Echoes of History Repeating Itself, "This is Cassandra calling: will you accept the charges?"

I've just been looking over some notes from books I read some while back, and they seem to have more than a little relevance to us today, one snippet in particular, from a fellow named Woodworth Clum, who tried to sound the alarm about someone who reminds me more than a little bit of our UMSL co-professor, Don Giljum; see if you can see the resemblance,

" I have some of Miss Flynn's books on my desk. Let me quote from her "Sabotage":

"I advocate sabotage. I am not going to attempt to justify sabotage on any moral ground. If the workers consider sabotage is necessary—that in itself makes sabotage moral. Its necessity is its excuse for existence.""

Doesn't that sound like something Giljum and his commie UMKC co-professor, Judy Ancel would say?
How about with this bit that our pamphlet writing friend found particularly alarming, regarding another professor, very similar to our own Ancel,

Ajax abducting Cassandra, as she'd foreseen

"" ...I want no mere puttering reforms," writes Professor Calhoun. "If the radicals will stick for ultimates and confiscation, I'll stay with them. One of the things that will hasten the revolution is to spread the notion that it can come soon."

What do you think of that—you American mothers and fathers who are sending your boys and girls to our American colleges ?
How does it impress you business men who own property ? I know your first answer.
You say that if Professor Calhoun really wrote such stuff—and really believes it—he should be expelled from the college where he is teaching.
But if you were convinced that other professors, ex-professors and college graduates, representative of leading educational institutions in America, are preaching much the same doctrine, and are members of a society that has assumed leadership in endeavoring to co-ordinate the campaign of the Russian Soviets, the I. W. W.'s, the Communists and practically all the other extreme radicals in this country, what would you do about it?"

Like most good questions, it still applies today... what would YOU do about it? I ask, because as you might have guessed, this pamphlet wasn't written recently, or even back amidst the turbulent days of the 1960's, but during 'the good ol' days' of 1920, and apparently whatever it was that our grand parents did about his warnings, it wasn't enough, was it? When this man wrote his little pamphlet in warning to his fellows of the dangers facing them, he was warning them about the dangers he feared that their grand children - that'd be us - might see realized, if they did nothing about what he so clearly saw looming up around them.

I wonder whether or not your grandchildren will even have the option of doing nothing?

What dangers? You didn't really ask that, did you?

The freedom and liberty they had in 1920, though already reduced from their parents, is almost unimaginable to us. At that time no one dared to tell you that you could be fined $90,000 fine - or $4,000,000, which ever comes last - for your children selling more than $500 dollars worth of bunny rabbits. No one in 1920 would dream of fining Girl Scouts for selling cookies in their front yards. You didn't need a permit to build a shed in your back yard, or to seek permission for painting your home. You didn't need permission, permits and authorizations to start a business, or need to have a fine knowledge of labor law to hire someone to work for you in your business, or seek government clearance for paying them a wage commensurate with the value you judged that their efforts would be worth, or permission from a damn government agency with a name right out of Atlas Shrugged of National Labor Relations Board, to build a factory in whichever state you felt was best.

Neither did they have to worry about two or three times convicted pedophiles, free to roam about looking for a bigger thrill, perhaps at the risk or your child's life. They didn't have to worry about twisted perverts being in positions of power over them and their children's education, didn't have to think about the possibility of teachers instructing their grade school children on the 'simple facts' of how to put on a condom or the ins and outs of homosexual acts. Didn't have to be concerned about their children being taught that America was a racist country or that it didn't deserve to exist.

And the idea that you would have to apply for a permit to own or carry a firearm, let alone wait for the government to approve it... would have drawn howls of fury. And probably a volley of shots.
In short, in the America of 1920, you were still an American, and didn't face the looming threat of being deemed a criminal for choosing not to purchase a government approved health insurance policy (if you don't have enough political pull, that is).

They did however, have to worry about their college age children being exposed to those ideas which would bring those very policies down upon us today, if they went unchallenged in their day... but ...because they didn't worry too much then, we do have to worry about such things, and worse, being visited upon our very much younger children today.

There's a phrase that's grown out of what Edmund Burke tried to warn his generation of, that Britain's abuse of power would bring about revolution and ruin, he said

" When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."

Through the ages and degradation of language which, that phrase has come down to us altered and paraphrased into variations of,

"Evil requires nothing more than for good men to stand by and do nothing."

or was it from the even more pithy phrase from the narrator of an early movie of "War and Peace", or a mixture of each, who declares

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"

In either case, men from our past have sent us warnings, and it matters little who said what or when, but in our failing to heed the meaning of what they had to say, we bring history around for another tragic repetition, lapping us once again. Whatever the case, the truth of that phrase, or the equally apocryphal one attributed to George Washington,

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

, the truth of all of these phrases is right here with us today, just look around you to see them in action.

Our Cassandra, Woodworth Clum continued on for an amazingly brief 26 pages, still though, his warnings fell on mostly deaf ears in his time (how about in our time?),

"And now that some of the names have been identified for you,—read that Calhoun letter over again. Does it not stir something in your very soul? Am I right when I say there is a job ahead for all of us who love America?
However, that Calhoun letter is merely the introduction to this tale of pink professors, and their fellow-workers in the effort to undo America.
Among such thorough American professors who are doing a heroic work at this time are Professor T. N. Carver of the Department of Economics, Harvard University, and Professor Laurence LaiTghlin, Emeritus Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago. Professor Carver has written a very clear preface to Brasol's "Socialism versus Civilization" published by Seribners and which should be included in every American library. Professor Laughlin has recently published ten pamphlets, exposing not only the fallacy of socialism but also presenting some very excellent suggestions concerning present industrial difficulties.
When we say that parents of boys and girls attending school in America should ascertain what sort of economics their children are being taught, it is in the hope that support and encouragement will be given to those educators who are endeavoring to develop sound American economics,—just as much as to expose the teaching of economic fallacy."

Back then there was still some memory of economics being a sensible science, the socialists hadn't yet transformed it into the 'dismal science' one we have today. In 1920, you could still expect to exchange your bank notes, even the new Federal Reserve notes, for gold or silver - they represented real money, unlike the inflated specie of today. Back then, a twenty dollar bill, and an ounce of gold, were basically interchangeable, and both would buy you something of value, such as a good suit. Whereas today, a twenty dollar bill might buy you a tie (if you don't mind getting a cheap one)... but oddly enough, an ounce of gold can still be exchanged for something of value, such as a good suit.

Ever wonder why that is?

A good economics text, one written prior to 1920, could tell you exactly why, or reading our founders writings could tell you, and warn you, of what could cause such a thing. And a careful reading of them would enable you to see that the principle involved, inflation - retaining something of real substance, while increasing the quantity and ease of attaining materials to exchange for that same amount of substance - would apply as easily to matters of finance, as to matters of knowledge, and such inflation, whether monetary or intellectual, brings disastrous results.

What to do about it? Real, truthful, solutions rarely change... all that usually changes are the extents to which we try to avoid or confuse the issues surrounding them. Our Cassandra calls out to us again from 1920,

"THE REMEDY

We, who love America and believe in her institutions, must do a little studying. We must learn over again the full meaning of the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States.
We must brush up on the basic reasons for our economic system and we must talk these things with our children, so that they will understand.
Those of us who have children in the high schools and colleges must talk with them concerning the doctrines that are advocated by their teachers. We have demonstrated in America throughout a hundred and thirty years that our economic system is the greatest incentive to advancement in civilization, but we must know some of the reasons and be able to convey those reasons to others.
And we must perfect in each state and in each county organizations of right-minded Americans who are willing to devote a little of their thought and time and money to saving America from those who would bring about a social revolution.
The bomb-throwing anarchist and bullet-shooting radical will never retard America. The big job is with the pink variety,—whose poison is injected quietly and where we least suspect it.
What are you going to do about it? Or are you too busy?"

Good question and good advice, what is your answer? Are you willing to accept the charges from your grand children?

What are you going to do about it? Or are you too busy too? Lincoln put it to our grand parent's grand parents this way, that,

"...It is for us the living rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."

Bullets and bombs are not the most dangerous threat we face - the elimination of the ideas our forefathers fought for, is. Just how much time is it that you think that "Government of the people, by the people and for the people" has left on this earth if you stand around and do nothing?

Driving to the Little Red Schoolhouse in a Big Red Cadillac

Does being an American, mean something? Other than simply stamping your birth certificate with the GPS coordinates of your place of birth I mean. Does being an American mean something? If so, isn't it reasonable to assume that there must be some sets of ideas or actions which should be considered to be pro-American? And if that's true, doesn't it also stand to reason that the converse must be true as well, that there must be some opposing ideas which could and should be considered to be Anti-American? Yeah, I think so too... but several Professors employed right here in Missouri's publicly funded universities, don't seem to think so... how else to explain how they can offer a free, unopposed and unchallenged platform to a members of the Communist Party of America? Not only co-teacher and CPUSA member, union organizer Don Giljum, but also this creature, Tony Pecinovsky, who in a newly released video on Breitbart's Big Government, not only berates the American flag as a symbol of racism, but,

"Pecinovsky mentions how his and the Democrat’s anti-American agenda is closely tied to who holds sway in the White House and Congress. He is not talking revolution, but a taking over of America from within, with what he identifies as a “larger movement.” That’s today’s Left - in practice not theory...."

All of which receives little more than an uncomfortable shrug from university administrators - not because of what was preached in our classrooms, but on it being unexpectedly publicized. And strangely enough, at least to those who have difficulty tracing cause and effect, one of our nations publicly owned nationalized corporations General Motors, doesn't seem to think any of this is such a big deal either, they seem to think that their logo of "An Amerikan Revolution" works just fine with praising the Communist Party of Red China.

It's hard to imagine that any of these people think "American" can actually mean something, or anti-American either. In an article in the Washington Times, GM, which you, me and Uncle Sam have a 33% 'ownership' in, has recently helped to fund and sponsor a film promoting the Communist Party of Red China.

"In late 2010, General Motors agreed to sponsor a propaganda film celebrating the 90th anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The CCP made film titled (translated to English) “The Birth of a Party” or “The Great Achievement of Founding the Party" is set to premiere all over the Communist nation on June 15 reported China AutoWeb last September. "

What had once been known as something very near to being the corporate symbol of America, is now promoting the antithesis to all things American, Communist Red China. Is there any way in which the two are compatible?

How can anyone be expected to know? In light of all this, the question seems doubly worth pursuing, what ideas are, and are not, compatible with the idea of being an American? What was it that was central to the idea of being an American at the beginning of America, what was it that united 13 British colonies into becoming these States united? They united around an idea which they saw as being imperiled, and it was in support of that idea that the people of those colonies came together and brought America into being. That being the case, I'd say that by definition, those who oppose, denounce and refute that idea, the idea which gave birth to America, would be good candidates for describing as Anti-American... wouldn't you?

What was that idea?

John Adams, in answer to a similar question, cited the spark which lit the American Revolution as being that moment when James Otis rose "like a flame of fire!" as he thundered against the Writs of Assistance, "Then and there the child Independence was born", and the central point of his speech was Britain's attack upon that very idea we're looking for, the core of which John Adams later recalled as,,

"When general councils and deliberations commenced, the objects could be no other than the mutual defense and security of every individual for his life, his liberty, and his property. To suppose them to have surrendered these in any other way than by equal rules and general consent was to suppose them idiots or madmen whose acts were never binding. To suppose them surprised by fraud or compelled by force into any other compact, such fraud and such force could confer no obligation. Every man had a right to trample it underfoot whenever he pleased. In short, he asserted these rights to be derived only from nature and the Author of nature; that they were inherent, inalienable, and indefeasible by any laws, pacts, contracts, covenants, or stipulations which man could devise. These principles and these rights were wrought into the English constitution as fundamental laws. "

When the colonists perceived there to be an attack upon that idea, that of life, liberty and property, the necessary requirements of man's pursuit of happiness, that was what united the 13 British colonies into becoming the United States of America. That idea formed the central idea of the Declaration of Independence, and the purpose of writing the Constitution of the United States of America, was to create a government best suited to protecting them, powerful enough to secure them, and at the same time restrain that government from abusing them through a carefully contrived system of careful checks and balances establishing a secure foundation for the rule of law in upholding our individual rights and their root in our rights of property.

To attack that idea is to attack the core of what it means to be an American, yet we see it happening around us every day. Professors Ancel and Giljum, and many, many others not only attack, but revile this central principle, out load and every day. Many of them openly now flout their membership in the Communist Party, whose central idea is the abolition of Property Rights, Marx himself said that the whole of his philosophy could be reduced to that very issue,

"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property. "

This isn't simply a debate over 'economic' policy, it's not a fiscal policy, but one for fundamental transformation, of either creation or destruction, of America. Or as John Adams said in 'Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States',

"The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If "Thou shalt not covet," and "Thou shalt not steal," were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free."

It really shouldn't take much imagination to see what's coming round the bend when ideas like these are being taught, promoted or chuckled at as being fit for material as T-Shirt logo's - it's like playing tennis with hand grenades, these are truly dangerous ideas that are being batted about. It is not hate mongering or an attack on wackademic freedom for us to point out ,and denounce University Professors - employees of the people of the 24th State - when they are making statements which are fundamentally opposed to the very idea which brought their nation into being! It isn't unreasonable to point out that their positions are fundamentally opposed to the positions which are central to the constitution of the very state they are employed by! See Article 1, Section 2,

"Section 2. That all constitutional government is intended to promote the general welfare of the people; that all persons have a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and the enjoyment of the gains of their own industry; that all persons are created equal and are entitled to equal rights and opportunity under the law; that to give security to these things is the principal office of government, and that when government does not confer this security, it fails in its chief design. "

The question of what is American, and what is Anti-American are questions that should not be shied away from, but asked, pointedly and often, precisely because we are being told so often that to question anyone's 'patriotism' is to be a hate monger, or that showing your support for Property Rights and Capitalism (originally known as the Free Market) makes you a greedy hater of the poor, or that insisting that our Constitution be respected and followed, insisting that our government not 'do good' by doing what is bad, is to invite being told from all sides that you are depraved, naive or just plain silly.

Doubtless I won't get much agreement on that point, but surely we can all agree, I hope, that book burning is a bad thing, but as bad as it is when books are physically being burned, it seems to me that to figuratively burn people in public, to ridicule and vilify them for questioning what the lords of political correctness have asserted as being unquestionable... might be nearly as bad... I mean seriously... where would those books come from if the people who wrote them were never allowed to ask the questions which led to potentially offensive books being written?

Isn't that sort of like an intellectual pre-emptive strike? It seems as if such strident remarks as "anti-academic freedom" or "anti-labor rights" are being used to silence anyone who dares show signs of being angered over professors promoting violence and Communist platforms in our classrooms... while counting on the very rights our system enshrines, to protect them as they attack it.
How else do you square Ancel's statement in class, about property rights,

"…all labor education materials are uncopyrighted, and to be shared. We do not believe, for the most part, in intellectual property rights. That’s one of the principles of labor education. We share."

, with her views and with the views of her defenders in the chancellors office and from others such as those at LaborNotes.org against those who are exposing her communist views,

"YouTube eventually removed Breitbart’s videos, which appeared to violate YouTube guidelines. They were posted without permission of those pictured and apparently are the property of the university."

They are quite willing to use our understanding of Individual Rights, which world wide are only respected in societies which have some degree of free market affiliation, when it suits them, and denounce them when it doesn't. They use and respect rights only in so far as they can be used as weapons against property rights and those who would defend them, just as the likes of the ACLU continually uses 'defences' of our Bill of Rights as weapons against our society, using free speech against free speech (limiting free speech supposedly in favor of free speech), the right to self defence used to limit our ability to defend ourselves (attacks on the 2nd amendment), freedom of association against freedom of association (affirmative action, card check union membership, etc) and so on.

Now, in one of the unkindest cuts of them all, the nationalized corporation General Motors... which is bankrolled by you and me to the tune of 33% ownership (!), has sponsored a propaganda celebration of the Communist Party of Red China...

"It is naive to believe any business would put moral considerations before profits. Even the "don’t be evil" Google enters a "devil’s pact" with Verizon when the price is right. So it comes as no big surprise that GM has made Cadillac the proud "chief business partner" of an upcoming film dedicated to the 90th anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is called "Birth of a Party."
Made by China Film Group as a kind of prequel to last year’s "Birth of a Republic," the film bears a title that can be literally translated as "The Great Achievement of Founding the Party." It will tell the events leading to the birth of the CCP in 1921 after Russia’s October Revolution in 1917. Yet, what the audiences will see is not only politics, but a lot of stars; for instance, Tang, Wei, who played the leading female role in the award-winning "Lust, Caution," will play young Mao, Zedong’s lover in the film."

There is nothing naive about this, it is cynical, corrosive, and seeing as though it is in support of a political system which explicitly seeks the destruction of property rights (and which has killed millions of its own people because of that) in general and of the United States of America in particular, we are being chauffeur driven in a big red Cadillac to a life of servitude in the little red schoolhouse - this is a direct threat to your life, your liberty and your pursuit of happiness.

Don't back down on this. These are attacks on the very nature and core of what it means to be an American, and I can think of little else that could be more properly called Anti-American, than that. Being an American requires more than just being born here, in fact that is among the least of the terms attributes. It is among the oldest, and truest of truisms, that America is made up of immigrants, there is no race or creed that makes you an American, and traditionally people who choose to (legally) become Americans, not only can become an American, but typically become even more American than many or most of those who were born here.
Becoming, and being, an American, is a matter of holding those ideals that are fundamentally American, those being the ideas that transformed this section of the North American continent into the place where people from around the world have come to in order to live under those ideals. America has been a place that is known the world round as a beacon of liberty and prosperity because of those ideas, not because of it's GPS co-ordinates or because of some genetic marker found amongst the people born here. This is America, not because of our locale, but because these ideas have been given a home here, and it is where people come to have the opportunity to live under these American ideals.

Conversely, to be anti-American requires nothing more than that you oppose those same ideals which makes one an American, and if you are a supporter of socialism or communism... while you may very well be a swell person (and I include several of my friends and relatives in this, who are no less friends and relatives because of it), you are holding ideas that are fundamentally anti-American.

Are you really ok with that?

Karl Marx:

"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property. "

John Adams:,

"The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence."

You decide.

UMSL & UMKC: Professing the Poisoning of Minds - FIRE THEM!

I’ve got a question for you. Think of the people you’ve known in life who’ve proven to be dishonest; when you’ve caught them, um, red handed, did they answer your charges or try to divert attention and weasel out of it?

Here’s another question, say you were part owner in a restaurant, if you walked into the kitchen and found one of the cooks teaching the staff and customers, how to mix poison into the vichyssoise, would you let them continue? Or would you fire them and remove all trace of their entire gastric plan (‘Fun with cyanide’) from the menu? If they and their friends attempted to shout you down by saying that you were interfering with their culinary freedom, would you even allow them to finish their sentence before bodily pitching them out the door?

Then you are definitely not in a position of authority in the University of Missouri system. After reviewing the full tapes of which the video below shows a mere contextual sampling of, they had this to say:

“...We have finally completed viewing the videos originating at the University of Missouri-Kansas City (UMKC) from the UMSL course Introduction to Labor Studies. The excerpts that were made public showing the University of Missouri-St. Louis (UMSL) instructor Don Giljum and students as well as the UMKC instructor and students were definitely taken out of context, with their meaning highly distorted through splicing and editing from different times within a class period and across multiple class periods.

 As stated previously, our campus supports academic freedom, civility, diversity, open discourse and the pursuit of knowledge…

Tom George, Chancellor
 Glen Cope, Provost”

I have this to say: Fire Them.

Read the article by Philip Christofanelli “‘Introduction to Labor Studies’ – My First-Hand Account”, he not only reviewed this course, but sat through the entire thing himself, and see if you can fathom any defense for the judgment and actions of Judy Ancel and Don Giljum.

While being a communist is not a crime, using a classroom as a means of proselytizing communist ideas and tactics, discussing the finer points of intimidation, sabotage and violence under the cover of a legitimate class (how ‘labor relations’ ever became a legitimate college class is another matter) which our students attend on our taxpayer dime, should at the very least be an academic crime.

Like the other dishonest people you’ve known in the past, UMSL and UMKC are attempting to divert attention to ‘academic freedom’ in order to weasel out of what they’ve been caught Red handed allowing on their campuses. The real issue has to do with the fact that Judy Ancel is at the very least a supporter of an ideology dedicated to overthrowing the government of the United States of America (see my previous post), that she, along with Don Giljum (an avowed Communist and union thug), supports the use of violence to accomplish their goals, and that far from keeping those their personal views, they both boldly brought them into the classroom, made them the center of the course, and even actually brought a communist party activist into class and gave him an unchallenged platform to spew his party line from for two hours in front of your kids.

In the name of academic freedom? Fire Them!

This was not a simple case of misjudgment, Giljum lives what they taught in this course and Ancel has long sought to subvert the interests of the United States of America, even to the point of supporting the Seattle WTO riots and denouncing the AFL-CIO’s tepid assistance to American interests during the cold war, simply because that assistance supported the United States of America.

These people are avowed enemies of the free market, who are intent on finding creative new ways for labor thugs to interfere with the operations of, and even to shut down businesses, in order to advance their ideal of ‘workers of the world unite’. Both of these professors of political perversion are actively supporting and furthering the aims of a political organization dedicated to overthrowing our constitution, our way of life and of wiping out freedom entirely – have you forgotten the history of the Communist party?!

They hate this nation and everything it stands for, and they are teaching that hatred to our students. Fire Them!

Should other professors on the University of Missouri campuses fear for their positions?

Damn right they should, if they not only agree with, but engage in spreading their ideas under the guise of taxpayer supported classrooms, they should fear being fired on the spot. And if the taxpayers had in charge responsible people in positions of authority on campus, unlike the provost, that is exactly what would happen.

That has not happened. The responsible people in both universities have reviewed the tapes and found there to be nothing wrong.

Remove this ‘labor relations’ course from the course offerings of all colleges in the University of Missouri system. Fire Judy Ancel. Fire Don Giljum. Fire Provost Herd. Fire Provost Cope. Fire Chancellor George.

Before hiring any new professors, it'd be a good idea to check and see whether or not their goals include wanting to overthrow the free market, wipe out property rights and train their students in the methods of tactical intimidation and violence in order to expand the power of the Communist party

Am I overreacting? Take a look at just a couple snippets from Phillip's account of their class:

“Another assignment was to evaluate unions’ political strategy “supporting its political friends and defeating its political enemies.” The syllabus said: “Based upon both its economic support and campaign support, [labor] has given to primarily Democratic and some Republicans has Labor benefited legislatively sufficiently to continue this political approach or should it seek to establish its own political party as suggested by Yates in Why Unions Matter.” (Try, for a moment, to forgive the professors’ egregious syntax.)
That assignment was due the week following the class in which Prof. Giljum had discussed at length his membership in the Communist Party. He said he had joined because, in his words, “the American Communist Party was essentially the only party political group that was seriously focusing exclusively on the working class and labor issues and the rights of workers.” He added that one of the political goals of the Communist Party was to “recapture that party [i.e. the Democratic Party] and have it merge with ours.”
Prof. Giljum then introduced Tony Pecinovsky, a local organizer for the Communist Party, who proceeded to speak to us for two hours about the beliefs of the Communist Party and the benefits of membership. That’s right–the Communist Party was allowed two hours of publicly subsidized class time to recruit. Thank you, Missouri taxpayers!”

This wasn’t surreptitious whispering in off hours between a professor and a favored student or two, this was the main thrust of the class, broadcast across the entire state!

Fire Them!


There is no excuse for this, there is no justification for this. It would be wrong for a Free Market oriented professor to provide a similarly unbalanced class and would also be grounds for termination, but at least it would be promoting freedom, not it’s eradication under collectivist totalitarian aims. There is no place in a political science class for this type of behavior. As Phillip points out,

“I have attended many political science classes, taught by some of the best political scientists in the country, at Washington University. Labeling complex pieces of legislation as “anti-worker attacks,” and using political cartoons as lecture notes, is not political science; it is partisan politics and pure propaganda. Credible political scientists are supposed to be able to tell the difference; these professors did not and perhaps could not.”

UMKC states they have reviewed the full class course. If they did, and saw nothing wrong with any of this, then the entire UMKC staff, and that of UMSL as well, who reviewed this, and found no problem, have at least saved us the need of reviewing their competence – they’ve already shown us that they are a significant part of the problem.

Fire Provost Herd! Fire Provost Cope! Fire Chancellor George!

Again, from Philip’s post on Big Government,

“So let’s be clear: Prof. Giljum was teaching tactics which are, by his own admission, illegal and destructive because, in his view, the ends justify the means. Is it really the position of the University of Missouri that this sort of instruction is appropriate?”

Yes. It is. Fire them!

“In fact, I believe, they are the real opponents of academic freedom. Prof. Ancel wants to make classes like hers “part of every school’s curriculum, certainly in our universities.” That kind of indoctrination is directly contrary to the mission of a university.”
“In fact, Prof. Ancel said: “All labor education materials are uncopyrighted and to be shared. We do not believe for the most part in intellectual property rights. That’s one of the principles of labor education: we share.” Well, Prof. Ancel, by that standard, I guess I should get an A.”

If there’s to be any hope of getting this nation back again, we have got to put an end to the scum who’ve been deliberately corrupting and mentally disfiguring our kids.

Certainly this isn't reflective of all, or maybe not even most teachers or professors, but before trusting your students (and tax dollars) to any teachers or university system, it'd be a good idea to check and see whether or not their goals include wanting to overthrow the free market, wipe out property rights and invite active Communist Party operatives in to their class in order to give them a platform to help train their students in methods of using tactical intimidation and violence in order to shut down businesses, terrorize their owners and expand the power of the Communist party.

We’re sure living up to our motto of being the “Show Me State”, aren’t we? Lets try and reclaim at least a little bit of respect, Fire Them!

If this is happening in Missouri, as boldly and fearlessly as it is... imagine what is happening in your state - at your expense - http://biggovernment.com/pchristofanelli/2011/05/09/introduction-to-labor-studies-my-first-hand-account/

UMKC's Judy Ancel: Professor of Kumbaya - via violence, criminal behavior, destruction of property and undermining America at home and abroad. Can't you feel the love?

Ever wonder where people come up with the comments they make? Regarding the recent videos illustrating our University of Missouri System of Communist professors professing the tactics of violence and intimidation in our college classrooms, one commenter, William, said,

"I am shocked at the assertions that Giljun is a communist or has influenced anyone in our membership to use violence in our collective bargaining units. I can categorically deny that this has ever been the case. "

This fascinates the heck out of me. The local CBS online news page on this matter did publish one of my earlier comments, but has kept my direct reply to William in perpetual moderation. Later on I'll elaborate on his curious curiosity deficit and apparently Google-impaired status, but I don't need to repeat the several links I gave there regarding UMSL’s Prof. emeritus of Union thuggery, Don Giljum, since Patch Adams has already provided a much more comprehensive one stop post which firmly establishes his communist creds, so we'll just move along for now - plenty more low hanging fruit to pick.

I'll come back to it at the end of this post though, because I do want to get at that curiosity question, take a look at how people can possibly even ask such questions, let alone claim such a thing, because it's intriguing to me... sure, I know, it does feel sort of like slowing to gawk while passing some unfortunate intellectual roadkill... but you just gotta look and ask, how did these people’s faculty of curiosity and comprehension die, and who killed it? How long has the corpse been rotting in their heads and why has no one alerted authorities before now? Near as I can tell, the disease has been obscured, or at least papered over with a blizzard of diploma’s, fiendish devices which largely succeed in presenting the brain dead as smart, perky and employable young people. Truly insidious.

To get a better look at that, first we need to take a closer look at our radical professors like Judy Ancel, because you see, it’s not just commenter's who seem unable to compare how what they read and hear does, or doesn’t comport with that info out in the real world; it almost seems as if the entire reporting and editorial staff of several metropolitan newspaper’s, the Kansas City Star for instance, who refers to Ancel as

"A reliable source on labor issues"

Reliable... for an objective view? Wouldn't that require evidence and a history fairly and objectively examining both sides of the issues, and not showing favoritism to one or the other? I easily found link after link of Professor Ancel extolling the virtues of labor unions, communist or quasi communist thought... but somehow I missed the equal number of her explaining the virtues of productive businessmen and the need for employees to respect their place of business... can someone show me them? Or might it be more likely these bozo's are looking for an opinion that agrees with what they already believe? Would someone who believed 'the opposite' speak admiringly of rioting in the streets, the massive destruction of property and disruption of lives? See how 'opposite' her views are from what her comments in these videos are, when you get to the end of this post. These folks are just as detached from the real world as those who read them, and so it seems that the facts need to be made a bit more in their face. Otherwise they get away with bits like this love letter in the Star openly sympathizing with Prof Ancel and her UMKC Provost Gail Hackett, who characterizes her as just a well meaning, peace loving, and overall cuddly instructor:

"Ancel, who directs UMKC’s Institute for Labor Studies, issued a statement Friday.

“My students and I are outraged at Mr. Breitbart’s invasion of our classroom and his attempts to intimidate us and my colleagues at the university,” she wrote.

Later, Ancel said she was speaking for herself, not the university.

Ancel said comments made by the instructors over several days were snipped, moved and pasted together so they appeared to endorse violence.

“This is in fact the opposite of the position both instructors took in class,” Ancel said."

An opposite position she says. Hmmm… well lets look at just how opposite that position really is, shall we? because, really, if you’ve bothered to do any googling on Professor Kumbaya, you'll find it hard not to notice that such a statement is truly bizarre, that is if you think Communism is something to be concerned about (if you don't, have a look at Patch's History of Communism links). Charitably, these are the utterings of fools and liars, but worse still, they are eagerly and uncritically swallowed by many people, a great many who were presumably employed in their positions in the hopes that they should know better than to look at only one side of the story, but who for some reason... don't - that, or else they do know better, and just flat out lie about it.

Lets have a look, and then you decide.

Before getting to just how un-opposite Professor Ancel is, maybe we ought to establish the fact that her alignment with radical views and sympathetic enthusiasm for violent tactics, is in no way shape or form a one time slip of the lip nor is hers a lone wolf position, by taking a look at some of her friends and co-workers.

Taking a look at some of the folks around Prof. Ancel

One of her fellow professors and oft time companion on the communist rubber chicken circuit, is Frederic S. Lee, Professor of Economics at University of Missouri-Kansas City, USA, he who a couple years ago put together the fabulously restrained, open minded and objective,
Radical Economics and Labour - Essays inspired by the IWW Centennial

The opening paragraph has this catchy little description,

" "To celebrate the centenary of the most radical union in North America - The Industrial Workers of the World - this collection examines radical economics and the labor movement in the 20th Century. The union advocates direct action to raise wages and increase job control, and it envisions the eventual abolition of capitalism and the wage system through the general strike."

Do you understand what this means? (William? You awake? ) 'Direct action' means forcibly preventing a business from operating, either by preventing those willing to work, from working, or by in some other way forcibly preventing the business from conducting their business.

To see what one example of 'Direct action' has meant to the IWW itself, and which is what the term 'May Day Celebration' commemorates, recall that,

"International Workers' Day is the commemoration of the 1886 Haymarket Massacre in Chicago, when, after an unknown person threw a dynamite bomb at police as they dispersed a public meeting, Chicago police fired on workers during a general strike for the eight hour workday, killing several demonstrators and resulting in the deaths of several police officers, largely from friendly fire"

What do you suppose the odds are that that unknown person who threw a dynamite bomb at police way back then... was with the radicals? Do you really think the IWW, 'the most radical union in North America', looks at the meaning of radicals, all that much differently today? If you're unsure, have a look at the pictures throughout this post and see if they give you any further clues. Or you can just review a more current instance of co-instructor Don Giljum’s mirthful recounting of his groups terrorizing of a CEO into wearing body armor on the floor of his own factory. These sorts of activities are not possible to practice without employing force – directly via thuggery, or indirectly via Govt regulation.

And what do they mean by "it envisions the eventual abolition of capitalism and the wage system "? Long before Marx popularized the term 'capitalism', as a pejorative description for our economic system, it was called by a term which describes exactly what it is - the free market - freedom - do you get that? William?

Freedom, everyone's freedom, is what they mean to attack. What do you suppose they mean to replace the 'wage system' with? Paying you for what you're worth? No, that's what the wage system does, what they mean to do is abolish individual wages altogether - do none of you ever listen to what these people are saying?! You may be all happy to reap the 'benefit' of their assaults in your seemingly increased wages, but how about when these same people prevent you from buying light bulbs for your homes, or prevent you from selling girl scout cookies on your front lawn? These are all part and parcel with the same view, the very same unrestrained use of force upon anyone who is inconvenient to the plans they have for you, anyone and anything which prevents them from enforcing a collective 'equality' upon us all.

Do you really think you're going to be allowed (allowed'!?) to opt out?!

Force, far from force being the opposite intent of their plans, is in fact the very motivation and purpose of them.

Patch Adams, who clued me in to most of the links in this post, couldn’t resist directing my attention to the ultimate display of their hypocrisy and corruption:

“Oddly enough this socialist wants you to pay $130 to read his paper.... fat chance.”
Incredible, isn’t it?

Fat chance indeed. But this is who they are and what they mean. Take a look again at the video above, it contains one of the latest disclosures (and there are many more to come) of how Ancel and Giljum discuss before the class how to use 'direct action' tactics to bankrupt a business, and then banter about the trials and tribulations of Giljum's automatic coffee machine that won't work correctly for him (I'll bet he'd be much happier with a CEO worker-release slave tending to them -you'll see what I mean in a minute), and of Ancel's anguish at driving to work in the morning, while eating cereal, when her car lurched and her cell phone pitched into the cereal bowl.

Aw Shucks! Isn't that cute?

Do you suppose these enthusiasts for "Heterodox" economics, or "Libertarian Communism" (I kid you not, look through Professor Lee's links) have bothered to give a single thought to where these toys they're so casually enjoy consuming from, come from? Do they really believe such high tech materials, whose manufacturing process requires highly coordinated logistics spanning the globe, somehow 'just appear in stores' as a result of 'labor'? Do you suppose they even give it a second thought? Do they give a first thought to what might happen if their 'direct action' tactics should put businesses out of business? Do they consider what will happen to the jobs their labor 'brothers and sisters' will lose when their 'direct action' tactics have shut their businesses down?

Fat Chance.

And don't fool yourself about Professor Ancel's regard for the rule of law, she favors only the persuasion of force that favors her personal views, with little or no regard for anyone else's priorities, civilly or nationally - if an issue comes between the interests of Americans, and that of other nationalities, hands down, she favors the other: In one of the more mild examples of this, you'll find that "Judy Ancel Doesn't Think ID Theft by Illegals is a 'Crime'",

""Judy Ancel, director of the University of Missouri-Kansas City's Institute for Labor Studies, said it's wrong to compare immigrant workers to criminals who take out fraudulent credit cards.

"Identity theft is when you steal someone's identity in order to profit from them," she said. "The crime they (illegal immigrants with fake identities) have committed is working under somebody else's Social Security number. The attempt to criminalize immigration is the wrong path. ... It's just going to make a bunch of families suffer."

So Judy is under the impression that the felon, aka Illegal Alien, that has already broken federal law for being in the U.S. ILLEGALLY doesn't commit the same crime by stealing someone's I.D. to work as someone who is here LEGALLY and steals credit card information because they don't PROFIT by it?

Hmmm.. lets see how that makes sense..

It' Doesn't!!"

No it doesn't make sense, Fat Chance indeed.

Same story from a different perspective, take a look at where Professor's Lee and Ancel participated in a conference which has a familiar theme running through it... see if you can spot it in this labour history for IWW, by Professor Lee: Labour History News - Radical Economics

Conference on Radical Economics in the 20th Century: Radical Economics and the Labor Movement
Date: 15 - 17 September 2005

"Proposals on any aspect of the theme are invited. Possible topics include:

1. the role of radical economics in the education of workers such as radical economics in labor newspapers, the teaching of radical economics in labor schools, party schools, and colleagues and universities, in labor education programs, and in labor history courses
2. the role of radical economics in trade union publications, such as the role of radical economics in IWW publications on the general strike or the machine and unemployment
3. the role of radical economics in trade union strike, bargaining, and organizing activities
4. radical economics and the new society or the economics in radical utopian literature
5. radical economics, syndicalism, Guild Socialism, and the IWW
6. past and present development of radical economic theory
7. recent developments in radical economics and their relevance to the radical labor movement and to rank-and-filers
8. radical economics and the radical labor and radical student movements in the 20th Century"

Do you suppose that they are using the word 'radical' here to denote feelings of kind hearted generosity and good will to all mankind? Do you think Lee is advocating anything there that has to do with freedom for all? After all the reading I've been doing on him, I'm inclined to believe that he's far more interested in securing the freedom of those who fall into a group he favors - muggers - than anyone else. Too harsh? I sure don't think so. But judge for yourself. See if this from Lee's bio tips you off as to where his roots are at, here he recounts how his grandfather had a position dictating agricultural policy in FDR's administration, and of his growing interest in… radical notions:

"… Consequently, for my father, the 1930s was not a time of desperation, but being a child growing up in an affluent home where important figures from the Roosevelt Administration visited and discussed pressing economic and social issues. However, the Great Depression did catch his attention and he became interested in Marxism (and nearly joined the Communist Party at one time). He acquired many of the writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin; and his parents contributed to the collection by, for example, giving my father for his 20th birthday in 1944 Lenin’s State and Revolution. [1] "

Ma Lee’s background was much the same,

"… her father grew up politically aware and in circa 1916 acquired Marx’s three volumes of Capital which were displayed prominently on his book shelves as I was growing up. [2] My grandfather had another significant feature: he obtained a Ph.D. in political science in 1921 from Columbia University. [3] My mother was a politically active, progressive Democrat. So between my mother and father I grew up in a house where progressive politics and civil and workers rights were considered the norm and the book shelves were filled with … Collected Economic Papers… and … the works of Marx, and the books of other heterodox economists."

Which set the tone for little Frederic,

"The next two years were significant in my embryonic development as a heterodox economist. In the summer of 1973 I got my first economic publication as a letter in a local Marxist-Leninist paper critically evaluating the role of cartels in the definition of imperialism as the highest form of capitalism"

...I entered Rutgers as a Post Keynesian-heterodox economist with an overriding interest in developing a Post Keynesian-heterodox microeconomic theory that would completely replace neoclassical microeconomic theory; and I left it, thanks to my professors, infinitely more capable of achieving that goal."

Another fine product of 'higher education' hit the streets, and the Missouri University system reaps the benefits. Professor Lee’s book of edited essays, were taken from this conference below, which both he and Judy Ancel had leadership positions in, which lists the,

"PURPOSE OF THE CONFERENCE
2005 will be the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Industrial Workers of the World, the most radical union in North America. To commemorate the anniversary, the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) is hosting the conference on radical economics. The Conference theme is the role of radical economics in the labor movement in the United States and around the world. Radical economics includes but is not restricted to anarchism, Marxism, syndicalism, radical Institutionalism, left-wing Keynesianism, and plain old-fashion radical economics.
Conference supported by the IWW and the Union for Radical Economics

How about that 'plain old-fashion radical economics' has a nice 'down home' ring to it, don't it? First up to bat on the speakers roster, was of course;

Dr. Frederic S. Lee University of Missouri-Kansas City

Isn't it nice to have your state run and funded university system prominently represented with 'plain old-fashion radical economics'? And lets not overlook the fact that also included on the roster with our professors, was this oh-so exciting sounding talk, called:

"Peter Donohue (PBI Associates/Portland State University), “Let a Hundred Flowers Bloom: Union Organizing on Commission”

Ever heard that phrase before? 'Let a hundred flowers bloom'? If you’re not familiar with the quotation, it is from our former Whitehouse Communications director's favorite political philosopher, the one and only Chairmen Mao, and what it means is,

“... to refer to alleged deliberate attempts to flush out dissidents by encouraging them to show themselves as critical of the regime, before wiping them out”

How’s that for radical? And so when we come to UMKC's very own Professor Ancel’s portion, we see another nifty title,

“Judy Ancel (University of Missouri-Kansas City), “The Regime Change 2004 Project”

Don’t you just wonder what that ‘Regime Change’ refers to? I'll just bet it’s radical. We also find her heading up the list of confirmed speakers for a May Day celebration,

"Judy Ancel - Director, Institute for Labor Studies, on the History of May Day"
with May Day noted as:

"May Day is an international worker holiday that originated in the USA 130 years ago. Over the years it came to be mainly observed in other lands. More recently, it has been revived in this country by immigrant workers.

This May Day American working people face our most serious challenges in living memory. GIs have been sent off to fight three wars abroad while we face a class war here at home.

But recently the working class has started to pull ourselves together, fighting back against the attacks by employers and the politicians they retain. The mass mobilizations in defense of union rights in Wisconsin inspired many others to do the same. The recent We Are One actions involved hundreds of thousands of participants in virtually every community across the land."

Do you recall those orderly and peaceful folks in Wisconsin recently? Is that the way you remember how a mob of SEIU protesters were arrested for bringing their thuggish demeanor to the House of Representatives? Did you feel at peace with their using Nazi references to adorn the American Flag with political bumper stickers, using it as a ponchos? That's what was on display in Madison, or did you find it nice the way they sprayed graffiti on the Capital building? Slept in their own liter in the halls? Broke in windows and doors in the Capital building? Threatened lawmakers with violence and even death? Brought children from school to provide propaganda pictures for the media?

If those tactics have a familiar ring to them, it's because those are the type of 'peaceful' actions which Professor Ancel advocates, and I don't know about you, but THAT is very much opposite to what I think of when I think of peaceful, Pro-American behavior.

Is this the sort of position which UMKC provost Gail Hackett had in mind when she said,

"This is in fact the opposite of the position both instructors took in class"

Hmm?

Professor Ancel has been quite the popular speaker at events such as these, for well over a decade, I can't tell you how many places she's popped up at over the years chatting with radical communist oriented groups - and I'm sure that she's been careful to deliver only purely 'historical narratives' to, carefully couched in peaceful, law abiding language, funny thing is though, while I found hundreds of links with her associating with one radical organization or cause after another... I wasn't finding much pro-business, pro-responsible behavior associations in her history. Does that sound like a fair minded, balanced, looking out for your child's interests sort of professor to you? Or does that sound more like a professor who is intent on professing a single minded ideology to a captured audience of impressionable young minds?

'opposite of the position both instructors took in class' u-huh, sure, sure... 'opposite' statements indeed. Such as this one, from Industrial Workers of the World -Radical Economics and the Labor Movement, whose description sheet summarizes it as:

"Other presentations addressed the need to take economics out of the academy. Judy Ancel reported on a project which toured hard hit communities throughout the Midwest in the months leading up to the recent elections, educating workers about the connections between trade policy and job losses. Labor consultant Peter Donohue argued that unions need to adopt a very different approach to organizing, as the traditional staff-driven model (whatever one thinks of its meager results) is simply unaffordable. IWW General Executive Board member Jim Crutchfield stressed the need for accessible materials to bring radical critiques and visions for a non-capitalist economics to ordinary workers… And Charles Reitz and Steve Spartan discussed their work raising issues of economic inequality and its consequences to students and in diversity training workshops.

They suggested that the best way to teach critical economics is to begin with concrete illustrations of wealth and inequality in our society. Among the examples they discussed was Send a CEO to Jail Day, in which students were assigned research questions demonstrating that it would be cheaper to house corporate chieftains in jail that to pay the social cost of allowing them to continue to exploit. "

Cheaper to jail corporate executives than to allow them freedom.
Roll that one around the brain pan for a moment.

Let it sink in.

What sort of 'economy' do you suppose such 'peaceful' ideas is going to produce? Think there's going to be a big call for workers to work in factories whose executives are housed in jail? Wonder if they'd get a work release option?

But here’s an event where we can see our Professor Judy really shine out her true colors, the entire paper is a gem, don't miss her discussions of labor unions proper foreign policy (yeah, foreign policy) and how best to effect regime change (kind of hints at the later paper, eh?) you really should read it all, in fact, the inspiring pictures you've been admiring in this post, came from what she described as an inspiring success, the WTO Riots in Seattle, November, 1999. I especially like how she opens it up, and I'm curious to see how many peaceful, nostalgic memories it brings up for you:

Ancel, Judy. 2000. "On Building an International Solidarity Movement: A Response to Kim Scipes." from the Labor Studies Journal, Vol. 25, No. 2, Summer: 26-35. [Posted in English on LabourNet Germany

“On Building an International Solidarity Movement
by Judy Ancel
February 1, 2000

“Late last year in the streets of Seattle, thousands of grass roots activists from many different movements and countries came together with tens of thousands of union members, mobilized by their unions and the AFL-CIO. Collectively they succeeded in derailing the meeting of the WTO and the U.S. government's international trade agenda. The sheer size and scope of the mobilizations in Seattle, the unity, and the high level of coordination inspired a sense of the immense power of people organized. Many union members I talked to felt like they were present at the rebirth of a movement. One African participant verbalized something that I think was on many people's minds. He said that this was mainly a U.S. protest, but to succeed in stopping the corporate global agenda, we will have to make this a world-wide movement.

Since 1993, I have been working at the grassroots level on such a movement through a local fair trade coalition and a non-profit organization called the Cross Border Network. In that work, I have met many committed activists and workers from both the U.S. and Mexico who are rethinking and reworking historical relationships and attitudes about one another. “

In case you've forgotten those nostalgic scenes of peaceful activism that so typefied the WTO riots... er... demonstrations, look again at the pictures on this page, and here's a refresher of what occured:

"... Seattle residents asked why such violence and destruction had occurred in their normally peaceful city. Early reports suggested that property damage was $2.5 million (Flores, 1999). More recently, downtown businesses claim they lost $20 million in sales and property damage (Brunner, 2000). One ransacked Starbuck store incurred $15,000 in damages, mostly due to broken windows and looted merchandise (Fryer, 2000). The Mayor and Police Chief faced strong attacks for being unprepared and naïve about the tactics demonstrators would employ, and for not securing enough money beforehand to cover the overall costs for hosting the WTO Ministerials. "

Unprepared and naive about the tactics demonstrators would employ... hmmm... sorta sounds like violence IS a useful tactic, eh? Is it possible that UMKC Provost Gail Hackett is being naive as well about the tactics she assume's here nicey-nice professor of Kumbaya Judy Ancel might employ? Seeing as though she though three days of violent rioting was a rousing success? Take a look at these pictures again and see if they help you to imagine the equally peaceful instructions she is preaching to your students. Daily. At UMKC. On your dime.

And here's another look into the well and looong established thought processes of Professor Kumbaya in regards to... wait for it...

Unions roll in foreign policy, from the same paper:

"...Certainly Kirkland wasn't the only one responsible for the failings of the AFL-CIO's foreign policy. Many who are in leadership today participated. John Sweeney sat of the board of all four of the free labor institutes (Moody) as did others who serve on the AFL-CIO Executive Council, and many at all levels endorsed what they knew of the policy and supported the Cold War agenda of selecting good unions and bad unions on the basis of their friendliness to the U.S. and its corporations. But it's time to acknowledge that those policies did untold harm to workers in other countries and seriously damaged the reputation of American labor."

Did you get that? Read the paper and she makes it very explicit, she vehemently opposed the AFL-CIO leadership because their practices developed during the Cold War, our decades long battle with Communist USSR, in which the fate of the world, and perhaps nuclear destruction, hung in the balance - Ancel was dissatisfied, to say the least, that it tended to side with, and aid, the interests of the (gasp!) United States of America.

And that is what she objected to most of all. Read her own words.

"...This link between business unionism and the AFL-CIO's foreign policy is the skeleton in the closet, the reality the AFL-CIO must confront before it can ensure that the old policy doesn't resurface. Meany made a deal with the devil because he believed that his organization and members would benefit by being citizens of the dominant world power...
...
It would be a good start if the AFL-CIO came clean, opened its records to the public, and acknowledged the role they played during the Cold War. It would help too for them to acknowledge that current U.S. foreign policy is imperialist - in its foreign ventures as well as well as its trade deals - so that it can begin to construct an independent international policy based on the interests of workers wherever they may be. "

That, ladies and gents, is who you've got heading up a dept in Missouri's University system. Oh, I'm sorry, did I make 'distoring cuts' there? No, and you know what? You can go and verify it for your self.

Assuming you aren't a crude nationalist, that is, assuming that you think that being an American has a meaning apart from simply being born here, if being an American, means holding those ideals which we were formed from, and whose acceptance have traditionally turned millions of immigrants into Americans, constitutional government, the rule of law, individual rights, directed towards life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, if those can be taken as defining characteristics of being American, then it is an inescapable conclusion that Professor Ancel, and most of her cronies, are anti-American to their very cores. And more, they are sympathetic, willing and even eager, to use force, intimidation and violence to break the laws, damage property and even cause bodily harm in order to further their hateful and extremist, radical, communistic agenda.

Self imposed ignorant enablers, like William at the top of this post, are willfully blind to their behavior. Nevertheless, these are the people who are teaching your children, on your dime, in the University of Missouri system, what and how to think and they are advising them on how they too can oppose and shut down everything American that they can.

How do minds wind up this way? Well, the most common way is through taking college classes from professors who profess a single, radical, extremely ideological point of view, a point of view focused upon material benefits, by means of glorified violence that’s feeding enviously upon 'the rich' with a slavering consumptive greed that mere money grubbers can only hope to admire from a distance.

That's enough HTML for one post, I'll leave the post-mortem for for next post.

Portrait of a modern Professor: Don Giljum

I hate to interrupt the jubilation over bin laden's death, but there are still terrorists in the world, and unfortunately our friend Adam Sharp, of SharpElbows.net, had personally demonstrated upon himself, the truth of what I said in my last post: Freedom of choice or the Fist of Force.

Don Giljum, the communist union thug and co-teacher of a Labor Relations class at UMSL, had the choice of responding to a question with words, or by answering it with violence – being a communist union thug, he of course chose to practice what he teaches your children daily – violence. Fittingly, he not only threw a punch at Adam, but destroyed his property (the two do go together), taking and smashing his video camera.

Adam, always prepared, pulled out his back up cam and caught a fine portrait of a modern Professor of communist ideology. Go to BigGovernment.com and have a look:

"UMSL Lecturer Don Giljum Assaults Citizen Journalist, Police Confiscate Video“…Giljum and the other man parted ways and he started to head back to his classroom.
I asked, ”Are You Don Giljum?” as he approached. ”Yes,” he responded, coming towards me. A press pass hanging around my neck was cleary visible. He walked up to me and stood in front of my camera with his back to the classroom door. I asked “When was the last time you committed industrial sabotage, or threatened the use of industrial sabotage to gain leverage in a Union negotiation?” “Never, said Giljum, “that was all taken out of context.”He asked me my name and I told him. He then asked me who I was with. I told himSharpElbows.Net. “Are you the one who did the internet hatchet job on me?” he asked.  “I didn’t see any hatchet job, just your words on video” I said. That’s when Giljum appeared to lose it!He grabbed my camera, breaking it off from the mono-pod upon which it was mounted. The mono-pod fell to the ground behind me and the camera slammed to the floor, tumbling under a desk on the side of the hall. He then tried to punch me. Luckily, I was able to quickly mostly slip Giljum’s punch, stepping back away from him. Once I felt I was at a safe distance, I pulled my back-up video camera out of my pocket and was able to capture a small piece of video….”"

Freedom of Choice or the Fist of Force: On May Day recall that Ideas Have Consequences

Ideas Have Consequences
When you believe that people have Free Will, the consequences are that you believe that people have the ability, and the responsibility, to make their own choices. The type of government which follows from that is one that believes that the purpose of the State is to serve the people and protect their Individual Rights to engage in their own life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

When you believe that people do not have free will, then you necessarily believe that people’s lives are determined by outside factors in their environment, and that the purpose of government is to, as Rousseau said, ‘force them to be free’, and the consequences of that were and still are, the reign of terror of the French Revolution, the final solution of the Nazi’s, the slaughter houses of communist Russia and Red China, and the killing fields of Pol Pot’s Cambodia.

The consequences of believing in free will are that you believe in Individual Rights, that people make their own choices and have a right to retain the consequences of their choices and efforts – that means Property Rights and a written constitution to define and delimit the powers of government, and a Bill of Rights to secure the freedom of the people; written law written in accordance with Natural Law.

The consequences of not believing in free will, are that you believe that Individual Rights are ‘Nonsense on stilts’, that people’s lives are determined by outside events, and that the purpose of the government is to have all the power necessary to nudge, push, shape and re-form their lives as the best minds think is best. That means that the individual has no purpose or meaning except to serve the collective, and law has no meaning or purpose but to serve the needs of the state.

When you believe in Free Will, the consequences in Education are that you believe the purpose of Education is to help the person to understand and shape their own lives, and to develop their own self-control so as to be true liberation in virtue and morality, so as to live a life worth living.

When you deny free will, the consequences in education are that you believe the purpose of education is to force feed the beliefs that are deemed useful to the state, an individuals will is something to be destroyed, individuality is to be feared and stamped and students are to be indoctrinated in order to become servants of the state.

When you believe in Free Will, the consequences are an economy that is based upon the Free Market, that people are free to make their own choices, and have a right to retain the fruits of their labor.

When you deny free will, the consequences are a state controlled economy, massive regulatory agencies which will necessarily determine what choices are ok for you to make, and what and how much of anything, if anything, you need to have in order to serve the greater good.

Ultimately it means that a society which recognizes Free Will, believes in the power of persuasion, while a society which denies free will, believes in exercising the persuasion of power.

Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Charles Yancey, said,

“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.”

If you educate your children to believe that they have the ability, and responsibility, to make their own choices, and that the choices they make are critical to their lives and happiness, you may have a society worth living in.

If you educate your children to believe in materialism, that they are biological machines to be kept and maintained by the state, you will be ruled by force and you will be forced ‘to be free’ under the thumb of the state, or in the freedom of the grave.

Freedom of choice or the fist of Force: that is your choice to make. They are irreconcilable opposites. This May Day you should recall that the consequences of choosing any of the features of socialism, communism or any other style of state controlled life, will be the fist of socialism slammed into any face that dissents or dares to question what experts have determined to be best for the greater good.

Freedom or Force, it’s your choice, and there will be consequences.