They're Coming After Your Kids Next...
[PLEASE watch the video at the bottom if you have kids.]
americanthinker.com
September 01, 2009
"Indoctrination through Education has Begun"
Lauri Regan
In a recent article that I wrote for AT, I stated that while I feared it imminent, the Obama administration had not yet turned its attention to controlling the public education system. Little did I know that my fear would come to fruition so quickly.
Perhaps because he has had enough of adult Americans questioning his policies and his lies, or perhaps he would like to take some attention away from his falling approval ratings and failing healthcare overhaul, Obama has turned his team of brainwashers on the task of indoctrinating America’s youth. On September 8th, Obama will address students across America. Some of the suggested teaching guidelines include:
Students might think about: What specific job is he asking me to do? Is he asking anything of anyone else? Teachers? Principals? Parents? The American people?
Teachers could ask students to share the ideas they recorded, exchange sticky notes or stick notes on a butcher paper poster in the classroom to discuss main ideas from the speech, i.e. citizenship, personal responsibility, civic duty.
Students could discuss their responses to the following questions: What do you think the President wants us to do? Does the speech make you want to do anything? Are we able to do what President Obama is asking of us? What would you like to tell the President?
Write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president. These would be collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals.
Well, I know what I “would like to tell the President” and it does not include praising him for his past 8 months of “serving” the country. I also have no intention of having my children write a letter to themselves or anyone else “about what they can do to help the president.” It seems to me that the president has enough help devastating the country with community service from the likes of ACORN, George Soros’ cabal of organizations, and brainwashed liberals who still adore him. My children are off limits.
-----------
rightsidenews.com
"Obama's Civilian Troops Were Trained by Bill Ayers"
Written by Mary Grabar
Monday, 31 August 2009 18:36
The blitzkrieg of changes that Obama has implemented - the nationalization of auto companies and banks, the demonization of the bourgeois (auto executives, physicians in private practice, insurance executives), the arm-twisting behind closed doors - are of the kind we'd expect of Hugo Chavez, pal of Obama's pal, Bill Ayers.
But young people, educated in a system that allowed Bill Ayers to become a "distinguished professor" of education, heed the siren call of Obama's Organizing for America and MoveOn.org. I saw them collecting information and signatures at one of the fake town halls given by my Democrat Congressman Hank Johnson here in Atlanta on August 10.
In fact, it seemed that out of the tiny percentage of people in their late teens or twenties at this gathering, which exceeded the overflow hall showing the proceedings on screen, most were Obama zombies. None would give their full names to me; some were from outside the district. All insisted that they had signed "nondisclosure agreements." One hostile girl with pink hair admitted to being paid for her efforts. One young man who gave his first name only smirked when I told him I write for Pajamas Media: "Isn't that the place that had Joe the Plumber on?"
Obama would like us to forget about Ayers, whom he dismissed as some "English professor." We are to forget that they attended New York colleges at the same time, ended up in Ayers' hometown of Chicago, sat on educational foundations together, had mutual friends, and held a kick-off political campaign in Ayers' home.
Obama would also like us to ignore the language written by a euthanasia society that calls for five-year reviews of "end-of-life" plans in HR 3200. Those who rightfully see such provisions for what they are endure ridicule, much in the manner of those who condemned communists. Those writing op-eds about life "not worth living" today display a lack of awareness that their language mimics the language of Nazi doctors who got their practice runs for the Holocaust by quietly gassing the very young, the mentally challenged, and the handicapped in the privacy of their hospitals. They too had medical "review committees" of white-coated bureaucrats signing orders for death.
But history teachers will tell you that even Advanced Placement high school students are under the illusion that the concentration camps were places that the U.S. sent its own Japanese citizens.
When I write about Bill Ayers, I am often greeted with the retort that the focus on one kooky professor is a waste of time, that we have bigger problems.
But were it not for the "Destructive Generation" instantiating themselves in our schools, the election of Barack Obama would not have been possible. Had we had a generation who understood history, we would have had voters who understood the vacuity of his rhetoric and the implications of "spreading the wealth." They would have understood how his writings on Saul Alinsky displayed his propensity for stirring up racial animus, demonizing the opposition, and threatening executives with "pitchfork" mobs (that he would rouse up). We would have seen how his teaching a course on "critical race theory" would naturally lead to a nomination of a Supreme Court justice who sees herself as a "wise Latina woman" who can "empathize."
They would have seen that Obama's alliance with Bill Ayers, who has been working on behalf of "education" in Venezuela, would lead to a cozy meeting with Hugo Chavez. While Venezuelans protest against a government takeover of the schools, we allow Bill Ayers to spread his poison to future teachers while paying him an annual salary of $126,000.
Like South American dictators who promise peasants a few hectares through redistribution, Obama promises such things as "free" medical care, education, and new cars to his followers. Like Chavez, he appeals to the peasants - literally the illegal ones streaming into the country, promising rights of citizenship.
The historian Richard Pipes notes that the Russian revolution succeeded in large part because of the uneducated peasants. And in this country, the early communists targeted immigrants who spoke no English and were unacquainted with American values.
Today's communists, like Bill Ayers, work in our schools aiming to keep American students in the same level of ignorance and tribalism as the peasants of Russia and South America.
They began their nefarious deeds in the 1960s. With help from the Soviet Union, they fomented hatred of the United States and then successfully groomed a generation to colonize the schools. The SDS (Students for a Democratic Society), of which Ayers was a member, spelled out their strategies in their position paper, the Port Huron Statement. Employing the old Soviet strategy of "boring from within," they focused on "an overlooked seat of influence": the university. Divested of their history, literacy, and ability to reason, their students became the mob that elected Barack Obama.
I am not the only one to witness the increasing inability of college students to reason. Douglas G. Campbell, writing in Academic Questions, relates a common experience in the college classroom. The former career military officer, while discussing military culture, was accused of being "brainwashed by the military" by a student who had no experience in the military or knowledge of it. When asked what informed her opinion, she could not reply. In frustration she repeated the classroom mantra, that she was "entitled to my opinion." When she broke into tears, accusing Campbell of being a Nazi, she gained the sympathy of her classmates. I've had a similar resistance to facts and logic in the classroom.
Campbell cites a couple of books on pedagogy that he had to read in a mandatory program at his college. One by Stephen D. Brookfield, Becoming a Critically Reflective Thinker, advocates a Marxist methodology called "critical pedagogy," by which "students are helped to break out of oppressive ways of thinking and acting that seem habitual but that have been imposed by the dominant culture."
The "dominant culture" that Brookfield refers to is the Western one. It relies on standards of truth, objectivity, and fairness. It uses the syllogism, where a premise based on truth leads logically to a conclusion. Our "dominant culture" also emphasizes fairness, such as notions that people of a certain race are not inherently wiser or that those who demonstrate merit should be rewarded.
But in our schools, from kindergarten through graduate school, a different culture reigns. From textbooks, to teaching strategies that encourage collective thinking, to dorm room indoctrination, students are pressured to give up independent, logical thought for nonsensical theories, group work, and consensus building. They are bullied emotionally and pressured with grades to adopt the thinking of the classroom. At the same time, they are denied exposure to the Western heritage.
Bill Ayers, much admired by fellow education professors, eschews content and discipline. He bristles at the idea of being restricted by a curriculum, policies, or assessments and openly uses his classroom to promote his radical communist views by assigning books that promote communism. His own books are used by professors in colleges of education. A tamer version of his pedagogy is popular among teachers, who while not openly advocating communism nonetheless focus on "social justice" issues through collective thinking.
Conservatives who have seen through these techniques but simply dismiss these kooky professors do so at their peril. They may be protecting their own children through homeschooling and private education, but they are reaping the products in the voting mobs that elected Barack Obama.
Now we are faced with, among other things, the prospect of "death panels" under socialized medicine.
The health care town halls and tea party rallies are the pulse signs of an American spirit that has not yet died. But these gatherings are populated largely by those who are in, or approaching, the age of mandatory "end-of-life" counseling proposed in HR 3200.
As a baby boomer, I viewed such a session at my "town hall meeting" as a group of fresh-faced Emory medical students debated an experienced orthopedic surgeon.
One young student, a Doogie Howser type, cocksure in his white coat, was convinced that he was on the right side of compassion and "social justice."
The surgeon, who was not wearing the doctor's coat, argued against the government encroachment into the relationship between doctor and patient. He admitted that there are problems with health care currently, but argued quite logically and ethically against the extreme measures of the bill. He cited his experience of working in a government (VA) hospital. He said that competition means good service for patients and gave examples and reasons.
The med student accused him of "trying to make a profit." (The good doctor had said he treats at least a couple of children of illegal aliens a month for free.)
As the surgeon understandably became increasingly frustrated in the debate, the med student used techniques that are now common in the classroom: emotional sabotaging tactics under the cover of "conflict resolution." Acting as if the surgeon were an unreasonable child (or more likely senile), the student said, "Let me crystallize this ..." The tone was condescending. It would have been a comic scene were it not for the fact that this future doctor does not seem to understand how HR 3200 violates the Hippocratic Oath.
(The several doctors who spoke at the tea party rally in Atlanta on August 15 all invoked the Hippocratic Oath. But they were all middle-aged. No medical students showed up.)
The medical student at the town hall did say to the experienced orthopedist, "I respect your opinion," but he dismissed the opinion.
Obama himself on television and through expansion of government programs, like Americorps, encourages our young people to "volunteer" in "community service" programs paid for with tax dollars.
While the economy tanks, the government job sector is growing. Young people are encouraged to educate themselves for jobs in nonprofits and government agencies. They build up their academic resumes with "community service" that does nothing for their intellectual growth.
The visions of modern-day brown-shirted civilian troops have predictably been dismissed as evidence of overworked imaginations of right-wing extremists.
Well, maybe they won't be wearing brown shirts. Maybe they'll be wearing white coats.
--------------
thenewamerican.com
"United Nations Plan: Teach Masturbation to 5-Year-Olds"
A while back we heard about the United Nations pact that would prohibit parents from choosing their children's religion. Now the UN is issuing another dystopian proposal, a sex-education curriculum that would teach children as young as five about masturbation and "gender roles, stereotypes and gender-based violence." And those are just two elements in a 98-page report issued by the UN's Economic, Social and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and which includes curricula for children between the ages of 5 and 18. Joseph Abrams at FoxNews reports, writing:
Under the U.N.'s voluntary sex-ed regime, kids just 5-8 years old will be told that "touching and rubbing one's genitals is called masturbation" and that private parts "can feel pleasurable when touched by oneself."
. . . By the time they're 9 years old, they'll learn about "positive and negative effects of 'aphrodisiacs," and wrestle with the ideas of "homophobia, transphobia [prejudice against transsexuals] and abuse of power."
At 12, they'll learn the "reasons for" abortions — but they'll already have known about their safety for three years. When they're 15, they'll be exposed to direct "advocacy to promote the right to and access to safe abortion."
As to the last point, UNESCO promotes "the right to and access to safe abortion" for everyone over 15 years of age.
Well, now it's clear why the UN doesn't want parents to be able to choose their children's religion. I mean, we wouldn't want to impose values on the kids, after all.
The UNESCO report is entitled "International Guidelines for Sexuality Education" and is co-authored by a sociologist named Doug Kirby and one Nanette Ecker, a sex educator at the Nassau County chapter of Planned Parenthood, and they and its other boosters would claim that it's needed to help combat AIDS. Yet it's hard to see how this is anything but a sales pitch. How will teaching children about masturbation, transphobia, the "therapeutic" effects of abortion, and the "gender" agenda reduce the spread of HIV? In point of fact, even the theory that widespread condom use — something hailed by libertines as a veritable panacea — reduces the incidence of AIDS is full of holes (read "Harvard Academic: Pope is Right about Condoms").
Yet the main problem with this sex-education proposal, as with them all, is not in the details but in the concept of sex education itself. As time wears on, we teach children more and more about sex at younger and younger ages, yet the effect is the precise opposite of that intended: sex-related social ills seem to increase commensurately with the carnal knowledge children are given. As to this, just consider that while the out-of-wedlock birthrate was only 3.8 percent in 1940, today it is 40 percent.
Nevertheless, we keep administering the medicine even as the patient grows ever more ill, unwilling to consider the remedies used when he was healthy because, well, old, forgotten mistakes fancied novel and new are so much more alluring than the tried and true. It much reminds me of the great G.K. Chesterton quotation, "Men invent new ideals because they dare not attempt old ideals. They look forward with enthusiasm, because they are afraid to look back." And if we do look back we will see the answer to dealing with man's libido very clearly. It lies not in psychology textbooks or Kinsey Institute faux science, not in "comprehensive" sex education or even in abstinence-only programs. It lies in recreating a chaste society.
What is a chaste society? I wrote about this in January (an audio presentation can be found here) and explained it thus:
Chastity, mind you, is not synonymous with celibacy; rather, it refers to a state in which sexuality is kept within its proper context. This means within marriage and not reduced to simply the most popular form of recreation or a central ingredient of entertainment. In such a society, there are no "programs" for sexuality; in fact, that we think of targeting such a thing with programs hints at the problem. What if I told you that we needed a "program" to teach people about the proper acquisition of goods because large numbers of citizens thought they had just as much a right to others' belongings as to their own? Of course, in certain times and places such a thing might actually and quite regrettably be necessary. However, it would not even be a thought in a land where virtually all were instilled with "Thou shalt not steal" as children. If there is need of a program to address what should be woven into the culture, it means that the civilization is already far gone.
The truth is that in a healthy nation, the whole society is a sexuality program, in just the same way it’s a courtesy, reverence, anti-theft, anti-murder program and every other kind of program. In a nutshell, it’s a comprehensive virtue program. Such a place has strong traditions and social codes governing sexuality, with special emphasis placed where it’s most needed — on the young. This social governance includes powerful stigmas attached to undesirable practices and covers the who, what, where, why and how of the heart’s desire.
This is the vision of an ideal, one that had been successfuly attempted in the past. Sure, we are very far from it today, but not because, as is consensus now, the ideal is unrealistic or even impossible. That is a cop-out. The truth is that people won't look back to what actually worked because they so look forward to free sex. You see, the real remedy has one tragic defect: it would spoil their fun. It is thus scoffed at and called antiquated, but as Chesterton also wrote:
One of the first things that are wrong [with the world] is this: the deep and silent modern assumption that past things have become impossible. There is one metaphor of which the moderns are very fond; they are always saying, “You can’t put the clock back.” The simple and obvious answer is “You can.” A clock, being a piece of human construction, can be restored by the human finger to any figure or hour. In the same way society, being a piece of human construction, can be reconstructed upon any plan that has ever existed.
Yet while we're sure that you can't recreate the past's glories, we also speak of looking to the future. And it isn't just that we look to it with hope; we also sometimes act as if looking forward is a substitute for looking back for wisdom. But the problem with looking to the future is obvious: there is nothing to look at. The future cannot be a guide because we simply don't know what it will be. The future will be molded by us; it cannot mold us. It is the past from which we can learn, just as that icon of modernity the scientist does. A scientist will be mindful of experiments performed in the past because he needs to know what worked and what didn't so as to avoid repeating mistakes. And if a scientist claimed he was looking toward the experiments of the future, he would be crazy — as crazy as our social scientists.
Thus, the reality is that anyone who laughs at the past and looks to the future when formulating policy is a fool. He is looking at nothing. He is rejecting accumulated knowledge. He is simply proceeding based on what feels right at the moment. And what feels right at the moment — at any moment, in fact — is free sex. Yet, in reality, there is no such thing as free sex. There is always a price to be paid.
------------
Alienate children from their family, and from organized
religion. Teach them that their parents values, and the
values of their religion are wrong.
Teach them the Al Gore way...
Video:
thehopeforamerica.com
"When I was your age and the civil rights revolution was unfolding, and we kids asked our parents and their generation, 'Explain to me again why it's okay for the law to officially discriminate against people because of their skin color?'
"And when our parents' generation couldn't answer that question, that's when the law started to change. There are some things about our world that you know that older people don't know," he continued.
"Why would that be? Well in a period of rapid change, the old assumptions sometimes just don’t work anymore because they're out of date," Gore said.
-----------
All straight out of the Marxist-Leninist playbook.
SOTB
PS: Those with children, or grandchildren may want to
check into the UN "Rights of the Child" Treaty.
You MUST watch this video"
youtube.com
No conspiracy theory... it's all hidden in plain sight. |
