Bill of Rights


Declaration of Independence

  Declaration of Independence   July 4, 1776   The Unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united* States of America.   When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary ...

U.S. Constitution

The Constitution of the United States of America PREAMBLE We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide ...

Latest News

Alleluia! He Is Risen!

Agenda 21? What is Agenda 21?

Posted by Dottie MacQueen



Most people have never heard of Agenda 21. If they have heard of it, they likely believe it to be a vague United Nations program that will never see the light of day, or they believe it is imagined by conspiracy theorists. Yet, the principles contained in Agenda 21 are at the heart of many of our federal programs since the late 1990s. They reach every corner of the United States and impact millions of Americans who don’t even realize the document exists.

Although Agenda 21 was decades in the making, it was showcased to the world at the 1992 UN “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro. It was there that President George H. Bush, along with leaders from 177 other nations, signed onto this “non-binding” UN action plan that was purportedly designed to assist governments at the local, national and international level implement the principles of so-called “sustainable development.” The “21” in the name refers to the 21st Century.

Agenda 21 made its way into the U.S. the following year when President Clinton quietly established the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD). The PCSD codified Agenda 21 into U.S. policy through a program called Sustainable America. Today, nearly all federal programs dealing with land management, education, environment and much more are linked to Agenda 21 through Sustainable America.

Because of grassroots pushback, the federal government today rarely uses the term Agenda 21 or Sustainable America anymore – especially with any program it is promoting. Instead, programs which administer Agenda 21’s sustainable development principles are given warm and fuzzy titles like the America’s Great Outdoors Initiative, Partnership for Sustainable Communities, Obama’s Climate Action Plan and many more. Even the newest education fad, Common Core, is linked to Agenda 21, as are the new Next Generation Science Standards.

Google has over 300 million referenUN buildingces to Agenda 21, yet it’s hard for most people to get the truth about Agenda 21 because of the truckloads of smoke and misinformation generated by government bureaucrats and the progressive media. This UN program is indeed real and it is an affront to our personal liberties.\Agenda 21 is supposedly designed to make the world “sustainable” by limiting human activities that environmental extremists believe are harming the planet. That may sound fine to many people – until they understand what it means in practice. In order to protect the environment, Agenda 21 instructs governments to micromanage virtually all human activity – which the governments either severely restrict, or regulate to the point that such activity can be minimalized.

A good case in point took place in California recently, which as has been widely reported, experienced a major three-year drought. In mid-March 2014, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld federal guidelines that guaranteed minimal flow of the Sacramento River to benefit “endangered” Delta Smelt – totally neglecting the needs of local farmers. Most farmers are getting no water even though most of them have long-term contracts guaranteeing it to them.

Delta smeltIronically, the Delta Smelt have survived many severe droughts in the past when farmers got virtually all the available water from the Sacramento River. Yet today the smelt get the water and the farmers don’t – even though many of the farmers will not survive the cutbacks. Seeing the needs of nature as being in conflict with the needs of people is a principle that is at the very heart of Agenda 21.

This is no small matter. Thousands of workers are being put out of work in California, and up to 700,000 acres of prime farmland will be removed from production. Since one-third of America’s fruit and vegetables originate in California’s Central Valley, this means that food prices could jump as much as 3.5%. While that may not seem like much to the more affluent in our society, it could be devastating to seniors and the poor who may no longer be able buy essential fruits and vegetables.

Simply stated, the only way Agenda 21 can work is to deny private citizens their private property rights. This should surprise no one since the UN has maintained that “public control of land use is…indispensable” since the 1976 Habitat I Conference in Vancouver, British Columbia. Yet, recent research sponsored by the World Bank has shown that legally protected private property rights drastically reduce corruption, while establishing the foundation for wealth creation. This in turn also helps the environment as weathier nations spend more on environmental protection than poorer ones. The research stressed that “since these people do not have access to a comprehensive legal property system, they cannot leverage their assets to produce additional wealth.” The bottom line? “Nearly five billion people are legally and economically disenfranchised by their own governments,” reports the Bank.

The vast bulk of this is occurring, of course, in the developing world – but not all. The same thing is happening in the U.S. as Agenda 21 principles are adopted into policy. It has already had devastating effects. According to the Fraser Economic freedom wordsInstitute and CATO’s Economic Freedom of the World, the legal-system and-private-property-rights ranking for the U.S. plummeted from number one in 1980 to 38th in 2011; which not unsurprisingly has occurred since Agenda 21 principles began to be implemented in the 1990s. The U.S. combined economic ranking in the world from 1980 to 2000 was second or third place behind Hong Kong and Singapore. It plummeted to 19th between 2000 and 2011—mostly due to federal spending, debt, skyrocketing regulations (especially from EPA) and, most importantly, loss of a stable legal system and property rights.

Is it any wonder the current “economic recovery” is so anemic. Certainly not all of the economic woes we have experienced since President Obama’s election can be blamed on Agenda 21 policy. But Agenda 21 is no doubt a big factor in ravaging the U.S. economy. Citizens can begin to restore America’s health by supporting rational candidates at every level of government that are committed to ridding this nation of Agenda 21’s “sustainable development” policy plague.


How The West Was Won – By The Feds – All 505 Million Acres of It

Posted by Dottie MacQueen


Federal lands(*)


Via Environment Blog 

Well(sic) sometimes feels like we never won it when so much of our land and resources are under the direct control of the U.S. government and tribal authorities. If you take a look at the American “west”, you will see a very big difference from the other half of the country in terms of land owned by the government and land that is “free” to own by the public.

The federal government owns approximately 29% of the land area in the United States, more than 653 million acres. The U.S. General Services Administration’s report on Federal Real Property Profile, 2004 shows how much land the government owns in each state. The top 10 federally owned states:

Nevada 85%
Alaska 69%
Utah 57%
Oregon 53%
Idaho 50%
Arizona 48%
California 45%
Wyoming 42%
New Mexico 42%
Colorado 37%

Out of the top 10 states (all are in the American “west”), the federal government owns 505 million acres or 77% of the total land area owned in the United States by the federal government.

The White House acknowledges the fact that not only is the United States government the largest property owner in the country, but also a major source of government waste because of this fact. Efforts to make much of this property available to the public for purchase have been minimal. The White House Federal Excess Properties site shows the federal government’s effort in selling off properties.

The Federal Government is the biggest property owner in the United States, and billions of taxpayer dollars are wasted each year on government properties that are no longer needed. The President has proposed an independent Civilian Property Realignment Board to help the Federal Government cut through red tape and competing stakeholder interests to sell or get rid of property it no longer needs. Over time, this could save taxpayers billions of dollars and help to reduce the deficit.

This map shows just the tip of the iceberg in terms of opportunities for downsizing the Federal real estate portfolio. Under the President’s proposal, more properties, in some cases with significant market value, would be added to this map and dealt with more quickly and effectively than they are today.

President Obama and Vice President Biden launched the Campaign to Cut Waste to eliminate misspent tax dollars in every agency and department across the Federal Government. Getting properties like those highlighted below off our books is a key first step in this effort. The

Civilian Property Realignment Board was cancelled by congress and a very painful and slow process for eliminating this waste is still in place.

Before any agency sells a surplus property, it is required by federal law to ensure that no other U.S. agency wants it. It must then offer a right of first refusal to state and local governments as well as nonprofits. Buildings must be assessed as potential homeless shelters and reviewed for environmental contamination and historic significance.

All of these federally owned properties have the potential to be transferred to state/local governments or to private interests. Benefits could include:

  • less government waste of resources and taxpayer dollars
  • increased efficiency of remaining federal properties
  • greater use of agriculture, energy and natural resources for private use

The bipartisan Federal Real Property Asset Management Reform Act of 2013 is intended to expedite the sale of federal property that is underutilized. A greater effort in this direction is very obvious and needed.

What Divides Parents and Children? Common Core Math

Posted by Dottie MacQueen




Via American Thinker

When you look back at New Math (ca. 1965) and Reform Math (ca. 1990), one of the most striking and persistent features was that parents could not understand the homework their children brought home.

 Mystified parents were trying to advise mystified children.  The parents, presumably the wise members of the society, were helpless to say anything useful when confronted by the weird complexities of “reform” math, which has now been rolled forward into Common Core.

Here is a commonplace horror story that can stand in for millions of others: “When Mike and Camille Chudzinski tried to help their son with his homework earlier this fall, they were bewildered. The fourth-grader brought home no spelling lists, few textbooks, and a whole new approach to solving math problems. When he tackled multi-digit addition, for instance, Patrick did not just line up the two numbers and then add the columns, as his parents had been taught to do. Instead, he sketched out a graph with a series of arrows and marks that appeared at first to his parents as indecipherable as hieroglyphics.”

 When we hear these stories, we typically focus on the comical oddity of adults not being able to do homework intended for children.  How is that even possible?  But the ramifications are anything but funny.  The real damage is that Reform Math opens up fractures throughout society.  Parents are cut off from their children.  Parents and schools are pitted against each other.  Students are alienated from their teachers and schools.

Sociologist James Coleman said that the most important thing in successful education is what he calledsocial capital.”  Ideally, parents, kids, schools, and community are on the same page, working toward the same goals.  In this way the children feel they are doing appropriate and necessary things.  Energy is used to complete tasks, not to debate the merits of the tasks.

Imagine the situation in Reform Math when parents can’t do even elementary problems in arithmetic.  Adults are angry; children are stressed.  Parents have conferences with teachers, and they complain later in front of the children that the teachers couldn’t give them any satisfactory answers.  Why would children be enthusiastic about mastering something that their own parents find impossible and reprehensible? 

All of this tension and hostility adds up to the perfect excuse for the child to lose interest in math, and in school generally.  We hear lots of stories about children who are miserable at school.  We shouldn’t be surprised.

In short, Reform Math is bad not just because it doesn’t teach math; it’s bad because it’s a society-wrecker.  This is Common Core’s dirtiest trick. 

In an intelligently organized society, the schools would do everything possible to involve parents in their children’s education.  Our Education Establishment is doing the reverse.  Schools seem intent on making parents turn their backs on their children’s education.

Driving parents out of the equation means driving education out of the equation.

Today, whenever schools are not getting good results, the first excuse the Education Establishment offers is that parents don’t want to help.  This is diabolical.  The schools do everything possible to make parents give up on education, and then the schools blame the parents.

Professor Michael Toscano writes, “Educational success is also dependent upon closure between families and their schools. In the case of the CCSS, little real ‘social capital’ exists between parents and schools, because the standards were adopted out of the reach of parents and because they will remain out of their reach. This is a crucial mistake. Education must be a common good that emanates from the relations of families in a community.”

When New Math was first introduced 60 years ago and parents complained, the official propaganda was that the new methods were so sophisticated that parents simply weren’t ready for them.  Many in the community accepted the claim that children would finally benefit from being pushed in this way.  That was a mistake.  New Math was, for all practical purposes, irrational.  It soon self-destructed, and then we knew that it, not parents, had been flawed all along.

This pattern continues.  The community should use a commonsense “smell test.”  Schoolwork too complicated for parents is too complicated, period.  It’s not appropriate for children.

Continue reading


Thanks to Their Hatred for Fossil Fuels, Northeasterners May See Serious Energy Shortages

Posted by Dottie MacQueen

Reaping what we sow comes immediately to mind. Will northeasterners see it that way when they don’t have heat or air conditioning?

NE Energy Infrastructure

Source: Energy Information Administration,


Via Institute for Energy Research

The U.S. Northeast Power Struggle

Both nuclear power and coal-fired power plants are retiring prematurely in New England due to onerous regulations and competition from low cost natural gas-fired generating plants. The Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant (604 megawatts), which supplies 4 percent of New England’s power and three-fourths of Vermont’s electricity, is expected to retire at the end of this year concurrent with the end of its fuel cycle. Entergy, the plant’s owner, cites a number of financial factors for the retirement including increased costs to comply with new federal and regional regulations and competition from natural gas power plants. However, Vermont Yankee has been opposed by state political figures for some time, and many have cheered its closure after years of criticizing its operation.  Also, U.S. nuclear power plants are plagued with competition from negative power prices from wind energy due to the federal Production Tax Credit (PTC) that provides a 10-year subsidy for qualified wind units. Because Vermont Yankee is operated as a merchant generator, its costs cannot be recovered through regulated cost-of-service rates.[i]

New England expects more than 1,369 megawatts of coal-fired generating capacity to be retired between 2013 and 2016. Dominion Energy Resources is planning to retire the nearly 750-megawatt Salem Harbor coal- and petroleum-fired power plant in Massachusetts this year due to the Northeast states antagonism toward coal (i.e. the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative), the costs of compliance of new environmental regulations, and declining profits for coal-fired units in New England.[ii]  To keep operating its coal-fired power plants, the company would need to spend millions of dollars on environmental equipment to comply with EPA regulations. In southeastern Massachusetts, the Brayton Point power plant, the largest coal-fired power plant in New England, is expected to be shut down in 2017 due to EPA’s onerous regulations.

Reliability experts are noting that the New England grid is entering risky territory. It currently gets 52 percent of its electricity from natural gas. There is currently enough natural gas pipeline capacity during non-winter months to supply New England utilities. But, this past winter, the lack of pipeline infrastructure resulted in the need to rely on nuclear, coal, and petroleum to meet demand from the extreme cold weather. The spot price of natural gas was so high that it was less expensive to generate electricity from petroleum. At a recent hearing, Senator Lisa Murkowski noted, “… 89 percent of the coal electricity capacity that is due to go offline was utilized as that back-up to meet demand this winter.[iii]

With the early retirements of nuclear and coal-fired power plants cutting back on supply diversity, the New England grid is becoming dangerously reliant on natural gas for its generating capacity. The Independent System Operator New England recommended against the closure of the 1500 megawatt Brayton Point facility because the plant is needed to ensure reliability.[iv]

Read article here.




The Transformation of America

Posted by Dottie MacQueen


Via Kjos Ministries

The Transformation of America

God doesn’t change. Nor does human nature. We, like Israel in Old Testament days, tend to forget that God is the One who has blessed our nation. So today, when we ignore His ways. He once again withdraws His protection and turns us over to the natural consequences that are part of this world system. [See God's Warnings for our Times]



 Beliefs  Based on Bible  Based on shifting wants & views
 Culture  Western individualism  Global solidarity
 Values  Based on the Bible(absolute, unchangeable truth)  Based on human lusts & global agendas. (easy to manipulate feelings and actions)
 Morality  Moral boundaries   Sensual freedom
 Rights   Personal freedom/Self control   Social controls
 Economy   Free enterprise  Socialist collective
 Government   By the people  By those who control the money and media

The masses would be manipulated and controlled through various means. One of the most effective mind-changing methods is the Hegelian-Marxist dialectic (consensus) process. Now used in every public school across America, it serves to unify their new values and expose dissenters.

Other schemes that drive the masses toward global tyranny include controlled  media propaganda, corrupt entertainment, deceptive polls, seductive slogans, and useful conflicts. (Remember Orwell‘s 1984) The greater the perceived crisis, the faster our leaders can assume the coveted political powers that wipes out our freedom.

Crisis and uncertainty and key to control, and our times offer plenty of both: moral, spiritual, economic…. The moral crisis — which soared when Biblical boundaries were replaced by mandatory promotion of sensual depravity – serves the purpose well. Today’s lack of clear moral boundaries is pushing our nation toward social and medical chaos.

That chaos, in turn, calls for policies that would have been unthinkable when most Americans still trusted God and His Word. In other words, the official promotion of depravity serves a useful political purpose. Aldous Huxley summarized it well in Brave New World:


“As political and economic freedom…diminishes, sexual freedom tends compensatingly [sic] to increase. And the dictator…will do well to encourage that freedom.  In conjunction with the freedom to daydream under the influence of dope, movies and the radio, it will help to reconcile his subjects to the servitude.”[1]

One day before May Day, 2012, our socialist leaders made a strategic choice in their quest for global control. The White House announced that the new slogan for the Obama campaign would be the word Forward:

New Obama slogan has long ties to Marxism, socialism: “The Obama campaign apparently didn’t look backwards into history when selecting its new campaign slogan, ‘Forward‘ — a word with a long and rich association with European Marxism. Many Communist and radical publications and entities throughout the 19th and 20th centuries had the name ‘Forward!’ or its foreign cognates. Wikipedia has an entire section called ‘Forward (generic name of socialist publications).’


     “‘The name Forward carries a special meaning in socialist political terminology. It has been frequently used as a name for socialist, communist and other left-wing newspapers and publications,’ the online encyclopedia explains. The slogan ‘Forward!’ reflected the conviction of European Marxists and radicals that their movements reflected the march of history, which would move forward past capitalism and into socialism and communism.

     “The Obama campaign released its new campaign slogan Monday in a 7-minute video. The title card has simply the word ‘Forward’ with the ‘O’ having the familiar Obama logo from 2008. It will be played at rallies this weekend that mark the Obama re-election campaign’s official beginning….Vladimir Lenin founded the publication ‘Vpered’ (the Russian word for ‘forward’) in 1905.”

Continue reading


Arne Duncan: ‘Inspiring’ to see Children Cross the Border to Get an Education

Posted by Dottie MacQueen


Proposed Common Core standards omit ‘liberty’ from list of America’s founding principles

Posted by Dottie MacQueen

New York Common Core social studies standards


ALBANY, N.Y.  – Common Core is only related to English and math, as some “conservative” proponents say.

Yeah, riiiiight.

The state of New York is currently proposing a set of Common Core social studies standards for kindergarten through 8th grade students.

Among the standards is how students will learn about the history of America. On page 32, the draft document deals with “civic ideals and practices.”

“The United States is founded on the principles of democracy, and these principles are reflected in all types of communities,” it reads.

That’s fair enough, we suppose. The early United States had a very limited democratic process, with most states limiting voting rights to male property owners. Only later was the ability to vote and participate in government extended to average men and eventually women.

But then the social studies draft takes a noticeably progressive turn.

“The United States is founded on the democratic principles of equality, fairness, and respect for authority and rules,” the standards document says.

Further, “Students will explore democratic principles such as dignity for all, equality, fairness, and respect for authority and rules, and how those principles are applied to their community,” it reads.

What happened to “liberty”? You know, a word that actually appears in the Declaration of Independence? It’s a word that means more than just about any other word in our national history. It refers to personal freedom, and the right of citizens to live their lives without the intrusion of tyrannical government.

 On a personal level, I’m all for “fairness” and “dignity for all” – heck, even “respect for authority” is important in most situations. But our nation was clearly not founded on any of those concepts. Many of the founders were slave owners, as the progressives are quick to point out. And the founders staged an armed rebellion against the rule of King George IIII, which hardly represented “respect for authority and rules.”

And there’s a very big difference between people who serve in authority positions, and laws that are on the books for all to follow. In America we clearly have the right to disrespect our governmental leaders, and say so in public if we choose.

But none of those historical facts fit into the progressive version of a kinder, gentler, more “fair” America.

And nothing drives progressives more nuts than hearing people utter criticisms of their sainted President Obama.

Progressives are trying to change America through the neatly-tailored but inaccurate lessons they are teaching children through Common Core, and folks like Jeb Bush and the Fordham Institute staff are happily along for the ride. If that’s who conservatives have looking out for them, who needs Barack Obama?

Democrats Conspiring to Rig Electoral College, Law Passed in 9 States So Far

Posted by Dottie MacQueen

And, Illinois is one of those nine states!!!





A plan, now stealthily making its way through state legislatures with astonishing speed, would junk the Electoral College and award the presidency to the winner of the popular vote.

The plan involves an Interstate Compact where states would commit to select electors pledged to vote for the national popular vote winner regardless of how their own state voted. When enough states pass this law, sufficient to cast 270 votes which is the majority of the Electoral College, it will take effect.

The Electoral College will become a vestigial anachronism.

So far, nine states and the District of Columbia, casting 136 electoral votes, have joined. This is halfway to the 270 needed to put the compact into effect. The ratifying states are: Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, Hawaii, Washington, Massachusetts, the District of Columbia, Vermont, California, and Rhode Island.

Both houses in New York have passed it and it’s on Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s desk.

It has already passed in the House in Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon. These states, plus New York, represent 107 votes. Combined with the others they are up to 242 votes. They need 270.

Who is pushing this?

All of those ratifying voted for Obama.

H/T Barb S.

The Real Story Behind The Bundy Ranch Harassment

Posted by Dottie MacQueen

Hint:  It has nothing whatsoever to do with Nevada resident, the desert tortoise.  So, can you think of some other Nevada resident who has no concern for the law of the land. He loves power and money. Oh, and his initials are H. R. 

Ah, yes, it makes sense now, doesn’t it?



By now you’re familiar with the standoff between the federal government, i.e. the Bureau of Land Management, and 67 year-old rancher Cliven Bundy. (If not, check the backstory and my radio interview with him here.) The BLM asserts their power through the expressed desire to protect the endangered desert tortoise, a tortoise so “endangered” that their population can no longer be contained by the refuge constructed for them so the government is closing it and euthanizing over a thousand tortoises. The tortoises, the excuse that BLM has given for violating claims to easements and running all but one lone rancher out of southern Nevada, is doing fine. In fact, the tortoise has lived in harmony with cattle in the Gold Butte, Clark County Nevada for over a hundred years, or as long as Cliven Bundy’s family has lived on the land as ranchers. In fact, the real threat to it is urbanization, not cattle.

A tortoise isn’t the reason why BLM is harassing a 67 year-old rancher. They want his land. The tortoise wasn’t of concern when Harry Reid worked BLM to literally change the boundaries of the tortoise’s habitat to accommodate the development of his top donor, Harvey Whittemore. Whittemore was convicted of illegal campaign contributions to Senator Reid. Reid’s former senior adviser is now the head of BLM. Reid is accused of using the new BLM chief as a puppet to control Nevada land (already over 84% of which is owned by the federal government) and pay back special interests. BLM has proven that they’ve a situational concern for the desert tortoise as they’ve had no problem waiving their rules concerning wind or solar power development. Clearly these developments have vastly affected a tortoise habitat more than a century-old, quasi-homesteading grazing area. If only Clive Bundy were a big Reid donor.

BLM has also tried to argue that the rules have changed, long after Bundy claims he secured rights and paid his dues to Clark County, Nevada. BLM says they supersede whatever agreement Bundy had prior; they demanded that he reduce his living, his thousand-some-odd head of cattle down to a tiny herd of 150. It’s easy for the government to grant itself powers of overreach, but it doesn’t make it right. Many bad things are done in the name of unjust laws. Just look at Obamacare. This heavy-handed tactic has run the other ranchers from the area and now Bundy is the last one. He’s the last one because he stood up to the federal government.

So why does BLM want to run Bundy off this land and is Reid connected?

I discussed this on “Kelly File” tonight, video via Jim Hoft.

*UPDATE: Those who say Bundy is a “deadbeat” are making inaccurate claims. Bundy has in fact paid fees to Clark County, Nevada in an arrangement pre-dating the BLM. The BLM arrived much later, changed the details of the setup without consulting with Bundy — or any other rancher — and then began systematically driving out cattle and ranchers. Bundy refused to pay BLM, especially after they demanded he reduce his heard’s head count down to a level that would not sustain his ranch. Bundy OWNS the water and forage rights to this land. He paid for these rights. He built fences, established water ways, and constructed roads with his own money, with the approval of Nevada and BLM. When BLM started using his fees to run him off the land and harassing him, he ceased paying. So should BLM reimburse him for managing the land and for the confiscation of his water and forage rights?

Cliven Bundy’s problem isn’t that he didn’t pay — he did — or that his cattle bother tortoises — they don’t — it’s that he’s not a Reid donor.

**One last thought: For those conservatives saying that since BLM arrived in the late 90s, it’s the law now, well, so is Obamacare.