenda 21 Principle #27]


Does this sound like indoctrination? YES! Do you want your children learning these UN principles? NO!!!


From UNESCO’s document “The Vision of Education Reform in the United States” it states: “My department has been pleased to partner with the US Agency for International Development to help ensure that our best domestic practices are shared world-wide. The United States provides over a billion dollars annually to partner countries working on educatonal reform. Our goal for the coming year will be to work closely with global partners, including UNESCO, to promote qualitative improvements and system strengthening….Ultimately, education is the great equalizer. It is the one force that can consistently overcome differences in background, culture, and privilege.”

The North Star guiding the alignment of our cradle-to-career education agenda is President Obama’s goal that America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world. That goal can only be achieved by creating a strong cradle-to-career continuum that starts with early childhood learning and extends all the way to college and careers.” [Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems (SLDS) and Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC)]

On K-12 education, our theory of action starts with the four assurances incorporated in last year’s economic stimulus bill, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The four assurances got their name from the requirement that each governor in the 50 states had to provide an ‘assurance’ they would pursue reforms in these four areas–in exchange for their share of funds from a Recovery Act [ARRA- 2009-2012] program designed to largely stem job loss among teachers and principals.” Funding for Common Core spelled out here by UNESCO, from Obama stimulus money, in the ARRA Act…Race-to-the-Top grants, funding of Partnership for Assessment for Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) and the Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems (SLDS). Isn’t it great Arizona that we are growing our national debt with this stimulus money that funds Common Core?? NOT!


Did you know that International Baccalaureate endorses Common Core and has stated that: “The IB is pleased to have been selected in 2011 as one of 5 sets of standards against which the Common Core was measured by education experts to determine its success in meeting its goals. The IB recognizes that the implementation of the CCSS will have a significant impact on public schools in states that adopt the new standards. The IB is committed to supporting schools with a range of services and academic tools as outlined in this statement.”

IB goes on to say in their “Meeting the expectations of the Common Core”: “IB schools and students are well positioned to incorporate the principles of the CCSS into existing IB frameworks. The IB is committed to supporting schools with implementation of the new standards. The framework for delivery of all IB programs, the teaching practices, and the added curricular content of the DP courses provide a proven model for schools in meeting CCSS standards. IB assessment practices provide a model for varied, authentic, relevant tasks that measure student success against cognitive skills learned. The IB supports teachers by providing (required) professional development courses which expand teacher’s knowledge and skill in leading students to success. IB standards and practices for schools, teachers and administrators create an entire pedagogical framework to maximize student learning and growth. Many- if not all- CCSS standards are in practice in authorized IB schools.

WOW!! IB will help Common Core with their Curriculum changes….no thank you!


In the United Nations Agenda 21 (Guide for the 21st Century), Chapters #25 and #36 specifically talk about education of our children:

Principle #25- “Children and Youth in Sustainable Development.” In the “Activites 25.9.d” it states: “Ensure access for all youth to all types of education, wherever appropriate, providing alternative learning structures, ensure that education reflects the economic and social needs of youth and incorporates the concepts of environmental training, implementing innovative methods aimed at increasing practical skills, such as environmental scouting.”

Principle #36- “Promoting Education, Public Awareness and Training.” In the Activities Section of this document in “36.5.g” we read: “Within two years the United Nations system should undertake a comprehensive review of its educational programmes, encompassing training and public awareness, to reassess priorites and reallocae resources. The UNESCO/UNEP International Environmental Education Programme should, in cooperation with the appropriate bodies of the United Nations system, Governments, non-governmental organizations and others, establish a porgramme within two years to integrate the decisions of the Conference into the existing United Nations framework adapted to the need of the educators at different levels and circumstances.Regional organizations and national authorities should be encouraged to elaborate similar parallel programmes and opportunies by conducting an analysis of how to mobilize different sectors of the population in order to assess and address their environmental and development education needs.”

In the Activities Section of this document in “36.5 h” we read: “There is a need to strengthen, within five years, information exchange by enhancing technologies and capacities necessary to promote environment and development education and public awareness. Countries should cooperate with each other and with the various social sectors and population groups to prepare educational tools that include regional environment and development issues and initiatives, using learning materials and resources suited to their own requirements.” Sounds just like PARCC and SLDS. ASU’s Institute for Global Sustainability and their “Sustainable Cities Network” is doing a fine job “brain-washing” our students in our high schools on sustainability, global warming (aka climate change), etc. Go here to meet the ASU sustainability schools!


The new Common Core Science Standards that are up for review teach Global Warming (aka Climate Change)! Here isResearch and Commentary on the Common Core Science Standards” from The Heartland Institute.

The United Nations’ Association of Southern Arizona (Tuscon), A Chapter of the UN, is already teaching “Climate Change” Curriculum.

Written by Leatherneck Blogger

October 27, 2014 at 00:01

Posted in Other

Fuzzy math on steriods

leave a comment »

Here is a Common Core 1st grade math question from Pearson Education. You tell me how well Common Core is working. Remember brain research says that abstract thinking does not begin until age 12. What is a 6 year old going to do with this?

Written by Leatherneck Blogger

June 4, 2014 at 17:51

Posted in Other

Problems with Brickman & Petrilli’s Analysis of Common Core as an Election Issue

leave a comment »


Michael Brickman and Michael Petrilli of the Fordham Institute wrote an article at Townhall.com asserting that those who advocate for the Common Core have an advantage over those who oppose the Common Core in Republican primaries.

There are some problems with this article.  First it is poorly sourced.  Go figure.  We *never* expect that from Common Core advocates.

Second,  it is a logical fallacy to state that incumbents won re-election based on their advocacy for the Common Core while at the same time stating that Common Core opponents in Indiana who knocked off incumbents didn’t do so on their Common Core opposition alone.  They need to be consistent.  When I addressed the Indiana races I did recognize that it wasn’t the only issue.  I certainly didn’t deny that social issues were at play.  At least I provided an honest analysis; we can’t say the same about Brickman and Petrilli.

Third, they made some false statements regarding the Ohio Republican primary.

Heidi Huber from Ohioans Against Common Core shared with me in an email:

The Ohio Citizens PAC candidate losses are a broad brush being used to marginalize the role that Common Core played in our primary. It is also important to point out the blatant error that Kelly Kohls was an Ohioans Against Common Core candidate. We are not a PAC, thus we are prohibited from endorsing candidates. Nor did OACC distribute campaign materials on her behalf. We put our focus and resources to a viable and critical challenge to incumbent Stautberg, based on the principle that his support of Common Core violated basic Party tenet. Nonetheless, he was heavily protected and funded by the Ohio Republican Party. We beat the ORP hacks the old fashioned way, knocking on every door of primary super-voters in the district, precinct by precinct, distributing anti-Common Core literature. The materials included a handout with the RNC Resolution rejecting Common Core contrasted alongside Stautberg’s Candidacy Petition, where he declares he will support and abide by the Party platform. The tipping point was the use of non-traditional candidate signs. We placed hundreds of “GO Brinkman – STOP Common Core” signs throughout the district. That stuck with voters and we enjoyed a decisive win. It was the first time in 18 years that a Republican incumbent has been defeated in a primary. Four other OH House Republican candidates, running to replace termed out members, took their District with a heavy focus and commitment to repealing Common Core.

The Ohio Senate President, Keith Faber, addressed a pre-primary poll that showed Common Core was the number one issue with Republican voters, 65% desiring repeal. He warned his caucus to be careful to message an “I’m for local control” stance or it may costs them their election. Governor Kasich joined the choir the day before the primary, stating on WTAM 1100 radio that Common Core was “written by local school districts”.

The real story is that “we” were not OACC grassroots, but rather Hamilton County Republican Central Committee members. We supported the Republican candidate who stood true to Party principle and we succeeded in a quintessential “truth to power” victory. The Jeb Bush crowd can’t afford for that detail to get out. Hamilton County is known as “the county, in the state” and we affect national election outcomes. Did someone say, 2016?

Fourth there was at least one Congressional primary where Common Core was an issue, and the Common Core opponent won.  Why did they neglect to mention that?

Fifth, Brickman and Petrilli only list incumbents who won primary challenges.  They don’t seem to understand how hard it is to knock off incumbents who typically have better organization, more funding, party backing, earned media attention, etc.  This makes sense since they are educrats and not political/grassroots activists.  So perhaps they should stick to what is in their wheelhouse.  It takes more than being opposed to the Common Core to win a primary election.  Common Core opponents need to field quality candidates in order to beat incumbents and primary voters rarely are one-issue voters.

Sixth, there are plenty of states that haven’t had their primary yet so we’ll likely see some Common Core opponents win while others won’t and those wins and losses won’t entirely hinge on one issue.

Update: Karen Effrem pointed out to me two more instances where Common Core opposition has traction in Republican primary races in Florida.

2nd Update: Jane Robbins, a senior fellow with American Principles in Action who lives in Georgia, emailed me this afternoon the following observation about the Georgia races that Brickman and Petrilli mention:

In Georgia, the primary outcomes said little or nothing about Common Core. In the first place, dislodging an incumbent here is practically impossible. Beyond that, Common Core wasn’t a big issue in the governor’s race since the challenger, who had no money vs. Nathan Deal’s millions, didn’t emphasize it as he should – he ran almost exclusively on economic issues. Of course, the words “Common Core” never passed Deal’s lips. Re the primary to unseat House Education Committee Chairman Brooks Coleman, Petrilli is correct that Coleman has been a staunch supporter of Common Core. But, Coleman spent his entire well-funded campaign denying that he ever supported CC and accusing his opponent of lying when he said otherwise. Even so, the percentage of votes he got this year dropped to 56% — compared with 70.4% in 2012. http://ballotpedia.org/Brooks_Coleman,_Jr..

Written by Leatherneck Blogger

May 28, 2014 at 16:32

Posted in Other

Missouri Passes Bill To Reclaim State Control of Education Standards

leave a comment »


JEFFERSON CITY, MO – With strong support in both the House and Senate, the Missouri legislature passed HB1490 on Thursday May 15th. The main purpose of the bill is to define a system wherein state education experts will evaluate and recommend state K-12 education standards. HB1490 passed the House 131:12 and the Senate 23:6. While not going nearly as far in returning local control of education as members of the Missouri Coalition Against Common Core had hoped, the bill is a good first step towards reclaiming state sovereignty over education.

The bill now rests on the Governor’s desk. Now is the time to let him know your support for this legislation. Polite contact will help push it over the finish line.

Governor Nixon can be reached a number of ways.

Phone (573) 751-3222
Email Form
Twitter – @GovJayNixon

Written by Leatherneck Blogger

May 19, 2014 at 18:29

Posted in Other

NEA Dues Increase to Rescue Common Core

leave a comment »


The three-dollar per year dues increase approved by delegates at the Atlanta National Education Association (NEA) convention in July of 2013 went directly to a “special fund” called “Great Public Schools.” NEA leadership allocated the extra three dollars per member to certain union affiliates for reasons and in amounts they determined. Delegates added the caveat that union leaders must inform them as to how this money was spent.

Mike Antonucci of the Education Intelligence Agency writes that “the ultimate authority to release the funds rested in the hands of two men”: NEA president Dennis Van Roekel and NEA executive director John Stocks. It turns out that of the thirteen Great Public Schools grants awarded, nine will be used to “ease the implementation of Common Core Standards.” (EIAonline.com, 1-27-14)

The union is experiencing a love/hate relationship with Common Core. On the one hand, union leadership resists breaking with the Democrat establishment to which they contribute heavily and from which they receive heartily. But many teachers are displeased with the top-down Common Core standards, which were thrust upon them without their input. The union has been forced to speak out against Common Core. There was rank-and-file animosity toward Arne Duncan and Common Core at the NEA Convention; it is doubtful that convention delegates would have passed the dues increase had they known it would eventually be used to shore up Common Core. Even the NEA president has had to admit that Common Core is “botched.” (See Education Reporter March 2014)

It is unfortunate that the NEA union teachers’ dues increase dedicated to the Great Public Schools fund actually contributed to the mediocre public school education that Common Core is offering to students.

Written by Leatherneck Blogger

May 16, 2014 at 21:45

Posted in Other

%d bloggers like this: