INTERNATIONAL BACCALAUREATE - IB
By DEBRA NEWA
By DEBRA NEWA
| international_baccalaureate_ib_unraveled-debra_niwa-2010-21pgs-edu.pdf |
In addition, Page 19 of the above article
The U.N. influence on IB is problematic. What suits the U.N. is not always compatible with the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights, or the U.S. as a sovereign nation established as a Constitutional Republic. In "Liberty or Sustainable Development", Michael Shaw compares "the founding documents of the United States of America with the founding documents of the United Nations".
"In America's case, the governmental premise is based on the idea of self-governance which leads to individual liberty and which is predicated on the idea of "unalienable rights including the right to the reasonable use of one's property. The right to property secures the right of liberty which in turn secures for all a life as a human being. These rights are inherent to our nature and are imbued by our creator. They cannot be stripped away - even by the force of government. Legitimate government exists to protect these rights."
The United Nations premise is quite different. Article 29 Sec 3 of the United Nations declaration of Human Rights proclaims "Rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations"
This is global state collectivism.
In addition, to never be overlooked is "IB's" endorsement of the 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 29, sec.3 which states: These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
The U.N. influence on IB is problematic. What suits the U.N. is not always compatible with the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights, or the U.S. as a sovereign nation established as a Constitutional Republic. In "Liberty or Sustainable Development", Michael Shaw compares "the founding documents of the United States of America with the founding documents of the United Nations".
"In America's case, the governmental premise is based on the idea of self-governance which leads to individual liberty and which is predicated on the idea of "unalienable rights including the right to the reasonable use of one's property. The right to property secures the right of liberty which in turn secures for all a life as a human being. These rights are inherent to our nature and are imbued by our creator. They cannot be stripped away - even by the force of government. Legitimate government exists to protect these rights."
The United Nations premise is quite different. Article 29 Sec 3 of the United Nations declaration of Human Rights proclaims "Rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations"
This is global state collectivism.
In addition, to never be overlooked is "IB's" endorsement of the 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 29, sec.3 which states: These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
One of the hardest pieces of information to find or that most people do not know exists is the fact that once the contracts are signed for IB, it is PROPRIETARY" AND IN NO WAY CAN BE CHANGED. The original agreement signed was in 1948 thru the U.S. State Dept. in Switzerland which is where the home IB office is located.
The program is very expensive and even most legislators local and national no NOTHING about this program or how it regulates control and how much it costs. It took me close to a year to get the FL Dept of Education to finally admit to me that this program is PROPRIETARY.
The program is very expensive and even most legislators local and national no NOTHING about this program or how it regulates control and how much it costs. It took me close to a year to get the FL Dept of Education to finally admit to me that this program is PROPRIETARY.
