Monday, May 26, 2014

Public & Private Partnerships:


The transition from academics to work force training required getting the public, private and religious sectors on board. The Communist Manifesto calls for merger of government with industry. U.S. workforce training calls for merger of government and private industry. (Corporate Fascism). Identical systems.

This happened when President Reagan set up the White House Private Sector Initiative, 734 Jackson Place, N.W., Washington, D.C. Membership listed on The White House letterhead reads like a “Who’s Who” of individuals in government agencies, universities, tax-exempt foundations, non-governmental organizations, business, media, labor unions, and religion.  I have bolded the most  important organizations as they relate to the implementation of  community education under the umbrella of  the community school, run by unelected council, providing ALL services lifelong being implemented in the USA right now.

My underscoring the importance of these two organizations must not leave the reader with the idea that ALL the other persons and organizations are of minor importance.  They are of great importance, but since legislation in Congress and activities in the states ("Georgia Visions," e.g., read HERE and see HERE)  presently calls for the unelected  community school concept I am, in this particular posting, focusing on this issue above all. (Charter schools with their unelected councils are leading the country into  the unelected council form of government)

The two organizations which support this unelective form of government are:
  • National Center for Citizen Involvement 
  • C.S. Mott Foundation, the major force and funder of Community Education going back at least fifty years.  

See research below excerpted from my book the deliberate dumbing down of america for both organizations:

(1) The National Center for Citizen Involvement issued a report entitled The American Volunteer, 1981: Statistics on Volunteers. One revealing statement from the report follows:
Volunteer Population: 92 million, 44% of whom work alone in an informal, unstructured environment on projects of their own choice; the rest of whom work in structured activities.
[Ed. Note: Obviously, the major effort related to volunteerism was—and is—to convince the 44% who are, in effect, “doing their own thing,” to join in the government-private sector “Points of Light” volunteerism partnership initiated by then-President George Bush, as well as President Bill Clinton’s AmeriCorps. That way they will work only on politically correct and government-approved projects.]

(2) The Mott Foundation was one of the funders of The Goodlad Study, see earlier blog post,
 which included the important book Communities and their Schools and recommended for study
 Communist China as the prime example of community schools/community education .

The names of some individuals on the task force follow:
  • William Aramony, president, United Way;
  • William J. Baroody, Jr., president, American Enterprise Institute; 
  • Helen G. Boosalis, mayor,
  • City of Lincoln, Nebraska; 
  • Terence Cardinal Cooke, archbishop of New York; 
  • Governor Pierre S.
  • Dupont, Delaware; 
  • Senator David Durenberger; 
  • Luis A. Ferre, former governor of Puerto Rico;
  • John Gardner, chairman, Independent Sector; 
  • Edward Hill, pastor, Mt. Zion Baptist Church;
  • Michael S. Joyce, executive director, 
  • John M. Olin Foundation; Edward H. Kiernan, president, International Association of Police; 
  • Arthur Levitt, Jr., chairman, American Stock Exchange;
  • Richard W. Lyman, president, Rockefeller Foundation; 
  • Elder Thomas S. Monson, The Mormon Church; 
  • William C. Norris, chairman and CEO, Control Data Corporation; 
  • George Romney, chairman, National Center for Citizen Involvement; 
  • C. William Verity, Jr., chairman, Armco Steel, Inc.; 
  • Jeri J. Winger, first vice president, General Federation of Women’s Clubs; 
  • Thomas H. Wyman, president, CBS, Inc.; and 
  • William S. White, president, C.S. Mott Foundation.

This totally new and un-American concept of partnerships between public and private sector has been readily accepted by our elected officials who ignore its roots in socialism and its implications for the discontinuation of our representative form of government and accountability to the taxpayers. Under the “partnership” process, determining responsibility when something goes wrong is like pinning jello to the wall.

Such a change in government, if presented in clear language to citizens at the polls, would be rejected. However, when implemented gradually, using the Marxist-Hegelian Dialectic, citizens don’t even notice what is happening. The shift is away from elected representatives. In time, after voters have become even more disenchanted with the candidates and election results, fewer and fewer citizens will vote. At that point a highly-respected member of the public will enter the picture to propose a solution to the problem: some sort of compromise toward parliamentary form of government found in socialist democracies which will be acceptable to Americans unfamiliar with the protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

One says to oneself, confidently, “This will never happen.” Look around you. What do you see? Site-based management in your local schools, transferring decision-making, traditionally exercised by elected school boards, to politically correct appointees and the creation of unelected task forces at all government levels; proposals to “separate school and state” which make no mention of governmental and social structure consequences—efforts to have government money (taxes) pay for services delivered by private religious or homeschools, etc., with no public representation. There can be no accountability to the taxpayers under a system so alien to the United States’ form of representative government.

How clean, neat and tidy. Wholesale destruction of an entire, wonderful system of government
without firing a shot.

As a U.S. Department of Education liaison with The White House during the early days of
this initiative this writer inquired of one of President Reagan’s political appointees whether this
initiative, was not corporate fascism; a politically incorrect question that resulted in someone
else replacing me as Liaison with The White House.