Archive by Author | Horatio Bunce


YUNOby Horatio Bunce

TNReady tests to be given via paper, pencil after tech failure

Just wanted to comment on the repeated failures of the many media outlets that keep calling these the TNReady tests that we contracted with Measurement Inc. to produce for $108M. Measurement Inc. sub-contracted to the behavioral research company American Institutes for Research (AIR ) who also made the tests called the SAGE Assessments for Utah. Like Tennessee, Utah also took the federal bribe called Race To The Top which required mandatory online assessments (all the better to mine your human capital data with). Bribe-takers were additionally required to work through one of two federally-created, stimulus-funded, multi-state testing consortia for these online tests: PARCC or SBAC. After initially awarding an illegal, no-bid testing contract to PARCC (Kevin Huffman, governing board member) and their project manager Achieve Inc. (Bill Haslam board member, Phil Bredesen national co-chair), the testing contract was “rebid” (sic) with only one possible winner that meets our federally-mandated testing consortia requirement: SBAC. However the multiple middle-men of AIR and Measurement Inc. help to conceal this fact. But here is AIR’s press release from 2012 claiming their partnership with SBAC to deliver online testing to states, so make no mistake, Tennessee maintains her status as federal welfare queen pleasing Uncle Sugar. Federally mandated online testing right along with Common Core for taking that $500M+ bribe. The Common Core Whores can rename it all they want – it is still the same.

Tennessee is currently paying Utah $2.3M per year to rent test questions from their SAGE Assessments.

I hate to say I told you so on these tests, but from October 2013:

Note that some believe the sudden pullback from PARCC by these states is orchestrated, that other opportunists are now positioning themselves to create a “state-led” assessment model to test the same Common Core “state” Standards without the obvious, blatant, federal appearance that PARCC and SBAC have. Time will tell. Of course, this is merely treating a symptom and not the disease. They would likely rely on the same test makers – or copy “big” states like Florida, the same way they do with textbook selection.

I ask you to remember back to Bredesen/Woodson/Haslam/Frist et al rationalizing the Common Core “State” Standards and the wonderful multi-state testing consortia and how it was so hard to compare student achievement from state to state because we all had our different tests and how great this “common” thing was going to be (after they all cash in).

Doesn’t it seem, well, contradictory that now we are paying the same two Washington DC testing corporations to make different tests for each state that allegedly are all aligned to the same academic standards?

Remember, there is a $5,000 fine for leaking out any of Utah’s rented test questions – per question “regardless of whether the release is accidental, intentional or required by law.” It sure would be a shame if that happened, especially since it is now on paper.

Get Ready for Surprise #2

by Horatio Bunce

This according to GOP Establishment man John McCain on the conservative “news”, who obviously has his finger on the pulse of GOP loyalists after endorsing Lindsey Graham. Now John and Lispy are backing guess who……Single Digit Jeb. Lispy tells him Jeb is rising in the polls and you are going to be surprised tomorrow night (see 6:19 in the video link). Ask yourself – how does GOP establishment retread McAmnesty already know there is a “surprise” waiting for you tomorrow?

So once again you are being prepared on multiple fronts:

A) The Iowa Republican “surprise” consisted of three things: 1- Trump’s commanding lead in every poll to that point evaporated and he “lost” in Iowa. 2 – Canadian Cruz “won”, but his campaign lied about Carson ending his campaign and try to blame this on CNN. 3- Rubio finishes 3rd and for the first time ever garners more than 20% of the vote, which until this point he has been unable to do in polling.

What was the result? Carson is dead. Trump appears to crash. Cruz “wins” but is overall weaker because of his campaign lying. He then doubles down and continues to blame CNN (who both tweeted and reported accurately that Carson was not immediately traveling to New Hampshire, not implying that he was suspending his campaign). Now the “evangelical” candidate is a stubborn liar – further weakening his campaign.

B) This appears to make Rubio the “front runner”, and as Tona pointed out, he was treated like the winner of Iowa for finishing third. Enter Chris Christie and the New Hampshire debate, which incidentally still made room for seven candidates so Single Digit Jeb and Kasich are allowed. Do you really believe that Rubio has been so polished a speaker and suddenly can only repeat the same line over and over? Christie the back-marker is used to make the attack on Rubio, so neither Trump nor Cruz benefit and Single Digit Jeb keeps his hands clean. Net effect: After Iowa you thought Rubio was front-runner material, but now he isn’t. Suddenly Rubio “cannot afford to not do well in New Hampshire”.  *ding*ding*ding*ding*ding*  All the first three Iowa finishers are made weaker by the “news” and the scripted flubs.

C) The “news” fact-checks the Republicans from their New Hampshire debate. They show you how all of them messed up except for who? That’s right. Single Digit Jeb. Oh, you noticed I left out Carson? That’s because he is dead. The “news” says so. He’s way down there at 3%… Single Digit Jeb….except well, he’s not Single Digit Jeb.

D) You are being prepped again with contradictory information about New Hampshire voters. First, they are unpredictable and make up their minds in the last 72 hours before voting (so you are ready for your surprise right?), AND AT THE SAME TIME, you are to believe Kasich is second in polling and Single Digit Jeb is moving up. So, if they are so unpredictable, who cares? Do their votes mean anything? Does the polling information mean anything? Obviously one of them has to be irrelevant right?

According to GOP establishment Lispy, New Hampshire “resets” everything. So Iowa doesn’t mean anything (except for Carson of course – he is dead). Cruz, Rubio and Trump are all “bad”. See how it works? Iowa is important to validate certain things, then within a week is completely meaningless.

Can you guess what your “surprise” is?

When are you Big Two sheep going to learn?

Voting in a Democratic primary

Voting in a Democratic primary

by Horatio Bunce

Hillary “Flips” Off Bernie; Won Six Straight Coin Tosses In Bizarre Caucus Tiebreaker

Your votes, your donations, your campaigning, following the delegate rules, signing the petitions – MEANS NOTHING. You have no “right” to vote in the private political club elections called “primaries” (just pay for them), and that is exactly why the Big Two “leadership” toss your votes in the trash and declare a winner by fiat.

A sample from the article linked above:

“Here’s what happened in precinct 2-4 in Ames as recounted by David Schweingruber, an associate professor of sociology at Iowa State University who participated in the caucus (from The Des Moines Register):

A total of 484 eligible caucus attendees were initially recorded at the site. But when each candidate’s preference group was counted, Clinton had 240 supporters, Sanders had 179 and Martin O’Malley had five (causing him to be declared non-viable).

Those figures add up to just 424 participants, leaving 60 apparently missing. When those numbers were plugged into the formula that determines delegate allocations, Clinton received four delegates and Sanders received three — leaving one delegate unassigned.

Unable to account for that numerical discrepancy and the orphan delegate it produced, the Sanders campaign challenged the results and precinct leaders called a Democratic Party hot line set up to advise on such situations.

Party officials recommended they settle the dispute with a coin toss.

A Clinton supporter correctly called “heads” on a quarter flipped in the air, and Clinton received a fifth delegate.

Similar situations were reported elsewhere, including at a precinct in Des Moines, at another precinct in Des Moinesin Newtonin West Branch  and in Davenport. In all five situations, Clinton won the toss.

When all was said and done, Clinton won six consecutive coin tosses which shouldn’t come as a surprise. Clinton’s pretty lucky when it comes to beating the odds as her cattle futures trading record makes abundantly clear.”

“Expect a surprise on Monday”

EvilLucyby Horatio Bunce

Don’t do it Charlie Brown. Lucy is telling you she IS going to pull away the football again.

Have you noticed the change in the big show this week? The conservative “news” is currently prepping you on a few fronts:

1. The “news” knows a secret. They tell you to expect a “surprise” on Monday. They won’t tell you what the secret is. I warned you there would be hijinks. They even trotted out Santorum and asked “remember how you won Iowa in 2012, we were so surprised!”. They barely remembered that they had dutifully reported that Romney “won” for a few weeks as the GOP lied about the results long enough for the tide to change into the New Hampshire primary. So, something “unexpected” has been pre-announced for you. How do you think they know that?

2. As of this week you are now being sold that Iowa Caucus goers are so unstable that many of them change their minds at the last second right there in the voting booth. This is to prep you to believe the “surprise” coming Monday that the “news” already seems to know about. Now, I am going to ask you to apply a little logic to this scenario. If the Iowa folks are so wishy-washy, can’t make up their mind, last second kneejerk voters, would the Iowa results have any real meaning to them? Are they even statistically valid? Wait and see what the “news” tells you about the “message” sent by Monday’s results from these same voters. It will “mean something” and you will be informed of who are now “losers” and you should jump ship soon.

3. Donald Trump is being called “childish”, “petulant”, “afraid of the voters”, “doing a disservice to the voters” etc. for not being willing to appear in the varsity debate tonight on Fox and for not taking up Cruz on his hair vs. hair (oh, wait that was a different Trump episode) $1.5M-for-the-veterans-one-on-one debate. For my Single Digit Jeb theory to prove true, Trump must crash. This tit-for-tat with “I’m an attorney” Kelly was set up months ago with their earlier spat – knowing the debate schedule – knowing she would be moderator just before Iowa – and give another nail in the Trump coffin. As CNN put it, you couldn’t ask for a better SET-UP *ding*ding*ding*ding*ding*. Laying out of this debate is just terrible and will surely affect the Iowa voters we are told……but at the same time the “news” seems to ignore that laying out of the last j.v. debate seemed to promote Rand Paul to prime time for this one didn’t it? Remember back to Lamar Alexander’s last primary campaign? Remember how he was too chicken to debate Joe Carr, acted like it was a waste of his time, beneath him or whatever? Where was all this “candidates owe it to the voters”, “don’t shy away from robust debate” talk from the “news” back then? Sorry, I’m not buying it.

4. You also have the recent endorsement of Trump by Sarah Palin. I believe this was done to hurt his general election polling numbers. This is also an indicator to me that Trump’s campaign is ultimately contrived. Palin was selling you her “Going Rogue” book, playing the anti-establishment game while simultaneously campaigning for John McCain – allegedly her arch enemy she was “going rogue” against… then later traveling to TN to go all Pay-triot for a $100k speaking fee to the Tea Party ™. So if Palin = Tea Party, shouldn’t she be endorsing Cruz? After all, the “news” informed us months ago he is the “darling of the tea party”.

5. Single Digit Jeb is now touted as moving into 2nd place in New Hampshire polling (ok one poll)….and his ads have changed from attacking Rubio to praising his own leadership qualities (but consistently neglect to mention his whole-hearted support of Common Core for some reason). This poll also purports to confirm the effect of Palin endorsing Trump.

It’s difficult to pinpoint a reason for the former Florida governor’s sudden surge…

Boy, it sure is! I mean, “nobody” could see that coming…

6. Glenn Beck endorses Ted Cruz and claims he (Glenn) is a “constitutionalist” now and we need to be wary of “anger” and “angry men” because that is not going to bring us success and isn’t very Christlike (because Glenn’s whole anti-establishment GOP Blaze thingy is supposed to appeal to the anti-establishment GOP/evangelical crowd – but never actually suggest any alternative to the GOP). I guess Glenn forgot all about endorsing Pre-Emptive Nuke Iran Santorum last time around. Now Glenn is a “constitutionalist” and we have to vote for the dual-citizenship Canadian for the sake of our children. I wonder why Glenn doesn’t know about the Constitution Party

Don’t say I didn’t warn you

by Horatio Bunce

Jeb Bush gains some ground in GOP polls     (of course he is…..)

A recent Reuters poll shows him in third place, behind Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz. Two South Carolina polls support that, showing the one-time frontrunner gaining ground, even edging out Florida’s other favorite son, Sen. Marco Rubio. Just a month ago, Bush was in single digits. Some even began to count him out.”

Uh, I think you meant just yesterday he was in single digits. Remember that Gallup poll 10 whole days ago where Single Digit Jeb took honors for “least favorable candidate”?

But Justin Clark of Fort Myers has a theory. “People are looking toward more conventional candidates.

Oh yeah…gimme that establishment GOP.  No need for that double-speak “conventional” stuff.

It probably has to do with he does have a lot of money backing him,” said Victoria Blaine.

No doubt, because you probably can’t find any actual voters backing him. Where ARE those JEB! stickers?

Have you noticed the game shift in the “news” this week? Trump constantly pitted vs. Cruz while Single Digit Jeb’s ads attack Rubio?  Rubio? You mean third place Rubio? Yep. Not Cruz. Not Trump. Normally, I would have said fourth place Rubio, but since the last debate Ben Carson has officially been killed by the “news” and their new poll numbers.

“Bush will need to perform strong in the next GOP debate to continue his rise.”

Oh? Well, thanks for pre-announcing that Single Digit Jeb, while currently “least favorable” among Republican voters is automatically ACTUALLY IN the next debate already.

So Single Digit Jeb from seventh to third….just like that.

Back in the good old Reagan days…when we knew who our enemies were

Shaking Hands: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983.

Shaking Hands: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983 – NSA Archives.

By Horatio Bunce

As I listened this week to Marco Rubio whining about Barry Sotero’s deal with Iran to return the funds we stole from them with our “economic sanctions” and how weak Obama’s response was to the “terrible” treatment of our soldiers who were only in “international waters”, etc., I was first reminded that:

A) It is the Congress that declares war against foreign enemies (though we apparently stopped doing that in spring 1942). Marco Rubio is in Congress. What is he doing about it? Why was our military in Iranian waters without a declaration of war from Congress?

B) If Sotero’s “weak” positioning of military craft in Iranian waters (apparently with no action from Congress) is a problem, then it is Congress that has the power to impeach him. Marco Rubio is in Congress. What is he doing about it?

Then as the pentagon re-re-revised their version of their excuses in the next days as to why we have these watercraft in Iranian waters and are still in 2016 apparently unable to competently navigate our military watercraft , it reminded me of other dealings with Iran when Republicans were in charge. Back when the internet was still being invented by Algore and it was easier to control the “news”. The GOP golden era of Reagan – when special envoy (and future Sect. of Defense) Rumsfeld was buddied up to Saddam Hussein, the CIA was training/arming Osama Bin Laden and the Afghani mujaheddin vs. evil Russia (don’t you remember Red Dawn, Rocky IV, Firefox, Top Gun, Rambo III – there was some great anti-Russia propaganda entertainment back then).

Remember when we conspired with Israel to pay them to ship US weapons to Iran (you know, their mortal enemy that wants to “wipe them off the map”) – but these weapons would only go to the  “moderate” Iranian “contras” we could trust to oust the “bad” Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution (ISIS storyline anyone?). Was that also a “weak deal with Iranians” trading our arms for hostages? Did they learn they could “kidnap Americans” and name their price back then too?

How about shooting down innocent Iranian civilians in a passenger airliner over their own airspace as we did in 1988? We “got confused” back then too – really couldn’t remember why we actually were in Iranian waters instead of international waters and why our top-notch defense systems “identified” a commercial passenger jet on its routine, on-time route as an Iranian F-14 (and guess where they bought those). $61.8 million tax dollars went to pay off the victims. Apparently “wage-earning” Iranians were worth $300,000 each while “non-wage earners” (aka children) were only worth $150,000. The perpetrators? They received awards.

I don’t know about you, but forking over $150k for murdering my child just wouldn’t cut it.

Single Digit Jeb

charlie brown

by Horatio Bunce

I have been telling friends and family for some time now that I expect the GOP to force Jeb Bush on the Republican faithful whether they want him or not. Most folks don’t believe it and point to Jeb’s perennially low, single-digit position in any poll of likely Republican voters and contrast that with the ongoing poll performance of Donald Trump/Ben Carson/Ted Cruz/Marco Rubio. Here’s my theory:

The “new” primary debate rules
I was expecting the GOP to field their usual, requisite array of primary candidates designed to appeal to various voter factions and people groups/single issue voters. The wash-rinse-repeat scenario goes like this:

1) The GOP consistently provides certain stereotype primary candidates for you to “identify” with, hoping you will warm up to the GOP brand (and donate!). These play certain specific roles, such as: war-hawk, the black guy, the female, the pro-amnesty, Hispanic-sympathizer, the fiscal money manager, the “evangelical candidate” with the new addition this cycle of “tea party darling” to head off you pesky constitutionalists that are not happy with business as usual but still believe in “reforming” your wife-beating husband called the GOP. Each of these candidates (except one) is fatally flawed by design so they will not run the distance, but you are supposed to stay loyal to the party brand despite this. Because after all, nobody is perfect, and the GOP nominee you are eventually to be force-fed sure isn’t your first, second or third choice.
2) Eventually your candidate is eliminated (by GOP hook or crook). Eventually, the GOP pre-selected nominee will emerge even though you don’t seem to know any supporters. They will have big donors from the beginning despite this. This is typically about the time your “conservative” news outlets begin to inform you that a vote for your favorite “wrong” Republican candidate equals a vote for the Democrat nominee (?). Or that your favorite “wrong” candidate isn’t polling high enough, doesn’t have a chance in the general election (while they also pre-announce the other side’s establishment candidate), etc. Or in more serious cases, they will begin name-calling them something other than Republican, such as a “libertarian isolationist” or “tea party candidate”. In this current cycle for example, if you are Bernie Sanders you are called a “socialist” instead of a Democrat. It may even be necessary to sabotage the Iowa Caucus to report a fraudulent “win” to kill momentum for the “wrong” candidates, as was done in 2012. This is all so you are mentally prepped to think the GOP really tried to give you a choice, but you need to be thinking about the “big picture” – which means keeping the GOP in power – and thus voting AGAINST the Democrat (because see, there are no alternatives to the Big Two – just ask them).
3) Eventually you are to resign your principles and be disgusted with their establishment nominee, yet remain loyal to the brand and then hold your nose and vote “so the Democrats don’t win” or “so they don’t get to pick the Supreme Court judges”. After months of hearing what a horrible candidate the Democrats support (or vice-versa) you Big Two supporters will be told despite this stupid nomination by the other side, it is now a neck-and-neck race, so “Friend, donate now to defeat Candidate X!” Suddenly “everyone” supports the emergent, stinking, establishment candidate – and you do too so you can “win”.

4) Nothing substantive changes. Banksters run roughshod with virtual printing of FRNs, foreign policy of undeclared war continues unabated, socialist security is still a ponzi scheme, budget deficits and can-kicking bailouts continue. More new boogie-men to be afraid of, liberties sacrificed for safety, etc. Globalist-R or Globalist-D makes no difference.

I found it really interesting that the GOP trotted out such a huge field of retread losers (Perry, Graham, Huckabee, Santorum, Christie) – while simultaneously announcing new “rules” for the primary debates, effectively giving you the illusion of choice, yet immediately telling you that your choice is varsity or j.v. by where they fall in the debate lineup – or whether you even see them on television. These debate lineups are to be based on polling data (those are always reliable right?). The large number made me suspicious of two things: first, that the establishment nominee was very unappealing to the average Republican voter – who is more tired than ever of establishment Republicans and second, that there may be a real, honest-to-goodness threat to the establishment in the field that has to be drowned out and marginalized with establishment-shill noise. Split the primary vote, split the donors, split those debate minutes into seconds. The legacy, big money and the die-hard minority establishment vote isn’t going anywhere. They are lifers. But you have to bust up the rest. The weak candidates will fall out and the establishment will be sustained by the legacy money. Jeb is easily recognized as nothing but establishment. The family tie, big Common Core promoter, CFR Independent Task Force co-chair. He is your globalist-R candidate (just like Hillary is the globalist-D candidate).
Single Digits
This extra attention to polling has made it even more interesting that Jeb continues to garner attention from the “news” when no one else seems interested in him. He has consistently placed in single digits in all polls. The only poll I have seen Jeb at the top of is the recent Iowa Caucus poll that asked “which candidate do you like the least?” I find this VERY interesting after Ron Paul’s previous campaigns where he consistently polled 12-14%, but was lambasted as having “no chance” and the name-calling was used  by the “conservative news”. How in the world can these same “news” stooges keep talking up Single Digit Jeb? They tell us his primary campaign is broke…and then the next station break runs a PAC-funded ad for Single Digit Jeb. The current topics of “news” will seem to search out the opinion of Single Digit Jeb – despite his 7th place ranking in the polls. Interesting. The “news” has NEVER paid attention to anyone in the single digits like this. Don’t you wonder why? Hasn’t this always been an excuse in the past to stifle debate and eliminate the back-markers? I mean if less than 1% of Republicans want Lindsey Graham and he is in the debate, why not an actual different party candidate for once? Why are we limited to the Big Two and crap candidates that only single-digits of likely loyal party voters are interested in?
I ran across an interesting scorecard this week called the 2016 Endorsement Primary. It lists the current presidential candidates and gives points based on that candidate’s endorsements by incumbent Governors (10 points), U.S. Senators (5 points) and U.S. Representatives (1 point). Guess who is leading all Republicans in endorsements by the established Republicans? That’s right, Single Digit Jeb. He’s the establishment man. However, the number of endorsements is terribly low historically for this point in the campaign. Comparably, Hillary Clinton already has ten times the endorsements. Comparisons can also be made to previous presidential campaigns which is pretty interesting. Another notable: Neither Donald Trump nor Ben Carson have any Republican endorsements. I believe this is very telling – either for a shill or real-deal candidate. Don’t you find it strange that these “front-runner” men in the polls for months now have ZERO endorsements by incumbent Republicans?
The Iowa Deadline
Well, as you know, the cuts have been made in the debate lineup, narrowing the field – based on polling data we are told. We are less than thirty days away from the Iowa Caucus, and despite Single Digit Jeb being named the least liked Republican candidate in the polls, there he is on the varsity squad again – and of course there must be seven of them, since he is in seventh place. I am expecting some really interesting hi-jinks in the next 30 days. Certain “front-runners” are going to fall out suddenly. Watch for whom they endorse. This will be telling also. The design is for you to transfer your support with their endorsement – eventually backing the pre-selected nominee.

So Charlie Brown, do you want to try to kick the football again?

Thought of the day: gas prices at “historic lows”

by Horatio Bunce

As Tennessee Republicans continue to float the idea of an increase in the motor fuel tax, I keep seeing a phrase along the lines of “it might be the right time since gas prices are at historic lows”.

I am not sure how “historic” or “low” they mean. Regular unleaded gasoline in Knoxville was $1.46/gallon when Barry Sotero was elected in 2008. Today it is $1.58/gallon, an 8.2% increase. If the fraudulent 2.1% inflation rate reported by our government actually included housing, food and fuels, then a 2.1% inflation rate since 2008 should put gasoline at $1.69/gallon where it has been in the last month. However, we all knew the days of $110/bbl oil and $3.50/gallon gasoline in this same window. And why should we believe there will not be an equal, non-market fundamental, skyrocketing of price in the next 7 years?

How much tax is enough? Of the current $1.58/gallon, $0.214 is state tax and another $0.184 is federal tax. That’s over 25% of the total revenue going to taxes already. The same government that has coddled hybrids and electric cars, their buyers and manufacturers, and mandated increased fuel efficiencies now seems to be suffering the consequences of its own mandates. What did they expect after forcing manufacture of more fuel efficient vehicles? More fuel use to keep padding their coffers?

Of course it is readily apparent to anyone paying attention the last seven years that fuel price apparently has nearly nothing to do with cost of oil production or even demand. Crude Oil price per barrel today ($37) is far less now than when gasoline was $1.46 per gallon ($46). Have you noticed the price of motor oil dropping 50% like gasoline has the last couple of years? Why hasn’t it moved? Are we to believe there is less demand and an inventory surplus of crude oil lowering the price of gasoline, but the same surplus doesn’t affect price for the oil used in the gasoline engine?

There are many games being played with the oil market, our OPEC agreement for exports only in US dollars, EFT (electronically traded funds) or futures (not actual barrels of oil) trading, economic sanctions (economic warfare) with certain foreign countries. Retaliation by other countries in response, etc. It is a false market. Republicans should stop relying on its instantaneous position to justify tax increases.

Wars and Rumors of War v1.0

by Horatio Bunce

Today the Dept. of Homeland Security claimed: “During that time period immigration officials were not allowed to use or review social media as part of the screening process,” John Cohen, a former acting under-secretary at DHS for intelligence and analysis. Cohen is now a national security consultant for ABC News.

This to explain why “nobody noticed” the alleged San Bernadino shooter Tashfeen Malik’s “radicalization” in social media posts prior to being granted a visa to enter the country.

And don’t miss this howler:

“A former senior counterterrorism official told the network that US officials “felt looking at public postings” of foreign US visa applicants “was an invasion of their privacy.”

This from the same federal government that says your cell phone conversations (which they record and store) and email communications (which they copy and store) have no expectation of privacy…

Apparently the drones at DHS forgot all about that whole “see something, say something” campaign .

First, let me remind you of the “bi-partisan” Smith Mundt Modernization Act amendment to the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which “modernized” our government’s propaganda “policy” in effect post WWII now openly admitting we are paying taxes to lie to ourselves – in various new media forms:


    This Act may be cited as the `Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012′.


    (a) United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948- Section 501 of the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 (22 U.S.C. 1461) is amended to read as follows:


      Sec. 501. (a) The Secretary and the Broadcasting Board of Governors are authorized to use funds appropriated or otherwise made available for public diplomacy information programs to provide for the preparation, dissemination, and use of information intended for foreign audiences abroad about the United States, its people, and its policies, through press, publications, radio, motion pictures,

the Internet, and other information media, including social media,

    and through information centers, instructors, and other direct or indirect means of communication.”

Now compare and contrast this “policy” with how many “ISIS” facebook, twitter posts and youtube videos you have been subjected to in the “news”, despite the inability to “find”, “arrest”, “contain”, “bomb” or otherwise “fight” said enemy “ISIS” – or for that matter shut down their American-owned social media accounts. Especially when we are told over and over how “ISIS” has “mastered social media” to “recruit” young Americans.  Then consider the other social media terrorist “news” stories of late:

More Young Americans arrested for joining ISIS

Americans Joining ISIS: Arrests Suggest Young Muslims Lured By Social Media

Air Force veteran pleads not guilty to terror-related charges

ISIS: Pennsylvania Woman Allegedly Tried to Join Group, Officials Say

California Student Arrested Attempting To Travel To Syria To Join ISIS Active On Social Media Sites Including Facebook, YouTube,, And Instagram

ISIS making connections via social media

Colorado girls’ apparent bid to join ISIS renews terror recruiting fears

From MN suburbs, they set out to join ISIS

American Extremist Reveals His Quest to Join ISIS

Seems to me the feds are awfully efficient at tracking down people perceived to be “terrorist threats” based on a couple of social media posts when they want to be.

21st Century Movietone, a.k.a. government propaganda at the movies

1948 - American Toys for American Boys & Girls

1948 – American Toys for American Boys & Girls

by Eric Holcombe

Check out the latest UN global governance missive you paid to be broadcast to folks at the movies this week; those whom may have missed out on the coincidentally-timed, wall-to-wall coverage of the redundant message from the “holy father”:

“THE PLAN IS AGREED BY EVERYONE”…..yeah, all the cool kids are doing it – except for the Holy See of course.


This was followed by a trailer for military-industrial complex p*rn: The Martian, a movie suggesting human residence on Mars is plausible (in a boy-in-a-bubble sort of way) – coincidentally-timed with the state media release of the “we gotta spend NASA billions to explore Mars saltwater” story replete with “liquid” water gems like these:

Liquid water has many uses:

  • It can be used for drinking.
  • It can be used to produce breathable oxygen.
  • It can help make rocket fuel to launch astronauts off the planet and back home.

Really now….water-based rocket fuel you say? I guess it’s a great thing then that the surface of the earth is about 70% salt water. All our energy worries are over! On Mars however, there is precious little of it. But you too can sign up for the “one-way” trip to the red desert at the Mars One project.

Just a couple of examples of the 2013 NDAA Congress--sponsored propagandizing of the American people at their own expense…”making “available, in the United States, motion pictures, films, video, audio, and other materials prepared for dissemination abroad or disseminated abroad pursuant to this Act….



A Utah teacher’s opinion of the SAGE test “items” TN is renting from Utah for $2.3M

by Eric Holcombe

Photo: Kelly Maher Poynter of her daughter working on "rigorous" Commie Core assignments

Photo: Kelly Maher Poynter of her daughter working on “rigorous” Commie Core assignments

As mentioned in earlier posts, Tennessee is leasing Utah’s Common Core, federal government-forced online testing “items” from their SAGE assessments provided by Smarter Balance Assessment Consortium (SBAC) via the behavioral research company American Institutes for Research (AIR). AIR is known for behavioral research, a.k.a. data mining, on public school students such as Project Talent in 1960 (also driven by the federal government). At the time of their implementation, the SAGE assessments were untested, that is, they were unpiloted on any students prior to them being foisted upon Utah students in spring of 2014. Utah students were the guinea pigs – and Utahns paid handsomely for the privilege to be the guinea pigs. In December of 2014, Achieve Inc. board member Bill Haslam announced that Tennessee would be renting test “items” from Utah for $2.3 million for the next couple of years until Measurement Inc. (via AIR, via SBAC) can develop the “TNReady” tests. Now keep in mind that like Tennessee, all states that took the Race To The Top federal bribe must choose between one of two federal-government created masters for their mandatory, online testing: PARCC or SBAC. Tennessee’s initial illegal, no-bid testing contract was awarded to PARCC (Kevin Huffman, governing board). Utah initially chose SBAC and after much public displeasure was expressed then did the same thing Achieve Inc. board member Haslam has since done: pretend to put the mandatory, federal-driven testing “out for bid”, say you are making “state-led” tests except they rigged the specifications so that ultimately only an SBAC subcontracted entity could “win”. So Utah ended up with the SAGE assessments by SBAC via AIR, the behavioral research company. In Tennessee’s case, we added yet another middle-man by hiring Measurement Inc. from North Carolina, who subcontracted to AIR, a Washington DC corporation (like Haslam’s Achieve Inc.) who works with SBAC from Washington State. And in the meanwhile, we are renting the tests that Utah has already paid them to create, thus TN students are really UtahReady.
Following is an editorial by Debbie Nichols, a recently retired Utah teacher of 34 years, who gives her view of the SAGE test (emphasis mine). This was published in the Deseret News on November 1 of 2014, about six months after the first application of the SAGE tests in Utah but still PRIOR to Tennessee’s contract to lease the test “items” for $2.3 million per year from Utah for the next two years and PRIOR to Tennessee’s $108 million contract to Measurement Inc. to produce the new tests from AIR/SBAC for the following five years.
You may find yourself asking who did the shopping for this and why did we decide this was a good idea for Tennessee (if in fact Commie Core and its mandatory online testing really is “state-led” and not forced by the federal government).

My view: A teacher’s opinion of the SAGE test
Many Utahns heard about the SAGE test for the first time this week as the test results were published. There is more to be concerned about than the scores. There are some things that taxpayers and parents need to know about the SAGE test.
I taught school for 34 years and just retired in June. I taught nine years at West Kearns Elementary and 25 years at Eastwood Elementary. I have watched the metamorphosis in education over these many years. Some changes have been good and some have not. The SAGE test is not a good change.

SAGE testing does not line up with the curriculum. It may tell you some things a child knows, but not necessarily what he or she learned in class. This style of test never measures what has been taught.

The math section of the SAGE test is really a reading test, which means one cannot distinguish computation from application from vocabulary knowledge. Can the child do the computation but not apply it? Could the child do the computation and apply it if he or she knew a different vocabulary term used in the word problem? The SAGE test won’t tell you, and educators are not given vocabulary lists or knowledge of content.
The SAGE test is simply not a good test. Last spring I saw a little boy stare at his screen for 30 minutes. He knew the correct answer was 1½, but he could not find a way to enter a mixed number to answer the question. It couldn’t be done on his computer.
The SAGE test is written so that as a student answers questions correctly, the test immediately takes the student to questions that aren’t just harder, but out of grade level. It overwhelms and frustrates elementary children. The students are not allowed to go on unless they answer each question. Last year I watched as 28 students stared at a screen until they gave up and guessed. The teacher is not allowed to give prompts during this test at all. Exasperated students soon give up. Low students stop reading altogether.
The SAGE test does not help teachers or students know student progress. This testing format is not age appropriate for grade school. For secondary schools, it is still not measuring if a student mastered the curriculum that they were taught.
Learning has to be measured in some way. So educators look at what the end goal is and set out during the year to try to achieve this goal. We make a curriculum that matches up with the final test to be given. This is not teaching to the test, this is teaching to the goal of mastery of a subject.
A runner knows that his race time does not improve by buying a new stopwatch. The runner knows that he needs to work harder and practice more. Students’ scores will not improve with a new test. It is not the testing we need to practice but the actual skill. More testing does not equal more learning. We need more teaching time in the classroom and less testing time. There is so much more that these students need to know for the future. Too much testing just desensitizes them. We should be striving for love of learning, not hate of testing.
Educators and society need to prepare our students for college and the real workforce. The SAGE doesn’t help, it just dampens the love of learning. We deserve more for our education dollar. More importantly, our students deserve better.

So what does UtahReady look like?

Brian Halladay, Alpine School District Board member, Utah County, UT

By Eric Holcombe
In my last post I explained how we are paying the state of Utah to “lease” test “items” that Utah has paid to have produced by the behavioral research company American Institutes of Research (AIR). Utah’s tests are called the SAGE Assessments and they began using them in 2014, because Utah, like Tennessee, also took the federal bribe in Race To The Top to implement the federally-provided Common Core “state” Standards and all electronic assessment testing provided via the federally created, multi-state testing consortia (PARCC and SBAC). So since Tennessee students will now be UtahReady, I thought you might be interested in the viewpoint of a Utah school board member regarding the SAGE assessments we are now paying Utah to lease “items” from. After all, we have been told by the Common Core Whores what a great idea this is because all the cool kids are doing it (emphasis mine):

The Reality Behind Your Child’s Test

By Brian Halladay, Board Member, Alpine School District, Utah

Sage test results were recently released that showed less than half of Utah’s students were proficient in math, English, and language arts. Taken at face value, this means that more than half our students are “not proficient.” So, what does this mean? Absolutely nothing.

The SAGE test is an unreliable, unverified test that our children from 3rd-11th grade are taking not just once, but up to three times a year. These tests aren’t scored by their teachers, but rather by the American Institutes for Research (AIR). This company is the one of the world’s largest social and behavioral research organizations. Your child’s proficiency is being scored by a bunch of behavioral researchers. 

No teacher is scoring, or has the ability to score, an individual child’s SAGE test.
Your child is taking a test for 8 hours (4 hours for math and 4 hours for English) that their teacher can’t see the questions to. This test is designed to have your child fail. Gone are the days when a student could feel a sense of achievement for getting 100% on a test. This test is touted to be “rigorous”. If your child gets a correct answer the test will continue to ask harder and harder questions until he or she gets it wrong (who knows if what is tested was actually taught in the classroom?) Put simply, this means that your child likely will come home grumpy, anxious, or depressed after taking this test. With over 50% non-proficiency, this will affect more than half  of the students that take it.

The teacher is almost as much of a test victim as the child. Having no idea of the test questions, teachers are still starting to be evaluated —on a test they can’t see. I believe we’re starting to see this leading to more experienced teachers leaving, and an increase in teachers with little to no experience not knowing the pre-SAGE environment.  

Points to consider: 

1. When did we allow testing to become more important than education?
2. Your child’s data is subject to being shared with people and organizations without your consent. There is nothing that prohibits AIR or any its multiple organizations from accessing your child’s data. As long as AIR doesn’t make a profit from the data without the USOE’s consent, they can use it for anything they want.
3. This test has no contractual provisions that prevent it from collecting BEHAVIORAL data. AIR has a long history of collecting behavioral data, and seeing they’re a behavioral research organization, don’t you think they will? (Just look up Project Talent).

Last year, two fellow board members and I wrote a letter to our State Superintendent asking him to address our concerns, for which we’ve had no response. If your parental instinct is kicking in, I would ask that you at least consider opting your child out of taking this test. State law allows any parent to opt their child out. Even if you don’t decide to opt out, talk with your teacher, know when your child is taking this test, and make sure your decision is in the child’s best interest.