Monday, April 30, 2007

The Hole in The Wall

Several years ago, I remember reading about Dr. Sugata Mitra, and this idea he had about computers and poor children in India. Basically, he set up a kiosk in one of the many poor villages in India. The kiosk had a computer with a high-speed internet connection. The computer was set up so that the children could see the screen inside, behind a window, and there were controls, levers of a sort. That's it. He said nothing to the children, they had never seen a computer, knew nothing of the internet. And, as was his hunch, within the afternoon the children were surfing, playing music, watching videos. A tech man inside recorded and told Dr. Mitra what he had observed.

Here's the story in Dr. Mitra's own words...You can click on: The Idea, The Inspiration, and The Afternmath, for a short Windows Media Player clip. Or you can go to his website and view in Quick Time Movie or Real Player format.

The Idea

A revolution in information technology is redefining poverty, as how much you know is becoming just as important as how much you own. "The Hole in the Wall" examines one possible solution to the growing technological gap between rich and poor -- the so-called 'digital divide' -- that threatens to consign millions to an "information underclass."

The Inspiration

When Indian researcher Sugata Mitra embedded a high-speed computer in a wall separating his firm's New Delhi headquarters from an adjacent slum, he discovered that slum children quickly taught themselves how to surf the net, read the news, and download games and music. Mitra then replicated the experiment in other locations. Each time the results were similar: within hours, and without instruction, the children began browsing the Internet.

Can children -- given only access and opportunity -- really teach themselves the rudiments of computer literacy with no instruction? "The Hole in the Wall" experiment, and the documentary film that chronicles it, show the answer to be a "Yes!" Mitra estimates that, given access to one hundred thousand computers, one hundred million Indian children could teach themselves computer literacy within five years.

The Aftermath

The film concludes by noting that the spread of information technology is changing societies around the world, and the implications of Mitra's experiment are profound -- particularly for poor people.
Running Time: 58:30.

That's all I know about this remarkable story. It sure opens the doors to a lot of possibilities and potential in young children. You can buy the film here. I'm not recommending that anyone buy the film, that's up to you. I just wanted to share this remarkable story with you. Children have such incredible spirit. We should help them to let it soar.

Update to Hole in The Wall Story

For anyone interested in following the story of Dr. Sugata Mitra's Hole-in-the-Wall experiment and subsequent research on how children learn, here is a 26 minute film of him delivering a Powerpoint presentation to a February 2007, LIFT Conference in Geneva. For those unfamiliar with Dr. Mitra's work, he is an inventor of computer technology, and Professor of Educational Technology at Newcastle University, England. He is researching and building an argument for primary education, using minimally invasive methodology to teach computers to young children. His 'hole in the wall' experiment has since been successfully repeated in many undeveloped parts of the world, such as South Africa and Cambodia.

One remarkable aspect of the experiment in India is that in the remotest part of Northern India, where they had never seen a computer and had no speakers of English, he set up a Computer Kiosk, giving no instructions (and no instructor), and within three weeks, the children had not only figured out what the computer was and how to use it, they had found a website and taught themselves enough English to use the computer.

And in fact he found that it was the younger children working in groups, who learned first, then taught the older children, and in short order. He also discovered other interesting aspects of group dynamics among the children.

Probably the most remarkable lesson to come out of this study, is that in six months all 300 children in the village, working with no instruction, and in fact with no adult supervision whatever, learned how to browse, type, email, watch movies, download programs and games and use them - in English. The adults who were for the most part illiterate, had no idea what the children were doing.

The story does make me wonder at the methods used in the US.

Sunday, April 29, 2007

Homeschooling and Socialization Skills

When I was growing up, homeschooling was not an option in my town. I went to public schools in the South, and though they had their drawbacks, the situation was vastly different back then (40's & 50's). For one thing, we went to segregated schools, Jesus was not a problem, and by 1954, Elvis was King. The teacher's colleges were not pumping out dehumanized, secular humanist teachers. The curricula was focused on the basics of science, math, English courses. Geography was about geology, in American history we learned about, well, American history. In our schools we were encouraged to strive for excellence, in sports as well as academics. Socialization was accomplished in our contact with our peers, sports, after-school and summer jobs, church, our families - in most instances, extended families, and dating. We celebrated 'sameness', rather than 'diversity'. I think we were fiercely individualistic sovereigns, but within the structure of a social contract. Though, being kids, we would have laughed at the notion.

The high school's curricula was presented in two streams: classical, which focused on languages, Latin classics, and American literature, and the other stream was concentrated science studies. We were allowed to choose between the two, just as long as we passed the core subjects. All in all, it was a pretty good school system. But see, that's just the thing: it wasn't "just a school system". The town, the churches, and the schools had a core understanding of what it meant to be an American and what it meant to be good, as well as bad. Our belief system was rooted in the Constitution and American history, which was further rooted in democratic ideals upon which our society rested. The spirit of the Declaration of Independence was celebrated, revered even. There was discipline and authority, and vandalism was very rare. Oh yeah, there was school-yard justice, too. You learned what was tolerable behavior, and what wasn't. In school, if we messed-up, we were punished. But we drew our sustenance from all the above mentioned. There was a fairness about life.

I personally was a very rebellious kid, often clashing with the authorities and my teachers, mostly about homework, which I detested. One of my teachers, a 'coach' who also taught something, I forget what, cheerfully told me I would never amount to anything, and was always on my case. Soon after opportunity presented itself, I lied about my age, joined the National Guard, signed up for three months active duty, went to Ft Jackson, SC, took Infantry Basic Training (and had my first contact with Blacks - my platoon sergeant was black, fought in WW11- and an awesome man), and came back at the end of summer just in time to start the eleventh grade. After that, the coach left me alone. Actually, I would recommend infantry basic training for any sixteen year old boy, especially if he's being picked on. It does give you an edge.

I might also mention, in passing, that there were no "gays" in our school, though there was a gay man in town, known simply as "Goose". We stayed away from him. Neither was there Ritalin, Prozac, or any other psychotropic or anti-depressant drugs. And no street drugs, other than alcohol, but I lived in a "dry" county, so alcohol was hard, though not impossible, to come by. Being normal kids, we sometimes managed to find alcohol. No pot though,- no hash, Angel Dust, LSD, ecstasy, coke, smack, crack, crank, no nothing. We were so fortunate.

I had occasion a few years ago, to substitute teach in a public school where I now live in Northern New Jersey. I showed up on the day a teacher went in for surgery, so I was asked to stay with the class (fourth grade) the remainder of the year, which I did. It was a very confusing scene I encountered. Almost total chaos: kids out of control, security guards to haul out the most persistent trouble-makers; my kids were afraid to go outside at lunch time, and asked me to sit with them in the cafeteria during lunch. Lunch, if you could call it that, was delivered by an outside vendor, and consisted of disgusting dry hamburgers, an apple, juice. I wouldn't have fed a dog what they were expected to eat. After awhile, they loosened-up and talked to me. They mostly just wanted to talk to an understanding adult who was willing to listen. Mostly, they need someone who will simply listen to them . Some of them shyly hinted at what it was like at home. Others airily gave up details which belied their fears.

Some of these children were from third-generation welfare families. Who knows how they will fare? Father in the wind, mother in jail, many of these kids are raised in foster homes or by their grandmothers, who are themselves sometimes addicted to drugs. Socialization? Some of these little guys are animals, even at the tender age of eleven and twelve. What's worse, many of the educators are unwilling to acknowledge anything wrong. The administration is too busy worrying about numbers to feed into the federal programs, lest they get into hot water, and lose their funding. I would not want my child to enter into such a school system, and in fact when my daughter was growing up, she went to private schools in NYC. Never-the-less, in the universities she became indoctrinated with the Leftist agenda of "never being right about anything", except to say that anyone who believes they are right about something, is wrong. Go figure.

How ironic that the "never be judgmental" mentality of the Left has become the most intolerant of any view in opposition to moral relativism. Gone is any notion of a social contract. Life is just an open-air fruit stand. Take what you like. Gone any shared views of good or bad or a vision of an ordered societal good. "In God we trust" has become not only obsolete, but a threat to the morass passing for moral justice these days.

So, you've got kids in preschool, wondering about their education. What to do? Pack them off to the public school system? - where the real focus is not on teaching subjects anymore, but rather, how to be a member of a New World Order, which happens to be a major goal of the NEA. Their goal is to inculcate an identity, not as a patriotic citizen of America, but to a global identity in which all values are relative, and encouraged to blossom into a rainbow of moral degeneracy. That means certain terms, like 'Mom' or 'Dad', or even 'family' must be deleted from their minds. For that to happen, the textbooks must be revised, with all such words elided. And the universities, the publishers, the reviewers of books, the NEA, the school boards, and the teachers are all on board with this agenda being pushed by the Rockefeller Foundation, the Ford, and Carnegie Foundations, and the various think-tanks who sit around, cooking up ways to take America down. Think they can't do it? Friends, they are doing it. Maybe you should look at the homeschooling option. There are many places to go for advice on how to succeed at homeschooling your kids. Why not look into it?

And yet today, when the word "homeschooling" comes up, the concern that many adults have is "But will they be socialized?" Ahem. Socialized into what? Today it is simply assumed that the public schools are the best place for children to receive socialization skills and good social temperment. Why not the family? There are factors necessary for a good home school environment. Here is where I turn to the experts: the homeschool parents...

- From the Home Page -

Homeschooling and the Myth of Socialization

by Manfred B. Zysk
December 16, 1999

One of the silliest and most annoying comments made to homeschooling parents is, "Aren't you concerned about how your child will be able to socialize with others?". What is being implied here is that the homeschooled child is some kind of introverted misfit who cannot relate to other people, children, and the outside world. In reality, most of the homeschooled children that I have known and met are not only outgoing, but polite and respectful, too. This is a sharp contrast to the public school children that I have known, who can't relate to adults and whose behavior is rude and inconsiderate. Realistically, there are some exceptions on both sides.

Isn't it interesting that amid all of the public school shootings over the past few years, the only comment that opponents of homeschooling can come up with is the red herring of "socialization"? You may have noticed, there haven't been shootings at private schools, or shootings inside of the homes of homeschooled children.

Opponents of homeschooling can't complain about average test scores, since homeschooled children consistently outscore public school children, so they instead make a problem that doesn't exist.

Who is responsible for creating this "socialization" problem? This myth has been perpetrated by sociologists, psychologists, public school administrators, the NEA (and local teacher's unions), etc., whenever they comment on homeschooling to the news media. These are the same people who give Ritalin (a very strong narcotic) and other drugs to schoolchildren, in place of discipline.

A family member asked my wife, "Aren't you concerned about his (our son's) socialization with other kids?". My wife gave this response: "Go to your local middle school, junior high, or high school, walk down the hallways, and tell me which behavior you see that you think our son should emulate." Good answer.

In order for children to become assimilated into society properly, it is important to have a variety of experiences and be exposed to differing opinions and views. This enables them to think for themselves and form their own opinions. This is exactly what public education does not want; public education is for the lowest common denominator and influencing all of the students to share the same views ("group-think") and thought-control through various means, including peer-pressure.

Homeschooling allows parents the freedom to associate with other interested parties, visit local businesses, museums, libraries, etc. as part of school, and to interact with people of all ages in the community. For example, my son goes on field trips with other homeschooling families in our community. He recently was able to visit an audiologist, a McDonald's restaurant (to see how they run their operation), and several other similar activities. He gets to meet and talk to people of different ages doing interesting (and sometimes not so interesting) occupations. He spends a lot of his free time with kids older and younger than himself, and adults from twenty to over ninety years old.

Meanwhile, in public school, children are segregated by age, and have very little interaction with other adults, except their teacher(s). This environment only promotes alienation from different age groups, especially adults. This is beginning to look like the real socialization problem.

My wife and I like to bring our son with us when we are visiting with friends and other adults. How else will he learn to be an adult, if he never has contact with adults? He knows what kind of behavior we expect from him, and the consequences of his actions. He is often complimented on his good manners by friends and adults.

In conclusion, homeschooling parents choose to homeschool for a variety of reasons, but I have never heard any homeschooling parent say that the reason they want to homeschool is to isolate their child from all of society. But, it probably wouldn't be a bad idea for homeschooled children to stay away from public school administrators, the NEA members, sociologists, and others who cannot properly "socialize" with children.

Go to your local public school, walk down the hallways and see what behaviors you would want your child to emulate.

Manfred B. Zysk has been homeschooling for five years, with the help and dedication of his wife, Margaret Zysk. They work with other homeschoolers in Idaho.

Family Times has this to say:

March/April 2002
Volume 10, No. 1

No Thank You, We Don’t Believe in Socialization!
by Lisa Russell

I can’t believe I am writing an article about socialization, The word makes my skin crawl. As homeschoolers, we are often accosted by people who assume that since we’re homeschooling, our kids won’t be “socialized.” The word has become such a catch phrase that it has entirely lost any meaning.

The first time I heard the word, I was attending a Catholic day school as a first grader.

Having been a 'reader' for almost 2 years, I found the phonics and reading lessons to be incredibly boring. Luckily the girl behind me felt the same way, and when we were done with our silly little worksheets, we would chat back and forth. I’ve never known two 6 yr. olds who could maintain a quiet conversation, so naturally a ruler-carrying nun interrupted us with a few strong raps on our desk. We were both asked to stay in at recess, and sit quietly in our desks for the entire 25 minutes, because "We are not here to socialize, young ladies."

Those words were repeated over and over throughout my education, by just about every teacher I’ve ever had. If we’re not there to socialize, then why were we there? I learned to read at home. If I finished my work early (which I always did), could I have gone home? If I were already familiar with the subject matter, would I have been excused from class that day? If schools weren’t made for socializing, then why on earth would anyone assume that homeschoolers were missing out?

As a society full of people whose childhood’s were spent waiting anxiously for recess time, and trying desperately to "socialize" with the kids in class; It is often difficult for people to have an image of a child whose social life is NOT based on school buddies. Do you ever remember sitting in class, and wanting desperately to speak to your friend? It’s kind of hard to concentrate on the lessons when you’re bouncing around trying not to talk. Have you ever had a teacher who rearranged the seats every now and then, to prevent talking, splitting up friends and 'talking corners.' Were you ever caught passing notes in class?

Read the rest.

Saturday, April 28, 2007

Queer Eye in Kalifornia

Words fail me...

Posted: April 27, 2007


Ban on 'mom' and 'dad' considered – again
California agenda would require K-12 'gay' indoctrination

A plan that has been launched in the California state Assembly – again – could be used to ban references to "mom" and "dad" in public schools statewide by prohibiting anything that would "reflect adversely" on the homosexual lifestyle choice.

It's similar to a plan WND reported was approved by lawmakers last year, but fell by the wayside when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed it.

"SB 777 forcibly thrusts young school children into dealing with sexual issues, requiring that homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality be taught in a favorable light," according to an alert issued by the Capitol Resource Institute.

"Not only does SB 777 require that classroom instruction and materials promote and embrace controversial sexual practices, it also bans school-sponsored activities from 'reflecting adversely' on homosexuals, bisexuals and transsexuals," the group said.

"Pushing this radical homosexual agenda in California schools will stifle the truth in favor of political correctness and will inevitably conflict with the religious and moral convictions of both students and parents," said CRI Executive Director Karen England. "The full ramifications of this sweeping legislation could affect the entire nation as most textbook companies tailor their material to their number one purchaser: California."

She noted that Los Angeles schools already have implemented most of the proposals now pending for districts across the state, and among the changes are:

  • "Mom" and "dad" and "husband" and "wife" would have to be edited from all texts.
  • Cheerleading and sports teams would have to be gender-neutral.
  • Prom kings and queens would be banned, or if featured, would have to be gender neutral so that the king could be female and the queen male.
  • Gender-neutral bathrooms could be required for those confused about their gender identity.
  • A male who believes he really is female would be allowed into the women's restroom, and a woman believing herself a male would be allowed into a men's room.
  • Even scientific information, such has statistics showing AIDS rates in the homosexual community, could be banned.

"It's embarrassing that we've got kids who can't pass their exit exams, but we add all sorts of complications [to school]," she told WND.

She cited an informational document published by the Gay-Straight Alliance Network and the Transgender Law Center.

"If you want to use a restroom that matches your gender identity … you should be allowed to do so," it advises. "Whenever students are divided up into boys and girls, you should be allowed to join the group or participate in the program that matches your gender identity as much as possible."

Further, the groups advise, "If you change your name to one that better matches your gender identity, a school needs to use that name to refer to you."

Randy Thomasson, of the Campaign for Children and Families, noted that the proposal was made by 'lesbian state senator Sheila James Kuehl, D-Santa Monica."

"Schools need to do a much better job teaching kids reading, writing and arithmetic, not a better job advertising controversial sexual lifestyles to captive six-year-olds," he said.

He also noted that, just as last year, two other bills also are pending: AB 394 by Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, D-Van Nuys, would demand that schools distribute to students "anti-harassment" education programs, and AB 675 by Assemblyman Mike Eng, D-Monterey Park, would give $1 million to pay for homosexual, bisexual and transsexual activists to turn 10 public schools into "sexual indoctrination centers."

Last year three similar bills were approved by California lawmakers, but were vetoed by the governor.

Many groups, including several national outreaches such as the Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family, had lobbied for the veto.

One of last year's plans would have required the State Board of Education to increase sensitivity to so-called "discrimination." Under the plan the state Superintendent of Public Instruction would have had unlimited discretion to withhold state funds from schools that did not comply with that individual's interpretation of the law.

A second would have "integrated tolerance training" into history and social science curriculum and started a pilot program that would have forced students to learn a "new definition" of tolerance, one that would require them to not only accept but advocate for homosexuality, bisexuality and transgenderism, according to the CRI.

The third would have banned anything that "reflected adversely" on homosexuals, bisexuals or transgenders.

Former Assemblyman Larry Bowler, R-Elk Grove, described them as no more or less than "indoctrination, designed to inculcate our children and our grandchildren."

As WND has reported, California lawmakers also are considering a plan to make it a criminal offense to spank children with a spoon or similar instrument.

Friday, April 27, 2007

Americans, Stand Up and FIGHT

And now, finally, a reassuring statement from President Bush on illegal immigration. A new Gov Op, "Enduring Yet More Illegals" part of a new open admission policy. Take a look.

Meanwhile, from The New American -

Which Way America?

By Dennis Behreandt
Pub: April 16, 2007

As a young mother, every morning at 4:30 a.m. Kimberly Moore would drop off her young child at her mother-in-law’s home before reporting to work at McDonald’s. After a full day at the fast-food chain, according to the Tallahassee Democrat, she got her books together and went to class, first at Tallahassee Community College and then at Florida State University. A single mother, she eventually earned her MBA. Keeping her nose to the grindstone, she rose through the ranks of the business world in Florida, eventually earning the title of Chief Executive Officer of Workforce Plus, a large employment firm. Starting with little more than her own initiative and drive to succeed, she reached the pinnacle of the business world, making hers an inspiring story of self-made success, a story of a woman living the American dream.

As inspiring as Kimberly Moore’s story is, the really amazing thing about it is that it is only a small part of the incredible tapestry of success that is the American dream. Generations of Americans have believed that in America they can work hard to make a better life for themselves than their parents had before them. And every day Americans head out the door to jobs where, through dedication and perseverance, they work harder, longer, and more productively than the citizens of any other nation.

Why do they do it? Why do Americans like Kimberly Moore work long hours for low pay only to leave work and put in countless additional hours pursuing education? Why do small investors struggle to find a few dollars here and there in order to invest in some possibly risky venture? The short answer — for the money — misses the essential point: Americans do these things, they work harder and longer, because the wealth they earn serves a greater purpose. To the parent who comes home from a hard day at the factory or office, the son playing basketball in the driveway or the daughter riding her new bicycle on the sidewalk provides reason for any amount of labor, any amount of sacrifice. Americans work for many reasons, but prominent among them is the unwavering desire to provide a good life, and maybe a better life than they themselves had known, to their children. It happens frequently and spectacularly in America, because Americans are uniquely free.

The Benefits of Liberty

The freedom that Americans enjoy, and that is so essential to the pursuit of a better life, comes from recognition that every person has certain God-given rights that may not be infringed. To most Americans, living from birth in a free land as their parents did before them, that idea seems self-evident. But that masks the truly revolutionary novelty of the notion of individual liberty.

The idea that all people are free and in possession of rights that may never be violated sprung up in the minds of philosophers centuries ago, but it was nowhere put into practice until America’s Founding Fathers wrested the colonies from the grasp of the British crown. That heroic effort began when the founding generation of Americans, speaking with a unified and defiant voice through the words of Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence, told the world: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

But for the Globalists, this is a quaint and troublesome thing, liberty. There is a vast conspiracy going on, alright. It is neither particularly right-wing or left-wing, and it has been going on right under our noses. But, as this globalist agenda has been proceeding under a veil of secrecy, it was not obvious. Not until recently, that is. Lou Dobbs at CNN and Ron Paul and The John Birch Society (say what you will about the JBS -back in the 60's, it was considered a joke among us college know-it-alls) have all been peeling back the layers of secrecy on the SPP and NAU. It is now up to the rest of us Americans to let our voices be heard on the matter. If you are one of ones who read this information, and remain silent, you are part of the problem. Well, what can you do? Contact your Congressman, look into it more, blog about it, but for God's sake, do something. Speak out. Because if everybody is just an innocent by-stander, this thing will roll over us.

A Study in North American Union

by Kelly Taylor
The New American

Just when you thought you had a grip on the NAU (North American Union) and its scope, more disturbing news arrives indicating that this horrendous project isn’t half-baked, but ready to be forked.

The NAU first began gaining the attention of average American citizens in 2005, with the signing of the treacherous Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) and the release of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) report Building a North American Community (BNAC). The recentness of these eye-opening actions led many to believe that the NAU would be a long time in coming, but information continues to surface regarding the plethora of clever devices employed to sell the NAU to Americans and speed its arrival.

For those readers who are still completely in the dark about the NAU, it is, simply put, the transformation of NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement) into a full-blown economic and political merger of Canada, the United States, and Mexico. The advocates of the NAU are using an accelerated model of the deceptive process used to merge the countries of Europe into the European Union.

What better way to speed the NAU’s coming than to avoid having to do a “sell” job altogether and simply train a new generation of Americans as ready believers? That’s exactly what the NAU proponents are up to. In 1998, seven years before the SPP or BNAC appeared, four “North American” business schools (in Halifax, Montreal, Monterrey, and New York City) teamed up to create the PanAmerican Partnership, a business-training program sponsoring training and research emphasizing North American economic integration, and dedicated to building “the next generation of North American managers.” The PanAm Partnership is the first NAFTA-focused business-training program — nearly 350 MBA students from the four partner schools have participated in the MBA plan. Each partner school has a PanAm track in its MBA program for students wishing to build careers in the new “North American” business environment.

Arizona State University (ASU) has taken this new paradigm a step further. Its North American Center for Transborder Studies (NACTS) has introduced a benchmark website, first designed in 2000, allowing “North Americanists” a resource for the growing body of research about economic integration in the NAFTA Triad. It was needed because advancement of economic integration was increasing “despite the lack of press and public attention,” and a web presence would allow those in Triad countries to “link up.” ASU’s website claims the regional integration process deepens even without the kind of public attention enjoyed in Europe. (We think the lack of public and press attention was deliberate, allowing integration to occur under the radar of Americans who would object to the “sovereignty sellout” their leaders are perpetrating.)

It’s interesting, in the least, to learn that ASU and NACTS have partnered with the North American Supercorridor Coalition (NASCO), the Kansas City Affairs and Trade Office (site of the NAFTA Supercorridor inland port), and the Americas Society-Council of the Americas. Surprise. NASCO’s website states it is developing a corridor-wide educational consortium and inviting universities to join its efforts to improve trade and transportation along the corridor. This consortium will bring together those institutions playing a role in training the next generation to solve international transportation problems and maximize opportunities for tri-national information sharing. Would it surprise anyone to learn that the Americas Society-Council of the Americas is dedicated to market integration in the Americas, and was founded by David Rockefeller? Rockefeller wrote in his 2002 autobiography, Memoirs, that he is proud to be an internationalist working against the best interests of the United States, and conspiring to build a one world government — with himself, no doubt, at the helm.

To be precise, he stated (on page 405, Chapter 27, entitled, “Proud Internationalist”):

For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as “internationalists” and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.

Mr. Rockefeller was for 15 years (1970-85) the chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations, the principal organization pushing the NAU. The earlier mentioned document Building a North American Community was written by CFR task-force director Robert Pastor and is the uncontested blueprint for merging the United States, Canada, and Mexico into one political entity called North America. This recommendation appears on page 29: “to develop a network of centers for North American studies.... We recommend that the three governments open a competition and provide grants to universities in each of the three countries to promote courses, education and research on North America.”

Predictably, Pastor is the director of the Center for North American Studies at American University, which is dedicated to the idea of moving forward with the trilateral agenda of regional integration. It seems that promotion is already in place and the BNAC document is simply justifying what has already been done.

If today’s students on the PanAm track at a growing number of universities are indoctrinated into the glories of “North Americanism,” the idea of an independent and sovereign America will be as distant an idea to them as even the word “America” will become. Orwell’s character, Winston Smith, lamented that not even knowing the word “freedom” eliminated even the concept of it from the minds of his fellow citizens. That most certainly will be the fate of our children and theirs if this NAU train is not stopped.

Readers of THE NEW AMERICAN need to recognize that the attention given by the magazine to the NAU is nothing short of a May Day call for opposition to the biggest threat ever, or, as expressed in popular vernacular, we’re toast.

Kelly Taylor is an Austin-based writer and filmmaker, and the producer of a politically based TV talk show.

Thursday, April 26, 2007

The United Nations is Anti-family

A "Family" Crisis at the United Nations
By Wendy McElroy

In 1979, the General Assembly of the United Nations (UN) passed the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), which the United States has yet to ratify. Also in 1979 -- the International Year of the Child -- the UN began discussion of a draft agreement on the rights of children, which resulted in the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). Adopted in November 1989, the CRC remains unratified by the United States. Both documents have become flash points of controversy.

The UN itself evolved from the Declaration of United Nations, signed in 1942, through which twenty-six nations pledged to support the Allies during World War II and to work toward peace thereafter. Libertarians have long been critical of the UN, viewing it as a step toward a collective global government. The criticism became outright condemnation as the UN's peacekeeping role assumed a more military air. For example, SFOR -- the "Stabilization Force" of tens of thousands of troops in Bosnia-Herzegovina -- operated under the authority of a UN Security Council Resolution. The fear of World Government was made more real by the Millennium Summit (2000) at which the UN assembly considered proposals to establish a UN bank that issued currency, a permanent standing army of its own, and UN control of international financial institutions.

Today, influential conservative groups are adding their own unique criticisms of the UN. Specifically, the Family Research Council and the Heritage Foundation accuse factions within the organization of interpreting both the CRC and CEDAW according to a radical feminist ideology that seeks to subvert the family, national sovereignty and religion. The Family Research Council recently published a collection of essays entitled "Fifty Years after the Declaration: The United Nations' Record on Human Rights." In the book, nearly two dozens experts roundly criticize the recent social policies of the UN as they relate to women, abortion, and children's rights. Teresa Wagner, the editor, charges that the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights "has become a advance abortion, homosexuality, euthanasia and other destructive causes..."

Meanwhile, on February 5, 2001, the Heritage Foundation issued a report entitled "How U.N. Conventions on Women's and Children's Rights Undermine Family, Religion, and Sovereignty" by Patrick F. Fagan, a former Bush administration official. The Heritage report claims that, under "the political cover of international treaties that promote women's and children's rights," the committees that "oversee implementation of U.N. treaties in social policy areas and the special-interest groups assisting them" are pressuring nations to change their laws in a manner that reflects an anti-family, pro-feminist ideology. To such conservative organizations, the UN has become anti-family.

Perhaps a more accurate statement is that the UN is currently experiencing an ideological conflict between Committees who condemn the traditional family and powerful forces that call upon the UN to protect that institution.

Indeed, the conflict has become so public and the right-wing has become so effective that radical feminists -- who generally pursue a strategy of ignoring opposing opinions -- have issued their own reports on what they call an "anti-feminist" onslaught. For example, in the wake of the 44th Session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women (March 2000), Anick Druelle prepared a report entitled "Right-Wing Anti-Feminist Groups at the United Nations" which was funded by the Canadian government.

It has taken years for the conflict over family within the UN to emerge publicly. Part of the reason is that the shift toward anti-family policies has been gradual. For example, the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) proclaims that the "family" is entitled to protection by society and state and speaks of nurturing motherhood. Especially since the Fourth's Women's Conference in Beijing (1995), however, that provision has come under increasing assault. The low profile with which the UN's new feminist agenda has operated is also due to the vague and seemly innocuous terms being used to describe it -- e.g. "gender mainstreaming." Moreover, these terms are often embedded deeply within tedious mega-documents that most members of the UN probably do not read in toto.(emp added)

But now that the light of controversy is shed upon UN policies regarding family, let us consider whether the influential feminist groups operating within the UN are, in fact, anti-family?

Feminism within the UN

read the rest

Concerned Women for America
has provided Biblical support for six core issues, which go to the heart of our Western Values in which the functional family unit is key. In addition, CWA has been following CEDAW since it was spawned in the UN, and they have a lot to report on the organization's committee rulings.

I have looked into Wendy McElroy a bit. Perhaps it may seem presumptuous of me, but I'm new at this and need to check out anyone I recommend. I can say this without hesitation: Wendy McElroy is a woman who can think on her feet (a superlative recommendation from yours truly). What I have read of her writing, she is very adept at pulling back the curtain sham of the politicization of women's role in today's society, and exposing the radical feminist's goals.

This is very necessary in order to understand and refute the idiocy being perpetrated on women and children, who in the Radical Feminist's war on the prevailing patriarchy, have become mere pawns, expendable and ultimately discardable.

It's all part of the "Criticise, criticise, poke out their eyes" mentality. In the Feminist View, all who don't espouse the party line are guilty of supporting the patriachy - ergo, they are beneath contempt. It's not okay to be a lady.

Ladies, toss these misguided souls out on their respective derrières.

Monday, April 23, 2007



A Speech by Chief Seattle of the Dwamish Tribe in 1855

THE GREAT CHIEF in Washington sends word that he wishes to buy our land. The Great Chief also sends us words of friendship and good will. This is kind of him, since we know he has little need of our friendship in return. But we will consider your offer, for we know if we do not do so, the white man may come with guns and take our land. What Chief Seattle says you can count on as truly as our white brothers can count on the return of the seasons. My words are like the stars - they do not set.

How can you buy or sell the sky - the warmth of the land? The idea is strange to us. Yet we do not own the freshness of the air or the sparkle of the water. How can you buy them from us? We will decide in our time. Every part of this earth is sacred to my people. Every shining pine needle, every sandy shore, every mist in the dark woods, every clearing, and every humming insect is holy in the memory and experience of my people.

We know that the white man does not understand our ways. One portion of land is the same to him as the next, for he is a stranger who comes in the night and takes from the land whatever he needs. The earth is not his brother, but his enemy, and when he has conquered it, he moves on. He leaves his father's graves and his children's birthright is forgotten. The sight of your cities pains the eyes of the redman. But perhaps it is because the redman is a savage and does not understand.

There is no quiet place in the white man's cities. No place to listen to the leaves of spring or the rustle of insect wings. But perhaps because I am a savage and do not understand - the clatter only seems to insult the ears. And what is there to life if a man cannot hear the lovely cry of the whippoorwill or the arguments of the frogs around a pond at night? The Indian prefers the soft sound of the wind itself cleansed by a mid-day rain, or scented by a pinõn pine: the air is precious to the redman. For all things share the same breath - the beasts, the trees, and man. The white man does not seem to notice the air he breathes. Like a man dying for many days, he is numb to the stench.

If I decide to accept, I will make one condition. The white man must treat the beasts of this land as his brothers. I am a savage and I do not understand any other way. I have seen thousands of rotting buffaloes on the prairie left by the white man who shot them from a passing train. I am a savage and do not understand how the smoking iron horse can be more important than the buffalo that we kill only to stay alive. What is man without the beasts? If all the beasts were gone, men would die from great loneliness of spirit, for whatever happens to the beast also happens to the man.

All things are connected. Whatever befalls the earth befalls the sons of the earth. Our children have seen their fathers humbled in defeat. Our warriors have felt shame. And after defeat they turn their days in idleness and contaminate their bodies with sweet food and strong drink. It matters little where we pass the rest of our days - they are not many. A few more hours, a few more winters, and none of the children of the great tribes that once lived on this earth, or that roamed in small bands in the woods will remain to mourn the graves of the people once as powerful and hopeful as yours.

One thing we know that the white man may one day discover. Our God is the same God. You may think that you own him as you wish to own our land, but you cannot. He is the Body of man, and his compassion is equal for the redman and the white. This earth is precious to him, and to harm the earth is to heap contempt on its Creator. The whites, too, shall pass - perhaps sooner than other tribes.

Continue to contaminate
your bed, and you will one night suffocate in your own waste. When the buffalo are all slaughtered, the wild horses all tamed, the secret corners of the forest heavy with the scent of many men, and the view of the ripe hills blotted by the talking wires, where is the thicket? Gone. Where is the eagle? Gone. And what is it to say goodbye to the swift and the hunt? The end of living and the beginning of survival.

We might understand
if we knew what it was the white man dreams, what hopes he describes to his children on long winter nights, what visions he burns into their minds, so they will wish for tomorrow. But we are savages. The white man's dreams are hidden from us. And because they are hidden, we will go our own way. If we agree, it will be to secure your reservation you have promised.

There perhaps we
may live out our brief days as we wish. When the last redman has vanished from the earth, and the memory is only the shadow of a cloud passing over the prairie, these shores and forests will still hold the spirits of my people, for they love this earth as the newborn loves its mother's heartbeat. If we sell you our land, love it as we have loved it. Care for it as we have cared for it. Hold in your memory the way the land is as you take it.

And with all your strength, with all your might, and with all your heart - preserve it for your children, and love it as God loves us all. One thing we know - our God is the same. This earth is precious to him. Even the white man cannot escape the common destiny.

Keeping Spiritually Fit

In researching today's post, I uncovered so many things that cry out for redress: I looked into partial birth abortion. Looking at those images of helpless babies being pulled out in shreds, made me physically sick. My ongoing investigation into the nefarious doings of the NEA makes me want to start a war; the way boys and their masculinity is being attacked within the public school system is reason enough to "hoist the black flag".

But it is not possible to keep digging into the ills of America, without being spiritually affected. Maybe I'm not as strong as I'd like to believe, but it does take its toll. I've been ceaselessly pounding away at what is wrong with the world, and want to, need to for awhile, emphasize the good. Ultimately to stay spiritually fit, I have to accept the world the way it is. Not that I won't bring to light the things I care for, but I need to back off for awhile. There hasn't been a balance, and there is a need to look for the good. So this marks a needed, temporary hiatus in customary tone of blog. Probably this is something most of you know from your own lives. Me, I just keep charging right over the edge of the cliff. Until today, when I listened to that little voice within.

I want to spend some time, find and report what is right and good in America. I will be looking into education, true pedagogy - from the Greek, literally, "to lead the child”. Also healthy homeschooling practices will be a focus, probably anecdotal for the most part, so if anyone has input on that, it would be most welcome and appropriate to speak up. Spiritual principles, as a force, will be explored. I do not practice religion, per se, don't go to church, but I do try to keep spiritually fit. As a child, I learned to love Jesus. As an adolescent, I learned that the teachings of Jesus are one thing, the followers another. I sought and found my own living connection with God. It works for me.

I make it a policy never to meddle in anyone's love life, or give advice on same. I came upon this sort of laundry list of useful attitudes within a relationship about four years ago. I don't know anything about Lama Surya Das, nor do I espouse Buddhism, but I do know that many suffer from a basic lack of understanding of what makes relationships work or fail. I have no particular reason for posting this, other than it simply came to hand when I was looking for something positive to report. It may be that the looking is more important than the finding. In any case, take a look - see what you think.

Ten Principles of Sacred Relationships

By Lama Surya Das

1. Unselfishness and selflessness--Consciously put your loved one at the center of your heart and cultivate awareness of his/her needs. But don't go overboard; remember to also take care of yourself.

2. Generosity--Give of yourself, sharing time, things, and emotions.

3. Acceptance--Commit yourself to patience, forbearance, tolerance, and accepting your mate not as a fantasy object--but a real person.

4. Respect--Your mate is a gateway to God and so deserves your respect, trust and support.

5. Honesty--the hard work of communication, revealing yourself, truth-telling, listening (these are big practices)--all lead to authenticity.

6. Empathy--Genuine love involves working hard to understand, and share, the feelings of your loved one. And to offer compassion and caring even for feelings you don't "get."

7. Play--Don't take your love or yourself so seriously. Remember to leave room for fun, whimsy, joy and meaninglessness too.

8. Passion--True passion is not the romantic fascination we associate with teenage crushes; it's a deep wonderment and interest in the other.

9. Mystery--Being open to not knowing, to not having it all worked out, to the discovery of being together.

10. Mission--Strengthen your bond by having some shared "mission," purpose, direction.

Tomorrow I'll post a letter Chief Seattle sent to the Great Chief in Washington.

Meanwhile, from the Ramayana

The Truth upholds the fragrant Earth
and makes the living water wet.

Truth makes fire
burn and the air move,
makes the sun shine
and all Life grow.

A hidden Truth supports everything.
Find it and win.

Sunday, April 22, 2007

What Is A Patriot?

This post is a sequel to yesterday's, Farewell to America As We Know It.

I think, in order to be precise, there needs to be a distinction between the words, 'patriot' and 'nationalist'. Wordnet, a Princeton University lexical database defines 'patriot' thus: "One who loves and defends his or her country". The word 'nationalist' is defined as: "An advocate of national independence of or a strong national government".
They are not the same. Not exactly opposing views, they are nevertheless slightly divergent. The term "strong government" is the giveaway. Wordnet goes on to further define 'nationalistic' as: devotion to the interests or culture of a particular nation including promoting the interest of one country over those of others. Hmmm. So I can be a patriot, without necessarily being a nationalist - according to Wordnet. To take the definition of nationalist one step further, it would necessarily imply that a governing body of legislative, judicial, and military leaders willing, and perhaps intent on, carrying our interests and culture beyond our borders, using whatever tools necessary.

As a patriot, I need not espouse the goals of a nationalist. This is a subject that obviously could engender much useful discussion and discourse. But I don't have the time, so I will just come right out and say: I am a patriot, love my country, served in the US Army, am willing to die for my country. Hopefully, it won't come to that, but there may be other considerations in defending my country, the USA, which could involve loss of personal freedom. I am also prepared to deal with that, if push comes to shove. I could be threatened with imprisonment, as others have in the past, for failing to muster up the necessary support for nationalistic agendas. Even so, nationalistic agendas would have to be looked at and discussed in a variety of contexts before they would get my stamp of approval.

The reason for this hesitation is simple. Nationalistic interests which would extend beyond our borders are mixed, corrupted, and adulterated with special interests. Such special interests will have their own agenda, seeking to ally with the power of state. Halliburton's corporate interests would be an example of such special interests. Given their expertise in infrastructure rebuilding, among other things, they rely heavily on government contracts which proceed from, say a war.

Halliburton's contracts with Homeland Security, Justice Department, Depart of Immigration, and the US military would make them partial in any government undertaking where the intent is to "promote the interests and culture" of The United States of America. Detention centers have been built within the boundaries of the United States, or are on renewable contract to be built at the pleasure of the current administration. Already quite a few detention centers have been built on American soil. In preparation for what?

Another example would be the US Government's Biomeric Consortium. For a quick read on biometrics, Wikipedia says:

Biometrics (ancient Greek: bios ="life", metron ="measure") is the study of methods for uniquely recognizing humans based upon one or more intrinsic physical or behavioral traits.

In information technology, biometric authentication refers to technologies that measure and analyze human physical and behavioural characteristics for authentication purposes. Examples of physical (or physiological or biometric) characteristics include fingerprints, eye retinas and irises, facial patterns and hand measurements, while examples of mostly behavioural characteristics include signature, gait and typing patterns. All behavioral biometric characteristics have a physiological component, and, to a lesser degree, physical biometric characteristics have a behavioral element.

The implanted ID chip is right around the corner, folks. Get ready for it.

I wonder what Thomas Jefferson, or Thomas Paine, "who viewed all government as, at best, a necessary evil", would have thought of such intrusions?

In pursuing nationalistic agendas, wars have been fought and are being fought today. Our Industrial/military complex (an example of a PPP - Public Private Partnership) is huge and growing yearly, taking an enormous chunk of our money to sustain and develop. Who has authorized all this? Was I consulted? Were you? No. It was probably the first government/private industry symbiosis, which was later developed to include many such relationships, and out of that grew the idea they thought they could sell to the citizens: "sustainable development". Which means what, exactly?

Wikipedia says: "Sustainable development has also been defined as the process of balancing the need of humans for economic and social development with the need to protect the natural and built environment so that these needs can be met not only in the present, but in the indefinite future. The term was used by the Brundtland Commission which coined what has become the most often-quoted definition of sustainable development as "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own need."[1]

The field of sustainable development can be conceptually broken into four constituent parts: environmental sustainability, economic sustainability, social sustainability and political sustainability."

Hmmm again. Sounds like an insurance policy. A lack of faith in America's viability.

The business of the UN goes on, and on, and on - ad infinitum. So where, exactly does my support as a patriot, come in? Do I rubber-stamp whatever the presiding administration thinks is best? With no way to input into the decisions? No, that is where the nationalist is needed. How about an administration who wants to go to war, using whatever pretext is convenient, such as "War On Terror"? Or, "Preventing the Communists from taking over the world" a pretext for making Viet Nam look like the bottom of a Shake & Bake bag? No, see as a 'patriot', I don't have to co-sign someone else's war. As a patriot, I am compelled to love and defend my country from attack, not go looking for a war, or support others who would do so. That's a nationalist's job, and I've already said I'm not a nationalist, thank you very much.

A quick review, just off the top of my head. For WWll we had Pearl Harbor as the precipitating event. For the Viet Nam War, we had the Gulf of Tonkin Incident:

The Gulf of Tonkin Incident was an alleged pair of attacks by naval forces of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (commonly referred to as North Vietnam) against two American destroyers, the USS Maddox and the USS Turner Joy. The attacks were alleged to have occurred on 2 August and 4 August 1964 in the Gulf of Tonkin.

Later research, including a report released in 2005 by the National Security Agency, indicated that the second attack most likely did not occur, but also attempted to dispel the long-standing assumption that members of the administration of President Lyndon B. Johnson had knowingly lied about the nature of the incident.[1]

The outcome of the incident was the passage by Congress of the Southeast Asia Resolution (better known as the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution), which granted Johnson the authority to assist any Southeast Asian country whose government was considered to be jeopardized by "communist aggression". The resolution served as Johnson's legal justification for escalating American involvement in the Vietnam Conflict.

Well, well.

For the War in Iraq, we had 9/11. And from 9/11 we have a whole new nationalistic agenda, the War on Terror. Keep it out of our country, by taking the fight to them. Do you really believe that the Muslim terrorists could not strike again on US soil, at will, if they so chose?

All this suggests a much, much stronger government than was allowed for in the US Constitution, which is why I am against it. Nothing good can come of it.

So by bringing all this up, am I a traitor to my country, or a patriot? I say patriot, but I leave that to your discretion. I am not looking for agreement. But if you agree that this whole business of patriotism/nationalism needs more public discourse, then by all means, say so. It is, after all, your country we are talking about.

Bring up the notion of civil disobedience though, and people start to get nervous. Could it be that we have become too comfortable with the status quo? Or is it that we are loathe to think that our own government would lie and deceive its citizenry, and so are reluctant to entertain the notion of revolt. Back in the 60's the idea of change of government was not so revolutionary. It was natural, because we knew the government was up to no good, and the desire to see good come of the demonstrations was implicit in the demands. Today we can see that the government is up to no good, so what is different?

Partly, the answer lies in the NEA's agenda of teaching, not subjects like math, physics, even arithmetic, but rather, it focuses on courses of social tolerance, sex education, world government, global government, environmental studies, yada, yada. Slowly, insidiously the focus has shifted to emphasizing that we need more protection, more security from dangerous forces, a more powerful government to take care of us - and away from subjects like chemistry, trigonometry, hard sciences. Away from subjects which would actually hone one's ability to reason through problems, and toward the notion of passing tests on material given as fact, the only facts we need know are provided by the teachers. This has the effect of dulling the senses, of punishing critical thinking. The public schools are a disgrace. A goodly percentage of American citizens are aware of this. One only has to look at the shameful state of discipline practiced, or rather, not practiced in our schools today.

The media has let us down. They are under the influence of powerful forces, forces so powerful as to silence them. This is partly why we find ourselves in the dark today. They have sold out. Were it not for bloggers, it would be very difficult to ascertain the state of affairs today, because the media will not present the truth. They present a very slanted view of events. That was never, until quite recently, how it was supposed to be. The newspapers at the very least, were in place to give unbiased reportage. How many people today believe they get the unvarnished truth from news reporters? I would love to know the answer to that, but unfortunately, there just isn't time. It is up to us to change the media's relationship to its readers. We can start to do that by forcing them to report news, instead of ignoring news.

The rallies in Washington DC this week are a step in the right direction. The truckers, and also FAIR - hold their feet to the fire demonstration will force the media to at least report the events, thus making readers, and viewers aware that something is amiss.

Forcing the media to bring the news to the people is a good thing, and it needs to be stepped-up. I know that Jesse Ventura at United American Committee is doing a great job in that respect. Also Nedd Kareiva at Stop the ACLU, Joe Kaufman at Americans Against Hate, and all bloggers are also having an effect. Individually, we don't count for a whole lot, but taken as a group focused on bringing the truth out, we count. But we need to do more. The states are waking up to the fact that they have been cut out of the loop, by a sneaky administration. We need to encourage their representatives and governors to speak out.

Finally, a few words from Henry David Thoreau:

"...Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right. It is truly enough said that a corporation has no conscience; but a corporation of conscientious men is a corporation with a conscience. Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice. A common and natural result of an undue respect for the law is, that you may see a file of soldiers, colonel, captain, corporal, privates, powder-monkeys, and all, marching in admirable order over hill and dale to the wars, against their wills, aye, against their common sense and consciences, which makes it very steep marching indeed, and produces a palpitation of the heart. They have no doubt that it is a damnable business in which they are concerned; they are all peaceably inclined. Now, what are they? Men at all? or small movable forts and magazines, at the service of some unscrupulous man in power? ...How does it become a man to behave toward the American government today? I answer, that he cannot without disgrace be associated with it. I cannot for an instant recognize that political organization as my government which is the slave's government also.

All men recognize the right of revolution; that is, the right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist, the government, when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable. But almost all say that such is not the case now....".

I say, if we don't resist now, then we deserve what we get. Oh, and one question: do you consider yourself a Patriot? or a Nationalist? I'm not sure you can be both.

Trackback: Woman Honor Thyself

Friday, April 20, 2007

Farewell to America As We Know It

The United States Government is an out of control, run amock, behemoth. Fact is, we have no "US Government" any more. It has died a death of 1000 cuts.

Our present government is not salvageable. It has gotten too powerful, too independent of voter oversight, and in the end, will only offer itself up to the chopping block of World Government. There is simply no way to reign it in by a process of representative government. Republican, Democrat - makes no difference. None whatever. And I suspect if a man of strong independent political fiber were to somehow were to get into the presidency, he would be eliminated. Paranoia? Maybe, but they took out John F. Kennedy, when it became obvious that he did not support the "shadow government"

The position of the Presidency is too powerful to allow a man of moral fiber to prevail. Chances are, though, in 2008 they will get someone elected they can dominate, like the Bushites, or Clintonites.

Meanwhile, The American public sits around in a daze, while the power brokers have their way with us. President Bush is a straw man, a puppet, under the sway of the globalists. Bush is currently depleting our public treasury. Ask youself why? Why, instead of helping his own people with the billions and billions of dollars, he is pissing it away in Iraq, softening the region (he hopes) in order for American Imperialism to become the dominant force in the Middle East, under the pretext of establishing democracy in Iraq. You gotta be kidding me. These people are crazy. They love killing each other. Democracy? Un uh. I don't know what's going to happen in Iraq, probably no one does. But I do know he's got us looking one way, while he slips the SPP, then the NAU under the radar.

He pounds the Media with his constant harping on the theme of "protecting America from Terrorists". That is utter bullshit. He's working us into a corner, so that he can hand over the reins to the global tyrants, currently embodied in the United Nations. But the handover of power won't stop there. The UN is also currently an out of control collection of crooks, degenerates, and tyrants in their own right. So the globalists will also have to destroy the power structure within the UN, emerging as a tighter, more efficient oligarchy.
This is a process to be carried out by a new paradigm of Public Private Partnerships,or PPP's, under the meme of "sustainable development". The SPP is one example of this process, carried out without the knowledge or will of "the governed" - you and me.

What they are selling is the idea that we need a stronger international governmental partnership to survive in a dangerous world. Hell, we're the country who poses the most danger to the world.

I'm not buying. How about you? I may be off here and there, but I trust my gut instincts, and they tell me we're being taken for a ride. All they need from us is our bodies. Bleep that.

So, what can we do? Fight. It's all we can do. But the rules of engagement must change, and radically. We must take the concept of Civil Disobedience to a new level. Folks, hang onto your guns. We may need them. I don't have a lot of time left in this world, and I will not pussy-foot around the elephant in the room any longer. In order to preserve the concepts embodied in the US Constitution, we need to see what they said when our government no longer works for us, the sovereigns of the land.

I wish I could be in Washingtion, DC this week. There will be civil disobedience by the truckers, who also see which way the wind is blowing, and they intend to do something about it.

According to the Save America Fund Website Fed-up American trucker's will hold a truckers "Truck Out" blockade rally on April 23rd, 24th, and 25th to protest President Bush signing a bill that will allow Mexican truckers to enter the country. They are angry because these foreign workers won't be subject to the same laws and regulations as American truckers. It should be quite a sight to see a parade of trucks slowly rolling around the Capital.

At the same time there will be a protest by FAIR, Federation For Immigration Reform:
Here's what they say on their website:

There’s an old expression that if you want to get politicians to see the light, make them feel the heat. That’s just what FAIR and dozens of radio talk show hosts from around the country are planning in April.

FAIR’s annual Hold Their Feet to the Fire rally in Washington DC will be held April 22nd to the 25th.

Teaming up once again with popular San Diego talk show host Roger Hedgecock, FAIR and other advocates of true comprehensive immigration reform are gearing up for this year’s events where the stakes are even higher

FAIR is urging all its members, and any others interested in True Comprehensive Immigration Reform to join this national grassroots effort in Washington and counter the expected push for amnesty from groups supporting open borders and illegal alien special interests.

What the truckers are planning, is to drive real slow all around the Capitol, but also around other cities as well, to force the media to pay attention. I love it.

Global Warming, or Global Goose-Stepping?

Why Politicized Science is Dangerous

An excerpt from his book, State of Fear by Michael Crichton

"Imagine that there is a new scientific theory that warns of an impending crisis, and points to a way out.

This theory quickly draws support from leading scientists, politicians and celebrities around the world. Research is funded by distinguished philanthropies, and carried out at prestigious universities. The crisis is reported frequently in the media. The science is taught in college and high school classrooms.

I don't mean global warming. I'm talking about another theory, which rose to prominence a century ago.

Its supporters included Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Winston Churchill. It was approved by Supreme Court justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis, who ruled in its favor. The famous names who supported it included Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone; activist Margaret Sanger; botanist Luther Burbank; Leland Stanford, founder of Stanford University; the novelist H. G. Wells; the playwright George Bernard Shaw; and hundreds of others. Nobel Prize winners gave support. Research was backed by the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations. The Cold Springs Harbor Institute was built to carry out this research, but important work was also done at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford and Johns Hopkins. Legislation to address the crisis was passed in states from New York to California.

These efforts had the support of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, and the National Research Council. It was said that if Jesus were alive, he would have supported this effort.

All in all, the research, legislation and molding of public opinion surrounding the theory went on for almost half a century. Those who opposed the theory were shouted down and called reactionary, blind to reality, or just plain ignorant. But in hindsight, what is surprising is that so few people objected.

Today, we know that this famous theory that gained so much support was actually pseudoscience. The crisis it claimed was nonexistent. And the actions taken in the name of theory were morally and criminally wrong. Ultimately, they led to the deaths of millions of people.

The theory was eugenics, and its history is so dreadful --- and, to those who were caught up in it, so embarrassing --- that it is now rarely discussed. But it is a story that should be well known to every citizen, so that its horrors are not repeated.

The theory of eugenics postulated a crisis of the gene pool leading to the deterioration of the human race. The best human beings were not breeding as rapidly as the inferior ones --- the foreigners, immigrants, Jews, degenerates, the unfit, and the "feeble minded." Francis Galton, a respected British scientist, first speculated about this area, but his ideas were taken far beyond anything he intended. They were adopted by science-minded Americans, as well as those who had no interest in science but who were worried about the immigration of inferior races early in the twentieth century --- "dangerous human pests" who represented "the rising tide of imbeciles" and who were polluting the best of the human race.

The eugenicists and the immigrationists joined forces to put a stop to this. The plan was to identify individuals who were feeble-minded --- Jews were agreed to be largely feeble-minded, but so were many foreigners, as well as blacks --- and stop them from breeding by isolation in institutions or by sterilization.

As Margaret Sanger said, "Fostering the good-for-nothing at the expense of the good is an extreme cruelty … there is not greater curse to posterity than that of bequeathing them an increasing population of imbeciles." She spoke of the burden of caring for "this dead weight of human waste."

Such views were widely shared. H.G. Wells spoke against "ill-trained swarms of inferior citizens." Theodore Roosevelt said that "Society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind." Luther Burbank" "Stop permitting criminals and weaklings to reproduce." George Bernard Shaw said that only eugenics could save mankind.

There was overt racism in this movement, exemplified by texts such as "The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy" by American author Lothrop Stoddard. But, at the time, racism was considered an unremarkable aspect of the effort to attain a marvelous goal --- the improvement of humankind in the future. It was this avant-garde notion that attracted the most liberal and progressive minds of a generation. California was one of twenty-nine American states to pass laws allowing sterilization, but it proved the most-forward-looking and enthusiastic --- more sterilizations were carried out in California than anywhere else in America.

Eugenics research was funded by the Carnegie Foundation, and later by the Rockefeller Foundation. The latter was so enthusiastic that even after the center of the eugenics effort moved to Germany, and involved the gassing of individuals from mental institutions, the Rockefeller Foundation continued to finance German researchers at a very high level. (The foundation was quiet about it, but they were still funding research in 1939, only months before the onset of World War II.)

Since the 1920s, American eugenicists had been jealous because the Germans had taken leadership of the movement away from them. The Germans were admirably progressive. They set up ordinary-looking houses where "mental defectives" were brought and interviewed one at a time, before being led into a back room, which was, in fact, a gas chamber. There, they were gassed with carbon monoxide, and their bodies disposed of in a crematorium located on the property.

Eventually, this program was expanded into a vast network of concentration camps located near railroad lines, enabling the efficient transport and of killing ten million undesirables.

Read the rest here.

This is scary. Let's see, we still have the Carnegie Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and there are obviously swarms of "consensus scientists" willing to whore themselves to get at the grants. All we really lack is an ignorant populace willing to believe whatever the MSM dishes out....woops.

Thursday, April 19, 2007

Just Chillin'

In yet another compelling sign of global warming,the Canadian coastguard has been busy trying to rescue more than 100 seal hunter ships trapped in ice in the Atlantic, which are in danger of being crushed by the freezing ice.

An unconfirmed rumor of hundreds of mean seals seen sticking their tongues out at the hopelessly ice-bound ships (until the Spring Summer? Thaw) has Polar scientists scratching their heads.

Stay tuned...

"Aliens Cause Global Warming"

Some of you may be aware that best-selling author, Michael Crichton, was a 1969 graduate of the Harvard Medical School. His post-doctoral study at the Salk Institute for Biological Science at La Jolla, Ca. was cut short by his writing career. I would like to give you his take on global warming in a historical context that he first posed in a lecture at the California Institute of Technology. I ask that as you read this, those brave souls among us who will read it, remember that this lecture was given over four years ago. It is rather long, but is never-the-less a fascinating take on global politics. I just ran across it, and feel that it is worthy of our time.

Pasadena, CA
January 17, 2003

Aliens Cause Global Warming
by Michael Crichton

"My topic today sounds humorous but unfortunately I am serious. I am going to argue that extraterrestrials lie behind global warming. Or to speak more precisely, I will argue that a belief in extraterrestrials has paved the way, in a progression of steps, to a belief in global warming. Charting this progression of belief will be my task today.

Let me say at once that I have no desire to discourage anyone from believing in either extraterrestrials or global warming. That would be quite impossible to do. Rather, I want to discuss the history of several widely-publicized beliefs and to point to what I consider an emerging crisis in the whole enterprise of science-namely the increasingly uneasy relationship between hard science and public policy.

I have a special interest in this because of my own upbringing. I was born in the midst of World War II, and passed my formative years at the height of the Cold War. In school drills, I dutifully crawled under my desk in preparation for a nuclear attack.

It was a time of widespread fear and uncertainty, but even as a child I believed that science represented the best and greatest hope for mankind. Even to a child, the contrast was clear between the world of politics-a world of hate and danger, of irrational beliefs and fears, of mass manipulation and disgraceful blots on human history. In contrast, science held different values-international in scope, forging friendships and working relationships across national boundaries and political systems, encouraging a dispassionate habit of thought, and ultimately leading to fresh knowledge and technology that would benefit all mankind. The world might not be a very good place, but science would make it better. And it did. In my lifetime, science has largely fulfilled its promise. Science has been the great intellectual adventure of our age, and a great hope for our troubled and restless world.

But I did not expect science merely to extend lifespan, feed the hungry, cure disease, and shrink the world with jets and cell phones. I also expected science to banish the evils of human thought---prejudice and superstition, irrational beliefs and false fears. I expected science to be, in Carl Sagan's memorable phrase, "a candle in a demon haunted world." And here, I am not so pleased with the impact of science. Rather than serving as a cleansing force, science has in some instances been seduced by the more ancient lures of politics and publicity. Some of the demons that haunt our world in recent years are invented by scientists. The world has not benefited from permitting these demons to escape free.

But let's look at how it came to pass..."

(I can't resist giving you this kernel in the middle of his lecture, in which he reminds us:)

"I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period."

read the rest here.

Tomorrow, I plan on giving you an excerpt from his book, State of Fear, subtitled, "Why Politicized Science Is Dangerous", published in 2004.

God, I love the voice of Reason.

The Anchoress