Is your child’s mind under UN Control?

How would you feel if you found out that your child’s school was actually run by the United Nations, and the curriculum was preset to indoctrinate your child to accept all UN Treaties as Supreme Law and governance?

What would you do if you found out that your child’s school pledged to join the Global Partnership in Support of the Earth Charter Initiative for a sustainable way of life AND urge all governments to endorse the Earth Charter?

Impossible you may think. The U.S. has not ratified such treaties with the UN, which are contrary to our liberties and rights, right? The cold hard facts are that they are well entrenched already in our school systems through an authorization in 1971 initiating the first private IB school Nations International School in New York. In 1978, Jerome I. Case International School, Rufus King High School and Wausau East High School, all in Wisconsin, became the first public schools to implement the IB Diploma Programme, together with Withrow International High School in Ohio.

Since those first schools, the tentacles of the U.N. have expanded to take over or incorporate over 1,700 predominately public schools as of the last released figures in 2010. Due to reports and disclosures of the takeover, most of the new schools are hidden under other names as to not allow parents and tax payers to realize who is actually pulling the strings in educating and indoctrinating your children.

I remember in the small Texas town I lived in at the time a new school being built. This school was much larger and more modern than any of the other schools in town. My son had long graduated by now, but my own curiosity caused me to drive by the structure and view the newly erected school name. Outside of the normal dedicated school name were the words I.B. World School. At the time I had no clue as to what a I.B. World School was, but something did not feel quite right. I immediately searched the name and came upon shocking if not alarming facts about this organization which was managing school systems throughout the world, and spreading quickly through the states.

International Baccalaureate (IB) is an international system of education. It is run by a non-governmental organization called the International Baccalaureate Organization (IBO) headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland. It was organized in 1968 by European diplomats who wanted their children to have a common undergraduate program. In 1996, however, IBO formed a partnership with UNESCO in order to create what both UNESCO and IBO call an international education system.

According to the IBO website, the IB programs exist in schools in 90 countries worldwide. Every spring, IB students around the world take identical exams on the same day in various subjects. These exams are sent to other parts of the world after being sent to Geneva, for grading. Grading is based on an international standard. In addition, IBO insists that it will train and certify teachers for IBat the expense of the local school district, of course.

International Baccalaureate promotes world citizenship. The web site quoted just above says: The IB curriculum encourages students to think globally. Dr. Ian Hill, Deputy Director of IBO, has said that the goal of IBO is the promotion of world citizenship. IB gives emphasis to world citizenship over United States citizenship in its teaching and educational curriculum. In fact, IBO discourages embracing any nationalism, for the greater good of the whole.

International Baccalaureate views state education standards as being subservient to, and interpreted by, the worldview of IB. The authors of the IBO program point out that state educational standards do not constitute an enduring understanding of the big ideas, important understandings, and what they want students to comprehend and retain after they have forgotten the details of their teachings.

For a state to earn IBO accreditation, the state standards must be taught from the worldview of the International Baccalaureate, noting that the IBO perspective must have primary importance and state have lessor importance.

According to Professor Allen Quist, a former three-term Minnesota state legislator and author:

International Baccalaureate endorses the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights [UDHR]. By endorsing the UDHR, IBO has agreed to promote the United Nations along with the actions and treaties of the United Nations [UDHR Article 26, paragraph 2, which states, Education shall further the activities of the United Nations]. IBO promotes the actions and treaties of the UN even though many of these actions and treaties have not been approve by, or ratified by, the United States. Such treaties not ratified by the United States include the Biodiversity Treaty, the Treaty on the Rights of the Child, Agenda 21, the Kyoto Treaty, Treaty establishing the United Nations International Criminal Court, LOST (Law of the Sea Treaty), and the Small Arms Treaty.

By endorsing the UDHR, IBO promotes the United Nations as being the highest court of appeals on issues of human rights. UDHR states: These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations, Article 29, paragraph 3. This means that IB promotes the view that the United Nations has higher standing than the United States Supreme Court on issues of human rights involving U.S. citizens.

By endorsing the UDHR, IBO undermines the foundation principle of the United States that human rights, such as the rights to life, liberty and property, are inherent and inalienable, and must be protected by government, as is stated in our Declaration of Independence. The issue is which has greater standing and authority your God-given, inalienable human rights or the policies of a particular government. The Declaration of Independence the philosophical foundation of the United States insists on the former. The UDHR insists on the latter, as stated, once again, as follows: These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations, Article 29, paragraph. The view of human rights held by the United States is the foundation of liberty. The view of the United Nations is the foundation of totalitarianism.

IBO also endorses the Earth Charter, a document that has not been ratified by the United States because it contains numerous provisions contrary to the nature and interests of the United States. By its endorsement, IBO agreed to the following endorsing statement:

We, the undersigned, endorse the Earth Charter. We embrace the spirit and aims of the document. We pledge to join the global partnership for a just, sustainable, and peaceful world and to work for the realization of the values and principles of the Earth Charter. We pledge to join the Global Partnership in Support of the Earth Charter Initiative for a sustainable way of life AND urge all governments to endorse the Earth Charter.

The Earth Charter is housed in the Arc of Hope and is correctly identified by the World Pantheist Association as a Pantheistic document. Besides Pantheism, the Earth Charter advocates:

1. The redistribution of wealth between nations and within nations, Article 10(a)
2. Same-sex marriage, Article 12(a)
3. Spiritual education, Article 14(d), education in Pantheism.
4. Military disarmament, Article 16 (d) and (e)
5. Creation of an international agency to make the Earth Charter binding on all nations

Many of the IBO instructional materials are now being written, or overseen, by the UN. The IBO website says:

The fundamental principles of the United States are summarized in the Declaration of Independence and are properly called the twelve pillars of freedom. In addition to what IBO promotes, it rejects all 12 of these Declaration principles. Amendment X of our Bill of Rights clarifies that all the rights in our Bill of Rights are inherent and inalienable (as also stated in the Declaration of Independence). IBO rejects article X or our bill of Rights, however, and by so doing rejects the entirety of our Bill of Rights. International Baccalaureate is UN-American.

As controversy over IB has increased in the United States, the increase in the number of high school IB Diploma programs has slowed to a crawl while it would appear that IBO has been making a concerted effort to expand its program which goes after our youngest children (ages 3-11) through the PYP. In 2010-2011, IBO authorized 102 IB PYP schools in the U.S., compared to 59 IBDPs, it’s supposed signature programme.

It is important to remember that in the PYP, IBO mandates schoolwide implementation of the program and requires that every single teacher in the school must participate in IBs teacher training. It is therefore rather horrifying to discover that the 2011-12 PYP Workshop Materials not only include promotion of the UNs Agenda 21, but the Earth Charter, as well.

The Earth Charter states (10a):

Promote the equitable distribution of wealth within nations, and among nations.

This is IBOs socialist agenda. IBOs regulations MANDATE the expenditure of YOUR tax dollars on IB PYP Teacher Workshops for public school teachers to absorb this Marxist indoctrination to be taught to YOUR children. Enough is enough. This should be all the proof any school district considering the PYP needs to call for an immediate moratorium of spending on IB in American public schools.

Progressives and Islamics are big proponents of IB Schools curriculum throughout the United States.
Just recently one of the large elementary school systems in New York is implementing mandatory studies of Arabic for grades 2nd and above, to fulfill IB School’s accreditation requirements.

Barack Obama Academy for International Studies has been an IB World School since July 2009. It offers the IB Middle Years Programme and IB Diploma Programme to 626 students. The school is state funded. The head of the school is Wayne Walters.

Georgia IB School Puts Positive Spin on Sharia!
Hal Medlin said the assignment, sent home with his seventh-grader in late August, was aimed at helping students outline the pros and cons of school uniforms. The material includes a letter from a woman who is explaining why she is “proud and happy” to be Muslim and a list of seven conditions for women’s dress in Islam.

“I thought this was absurd,” said Medlin, who describes himself conservative. “The teacher was trying to compare Islamic rules of dress and how they compared to school uniforms, which I thought was a stretch. The principal and the superintendent agreed with me … but they wouldn’t agree with my premise that it put Islam in a positive light because of the statements.”

From the homework assignment sent home:

“I have seen pictures of women in the West and find their dress to be horribly immodest. … Women in the West do not have the protection of the Sharia as we do here. If our marriage has problems, my husband can take another wife rather than divorce me, and I would still be cared for. … I feel very fortunate that we have the Sharia.”

There are arguments by Parents, who like the IB program’s requirement for all students to master two foreign languages, complete extensive research papers, and to participate in out-of-school service learning activities. Many argue that IB schools have raised test scores in elementary, middle-school and high-schools, while preparing students to be better equipped for college than regular state school curriculum.

There is a very realistic trade off however.

Critics agree that IB’s program is contrary to American ideals and values. Global indoctrination outlined by the United Nations through UNESCO is closely adhered to. Students are taught that no one political philosophy is right and no country or system is superior to another. While teaching “world citizenship” to students, the program undermines and minimizes local, state and national jurisdictions or philosophies and laws. Parents’ and local teachers have “no say” in the curriculum that their children are taught.

In IBO schools, American history or nationalism is diminished. Actual American history and literature are taught at a minimum or at the most, the same level as any other nations. Inevitably the student is taught much less about American and more about globalism. Students are not taught to recognize any advantages of the Constitutional Republic, or the Bill of Rights, compared to other nation’s civil liberties.

IB schools also cost the taxpayer more in fees paid to the international corporation, in addition, all educators much participate in extensive training programs, which are usually abroad.

Researchers and critics worry that student minds are bring shaped toward globalism and socialism, and away from capitalism, democracy, and American Nationalism. The students learn early if they do not give in to the socialist teachings, at the time of testing they will not score high enough to get into one of the better colleges or Universities, which for the most part are already controlled by the same type of globalists.

Typical examples of what is a must in IB programming: eliminating the death penalty, restricting guns to military and police, environmental protectionism, teaching global warming as incontrovertible fact, AIDS as the primary health issue, endangered species, nuclear disarmament, women’s rights, slavery, forced wealth redistribution from rich countries to poor countries, forced wealth redistribution and equalization within rich countries, human rights, obesity, aging, cloning, and so forth. These topics are to be taught throughout the curriculum, from language class to math class to foreign languages and sciences.

IB programs are hostile to Christianity, while actively promoting non-Christian practices and organizations, mostly New Age and pantheistic belief systems. What passes for spiritual education in IB programming is actually New Age, Earth-worship type religion in environmentalist packaging.

IB Schools embrace Marxism, teaching American children at a very young age, what they do not have a mental maturity to decipher from the propaganda of anti-Americanism. With American principles and documents excluded or minimized, it’s easy to see how a globalist, leftist worldview matching the United Nations approaches could be formed in students.…

Legislation to Restore Honor and Benefits of the Victims of Fort Hood, Texas, and Little Rock, Arkansas!

I am very excited that United States Representative Frank Wolf, (R-VA), has recognized that Congress can repair a terrible injustice that was committed against our service members who were victims of terrorist attacks at Fort Hood, Texas, and Little Rock, Arkansas, by President Obama and his puppets in the Pentagon.  Because the president has refused to admit that the assault on our military and DoD civilian personnel in these two events were the work of enemies of the United States (terrorists), these men and women our warriors have been denied the military benefits and recognition that they deserve.  The legislation, an amendment to the Military Construction/VA Appropriations Bill, seems that these identified soldiers and DoD civilian personnel were killed or wounded as the result of an act of an enemy of the United States, while serving in a contingency operation and were killed or wounded in a terrorist attack.

If you would like to join me in sending your own letters to your two senators and a member of the House of Representatives I have provided my letters as examples.  The first letter is appropriate to send to your member of the House of Representatives.  The second letter is appropriate to send to your senators (you have two from your state).  Of course, I encourage you to write your own letter; but, if you would like to copy my letters (and modify them to go to your own congressional representatives in the House and Senate) you are welcome to copy these.  Also, don’t forget to change the signature block to reflect your own name at the end of your letter.

One note.  If you copy my letters, and you are not retired from the Army, you may want to delete that particular paragraph (paragraph 5 including reference paragraph) from your own letter.

Only Congress can restore what has been taken away from our faithful warriors our knights by our president and his puppets in the Pentagon, but you and I must empower and encourage them to speedily act on this legislation.  We must inspire enough congressional support to overcome an expected presidential veto.  We can do it!  Our troops deserve it!  Let’s get it done!

God bless!

My letter to my representative in the House of Representatives:

 

The Honorable Representative Michael C. Burgess (R-Texas, District 26)

United States House of Representatives

2336 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20510

 

Representative Burgess,

Reference:  Urgent need for full Congressional support (House and Senate) for the Amendment to Military Construction/VA Appropriations Bill offered by Congressman Frank Wolf, (R-VA), securing proper status, recognition and proper benefits for victims of hostile acts of terrorists and enemies of the United States in attacks at Fort Hood, Texas, November 5, 2009, and the Military Recruiting Center, Little Rock,Arkansas, June 1, 2009.

(1)  http://www.nbcdfw.com/investigations/Virginia-Congressman-Frank-Wolf-Reacts-to-Report-Showing-Accused-Fort-Hood-Shooter-on-Army-Payroll-208393851.html

(2)  Media.nbcbayarea.com/documents/WOLF_016_xml.pdf

 

Sir,

I am extremely happy to discover that Congressman Frank Wolf, (R-VA), has taken action that could lead to the correction of a terrible abuse by our federal government of Armed Forces and Department of Defense civilian employees who were killed or wounded in terrorist attacks at the Military Recruiting Center, Little Rock, Arkansas, on June 1, 2009, and Fort Hood, Texas, on November 5, 2009.  Rep.Wolf’s response is a direct reaction to a news story broadcast by NBC revealing the continuing injustice perpetrated by the Pentagon by denying the terrorist motives of the hostiles by calling the incident(s) “workplace violence” [see link at reference paragraph, sub-para (1) above].

My request to you and your fellow representatives is that you please co-sponsor Rep. Wolf’s legislation and, by all means, I urge you to use every opportunity to lobby your associates, Republican, Democrat, and Independent, to sign on as supporters of this critical legislation.  This amendment is designed to correct a terrible offense committed by our government, denying proper status and benefits, against those who were killed or wounded in acts no less overt in nature than any who have been killed or wounded on foreign battlefields!  Let any member of the House or Senate who would oppose this legislation (as a proper Amendment to a bill not otherwise corrupted by language that is unacceptable in its finished form), or, as a single non-amendable piece of legislation, bear the same shame of betrayal as that of Major Nidal Hasan himself!

Make absolutely no mistake, the victims of these incidents are the faithful sons and daughters of the United States of America and deserve every military benefit, every measure of honor, every dollar of pay and every decoration and award for injuries in line of duty and valor (where individually demonstrated) as those authorized their fellow service members and civilians in the Department of Defense killed or wounded in fields of combat overseas or in the attack of the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.  Only a pitiful and corrupt government would allow these victims to continue to be abused by the very government they are sworn to protect!

Although I cannot, and do not usually assume that I, as a retired soldier, can speak on behalf of those still serving in uniform (and I am by no means assuming the right to make policy or officially speak for the DoD or Army), I can tell you that from the sentiments of other retired service members and active duty members otherwise gagged to keep the appearance that they approve of what today’s Pentagon and Administration are doing, it is my clear sense that the force strongly supports action to correct these abuses.  Rep. Wolf’s amendment is provided in the above link at reference paragraph, sub-para (2).

For the sake of our faithful service members, and for honor’s sake, I implore you to push this legislation to the passage at a level of support that can override the presidential veto that our dishonorable President Obama is certain to threaten in order to continue to deny these service members what they are due.  To be sure, this legislation is necessary and just—and consistent with a nation that honors those who serve as our knights—our warriors.

It is, indeed, amazingly simple; support Rep. Wolf’s legislation and your actions will be patriotic and honorable.  To oppose this legislation is to perpetuate the attack on these service members initiated by their original attackers and reinforcing the apparent victories the terrorists believe they have achieved against our service personnel and our nation.

Respectfully,

Captain Terry M. Hestilow

United States Army, Retired

Fort Worth, Texas

May 23, 2013

 

and,

 

One of my letters to my senators:

 

The Honorable Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas)

United States Senate

Dirksen Senate Office Building

Suite SDB-40B

Washington, D.C. 20510

Senator Cruz,

Reference:  Urgent need for full Congressional support (House and Senate) for the Amendment to Military Construction/VA Appropriations Bill offered by Congressman Frank Wolf, (R-VA), securing proper status, recognition and proper benefits for victims of hostile acts of terrorists and enemies of the United States in attacks at Fort Hood, Texas, November 5, 2009, and the Military Recruiting Center, Little Rock,Arkansas, June 1, 2009.

(1)  http://www.nbcdfw.com/investigations/Virginia-Congressman-Frank-Wolf-Reacts-to-Report-Showing-Accused-Fort-Hood-Shooter-on-Army-Payroll-208393851.html

(2)  Media.nbcbayarea.com/documents/WOLF_016_xml.pdf

 

Sir,

I am extremely happy to discover that Congressman Frank Wolf, (R-VA), has taken action that could lead to the correction of a terrible abuse by our federal government of Armed Forces and Department of Defense civilian employees who were killed or wounded in terrorist attacks at the Military Recruiting Center, Little Rock, Arkansas, on June 1, 2009, and Fort Hood, Texas, on November 5, 2009.  Rep.Wolf’s response is a direct reaction to a news story broadcast by NBC revealing the continuing injustice perpetuated by the Pentagon by denying the terrorist motives of the hostiles by calling the incident(s) “workplace violence” [see link at reference paragraph, sub-para (1) above].

My request to you and your fellow senators is that you please sponsor, or co-sponsor, identical legislation in the United States Senate as that of Rep. Wolf in the House!  By all means I urge you to use every opportunity to lobby your associates, Republican, Democrat, and Independent, to sign-on as supporters of this critical legislation to correct a terrible offense committed by our government, denying proper status and benefits, against those who were killed or wounded in acts no less overt in nature than any who have been killed or wounded on foreign battlefields!  Let any member of the House or Senate who would oppose this legislation (as a proper Amendment to a bill not otherwise corrupted by language that is unacceptable in its finished form), or, as a single non-amendable piece of legislation, bear the same shame of betrayal as that of Major Nidal Hasan himself!

Make absolutely no mistake, the victims of these incidents are the faithful sons and daughters of the United States of America and deserve every military benefit, every measure of honor, every dollar of pay and every decoration and award for injuries in line of duty and valor (where individually demonstrated) as those authorized their fellow service members and civilians in the Department of Defense killed or wounded in fields of combat overseas or in the attack of the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.  Only a pitiful and corrupt government would allow these victims to continue to be abused by the very government they are sworn to protect!

Although I cannot, and do not, usually assume that I, as a retired soldier, can speak on behalf of those still serving in uniform (and I am by no means assuming the right to make policy or officially speak for the DoD or Army), I can tell you that from the sentiments of other retired service members and active duty members otherwise gagged to keep the appearance that they approve of what today’s Pentagon and Administration are doing, it is my clear sense that the force strongly supports action to correct these abuses.  Rep. Wolf’s amendment is provided in the above link at reference paragraph, sub-para (2).

For the sake of our faithful service members, and for honor’s sake, I implore you to push this legislation to passage at a level of support that can override the presidential veto that our dishonorable President Obama is certain to threaten in order to continue to deny these service members what they are due.  To be sure, this legislation is necessary and just—and consistent with a nation that honors those who serve as our knights—our warriors.

It is, indeed, amazingly simple; support Rep. Wolf’s legislation in identical form in the United States Senate and your actions will be patriotic and honorable.  To oppose this legislation is to perpetuate the attack on these service members initiated by their original attackers and reinforcing the apparent victories the terrorists believe they have achieved against our service personnel and our nation.

Respectfully,

Captain Terry M. Hestilow

United States Army, Retired

Fort Worth, Texas

May 23, 2013…