Lessons Taught on College Campuses

The anti-Semites across the United States and hundreds in our own federal government refuse to recognize Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel. That leaves Israel as the only country in the world without a capitol. Even the U.S. State Department historically has never had an embassy in Jerusalem, but rather in Tel Aviv. In fact, Jerusalem is the most disputed city across the globe. Yet real history versus revisionist history proves there should be no dispute.

Yet, in American there is an educational system being challenged in all 50 states called CommonCore and with good reason. So, what do you know about the lessons your child is being taught?

Here is a hint, Hamas is a terror organization.

PROF’S ‘WHOSE JERUSALEM?’ COMMON CORE LESSON TEACHES STUDENTS TO SUPPORT HAMAS

A “Whose Jerusalem?” workshop created by a Boston University professor that’s been taught in many high schools in recent years and was added to the Common Core-approved national curriculum has come under fire by critics who contend it whitewashes terrorism, promotes an anti-Israel and anti-American political agenda, and encourages young people to sympathize with Hamas.

Americans for Peace and Tolerance released an expose video April 23 that aims to prove “Whose Jerusalem?” fails “to meet the basic rules of evidence and logic and attempt[s] to indoctrinate students, especially Jewish students, against the state of Israel.”

The workshop teaches that Hamas – a U.S.-designated terrorist group – and Fatah are political parties that support “more peaceful means than intifada,” among other lessons. The group argues the lesson abandons “academic integrity” and enlists students as political activists for an ideological cause.

“Despite its bias and serious flaws, the … workshop is Common Core compliant,” APT president Charles Jacobs said.

The workshop’s curriculum, designed for students in middle and high schools, requires students play the parts of Arab, Israeli, or American leaders to negotiate a “BATNA” (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement) for the division of Jerusalem using the materials provided by the workshop.

According to Americans for Peace and Tolerance’s video, the workshop also includes exercises that asks instructors to have Jewish students empathize with Hamas, a U.S.-designated terrorist group that calls for the death of all Jews in its founding charter.

Boston University Profesor Carl Hobert, who developed the workshop, has defined “Whose Jerusalem?” as “educational civil disobedience” guided by a hands-on approach. Included in APT’s video is a clip of Hobert speaking to an audience about the simulations done in his workshop on the Arab-Israeli conflict. When describing the roles students play in the simulation he says:

“When a student goes, I am devoutly Jewish and I’ve got family members in Israel. I would like to be a member of Likud Party. Guess what we make that student? A member of Hamas.”

In APT’s video, Hobert is also quoted saying that students learn through the workshop that Hamas and Fatah are political parties that support “more peaceful means than intifada.” APT uses the lesson plan’s paperwork to show students are taught to equate these “political parties” with Israel’s democratically elected parties, such as Likud and Labor.
The workshop also suggests an equivalence between the use of military drones by the United States and terrorist suicide bombing. APT’s video shows Hobert telling students that drones “kill people who  are supposedly terrorists.” He asks, “Isn’t that a form of terrorism?”
Hobert did openly admit in an interview with Al-Jazeera that through these exercises students will learn to “put pressure on our government to create a Palestinian state.”


Noam Chomsky of MIT and Denis Sullivan of Northeastern, both outspoken critics of Israel and America, assisted Hobert in the creation of the course, according to APT. Hobert even brought Chomsky, who is described in BU Today as his “friend and longtime inspiration,” to speak about the Middle East at Boston University in 2009.
Hobert did not respond to repeated requests for comment from The College Fix.
Stand With Us released a statement May 7 thanking APT for exposing the bias in the workshop.
“Under the guise of ‘global education’ and ‘conflict resolution,’ it distorts facts about the Arab-Israeli conflict, promotes an anti-Israel political agenda, and encourages sympathy for terrorist groups,” the nonprofit stated. “It is shameful that Boston University would sponsor a program that degrades academic standards, misinforms students, and gives its imprimatur to indoctrination masquerading as scholarship.”
Zionist Organization of America’s Northeast Campus Coordinator Zach Stern said he is also worried about the impact this course will have on students’ understanding of the Middle East.
“This workshop is very troubling,” Stern told The College Fix. “Why pretend that Hamas and the PA are reasonable actors when both openly call for the genocide of the Jewish people and the destruction of the Jewish state? This workshop seems to ignore the actual facts; and its impossible to solve anything without recognizing the facts.”

But Hobert described the workshop as simply “a conflict resolution case study used in middle and high schools around the U.S.” It was created with state and federal education dollars, and is an approved Common Core State Standards-based curriculum workshop, his professor profile notes.
Already the controversial “Whose Jerusalem?”  is conducted in many high schools. It is offered through the nonprofit “Axis of Hope,” which operates out of the Boston University Global Literary Institute and works with at least 25 high schools in various states and three foreign schools, according to the nonprofit’s website.


APT’s Jacobs noted “at a time of growing anti-Semitism on U.S. college campuses, it is very disturbing [Boston University] would permit or promote such biased educational materials in the classroom.”
Axis of Hope describes itself as a nonprofit “dedicated to developing in young adults an understanding of alternative, non-violent approaches to resolving complex conflicts locally, nationally and internationally.”

 

 

Death by Lethal Injection

God, rest those souls that perished and blessings to those who must deal with their lasting injuries.  A Boston jury today delivered death by lethal injection to 3 of several counts and the killer will be in a super-max prison during the appeal process, which is automatic.

 

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has been sentenced to death for his role in the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing that killed three people and injured more than 200.
Tsarnaev was found guilty on all 30 charges in the bombing and its aftermath by the same jury in April. The jury had to unanimously agree to sentence him to the death. Tsarnaev is widely expected to appeal, but that process typically takes years. The federal government executes prisoners by lethal injection.
A federal judge will officially sentence Tsarnaev to the death penalty at an upcoming hearing, as he is largely bound by the jury’s finding.
Defense lawyers had argued Tsarnaev had been influenced by his brother, Tamerlan, who died as officers pursued the two brothers, and that his life should be spared. But federal prosecutors painted him as a cold-hearted killer who deserves the death penalty.

In the end, the defense’s bid to humanize Tsarnaev and pin the blame on his older brother Tamerlan failed. Jurors decided that life behind bars without chance of parole was too lenient for the Russian immigrant who became a citizen months before carrying out the worst U.S. terrorist attack since Sept. 11, 2001.
Tsarnaev stood as the verdict was being read, showing no emotion.
The verdict isn’t surprising since Tsarnaev failed to show any remorse for a heinous act, said Barry Slotnick, a criminal defense lawyer in New York who isn’t involved in the case.
“He did not issue any statements during trial that he was sorry it happened, or that he shouldn’t have done it — nothing,” Slotnick said.
The penalty was announced Friday in Boston federal court by a unanimous jury of seven women and five men after about 14 1/2 hours of deliberations. Tsarnaev, 21, was found guilty by the same panel in April after a trial in which his lawyers admitted to his role in the attack.

 

MORE and OBS, Next Revolution Fellowship

OBS Fergusonguilty-thumbThere is MORE, Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment, and OBS.

 

Remember Ella Baker? If not, then you may remember Van Jones, the Green Czar that was exposed by Glenn Beck and snuck out of the White House in the middle of the night. Yes, that guy. Van Jones carries the torch for Ella Baker.

So, this OBS and MORE with Next Revolution is based on Ella Baker’s legacy and you saw their work in Ferguson, Missouri.

Does this logo appear rather militant?

Or this one? join-thumb

 

 

 

Do you wonder about their application and approval by the IRS?

There is paid training, travel expenses and protest instructions. Enter OBS…

OBS, Organization for Black Struggle has some interesting partners. They include: Advancement Project, Black Workers for Justice, Black Youth Project, Black Lives Matter, Dream Defenders, Jobs with Justice, Justice for Reggie, Malcolm X Grassroots Movement, Million Hoodies Movement for Justice, Ohio Student Association, Peace Economy Project, Sankofa, SisterSong and there are more as listed here.

Oh joy, they have a fellowship program too. But apply quickly, the next class begins on May 22, 2015.

Parameters:

1. By joining the program, fellows agree to go through a 5-week long organization building module, to be supervised by a Youth Director.

2. Each week of the program covers crucial knowledge on how to build an organization, develop programs and campaigns, and create coalitions using Black Liberation framework.

3. Each fellow will schedule twice weekly sessions with a mental health counselor for the duration of the program. We’ve all been through a lot these past few weeks and we have to care ourselves if we hope to transform our communities.

4. Each fellow will complete weekly benchmarks.

5. After each successfully completed week, each fellow will receive a $100 stipend.

6. At the end of program, each fellow gets $500 to start an organization or project.

7. To get the start up, each fellow must meet each weekly benchmark. If all benchmarks are not successfully met during the program, they must be met within 30 days of program end date, without the stipend.

8. This program is limited to 12 fellows per session.

At the end of this program, fellows will be fully equipped to take their skill-sets back into their communities and start to organize for the change that they want to see. The hope is that during the program, fellows will become familiar enough each other so that at the end of the program, some may decide to work together, pool their resources, or create organizations with their peers.

Very Fitting Chicago Junk Rating, Obama Library

For a sitting president to whine about the poor not getting enough money and to slam a media outlet over reporting ‘Obama-phones’, Chicago is the junk banner for Obama. In 1964, President Lyndon Johnson announced his ‘War on Poverty’ plan where 50 years later, there is no question it failed about spending $22 TRILLION dollars.

The White House had economic advisors examine President Johnson’s plan and decided to re-tool it is all areas but of particular note in the ‘investment in and rebuilding hard-hit communities’. Obama announced ‘Promise Zones’.

The Promise Zones initiative will build on existing programs, including the Department of HUD’s Choice Neighborhoods and the Department of Education’s Promise Neighborhoods grant programs. The Administration has invested $248 million in Choice and $157 million in Promise since 2010. For every federal dollar spent, Choice Neighborhoods has attracted eight dollars of private and other investment and has developed nearly 100,000 units of mixed-income housing in 260 communities, ensuring that low-income residents can afford to continue living in their communities. Promise Neighborhoods grants are supporting approximately 50 communities representing more than 700 schools. To help leverage and sustain grant work, 1,000 national, state, and community organizations have signed-on to partner with a Promise Neighborhood site. By expanding these programs, the Administration continues to support local efforts to transform low-income urban, rural, and tribal communities across the country. *** Is Baltimore or Chicago or Detroit a ‘Promise Zone’? Chicago is no model in fact the city now carries a ‘junk’ status, and it is fitting that Obama has chosen to place his presidential library there. Cant make this up…

Moody’s downgrades Chicago debt to ‘junk’ with negative outlook

Moody’s downgraded Chicago’s credit rating down to junk level “Ba1” from “Baa2.” The announcement, which the ratings agency released Tuesday afternoon, cited a recent Illinois court ruling voiding state pension reforms. Moody’s said it saw a negative outlook for the city’s credit.

Following that May court decision, Moody’s said it believes that “the city’s options for curbing growth in its own unfunded pension liabilities have narrowed considerably.”

So let the fund-raising begin. More federal dollars and the launch of collusion for the Obama library.

Obama library likely to set off a fundraising frenzy

The announcement Tuesday that Barack Obama will build his presidential library in Chicago did more than excite the South Side of the city. It also kicked off what’s likely to become a fundraising frenzy.

Even if Obama doesn’t raise any money himself – as he pledged not to do while in office – independent analysts fear that fundraising on his behalf still might create conflicts of interest in his final two years in the White House.

 

“Is this a problem? Absolutely,” said Meredith McGehee, policy director at the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization. “Even if he doesn’t solicit himself, (donors) are seeing all kinds of signals that this is a priority for him. It’s all a wink and a nod. … It buys access.”

The Barack Obama Foundation – a group composed of his longtime friends and supporters, including his former campaign manager and fundraiser – is expected to collect hundreds of millions of dollars, perhaps rivaling the $700 million Obama raised to win the White House in the first place.

 

Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist at Public Citizen, a government watchdog group, said presidents should wait until they left office to raise money for their libraries. But most contributions come while a president is in office and most donations, he said, come from those who have issues pending before the administration.

“He’s doing this while he’s in office because he knows that will pull in the money,” Holman said. “It is very problematic. The conflict of interest is ever present.”

Donations will pay for the construction of the facility, which will be much more than a library: part museum, part education center and part archive, as well as a gift shop and restaurant. It will house enough unclassified documents to fill four 18-wheelers and enough artifacts to fill a swimming pool. Private contributions and taxpayers’ dollars will share the cost of maintenance after the doors open in 2020 or 2021.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Tuesday that the foundation had taken a number of steps to alleviate any potential fundraising problems, though he wasn’t aware of whether the White House had spoken to the foundation about that.

“Certainly the foundation was interested in living up to the very high standard that the president himself established,” he said.

The president and first lady Michelle Obama had considered two other states, Hawaii, where Obama was born, and New York, where he graduated from college. They settled on the University of Chicago, in the city where he launched his political career and met his wife, and they started their family.

“All the strands of my life came together and I really became a man when I moved to Chicago,” Obama said in a statement. “That’s where I was able to apply that early idealism to try to work in communities in public service. That’s where I met my wife. That’s where my children were born.”

In the last 24 hours surrounding the announcement, at least three emails were sent to previous Obama supporters about the library. “Over the next two years, you and I have the unique opportunity to help lay the groundwork for the foundation while the president is still in office,” said one from former senior adviser David Axelrod.

Coming up next from the foundation: an onslaught of phone solicitations, small-donor Internet appeals and discreet one-on-one conversations with the wealthiest of donors.

Foundation officials say they won’t accept donations from organizations that aren’t nonprofits, from individuals who are foreign nationals or from federal lobbyists.

James “Skip” Rutherford, dean of the Clinton School of Public Service at the University of Arkansas, who played an influential role in the creation of the William J. Clinton Presidential Library and Museum in Little Rock, said most library donors were past supporters of presidents or those who lived in the areas where the facilities were to be built.

Under current law, there are no fundraising restrictions for presidential libraries. Money can be raised while the president is still in office and contributors don’t need to be disclosed.

Obama’s foundation has pledged to release the names of those who contribute more than $200 on its website on a quarterly basis, though only with donation ranges and no further identifying information.

Since the foundation was created last year, several wealthy supporters have donated a total of roughly $3 million to $6 million. Many of them raised money for Obama during one of his campaigns or were appointed by him to various boards.

For years, lawmakers on Capitol Hill have considered whether presidential libraries should be required to disclose their donors. A pair of bipartisan bills is pending that would require the disclosure of contributions of more than $200 in an online searchable and downloadable format.

Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Del., said his bill would “bring sunlight to the presidential library fundraising process, helping to eliminate even the appearance of impropriety.”

As a senator and a candidate for president, Obama backed the disclosure of contributors and bundlers to presidential foundations.

Government watchdog groups say his foundation’s current disclosures don’t go far enough.

“It will be critically important that President Obama and his staff be completely transparent about their fundraising for the library over the next 19 months,” said Chris Gates, president of the Sunlight Foundation, which pushes for government openness. “The public has a right to know who is contributing to the library and what interests they may have with the federal government while he’s still in office.”

Thirteen presidential libraries operated by the National Archives and Records Administration are scattered across the nation, from Boston (John F. Kennedy) to Yorba Linda, Calif. (Richard Nixon).

Ronald Reagan’s library in Simi Valley, Calif., had been the most popular, with about 400,000 visitors annually. But the newest library, the George W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, drew nearly 500,000 people last year, its first full year.

Obama’s library might very well surpass those numbers because of his historic tenure as the first African-American president in the United States.

 

Eco-Terrorists Meet Your new Machine Challenge

States in the West have been experiencing an epic water issue, of this there is no debate. Water use has been regulated and limited for the sake of a fish with no cause for protection and a plant or two that has no value. The consequence is business, farming and daily life suffering restrictions with wide ranging national implications. Every citizen wants to be a good steward of the environment and often is. Sure there are violators, however we have the EPA who has extreme mandates and laws for them right? Yes and they are extreme.

There are radical environmental groups that go so far as to cause civil disobedience all wrapped up under graduated causes of climate change.

California needs water and has for decades so some desalinization machines were purchased to mitigate a problem. No one could decide of the rules of use until now. But the rules of themselves up for a long debate where the solution of using brine or sea water for human use will not be forth-coming anytime soon.

Enter the battle of more bureaucracy, debate, protests, rules and legislative measures. In a nation that is establishing protective classes of people, such is the same with plant life and the Delta smelt, a fish of zero consequence. Who will win? What if that fish eats the plant and corrupts the water supply? The state of California meets it final destiny…more DIRT. Tax rainwater, shower with your dog, but only for 3 minutes. Share towels and socks with other family members to slow down the laundry duty. Hang a scarlet letter on the palm tree for excessive water consumption and ask the DEA and Secret Service to investigate the promiscuous behavior of fish, plants and lizards….wink….

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (Reuters) – California regulators on Wednesday adopted the first statewide rules for the permitting of seawater desalination projects that are expected to proliferate as drought-stricken communities increasingly turn to the ocean to supplement their drinking supplies.

The action, which sets uniform standards for minimizing harm to marine life, was welcomed by developers of the state’s two largest desalination projects as bringing much-needed certainty and clarity to the regulatory approval process.

“It reaffirms that the Pacific Ocean is part of the drinking water resources for the state of California,” Poseidon Water executive Scott Maloni told Reuters after the rule was enacted on a voice vote in Sacramento by the State Water Resources Control Board.

The measure leaves the permitting process in the hands of the state’s regional water boards while establishing a single framework for them to follow in evaluating applications to build seawater treatment plants, expand existing ones and renew old permits.

But regional decisions could now be appealed to the state board for review if opponents of a project felt a permit was wrongly approved.

Before Wednesday’s action, developers and regulators of desalination plants had no specific guidance for meeting federal and state clean water standards, complicating review of the projects, state water board spokesman George Kostyrko said.

Desalination has emerged as a promising technology in the face of a record dry spell now gripping California for a fourth straight year, depleting its reservoirs and aquifers and raising the costs of importing water from elsewhere.

Critics have cited ecological drawbacks, such as harm to marine life from intake pipes that suck water into the treatment systems and the concentrated brine discharge from the plants.

The newly approved plan sets specific brine salinity limits and rules for diffusing the discharge as it is pumped back into to the ocean.

It also requires seawater to be drawn into the plants through pipes that are sunk into beach wells or buried beneath the sea floor, where possible. Such subsurface intakes are viewed as more environmentally friendly.

The Western Hemisphere’s biggest desalination plant, a $1 billion project under construction since 2012 in the coastal city of Carlsbad, California, is due to open in November.

It will deliver up to 50 million gallons (190 million liters) of water a day to San Diego County, enough to supply roughly 112,000 households, or about 10 percent of San Diego County’s drinking water needs, according to Poseidon.

Approval is being sought for a final permit to begin construction of a second plant of similar size in Huntington Beach, south of Los Angeles, next year.

About a dozen much smaller desalting plants have already been built along the coast, state water officials said.

On Tuesday, the state water board enacted California’s first rules for mandatory statewide cutbacks in municipal water use . The emergency regulations, which require some communities to trim water consumption by as much as 36 percent, were approved unanimously just weeks after Democratic Governor Jerry Brown stood in a dry mountain meadow and ordered statewide rationing.