Common Core in Massachusetts...and in your state too! Wake up parents! Wake up! Wake up America!

This is a must see video... ↓

 

↓The right answer is absolutely subordinate!↓

"There's no such thing as the Gettysburg Address." ...and other astounding news!

The following from: National Review

New War Over High School U.S. History

By Stanley Kurtz

"Texans need to wake up ..."

Americans are only just now waking up to a quiet but devastatingly effective effort to replace the teaching of traditional American history in our high schools with a new, centrally-controlled, and sharply left-leaning curriculum.

The College Board, the company that issues the SAT and the various Advanced Placement (AP) exams, has created an elaborate new framework for the AP U.S. History Exam that will effectively force nearly all American high schools, public and private, to transform the way they teach U.S. History.

The traditional emphasis on America’s founders and the principles of constitutional government will soon be jettisoned in favor of a left-leaning emphasis on race, gender, class, ethnicity, etc.

There are serious questions about the legality of the new AP U.S. History Exam, insofar as it may conflict with existing history standards in a number of states. These questions, however, as well as public debate over this massive and tremendously controversial change, have been largely suppressed by the stealthy way in which the College Board has rolled out the new test.

The new AP U.S. History Exam has been issued under the authority of David Coleman, president of the College Board and, not coincidentally, architect of the Common Core. We are witnessing a coordinated, two-pronged effort to effectively federalize all of American K-12 education, while shifting its content sharply to the left.

While the College Board has publicly released a lengthy “framework” for the new AP U.S. History Exam, that framework contains only a few sample questions. Sources tell me, however, that a complete sample exam has be released, although only to certified AP U.S. History teachers. Those teachers have been warned, under penalty of law and the stripping of their AP teaching privileges, not to disclose the content of the new sample AP U.S. History Exam to anyone.

This is clearly an effort to silence public debate over these heavily politicized and illegitimately nationalized standards. If the complete sample test was available, the political nature of the new test would become evident. Public scrutiny of the sample test would also expose potential conflicts between the new exam and existing state standards. This is why the College Board has kept the test secret and threatened officially certified AP U.S. History teachers with severe penalties for revealing the test.

The College Board claims that its highly directive new framework for AP U.S. History is actually adaptable to the preferences of particular states, school districts, and teachers. This is deeply misleading. It is true that the new history framework allows teachers to include examples of their choice. Yet the framework also insists that the examples must be used to illustrate the themes and concepts behind the official College Board vision.

The upshot is that James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and the other founders are largely left out of the new test, unless they are presented as examples of conflict and identity by class, gender, race, ethnicity, etc. The Constitution can be studied as an example of the Colonists’ belief in the superiority of their own culture, for instance. But any teacher who presents a full unit on the principles of the American Constitution taught in the traditional way would be severely disadvantaging his students. So while allowing some minor flexibility on details, the new AP U.S. History framework effectively forces teachers to train their students in a leftist, blame-America-first reading of history, while omitting traditional treatments of our founding principles.

Texas is at the forefront of the resistance to the new AP U.S. History Exam, but the battle is not going well. Ken Mercer, a member of the Texas School Board, is attempting to introduce a resolution rebuking and rejecting the new AP U.S. History Exam. Unfortunately, he is now being told that he must wait to introduce the resolution until September, when it will be too late.

Texas makes up about 10 percent of the College Board’s market. Were Texas to reject the new AP U.S. History Exam, the entire project could be put into doubt. It is imperative that Ken Mercer be allowed to introduce his resolution.

Texans need to wake up and demand that Mercer’s resolution be introduced and passed as soon as possible. The rest of the country needs to wake up and demand similar action in every state.

The public should also insist that the College Board release its heretofore secret sample AP U.S. History test for public scrutiny and debate. There is no excuse for withholding this test from the public.

Just as the Common Core became an established fact before most American parents, lawmakers, and school districts even knew it existed, the new AP U.S. History Exam is about to entrench a controversial and highly politicized national school curriculum without proper notice or debate. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and a full understanding of our founding principles are on the way out. Race, gender, class, and ethnicity are coming in, all in secrecy and in clear violation of the Constitution’s guarantee that education remain in control of the states.

The time to oppose the new AP U.S. History Exam is now. 

 

Some thoughts on Islam...here and in Europe

I don't know how long the west has been warned about the rise of Islam and the goals they have set for themselves but we can probably start with Sir Winston Churchill's assessment of this warped ideology when he wrote in the year 1899:

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries.

Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.

The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.

No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.~ From The River War: An Historical Account of the Reconquest of the Soudan (1899) by Winston Churchill

So we know from a reliable source the so-called religion of peace is not what westerners would call appeasing.  And we will learn more as the years go by that their sect is spreading while they lie in wait for the western Judeo-Christian faiths to decline...and they are declining!  As westerners become more and more affluent their populations dwindle more and more.  Former Libyan leader  Muammar Gaddafi once said, "We have 50 million Muslims in Europe. There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe—without swords, without guns, without conquest—will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades."  Whether his figures were accurate is another story but he does make a point, Islam will rule (at least according to him) by simply out producing Jewish and Christian birth rates.  In contrast to the Muslim baby boom there is also the Muslim Brotherhood who will conquer the west by hook or by crook.  They even have plans to infiltrate the White House...says so in their charter formulated in 1928 and from the looks of things they may have already succeeded on this point.
So the point I would like to make is directed at all the naive Americans (at this point in time that would be most Americans) who want to believe in the religion of peace as a First Amendment freedom...as outlined in the United States Constitution.  Whoops, time out!  Most Americans know little to nothing about the U.S. Constitution...you know, that document that is suppose to guarantee our freedom.  Back to my point...
If someone was to declare war on you wouldn't it be safe to assume that you would prepare for that war...whether it would be for defense (i.e. defending you and your family) or offense (to wipe out the aggressor).  Now if that someone (the aggressor) said that it was a holy war...in the name of religion, would you cancel all war readiness preparations...in other words, give up?
Well I've got news for you, Islam, the religion, has declared war on you...  This declaration has come directly out of the Muslim leaders mouths.  Their goal is nothing more than world domination!
Now you may ask, "How close is this war coming to America?"  To a small degree it's already here; they have cells scattered all over the country.  In fact, Mr. Obama has imported many (literally thousands of Somalis, Iranians, etc.) and no one has the intestinal fortitude to stop him (Note: If you're waiting for the next election you're a fool).  When and where will they strike?  Dumb question!  They already have...remember "9-1-1" and that thing called the Boston Massacre...they'll be more like this before its all over. ~ Norman E. Hooben

_________________________________

Source for the following: Israel Science and Technology Homepage
All European Life Died In Auschwitz
By Sebastian Vivar Rodriguez - Spanish Writer, November 21, 2004.

I walked down the street in Barcelona, and suddenly discovered a terrible truth - Europe died in Auschwitz.
We killed six million Jews and replaced them with 20 million Muslims.
In Auschwitz we burned a culture, thought, creativity, talent. We destroyed the chosen people, truly chosen, because they produced great and wonderful people who changed the world.
The contribution of this people is felt in all areas of life: science, art, international trade, and above all, as the conscience of the world. These are the people we burned.
And under the pretence of tolerance, and because we wanted to prove to ourselves that we were cured of the disease of racism, we opened our gates to 20 million Muslims, who brought us stupidity and ignorance, religious extremism and lack of tolerance, crime and poverty due to an unwillingness to work and support their families with pride.
They have turned our beautiful Spanish cities into the third world, drowning in filth and crime.
Shut up in the apartments they receive free from the government, they plan the murder and destruction of their na?ve hosts.
And thus, in our misery, we have exchanged culture for fanatical hatred, creative skill for destructive skill, intelligence for backwardness and superstition.
We have exchanged the pursuit of peace of the Jews of Europe and their talent for hoping for a better future for their children, their determined clinging to life because life is holy, for those who pursue death, for people consumed by the desire for death for themselves and others, for our children and theirs.
What a terrible mistake was made by miserable Europe.

* This is a free translation of an article reportedly first published in a Spanish newspaper. The editor of this site could not confirm the name of the author. A variant of the name is Sebastian Villar Rodriguez. The author's name appears to be a pseudonym, apparently to avoid attack by Arabs

See also:
1.  The Muslim Problem ...and the American solution!
2.  Hillary Clinton's Point of View (Be sure to watch the video)
3.  Radical Islam threatens World War III  from the Washington Times

__________________________________________________________________________

What's this? ↓

...just a reminder!

They are here...   ↓

The Muslim Problem ...and the American solution!

Intro...
First...watch a few videos...No big deal right now...it's only happening in places far away.
Like London...

(Next video may take a moment to load)
And Paris

Post by Britain First.

Then somebody has to take the inititive...like ↓she↓ did in Frankfurt, Germany!

But that's not America's problem...so why worry.

They have bigger problems in Russia...

Moscow, Russia

And just a bit more in China...

But how did they get this way...

In the beginning there's the peaceful indoctrination (brainwashing)... 

Then it gets worse and nobody takes the warning seriously...
Not even in Australia...

...or even when the problem gets close to home!
Unlike the brave German girl in the video above (the one from Frankfurt, Germany)
Americans are too busy taking pictures...

When they should be heeding the warnings...



But how do we stop this madness?

And therefor lies the problem...If you had to ask the question, that's a problem...a huge problem.

Americans are going to have to wake up and stop the people who help create the problem.

Who are they?  Again, if you had to ask the question the problem is much worst than, "huge"...

For all you un-informed here's a few...

Everyone depicted here has contributed to the Muslim problem...no if's, ands, or buts...

Especially that guy in the far right in the second row!

Some are duplicated in this collage ↓

PS: Do you know who else wants a One-World Government?  Wake up! It's Islam!!!

Stop 'em all or else...

Get this guy as your leader... 

 

See also: Muslim Persecution Of Christians

Freedom vs Control...isn't that the real issue? (Is the Supreme Court changing the meaning of 'free speech'?)

What's in a sign?

I admit that I did not know any of this was being debated in the courts and I assume the vast majority of Americans are equally un-informed. For the courts to waste so much time on a trivial matters such as signage is apparently a bigger deal than previously thought but the bigger issue of 'control' vs 'freedom' is well understood. (See Garrett Epp's article below.  What do you think?) ~  Norman E. Hooben

ps: While most editorials from the The Atlantic lean to the left (I obviously lean to the right), I believe the Epp's commentary to be informative and neutral.

Billboards and the Bill of Rights
The Supreme Court is slowly changing the meaning of words in free-speech law—and not for the better.
By Garrett Epps @ The Atlantic


Is this what the justices want American roads to look like? (Frank Kovalchek/Flickr)

Law is not magic, though many people confuse the two. It’s easy to see why: Both involve obscure and powerful verbal formulas that can change the world. But magic spells (which, alas, do not exist) let us fly about the housetops, change the weather, or summon spirits from the vasty deep. Law, when it works, does so only by changing the way people think. Those changes are not always for the better. While law can make our thoughts clearer, it can also spread or deepen confusion.

Even judges are not immune to this kind of confusion. One common pattern in Supreme Court opinions goes like this: (1) One court writes a decision with a perfectly ordinary phrase in it; (2) a judge in a different case seizes on the ordinary phrase and attributes to it a different meaning, until (3) the phrase comes to stand for something it never meant at the beginning.
The Supreme Court has a chance to sort out one such confusion this Monday when it hears the case of Reed v. Town of Gilbert. Though this case involves jargon, it’s a First Amendment case, and thus concerns those who don’t speak lawyer. So let’s understand the special term at issue. It is “content-based,” as in this formula: “Content-based restrictions on speech are presumptively unconstitutional."
It sounds great, but what does it mean? Taken literally—using words as normal people do—it means there can be no restrictions on any kind of speech. That’s because lawmakers and courts cannot assess free-speech questions without reading—that is, interpreting—the “content,” which the Oxford English Dictionary defines as “the things contained or treated of in a writing or document” of the message at issue. If they don’t, they can’t know that it is a restriction on “speech.” We know speech because it has content, that is, meaning in words. But in the caselaw, the words “content-based” are drifting ominously toward the wrong definition. The Court should clarify its meaning.
Reed concerns a nasty municipal squabble in the bustling small city of Gilbert, Arizona. (Gilbert was once literally a hayseed town, known as the "Hay Shipping Capital of the World," but today its population exceeds 200,000, making it the most populous “town” in the U.S.) The greater Gilbert area is home to Good News Community Church, a small congregation that worships in various rented locations. Obviously it’s important for the church to get the word out about where meeting is each week. Beyond that, its members say, they must obey Jesus’s Great Commission, Matthew 28:16-20 (“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”). So the church has to put up signs near streets and roads announcing its services and welcoming newcomers.
The town says that GNCC’s signs are “qualifying event signs,” announcing a meeting of a “religious, charitable, community service, education, or other similar non-profit organization.” It’s perfectly happy for GNCC to put them up—as long as they are no larger than six square feet and are up only 12 hours before and one hour after the service. By contrast, it allows “Homeowners’ Association Event” signs to remain up for 30 days before and 48 hours after the event, “political signs” supporting candidates to remain up for four and a half months before an election and 15 days after, and “ideological signs” to remain up indefinitely. Each of these kinds of signs can also be larger than “qualifying event signs.”
The church should, and almost certainly will, win. The distinctions between different temporary signs are arbitrary, and the times and sizes for “qualifying events” are almost punitive. What’s important, though, is how it wins. The church argues that the sign code is “content-based.” That, they say, is “because enforcement officials must examine what a temporary sign says before they can determine which provision of the code to apply.” The Ninth Circuit called the sign code “content-neutral,” even though officials have to read the signs. That’s correct—properly read, the term “content-based” means based either on the viewpoint or the subject matter of the speech at issue.
Courts that use the term “content-based” invariably cite to a 1972 case called Police Department v. Mosley, which struck down a Chicago ordinance that banned picketing of schools but made an exception for “peaceful picketing of any school involved in a labor dispute.” Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote for six justices that “above all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.” That kind of restriction, the Court has held, triggers a rule of “strict scrutiny” of any viewpoint (“no anti-government speech”) or subject-matter (“no religious speech”) regulations. It’s almost impossible for any law to survive “strict scrutiny,” and laws based—like Gilbert’s—on the need for aesthetic control of roadside signs are unlikely ever to do so.
Since Mosley, the phrase “content-based restriction” has become a shorthand phrase used by lawyers and courts. Until recently, it has meant a restriction or regulation of speech based on the “viewpoint” or the “subject matter” of the speech. The Gilbert code could be viewed as "subject matter" based—but it really isn't. "Meetings" is no more a subject matter than "marketing." The proper way to decide this is that the ordinance is too restrictive, and discriminatory among speakers.

Lower courts have applied the precedent to hold that cigarette companies have a First Amendment right to veto health-warning labels.

The slow degradation of “viewpoint-subject matter” rule is disconcerting. Justice Anthony Kennedy, in particular, has led the way in this area. In the unfortunate 2011 case of Sorrell v. IMS Health, Inc., he wrote (for six justices) that Vermont could not allow doctors to keep secret details about what drugs they prescribe from pharmaceutical companies seeking to sell them drugs. “The statute ... disfavors marketing, that is, speech with a particular content,” he wrote. The word “content” here has come unmoored. “Marketing” is not a “subject.” It’s an economic activity, to be regulated as needed by the specific market it involves. Kennedy’s foggy version of “content” will—very soon—take us to a place where government can’t regulate advertising at all. Already lower courts have applied the precedent to hold that cigarette companies have a First Amendment right to veto health-warning labels, and drug-company sales reps can encourage doctors to prescribe powerful drugs for unapproved uses.
The federal government is clearly worried that applying the Kennedy formulation to a sign case might gut the Highway Beautification Act of 1965. The act, as amended over the years, discriminates in size and area between kinds of signs, treating “service club signs,” for example, differently from signs advertising that the property they stand on is for sale. The government sides with GNCC in this case, but argues that, “so long as the government’s rationales for the regulation are related to its substantial interests in safety and aesthetics,” the standard should not be looser than strict scrutiny. It argues that the fatal label “content-based” should be reserved for laws that have the purpose or effect of regulating viewpoints or subject matter.
Burma-Shave signs were amusing when I was six, but on balance the highways look a lot better now than in the 1950s. Cluttered highways, however, will be the least of our problems if the Court muffs the “content-basis” question. Powerful forces are targeting all regulation of advertising. A world in which regulation of “marketing” is presumptively unconstitutional might look different, and worse, than the one we live in now.

Hillary Clinton's Point of View