update: (tip of the hat, to charlotte, at familysecuritymatters.)
please, pay particular attention to hr 1388, the "generations invigorating volunteerism and education act." in my own post, i spent extensive time discussing a 2006 conference in caracas, venezuela hosted by hugo chavez w/ bill ayers in attendance, discussing socialist indoctrination of the young, via state sponsored education.
please note the title of the bill discussed by maj. general curry (ret'd), it is not there by accident.
please read this, it is an important post. jjjay.
By Maj. Gen. Jerry R. Curry (ret'd)
“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we have set. We have got to have a civilian national security force that is just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded,” said Barak Hussein Obama on July 2, 2008. His words require a bit of translating, however.
In plain English, President Obama has set national security objectives which he has yet to share with the American people. According to his statement he is convinced that the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard, constituted as they are, are either unreliable or unable to accomplish the national security objectives he has chosen. So, he intends to ask Congress to authorize, fund and build a civilian national security force that is, “just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded,” as America’s military forces.
To be as strong as our current armed forces, Obama’s civilian army will have to be able to match the Army and Marines tank for tank, missile for missile, and battalion for battalion. It will have to match the Navy and Coast Guard ship for ship, and the Air Force fighter plane for fighter plane and bomber for bomber.
His civilian force’s congressionally approved budget will require appropriations that match the Pentagon’s current budget level dollar for dollar. According to the Congressional Budget Office, Obama expects to fund his private security force with a $6 billion allocation over the next five years. Though that is not equivalent to the nation’s current military budget allocation, it is still not a paltry sum.
That is how we must interpret Obama’s words if we take them and him at face value. But does Obama really mean what he said or was it just campaign rhetoric? If it was only rhetoric, there should be no effort to follow up with concrete proposals or appropriations.
So what is one to think about H.R. 1388, Obama’s National Civilian Security Force bill which is slowly working its way around Capital Hill? It is formally named the “Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act.” It provides for uniforms to be worn by the young volunteers (up to 250,000 of them) and for the establishment of a 4-year “public service academy” to train new public service leaders. From this it is reasonable to conclude that there must be fire somewhere in the middle of all of Obama’s rhetorical smoke.
Where is there an historical example of a nation having a civilian national security force that rivals the size of its military forces? Why, in the early 1930s Germany, of course. The force was called the “Brown Shirts” and was used to bully, intimidate, and indoctrinate individuals and political parties that opposed the German government’s policies, in much the same manner as ACORN’s (The Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now) thugs for hire do in Chicago today.
We can safely assume that such an organization would take its orders directly from the President just as the Brown Shirts did in Germany and just as do Obama’s current White House Czars today. Left alone to develop and mature on its own, such a national security force could prove to be quite dangerous to our Constitution and to the liberty and freedom of all Americans.
Only the U.S. Military could control such a civilian security force if it went rogue, and that would have to be by brute force. For the Administration to counter the military’s use of force, it would have to somehow subvert the military so that while its forces are declining in power, the brown shirts are increasing in power.
In the process, the President would become a law and a power unto himself – whom no one could control -- with a civilian army or security force readily at hand to do his personal bidding, unchecked by Congress or the Courts. Eventually there would no longer be the separation of powers that our Founders so wisely established. And as history teaches us, under such a scenario the President would become a de facto dictator.
But the descendants of those who survived Valley Forge, Gettysburg, and Bastogne are neither easily fooled nor easily misled. While a few misguided politicians may stupidly or maliciously agree to form a sizeable civilian national security force and even plot to upset the constitutional system we so cherish, they will not succeed.
Having spent most of my life in the U.S. Army, much of it in foxholes, I can say without hesitation that the U.S. military will not stand idly by while the Constitution is being abrogated and destroyed. So let us remain vigilant and never forget, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.”
we know full well what he said.
just what did he mean when he said a “national civilian security force” as large and as well funded as the u.s. military? http://wintersoldier2008.typepad.com/summer_patriot_winter_sol/2009/08/rough-notes-obamas-security-police-as-large-as-as-well-funded-as-well-equipred.html . caveat: some of the matters discussed below are legislative "proposals," and have not yet been signed into law. nonetheless, they signal intent and the capacity of things to be implemented very quickly: and, the left will not give up on the designs they reveal. they are very disturbing.
it is at best difficult to divine what is in another person’s mind or the “mind” of a movement, or the intentions of such people and next to impossible when such persons are less than forthcoming on a subject, or just plain want to hide their intentions. it may be remarked that b. hussein obama can be about as obtuse and as little forthcoming, and just plain evasive on a topic, as any politician in a long time: indeed, avoiding acknowledging plain fact, and lying skillfully seems to be several of his chief talents. this may also be said of democrats in general.
so it is with some prudence and no little humility that i issue any predictions or pronouncements, at all, with regard to what obama will propose on september 11 this year with regard to his famous “civilian national security force” “revealed to” the public during a 2008 campaign speech in colorado. and, it is with some trepidation that i make pronouncements on the aims and motives of the left, before those things are fully revealed.
oh, the hell with it. just to hell with restraint. it is not impossible to put together the little bits and pieces of evidence and motivational clues that are left at a crime scene to understand a criminal’s intent, and no less may be said of individual and/or group politics: actually, it is sort of an apt comparison, when you get down to it. so, i am gonna spout off on what i think the little “clues” mean, littering the political landscape in reference to the “civilian security force” the size and wealth of the united states military. keeping in mind, confessedly, that fools rush in where angels fear to tread, and the pitfalls associated with reading fresh chicken innards, and the problems associated with witching for water.
so here goes.—
so, maybe he just meant to offer up some harmless platitude, already? nah, i think not, for all the previous reasons set forth in my previous analysis of the speech: he said what he said, and he said it on purpose.
does this dictate that obama seeks the creation of his own civilian police agency, loyal only to him and bent on imposing despotism? no.
does this mean that the groundwork, the mechanisms necessary to set such a plan in motion, are not already in place or have not been attempted to put into place. no, it most certainly does not mean that either, because legislative and administrative actions have occurred, under the aegis of democratic operatives that suggest the mechanisms for a police state might very easily be put into place, and have been already, to a certain extent. it remains only for obama and his henchmen and minions to put people in the jack boots and on the salary, and teach them the rudiments of proper aim and trigger control.
to borrow a phrase from “lucky” ned pepper in “true grit,” are these mighty bold words from a one-eyed fat man, such as myself? let us see, in terms of this paper. and, we shall see, starting september 11 what the future portends. once we know whither we are tending, we shall know just how in the hell we got here, now will we not? (thank you, mr. lincoln.)
well, we are a society of law and legalisms, aren’t we. so what of interest have the leftists been up to?
administrative directives: hiring.
administrative directives. 01.23.2009 the united states department of defense re-issued directive number 1404.10, relative to the “d.o.d. civilian expeditionary work force,” and directed that such civilian work force:
“… be organized, trained, cleared, equipped, and ready to deploy in support of combat operations by the military; contingencies; emergency operations; humanitarian missions; disaster relief; restoration of order; drug interdiction; and stability operations of the d.o.d. in accordance with d.o.d.d. 3000.05(reference (b)).” http://www.scribd.com/doc/13313192/DOD-Directive-140410-DoD-Civilian-Expeditionary-Workforce .
now, at first blush, this seems innocuous enough. the military has long utilized civilians with special “skill sets” to supplement operational requirements. Indeed, per 1404.10 the military keeps a data-base of such types, and may contact them asking them to “volunteer” for service. what, by the way, does it mean that a civilian work force is to handle “contingencies” and “restoration of order,” as determined by the d.o.d.? but, hey, we’re all americans. right? right?
so, not wholly alarming.
the following is wholly alarming.
the legislative enactments: the police force.
legislative enactments/proposals: h.r. 675. in january of 2009 house of representative member filner (demo., california) introduced h.r. 675, amending title 10 of the united states code, extending to civilian employees of the department of defense the authority to execute warrants, make arrests and carry firearms. the bill was referred to the house armed services committee on 01.26.2009. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14160 . in short, this legislation makes such of its employees as the department of defense may choose to designate into civilian police officers.
think for about 5 seconds on the implications of this. would it make any sense for the d.o.d. to designate its civilian employees are law enforcement officers in iraq, or afghanistan? no, it would not, would it, as they would have no investigative, or arrest or warrant execution powers under the domestic law of another country, just as a los angeles police officer would not.
can you direct a steady train of thought for about 5 minutes towards the consideration of that fact?
the linked blog site discusses this as follows, and since i can do it no better, i will simply excerpt the analysis:
filner’s bill would amend the united states code with the following: “sec. 1585b. law enforcement officers of the department of defense: authority to execute warrants, make arrests, and carry firearms… for any offense against the united states.” (Emphasis added.)
the posse comitatus act, passed on june 18, 1878 after the end of reconstruction, limits the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement. the act prohibits members of the federal uniformed services from exercising nominally state law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers that maintain “law and order” on non-federal property within the united states.
h.r. 675 sidesteps posse comitatus by defining “law enforcement officer of the department of defense” as “a civilian employee of the department of defense,” including federal police officers, detectives, criminal investigators, special agents, … .”
friends, you need look no further for the peg upon which the obama administration may legally constitute, form and fund a civilian police force, and one which presumably would owe its very existence and allegiance to b.hussein obama.
the legislative enactments: the laws to be enforced.
so, you are free to express your views, your religious convictions, your ideas as to immigration policies appropriate to the united states of america, and whether this country should allow a religion such as islam to take root in this country. are you, now, for very long?
legislative enactments/proposals: h.r. 645. h.r. 645 introduced under the sponsorship of alcee hastings, one of two judges ever impeached from the federal bench but latterly a protégée of nancy pelosi, and a ranking member on the homeland security committee, provides for the creation of “… national emergency centers …” throughout the united states. these centers are to be used for:
(1) to provide temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance to individuals and families dislocated due to an emergency or major disaster;
(2) to provide centralized locations for the purposes of training and ensuring the coordination of Federal, State, and local first responders;
(3) to provide centralized locations to improve the coordination of preparedness, response, and recovery efforts of government, private, and not-for-profit entities and faith-based organizations; and
(4) to meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the secretary of homeland security. sec. 2 (b.)(1)(2)(3)(4). http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-645 .
this bill is also examined at the following web-site: http://24ahead.com/hr-645-national-emergency-centers-military-bases-fema-alcee- .
legistlative enactments/proposals: amendment to h.r. 2647, (as offered by mr. hastings of florida.)
tinkers, to evers, to chance, … , napolitano, to hastings, to obama, … , one combination famous, the latter infamous.
tom fitton, of judicial watch gives a pretty good synopsis of the dangers inhering in the obama administration having the authority to label as “terrorists” anyone sufficiently opposed to obama’s policies as to draw his ire, but you have to be sorta vaguely aware of what occurred to follow it. but, it is a good summary. http://www.judicialwatch.org/weeklyupdate/2009/16-are-you-right-wing-extremist .
it all started with a rather dimbulbed report from the department of homeland security in the form of an assessment from the “office of intelligence and analysis” that touched off the firestorm. the report, entitled “rightwing extremism: current economic and political climate fueling resurgence in radicalization and recruitment” and issued 04.07.2009 on an unclassified basis to law enforcement, federal and state, basically identified you and i as right-wing extremist “terrorists.” (pdf version here: http://video1.washingtontimes.com/video/extremismreport.pdf )
the language that really struck raw nerve endings on just about everyone who is not a radical leftist zealot was centered on these paragraphs:
tbe possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorists groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent acts.
[fotenote] rightwing extremism in the united states can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religions, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. it may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration. page 2 of 9, pdf report. http://video1.washingtontimes.com/video/extremismreport.pdf
returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists. dhs/i&a is concerned that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities. [just whose violent capabilities: sort of a drafting ambiguity here:jjay.] http://video1.washingtontimes.com/video/extremismreport.pdf
well, the shit just literally hit the fan.
veterans’ groups, the v.f.w. and the american legion, politicians, to include the ranking democrat on the house homeland security committee, and conservatives who opposed obama on abortion and immigration issues, … , all joined in the competitive enterprise of who could best excoriate napolitano for the report’s supposedly ill chosen remarks, …, nobody considering the possibility that they were in fact well and purposefully chosen. an excellent summary of what happened is to be found at the following link at the washington times: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/16/napolitano-stands-rightwing-extremism/?page=2 .
ms. napolitano defended the report, saying only that she wished the footnote remark on immigration and abortion had not been included: she did not say whether or not she agreed with it, just that it had not been included.
she offered this remark to reassure the public that thought control is not yet quite installed in the american scheme of things:
“we are on the lookout for criminal and terrorist activity but we do not—nor will we ever—monitor ideology or political beliefs. we take seriously our responsibility to protect the civil rights and liberties of the american people, including subjecting our activities to rigorous oversight from numerous internal and external sources.” http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/16/napolitano-stands-rightwing-extremism/?page=2 .
do not get too comfortable in your belief that such nonsense does not threaten you, or cannot. and, do not get too comfortable in your belief that the regular military is an unassailable bastion of conservative beliefs, just because it is composed of small town men and women, and men and women who hold to the conservative values of country, duty and service and valor. and do not relax because they have shown disdain, distaste and dislike for obama on numerous occasions.
because it is just possible that janet napolitano’s department of homeland security and the government are looking to reign in the military, weed out the members who oppose the radical left, and instill its leftist leaning ideologies in their stead. (although, this leaves rather open the issue, just who amongst the liberal left is going to join the military, with a couple shooting wars going on, doesn’t it?)
remember, this section is entitled “legislative enactments/proposals.” enter again, the disgraced alcee hastings.
on this year, hastings offered to the house an amendment to h.r. 2647. in that legislation, he proposed to give to the attorney general of the united states rather sweeping powers to say the least, to include:
[10 u.s.c. sec. 504 is amended by adding] … (c)(1) … a person associated or affiliated with a group associated with hate-related violence against groups or persons or the united states government, as determined by the attorney general, may not be recruited, enlisted or retained in the armed forces.
(2) definition of hate group.—in this subsection, the terms “groups associated with hate-related violence” or “hate groups” mean the following:
(g) other groups or organizations that are determined by the attorney general to be of a violent, extremist nature.
(a)separation required.—a person discovered or determined to be associated or affiliated with a group associated with hate-related violence, as evidenced pursuant to paragraph (3), shall be immediately discharged from the armed forces, in the manner prescribed in regulations regarding discharge from service.
now on the face of this, any person in the united states army that belonged to a group sufficiently violently opposed to federal immigration or abortion policy could be determined by the attorney general, or any of his empowered designees authorized to make such determinations, as a member or an affiliate or an associate of a hate group, and subject to summary discharge from the military.
now, you can search these paragraphs as you will, but you will find no provision in them requiring a charging and proof process, nor any judicial review or supervision, or any appeal from such determinations as made by the attorney general of the united states. it just requires a determination be made by the attorney general of the united states that somebody that a soldier belongs to a hate group and he or she is immediately subject to discharge from the service.
legislative enactments/proposals: senate hate crimes act, s.b. 909. placed before the senate of the united states april 28, 2009 senate bill 909 would considerably broaden federal authority and ability to prosecute “hate crimes,” heretofore largely a province of state criminal statutes. (a pretty good history of the genesis of this bill in the federal congress, and a very good summary of like measures in the states, is found at wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/hate_crime_laws_in_the_united_states .)the bill allows the federal government to stick its nose into such prosecution by “assisting” the states in the prosecution of such acts as are considered “hate crime,” providing:
(1) in general-- at the request of state, local, or tribal law enforcement agency, the attorney general may provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or any other form of assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of any crime that--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(C) is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim, or is a violation of the State, local, or tribal hate crime laws.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(2) priority-- In providing assistance under paragraph (1), the attorney general shall give priority to crimes committed by offenders who have committed crimes in more than one state and to rural jurisdictions that have difficulty covering the extraordinary expenses relating to the investigation or prosecution of the crime. http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s909/text .
the statue also provides that no attempt will be made to prosecute individuals for solely for their beliefs, in an attempt to mollify perceived fears that this will be a “though police” enforcement:
(4) free expression-- nothing in this act shall be construed to allow prosecution based solely upon an individual’s expression of racial, religious, political, or other beliefs or solely upon an individual’s membership in a group advocating or espousing such beliefs. http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s909/text .
this “textual assurance” of protection of free speech may not be worth very much, as an examination of the accomplice liability statutes in most states or in the united states code suggests. in the state of washington, the accomplice liability statute provides, (handily summarized by lawyers as “aiding, abetting or encouraging another”):
liability for conduct of another — complicity.
(2) a person is legally accountable for the conduct of another person when:
(c) he is an accomplice of such other person in the commission of the crime.
(3) a person is an accomplice of another person in the commission of a crime if:
(a) with knowledge*** that it will promote or facilitate the commission of the crime, he
(i) solicits, commands, encourages, or requests such other person to commit it; or
(ii) aids or agrees to aid such other person in planning or committing it; or
(b) his conduct is expressly declared by law to establish his complicity.
[ ***knowledge is a lesser standard of culpability, below intent. it is easier to prove than intent, and rests on reasonable foresight that one’s conduct or speech might encourage another to act criminally. jjjay.]
this statute is not dissimilar to other state and federal provisions. thus, the assertion that a person’s free expression of ideas will bring him no criminal liability is a bit illusory, and perhaps a clever trap for the unwary, because if that person’s speech or conduct encourages another to commit a criminal act, then that person may be subject to criminal liability for such act.
if the criminal act complained of is a federal hate crime as defined under senate bill 909, then a person may very well find him- or herself subject to prosecution by the united states attorney’s office. most assuredly, not solely because of his or her beliefs or speech, but most assuredly because of them.
attorney general holders testimony before the united states senate: hate crimes enforcement. in england, and the rest of the euro union one of the very big problems associated with “hate speech” law “enforcement” is its disparate impact upon the europeans, e.g., the indigenous “white” population, and those minority groups to whom the protections of the statutes are applied. thus, a person such as geert wilders, a member of the dutch parliament has been prosecuted for hate speech for producing and publishing a movie which contained provisions from the koran, while islamist arabs are not prosecuted at all for the most racially pernicious and charged threats, and threats to do violence, directed toward the white population of the netherlands. phillipe de winter’s political party was decertified as eligible and legitimate to participate in politics, e.g., it was outlawed, for his comment that he was an “islamaphobe.”
there is every reason to suspect that such would be the case here.
in june of this year, holder appeared before a senate committee and testified specifically about enforcement of the act, (which appears neutral on its face), and indicated chillingly that enforcement would not be “neutral” within historical context. this exchange is described beautifully at world net daily, (a most informative site, as i have discovered in the last few days):
the hate crimes legislation adds gender, gender identity and sexual orientation to a list of protected categories under federal hate crimes law.
as [world net daily] reported, u.s. attorney general eric holder admitted a homosexual activist who is attacked following a christian minister's sermon about homosexuality would be protected by the proposed federal law, but a minister attacked by a homosexual wouldn't be.
the revelations came from holder's june testimony before the senate judiciary committee, which was taking comments on the so-called "hate crimes" proposal. it also was the subject of discussion on talk radio icon rush limbaugh's july 3 show.
"this is the question," limbaugh said. "[sen.] jeff sessions [r-ala.] presents a hypothetical where a minister gives a sermon, quotes the bible about homosexuality and is thereafter attacked … by a gay activist because of what the minister said about his religious beliefs and what scripture says about homosexuality. Is the minister protected?"
no, said holder.
"well, the statute would not – would not necessarily cover that. we're talking about crimes that have a historic basis. groups who have been targeted for violence as a result of the color of their skin, their sexual orientation, that is what this statute tends – is designed to cover. we don't have the indication that the attack was motivated by a person's desire to strike at somebody who was in one of these protected groups. that would not be covered by the statute," holder stated.
continued limbaugh, "in other words: ministers and whites are not covered by the hate crime statute because we're talking about crimes that have a historic basis, groups who have been targeted for violence as a result of their skin color, sexual orientation. so hate crimes are reserved exclusively for blacks and homosexuals. everybody else can get to the back of the bus on this one."
as wnd has reported, the house version would provide special protections to homosexuals, essentially designating them as a "protected class." however, it could leave christian ministers open to prosecution should their teachings be linked to any subsequent offense, by anyone, against a homosexual person. the bill earned its nickname, "the pedophile protection act," when rep. steve king suggested an amendment during its trek through the u.s. house that would specify pedophiles could not use the law to protect their activities.
majority democrats flatly refused.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=104034 . see as well, additional analysis of the house version of this bill at world net daily, http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=98553 .
if you have any lingering doubt as to the intended reach of this bill under the obama administration, and under holder’s “justice department,” i suggest you read attorney general holder’s written testimony, submitted in support of s.b. 909 to the senate judiciary committee, on june 25, 2009. http://www.justice.gov/ag/testimony/2009/ag-testimony-090625.html .
a.g.’s testimony re: disparate “hate speech” enforcement. i searched high and low and this is the only place i could find the youtube video of attorney general holder’s response to senator sessions questions. http://ironicsurrealism.blogivists.com/2009/06/29/video-obamas-attorney-general-eric-holder-admits-no-equality-under-hate-crime-bill/ . as you can see, holder was rather halt and mumbling in response to senator sessions, apparently as things were not going exactly as scripted. i apologize for the preamble by the video hosts prior to holder’s testimony, but it is a minor inconvenience to bear, in exchange for seeing holder admit that this law is designed and to be implemented in favor of people of color, e.g., race and immigration concerns, and for those of differing sexual persuasion, e.g., sexual identity and practices.
the foot soldiers: who fills the boots?
federal cops: department of defense. well, the new federal police force, known as the department of defense, for one.
what about the cadres, the boy scouts of this movement, the ideological recruits and explorer scouts, as it were?
the following is difficult. these things are fresh insights, if they are truly insights, and i have not had the opportunity to grasp and consider them as i might prefer. i am not just tossing these things against the wall, to see what sticks, but i am on fresh ground without benefit of previous discussion from others. so, i put the matters at this portion of the paper, because some may simply patience and quit reading. i don’t blame you, but i hope you finish, because i feel that i am on to something, but something difficult for me to express with absolute clarity.
but, it may be summed up quite easily. i think the ayers’ “reform” in education is a way to “inform” young impressionable minds in the proper world view of socialism, and also to destroy adherence to republican principles, e.g., free markets, capitalism, and the like. and, that obama’s concept of service as embodied in the colorado springs speech is a way, via association with other young people in shared experience, including work and some sacrifice and some physical rigor, to become receptive to the academic notions of “social justice” that they increasingly taught in our public schools and in college.
just an observation, but think of how strongly shared are the world views of people who have spent time in the military service, especially those who shared combat with their brothers in arms. tom brokaw, whether he understood this or not, touched on this in his books, as did stephen ambrose, who most assuredly did. service in americorps, with its emphasis on real world experience, will shape many minds to be receptive to pedagogical notions of “social justice” when they are encountered in middle and high school, and even later in college.
they are two sides of the same indoctrination into a world view deeply antithetical to what has gone before, and an attempt to replace a world view to which many of us remain staunchly loyal: there is great antagonism involved here, as there is a very sharp clash between competitive values. indeed, for many of us the things espoused by ayers and his ilk smack of evil, and must be opposed. as a last source of frustration, the world view propounded by ayers seems a deeply futile and flawed one, which has failed wherever it has been tried, and wherever it has been imposed.
and this is the part that is deeply troubling to me.—wherever socialism has been imposed, it has been sustained by force. by brute force and oppression, and by curtailment of social debate by the elimination of free speech.
so, it is the pushing of this world view, which is disquieting to me, because it seems to me simply another ingredient in the mix toward societal repression, a little clue as to the true aims of the world view and political predilections of those who espouse this world view business.
let me see if i can come close to making the case.
americorps. in his speech at colorado springs july 2, 2008 candidate obama promised to expand americorps from a75,000 enrollment to 250,000 members, per year. the service commitment would be for around 10 months, according to internet advertisement and promotion that i have read.
part of the service is done under community sponsorship, and part of it is contemplated to be under the aegis of the department of homeland security. the web site.http://www.americorps.gov/Default.asp .
in return for their service, americorps members are provided living allowances, running as high as $20,000 a year, and also receive stipends and tax credits to be applied to schooling costs. colleges have aid packages for financial assistance for schooling as well, as this site which is online via the auspices of oklahoma state university, http://www.okstate.edu/finaid/americorps.html .
“capitalism is racism”: bill ayers. this from a speech given by bill ayers, in company with and at a conference on education sponsored by hugo chavez in november 2006 in caracas, venezuela:
“totalitarianism demands obedience and conformity, hierarchy, command and control. royalty requires allegiance. capitalism promotes racism and militarism – turning people into consumers, not citizens. participatory democracy, by contrast, requires free people coming together voluntarily as equals who are capable of both self-realization and, at the same time, full participation in a shared political and economic life.”
he also said:
“luis [bonilla] has taught me a great deal about the bolivarian revolution and about the profound educational reforms underway here in venezuela under the leadership of president chavez. we share the belief that education is the motor-force of revolution, and i’ve come to appreciate luis as a major asset in both the venezuelan and the international struggle—i look forward to seeing how he and all of you continue to overcome the failings of capitalist education as you seek to create something truly new and deeply humane.
“viva la revolucion bolivariana! hasta la victoria siempre!”
but, most importantly from the stand point of this essay, is how totally integrated ayers' concept of education is with the notions of political rule and control. for ayers, education is not something that exists removed and apart, neutrally detached from the issues of the day nor indifferent to political philosophy, but something that is organically connected to these issues. indeed, to ayers’ mind, the issue of education is central to political control. do you know that he was secretary of education in the weather underground? note 7, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers .
and, it is important to note that this vainglorious thug professes to have thought of himself as an educator from his earliest days in the weather underground, bombings must having served a didactic function:
i walked out of jail and into my first teaching position—and from that day until this i’ve thought of myself as a teacher, but i’ve also understood teaching as a project intimately connected with social justice. after all, the fundamental message of the teacher is this: you can change your life—whoever you are, wherever you’ve been, whatever you’ve done, another world is possible. as students and teachers begin to see themselves as linked to one another, as tied to history and capable of collective action, the fundamental message of teaching shifts slightly, and becomes broader, more generous: we must change ourselves as we come together to change the world. teaching invites transformations, it urges revolutions small and large. ja educacion es revolucion!
i taught at first in something like a simoncito—called head start—and eventually taught at every level in barrios and prisons and insurgent projects across the united states. i learned then that education is never neutral. it always has a value, a position, a politics. education either reinforces or challenges the existing social order, and school is always a contested space – what should be taught? in what way? toward what end? by and for whom? at bottom, it involves a struggle over the essential questions: what does it mean to be a human being living in a human society?
totalitarianism demands obedience and conformity, hierarchy, command and control. royalty requires allegiance. capitalism promotes racism and militarism – turning people into consumers, not citizens. participatory democracy, by contrast, requires free people coming together voluntarily as equals who are capable of both self-realization and, at the same time, full participation in a shared political and economic life. [i will bet you a roll of quarters against a donut that ayers has read emma goldman, and is at heart, an anarchist: jjjay.]
education contributes to human liberation to the extent that people reflect on their lives, and, becoming more conscious, insert themselves as subjects in history. to be a good teacher means above all to have faith in the people, to believe in the possibility that people can create and change things. education is not preparation for life, but rather education is life itself, an active process in which everyone— students and teachers– participates as co-learners. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2102481/posts .
modest pup, ain’t he?
ayers has not come recently to these views, it is safe to say, as he learned them at columbia university school of education, while getting a teaching certificate: one wonders if he really thought of himself as a teacher since the day he left his first jail cell.
ayers' conversion from bombings to summon the revolution, to pedagogy as revolution, is described with a wonderful flavor by sol stern:
ayers’ spectacular second act began when he enrolled at columbia university’s teachers college in 1984. then 40, he planned to stay just to get a teaching credential. (he had taught in a “freedom school” during his pre-underground student radical days.) but he experienced an epiphany in a course taught by maxine greene, a leading light of the “critical pedagogy” movement. as ayers wrote later, he took fire from greene’s lectures on how the “oppressive hegemony” of the capitalist social order “reproduces” itself through the traditional practice of public schooling—critical pedagogy’s fancy way of saying that the evil corporations exercise thought control through the schools…
greene told future teachers that they could help change this bleak landscape by developing a “transformative” vision of social justice and democracy in their classrooms. her vision, though, was a far cry from the democratic optimism of the founding fathers, abraham lincoln, and martin luther king jr., which most parents would endorse. instead, critical pedagogy theorists nurse a rancorous view of an america in which it is always two minutes to midnight and a knock on the door by the thought police is imminent. the education professors feel themselves anointed to use the nation’s K–12 classrooms to resist this oppressive system. thus maxine greene urged teachers not to mince words with children about the evils of the existing social order. they should portray “homelessness as a consequence of the private dealings of landlords, an arms buildup as a consequence of corporate decisions, racial exclusion as a consequence of a private property-holder’s choice.” in other words, they should turn the little ones into young socialists and critical theorists… .” sol stern, at the following blog/link: http://sweetness-light.com/archive/the-bill-ayersobama-idea-of-education . and see, http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_ed_school.html/ .
and this little tidbit on ayers' continuing ties to maxine green:
in 1997, ayers and his mentor maxine greene persuaded teachers college press to launch a series of books on social justice teaching, with ayers as editor and greene serving on the editorial board (along with rashid khalidi, loyal supporter of the palestinian cause and the edward said professor of arab studies at columbia university). http://sweetness-light.com/archive/the-bill-ayersobama-idea-of-education . and see, http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_ed_school.html/ .
and, so it is that billy ayes, of all people, should provide a potential link some 12 years ago between rashid khalidi and b.hussein obama. it is a small world, is it not? and, wouldn’t it be interesting to see b. hussein obama transcript from columbia university, to see if he ever took any classes from maxine green? an idle speculation, i am sure.
but, the point of these remarks is to show how bill ayers’ ideas of education have influenced b. hussein obama, and why ayers’ ideas might have an especially pernicious effect on the mainstream of american life through their spread by governmental organizations which are centered on performing and advancing “social justice,” … , such as americorps.
writes sol stern:
gannon, a williams graduate in her late thirties, told me that she had seen the relevance of freire’s theories of a “liberating education” during her peace corps experience teaching in a poor village in northern thailand and then later in a baltimore school for former dropouts.  all the members of gannon’s school-planning committee—parents, some prospective teachers, and community activists—read freire’s books on pedagogy during their deliberations about the school’s mission and then decided to infuse the school with social justice projects. “we are incredibly steeped in activism,” she says. “we encourage the students to pick something in the world or the community they want to change and then act on it together.” http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_ed_school.html/
writes stern on a very disturbing aspect of this pedagogy, in that it contains the seeds of its very own destruction, which might be somewhat gratifying to those of us who do not share the ayers' world view, were it not for the fact that the seeds of our own destruction are carried in those whole doomed experiment:
almost inevitably, the school’s mission statement is thoroughly freirian in its pedagogy, assuming that teachers can enhance the academic achievement of disadvantaged children by giving them a voice through “leadership, community action and social justice.” the school opened last september with 100 poor minority students and great hopes. when i visited recently, though, it was already clear that the idea of democratic empowerment for the students was subverting any hope for a rigorous education.
principal ron gonzalez told me that the students learned at their first weekly town hall meeting this year that they could pick some policy or institution in the community that they believed should be changed and then work together on a “social action” project to bring about the change. using the school’s democratic decision-making process, the students decided that the most oppressive thing they could think of was the school’s dress code (students initially had to wear brown or black slacks and a shirt with a collar) and other classroom regulations, and they quickly achieved the goal of changing the code. the school, having established that student democracy and engagement was its prime mission, was instantly hoist with its own petard.
the street culture of the students’ tough bronx neighborhoods seemed to pervade almost every class i visited. kids wore ghetto garb, chewed gum, ate potato chips and drank soda pop, talked whenever they wanted to. girls and boys sometimes snuggled up to each other. students addressed one teacher as “hey mistah.” http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_ed_school.html/ .
the inevitable cost of such nonsense is an almost instant mediocrity, and then the cost of failure ratchets upwards toward its ultimate exaction, and that is societal death. we are embarked upon sailing the same seas of world socialism as did in russia and eastern europe the last century, and we face the same penalties: our is the greater stupidity, because these seas are now well charted.
it is piss poor education.
it is marvelously clever politics, because it indoctrinates most effectively, and most insidiously, this last feature no less formidable to socially conservative values because the lesson comes from an authority figure usually quite a bit respected by kids, even unruly little bastards:
accordingly, gutstein has relentlessly politicized his math classes for years, claiming that this approach has improved his students’ math skills while making them more aware of the injustices built in to capitalist society. one lesson, for example, presents charts showing the u.s. income distribution, aiming to get the students to understand the concept of percentages and fractions, while simultaneously showing them how much wealth is concentrated at the top in an economic system that mainly benefits the superrich. after the class does the mathematical calculations, gutstein asks: “how does all this make you feel?” he triumphantly reports that 19 of 21 students described wealth distribution in america as “bad,” “unfair,” or “shocking,” and he proudly quotes the comments of a child named rosa: “well i see that all the wealth in the united states is mostly the wealth of a couple people not the whole nation.” [and, no doubt, rosa will be receptive to the notion of changing that bullshit!! and, so the indoctrination goes apace: jjjay.] http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_ed_school.html/ . 
sol stern concludes his essay by remarking:
it cannot be repeated often enough: ideas have consequences, and bad ideas have bad consequences. the freirian theories that carry over to social justice teaching are incapable of “liberating” the children of america’s so-called oppressed. as e.d. hirsch has exhaustively shown, the scientific evidence about which classroom methods produce the best results for poor children point conclusively to the very methods that the critical pedagogy and social justice theorists denounce as oppressive and racist. by contrast, not one shred of hard evidence suggests that the pedagogy behind teaching for social justice works to lift the academic achievement of poor and minority students.
social justice teaching is a frivolous waste of precious school hours, grievously harmful to poor children, who start out with a disadvantage. school is the only place where they are likely to obtain the academic knowledge that could make up for the educational deprivation they suffer in their homes. the last thing they need is a wild-eyed experiment in education through social action.
so why do education professors who claim to care for the poor continue to agitate for instruction that holds back poor children? either the professors are stupid (possible), or (more likely) they care more about their own anti-american, anticapitalist agendas than they do about the actual education of children. http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_ed_school.html/ .
if sol stern’s writing has carried you this far, you are no doubt asking yourself, what has this got to do with whether barack obama intends to try and create his own brownshirt goons loyal only to his radical socialist purposes to impose dictatorial rule on the united states.
well, nothing really.
and, just everything.
bear with me here, i know that the point of all of this has become perhaps a bit obtuse. i am after all, concerned whether an outright attempt to make this country into a leftist police state is about to be made, and worrying about the lack of rigor in “social justice” pedagogy seems a bit removed from all of that.
but, the two issues seem very much connected to my fevered brow, this time of the evening.
sol stern puts his finger on it, i think, in the very revealing attributions to ayers. ayers, who notes the power struggle centered on the classroom to determine who teaches what context, and who notes the leftist’s insistence on teaching everything within the context of ideology, sees this one side of the looking glass with remarkable clarity. the leftist drive is to integrate teaching academics into a coherent world view, and the further use of educational pedagogy to achieve a formal indoctrination of each child in a public educational system to be a supporter of leftist ideology and a leftist regime is central to their drive for disciplined power.
there is time enough once power is taken to take the rosa’s of the world quietly aside, and remind them to keep their opinions about the distribution of wealth in socialist societies strictly to themselves. there is no criticism in socialist regimes: either they have external enemies, or, like the irish, they can never let go the indignities of the past. marx never really did tell them where the next stage of the dialectic was to take them, and so far the only answer marxist thought has come up with is joe stalin and vladimir lenin.
obama works the other end of the block. he wants to utilize the experience of cooperative effort, of public service work done in behalf of the down trodden and neglected, … , or those who are identified as such in our society leaving off the fact that in historical terms they are remarkably coddled, cared for and privileged, … , hence the continual need for leftist to destroy “history,” … , as physical and social indoctrination towards the formal education process, by a world view taught from “voluntary service” in the name of social justice. obama’s goal is to integrate a coherent and learned world view from government service with that academic academic learning and experience to come later, or contemporaneously.
ayers gets ‘em in the classroom. obama gets ‘em in the community halls, the church basements, and on the levees flinging sand bags.
it may very well be what obama proposes in the form of an enlarged americorps, something to serve the same radical leftist agenda as “acorn.” all previous observations about wealth and power transfer within the society would apply with full force here.
but, the goal is the same, the integration of physical acts with the conceptualization of social justice. each reinforces and informs the other, … , the “real world,” if you will, and service to it, and the world of the mind and values, and an emotional commitment to the subordination of self to those realities.
it is quite literally, an “alice through the looking glass” sort of a world, with ayers' world view and obama’s world view, looking at each the other through the “alice in wonderland” mirror, regarding themselves, at the same time.
let us get back to the text of obama’s speech, looking at it again with the context of ayers’ comments in mind, to see if we can find parts where they evoke each other, and if there is content that supports my views on the matter. says obama, in what i consider pertinent part:
finally, we need to integrate service into education, so that young americans are called upon and prepared to be active citizens.
just as we teach math and writing, arts and athletics, we need to teach young americans to take citizenship seriously [by citizenship, he means commitment to the appropriate social values: jjay.] study after study shows that students who serve do better in school, are more likely to go to college, and more likely to maintain that service as adults. so when i'm president, i will set a goal for all american middle and high school students to perform 50 hours of service a year, and for all college students to perform 100 hours of service a year. this means that by the time you graduate college, you'll have done 17 weeks of service.
we'll reach this goal in several ways. at the middle and high school level, we'll make federal assistance conditional on school districts developing service programs, [this will assure voluntary compliance: jjay.] and give schools resources to offer new service opportunities. at the community level, we'll develop public-private partnerships so students can serve more outside the classroom.
for college students, I have proposed an annual american opportunity tax credit of $4,000. to receive this credit, we'll require 100 hours of public service. you invest in america, and america invests in you - that's how we're going to make sure that college is affordable for every single american, while preparing our nation to compete in the 21st century.
for our veterans, i was proud to be a strong and early supporter of jim webb's bipartisan [g.i.] bill, so that today's vets have the same opportunity that my grandfather had under the [g.i.] bill. to marshal their talents in building a new energy economy, i will launch an initiative to give our veterans the training they need to succeed in the green jobs of the future. it's time to end our energy dependence at home so our national security isn't held hostage to oil and gas from abroad.
and we will not leave out the nearly 2 million young americans who are out of school and out of work. we'll enlist them in our energy corps, so that disadvantaged young people can find useful work, clean polluted areas, help weatherize homes, and gain skills in a growing industry. and we'll expand the [y]outh[b]uild program, which puts young americans to work building affordable housing in america's poorest communities, giving them valuable skills and a chance to complete a high school education. because no one should be left out of the american story.
now i know what the cynics will say. i've heard from them all my life.
these are the voices that will tell you - not just what you can't do - but what you won't do. americans won't come together - our allegiance doesn't go beyond our political party, region, or congregation. young americans won't serve their country - they're too selfish, or too lazy. this is the soft sell of the status quo, the voice that tells you to settle because settling isn't that bad.
that's not the america that i've seen throughout this campaign. i've seen young people work, and volunteer, and turn out in record numbers. i've met members of our military - like the thousands of soldiers and airmen here in colorado springs - who signed up to serve in the wake of 9/11. i've met community workers who want to care for our kids; students who want to end the genocide in darfur; businesses that want to expand opportunity; farmers who want to help free us from the tyranny of oil; seniors searching for ways to give back; and people of every age, race, and religion who want to come together to renew the american spirit.
renewing that spirit starts with service. make no mistake: our destiny as americans is tied up with one another. if we are less respected in the world, then you will be less safe. if we keep paying dictators for foreign oil, gas prices are going to keep rising, and so are the oceans. if we can't give all of our kids a world-class education, then our economy is going to fall behind.
and that's how it should be. that's the bet our founding fathers were making all of those years ago - that our individual destinies could be tied together in the common destiny of democracy; that government depends not just on the consent of the governed, but on the service of citizens. that's what history calls us to do. because loving your country shouldn't just mean watching fireworks on the 4th of July. loving your country must mean accepting your responsibility to do your part to change it. if you do, your life will be richer, and our country will be stronger.
we need your service, right now, at this moment - our moment - in history. i'm not going to tell you what your role should be; that's for you to discover. but i am going to ask you to play your part; ask you to stand up; ask you to put your foot firmly into the current of history. i am asking you to change history's course. and if i have the fortune to be your president, decades from now - when the memory of this or that policy has faded, and when the words that we will speak in the next few years are long forgotten - i hope you remember this as a moment when your own story and the american story came together, and - in the words of dr. king - the arch of history bent once more towards justice.
i find very much of ayers evoked by obama, and very much of obama evocative of ayers. they have known each other for a long time, and their politics are hidden under the same blanket, their intellectual sins and duplicities created by the same need to shroud their true intent from a gulled public. obama’s view of service are the obverse of ayers' views on education, because the end product of ayers' education is a person instilled with the notion of obama’s service, and to achieve the same end, social justice. and, obama’s views on service, especially of middle and high school age students, is the hand maiden of ayers' aim to indoctrinate in the class room, to groom them psychologically for the intellectual pitch, and to attack the same old world order that obama wants to replace as well.
i think that they have known each other a very long time, far longer than the relationship they own up to as beginning in chicago. they go back, in my view at least to columbia, and ayers may very well have been the person who pay rolled obama’s trip to pakistan, as he had ample resource by which to do so, and he may have inspired the change from barry soreto to b. hussein obama that took place in that trip. who knows, and if they do, they are not talking.
but, they are birds of a feather. flock mates.
they are ideological brethren.
with chavez. and luis bonilla. and, with the idiot kennedy who is chavez’s foil in oil, and with the devil spawn alcee hastings, who if he cannot be a corrupt judge, will be a tyrant. bosom buddies, soul mates, bunkies with nancy pelosi, harry reid and barney frank.***
in sum, they’ll take a shot at it.
the left is putting the legislative and administrative foundations in place. they’ve formulated the necessary legalisms to make it “legally” possible to form the police forces and agencies independent and apart from the old line bureaucracies.
and, they will make the administration of this apparatus, as ultimately it will be, tyrannical and coercive.
history has shown, they know no other way.
we have been here before. this is the same conversation that emma goldman has had with vladimir lenin, the same conversation that dostoevsky had in the form of the grand inquisitor with harold lasswell and harold laski. that the grand inquisitor had with g_d.
leftist rule ultimately proves incompatible with people who want liberty and freedom and to be themselves, and just left alone: you ever had a day when you just didn’t feel like being part of the collective? and, every now and again, every little historical epoch here and there, they feel themselves strong enough to impose their rule, and however they gain it, it is secured and maintained by brute force, coercion and murder. it is just the way it is. it is just who they are. barney frank has wanted to kill somebody all of his life, just to shoot them right behind the ear to see what it feels like to kill someone. rahm emanuel will enlighten him from the other end.
they will try it here. it is who they are: they are so close, they just won’t be able to resist trying. They will feel it is their time. that is what i have tried to establish with ayers and obama. they will try, because that is what they are. and, what have they got to lose?
john jay @ 08.20.2009
***my good lord, if they prevail, can you imagine how silly they will all look in long leather coats, jodhpurs and leather boots to the knees. that is who they will emulate. they like the aesthetics of fascist and soviet art, and they will emulate the fashion. right up to the field marshall’s hats. hell, obama already has mussalini down pat, the pugnacious thrust of the jaw, the gaze cast firmly on the future, no horizon too far to encompass. what a horse’s ass.
 perhaps i am old and crotchety, but it seems to me that in a lot of instances “social justice” amounts to a transfer of wealth and power through coerced taxation and social policy to the detriment of one group to the benefit of another. this seems usually to involve taxation of the wealthy and a transfer of wealth and power to the formerly “dispossessed.” obama’s policies seem to feature this sort of thing, from the bailout of the mortgage industry, which amounted to an enormous transfer of wealth to those who could not pay their mortgage obligations, to the transfer of an enormous amount of tax revenue paid to the new employees and beneficiaries of the money paid out by the federal government to finance obama’s social policies, whatever shape they may take. and, if he intends that the “national civilian security force” impose certain social policies on an otherwise unwilling populace, that certainly will amount to a tremendous transfer of political power. maybe i am just old and crotchety.
 this is the very sort of work suggested by americorps literature as having social value and utility. and, this would probably be pretty fertile ground for young and idealistic minds to become very receptive to the “social justice” strain of thought.
 there is an irony here, to which leftist radicals are not susceptible of comprehension, … , because they are not susceptible to irony generally, … , and that is that such radicalism only flourishes in times of permissive free expression, quite the opposite circumstance of the repression they continually allege. and the further extension of that irony arrives when and if leftist radicalism assumes or achieves power: there is no tolerance for radicalism in a leftist regime, which is a far different breed of cat than either the democracy radicals despise, or the participatory socialist society they dream but can never achieve. they always give way to totalitarian centralism, … , and devour their own. so it was in the french revolution, so it was in the russian socialist revolution, so it was in the chinese socialist revolution, and likewise in laos. should ayers and his gang of thieves attain absolute power in this country many are going to learn the power of the poised blade with looks of wonder on their faces, incredulous disbelief fixed on their faces that their political privilege proves as ephemeral as the thinnest mist, at their death. ayers, however, may survive this process, as he is smart enough to be executioner, and smart enough to keep his mouth shut. my vote for the new american lenin, should it come to that, is rahm emanuel. i believe that he will rise to the top because he is absolutely ruthless and totally immoral, and interested in one thing only, personal power. i believe that he will personally kill barney frank for the fun of it, and the kennedy’s because it is necessary: people like emanuel do not tolerate rivals. but, emanuel, is just the one to discipline the loud mouths who don’t quite catch on in time, and who mouth leftist platitudes past their time. emanuel may favor the ice pick, … , in the eyeball socket, … , he has that sort of personality. him & zeke, now there is a pair. their mother should have culled both of them.