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/

Andrew Breitbart, Rousseau, and Righteous Indignation

Strolling through CostCo yesterday waiting for our pizza order, I idly picked up Andrew Breitbart's "'Righteous Indignation' Excuse me while I save the world!'" from the book table. It wasn't on my list of books I wanted to read next, but the rest of the stack was even less interesting, so I opened it up and began thumbing through it, and caught my eye on the introduction

"To my Dad Gerald Breitbart, and Clarence Thomas, two decent men who inspired me to act."

Hmmm. Thomas is my favorited Supreme of the last century +... and he wasn't what I expected to find in Breitbart's book.

Okayyy. Thumbing forward, I glanced over the first couple pages and then saw this on page 3,

"When the Soviet Union disintegrated, the battle simply took a different form. Instead of missiles the new weapon was language and education..."

Ok. Now I'm actually reading, not just glancing,

"... and the international left ahd successfully constructed a global infrastructure to get its message out.
Schools. Newspapers. Network news. Art. Music Film. Television.
For decades the left understood the importance of education, art, and messaging.
Oprah Winfrey gets it. David Geffen gets it. Bono gets it. President Barack Obama gets it. Even Corey Feldman gets it.
But the right doesn't. For decades the right felt the Pentagon and the political class and simple common sense could win the day. They were wrong."

Yeah... ok, this book is bought. Mine. In the cart it went.

I began reading it late last night, and through this morning, not finished yet, but so far it's a rollicking good read. His descriptions of his parents matches mine pretty darn well, down to the stern talk with his Mom at the depths of his college disollution; substitute his college years at Tulane, Louisiana, with my decade at Travelling Rock Band U, West Coast Campus, and there's a lot of fun (and embarrassing) recollection points.

Those superficial points aside, so far it's a very entertaining and accurate summary of events from the last two decades, and very interesting to get the view from the interior of the early internet Drudge Report worlds entrance of the New Media, and the old media's horror at the noisy uninvited guest.

What sealed the deal and prompted me to post this recommendation of the book, was chapter six, 'Breakthrough', which begins with his wondering how it was that things came to be the way they are today. He (correctly) assumes that today's Marxist left didn't just spring fully formed out of the 1960's, so where did the flight from our American roots come from?

He makes a brief essentialized summary of our Founding Father's conception of things, and then nails it with something I very rarely see, and always am thrilled by when I see that someone else see's what I see. From page 107,

"The Founders' realistic view of human nature and call for limited government and individual liberty found its opponent in the philosophy of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and, later, Karl Marx. Rousseau thought that people were naturally good and were corrupted only by the development of the surrounding society (he himself was not naturally good, fathering five children out of wedlock and abandoning them all to orphanages). He also thought that modern society, created as it was to protect property rights and life, had destroyed the natural communism that prevailed before the advent of society."

YES!!! Damn I love to see that in print. Hard to fight an enemy if you don't know who it is, and too often people pin the our problems to developments that came far too late in the game, and then unknowingly buy into aspects of the real problem, in an attempt to fix things [insert most of modern proregressive republicans here]. As I noted in a recent post,

"Modern political philosophy began when Jean Jacque Rousseau declared that he’d traced the origins of injustice to the first man who fenced off property and called it his own, married a woman and started a family. Everything else in political modernity is rooted in that thought, and it is in absolute opposition to what this nation was founded upon, Property Rights and the family."

Back to the book, Breitbart continues,

"To people like Rousseau, the solution to the evils of the current society was the creation of a new "social contract," one based on the "general will." The "general will" didn't need any checks and balances, because it embodied the entire will of the people. And if individuals argued with the general will, they lost.
Karl Marx's ideas picked up where Rousseau's left off. Unlike the Founders or even Rousseau, he didn't care much about human nature - for him, human nature didn't really exist. In fact, he went further: human natue was produced by surrounding society. If human nature was to be changed, it could be changed only by destroying the surrounding society."

Aside from, IMHO, cutting just a little too much slack to Rousseau, and giving too much originality to Marx, I give that a hearty "Yeah Baby!", and a thumbs up recommendation of the rest of the book for anyone looking for a very readable, entertaining and also informative book on where we are today and where the battle needs to be taken in order to save the day.

It's not often that someone gets the essentials like he does, and can pin the start of the rot to Rousseau and Marx, without getting distracted by all the rest. I wonder if maybe because of his background in the entertainment industry, Brietbart wasn't overly impressed with where most libertarians and Ayn Rand Objectivists seem to stop and peg as the first cause of our modern troubles, with Immanuel Kant. As important as ideas are, the imaginative expression of them, trumps their sheer cataloging and explanations of most philosophers, Kant especially.

Kant, it's true, was a game changer in philosophy, after him, Nazi Germany and the killing fields of Communism from the USSR through Red China & Cambodia, were all but garaunteed, but Kant mostly just put tomes worth of intellectual justificaiton under the ideas of Rousseau (not that any of Kant's misosophy is valid or worthwhile, but it's long, and B.S's enough to successfully tell the self impressed whim worshiper exactly what it is they want to hear in order to justify whatever it is that they want to do).

But Kant is about as exciting to read as a manual on how to kill yourself by reading dense, boring, twaddle, and he would have gone nowhere, would never have been recognized, without being able to ride upon the inspiration of Rousseau's siren song of naturalistic self indulgence, posing as intellectualism.

And, skimming ahead, that looks like that's probably more than Brietbart bothers the reader with, looks like he moves on to a very brief sentence or two on Hegel and Marx, the path to Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson and the Proregressives, identifies a couple quick quotes that capture the essentials of them, from Teddy Roosevelt,

"To hell with the Constitution when the people want coal!"

. and Wilson,

"Justly revered as our great constitution is, it could be stripped off and thrown aside like a garment, and the nation would still stand forth clothed in the living vestment of flesh and sinew, warm with the heart-blood of one people, ready to recreate constitutions and laws."

and

"Men as communities are supreme over men as individuals".

, then jumps to Gramsci & the Frankfurt School, but just that one mention was a thrill for me to see in popular print.

Anyway, if you're looking for a good read, and a guide for how you can help take the battle to where it's going to be the most effective, pick up Brietbart's "Righteous Indignation", and enjoy joining in on saving the world.

Ok, going back to reading the book.

Mr. President, blow the bugle, raise the flag, and show the damn picture.

(WARNING: Mothers - your children might be harmed by not having them view the pictures in this post)You'd think that after finally putting the birther issue to rest, President Obama would try to stay away from saying things which call his status as an American into question... but apparently that's not the case.

Bill Chadwell

Asked about the decision Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Carney said:
"The fact of the matter is, as the president described, these are graphic photographs of someone who was shot in the face -- the head, rather," he said. "It is not in our national security interests to allow those images, as has been in the past been the case, to become icons to rally opinion against the United States. The president's number one priority is the safety and security of American citizens at home and Americans abroad. There is no need to release these photographs to establish Osama bin Laden's identity. And he saw no other compelling reason to release them, given the potential for national security risks. And further, because he believes, as he said so clearly, this is not who we are."

   [Click to Outlaws of the Wild West]

Bill Doolin



Seriously? President Obama decided not to release the death photo of osama bin laden because "this is not who we are"?!

Apparently he and his press secretary are equally ignorant of who America is, and has always been. Actually, quite to the contrary, America has always been just the sort of country that blatantly displays not only the images of outlaws having received justice, but the bodies themselves - that is exactly the type of people who we are and who we have always been.
 

Which explains why so many today are trying to pretend that that is the type of people we are not. The proregressives have been trying for over a century to breed it out of us, trying to namby-pambify our tastes, trying to take the violence out of our stories, take the competition out of our games, and remove the concept of justice from our Justice system. But we have got a long, long history of not only displaying the bodies and pictures of dead outlaws, but even of making a family outings of attending a public hangings, not to mention displaying the bodies of the dead miscreants for all to see - young and old alike.



Bonnie & Clyde's last

   

Bonnie & Clyde



Why?

Not to revel in or gloat in the death of anyone, but because we have always been a nation who knew and believed that the wages of sin, is death, and you don't try to hide that, or give any unwarranted dignity to those who have scoffed at the rule of law and taken the lives of others.

 

 As I said to a friend just the other day, it is not reveling in death to exult when a threat to life is extinguished.



Dalton Gang

  

John Dillenger's death scene

 It is not reveling in death to rejoice when an end has been brought to one who has brought about such horrific physical and emotional carnage as this one, and whose very life was lived for the purpose of causing ever so much more.
 

It is no mere catharsis of the flesh to rejoice when an existential threat is removed, but one of the spirit and an Affirmation of life. I pity those who interpose such contrived calculations between their mind and body, and even worse, consider them ethical positions to take.

“But are you any safer than you were last week?” Are you such a utilitarian that only those transactions which produce a measurable value are worth engaging in? Truly, few philosophies offer a more dismal and empty view of life than that of the materialists.

Harvey Logan, aka Curry



George West Musgrave





Justice done is a value in and of itself, and ridiculing or minimizing it is the most childish and cowardly action of all – a flight from the responsibilities of living.



John Dillenger

 You kill the outlaw, and you put on display how ugly, how unglorious, unromantic and meaningless they allowed their lives to become; you do your very best to extract some measure of value from their wasted and worthless life by enabling a lesson to be learned from their deaths.

If you want to do Justice, then your first task is to unwaveringly look at things as they are. It is your responsibility to honestly and deliberately identify the facts and nature of the situation you face, and judge, and act, accordingly. You must look squarely at what you’ve determined that you must do, and at the consequences of your actions. You don’t’ brush anything aside, you don’t look away from what you must face or their consequences, you face up to them and take responsibility for them, and learn from them. And you should know that attempting to avoid the responsibilities of your actions in a misbegotten attempt to shield others, is only going to deprive them of what they should have known, and weaken the strength of what you thought you knew, prior to your turning away from it.
 

So, sorry Mr. President, but that is exactly who we are as Americans.

I have no reason whatsoever to doubt that osama bin laden was killed by our military, and killed nearly next door to the home of Pockeestan's military, and I for one am glad of it.
 

Horse theif

 Mr. President, be an American. Show the picture.

We are not a people who cower with concern over what the reaction of those who hate us will be. Do you want to know how to inflame the sensibilities of the islambies? Show even more concern for their sensibilities. That is how you inflame an aggressor, encourage a bully and invite violence - show concern for, and respect for their sensibilities.

Baby Faced Nelson



John Wesley Hardin

 Mr. President, that is the kind of people who we are not. Very few people in your administration, and very few in the previous administration, seem to understand that.

The Tea Party explosion was, and is, not due to financial considerations or high taxes, it is due to our realizing that our government doesn't have any clue or regard for who the American people actually are, and are too intent on making us into some alien people which proregressives on the left, and the right, have long been so intent on reforming us into being.

We aren't interested. That's not the sort of people we are.

You want to know what other kind of people we also are not? We are also not the sort of people who lower their flag in order to avoid offending the sensibilities of those seeking to kill us. According to Richard Miniter’s 'MASTERMIND': .

"More than that, though, Miniter’s book includes shocking new disclosures about how the US treats its detainees. Miniter tells Big Peace:

I was stunned to learn while researching Mastermind that Guantanamo detainees succeeded in convincing prison officials to no longer raise the American flag anywhere they could see it. Each morning on every U.S. military base around the world, the American flag is raised to a bugle. But in the interests of not offending the detainees, it was stopped at Guantanamo.."

Mr. President, blow the bugle, raise the flag, and show the damn picture.

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.

PETA: Obviously a racist and anti-muslim organization

PETA obviously cares for the health and well being of those of us in Western nations, and assumes we are intelligent enough to appreciate and understand their messages - why do persist in such insulting neglect of the rest of the meat eating world?.

Why do they not show the same care for, and estimate of the intellectual capacities of people in Muslim nations? Is it because they are Muslim? Less predominantly of European descent? Do they feel their culture isn't up to being able to handle their truth?

This sort of blatant racism and anti-Muslim vitriol must not be allowed to continue! Call PETA today and demand that they show the same love, care and attention to their brothers and sisters in Cairo, Damascus and Tehran!

"Naked PETA Protestors Bring Anti-Meat Message to U. City
Brett Blume
May 4, 2011 1:15 PM

Print Share 0 UNIVERSITY CITY, Mo. (KMOX) - Two nearly-naked women drew plenty of attention Wednesday as they stood on a raised platform near a University City intersection.

And that was the idea according to PETA spokesperson Virginia Fort, as they work to spread their message that “Meat is Murder”.

“When people see facts and figures, it doesn’t really catch their eye,” Fort explained to KMOX News as a group of men stood nearby, chatting up the barenaked ladies. “When you see two ladies who are standing on a street corner with nothing on but some markings, it grabs their attention.”"

(ahem)

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….”"

Bin Laden Dead - and yet another use for bacon is found

Wrap the pig in a blanket of it and toss 'em in the ground.

Congratulations to All involved.
Roll the ticker....

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.