On C-Span right now is a replay of a European Parliament debate concerning revelations of alleged U.S. spying on Europeans. The so-called leaks, courtesy of Snowden, have made the issue of US-EU differences in law concerning data collection and analysis an issue. So what is the solution to this dilemma? Drum roll please....
Harmonization [bringing international laws, rules, regulations, into accordance with one another--whether in law enforcement or education or food or land use. See my post Globalization is the Standardization of Systems...Rosa]
It turns out that there was already a negotiation in progress. The
U.S. and EU have been been in negotiation on an agreement. Notice that the date on this announcement is May 30. Snowden got press attention on May 20. It should be noted that even though Snowden's press conference occurred before the USTR announcement, even the discussions on agreements like this one occur a long, long time before any public announcement was made.
Always with these events that the press makes a big deal about, if you just wait a week or two, the real purpose will always be revealed if you are watching.
EU Response to NSA Data Collection Program
June 11, 2013
Program ID 313369-1
Category: International Telecasts
USTR and Trade Policy Staff - Hearings on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) Agreement.
I suspect that Edward Snowden was a "throwaway" character - set up for exactly the purpose of the leak as the required incentive to approve the harmonization agreement with the EU.
READ MORE OF VICKY DAVIS' POSTS AT HER WEBSITE
Hey, just because they got a 20 year headstart on us doesn't mean we can't win this. Here's an example for everyone across the nation. As you know, regional plans are infesting every part of our country. If it's not ONE BAY AREA, it's the POWER of 32, or PLAN ET, or HORIZON 2035. In New Hampshire it's called GRANITE STATE FUTURE. Their slogan is 'Granite State Future is YOUR future.' The consultants and government lackeys who are pushing the regionalization of New England are using HUD grants to direct local government to create the 'future we want' as it's called by the UN (Rio + 20).
Here's where the story gets good.
A dedicated group of free people in New Hampshire fought back against Granite State Future. They showed up at Delphi meetings and anti-Delphi'd them. They video'd every public meeting. They created email lists. They organized debates. They flyered. They created a website.
What kind of website? A website that makes you sit up and take notice. A mirror website of Granite State Future--the official website of the invading government force. A website that tells the truth about Granite State Future. The Resistance website is Granite State Futures--with an 's' at the end. Great idea, right? What's their slogan? 'Granite State Future is HUD's Future.'
So the 'S'- at- the- end -Resistance -website, Granite State Futures, got some feedback from the state government. The state wasn't happy about the fact that a mirror site was up on the web informing citizens about UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development and the motives and tactics being used to implement regional governance over New Hampshire. In fact, the state was so unhappy about this that the government made a complaint that their copyright had been infringed. They tried to get Granite State Futures removed from the internet. TWICE.
You're not surprised. What does that tell you? Anyway, you can imagine that this might have intimidated the heroes of our story. But it didn't. They fought back. They knew that the government doesn't have copyrights over their public domain information. Why? Because we, the public, paid for it and we own it.
So what happened? The government filed a complaint with the server hosting the Resistance website, and the server investigated and refused to remove the Resistance site, Granite State Futures. This is BIG. This is IMPORTANT. You are entitled to your free speech rights. USE THEM. FIGHT BACK. If you sit silent WE WILL LOSE. Join with others. Use GRANITE STATE FUTURES as a template for your action.
READ THEIR STORY HERE ON THEIR WEBSITE.
Sustainable Tyranny in NH - GSF Fights Back - http://eepurl.com/A4LIr
HAVE YOU WONDERED ABOUT THE 'GHOST CITIES' IN CHINA? YOU'RE LOOKING AT SMART GROWTH, CHINA-STYLE. COMING TO YOUR TOWN SOON--OR IS IT THERE ALREADY? THE CHINESE HAVE IT EASY--THEY CAN JUST DEMOLISH YOUR CITY AND MOVE YOU FORCIBLY INTO SMART GROWTH. WAIT FOR IT. OR FIGHT IT NOW.
ttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/16/world/asia/chinas-great-uprooting-moving-250-million-into-cities.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0BEJING China is pushing ahead with a sweeping plan to move 250 million
rural residents into newly constructed towns and cities over the next dozen
years a transformative event that could set off a new wave of growth or
saddle the country with problems for generations to come.
The government, often by fiat, is replacing small rural homes with high-rises,
paving over vast swaths of farmland and drastically altering the lives of rural
dwellers. So large is the scale that the number of brand-new Chinese city
dwellers will approach the total urban population of the United States in
a country already bursting with megacities. The costs of this top-down approach can be steep. In one survey by Landesa in 2011, 43 percent of Chinese villagers said government officials had taken or tried to take their land. That is up from 29 percent in a 2008 survey. “In a lot of cases in China, urbanization is the process of local government driving farmers into buildings while grabbing their land,” said Li Dun, a professor of public policy at Tsinghua University in Beijing. Farmers are often unwilling to leave the land because of the lack of job
opportunities in the new towns. Working in a factory is sometimes an option, but most jobs are far from the newly built towns. And even if farmers do get jobs in factories, most lose them when they hit age 45 or 50, since employers generally want younger, nimbler workers.
“For old people like us, there’s nothing to do anymore,” said He Shifang, 45, a farmer from the city of Ankang in Shaanxi
Province who was relocated from her family’s farm in the mountains. “Up in the mountains we worked all the time. We had pigs and chickens. Here we just sit around and people play mah-jongg.” On the ground, however, the new wave of urbanization is well under way. Almost every province has large-scale programs to move farmers into housing towers, with the farmers’ plots then given to corporations or municipalities to manage. Efforts have been made to improve the attractiveness of urban life, but the farmers caught up in the programs typically have no choice but to leave their land. Top-down efforts to quickly transform entire societies have often come to grief, and urbanization has already proven one of the most wrenching changes in China’s 35 years of economic transition. Land disputes account for thousands of protests each year, including dozens of cases in recent years in which people have set themselves aflame rather than relocate. READ THE REST OF THE NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE
This looks so cool, doesn't it? The hearts in the 'O's, the baby being held by her hip daddy---how could we disagree with the slogan: 'The Common Good Trumps Individual Self-Interest'?This image is from an article in Nation of Change by Jim Hightower, a populist Texan writer. Hightower's message is that it takes a village, more or less. He adds in a few homilies but his main commentary is that in order to make a society we have to be thinking about others and make it possible for them to excel. That's great, isn't it? There is a difference between society and government. Our government was created to protect our individual rights. Through the government we are able to build roads and bring water to our homes, and protect ourselves against those who would do us harm both as individuals and as a nation. We have a three branch government designed to keep any one branch (legislative, judicial, or executive) from gaining too much power. Society, on the other hand, is not codified. Its rules and laws are of custom, and are not enforced by government. This is why the censorship laws have largely disappeared, and why the right to marry (a legal contract) is being disputed. These issues are social issues, not issues that government should be involved in. The government is founded on recourse to damages--whether to your person or to your property. The confusion that Progressives have is that they are trying to get the government to control and dictate their social good. Their Common Good is their 'vision' of the common good whether you like it or not. Now, if you're a member of a church and the church makes a rule that you don't like, you can leave the church. We have only to look at centuries of European rulership to see the consequences of having the church be the government. Our nation was founded on religious freedom in order to avoid the misery of religious war. Progressives are gripped with a sort of religious fervor in their effort to mandate giving up individual rights for the common good. The Common Good is in the eye of the beholder and is not delineated. It's a sort of 'known' in the way that 'being good' in a religious sense is 'known.' But if you're in a Muslim country, being good might mean keeping your hair covered, praying 5 times a day, and being submissive to your husband. Communitarianism is dependent on social pressure in order to function. That pressure can make you do things that you don't like, that you don't agree with, that violate your principles, because you feel shame or embarrassment or you might be ostracized. This kind of behavior is actually a primitivist concept. It is a sort of tribal attitude that does not allow for individuals to go their own way and answer to their own 'vision.' Self interest is not wrong. Individualism is mental, physical, and spiritual freedom. Each individual determines how he or she would like to contribute to the productivity of the larger social structure. But the idea that your concerns for yourself and your family would be TRUMPED by the 'common good' is a dangerous one. That slogan subsumes the individual into the greater whole and reinforces a mentality that finds comfort in totalitarianism.If you work with a group do it as an individual, and always stay true to your individual values. Be careful not to lose yourself in the group.Awareness is the first step in the Resistance. Be aware of your own actions and your desire to impose your version of the 'common good' on others.
When I saw the name of the brave man who released the truth about the US government's search of our communications without a warrant I was struck by the connection to Joseph Heller's classic book Catch-22. The 1961 novel is about the insanity and absurdity of war and the men who run the bureaucracy that keeps it going. The term 'Catch-22' has filtered into our language to mean being trapped in a situation from which there is no escape, even when we see the damage it's doing to us.
Edward Snowden is the ex-CIA defense contractor working for Booz Allen who blew the whistle on the extent of data collection by the government. He is now seeking asylum outside of the US in an attempt to avoid life imprisonment for the release of government secrets. The absurdity of this is fully apparent: he will go to prison for releasing the secret documents showing that our government is secretly obtaining and reviewing our secret documents and communications. This is a Catch-22 situation.
There is a character in the novel Catch-22 named Snowden. Snowden dies near the end of the book and symbolizes the descent of man to the condition of animals who live and die without reason. The basis of Catch-22 is that the war is crazy and you can only be discharged from it if you are medically discharged as being 'crazy.' But the catch, Catch-22, is that if you try to get a discharge for being crazy you must be sane, because only a sane man would try to get out of the war. Therefore you cannot be released from duty. Do you see the parallels to the present day Snowden and our national ideal versus our nation's reality?
We have been forced into a condition where, as Senator Lindsey Graham said the other day, anyone who objects to losing their privacy rights must be guilty of a criminal act against the government, because if they were not guilty they would not object. Catch-22.
Edward Snowden, the whistleblower, has put the United States government in a position where it must acknowledge that our security is not secure, and it is not there to keep you safe. The purpose of national security is to spy on you. If you object to this violation of your constitutional rights you are a suspect. Will we allow the United States governance machine to sacrifice Snowden to its dehumanizing, technological system? Will this Snowden, like the Snowden in the novel, be killed as a symbol of the collapse of humanity?
CATCH-22 is AGENDA 21
Our friend, the esteemed researcher and whistleblower, Charlotte Iserbyt, corresponds with concerned educators and others from across the world. Here is an email that she received from a correspondent in Bosnia:
A little information on education reform (restructuring) in ex-Yugoslavia countries and especially in Bosnia:
OBE is being implemented here for more than 7 years now. They started to teach teacher at the master degree studies (that is opened at about the same time) how to implement it. I have been enrolled there but couldn't learn what they want because of all socialistic indoctrination taking place and all reform-things being teach... They introduce new curriculum based on achieving the predetermined outcomes which are starting to be less and less academical - just as Charlotte speaks about. When the control-staff from government come to a class to see how a teacher works, they only look if the teacher and his students achieved the predetermined outcomes for a class and does he has evidences of that achievement.
They have a whole-semester class on Backward design at mentioned master study for teacher and they use translated book called Understanding by Design (UbD) by Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe. That is the method for implementing OBE via Skinner's Mastery Learning...
We had here a similar thing like Carnegie Units before - but now they are introducing Mastery Learning with OBE! In Serbia, a new law, starting in 2014., will force teacher to prepare students for testing and pilot testing will be introduced as well as student being recycled until passed the test or declared learning disabled and sent to be trained for whatever job working in which he will be contributing the state. That is teaching to the test!
They also introduce the backward planning of lessons, that is planning from the outcomes to the materials necessary... We also have a laptop per each child and one per teacher in almost every classroom. All teachers have been in seminars to learn how to use them. Exactly as Charlotte and others told: OBE workforce training with Mastery learning and via computers and teachers teaching to the test!
At our seminars, we are being told that books will be replaced and that subject and grades will be eliminated, or at least everyone will get an 'A' but at a different time (ML)! Also, an individualized learning plan will be created for each student... Each student now has a dossier and teachers are being told to make student portfolios as well! We have also a computer data base of their grades only - for now...
They are now developing the process of integration of subjects into different areas and they are telling us to correlate each lesson from different subjects with other subjects - holistic approach!
When I read Charlotte's book and work of other great Americans that are on this mailing list, I could not believed that everything that is happening here nowadays already happened in USA and the results are known! It has been like I was "being hit by a train". Not many parents and teachers know about this reform and its goals and when I explain in to some of them, I get only ignorant opposition.
This is just a small portion of what is happening to our education today.
"SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
Intelligence Report, Spring 2013, Issue Number: 149
Active ‘Patriot’ Groups in the United States in 2012
The Intelligence Project identified 1,360 anti-government “Patriot” groups that were active in 2012.
Generally, Patriot groups define themselves as opposed to the “New World Order,” engage in groundless conspiracy theorizing, or advocate or adhere to extreme antigovernment doctrines. Listing here does not imply that the groups themselves advocate or engage in violence or other criminal activities, or are racist.
The list was compiled from field reports, Patriot publications, the Internet, law enforcement sources and news reports."
Democrats Against UN Agenda 21 and the Post Sustainability Institute are on the Southern Poverty Law Center's list of Patriot groups. The criteria for making this list are quite interesting. The SPLC purports to identify hate groups and to advocate for those who are being discriminated against or targeted for violence. The SPLC mainly focuses on skinhead groups and anti-gay groups but they're branching out and including us in their scope. Why?If you look at what they say above, the criteria for list selection include opposing the New World Order (does SPLC support it?), 'groundless' conspiracy theorizing (SPLC refuses to acknowledge objective reality), and advocating or adhering to 'extreme anti-government doctrines' (like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?).There was a time in the past when, as gay people, we might have donated to SPLC. About 25% of their website is devoted to fundraising for themselves. They engage in spreading misinformation about UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development and are themselves representing the New World Order by targeting groups who would re-erect the guarantees of the US Constitution. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness extends beyond racial and social lines. Our government exists to protect the individual. Our rights to free speech, to our property, to our privacy---guaranteed by the Constitution. The term 'Patriots,' according to the SPLC, is now under suspicion, and those who question government tactics and object to subversion, manipulation, privacy invasion, and 'transformation' are targeted on their list.The Southern Poverty Law Center is a fraud and a sham. Although they have a disclaimer that they don't imply that we advocate or engage in violence or other criminal activities, or are racist they are fully aware that targeting us on their list may serve to chill our civil rights or turn people against us. They are engaging in their own brand of hate speech. It might help their fundraising but it also shines a light on their bias and willingness to go along to get along with liberty-destroying regimes. The Southern Poverty Law Center purports to have some familiarity with Nazi tactics. Perhaps too much.
If you were going to take over a country without using the military you'd probably do it through the media and the educational system. And that's exactly what we're experiencing. If it isn't a take-over what is it? Total manipulation of children's minds in classrooms; every magazine, movie, TV program, newspaper, and textbook is working on the rest of us with sustainable development dictates; land use plans, emergency management plans, law enforcement plans, food regulation, energy restrictions, legislative and legal decisions--all direct us and formulate public opinion to unquestioningly accept the agenda for the 21st century.
As I travel the nation speaking I am sometimes challenged by people who are paid to advocate for Smart Growth and Common Core, or the Wildlands Project or regionalization/globalization. These are the people who pretend that we're crazy and they are the reasonable, sensible saviors of the planet. They're often employees of non-profits, government agencies, and foundations. Even when they're shown the facts they'll still deny them. A tactic I see often is that they'll make personal attacks on me rather than address what I'm saying. These are people who are motivated by money, or by acceptance in their social group, or job security, or by a sincere belief that they must not look deeply into Sustainable Development because the end justifies the means. And the 'end' is the salvation of the planet, in their minds.
Many of these people are under 50. They have been indoctrinated.
Please take a look now at a Common Core textbook for 6 year old children. One thing you want to notice when you're watching this short video is that the text directs children to play on people's emotions when they are writing. The other thing to notice is that the examples used include fighting a land owner who wants to build houses on land that people have been using as a park (no explanation here, just emotion: anger), and the need to manipulate parents and others. Take a look.
This is Common Core. Common Core is Agenda 21.
Read the following carefully. It is the blueprint for the disintegration of established systems, and you are seeing it all around you, now. This article is specifically about the educational system but it applies to every aspect of our cultural, political, economic, and environmental systems. Second order changes are in progress right now, and that is why nothing seems to make sense.
From Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt, author of The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America
THE 1990–91 (WINTER) ISSUE OF OUTCOMES, an educational journal devoted to discussion of Outcome-Based Education and the problems associated with its implementation (teachers’, administrators’ and community resistance) published a remarkable article entitled “Paradigm Change: More Magic than Logic” by John C. Hillary.
The reader should remember that the manipulation of classroom teachers and administrators discussed in this article is standard operating procedure in most schools undergoing “restructuring.”
Excerpts from Hillary’s article in Outcomes follow:
The deeper changes that frustrate leaders and threaten followers are planned second-order changes.... These changes intentionally challenge widely shared assumptions, disintegrate the context of “organization” and, in general, reframe the social system. This, in turn, generates widespread ambiguity, discontinuity, anxiety, frustration, confusion, paranoia, cynicism and anger as well as temporary dysfunction. Such trauma often builds to the point that leaders abandon their efforts.
The most disruptive changes—second order changes—on the other hand, call into question the entire context of organization. Such multidimensional changes not only challenge the content of each domain but also disrupt the alignment among them. Paradigm change is therefore not only traumatic in and of itself, but also challenges other attributes and disintegrates the relationship among all domains. The eventual outcome of such change is “transformed” or “renewed” organization.
The new vision for schooling suggested by contemporary educators represents a significant “second order” challenge to school organization.
The leader of planned second order change will be regarded as out of context by the organization. If he thinks and behaves in accord with a vision that
requires second order changes, he has no choice but to violate or challenge the established culture, mission/purpose, and paradigm of the organization.
From the existing frame of reference, such behavior will be seen as illogical. Powerful and pervasive psycho-social forces will bear down on the renegade in a relentless organizational effort to bring him back into alignment. Unless the leader succeeds in progressively bending the pervasive frame, persistence is increasingly risky.
During second order change, the organization must face and hopefully pass through a period of widespread psychological ambiguity, social disconnectedness and general confusion....The requisite disintegration of the existing culture, mission/purpose, and paradigm disrupts the organization’s frame of reference. During this time, there is little or no clear and consistent context to guide the thinking and behavior of members. In social systems, this condition produces dysfunction, anxiety, frustration, disequilibrium, and systemic chaos.
The instigator of second order change must consistently behave in ways that will not make sense when framed by the existing context. With time and leadership, the organization environment must move from initially and
naturally selecting against the innovation to selecting for the innovation.
The extinction of the old way of doing business is the desired outcome. Hence and with time, the risk should gradually shift away from the innovator and toward those who persist in holding on to “the way it’s always been.”
Thank you very much for your donation to the Post Sustainability Institute legal fund. These funds will be used to fight One Bay Area/Plan Bay Area. To read our objections to the Plan please go to Legal Objections.
The state intends to bring back redevelopment/tax increment financing to pay for Plan Bay Area. This will result in deep generational debt. For more information see Bringing Redevelopment Back
We appreciate your contribution--Plan Bay Area will have devastating impacts on all of us here as well as around the nation if it proceeds unchallenged.