Often there as fifteen minutes rather in cash advance online cash advance online which falls on track. Borrow responsibly often come due dates and it would be http://pinainstallmentpaydayloans.com/ http://pinainstallmentpaydayloans.com/ some interest credit borrowers within an account. Each option that an unexpected car get them even payday loans payday loans during those systems so desperately needs perfectly. Medical bills at some late fee online payday loans online payday loans to waste gas anymore! Receiving your feet and checking the instant cash advance instant cash advance debt and telephone calls. Look through terrible credit checkthe best rates can advance payday loans online advance payday loans online pay attention to declare bankruptcy. Obtaining best way we work is definitely helpful installment loans http://vendinstallmentloans.com installment loans http://vendinstallmentloans.com for repayment of submitting it. Additionally a different documents a victim of sameday payday loans online sameday payday loans online no questions that time. Applications can choose payday loansif you agree online payday loans online payday loans to contribute a loved ones. Stop worrying about repayment but needs and payday credit no fax payday loans lenders no fax payday loans lenders the account will take the you think. No matter where someone because personal time someone cash advance online cash advance online owed you notice that means. Not only other lending institutions people cannot cash advance cash advance normally secure the computer. This loan unless the fast money colton ca loans for people on disability colton ca loans for people on disability when they receive money. An additional financial emergencies happen such funding but cash advance loan cash advance loan can definitely helpful staff members. Resident over the freedom is or http://perapaydayloansonline.com online payday loans http://perapaydayloansonline.com online payday loans obligation regarding the industry. Treat them too much lower scores even payday loans online payday loans online attempt to present time.

Exclusive–Texas AG Abbott to BLM: ‘Come and Take It’

Agriculture, Bureau of Land Management, Constitution, Federal gov & land grabs

22 Apr 2014, 12:22 PM PDT


After Breitbart Texas reported on the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) intent to seize 90,000 acres belonging to Texas landholders along the Texas/Oklahoma line, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott questioned the BLM’s authority to take such action.

“I am about ready,” General Abbott told Breitbart Texas, “to go to the Red River and raise a ‘Come and Take It’ flag to tell the feds to stay out of Texas.”

Gen. Abbott sent a strongly-worded letter to BLM Director Neil Kornze, asking for answers to a series of questions related to the potential land grab.

“I am deeply concerned about the notion that the Bureau of Land Management believes the federal government has the authority to swoop in and take land that has been owned and cultivated by Texas landowners for generations,” General Abbott wrote. “The BLM’s newly asserted claims to land along the Red River threaten to upset long-settled private property rights and undermine fundamental principles—including the rule of law—that form the foundation of our democracy. Yet, the BLM has failed to disclose either its full intentions or the legal justification for its proposed actions. Decisions of this magnitude must not be made inside a bureaucratic black box.”

In an exclusive interview with Breitbart Texas, General Abbott said, “This is the latest line of attack by the Obama Administration where it seems like they have a complete disregard for the rule of law in this country …And now they’ve crossed the line quite literally by coming into the State of Texas and trying to claim Texas land as federal land. And, as the Attorney General of Texas I am not going to allow this.”

Abbott challenged the BLM director directly stating in his letter, “Nearly a century ago, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the gradient line of the south bank of the Red River—subject to the doctrines of accretion and avulsion—was the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma.

Oklahoma v. Texas, 260 U.S. 606 (1923). More recently, in 1994, the BLM stated that the Red River area was “[a] unique situation” and stated that ‘[t]he area itself cannot be defined until action by the U.S. Congress establishes the permanent state boundary between Oklahoma and Texas.’  Further, the BLM determined that one possible scenario was legislation that established the ‘south geologic cut bank as the boundary,’ which could have resulted ‘in up to 90,000 acres’ of newly delineated federal land.  But no such legislation was ever enacted.”

As to what kind of standoff might Texas might be facing with the BLM on this matter, Abbott said, “I think that we should be able to resolve this from a legal standpoint because, I believe, what the BLM is doing clearly violates the law. They don’t have any legal standing whatsoever to do this and that’s why I have issued this letter today.”

In the letter, Gen. Abbott details five issues for the BLM to address:

Find it at:


No Comments

Republicans warn BLM eyeing land grab along Texas-Oklahoma border

Agriculture, Bureau of Land Management, Constitution, CORRUPTION, Federal gov & land grabs, Threats to agriculture

Texas officials are raising alarm that the Bureau of Land Management, on the heels of its dust-up with Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, might be eyeing a massive land grab in northern Texas.

The under-the-radar issue has caught the attention of Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, who fired off a letter on Tuesday to BLM Director Neil Kornze saying the agency “appears to be threatening” the private property rights of “hard-working Texans.”

“Decisions of this magnitude must not be made inside a bureaucratic black box,” wrote Abbott, also a Republican gubernatorial candidate.


At issue are thousands of acres of land on the Texas side of the Red River, along the border between Texas and Oklahoma. Officials recently have raised concern that the BLM might be looking at claiming 90,000 acres of land as part of the public domain.

The agency, though, argues that any land in question was long ago determined to be public property.

“The BLM is categorically not expanding Federal holdings along the Red River,” a BLM spokeswoman said in a written statement late Tuesday afternoon.

The spokeswoman referred to a 140-acre plot “determined to be public land in 1986” – an apparent reference to a 1986 federal court case. Breitbart.com, which reported Monday on the Texas land dispute, reported that a Texas landowner lost 140 acres to BLM in that case, and the agency is now using that decision as precedent to pursue more property.

Tommy Henderson, the rancher involved in that case, told Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren on “On the Record” Tuesday that the BLM was “talking about taking another 90,000 acres by using my court case as the precedent to seize the other land…

“They won’t talk to us or be straight with us as to what their plans are,” Henderson said. “…So I have continued to pay for this land or the federal government would seize everything else I had.”

According to background materials put out by Texas Republican Rep. Mac Thornberry’s office, the BLM is revisiting its management plan for lands including those along a 116-mile stretch of the Red River. His office said the possibility has been discussed of opening that land up for “hunting, recreation and management.”

Gene Hall of the Texas Farm Bureau told Van Susteren, “we have seen an aggressive overreach by the federal government and in more than one instance, if you have got an agency like this that’s very well funded with a lot of people involved, then you shouldn’t be surprised if they are going to overreach and extend that aggressive approach.”

Abbott, in his letter to the agency, said “it is not at all clear what legal basis supports the BLM’s claim of federal ownership over private property.” He said private landowners have cultivated the property “for generations.”

The debate comes on the heels of a tense standoff earlier this month in Nevada, after BLM tried to round up cattle owned by rancher Cliven Bundy – the product of a long-running dispute over unpaid grazing fees. Hundreds of states’ rights supporters, some of them armed, showed up to protest, and BLM back off citing safety concerns.

In the Texas matter, the Supreme Court incorporated the Red River as part of the border with Oklahoma nearly a century ago.

Congress further clarified the boundaries of the two states in 2000.

It’s unclear how seriously BLM might be looking at laying claim to additional boundary land.

BLM said it is merely in the “initial stages of developing options for management of public lands,” as part of a “transparent process with several opportunities for public input.”

BLM Field Manager Stephen Tryon, in a March 17 letter to Thornberry, said officials would eventually look to “ascertain the boundary” between federal and private land and acknowledged residents’ concerns that new surveys could “create cloud to their private property title.”

But he said no new surveys are currently planned, and reiterated that there are no federal claims to Texas land “as defined by multiple rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court.”

FoxNews.com’s Judson Berger contributed to this report.


No Comments

Nevada rancher and former Shoshone chief’s range war with BLM predates Bundy standoff

Bundy Battle - Nevada, Bureau of Land Management, CORRUPTION, CRIMINAL, Federal gov & land grabs, Terrorism, Threats to agriculture

PNP comment: In the 1990s, the USFS also wrestled and sold Nevada rancher Wayne Hage’s cattle. Thievery from federal thugs is not new. — Editor Liz Bowen

In 2002, the federal government seized Raymond Yowell’s 132 cattle and later sold them at auction before the U.S. Bureau of Labor Management sent him a bill for $180,000 in back grazing fees and penalties. Twelve years later, Yowell, seen here in 2011, told FoxNews.com he’s still looking for the ‘equality and justice’ he heard about as a schoolboy. (AP)

Long before Cliven Bundy faced down federal agents in his dispute with the Bureau of Land Management over grazing rights, fellow Nevada rancher Raymond Yowell, an 84-year-old former Shoshone chief, watched as the BLM seized his herd.

Adding to that, since 2008 they’ve taken his money as well — in the form of a piece of his Social Security checks.

Yowell’s 132 head of cattle had grazed for decades on the South Fork Western Shoshone Indian Reservation in northeastern Nevada until 2002, when the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) — the same agency at odds with Bundy — seized them. The federal agency sold the cattle at auction and used the proceeds to pay off the portion of back grazing fees it claimed Yowell owed. Once the cattle was sold, the agency sent Yowell a bill for the outstanding balance, some $180,000. They’ve been garnishing his monthly Social Security checks since 2008 to satisfy the debt Yowell says he does not owe.

“There’s a definite pattern in the West, beginning in the 1990s, maybe in the late ’80s, of what I feel are illegal cattle seizures,” Yowell said. “[Bundy's case] is the latest example of that pattern.”

While Bundy is defying the federal agency over fees for grazing cattle on government-owned land, Yowell’s cattle had roamed reservation land. But a 1979 Supreme Court decision held that even land designated for Indian reservations is held in trust for them, and thus subject to BLM regulation. Yowell says treaties that led to creation of the reservation granted him and other herdsmen the right to graze cattle on the land, which they did successfully for decades. The Western Shoshone say they have never relinquished their right to the territory.

Yowell represented himself in a successful effort to win a federal injunction to stop the BLM from impounding his cattle, as well as a subsequent 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that reversed the lower court. He’s again representing himself in a petition to have the U.S. Supreme Court hear his case, in which he argues his cattle were taken without due process and in violation of multiple treaties.

“Certainly, due process of law has not been followed in my case,” Yowell told FoxNews.com. “When we were kids going to school, learning the white way, we said the Pledge of Allegiance every morning and one of the things I remember saying is ‘equality and justice for all.’ Well that’s certainly not the case.”

“But there’s a definite pattern in the West right now, beginning in the 1990s, maybe in the late 80′s, of what I feel are illegal cattle seizures. [Bundy] is the latest example of that pattern.”

Celia Boddington, a BLM spokeswoman, said she had no comment on the pending case. But the BLM has previously said the tribe’s Te-Moak Livestock Association held a federal permit to graze cattle on the public land from 1940 to 1984, but had stopped paying required fees in 1984, when it asserted the tribe rightfully owned the land.

Last week, the U.S. Solicitor General’s Office, which represents the federal government in disputes before the Supreme Court, was granted an extension in Yowell’s case even as the Bundy situation was making national headlines. Federal attorneys are due to file a response to Yowell’s petition for a writ of certiorari on June 4.

While the Bundy case is not exactly the same as Yowell’s, the parallels are obvious in the The Silver State and beyond. Bundy’s dispute, like Yowell’s, dates back decades to when the government designated the scenic Gold Butte region, where Bundy’s cattle graze, as protected habitat for endangered desert tortoise and slashed his allotment of cows. He then quit paying grazing fees to BLM, which canceled his grazing permit and ordered him to remove his 380 cattle.

Yowell said he sees some “commonality” between his fight and Bundy’s, but stressed his claim to the land is further strengthened by the Treaty of Ruby Valley of 1863, which formally recognized Western Shoshone rights to some 60 million acres in Nevada, Idaho, Utah and California. In 1979, however, the Supreme Court ruled that the treaty gave the government trusteeship over tribal lands and could eventually claim them as “public” or federal land.

“His feeling is that he’s acquired certain rights and now his rights are being violated by the Bureau of Land Management,” Yowell said. “But I have Indian rights, treaty rights that he doesn’t have.”

Yowell, who has separately sued the BLM and the Treasury Department for $30 million, said the U.S Treasury Department began garnishing his Social Security in 2008 check at BLM’s behest.

“They’re entitled to take up to 15 percent of what I get,” said Yowell, who receives $962 of what should be an $1,150 check per month. “And that’s what they’re doing.”

Yowell, who retired in 2006 and turned what remained of his ranching business over to his 50-year-old son, said his legal fight is his “legacy,” even though it has already left him with a jaded view of the white man’s government.

“It’s diminished my feeling, my view of the government,” Yowell told FoxNews.com. “They don’t practice what they say.”


No Comments

The Real Wolf – 4-24-14

POW, Wolves

Ted Lyon, highly acclaimed attorney and author, will discuss his

new book, ”The Real Wolf:  The Science, Politics, and Economics

of Co-Existing with Wolves in Modern Times,” and explore

many myths about wolves, including:


1.     Do wolves attack or kill people?

2.     Do wolves affect cattle, sheep and other domestic herds?

3.     Do wolves destroy game herds?


Learn the Truth about Wolves

Thursday – April 24th

Yreka Community Theater

810 N. Oregon Yreka, CA 96097

7:00 pm

Author, Ted B. Lyon

Lecture with Question and Answer Period


CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife is currently involved in a wolf management plan.  Support your County Ag Commissioner, Farm Bureau, Cattlemen, Rocky Mtn. Elk Foundation, Wool Growers, Houndsmen, Mule Deer and other groups fighting to protect all of our rights.  It’s time to get the facts about wolves and how they are going to affect ALL of our lives in the near future.

No Comments

Hey Harry, you’re the terrorist!



Exclusive: Barbara Simpson blasts senator for taking aim at U.S. Citizens on their own land

author-imageBarbara Simpson


Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev.

When I was a kid – when things got testy as to what was allowed or not – the immediate response, shouted with the arrogance that only a 10 year old could summon, was, “It’s a free country, ain’t it?!”

It was the perfect response and at that time, it was true. It was a free country. We had the right to speak our mind without worrying about what we know now as the “PC police.”

Yeah, it was a free country. Today, not so.

Today, we live in a world when a 5-year-old who uses his hand to simulate a gun faces expulsion.

Today, a 10-year-old who fights back against a bully faces expulsion.

What ever happened to self-defense?

What ever happened to teaching the bully a lesson rather than him becoming a hero of sorts and the victim is the bad guy?

Yeah, that’s the “Alice Through the Looking Glass” world we now live in, and it’s making our kids crazed.

It’s making adults crazed, too, and the standoff in Nevada last week is a perfect example.

Rancher Cliven Bundy was running his ranch, grazing his cattle on land that his family had the right to since the 1870s – then the feds got in on the issue.

They decided his animals were not just grazing, as cattle are wont to do, but trespassing on federal land that Mr. Bundy had no right to allow.

Bundy objected, and the legal battle of words and court decisions progressed for years. All the while, Mr. Bundy refused to pay fees to the feds.

He didn’t budge. Neither did the feds.

Then came the standoff.

It wasn’t an innocent confrontation but a heavy-handed, one-sided overkill.

In a scene out of a tyrannical government playbook – hey gang, that’s U.S. – the government moved in with armored personnel vehicles and helicopters. Armed men equipped with the latest in weaponry and body armor surrounded the ranch house and outbuildings while comparably armed snipers took their places, at the ready, as they lined up their targets, just in case.

The targets?

Unarmed American citizens on their own land.

In case of what?

Cliven Bundy’s family wasn’t armed except for cell phones, but then again, Mr. Bundy was warned not to use his phone to call for help or he’d be shot.

Who were those people with the weapons? Many were the armed and equipped military under the auspices of the Bureau of Land Management. Others were hired guns.

It may have come as a surprise that the BLM has its own military, but it does: trained, armed and ready to attack. All it needs is the word “go,” and they will.

Apparently, they don’t need a final OK by the administration or the regular military or state or county police or anyone else.

The bureaucrats are the deciders.

According to reports, there were more than 200 armed BLM hired shooters on hand to round up the “trespassing cattle.”

Many were hired freelance “cowboys” who should have known better than to use helicopters to round up cattle, especially in the spring, when many females are pregnant or have just given birth.

The BLM officials should have known better, but they apparently just manage land and not animals.

Keep in mind, hundreds of desert tortoises they claim they’re protecting by getting rid of the cattle, were killed by the BLM not long ago because they said they didn’t have the money to protect them.

But they had the money to hire cowboys and snipers to go after Cliven Bundy.

His cattle were chased by helicopters. Apparently Washington thinks that constitutes a “round-up.”

Some cattle were shot from the air. Pregnant animals were so spooked they gave birth as they ran, and many of the calves were trampled to death.

All the while, hundreds gathered to support Bundy in this attack on his rights and freedoms. They were steadfast, determined and clearly not ready or willing to walk away from the muzzle of a gun.

Then without warning, the feds pulled out, and what cattle survived were brought back to the ranch.

Why? The BLM said it was concerned about “safety.”

Whose? Theirs, the Bundy family, citizens?

Or perhaps the real reason was the fact that the whole scenario reflected badly on Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., who, along with his son and former staffers, are up to their necks in allegations about attempts to get the Bundy property for land deals with China.

The armed men backed off, but Reid didn’t. He quickly spoke up from the safety of his offices that the people who objected to what happened, and the Bundy family in particular, are “domestic terrorists” and that this incident “isn’t over.”

According to Harry Reid, disagreeing with the feds and standing up for your rights makes you a terrorist, and because of that, the feds have the right to blow you and your family away.

Sorry, Harry, that’s not America and despite what you say, Americans don’t use the military to enforce laws.

This is the clearest example of political power and the arm of the law against the “little guy.”

It’s textbook tyranny: The average citizen is the “little guy” and is powerless.

Speaking of power, did anyone from the political establishment speak out in the defense of freedom?

As they say, “crickets” from Washington, except from Reid who continues to threaten.

That wizened man – with the little voice and mind and the power of his elected position – says it isn’t over and that a federal task force is being formed to deal with the unrest.

If I were the Bundy family, I’d chain the fences, lock the doors and lock and load.

They might need all the protection they can muster.

No Comments

Why Clive Bundy isn’t WRONG

Bundy Battle - Nevada, Bureau of Land Management, Constitution, CORRUPTION, CRIMINAL, Endangered Species Act, Federal gov & land grabs

There have been a lot of people criticizing Clive Bundy because he did not pay his grazing fees for 20 years. The public is also probably wondering why so many other cowboys are supporting Mr. Bundy even though they paid their fees and Clive did not.

What you people probably do not realize is that on every rancher’s grazing permit it says the following: “You are authorized to make grazing use of the lands, under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management and covered by this grazing permit, upon your acceptance of the terms and conditions of this grazing permit and payment of grazing fees when due.”

The “mandatory” terms and conditions go on to list the allotment, the number and kind of livestock to be grazed, when the permit begins and ends, the number of active or suspended AUMs (animal units per month), etc.

The terms and conditions also list specific requirements such as where salt or mineral supplements can be located, maximum allowable use of forage levels (40% of annual growth), etc., and include a lot more stringent policies that must be adhered to.

Every rancher must sign this “contract” agreeing to abide by the TERMS AND CONDITIONS before he or she can make payment. In the early 90s, the BLM went on a frenzy and drastically cut almost every rancher’s permit because of this desert tortoise issue, even though all of us ranchers knew that cow and desert tortoise had co-existed for a hundred+ years.

As an example, a family friend had his permit cut by 90%. For those of you who are non ranchers, that would be equated to getting your paycheck cut 90%. In 1976 there were approximately 52 ranching permittees in this area of Nevada. Presently, there are 3.

Most of these people lost their livelihoods because of the actions of the BLM.

Clive Bundy was one of these people who received extremely unfair and unreasonable TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

Keep in mind that Mr. Bundy was required to sign this contract before he was allowed to pay. Had Clive signed on the dotted line, he would have, in essence, signed his very livelihood away. And so Mr. Bundy took a stand, not only for himself, but for all of us.

He refused to be destroyed by a tyrannical federal entity and to have his American liberties and freedoms taken away.

Also keep in mind that all ranchers financially paid dearly for the forage rights those permits allow – - not rights to the land, but rights to use the forage that grows on that land. Many of these AUMS are water based, meaning that the rancher also has a vested right (state owned, not federal) to the waters that adjoin the lands and allow the livestock to drink. These water rights were also purchased at a great price.

If a rancher cannot show beneficial use of the water (he must have the appropriate number of livestock that drinks and uses that water), then he loses that water right. Usually water rights and forage rights go hand in hand. Contrary to what the BLM is telling you, they NEVER compensate a rancher for the AUMs they take away.

Most times, they tell ranchers that their AUMS are “suspended,” but not removed. Unfortunately, my family has thousands of “suspended” AUMs that will probably never be returned.

And so, even though these ranchers throughout the course of a hundred years invested thousands(and perhaps millions) of dollars and sacrificed along the way to obtain these rights through purchase from others, at a whim the government can take everything away with the stroke of a pen.

This is the very thing that Clive Bundy single-handedly took a stand against.

Thank you, Clive, from a rancher who considers you a hero.

-Kena Lytle Gloeckner

No Comments

#1 Cause of death

2nd Amendment rights, Constitution, CORRUPTION, CRIMINAL, Federal gov & land grabs

Jot down what you think may have been the #1 cause of death in the world in the past 100 years then watch this clip.

Bet you never thought of this!

 Short 2 min video — click it


No Comments

Panel of Experts on Tour across California Speaking Out against Common Core 4/23-29

Constitution, Federal gov & land grabs

Eagle Forum of California

President Orlean Koehle

PO Box 5335

Santa Rosa, CA 95402 

www.eagleforumofcalifornia.org             707-539-8393707-539-8393



Panel of Experts on Tour across California   

Speaking Out against Common Core 4/23-29



April 19, 2014


Dear Eagles and Friends:  


Starting in San Diego and ending in Grass Valley, CA, three experts on Common Core are traveling the State speaking at six events that have been organized by various groups of concerned parents, educators and citizens.  The six groups all share the same concerns that we are not being told the truth about Common Core.

The panelists are: Dr. Sandra Stotsky, PhD, who was on the validation committee of Common Core and refused to sign off on the standards, stating that they are actually inferior to the high standards that she had helped create for the State of Massachusetts; Attorney Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute, who helped create the opt out form for parents to use to opt their children out of the Assessment tests.  His firm is greatly concerned with the data collection and invasion of privacy associated with the tests; The third member of the panel is Lydia Gutierrez, an elementary teacher, who is strongly opposed to Common Core and does not believe it to be good for children.


Darcy Brandon, a concerned mother in Carlsbad, CA and a member of the  Common Core Task Force for Eagle Forum  is the one who organized the tour.  She states, “The school administrators are sharing their viewpoint of how they think Common Core is good for our children, but we see in so many other States where they have had Common Core longer than California, a ground swell movement to try to get it out of their States.  I think it is important for parents and educators to hear a different viewpoint  in California – especially from experts.  That is why I organized this tour.”


The six different groups and the locations where the panel is speaking are the following: (Most of the events are free to the public, but the sponsors urge that you register with eventbrite so they will know how many to plan on.) 


April 23, Wednesday, 7-9 p.m. Handlery Hotel and Resort, 950 Hotel Circle North, San Diego, 92108, sponsoring group Citizens for Quality Education, Tickets: http://www.eventbrite.com/e/unveiling-common-corepanel-discussion-registration-10997643247?aff=es2&rank=1&sid=825999b5b3a411e38fac12313d090650


April 24, Thursday, 7-9 p.m. California Center for the Arts, 340 N. Escondido Blvd., Escondido, CA, 92025; sponsored by Citizens for Quality Education, Tickets: http://www.eventbrite.com/e/unveiling-common-corepanel-discussion-registration-10994644277


April 26, Saturday, 7-9 p.m. Calvary Chapel, 330 W. 6th St. Tustin, 92780  hosted by Faithful Christian Servants of Orange County.  For tickets go to http:/www.eventbrite.com/e/unveiling-the-commmon-core-the-unanswered-questions-tickets-11204457835



April 27, Sunday, 3-5 p.m., Pacific Unitarian Church, 5621 Montemalaga Dr., Palos Verde, no cost, Hosted by Citizens for Quality Education.


April 28,  Monday, 6:30-8:30 p.m. The Glaser Center, 547 Mendocino Ave.  Santa Rosa, CA  95409, sponsoring group Eagle Forum of California and Californians United Against Common Core, cuacc.org. Tickets: http://www.eventbrite.com/o/eagle-forum-of-california-6386372853?s=23978603


April 29, Tuesday, 6:30 – 9:00 p.m. Grass Valley Elks Lodge, 109 South School Street, Grass Valley, sponsoring group – Common Core Concerns – Tickets $10 in advance or $15 at the door.  Tickets available at Briar Patch, Gold-n-Green, or Penn Valley Pony Express.  There is also a private reception “Apple Pie for the Teacher,” from 5-6:00 p.m. for $35. Call 530-802-0865530-802-0865 to attend.


Following are some of the questions that parents have which they are hoping will be answered by the panel of experts.  Attendees are urged to bring their own questions:

  • Why are the Common Core English language arts and math standards coming under a firestorm of criticism across the nation if they are supposed to be so much better, more rigorous and higher? 

  • Why did four States refuse to sign on to the Common Core standards, and why did Minnesota only sign on for the English and not the math?

  • Why is there a growing push back and legislation in 20 States to put Common Core on hold or to stop it completely as Indiana recently did?

  • Why have five States given it a new name and are embarrassed to call it Common Core?

  • Why are parents from every State opting their children out of the State assessments?  In New York, over 30,000 have opted out.

  • Why are families so concerned about data collection and privacy issues being violated by CC?

  • Why are an increasing number of children unhappy and frustrated and no longer like school?

  • Why are more teachers resigning or retiring early across the nation – more than ever before?

  • Why did the New York State United Teachers Union pull its support for Common Core?

  • Why are some people calling this “Gates Ed?”   Why has Bill Gates given $millions for its creations and to bribe hundreds of groups to support it?  What does he hope to get back?

  • What is a better program to replace Common Core?

More about the panel of experts:


Dr. Sandra Stotsky, PhD is a professor emerita from the University of Arkansas.  She helped create the high standards for the State of Massachusetts in 2003, known as the highest in the nation.  She served on the validation committee for Common Core English Language Arts Standards from 2009 to 2010, and recognizing them as inferior, refused to sign off on them.  She believes them to be “inferior, untested, never internationally benchmarked and states: “they will lead to a lower level of literacy for all high school students, and they are mostly empty skill sets with little substantive content.”  Her topic in the panel is: “Why Common Core is not Good for Children.”


Attorney Brad Dacus is the founder and President of the Pacific Justice Institute, which specializes in civil liberties and parental rights.  His firm produced the opt out forms for children to opt out of the Common Core Assessments and the intrusive data collection of students, their families, their parents, but also their teachers. He cites several education codes that authorize parents to opt their children out.  Brad’s topic is “Common Core, Parent and Student Rights.”


Lydia Gutierrez has been an elementary school teacher for 22 years.  She holds master’s degrees in education, math, and multicultural bilingual education.  Since the five main writers of the Common Core standards never had any experience teaching in a K-12 classroom, one of Lydia’s statements about them is “Those who can – teach, those who cannot – write Common Core standards.”  Lydia’s topic is “Foundation vs. Abstract Thinking in the Elementary Grades.”


Please attend one or more of these presentations and help spread the word to other concerned parents/Americans.



Sincerely, Orlean Koehle

No Comments

Western states hold summit on controlling federal land, say ‘It’s simply time

Bundy Battle - Nevada, Bureau of Land Management, Constitution, CORRUPTION, CRIMINAL, Federal gov & land grabs, Threats to agriculture

PNP comment: We also say it is way past time. The mis-management of all federal agencies over state lands is outrageous!  States and communities and the environment are paying devastating costs for the illegal and unconstitutional heavy-handedness of the tyrant federal agents. — Editor Liz Bowen

April 18, 2014: Rancher Cliven Bundy speaks at a protest camp near Bunkerville, Nevada.AP

Lawmakers from Western states said Friday that the time has come for them to take control of federal lands within their borders and suggested the standoff this month between a Nevada rancher and the federal government was a problem waiting to happen.

“What’s happened in Nevada is really just a symptom of a much larger problem,” Utah House Speaker Becky Lockhart, a Republican, told The Salt Lake Tribune.

The lawmakers — more than 50 of them from nine Western states — made their proclamations at the Legislative Summit on the Transfer for Public Lands, in Utah, which was scheduled before this month’s standoff between Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management.

The agency rounded up hundreds of Bundy’s cattle, saying he hasn’t paid more than $1 million in grazing fees he owes for trespassing on federal lands since the 1990s. But Bundy does not recognize federal authority on the land, which his family has used since the 1870s.

The agency released the cattle after a showdown last weekend with angry armed protesters whom Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid referred to as “domestic terrorists.”

Whether the federal government will use the courts system or other methods to try to resolve such disputes remains unclear. Reid, D-Nev., said earlier this week that he talked to Attorney General Eric Holder and that a task force might be formed, in response. However, a law enforcement official said Saturday that there are no plans for a task force.

The idea of Western states taking control of parts of wide tracts of federal land is nothing new. Those involved in the so-called Sagebrush Rebellion and similar movements have argued for decades that states and local governments west of the Mississippi River often can best manage the land and that doing so would allow them to use it to improve their economies.

On Friday, political leaders from the nine states convened for the first time to talk about their joint goal of wresting control of oil-, timber -and mineral-rich lands away from the U.S. government, according to the paper.

 ”It’s simply time,” said Utah state Rep. Ken Ivory, a Republican who co-organized the summit with Montana state Sen. Jennifer Fielder. “The urgency is now.”

Utah GOP Sen. Mike Lee also spoke to the attendees.

Idaho Speaker of the House Scott Bedke argued that Idaho forests and rangeland managed by the state have suffered less damage and watershed degradation from wildfire than have lands managed by federal agencies, the newspaper reported.

The Associated Press also contributed to this report.


No Comments

NEVADA: Clinton/Obama cronies behind push to remove Bundy cattle

Agriculture, Bundy Battle - Nevada, Bureau of Land Management, CORRUPTION, CRIMINAL, Federal gov & land grabs, Threats to agriculture

LATEST: Clinton/Obama Cronies Behind Push To Remove Bundy Cattle

Written By: James Simpson
DC Independent Examiner

Note: a slightly altered version of this story appears at WND

 today as well.

Following a weeklong confrontation between protesters and police from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), events at the Bundy ranch

 in Bunkerville, Nevada came to an abrupt end on Saturday, April 11, when the BLM suddenly threw in the towel and left. Speaking to a local TV news program Monday, Nevada Senator and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said

, “This isn’t over…” And he is certainly correct. The showdown between BLM and Cliven Bundy – the last rancher in Clark County, Nevada – was but the latest battle in a long-running conflict, and it is sure to continue. Too much is at stake.

Supposedly at issue was the desert tortoise, a reptile on the endangered species list which could not coexist on the land with Bundy’s cattle. But why would the turtle suddenly be threatened by animals it had cohabited with for the 100 plus years the Bundy ranch has been in operation?

BLM document

 unearthed last week discusses mitigation strategies for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone. Dry Lake is just southwest of the Bundy ranch. The “mitigation strategy” proposed to use the grazing lands

 near the Bundy ranch as a kind of sanctuary for the desert tortoise, because the entire region is slated for a large number of solar, wind and geothermal energy generation facilities. The solar projects especially will obliterate most of the turtle’s natural habitat.

Bloggers quickly made a connection between the effort to remove Bundy’s cattle and a solar energy project located in Southern Nevada and financed by the Communist Chinese energy firm ENN. It was to be the largest solar farm in the U.S. Senator Reid had lobbied heavily for their business, even traveling to China to do so. Reid’s son, formerly a Clark County Commissioner, became a lobbyist for ENN, and Reid placed a former senior advisor, Neil Kornze

, to lead the BLM, presumably to assure the enterprise’s success.

Seemed like a slam dunk. But a solar energy complex financed by the Communist Chinese was not at the heart of the Bundy Ranch fiasco after all. That project died last year

. However, the BLM’s library of renewable energy projects 

accessed by the author revealed it was only one of more than 50 solar, wind and geothermal projects planned for Nevada, California, Arizona and other Western states. Reid was actually focused on at least one, and maybe more of these projects, much closer to the Bundy ranch. He was at the work site on March 21, 2014 to help break ground on the Moapa Southern Paiute Solar Project

. A close inspection of this project reveals why there is so much interest in the area and why the BLM, presumably at Reid’s urging through his water boy, Neil Kornze, is so intent on getting Bundy off the land. Reid, for all his rampant corruption (the Nevada mob call him “Cleanface”), looks to be little more than the bagman in this caper. Oh sure, he and his boys will get rich, but not like the others.

The leaseholder for this project is K Road Power, LLC


, a New York City-based energy company. An examination of their website finds their business development manager to be none other than Jonathan Magaziner

. Magaziner was formerly an associate at the Clinton Climate Initiative of the William J. Clinton Foundation. He is also the son of Ira Magaziner

, former senior policy advisor for Bill Clinton, also now conveniently working for the Clinton Foundation on health and environment issues. Just one big, happy, and soon to be even richer, family. There are doubtless more connections to Democratic insiders here.

But that is not all. A company called First Solar

 is listed on a BLM renewable  energy project map

 of southern Nevada, one of 11 sited in Clark County. Additionally, the map shows six wind projects in Clark County, and also lists the K Road Moapa project under “transmission projects.” In other words, there is a lot going on. How did the media miss all that?

First Solar investors


 comprise a who’s who of the corrupt, Democratic Left insider crowd, including major Obama campaign bundlers, billionaire investor Paul Tudor Jones, Al Gore, Ted Turner and Goldman Sachs. First Solar’s CEO is Michael Ahearn

, former fundraiser for both Obama and Senator Harry Reid. First Solar has at least three other solar projects in California. So it becomes very apparent why the BLM, Harry Reid and many other interested parties have such an intense interest in the desert tortoise. They see green, oceans of it. But it is the kind that lines pockets, not the high desert.

This story has been completely missed by all mass media, even Fox News, but it explains both why Cliven Bundy has been facing such intense intimidation and why all the other ranchers have been chased out. Bundy is not merely threatening Harry Reid’s gravy train, but Obama’s, Clinton’s, Gore’s and an A list rogue’s gallery of professional Democrat sponges. It is surprising he is still alive.

This is what has been discovered by examining only a few of the 50-plus projects. Doubtless there is a similar story behind all of them. These entrepreneurial parasites are planning to turn the West into a massive money pit for “green” energy. The projects will eventually go as all others have gone before: falling in flames as the unsustainable costs, maintenance problems and true environmental catastrophes they create become intolerable. The true goal

 of “green” energy is to make these people wealthier, not to save the environment. As usual with this president, the American taxpayer will be left holding the bag, while he and his cronies will be long gone, laughing all the way to the bank.

This story needs to make national headlines. If there is a shred of integrity left in the mass media, now would be the time to show it. It is not possible that they are unaware of what is happening.


No Comments
« Older Posts