November 29, 2009

U.S. Education System is Teaching Groupthink or Collectivism over Individual Initiative

The Triumph of Socialism

By Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.,
November 12, 2009

Do you think ideas don't matter, that what people believe about themselves and their world has no real consequence? If so, the following will not bug you in the slightest.

A new BBC poll finds that only 11 percent of people questioned around the world — and 29,000 people were asked their opinions — think that free-market capitalism is a good thing. The rest believe in more government regulation.

Only a small percentage of the world's population believes that capitalism works well and that more regulation will reduce efficiency. One quarter of those asked said that capitalism is "fatally flawed." In France, 43% believe this. In Mexico, it is 38%.

A majority believes that government should rob the rich to give money to poor countries. In only one country, Turkey, did a majority say that less government is better.

It gets even worse. While most Europeans and Americans think it was a good thing for the Soviet Union to disintegrate, people in India, Indonesia, Ukraine, Pakistan, Russia, and Egypt mostly think it was a bad thing. Yes, you read that right: millions freed from socialist slavery — bad thing.

That news must lift the heart of every would-be despot the world over. And it comes as something of a shock twenty years after the collapse of socialism in Russia and Eastern Europe revealed what this system had created: backward societies with citizens who lived short and miserable lives.

Then there is the China case, a country rescued from bloody barbarism under communism and transformed into a modern and prosperous country by capitalism.
Capitalism is tailored to individual initiative rather than groupthink or community initiative. Nearly all inventions that have furthered the capitalistic enterprise and blessed humanity in the process have been the result of individual initiative rather than committee, group or government activity (compare previous centuries to the accelerated rate of inventions since America gained its independence in 1776). - Dr. David Noebel, The Socialization of America, The August Review, March 27, 2009
What can we learn? Far from not having learned anything, people have largely forgotten the experience and have developed a love for the ancient fairy tale that all things can be fixed through collectivism and central planning.

As to those who would despair at this poll, consider that it might have been much worse were it not for the efforts of a relative handful of intellectuals who have fought against socialist theory for more than a century. It might have been 99% in support of socialist tyranny. So there is no sense in saying that these intellectual efforts are wasted.

Ideas also have a life of their own. They can lie in wait for decades or centuries and then one day, the whole of history turns on a dime. Especially these days, no effort goes to waste. Publications and essays, or any form of education, is immortalized, ready for the taking by a desperate world.

As for the opinion poll, we have no idea just how intensely these views are held or even what they mean. What, for example, is capitalism? Do people even know? Michael Moore doesn't know, else he wouldn't be calling bailouts for elite, Fed-connected financial firms a form of capitalism.

Many other people reduce the term capitalism to "the system of economics in the United States." It is no more complicated than that. This is despite the reality that the United States has a comprehensive planning apparatus in place that is directly responsible for all our current economic troubles.

Now, let's take this further. Among the many people around the world who do not like the US empire, many believe they don't like capitalism either. If the US economy drags the world down into recession, that is a prime example of capitalism's failure. Even more preposterous, if you didn't like George W. Bush, his ways, and his cronies, and Obama is something of a relief, then you don't like capitalism and you do like socialism.

Another point of view misunderstands the idea of capitalism itself. It is not about creating economic structures that benefit capital at the expense of labor or culture or religion. It is about a system that protects the rights of everyone and serves the common good. Capitalism is just the name that happened to be identified with this system. If you want to call freedom a banana, fine, what matters is not words but ideas.

I do know that none of these messed-up definitions of capitalism follow. You know this too. But for the world at large, serious ideological analytics are not the animating force of daily life. Many people attach themselves to vague slogans.

Further, as Rothbard has forcefully argued, free-market capitalism serves no more than a symbolic purpose for the Republican Party and for conservatives. Economic liberty is the utopia that they keep promising to bring us, pending the higher priority of blowing up foreign peoples, jailing political dissidents, crushing the left wing on campus, and routing the Democrats.

Once all of this is done, they say, then they will get to the instituting of a free-market economic system. Of course, that day never arrives, and it is not supposed to. Capitalism serves the Republicans the way Communism served Stalin: a symbolic distraction to keep you hoping, voting, and coughing up money.

All of which leaves true capitalism — a product of the voluntary society and the sum total of all the exchanges and cooperative acts of people all over the world — with few actual intellectual defenders. They are growing, but the educational work we need to do is daunting, and we are facing the most powerful forces in the world.

There is nothing new in this. In the history of the world, freedom is the exception, not the rule. It must be fought for anew in every generation. Its enemies are everywhere, but the leading enemy is ignorance. For this reason, the main weapon we have at our disposal is education.
One task assigned to the investigators of the 1953 Reese Commission, was "to educate them as to the effect on the country, as a whole, of the activities of large, endowed foundations over the then past forty years. That affect was to orient our educational system away from support of the principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence, and implemented in the Constitution; and to educate them over to the idea that the task now was to effect an orientation of education away from these briefly stated principles and self-evident truths. And, that’s what had been the effect of the wealth which constituted the endowments of those foundations — foundations that had been in existence over the largest portion of the span of fifty years — and holding them responsible for this change. What we were able to bring forward was — what we had uncovered was — the determination of these large endowed foundations, through their trustees, actually to get control over the content of American education." - Norman Dodd, 1982 Interview by G. Edward Griffin
Education includes explaining that socialism is an unworkable idea. There is nothing better than Ludwig von Mises's 1922 book Socialism, a comprehensive presentation of the fallacy of the socialist idea. Another essential work is the Black Book of Communism. Here we have a wake-up call that shows that the dream of socialism is actually a bloody nightmare.

Then there is the issue of the positive case for capitalism. One can do no better than Mises's own Human Action, which is not likely to ever be surpassed as a treatise on the free economy. True, it is not for everyone. And that's fine. There are many primers out there too.

The fashion for socialism and the opposition to capitalism should alarm every lover of freedom the world over. We have our jobs cut out for us, but with numbers this bad, it is not difficult to make a difference. Every blow you can land for free markets helps protect freedom from its enemies.

Norman Dodd and the Reece Commission: Tax-exempt Foundations Changed History and the U.S. Education System (Excerpt)

Canada Free Press
December 16, 2010

Norman Dodd (June 29, 1899 – January 1987) was a banker/bank manager, financial advisor, and chief investigator in 1953 for U.S. Congressman B. Carroll Reece's Special Committee on Tax Exempt Foundations (commonly referred to as the Reece Committee).

Dodd learned that the major tax-exempt foundations (Carnegie Endowment, Ford Foundation, and the Rockefeller Foundation, among others) had been operating since at least 1945 to promote an agenda that has little to do with charity, good works or philanthropy, but with controlling the education system in the United States and altering the teaching of American History and building their own stable of historians.

A group of twenty historians ultimately became the nucleus of the American Historical Association, receiving a grant of $400,000 from the Carnegie Endowment in the late 1920’s which provided funding for revisionist research that produced a 7 volume study of our history, presented in a manner consistent with the way the Endowment wished it to be taught here in the future. This policy diverted away from support of the “out dated” and “no longer practical” principles and “self evident truths” embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and insinuated instead one of “collectivism” (communism), the so called wave of the future, and how this country should be, as they wished to have it be.

The real objectives include the creation of a world-wide collectivist state which is to be ruled from behind the scenes by the same elite who control the foundations. His allegations stem from reviewing the minutes of the Carnegie Institute and their explicitly stated plans listed therein. [Other Sources: Wikipedia and Reality Zone]

Google Video of 1982 Interview of Norman Dodd by G. Edward Griffin
Transcript of 1982 Interview of Norman Dodd by G. Edward Griffin

"Alan Gaither was, at that time, President of the Ford Foundation. Mr. Gaither had sent for me when I found it convenient to be in New York, asked me to call upon him at his office, which I did. On arrival, after a few amenities, Mr. Gaither said, 'Mr. Dodd, we have asked you to come up here today because we thought that, possibly, off the record, you would tell us why the Congress is interested in the activities of foundations such as ourselves.' Before I could think of how I would reply to that statement, Mr. Gaither then went on to say, 'Mr. Dodd, all of us who have a hand in the making of policies here, have had experience operating under directives, the substance of which is, that we use our grant-making power so as to alter life in the United States that it can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union'." - Norman Dodd

Is there a connection between federal education aid and the inflation rate in higher education? Increased availability of student loans should theoretically make college more affordable, but research has proven government lending to be grossly counterproductive. Though these programs attempt to make school more accessible to people of low income, they have defeated their intended purpose by driving tuition costs up exponentially. Initially, banks refused to offer loans to college students, because young adults typically lack any substantial assets or collateral. The abnormal nature of this market eventually led to government involvement in funding of higher education, but with many unintended consequences. Universities race to absorb the greatest portion of federal funding by raising tuition costs. This research builds upon the Bennett Hypothesis, an idea circulated in the 1980s by U.S. Secretary of Education William J. Bennett. Many factors play a role in the convoluted issue of spiked tuition costs, but a strong case can be made for the Bennett Hypothesis. - Federal funding directs tuition, The Daily Evergreen, September 28, 2010

The Methodical Destruction of American Education

By John Templeton, Patriot News Network
February 3, 2011

For approximately one hundred years, education in America has been controlled by subversive organizations. These organizations have used, and are continuing to use, education as a tool of oppression. This infiltration has led to the decay of morality, freedom, and prosperity in this country.

The end goal through the covert control of the educational system is to destroy the United States Constitution and subjugate the American people, along with the rest of the world's people, into a one-world totalitarian government.

Our children are being indoctrinated daily with humanism conducive to world government. Education “reform” in the present day is a scam as both sides of the debate are controlled by the same interests. This fictitious debate is part of a Hegelian dialectic designed to indoctrinate our children into humanism and collectivism while giving them just enough workforce education to serve their corporate masters in the global economy.

Early experimental psychologists, adhering to humanist ideology, thought that man could be conditioned or molded in any way desired as long as the psychologists applied the proper techniques. The late 1800s marked a time when educational theory in America began to shift away from schools imparting knowledge to children to schools that focused on changing behavior in children. Psychologists began to ponder not what kinds of things should be taught, but rather what kind of children they wanted to mold for society.

In the early years of the twentieth century, powerful families, namely the Rockefellers and Carnegies, would lend financial support to the research efforts of the behavioral psychologists, which forever changed American education and society in a negative manner.

In 1921, the Rockefeller- dominated Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) was established. This insidious, pro-socialist world government organization has had a profound effect on education in America and continues to at present.

The same year the CFR was established the Tavistock Institute in London was founded with financial backing from the Rockefellers, Rothschilds, and British Monarchy. Tavistock is a think tank created to influence public opinion and condition minds for world government. Today, Tavistock controls the Aspen Institute which strongly shapes American education through its influence on America's leading education reformers, specifically the Knowledge Is Power Program (KIPP) network of charter schools and Teach For America.

With the Council on Foreign Relations and the powerful tax-exempt organizations controlled by the Rockefellers, Carnegies, and other elite families firmly established, the 1930s proved to be a time when humanism and socialism gained widespread support among academic and political circles. During the 1940s and 1950s, the communist and socialist “change agents” had infiltrated our government at the highest levels which enabled them to put the United States on a path to destruction via control of its educational system. This was a time period when several key pieces of humanist and socialist legislation were passed affecting education. It was also a time when several mass mind control organizations stepped up efforts to psychologically enslave the American people into collectivist and humanist thought in order to establish world government.

Furthermore, the United Nations was founded in 1945 and the United States became a member of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 1946. This was extremely damaging to our nation as humanist educational policies from UNESCO were implemented in American schools in the following decades.

In 1953, the behavioral psychologists made their lasting mark on education by perfecting the work of Wundt and Dewey. Skinner, Bloom, and others set the stage for the complete indoctrination and conditioning of children inside classrooms by means of operant conditioning, thus allowing for total societal control in the future. Bloom’s Taxonomy is a foundation for education and teacher training all across the country today.

The last four decades of the 20th Century saw radical changes in education nationwide due to the actions of humanist and socialist change agents who followed in the footsteps of their predecessors of the 1940s and 1950s. Legislation was passed that removed local control of schools and placed control in the hands of the federal government, thus ensuring control of society by elitist social engineers.

Federally-controlled organizations and programs were created, which ensured the changing of teachers into behavior “molders” using Skinnerian methods instead of teachers who imparted knowledge to children using traditional methods. Additionally, federal workforce training programs were implemented in schools to provide lifelong laborers for corporations in the 21st Century – all in the name of a highly controlled, socialist world government.

Currently, the education reform debate rages in this country between two seemingly different parties. On one side is the National Education Association and its supporters, and on the other side of the debate is the Knowledge Is Power Program (KIPP) and Teach For America (TFA) representing charter schools. However, the elite socialists and communists control both sides.

Bear in mind that the majority of people involved with these two camps are unaware of this truth and are good people who really believe that they are making a difference in the lives of children, but they are being brainwashed and manipulated by their hidden controllers who have propped them up with funding in order to pull their strings from behind the scenes. The powerful tax-exempt foundations and their affiliated think tanks and corporations, are behind it all – and a highly controlled, socialist society under world government is the endgame.

The National Education Association was compromised several decades ago via the Rothschild and Rockefeller-funded Tavistock Institute. Thousand of teachers and leaders have been run through the brainwashing mill of National Training Laboratories, which is run by Tavistock.

Of course, the socialists and communists have their grip on the KIPP/TFA side of the dialectic, primarily through the Rockefeller-dominated Council on Foreign Relations and Trilateral Commission and the Tavistock-controlled Aspen Institute. The leadership of KIPP and TFA is loaded with members of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission. In addition, many of the KIPP and TFA leaders are undergoing collectivist brainwashing at the Aspen Institute. Furthermore, KIPP's biggest donors have strong ties to the Council on Foreign Relations, UNESCO, and the Aspen Institute.

Again, the same manipulative tax-exempt foundations and their affiliated think tanks and corporations are behind the intentional destruction of education as well as its reform. The ultimate goal, or synthesis, is a world government with a dumbed down global workforce, ready and willing to serve their corporate masters. The real reason behind the creation of “choice” through the charter school movement was to open the door to corporate influence. The United States is now seeing the early stages of a corporate takeover of education.

Ultimate control of American education can be traced back to the British Empire working through British Freemasonry. The Rhodes-Milner Round Table was founded by British Freemasons with the backing of the Rothschild banking dynasty. Cecil Rhodes of the Round Table was an admitted racist and wrote in his will that he desired for the United States to be brought back under the control of the British Empire and for the British Empire to rule the world. Rhodes stated in his final will that he wanted to establish a scholarship program for students to be indoctrinated into British Imperialism in order to carry out his plan for British domination of the world. Rhodes Scholars have infiltrated our educational system and government at the highest levels. From the Round Table originated the Royal Institute for International Affairs and its sister organization in America, the Council on Foreign Relations. The Trilateral Commission was founded by David Rockefeller as a sister organization to the CFR. The British-Rothschild alliance also gave birth to the Tavistock Institute in London, which controls the Aspen Institute in the United States.

Lastly, the financiers and controllers of American education are intimately connected to the racist Eugenics movement and depopulation agenda. Both the Carnegies and Rockefeller families have funded Eugenics research in America. The Rockefellers supported the Eugenics research of the Nazis and founded the Population Council in 1952. Educational financier, Bill Gates, gives millions to UNESCO and KIPP as well as the Eugenics front organization, Planned Parenthood.

The humanist elite who are destroying education in this country are suffering from mental illness. They believe that through science they are going to perfect human nature, or become God, and that they are going to create two separate species from human beings: One is to be the slave class and the other is to be the perfect human.

They are trying to create a society that will progress into absolute tyranny – total world government in the hands of the few at the expense of the many. Only a well-informed public can stop these people dead in their tracks.

The Corporate Takeover: The Trend for Appointing CEOs to Top Jobs is Symptomatic of a Declining Commitment to Public Education and Social Justice

The Guardian
November 30, 2010

The top positions in state education across the US reflect a trust in CEO-style leadership for education management and reform. Along with these new leaders in education, billionaire entrepreneurs have also assumed roles as education saviours. Bill Gates, Geoffrey Canada, Arne Duncan, Joel Klein, and Michelle Rhee have capitalised on their positions in education to rise to the status of celebrities, as well – praised in the misleading documentary feature Waiting for Superman, on Oprah, and even on Bill Maher’s Real Time.

Like Obama, Secretary Duncan has led refrains against bad teachers, while ignoring the growing impact of poverty on the lives of children and on schools. One very visible effect of this trend for recruiting CEO-style leaders and billionaire entrepreneurs is the new commitment to corporate-sponsored charter schools. The corporate push to take over state education is, in fact, masking the failures of corporate America. And, in turn, this masks the fact that America has failed state education, rather than state education failing America.

The standards, testing and accountability movement is built on a claim that education can change society. The corporate support for the accountability movement and the “no excuses” charter school movement seeks to reinforce that claim because, otherwise, corporate America and the politicians supporting corporate America would have to admit that something is wrong with our economic and political structures.

And the evidence isn’t on the side of corporate America.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has shown that only 14% of pupil achievement can be attributed to the quality of the school; 86% of that achievement is driven by factors outside of education. David Berliner has also established six out-of-school factors that overwhelm the effectiveness of education against poverty and expanding social inequities.

In the US, achievement gaps and failure in state schools reflect larger inequalities in society, as well as dysfunction in corporate, consumer culture. The schools did not cause those gaps or failures – although it is true that, far too often, they perpetuate the social stratification. And the evidence shows that schools alone will never be able to overcome powerful social forces.

The real failure, which is the message being ignored here, is that one of the wealthiest countries in the world refuses to face the inequities of its economic system, a system that permits more than 20% of its children to live in poverty and to languish in schools that America has clearly decided to abandon, along with its democratic principles.

Jack Kent Cooke Foundation is Part of Team of KIPP Supporters

Jack Kent Cooke Foundation
November 19, 2011

The next likely tough-love chapter in the reform-schooling of urban America appears to be moving into alignment, explicably borne forward by willful ignorance, political hubris, moneyed arrogance, and a national advertising campaign to publicize a new secret weapon in the continuing crusade to raise test scores and close the achievement gap. The reformers’ new secret weapon is a non-profit corporate chain of charter schools known as the Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP).

Since being embraced by George W. Bush in 2000, KIPP, Inc. has become the new miracle (or mirage) choice model that promises to finally fix the children in neighborhoods where poverty is left unchecked and in a viral state.

With a new administration now in Washington even more keen than the last one on accelerating the number of charter schools in urban areas where a psychological “no excuses” rehab seems to be in order, we could see the fruition of an ideological commitment to privatization, anti-unionism, and social efficiency control that, heretofore, has constituted the education agenda of political conservatives only.

The seamless replacement of urban public schools by corporate-run charter schools could depend, sadly, on the ability of cash-starved states and cities to withstand takeover bids from corporations and their foundations, which now effectively exert their power through the federal education establishment. With the Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, publicly supportive of the CEO-powered urban model, from the mayor’s office down to the principal’s office, resistance may prove futile among economically hard-pressed state and city governments.

Begun as a single middle school in 1994 by two ambitious Teach for America alums in Houston, Texas, the KIPP chain now has over 80 locations and the financial backing of America’s most active corporate givers to K-12 education. Since 2000, when a simulated KIPP classroom skit was presented as part of the program for Republican National Convention, the growing list of benefactors has grown impressively. With many deep pockets at the ready to assist, KIPP has emerged as the poster school for urban education reform.

Here is a partial list available from the KIPP Foundation website:

60,000,000 and above:
Doris & Donald Fisher Fund

The Walton Family Foundation, Inc.

The Atlantic Philanthropies
The Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Michael & Susan Dell Foundation
Rainwater Charitable Foundation
Robertson Foundation

Arnold Family Foundation
Reed Hastings and Patty Quillin
Jack Kent Cooke Foundation
Marcus Foundation
Miles Family Foundation
New Profit Inc.

Thomas and Susan Dunn
Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation

Abrams Foundation
All Stars Helping Kids
The Annie E. Casey Foundation
CityBridge Foundation
Credit Suisse
John and Laura Fisher
Robert and Elizabeth Fisher
William and Sakurako Fisher
Goldman Sachs Foundation
Goldsbury Foundation
Kinder Foundation
Koret Foundation
Leon Lowenstein Foundation
The Louis Calder Foundation
Hee-Jung and John Moon
Stephen Jr. and Susan Mandel
National Geographic Education Foundation
Prudential Foundation
Arthur Rock
SAP America, Inc.
Paul Singer
State Farm Companies Foundation
The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation


Teach for America (TFA) — another favorite non-profit educational organization among philanthro-capitalists (Mosle, 2009) — continues to ramp up its advertising to include national buys on television, as many of the same corporate benefactors from KIPP’s impressive list of givers pour in more edu-preneurial investments through non-profit and tax-sheltered foundations and social entrepreneurial investment funds such as the New Schools Venture Fund.

With the average KIPP teacher leaving after three years service (Browne 2009, 174), and with new KIPP locations planned, the $18-20 million annually that TFA now spends on recruiting will likely fall short of the amount needed to sustain the teacher induction effort.

Charter Schools, Character Education & the Eugenics Internationale

Watch Unto Prayer
July 4, 2001

During revision of a 1999 Charter Schools report, education researcher, Dana Hoard found that the strategies for Charter Schools, Character Education and Charitable Choice/Faith-Based Welfare Reform originated in the same private foundations. Also presenting itself was the fact that these foundations were comprised of the same multi-national corporations which are actively involved in a worldwide program of 'eugenics', that is, the reduction of populations considered by the British, German and American Eugenics societies to be inferior races and proliferation of the presumed superior races. Current liberal / conservative labels are intended to be diversions for the masses while the corporate syndicate is busy restructuring the social order into a feudal system to be governed by Nietzsche's "new natural nobility of worth and birth". More than a century of applied principles of Social Darwinism have positioned mankind whereby a fully empowered elite will soon rule with absolute authority the servile race they fashion to labor under their monopolist capitalist state.

It is into the Anglo-American nexus of power elites that the Charter School / Character Education advocacy network may be traced. Under fascism, private enterprise and government team up to subjugate the masses. The encroaching public / private partnership in education will facilitate the corporate takeover of the culture. How so, you may ask? Charter schools are public/ private partnerships, using the public's money, but removing local control and accountability to the taxpayer. Charter schools will be set up as for-profit or not-for-profit corporations. Charter Schools are also integral to the GOALS 2000 laws based on the United Nation's Life Long Learning Model, an international plan. Charter school students will have to meet the criteria of the GOALS 2000 law. State education laws have been meticulously aligned with the federal law which says, "ALL students, ALL children". Obviously, ALL means no exceptions.


History shows a direct correlation between the early 20th century Eugenics and Character Education movements. Character Education became popular in the aftermath of Darwin's attack on the Bible, but floundered for lack of cohesion and the anticipated discovery of a "scientific" approach for producing good character in sinful men and women (without repentance and regeneration through faith in Jesus Christ). Now the same old failed experiment is being resurrected through the agency of evangelical ministers who are closely collaborating with the myriad of Rockefeller and Carnegie funded foundations and think tanks. Many Christian parents feel safe sending their children to charter schools because trusted "Christian" ministries, such as Focus on the Family, promote them as the preferred alternative to public education. Capitalizing on the abysmal failure of the public schools, the Dobson organization is promoting, not only Charter Schools, but Character Education as well. However, even as Dr. Dobson admits, Character Education is based, not upon Scripture, but upon "Natural Law" which is derived via consensus and is being advanced under the umbrella of the New Age Global Ethics movement.


The state of Washington has been targeted as a pilot state for charter school initiatives. Change agents from Focus on the Family, the National Business Roundtable and the RAND Corporation would like to have the citizens of Washington state and other states believe they are working for their good. Yet, they are provably working for the implementation of GOALS 2000. The Washington Family Council was originally established by Focus on the Family during the 1980s. Although the connection continues, the link has been blurred to promote the perception that Washington Family Council is an autonomous, grassroots organization. Washington Family Council requires substantial funding to sustain the high visibility and extensive influence it has enjoyed over the years in Washington state. How is it that such an organization has weathered the years? Support by Washington citizens, or the power bloc behind the charter school initiative, which uses the grassroots image to conceal its presence? Is this the convenient role played by Dr. James Dobson?

In other states, FOTF is actively, albeit stealthily, working through their Family Policy Councils to establish charter schools. Anyone wishing to investigate the history of school choice / charter schools in their state would probably be able to corroborate that the same national organizations, including a munificently financed pseudo-conservative / Christian network, have been at work in their locales. Some may be surprised or shocked to find that many leaders they have trusted are, in fact, committed to the same GOALS 2000 program they purport to ardently oppose.


In order for the corporations to take control of the education system, the way in which all schools are governed must be changed. Both the binding state education laws and legislative oversight of the public school system must be eliminated. In the language of the boiler plate charter school laws written for the various states (with help from RAND), charter schools are not bound by the state's so-called burdensome education laws (except for civil rights and health laws). For the corporate takeover of public schools to be complete, one more transition must occur -- removing the states' legislative authority.

In Washington state, the A+ Commission was set up in 1999 by legislative authority. This is the entity which will eventually hold the control over all Washington public schools, including charter schools. The A+ Commission, comprised of GOALS 2000 and Business Roundtable representatives, runs Washington state's Accountability System, which is steadily enlarging its list of 'powers and duties' including: changing education laws, performing strategic interventions, and even implementing entire take-overs of school districts. The work of the A+ Commission is about the implementation of GOALS 2000 (achieving the completion of the Carnegie / Business Roundtable blueprint for education) under an accountability system. In the words of John Chubb, senior fellow of the Brooking Institution: Public authority must be used to create a system that is almost beyond the reach of public authority. Mirror-images of the A+ Commission will some day create an interlocking network between the states.


The Student of the Future will be measured according to a "citizenship ethic" by the National Education Goals Panel, the oversight commission of GOALS 2000. Another project underway is called Waves of Innovation, an approach for helping communities move along a continuum of renewal toward assimilation into the global community. In Washington state, half of the Board of Directors for Waves of Innovation comes from the Business Roundtable. The International Advisory Board works collaboratively through New Horizons For Learning, a New Age education resource center based in Seattle. Dee Dickinson, the director of New Horizons, served on the White House Education Task Force during the 1980s and served as a resource person to the Governor's Council on Education Reform and Funding [GCERF] Washington's taskforce which led to the passage of the GOALS 2000 state-level legislation. The International Advisory Team of New Horizons for Learning -- which has sponsored workshops with psychic Jean Houston -- includes a consultant to the Club of Rome and panelist at the State of the World Summit, a New Age channeler/author, the director of the ASCD [curriculum arm of the NEA], and the developer of the Theory of Multiple Intelligences, the clarification of a concept for the Project on Human Potential based at Harvard University.


Christians who are desperately expecting a national revival of traditional values, have little, if any, knowledge of the coalition of secular and esoteric organizations behind the Charter School and Character Education movements. To inform them as to the special interests masterminding the Charter School / Character Education movement, an extensive and detailed database has been compiled of the network of strategists and funders of Charter Schools.

A Massive Human Inventory Is Easier to Control If It Is Microchipped

‘One Generation Is All They Need’

By Kevin Haggerty, The Toronto Star
Originally Published on October 12, 2006

By the time my four-year-old son is swathed in the soft flesh of old age, he will likely find it unremarkable that he and almost everyone he knows will be permanently implanted with a microchip. Automatically tracking his location in real time, it will connect him with databases monitoring and recording his smallest behavioural traits.

Most people anticipate such a prospect with a sense of horrified disbelief, dismissing it as a science-fiction fantasy. The technology, however, already exists. For years humane societies have implanted all the pets that leave their premises with a small identifying microchip. As well, millions of consumer goods are now traced with tiny radio frequency identification chips that allow satellites to reveal their exact location.

A select group of people are already “chipped” with devices that automatically open doors, turn on lights, and perform other low-level miracles. Prominent among such individuals is researcher Kevin Warwick of Reading University in England; Warwick is a leading proponent of the almost limitless potential uses for such chips.

Other users include the patrons of the Baja Beach Club in Barcelona, many of whom have paid about $150 (U.S.) for the privilege of being implanted with an identifying chip that allows them to bypass lengthy club queues and purchase drinks by being scanned. These individuals are the advance guard of an effort to expand the technology as widely as possible.

From this point forward, microchips will become progressively smaller, less invasive, and easier to deploy. Thus, any realistic barrier to the wholesale “chipping” of Western citizens is not technological but cultural. It relies upon the visceral reaction against the prospect of being personally marked as one component in a massive human inventory.

Today we might strongly hold such beliefs, but sensibilities can, and probably will, change. How this remarkable attitudinal transformation is likely to occur is clear to anyone who has paid attention to privacy issues over the past quarter-century. There will be no 3 a.m. knock on the door by storm troopers come to force implants into our bodies. The process will be more subtle and cumulative, couched in the unassailable language of progress and social betterment, and mimicking many of the processes that have contributed to the expansion of closed-circuit television cameras and the corporate market in personal data.

A series of tried and tested strategies will be marshalled to familiarize citizens with the technology. These will be coupled with efforts to pressure tainted social groups and entice the remainder of the population into being chipped.

This, then, is how the next generation will come to be microchipped.

It starts in distant countries. Having tested the technology on guinea pigs, both human and animal, the first widespread use of human implanting will occur in nations at the periphery of the Western world. Such developments are important in their own right, but their international significance pertains to how they familiarize a global audience with the technology and habituate them to the idea that chipping represents a potential future.

An increasing array of hypothetical chipping scenarios will also be depicted in entertainment media, furthering the familiarization process.

In the West, chips will first be implanted in members of stigmatized groups. Pedophiles are the leading candidate for this distinction, although it could start with terrorists, drug dealers, or whatever happens to be that year’s most vilified criminals. Short-lived promises will be made that the technology will only be used on the “worst of the worst.” In fact, the wholesale chipping of incarcerated individuals will quickly ensue, encompassing people on probation and on parole.

Even accused individuals will be tagged, a measure justified on the grounds that it would stop them from fleeing justice. Many prisoners will welcome this development, since only chipped inmates will be eligible for parole, weekend release, or community sentences. From the prison system will emerge an evocative vocabulary distinguishing chippers from non-chippers.

Although the chips will be justified as a way to reduce fraud and other crimes, criminals will almost immediately develop techniques to simulate other people’s chip codes and manipulate their data.

The comparatively small size of the incarcerated population, however, means that prisons would be simply a brief stopover on a longer voyage. Commercial success is contingent on making serious inroads into tagging the larger population of law-abiding citizens. Other stigmatized groups will therefore be targeted. This will undoubtedly entail monitoring welfare recipients, a move justified to reduce fraud, enhance efficiency, and ensure that the poor do not receive “undeserved” benefits.

Once e-commerce is sufficiently advanced, welfare recipients will receive their benefits as electronic vouchers stored on their microchips, a policy that will be tinged with a sense of righteousness, as it will help ensure that clients can only purchase government-approved goods from select merchants, reducing the always disconcerting prospect that poor people might use their limited funds to purchase alcohol or tobacco.

Civil libertarians will try to foster a debate on these developments. Their attempts to prohibit chipping will be handicapped by the inherent difficulty in animating public sympathy for criminals and welfare recipients — groups that many citizens are only too happy to see subjected to tighter regulation. Indeed, the lesser public concern for such groups is an inherent part of the unarticulated rationale for why coerced chipping will be disproportionately directed at the stigmatized.

The official privacy arm of the government will now take up the issue. Mandated to determine the legality of such initiatives, privacy commissioners and Senate Committees will produce a forest of reports presented at an archipelago of international conferences. Hampered by lengthy research and publication timelines, their findings will be delivered long after the widespread adoption of chipping is effectively a fait accompli. The research conclusions on the effectiveness of such technologies will be mixed and open to interpretation.

Officials will vociferously reassure the chipping industry that they do not oppose chipping itself, which has fast become a growing commercial sector. Instead, they are simply seeking to ensure that the technology is used fairly and that data on the chips is not misused. New policies will be drafted.

Employers will start to expect implants as a condition of getting a job. The U.S. military will lead the way, requiring chips for all soldiers as a means to enhance battlefield command and control — and to identify human remains. From cooks to commandos, every one of the more than one million U.S. military personnel will see microchips replace their dog tags.

Following quickly behind will be the massive security sector. Security guards, police officers, and correctional workers will all be expected to have a chip. Individuals with sensitive jobs will find themselves in the same position.

The first signs of this stage are already apparent. In 2004, the Mexican attorney general’s office started implanting employees to restrict access to secure areas. The category of “sensitive occupation” will be expansive to the point that anyone with a job that requires keys, a password, security clearance, or identification badge will have those replaced by a chip.

Judges hearing cases on the constitutionality of these measures will conclude that chipping policies are within legal limits. The thin veneer of “voluntariness” coating many of these programs will allow the judiciary to maintain that individuals are not being coerced into using the technology.

In situations where the chips are clearly forced on people, the judgments will deem them to be undeniable infringements of the right to privacy. However, they will then invoke the nebulous and historically shifting standard of “reasonableness” to pronounce coerced chipping a reasonable infringement on privacy rights in a context of demands for governmental efficiency and the pressing need to enhance security in light of the still ongoing wars on terror, drugs, and crime.

At this juncture, an unfortunately common tragedy of modern life will occur: A small child, likely a photogenic toddler, will be murdered or horrifically abused. It will happen in one of the media capitals of the Western world, thereby ensuring non-stop breathless coverage. Chip manufactures will recognize this as the opportunity they have been anticipating for years. With their technology now largely bug-free, familiar to most citizens and comparatively inexpensive, manufacturers will partner with the police to launch a high-profile campaign encouraging parents to implant their children “to ensure your own peace of mind.”

Special deals will be offered. Implants will be free, providing the family registers for monitoring services. Loving but unnerved parents will be reassured by the ability to integrate tagging with other functions on their PDA so they can see their child any time from any place.

Paralleling these developments will be initiatives that employ the logic of convenience to entice the increasingly small group of holdouts to embrace the now common practice of being tagged. At first, such convenience tagging will be reserved for the highest echelon of Western society, allowing the elite to move unencumbered through the physical and informational corridors of power. Such practices will spread more widely as the benefits of being chipped become more prosaic. Chipped individuals will, for example, move more rapidly through customs.

Indeed, it will ultimately become a condition of using mass-transit systems that officials be allowed to monitor your chip. Companies will offer discounts to individuals who pay by using funds stored on their embedded chip, on the small-print condition that the merchant can access large swaths of their personal data. These “discounts” are effectively punitive pricing schemes, charging unchipped individuals more as a way to encourage them to submit to monitoring. Corporations will seek out the personal data in hopes of producing ever more fine-grained customer profiles for marketing purposes, and to sell to other institutions.

By this point all major organizations will be looking for opportunities to capitalize on the possibilities inherent in an almost universally chipped population. The uses of chips proliferate, as do the types of discounts.

Each new generation of household technology becomes configured to operate by interacting with a person’s chip.
Finding a computer or appliance that will run though old-fashioned “hands-on”‘ interactions becomes progressively more difficult and costly.

Patients in hospitals and community care will be routinely chipped, allowing medical staff — or, more accurately, remote computers — to monitor their biological systems in real time.

Eager to reduce the health costs associated with a largely docile citizenry, authorities will provide tax incentives to individuals who exercise regularly. Personal chips will be remotely monitored to ensure that their heart rate is consistent with an exercise regime.

By now, the actual process of “chipping” for many individuals will simply involve activating certain functions of their existing chip. Any prospect of removing the chip will become increasingly untenable, as having a chip will be a precondition for engaging in the main dynamics of modern life, such as shopping, voting, and driving.

The remaining holdouts will grow increasingly weary of Luddite jokes and subtle accusations that they have something to hide. Exasperated at repeatedly watching neighbours bypass them in “chipped” lines while they remain subject to the delays, inconveniences, and costs reserved for the unchipped, they too will choose the path of least resistance and get an implant.

In one generation, then, the cultural distaste many might see as an innate reaction to the prospect of having our bodies marked like those of an inmate in a concentration camp will likely fade.

In the coming years some of the most powerful institutional actors in society will start to align themselves to entice, coerce, and occasionally compel the next generation to get an implant.

Now, therefore, is the time to contemplate the unprecedented dangers of this scenario. The most serious of these concern how even comparatively stable modern societies will, in times of fear, embrace treacherous promises. How would the prejudices of a Joe McCarthy, J. Edgar Hoover, or of southern Klansmen — all of whom were deeply integrated into the American political establishment — have manifest themselves in such a world? What might Hitler, Mao or Milosevic have accomplished if their citizens were chipped, coded, and remotely monitored?

Choirs of testimonials will soon start to sing the virtues of implants. Calm reassurances will be forthcoming about democratic traditions, the rule of law, and privacy rights. History, unfortunately, shows that things can go disastrously wrong, and that this happens with disconcerting regularity. Little in the way of international agreements, legality, or democratic sensibilities has proved capable of thwarting single-minded ruthlessness.

“It can’t happen here” has become the whispered swan song of the disappeared. Best to contemplate these dystopian potentials before we proffer the tender forearms of our sons and daughters. While we cannot anticipate all of the positive advantages that might be derived from this technology, the negative prospects are almost too terrifying to contemplate.

Irish Govt and the StratAG Project - Full Spectrum People Tracking Based Technology
MSN: Human Microchip implants will be compulsory for security, says University Prof.
Telegraph: Better Than Viagra - Using Sex to Popularise the Brain-Chip
Microsoft Links Up with Human-embedded RFID Chips
Shopping Centre Offers RFID Child Tags to Familiarise Families With Tracking
Fox News: Bill O’Reilly and Roger Ebert Promote Benefits of Insane RFID Brain-Chips (Video)
Great Control With Radio-Frequency Identification Surveillance - Already in Passports and More
The EU & RFID Chips: Springing the Trap (video)
Google launches software to track mobile users
Free energy inventor discovers mystery Verichip tracking implant in shoulder, caused cancer
Inventer connects the dots back to his involuntary Verichip implant

November 28, 2009

Environmentalism is Becoming the New World Religion

I am certain that the president of at least one country understands the Marxist agenda of the One-World Spiritualists, and I am sure he understands that the "crisis" they are manufacturing to implement their worldview is radical environmentalism.

Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, survived communism and now warns the world about these peoples' ultimate goal, the elimination of freedom. President Klaus is the author of the book, "Blue Planet in Green Shackles." Klaus argues that radical environmentalism is masking socialism, communism, and even fascism.

"But while communism was an atheistic system," Klaus notes, "modern environmentalism has assumed a religious dimension and has become a 'green religion.'"

The ultimate goal is "completely about power and about the hegemony of the 'chosen ones' (as they see themselves) over the rest of us, about the imposition of the only correct worldview (their own), about the remodeling of the world," adds Klaus.
Klaus explains that the goal of the radical environmentalist is to completely destroy private property rights and the free enterprise system by limiting the "carbon footprint" of individuals and companies, growing the size of government, and ushering in socialism. Klaus told the Washington Times:
"I understand that global warming is a religion conceived to suppress human freedom."
- Brannon Howse, Christian Worldview Network, "One World Spirituality: Three Worldviews Merge," October 28, 2008

Shaping a Sustainable Future: The IUCN Programme 2009–2012 (Excerpt)

This document is the IUCN Programme 2009–2012 as adopted at the World Conservation Congress, Barcelona, Spain, 5–14 October 2008. It is part of a set of documents which, together, form the IUCN Intersessional Plan for 2009-2012.

International Union for Conservation of Nature

In 1948 [the same year the Israel once again became a nation], as the world was awakening from a long night of war and horror and designing a new international order for peace and security, a small group of committed conservationists had the vision that 18 governments, seven international organizations and 107 national organizations would be much stronger and achieve much more if they combined their efforts for the conservation of nature.

Before the signing of the Fontainebleau Declaration that established IUCN on 4 October 1948, the famous writer, Aldous Huxley was writing to his brother, Julian, then Director General of UNESCO and one of the founders of IUCN:
“Meanwhile I come to feel more and more that no system of morals is adequate which does not include within the sphere of moral relationships, not only other human beings, but animals, plants and even things.

“We have done quite monstrously badly by the earth we live in, and now the earth we live in, with its soil eroded, its forests ravaged, its rivers polluted, its mineral resources reduced, is doing so badly by us that, unless we stop our insane fiddling at power politics and use all available knowledge, intelligence and good will to repair the harm we have done, the whole of mankind will be starving in a dust bowl within a century or two. People still seem to believe that there is poverty in the midst of plenty, when in fact there is only poverty in the midst of growing poverty – and all through our own fault, through not treating nature morally. […]

“If we don’t do something about it pretty soon, we shall find that, even if we escape atomic warfare, we shall destroy our civilization by destroying the cosmic capital on which we live. Our relation to earth is not that of mutually beneficial symbiosis; we have become the kind of parasite that kills its host, even at the risk of killing itself.”
Today, IUCN unites more than 1000 States, government agencies, international and national non-governmental organizations working together towards sustainability. The spirit that inspired its founders to sign the Fontainebleau Declaration has kept all its relevance: environmental health underpins human well-being.

IUCN’s unique structure enables democratic and open dialogues between civil society and governments; the steady growth of its knowledge and expertise, and the pooling of knowledge and resources in integrated approaches to conservation for sustainable development are having a positive impact throughout the world.

This Programme is the result of extensive consultations with and within IUCN members, Commissions, donors and other partners. It shows the practical ways in which the Union of 84 governments, 111 government agencies, 874 international and national non-governmental organizations and 35 affiliates plans to shape sustainable solutions for the future. It describes how IUCN’s value added and competencies in providing credible knowledge, convening stakeholders and ensuring the policy-practice loop is maintained from local to global levels will be employed in practice. It specifies what we will deliver for conservation from the heartland work of IUCN on conserving biodiversity and strategically intervening in four thematic programme areas from 2009 to 2012.

Lord Monckton: Shut Down the UN, Arrest Al Gore

By Paul Joseph Watson,
November 28, 2009

Appearing on The Alex Jones Show yesterday, Lord Christopher Monckton went further than ever before in his vehement opposition to the elitists running the climate change scam, calling for the UN to be shut down and for fraudulent peddlers of global warming propaganda like Al Gore to be arrested and criminally prosecuted.

Monckton said that those who are threatening to shut down economies, bankrupt nations, and deepen the problems of the third world by implementing draconian policies in the name of global warming should be indicted, prosecuted and imprisoned “for a very long time.”
“The fraudsters and racketeers from Al Gore to the people at the University of East Anglia who have been making their fortune at the expense of taxpayers and the little guy,” should be criminally charged, said Monckton, in response to the Climategate scandal.

“We the people have got to rise up worldwide, found a party in every country which stands for freedom and make sure we fight this bureaucratic communistic world government monster to a standstill -- they shall not pass,” he added.
Monckton said that the United Nations should be “closed down,” adding that he talked to a senior UN ambassador in Canada who told him that he no longer saw any purpose in the UN and it exists “only to enrich itself at the expense of the nations it claims to serve; it’s time it was brought to an end.”
“We would all save billions if we shut down the UN and just about all of its hideous bureaucracy,” said Monckton.
Lord Monckton emphasized how the emails released as a result of climategate prove that global warming alarmism was still prevalent in public but behind closed doors, warming scientists are admitting that the “deniers” (as they label people like Monckton) are correct.
“Publicly they’re saying the science is settled, we’re all doomed unless you close down the economies of the West; whereas, privately they’re saying to each other ‘we’ve got it wrong, none of this adds up and it’s a travesty that we can’t explain it’.”
Monckton also slammed Obama’s science czar John P. Holdren, who in his 1977 book Ecoscience called for draconian population measures to be enforced by a “planetary regime” in the name of saving the earth, as an “openly admitted communist.”

Monckton pointed out how Holdren had been once of the most prominent alarmists in the 70’s, warning about the onset of rapid “global cooling.”
“Now with seamless mendacity he says that what we’re now facing is global warming,” said Monckton.

“How can anyone like Holdren stand up with a straight face and expect anyone to believe it,” he added.
Monckton said that the agenda behind the global warming movement was to set up a communistic world government which will be run by people who “do not care how many people they kill with their policies” and that their goal is to “do away with democracy forever by stealth using the excuse to save the planet.”

Monckton said that the people running the scam had a “deliberate desire to control population by killing people in large numbers deliberately, if necessary.”

The former advisor to Margaret Thatcher said that the warmists were sounding more and more desperate and knew that they had been rumbled as a result of climategate, which would only make it more urgent for them to try and force through a binding treaty in Copenhagen.

Monckton said that the answer to combating the move towards neo-feudalism and global government was to form a worldwide “freedom party” that would operate nationally in every country in order to defend freedom, democracy and prosperity while routing out every aspect of the communistic takeover.
“Every time these people try to take it away, we in the freedom party will stop them, and I think now is the time,” said Monckton.

See the rest on The Alex Jones Channel

Who’s to Blame for Climategate?

By Gordon Rayner, Telegraph
November 27, 2009

The drab, drum-shaped home of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit is an anonymous little outpost, blending seamlessly with its chunky concrete neighbours on a windswept campus just outside Norwich. To the uninitiated, it has the look of a Seventies bus station waiting for the council to pull it down.

Unlikely as it may seem, however, this little corner of East Anglia is now ground zero in a controversy which just might influence the entire future of our planet.

A little over a week ago, hundreds of internal emails written by scientists working at the CRU were obtained by a hacker and posted on the internet, some of which appeared to show that researchers had deliberately faked evidence of global warming by manipulating statistics.

At first, the fallout was restricted to a row between climate change experts, played out in scientific journals and specialist internet blogs, but in the past few days, as the ripples have spread around the globe, “Climategate” has become a white hot political issue which has been seized upon by global warming sceptics and now threatens to overshadow next month’s crucial climate change conference in Copenhagen...

Phil Jones, the 57-year-old director of the CRU, is the man who has suddenly found himself the number one target of climate change conspiracy theorists the world over after he sent the most damaging of all the emails exposed by the anonymous hacker.

In one message, dated November 1999, he wrote:
“I’ve just completed Mike’s trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 to hide the decline.”
Gotcha! say the global warming sceptics who have argued for years that average temperatures on Earth are, in reality, either stable or going down. Professor Jones defended himself by claiming the word “trick” was used out of context and simply referred to a legitimate method of handling data. But there was more.

An email sent by one of Prof Jones’s colleagues said:
“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
Prof Jones, whose department has for years refused to release its raw data on temperatures, wrote another email in which he said:
Sceptics “have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send it to anyone.”
By chance, he now admits he has “accidentally” deleted some of the raw data.

Another message said the CRU’s method of collating data “renders the station counts totally meaningless… so, we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!”

Prof Jones, who at first refused to confirm even that the emails were genuine, finally issued a statement on Wednesday, in which he said:
“My colleagues and I accept that some of the published emails do not read well.”
On that point, at least, no one is likely to argue with him.

Although Prof Jones is not what you could call a household name (though he soon might be) he is, without doubt, one of the world’s most influential proponents of the theory of man-made global warming.

The CRU has the largest archive of global temperature data in the world, and its research formed the basis of the United Nations’ key document on global warming, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report of 2007.

But Prof Jones has been embroiled in controversy before. Three years ago, a report commissioned by the US House of Representatives energy and commerce committee claimed that a clique of just 43 scientists, including Prof Jones and one of his CRU colleagues, was stifling open debate on climate change.

Little wonder, then, that climate change deniers are hailing the emails as final proof that global warming is nothing more than a hoax which is being covered up by governments who have themselves been duped.

Suddenly, Phil Jones is the name on the lips of every Right-wing commentator in the US, some of whom have warned that President Obama is being tricked into making the most expensive mistake in history by backing emission caps and carbon trading legislation that will cost US taxpayers trillions of dollars.

Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News has described the emails as a “game-changer” for Obama cap and trade bills. Fox’s climate change commentator, John Lott, suggested that Prof Jones was guilty of an “unprecedented co-ordinated campaign to hide scientific information.” Meanwhile Matt Drudge, arguably the most influential reporter on the internet and the man who broke the story of President Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky, has helped direct millions of hits to websites reporting on the email scandal by featuring it prominently on his Drudge Report website...

Prof Jones is in little doubt that the timing of the leak -- two weeks before the start of the Copenhagen conference -- was a “concerted attempt to put a question mark over the science of climate change” at the most sensitive possible time. Next month’s Copenhagen conference has been billed as the last chance for world leaders to prevent an irreversible change to the planet’s climate. Unless they can reach a binding agreement on reducing global emissions, mankind could face a bleak future, according to the majority of the scientific community.

The hacker who exposed the emails no doubt hopes Climategate will tip the scales decisively against an agreement -- an outcome which is likely to be supported by a minority of hardliners in the US, such as Bryan Zumwalt, legislative counsel for Republican senator David Vitter, who said earlier this week that:
The CRU emails were evidence of what “could well be the greatest act of scientific fraud in history” and suggested that “nearly all of the international data and models supporting the theory of global warming would have been influenced by data corruption and fraud.”
However Bob Ward, a climate change expert at the London School of Economics and Political Science, believes world leaders will pay little attention to the scandal surrounding the CRU, arguing that politics, not science, will decide the fate of the Copenhagen summit.
“The politicians won’t be swayed by this,” he said. “It’s basic physics that the world is being warmed by greenhouse gases, and politicians can see through the sceptics’ arguments. If Copenhagen fails to produce an agreement, it won’t be because of these emails. And in the US, President Obama’s cap and trade bills will be decided by 12 or 13 Democratic senators who represent states with large coal and oil reserves.”
Mr Ward does not believe the emails reveal any evidence of impropriety, but supported Lord Lawson’s calls for an independent investigation so the matter can be cleared up. He said:
“I don’t believe there is any evidence here of fraud, but it’s regrettable that this has happened and I regret the fact that some members of the research community have dismissed out of hand those who have tried to make a counter-argument.”
Whether or not Climategate influences the outcome of the Copenhagen summit, it seems that its long-term legacy will be to make the ongoing war of words between “warmists” and “coolists” more poisonous than ever.

Socialism is not a Constitutional Capitalist Republic. Regardless of what ever else is stated about the environmental agenda of the nations of the world, it all leads to the U.S. becoming a Socialist country in every sense of the word. Thus the push by all the socialist and Obamites coming out of the woodwork. It's all converging into an us vs. them scenario. And there are a hell of a lot of them pushing their cause — now what about us? There are thousands of organizations and millions of people against us. Including our own government. The task before us is monumental. The opposing forces are working very hard to take us down. - Roger Monk, 100 Million Patriots Standing, July 16, 2011

November 26, 2009

Climate Change Is Not Caused By Carbon Dioxide or Mankind

A Major Deception on Global Warming

Op-Ed by Frederick Seitz, Wall Street Journal
Originally Published on June 12, 1996

Last week the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations organization regarded by many as the best source of scientific information about the human impact on the earth's climate, released "The Science of Climate Change 1995," its first new report in five years. The report will surely be hailed as the latest and most authoritative statement on global warming. Policy makers and the press around the world will likely view the report as the basis for critical decisions on energy policy that would have an enormous impact on U.S. oil and gas prices and on the international economy.

This IPCC report, like all others, is held in such high regard largely because it has been peer-reviewed. That is, it has been read, discussed, modified and approved by an international body of experts. These scientists have laid their reputations on the line.

But this report is not what it appears to be--it is not the version that was approved by the contributing scientists listed on the title page. In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.

A comparison between the report approved by the contributing scientists and the published version reveals that key changes were made after the scientists had met and accepted what they thought was the final peer-reviewed version. The scientists were assuming that the IPCC would obey the IPCC Rules--a body of regulations that is supposed to govern the panel's actions. Nothing in the IPCC Rules permits anyone to change a scientific report after it has been accepted by the panel of scientific contributors and the full IPCC.

The participating scientists accepted "The Science of Climate Change" in Madrid last November; the full IPCC accepted it the following month in Rome. But more than 15 sections in Chapter 8 of the report--the key chapter setting out the scientific evidence for and against a human influence over climate--were changed or deleted after the scientists charged with examining this question had accepted the supposedly final text.

Few of these changes were merely cosmetic; nearly all worked to remove hints of the skepticism with which many scientists regard claims that human activities are having a major impact on climate in general and on global warming in particular.

The following passages are examples of those included in the approved report but deleted from the supposedly peer-reviewed published version:

"None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."

"No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes."

"Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."
The reviewing scientists used this original language to keep themselves and the IPCC honest. I am in no position to know who made the major changes in Chapter 8; but the report's lead author, Benjamin D. Santer, must presumably take the major responsibility.

IPCC reports are often called the "consensus" view. If they lead to carbon taxes and restraints on economic growth, they will have a major and almost certainly destructive impact on the economies of the world. Whatever the intent was of those who made these significant changes, their effect is to deceive policy makers and the public into believing that the scientific evidence shows human activities are causing global warming.

If the IPCC is incapable of following its most basic procedures, it would be best to abandon the entire IPCC process, or at least that part that is concerned with the scientific evidence on climate change, and look for more reliable sources of advice to governments on this important question.

Dr. Seitz is president emeritus of Rockefeller University and chairman of the George C. Marshall Institute.

The Great Global Warming Swindle

The UK's Channel 4 premiered the documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle (a WAG TV Production for Channel 4 - WAG TV MMVII) on March 8, 2007.

Excerpts from a transcript of The Great Global Warming Swindle:

[ Nigel Calder ] In the Weather Machine we reported the mainstream opinion of the time, which was Global Cooling and the threat of a new Ice Age.

Two things happened to change that. First, temperatures started to rise. And second, the miners went on strike. To Margaret Thatcher energy was a political problem. In the early 70s the oil crisis had plunged the world into recession, and the miners had brought down Ted Heath's Conservative government. Mrs Thatcher was determined the same would not happen to her. She set out to break their power.

[ Margaret Thatcher says, "What we have seen in this country is the emergence of an organised revolutionary minority - who are prepared to exploit industrial disputes - but whose real aim is the breakdown of law and order and the destruction of democratic parliamentary government." ]

[ Lord Lawson of Blaby ] She was very concerned always, I remember, (when I was Secretary of State for Energy), to promote Nuclear Power. Long before the issue of Climate Change came up, because she was concerned about Energy Security, and she didn't trust the Middle East, and she didn't trust the National Union of Mineworkers. So she didn't trust oil. And she didn't trust coal. So therefore she felt we really had to push ahead with Nuclear Power. And then, when the Climate Change, Global Warming, thing came up, she felt - well this is great - this is another argument - because it doesn't have any Carbon Dioxide Emissions - this is another argument why you should go for Nuclear.

And that is what she was really largely saying. It's been misrepresented since then.

[ Nigel Calder ] And so she said to the scientists - she went to the Royal Society and she said - there's money on the table for you to prove this stuff. So of course they went away and did that.

[ Professor Philip Stott ] Inevitably, the moment politicians put their weight behind something, and attach their name to it in some ways of course, money will flow. That's the way it goes. And inevitably research, development, institutions started to bubble up, if you can put it that way, which were going to be researching climate but with a particular emphasis on the relationship between Carbon Dioxide and temperature.

[ Narrator ] At the request of Mrs Thatcher, the UK Met Office set up a climate-modelling unit which provided the basis for a new international committee, called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC.

[ Nigel Calder ] They came out with the first big report which predicted climatic disaster as a result of Global Warming. I remember going to the scientific press conference and being amazed by two things. First, the simplicity and eloquence of the message (and the vigour with which it was delivered). And, secondly, the total disregard of all climate science up till that time. Including, incidentally the role of the Sun, which have been the subject of a major meeting at the Royal Society just a few months earlier.

[ Narrator ] But the new emphasis on Man-Made Carbon Dioxide as a possible environmental problem, didn't just appeal to Mrs Thatcher.

[ Nigel Calder ] It was certainly something very favourable to the environmental idea, what I call the Medieval Environmentalism, of let's get back to the way things were in Medieval times, and get rid of all these dreadful cars and machines. They loved it, because Carbon Dioxide was for them an emblem of industrialisation.

[ Professor Frederick Singer, Former Director, US National Weather Service ] Well, Carbon Dioxide clearly is an industrial gas. So it's tied in with economic growth, with transportation in cars, with what we call civilisation. And there are forces in the environmental movement that are simply against economic growth. They think that's bad.

[ Patrick Moore ] The shift to climate being a major focal point came about for two very distinct reasons. The first reason was because by the mid 80s the majority of people now agreed with all of the reasonable things we in the environmental movement were saying they should do. Now when a majority of people agree with you, it's pretty hard to remain confrontational with them. And so the only way to remain anti-establishment was to adopt ever more extreme positions. When I left Greenpeace it was in the midst of them adopting a campaign to ban Chlorine worldwide. Like, I said, "You guys, this is one of the elements in the Periodic Table, you know. I mean, I'm not sure if that's in our jurisdiction to be banning a whole element."

The other reason that environmental extremism emerged, was because world Communism failed, the Wall came down, and a lot of peaceniks and political activists moved into the environmental movement bringing their neo-Marxism with them, and learned to use green language in a very clever way to cloak agendas that actually have more to do with anti-Capitalism, and anti-globalisation, than they do anything with ecology or science.

[ Lord Lawson ] The Left have been slightly disoriented by the manifest failure of socialism and indeed even more so of Communism, as it was tried out - and therefore they still remain as anti-Capitalist as they were, but they had to find a new guise for their anti-Capitalism.

[ Nigel Calder ] And it was a kind of amazing alliance from Margaret Thatcher on the Right, through to very Left-Wing anti-Capitalist environmentalists that created this kind of momentum behind a loony idea.

[ Narrator ] By the early 1990s Man-Made Global Warming was no longer a slightly eccentric theory about Climate - it was a full-blown political campaign. It was attracting media attention and as a result, more government funding.

The Great Global Warming Swindle

By S. Fred Singer
Originally Published on March 29, 2007

Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth, has met its match: a devastating documentary recently shown on British television, which has now been viewed by millions of people on the Internet. In spite of its flamboyant title, The Great Global Warming Swindle is based on sound science by recording the statements of real climate scientists, including me; An Inconvenient Truth mainly records a politician.

The scientific arguments presented in The Great Global Warming Swindle can be stated quite briefly:
  1. There is no proof at all that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from human activities, such as the generation of energy from the burning of fuels. Observations in ice cores show that temperature increases have preceded—not resulted from—increases in CO2, by hundreds of years, suggesting that the warming of the oceans is an important source of the rise in atmospheric CO2. As the dominant greenhouse gas, water vapour is far, far more important than CO2, yet not well handled by climate models—and, in any case, not within our control. Greenhouse models also cannot account for the observed cooling of much of the past century (1940–75), nor for the observed patterns of warming—what we call the “fingerprints.” For example, the Antarctic is cooling while models predict warming. And where the models call for the middle atmosphere to warm faster than the surface, the observations show the exact opposite.

    But the best evidence we have supports natural causes—changes in cloudiness linked to regular variations in solar activity. Thus the current warming is likely part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that’s been traced back almost a million years. It accounts for the Medieval Warm Period around 1100 A.D., when the Vikings were able to settle Greenland and grow crops, and the Little Ice Age, from about 1400 to 1850 A.D., which brought severe winters and cold summers to Europe, with failed harvests, starvation, disease, and general misery.

    Attempts have been made to claim that the current warming is “unusual”; a spurious analysis of tree rings and other proxy data tried to deny the existence of these historic climate swings; but this so–called “hockey–stick” result, that earth temperatures have been constant until recent decades, has now been thoroughly discredited.

  2. If the cause of warming is mostly natural, then there is little we can do about it. We cannot influence the inconstant Sun, the likely origin of most climate variability. None of the schemes of mitigation currently bandied about will do any good; they are all irrelevant, useless, and wildly expensive:
    • Control of CO2 emissions, whether by rationing or by elaborate cap–and–trade schemes
    • Uneconomic “alternative” energy, such as ethanol and the impractical “hydrogen economy”
    • Massive installations of wind turbines and solar collectors
    • Proposed projects for the sequestration of CO2 from smokestacks or even from the atmosphere
    Ironically, all of these schemes would be ineffective even if CO2 were responsible for the observed warming trend—unless we could persuade every nation, including China, to cut fuel use by 80 percent!

  3. Finally, no one can show that a warmer climate would produce negative impacts overall. The much–feared rise in sea levels does not seem to depend on short–term temperature changes, as the rate of sea–level increases has been steady since the last ice age, 10,000 years ago. In fact, many economists argue that the opposite is more likely—that warming produces a net benefit, that it increases incomes and standards of living. All agree that a colder climate would be bad. So why would the present climate be the optimum? Surely, the chances for this must be vanishingly small, and the history of past climate warmings bear this out.
But the main message of The Great Global Warming Swindle is much broader. Why should we devote our scarce resources to what is essentially a non–problem, and ignore the real problems the world faces: hunger, disease, denial of human rights—not to mention the threats of terrorism and nuclear wars? And are we really prepared to deal with natural disasters; pandemics that can wipe out most of the human race, or even the impact of an asteroid, such as the one that wiped out the dinosaurs?

Yet politicians and the elites throughout much of the world prefer to toy with and devote our limited resources to fashionable issues, rather than concentrate on real ones. Just consider the scary predictions emanating from supposedly responsible world figures: the chief scientist of Britain’s Labour Party tells us that unless we insulate our houses and use more efficient light bulbs, the Antarctic will be the only habitable continent by 2100***, with a few surviving breeding couples propagating the human race. Seriously!

I imagine that in the not-too-distant future, all of the hype will have died down, particularly if the climate should decide to cool—as it did during much of the past century; we should take note here that it has not warmed since 1998. Future generations will look back on the current madness and wonder what it was all about. They will have movies like An Inconvenient Truth and documentaries like The Great Global Warming Swindle to remind them.

S. Fred Singer, is professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, and currently serves as Distinguished Research Professor at George Mason University. He is also President of The Science & Environmental Policy Project, a non-profit policy-research group he founded in 1990.

Green & Lean: Austerity in the Age of Obama (Excerpt)

By Aaron Dykes, Jones Report
June 5, 2009


The Club of Rome was clearly the most active think tank in the 1970s pushing the agenda for a reduced ‘standard of living’ in the West. These elites have insisted in their key publication, "The Limits of Growth," that Americans and Europeans must embrace drastic population reduction quotas, and that its people use and consume less in the name of its carefully-framed sustainability crisis. The fact that the group fearmongered then about global cooling, and now fearmongers about global warming, should be an indicator that its environmental concerns are phony. The green cover is a ruse disguising the elite’s push for severe eugenics policies.

Volcker’s policy of de-industrialization in the 70s and 80s hinged on bringing America’s standard down.

We have all been told by the elites that our standard of living will be brought down. There’s little speculating that it has been an intentional plan; they’ve announced it all throughout the 1970s. The Club of Rome and top economists like Paul Volcker alike have both made clear that the ‘limits of growth’ have been reached, and that first-world westerners must be put back in balance—with cold scientific calculating—to the world’s mean (average).

In 1979, Paul Volcker, then Chairman of the Federal Reserve during the Carter Administration, openly stated:
"The standard of living of the American worker has to decline. I don’t think you can escape that."
Volcker was at the helm of the Trilateral Commission’s alarming Project 1980s’ plan for the “controlled disintegration” of the U.S. economy.
"A controlled disintegration in the world economy is a legitimate object for the 1980s… it was not by chance that starting the week of Oct. 6-12, 1979, Volcker began raising interest rates by raising the federal funds rate and increasing certain categories of reserve requirements for commercial banks. He kept pushing rates upward until, by December 1980, the prime lending rate of U.S. commercial banks reached 21.5%."
Mike Duke, Wal-Mart Chief Executive, sounded an alarm signaling America’s shift to the world mean: "The economic crisis has brought a fundamental shift in consumer attitudes and behavior." Wal-mart emphasizes that its ‘new normal’ customer experience would center around remodeling, continued low prices, as well as focus "on reducing waste and other sustainability efforts."

What is good for the economic goose is good for the environmental gander; and what is good for the environment must be good for green entrepreneurs as well.

The double-speak of the phony environmental agenda for a reduced standard of living in the Western world is used to mutually reinforce any dictates coming from the financial sector or any calls for sacrifice under environmental pretexts. Because westerners use and consume too much, and therefore endanger the environment, carbon cuts or other measures must be accepted by all.

The industrial base has been destroyed by the globalization model in which jobs are shipped out the back door and transferred to underdeveloped, autocratic 'slave wage' nations. It’s no coincidence that the de-industrialization benefits firms with the Wal-Mart model the most. Today, in the name of the global warming crisis, the remaining factories are to be choked by cap and trade laws, while the profits of the cap and trade are transferred to an Al Gore owned and operated chain of interlocking for-profit green derivatives scheme firms that specialize in carbon credits trading.

What is green must first be profitable for green business and green jobs.

SEE VIDEO: Gore Denies that Ken Lay, Goldman Sachs CEO, Helped Develop C02 Trading ‘Scheme’
SEE VIDEO: Global Warming or Global Governance?

De-industrialist Volcker has now been brought back in to the Obama-Federal Reserve Administration and serves on the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board. Volcker has long headed firms representing both the Rothschild family and the Rockefeller family, and he is equally dedicated to their schemes in both banking and the green movement.

Now, after Wall Street looters have been given extensive bailouts, collapsing car giants are required to shift major production to specialized green cars that have been little embraced by the public and show little hope of producing growth.

Volcker’s gloomy calls for austerity have demonstrated that the policies of former Federal Reserve chairmen, such as himself, Alan Greenspan and little Timmy Geithner, will not pull us out of this crisis under any easy terms. Volcker spent the opening weeks of the Obama Administration warning that this could be "worse than the Great Depression." Wonder why the Federal Reserve greenback continues to lose value?


The agenda for mandatory servitude (or strongly-encouraged ‘volunteerism’) isn’t just the ‘red jackets’ of City Year. Obama has made clear in speeches that he wants to form an energy corps to enforce emissions limitations on vehicles and to enforce power and lighting modifications in homes. All Americans will be asked to do more to use less.

Top presidential advisor David Gergen has helped push a coalition of more than 70 ‘more-than-profit’ service groups—that cover the gamut of environmentalism, energy, green initiatives, education, business ventures, emergency corps, and more. Gergen has led the initiative for the service movement to seize upon the September 11th anniversary activities; now City Year and other groups are preparing to mobilize on 9/11/2009.

During the 2008 election season, both candidates Obama and McCain attended a 9/11 ServiceNation forum which David Gergen helped put on. Obama used that platform to fully push the national service program he developed with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. "Everyone will have skin in the game," Obama told the nation’s viewers, as he called for young and old alike to sacrifice and serve their government.

Obama elaborated on a "desperately needed" civilian expeditionary force to supplement military maneuvers in Afghanistan and other interventions. When asked about his motivation for service by fellow service-advocate, host and editor of TIME, Richard Stengel, Obama told us that it was 9/11 that gave him a vision for widespread national service. Politicians should have exploited the nation’s sentiment to help out, Obama assured us, instead of President Bush’s call for Americans ‘to go shopping.’

Curiously, David Gergen exploited the same expression at a Harvard lecture on service, blasting the Bush administration for wasting the 9/11 crisis on ‘shopping’ when it could have been used to stimulate widespread service. Again, the ploy of using the terminology crisis against cash is surely not emphasized by accident.

Green corps have already been organized in many varieties and similar groups. Once it was clear that Obama had the election momentum, CNN continuously covered the "O Generation" and its amorphous social movement.

Footage in The Obama Deception shows two such girls wearing green shirts going door to door. Obama ‘door-knockers’ have already been used in conjunction with the President’s private-parallel, and his administration has only started.

Mandatory national service is now being introduced into Congress, after it was stripped from the GIVE Act already passed earlier in his term.

National Service: David Gergen, City Year and the Social Change Agenda
Former Presidential Advisor David Gergen pushes more than 70 service organizations into a ‘new order’ of shared sacrifice.
Nature, not mankind, is responsible for recent climate change
Global warming is the new religion of First World urban elites
World’s Largest Science Group Rejecting Man-made Climate Fears
US military and intelligence agencies identify climate change as “national security” threat
Scientific Siege Against UN-IPCC Farce Revealed
More than half of the UK population doesn’t accept climate change is man-made
World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown
UN wrongly linked global warming to natural disasters
Climate Science Panel Apologizes for Himalayan Glacier Melt ‘Error’
Climate change: Minority report
Ecologist says while a real phenomenon, global warming is largely due to natural cycles.

Man-made or earthly phenomenon?
Climate sceptics 'increasing hardship'
Senior UN climate change official hopes to forge rapid accord
Obama’s "Green Jobs" Go to Prison Slaves
The greatest threat of the 21st century: not AGW but Eco-Fascism
After Climategate, some insurers now doubt climate science?
C.I.A. Is Sharing Data With Climate Scientists
C.I.A. Sharing Secret Spy Satellite Data With Climate Scientists
You and your carbon footprint
How Cows (Grass-Fed Only) Could Save the Planet
Bin Laden goes green, blames America for ‘global warming’

Updated 2/4/10 (Newest Additions at End of List)

Go to The Lamb Slain Home Page