The Brainwashing Bunch

The Brainwashing Bunch

By Ed Lasky

American news outlets (well at least those not in Barack Obama’s lap) are filled with criticism on the Department of Education plans to bring Obama’s agenda into our nation’s classrooms. The ploy to reach and teach our children through a presidential speech and through instruction guides (little red books?) appears to be stalled for now as parents — if nor educational unions — resist the idea of brain-swaying our children into writing paeans to Obama and his agenda. However, few have wondered how such an idea ever emerged in the first place. We do have some clues and they are unsettling.

I have previously reported that this idea of inculcating revolutionary goals in our children’s minds stems from the philosophy of Bill Ayers, Obama’s friend, collaborator, and campaign supporter. But Obama’s ideological mentors appear to reach farther back to an influential radical Italian communist, Antonio Gramsci.


Barack Obama ties to Ayers are personal as well as professional. Obama chaired the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, an educational effort that blew through tens of millions of dollars of foundation money with little to show for its efforts. Ayers headed up a key operating body of the Challenge. Stanley Kurtz writes that Obama “clearly aligned himself with Ayers’s radical views on education issues”.


What might those views be?


Bill Ayers, former Weatherman bomber and now professor of education, sees teachers as the vanguard of the revolutionary proletariat. He propounds that view though his teaching, textbooks, and speeches.


Ayers is not merely a professor of education: he exercises far greater power as president of the American Educational Research Association and as someone who works to publish a line of textbooks to be used in graduate schools of education. His methods and beliefs have been used to “teach the teachers”, who will then promote and propagate his views in classrooms across our nation. He is, as Sol Stern, wrote a “radical educator with real influence” — and that was written before his friend Barack Obama became President.


Ayers looks at teachers as part of a pyramid scheme, whereby he can geometrically increase the ranks of radicals by exposing young children to radical principles (even so far as using math classes to teach about the evils of capitalism). This might go down better than bombing people into obedience.  


Michelle Malkin noted that Ayers and Mike Klonsky, a former leader of the militant Students for a Democratic Society (from which the Weathermen split off to form a more extremist group) had partnered up in the so-called “small schools” movement to “steer schoolchildren away from core academics to left-wing politicking on issues of inequity, war and violence”. Grants were given to radicals who then reached out to the youngest and most vulnerable.




A cadre of like-minded educators and national service administrators across the country share the same core commitment to transforming themselves from imparters of knowledge to transformers of society. The “change” agenda trains students to think only about what they should do for Obama — and rarely to contemplate how his powers and ambitions should be limited and restrained.
Ayers preached his education-as-“social justice” agenda to his “comrades” at the World Education Forum in Caracas, Venezuela, three years ago:
“This is my fourth visit to Venezuela, each time at the invitation of my comrade and friend Luis Bonilla, a brilliant educator and inspiring fighter for justice. Luis has taught me a great deal about the Bolivarian Revolution and about the profound educational reforms underway here in Venezuela under the leadership of President [Hugo] Chavez. We share the belief that education is the motor-force of revolution, and I’ve come to appreciate Luis as a major asset in both the Venezuelan and the international struggle — I look forward to seeing how he and all of you continue to overcome the failings of capitalist education as you seek to create something truly new and deeply humane.”


Ayers had his reasons to praise Hugo Chavez and to encourage Chavez in his efforts. Perhaps Ayers knew that Chavez next step in consolidating his dictatorship would be to seek to control schools in Venezuela-which he is now doing. At the same time, he gives us insight into the views of the aforementioned Antonio Gramsci.


‘Catch them young’


Chavez is taking radical steps to “reshape the Venezuelan education system”, declares a recent Economist magazine article. Newly emboldened by his success at gutting the opposition through foul means, he is now targeting children. The revolution has now come to grade school; Chavez, as the Economist describes, “seeks to catch them young”. He is using a “hastily passed education law” as “part of the  president’s plan to control all aspects of Venezuelan society”.


The text of the article goes on to describe Chavez’s plan to reeducate the young with his own brand of radicalism:


Schools will come under the supervision of “communal councils”, indistinguishable in most places from cells of the ruling socialist party. Central government will run almost everything else, including university entrance and membership of the teaching profession.
Couched in vague terms, the law acquires coherence when seen against the president’s professed intention to establish revolutionary hegemony over Venezuelan society. In a 2007 campaign on a referendum on constitutional change, Mr Chávez lectured a bemused public on the writings of Antonio Gramsci, an Italian communist who died in 1937. In essence, Gramsci said that to eliminate the bourgeois state one must seize the institutions that reproduce the dominant class’s thought-patterns.
The three most important of these institutions, the president noted, were the church, the education system and the mass media. Among the iniquitous doctrines with which they poisoned the minds of the masses, he argued, were representative democracy, the division of state powers and alternating government.
Who was Gramsci? He was a leader of the Communist party of Italy who called upon “intellectuals” to produce hegemony over society through control of education; he viewed schools as an apparatus that radicals can use to radicalize the young and turn them into communists. He had a long-term approach, realizing that it may take years of a “long march through institutions” to train a proper Communist.


Americans versed in Obama Studies may recognize the name of Gramsci. He has inspired not just the tyrant of Caracas but also inspires the man in the Oval Office.


Herbert London, president of the highly regarded think-tank, the Hudson Institute, is among those perceptive thinkers who believe Gramsci has an outsized influence on Barack Obama. Indeed, London has called Gramsci “Obama’s Ideological Father” London presciently wrote months ago that the “progeny of Gramsci are alive and well and now reside in the White House” and that “Gramsci’s DNA is in their bloodstream”.


A man who advocated taking advantage of vulnerable children to bring about communism is Obama’s ideological father. Now we may know why not just Chavez, but Barack Obama, is seeking to enroll the young to propel their radical agendas.


Obama may very well envy the caudillo-like powers of Hugo Chavez; not bogged down with pesky constitutional issues or nettlesome parents.


Maybe now we can better appreciate why our President has a rare smile and embrace for Hugo Chavez. They may not be blood brothers, but they may very well be ideological ones.

Page Printed from: at September 06, 2009 – 08:03:55 PM EDT

The War Is On Against The Joker’s Shadow Government

The War Is On Against The Joker’s Shadow Government

September 6th, 2009 Posted By Pat Dollard.


Fox News:

The resignation of White House green jobs adviser Van Jones could ultimately embolden conservatives who are critical of the Obama administration for its reliance on “czars” — the nickname for special advisers who do not need congressional approval.

Jones resigned late Saturday following mounting criticism over his past statements and associations. The tipping point came when it was discovered that he signed a petition in 2004 supporting the “9/11 truther” movement, which believes the Bush administration may have been complicit in the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

But even before his resignation, critics said the controversy surrounding Jones was indicative of the fundamental problem with the administration’s reliance on such advisers.

Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., the first lawmaker to call for Jones’ resignation, said Friday that in light of the controversy Obama should suspend the appointment of additional “czars” until Congress has a chance to examine the background and responsibilities of such individuals, as well as determine the constitutionality of such appointments.

Now that Jones is out of the way, Republicans are turning their fire on czars in general.

Sen. Lamar Alexander, the third-ranking Republican in the Senate, called the czars “an affront to the Constitution” since they are not approved by Congress.

“I don’t think (Jones is) the issue. I think the czars are the issue,” Alexander, R-Tenn., said on “FOX News Sunday.” “We have about two dozen so-called czars — the pay czar, the car czar, all these czars in the White House.”

Republican strategist Ed Rollins said the administration needs to focus on bringing people on board who are competent and not controversial.

“(Jones) got out of there, but the more fundamental thing is there are 31 czars in that White House,” he said.

Democratic strategist Joe Trippi suggested this is only the beginning for administration critics.

“They’re going to keep gunning. I mean, look, this administration has the potential to be FDR or Jimmy Carter, and I think the Republicans are going to do everything they can to make him Jimmy Carter, to create a failed presidency,” he said.

White House aides suggested Sunday that the administration is operating under the assumption that Jones’ resignation will put to rest an unhelpful controversy, at a time when the president needs as much support as he can muster to pass health care reform.

Adviser David Axelrod commended Jones for the decision to step down, saying he showed his “commitment” to his cause by removing himself “as an issue.”

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Jones “understood that he was going to get in the way of the president and ultimately this country moving forward” on clean energy.

“What Van Jones decided was that the agenda of this president was bigger than any one individual,” Gibbs said on ABC’s “This Week.”

But Jones did not go quietly. He issued a defiant statement announcing his departure, accusing critics of mounting a “vicious smear campaign” against him, even as the White House kept its commentary to a minimum.

“They are using lies and distortions to distract and divide,” Jones said.

Trippi and Rollins spoke on CNN’s “State of the Union.” Axelrod spoke on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

The resignation (and coming MSM/left-wing martyrdom) of Van Jones; Obama “thanks him for his service”

The resignation (and coming MSM/left-wing martyrdom) of Van Jones; Obama “thanks him for his service”

By Michelle Malkin  •  September 6, 2009 08:47 AM

Scroll down for updates…

Bay Area Marxist/Truther/Mumia-supporting race hustler-turned-environmental justice guru Van Jones has resigned from his post as Barack Obama’s green jobs czar.

In classic Team Obama style, Jones blames an orchestrated “campaign” of “lies and distortions to distract and divide.” Get ready for the coming media/left-wing martyrdom of Jones. Never mind his own apologies and weasel excuses for his radical views.

The mainstream media, which has ignored criticism and investigative analysis of Jones in the blogosphere/Internet since the spring (see, for example, here, here, here, here) repeats the lie that Fox News Channel’s Glenn Beck targeted Jones only after the czar’s organization, Color of Change, initiated a boycott against Beck at the beginning of August:

Fox News Channel host Glenn Beck repeatedly denounced Jones after a group the adviser co-founded,, led an advertising boycott against Beck’s show to protest his claim that Obama is a racist.

The Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz also disseminated that distortion. Newsbusters’ Noel Sheppard corrected the record last month for the clueless MSM. They persist in ignoring the truth:

Howard Kurtz on Sunday accused Fox News’s Glenn Beck of attacking White House “green czar” Van Jones in response to the advertiser boycott implemented by Color of Change, an advocacy group founded by Jones.

Such a conclusion seems to stem from all the time Beck spent on his program last week chronicling Jones’s activities as well as his background.

What Kurtz conveniently ignored in this installment of CNN’s “Reliable Sources” was that Beck did two reports on Jones prior to the start of Color of Change’s campaign to get companies to end their sponsorship of Beck.

Ironically, this came as Kurtz chided Beck for not sharing all the facts with his viewers…

…Well, here’s a little detail Kurtz neglected to mention: Beck discussed Van Jones’s radical background on July 23

Obama’s new green czar, Van Jones, this is a guy who is a self-avowed communist, and he is in the Obama administration. He says in his book that has been out now for about four months, “The Green Collar Economy,” subtitle: “How One Solution Can Fix Two Big Problems,” that the best way to fight global warming and urban poverty is by creating millions of green jobs.

This guy wasn’t a radical, and then was arrested. He spent six months in jail, came out a communist. Then he was a communist-anarchist radical. And then he decided — he found the eco-movement — and decided green is the new red. He then went on to become a green expert.

A percentage of these jobs, he says, should go to the disadvantaged and to the chronically unemployed. Well, why are they chronically unemployed? “The green economy should not just be about reclaiming thrown- away stuff. It should be about reclaiming thrown-away communities.”

And again on July 28:

BECK: All right. You know, what we’re uncovering here on this program is complex, and it is — it takes a lot of our day just to figure out how to explain it to you. And it’s complex by design. You know, it’s the vast left-wing conspiracy.

The Apollo Alliance combines environmental policy, the green movement, with labor and social justice. Why is that troubling? Maybe it’s the guy behind the curtain making it all happen. He’s a former black nationalist and self-professed communist.

Here is Phil Kerpen. He is the director of policy for Americans for Prosperity.

Phil, how are you, sir?


BECK: Good. Tell me about — tell me a little bit about Apollo and these — I have ACORN and the Black Farmers and the Sierra Club and Greenpeace and AFL-CIO and SEIU. Why are these thee categories — how are they tied to Apollo?

KERPEN: Well, the Apollo Alliance is designed to bring together the elements of organized labor with the community organizers with the green groups, the environmental groups, and to access all of the big foundation money that’s been supportive of those causes in the past. So, it’s kind of — Van Jones, who you mentioned, the self-described communist who is now green jobs czar, he described the Apollo Alliance mission as sort of a grand unified field theory for progressive left causes that ties all these things together.

Instead of compensating for their willful failure to cover Jones’s radicalism by informing their readers about the full story, Obama water-carriers are helping the administration with its own campaign of distortion.

The story is not just about Beck or Fox or us racist conservatives martyring Van Jones.

The story is not just about Jones.

The story is about Adolfo Carrion, Carol Browner, Vivek Kundra, Nancy DeParle, John Holdren, Cass Sunstein, Mark Lloyd, Obama’s education comrades, and the culture of circumvention and corruption that plagues this White House.

The story is the czar explosion, purposeful undermining of congressional oversight, Valerie Jarrett’s promotion of a two-bit Jeremiah Wright in eco-guru’s clothing, and the public vetting of unaccountable Obama appointees that Washington won’t do.

They don’t get it. They’re in the tank. Behind the curve. And slouching towards irrelevance.


Gotta love the lead paragraph of the NYTimes’ story on Jones today:

In a victory for Republicans and the Obama administration’s conservative critics, Van Jones resigned as the White House’s environmental jobs “czar” on Saturday.

Republicans in Washington were bringing up the rear. This was no victory for them.

Let’s rewrite that sentence:

In a victory for public disclosure and transparency over the Obama administration’s secrecy and evasion, the White House’s environmental jobs “czar” resigned on Saturday.

The Times continues:

Appointed as a special adviser for “green jobs” by President Obama, Mr. Jones did not go through the traditional vetting process for administration officials who must be confirmed by the Senate. So it was not until recently that some of Mr. Jones’s past actions received broad airing, including his derogatory statements about Republicans in February and his signature on a 2004 letter suggesting that former President George W. Bush might have knowingly allowed the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to occur in order to use them as a “pre-text to war.”

And we should add an important fact to that paragraph, too:

Appointed as a special adviser for “green jobs” by President Obama, Mr. Jones did not go through the traditional vetting process for administration officials who must be confirmed by the Senate. The New York Times and other mainstream outlets did not want to touch the radical past and inflammatory statements of Mr. Jones reported on the Internet in the spring of 2009, when Mr. Jones’s appointment was first announced. So it was not until recently that some of Mr. Jones’s past actions received broad airing, including his derogatory statements about Republicans in February and his signature on a 2004 letter suggesting that former President George W. Bush might have knowingly allowed the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to occur in order to use them as a “pre-text to war.”


Update: Sen. Lamar Alexander on Fox News Sunday this morning: “He’s not the issue; the czars are the issue.”

The light bulb in the GOP establishment’s head is finally turning on!

Update: Via George Stephanopoulos, here is Robert Gibbs’s “first official response:”

GEORGE: Does the president believe that he is the victim of a smear campaign or does the president think that Jones actions and words merit resignation?

GIBBS: “Well what Van Jones decided was that the agenda of this president was bigger than any one individual. The president thanks Van Jones for his service in the first eight months helping to coordinate renewable energy jobs and lay the foundation for our future economic problem…The president accepted his resignation, but Van Jones as he said in his statement he was going to get in the way of the President.”

GEORGE: So the president doesn’t endorse in any way the things that Van Jones said before but the president doesn’t want him to go?

GIBBS: He doesn’t but he thanks him for his service.”

Making it up in global warming theory

Making it up in global warming theory

By James Lewis

Science Magazine has good news for global warming crowd: The Hockey Stick is back! It was shown to be a fraud before, but now — Shazam! It’s back!

Gee it’s hot today. But… compared to what? That’s the big question in the global warming game. The best ways of measuring world temps is with satellites and weather balloons, using space-age electronics. Which didn’t exist until recently. So if it seems hotter today, we have to guess at the historic baseline for the last 2,000 years.


Or rather, we end up using “baseline surrogates.” Like Arctic ice cores, tree rings, and such.  Politicians do it all the time with job figures and the economy. Look how many jobs we didn’t lose this quarter!  It could have been a lot worse! They just make up a low baseline for comparison. Kids do the same thing when they come home with a bad report card. It could have been a lot worse, Mom! 


Now the trouble with “surrogate baselines” for anything in science is that it takes a long time to figure out what they really mean. Is your cholesterol level really a good “baseline surrogate” for your chances of blowing a gasket down the line? Turns out it isn’t that good. You can have low cholesterol and run into trouble in middle age, or high cholesterol and live to a ripe old age. With longitudinal measures (over long periods of time) we usually find out how good they are after a long time passes, to check the surrogate against real data.  Until then we are just speculating. A huge amount of scientific debate is precisely about that question. It goes on all the time. It’s only in the warming game that temperature surrogates are accepted without question. If they are low enough, so we can “prove” that things have gotten hot, hot.


Science magazine is run by a True Believer in global warming. These people have conquered the commanding political heights in science. They control British medical science, for example, on behalf of the UK Medical Monopoly, which is run by the BritLeft. So you have to assume that in reaching Science magazine you’re always reading the New York Times, and you always have to read for spin and bias. It’s a breakdown of normal science, and it is potentially a disaster. (Arguably a lot of people have already died from politicized science since the rise of the Boomer Left. Viz., Rachel Carson.)


Science magazine is the house organ of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the big money union for science.  At one point they spelled their name AAA$ in their glossy ads. Which was at least honest.


Obama just rewarded his academic buds by doubling the budget of the National Science Foundation, and sending a couple of hundred billion to the climate alarmists. Science magazine has been outright supporting the Democrats for years in its editorial pages. Academic Pell Grants have increased by 25% in just one year. It all goes to the Big U Lobby. Academia is a powerful political lobby, and they lean Hard Left. What we are reading in Science magazine today is not exactly free from that Party Line.


Which makes me wonder why ice cores are considered such reliable measures of global temps in the Arctic two millenia ago. Who knows what was really going on to change a few degrees of melting and freezing, melting and freezing in layer upon layer of ice mixed with dirt and bacteria, week after week over a couple of thousand years? The Arctic is a very complicated, very dynamic place. New glaciers constantly grow and calve off. Moss and bacterial films raise the ice temps underneath. Salinity changes the melting temperature of sea water.  Krakatoa erupts in the Pacific Ocean and blasts a layer of carbon particles around the world, warming the top layers of ice, maybe down to ten centimeters or more; as a result, algae may bloom and melt ice layers where they thrive. The Great Southern Oscillation (El Nino) flips every now and then, sending streams of warm water in different directions around the world. There are whole ecosystems that thrive at very high heat around oceanic vents and use sulfur-based metabolism. A total surprise when they were discovered in the 1990s; it overturned four centuries of biological classification research. Were there similar “extremophile” organisms in the ice during the Maunder Minimum five hundred years ago? Who knows? Those critters are long gone, their populations are constantly adapting to changing conditions. Micro-organisms are amazingly adaptive.


The idea of a perfectly stable “surrogate baseline” for 2,000 years of global temps is dubious in the extreme. And there’s no proof — it’s all dependent on somebody’s computer model, and all computer models are wrong when it comes to the real world. All the banks that went down the tubes in the Market Crash of 2008 were relying on super-duper computer stock market models that turned out to be wrong. Biological and climate models are no better. If anything, they are more primitive.


The burden of proof in real science is always on the proposer. It’s the global warmers who have to prove their claims beyond a shadow of a doubt. Albert Einstein had to prove Special Relativity Theory (via the famous solar eclipse expeditions of 1914). That’s how healthy science always works. A lot of science doesn’t get proven until the proposer is long dead. Max Planck wasn’t recognized until very late in life.


If you flip the burden of proof, every End of the Earth fantasist can have his own “scientific” empire. It’s like flipping the burden of guilt in a criminal trial: Would you please prove your innocence to the satisfaction of a hanging judge? That’s how witchcraft trials work, and Stalinist show trials. So the burden of proof has to be on the proposer.


So today Science mag is telling us that the infamous Hockey Stick curve is back. We have “proof” of amazingly fast warming in the Arctic over the last century, by as much as a whole degree centigrade — compared to that “surrogate” baseline.


Well, color me skeptical.


These are the same climate modelers who have been repeatedly found to be … well, let’s call it wrong … on the evidence they cherry-picked. Just the way Pope Urban VIII was wrong about Galileo; not because they have a bias, you understand. Like the Inquisition, they just had a purely scientific debate with Galileo about the rings of Jupiter.


Today’s scientific popes are not in the Vatican; they are in the White  House, the EPA and NASA. They control the UN and its bizarre forecasts about Global Armageddon any day now, which only UN bureaucrats can solve. That will be hundreds of billions from America; no, let’s go Obama. Make it trillions. Live a little.


James Hansen wants global warming skeptics prosecuted for Crimes Against Humanity, just like Galileo was persecuted by the Holy Inquisition. He’s not the only one, and with Obama those characters are all over DC. Why do you think Dr. “Let’s Kill the Demented” Emanuel has his personal empire at the National Institutes of Health in DC? He speaks for the Imperial Bureaucracy. That’s why he’s destined to become our High Medical Commissar.


It wouldn’t be that science funders have become biased and corrupted by the global warming game, would it? Naaahhh… I mean, that might mean that Swine Flu and Mad Cow have been insanely over-hyped for decades, just for the sake of scare headlines, the political fuel for socialist establishments all over the world. Keep the people good and scared, and promise them anything. That’s how Obama operates. That’s how socialists work in Europe.


But Scientists Are Good and Honest. They aren’t bought by showers of golden coins. Tenure, an endless flow of research grants, academic applause and public notoriety, well, I’m not saying. Scientists are easily seduced by the applause of the media, just like Madonna. Especially scientist-politicians like Hansen at NASA. Shut off his phone line to the media, and he’s ruined.


But today we have a Free Science medium, not controlled by the Left and by Establishment Science.


You’re reading it. Now you can find out the best evidence, follow the honest debates (there are some), and make up your own mind. Science dies without a free media. Just like all the other personal freedoms. Science is just the freedom to think clearly and without coercion. Without freedom, it’s just another version of mental slavery.

Page Printed from: at September 06, 2009 – 05:59:12 PM EDT