Wednesday, March 30, 2016


By Nancy Thorner & Bonnie O’Neil – 

John Dewey, known as “the father of modern education,” was an avowed socialist and the co-author of the “Humanist Manifesto.” The U.S. House Committee on Un-American Activities discovered that he belonged to 15 Marxist front organizations. Dewey taught the professors who trained America’s teachers. Obsessed with “the group,” he said:

“You can’t make socialists out of individualists. Children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society, which is coming, where everyone is interdependent.”

Author Rosalie Gordon, writing about Dewey’s progressive (socialist) education in her book, What’s Happened To Our Schools, said:

“The progressive system has reached all the way down to the lowest grades to prepare the children of America for their role as the collectivists of the future. The group – not the individual child – is the quintessence of progressivism. The child must always be made to feel part of the group. He must indulge in group thinking and group activity.”

After visiting the Soviet Union, Dewey wrote six articles on the “wonders” of Soviet education. The School-To-Work program, now in our public schools in all 50 states, is modeled after the Soviet poly-technical system.

In 1936, the National Education Association stated the position from which it has never wavered:  “We stand for socializing the individual.”

The NEA, in its Policy For American Education, opined

“The major problem of education in our times arises out of the fact that we live in a period of fundamental social change. In the new democracy [what happened to our republic?], education must share in the responsibility of giving purpose and direction to social change. The major function of the school is the social orientation of the individual . . . Education must operate according to a well-formulated social policy.” 

An excerpt from the article states:

“As recently as the early 1950s, the typical American university professor held social and political views quite similar to those of the general population. Today — well, you’ve all heard the jokes that circulated after the collapse of central planning in Eastern Europe and the former USSR, how the only place in the world where Marxists were still thriving was the Harvard political science department.”

Higher education reflects inmates running the asylum

More generally, U.S. higher education often looks like a clear case of the inmates running the asylum.  This condition can be traced to students who were radicalized in the 1960s who rose to positions of influence within colleges and universities.

One needs only to observe the aggressive pursuit of “diversity” in admissions and hiring, the abandonment of the traditional curriculum in favor of highly politicized “studies” based on group identity, the mandatory workshops on sensitivity training, and so on to fully comprehend the stranglehold the Left has managed to secure today within our schools, especially at the university level where instructors need not be as concerned with parental interference, but instead have a captive audience in which to indoctrinate our children to their Marxist philosophies

Examining Chicago’s own Bill Ayers

An example of the Socialist infiltration in education can be seen in studying former terrorist, Bill Ayers, past leader of the radical Weather Underground in the 1960s.  Ayers decided blowing up America’s federal buildings was not working out for him or his gang of like-minded extremists.  He escaped going to prison due to the FBI illegally wire-tapping his conversations, probably helped by his father’s political clout in Chicago as head of ComEd.  This lucky break most likely caused Ayes to contemplate another more effective approach to change America from within, rather than from outside the nation’s mainstream institutions.

In 1984 Ayers earned a master’s degree in Early Childhood Education from Bank Street College. Three years later, he received a doctorate in Curriculum and Instruction from Columbia UniversityHad Bill Ayers and his friends just immigrated to a socialist state, it would have been much better for this nation, but instead Ayers became entrenched in the university system where he quietly began to invade college classrooms with his anti-American philosophies. This article documents the progression of Ayer’s radical educational network dating back to the 60s.  Hired in 1987 as a professor of education at the University of Illinois, Ayers held that post until retirement in 2010, retiring with the title of Distinguished Professor of Education and Senior University Scholar.  As of October 2008, Ayer’s office door at the university was adorned with photographs of Mumia Abu-Jamal, Che Guevara, and Malcolm X.

By 2008, Ayers was elected Vice President for Curriculum Studies by the American Educational Research Association.  He worked with Chicago Mayor, Richard M. Daley, with the goal of creating changes in Chicago’s school reform program.  Bill Ayers and wife Bernadine Dohrn continued to develop relationships and friendships with like-minded people, such as Barack Obama — even though Obama has denied knowing Ayers and Dohrn — and other Chicago politicians. It is documented that Ayers had a fundraiser in his home for Obama, and the Obamas were invited to at least one private party at the Ayers’ home.

Both men served on boards which Obama headed.  One of those boards awarded $2 million for Bill Ayers/Klonsky Small Schools Workshop.  Its goal, as Ayers repeatedly made clear, most prominently in a 2006 speech before Hugo Chavez at an education forum in Caracas, was to bring the same Leftist revolution that has always galvanized them into the classroom.  Regarding Klonsky, an unabashed communist, Obama gave Klonsky a broad platform to broadcast his ideas through a “social justice” blog on the official Obama campaign website.

Ayers was also the key force behind obtaining wealthy Annenberg’s $387 million dollar donation to Chicago schools, which became known as the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. What appeared odd is that if Annenberg’s purpose was to elevate the dismal test scores of Chicago schools, why did the grant not require the recipients of his donation to meet specific education benchmarks?  Funds were not dispersed on the basis of the schools raising test score percentages in either reading or math.  It should be noted that Barack Obama was on the founding Board of Directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge and elected as the Board’s Chairman when Bill Ayers was awarded the money for his Small Schools Project.

One would hope the infusion of such major funding into the Chicago schools would have made a major difference in the quality of education.  A recent 2014 report indicated students in grades two through six did not meet the national average in reading and no grades met the national averages for math.

Obama appoints Duncan to promote progressive Common Core standards

President Obama, upon being the newly elected President, quickly initiated a committee to develop a national education program, now known as the controversial Common Core.  Bill Gates donated at least $200 million dollars to promote the education program to state governors and teacher organizations.  Others, such as the Annenberg Foundation made significant donations, but the one that raised eyebrows was a $50 million grant from a Qatar Foundation International member, who gave it to Bill Ayers with the agreement it would be used to promote Muslims’ views and lead American children away from actual historical events, replacing them with specific propaganda.

This article, published in the Chicago Reader on November 8, 1990, by Ben Joravsky, tells of “The Long, Strange Trip of Bill Ayers.” It is a riveting interview account.  The article is prefaced by:

“He [Ayers) wasn’t just any suburban-bred all-American boy; his father ran Commonwealth Edison.  Ayers didn’t just rebel; he was a leader of the Weathermen, the group that bombed the Pentagon and sprung LSD guru Timothy Leary from jail.”

And Ayers hasn’t changed since Joravsky’s November 1990 published article.  Having retired from the University of Illinois in 2010, radical left-wing activist, education expert, and domestic terrorist, Bill Ayers, (wearing a Black Lives matter T-shirt) recently attended the huge Trump rally protest that resulted in the cancellation of Trump’s rally at the University of Illinois. Here is what Ayers had to say:

“I’ve never seen anything this big at the University of Illinois, Chicago.  And it’s huge.  It’s galvanized Latino students, black students, Muslim students and white students. And everybody feels like, ‘Look, this is a university’.  We don’t need . . . organized hatred spilling into our center.”

President Obama wasted no time in appointing Arnie Duncan  as his Secretary of Education who was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on January 20, 2009.  Duncan served as the chief executive officer of the Chicago Public Schools (CPS), a position he held from June 2001 through December 2008, when he resigned to join Obama in Washington, D.C.  Duncan helped convince 42 states to adopt education goals based on Common Core, and 21 of them to use tests that directly align with those standards, which were created by a bi-partisan group and attempted to make U.S. schools more challenging and the curriculum more similar from state-to-state.

Universities resemble Marxist indoctrination centers

We cannot blame just Dewey, Ayers, and Obama.   Much of the damage to our schools has been done by Teacher Unions that use mandatory teacher dues to support Leftist politicians, liberal organizations, and Left leaning school board candidates.  It is a very cozy group, and they have way too much power. Parents would be wise to investigate their children’s curriculum with a practiced eye in order to catch the clever ways liberal political viewpoints are strategically woven into their books and study materials. Professors in colleges are not even subtle. They have captive audiences who depend upon them for good grades and rarely worry about parents.

As Abraham Lincoln wisely stated:  “The philosophy of the classroom in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next.” 

Dewey, Ayers, and many others of their ilk knew this to be true and thus manipulated our universities into resembling Marxist indoctrination centers rather than schools that provide a well-rounded education that prepares students for successful transitioning to the real world. Most of us had no idea what was going on behind the iron curtain classrooms which socialists created.  Certainly this explains how socialist, Bernie Sanders, can run for president of the United States and draw large crowds applauding him.  Not too long ago, he would have been booed off the stage by outraged American patriots who understood the dangers of the socialism he advocates. 

Exposing Anti-American teaching tactics

The anti-American teaching tactics need to be exposed, but the media has also become largely liberal, thus begging the question “who will speak up for our children?”   It must be those of us who remember the way it once was, who have read and honor our Constitution, and who know the history of how clever socialists ruined once great countries.

Each of us must contact our elected officials and demand tax-payer funds be yanked from any school with unfair hiring practices and/or that reflect an unequal number of conservatives verses liberal teachers/professors.  Each classroom must be monitored for any curriculum that opposes our Constitution or our basic Founding Fathers’ principles, and there must be fairness in presenting diverse viewpoints.  The future of America depends upon all of us demanding no less.

Friday, August 21, 2015

Thorner/O’Neil: Sustainability Movement Fosters Hotbeds of Liberal Indoctrination (Part 3)

Bill Ayers, a well-known liberal indoctrinator

By Nancy Thorner and Bonnie O’Neil – 

Common Core at the K -12 level in education is shifting and distorting education in many liberal ways, but what about the education being taught to our college age students?   We should be even more concerned about that group, as they will soon be part of society and influencing it very soon. The obvious concern is whether they too are part of the Liberal’s attempt to insert their socialist agenda into the curriculum and thus minds of America’s youth.

Brace yourself for the sad truth.  Our college and university campuses are actual hotbeds of liberal indoctrination, to a degree that should shock every reasonable American. Whether a parent or not, we all should demand an in-depth investigation and potential change in the college system which will guarantee more balance and objectivity.

It is essential that students be informed of all facts, encouraged to consider every option, and taught to listen to opposing arguments on any given subject (especially those which society identifies as controversial), in order to develop critical thinking skills that teach how to seek all facts and arrive at educated opinions to determine the truth.

Instead, college students are being indoctrinated with a strong liberal agenda, which excludes conservative arguments. Much of the teaching encompasses the edicts of United Nation’s Agenda 21, with “a specific and heavy emphasis on sustainability.”

Study by Peter Wood and Rachelle Peterson on sustainability and college campuses 

Through the study of college curriculum, Peter Wood, president of the National Association of Scholars, and Rachelle Peterson concluded that it was on college campuses where the sustainability movement gets its voice of authority and where it molds the views and commands the attention of young people. Their combined study resulted in Sustainability: Higher Education’s New Fundamentalism, published March 25, 2015.  In a June 12, 2015 article, “Sustainability’s War on Doubt”, Wood describes “sustainability” in a much broader sense, of which global warming is just one part of the whole.

“Sustainability” is not so much a call for the wise use of resources as it is a declaration against all forms of ‘exploitation’, such as exploiting the animal, mineral, and vegetable resources of the planet.  The sustainability movement embraces a fuzzy version of the Marxist idea that capitalism is essentially about human exploitation, and totally ignores the concepts of wealth creation, comparative advantage, and material progress.”

As expressed in the executive summary of Wood’s study, the following will be taught in sustainability programs offered at colleges and universities, and students will be exposed to the following liberal dogma of ideas and unproven claims:

1) Catastrophic manmade global warming is an indisputable fact, and switching to renewable energy from inexpensive and abundant fossil fuel energy is the only plausible answer; 2) that today’s society and economy are built on greed and waste, and thus we must rebuild society along progressive political lines; 3) that mass environmental activism is the way to achieve goals 1 and 2; and 4) that we must either persuade the skeptics or silence them.”  So far, we believe they have largely resorted to silencing the opposition by refusing to reveal the mounting evidence that refutes their arguments.

The Executive summary describes the sustainability movement from its origin to today’s application, which, in turn, will have important consequences for the future of this nation.  We must not allow the minds of our young people to be manipulated into conforming to this socialist political agenda that is at odds with our Constitution and the values and ideals upon which this nation was founded.

Consider the following:

  • The 1987 United Nations report, “Our Common Future”, better known as the Brundtland Report, ignited the sustainability movement by uniting environmentalism with hostility to free markets and demands for “social” justice.” Driving the initiative to make sustainability part of every course is the American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment (ACUPCC), an effort launched by “Second Nature”  a group founded by John Kerry and Teresa Heinz. As of 2015, 697 college and universities have signed this commitment, which includes a pledge to “make climate neutrality and sustainability a part of the curriculum and other educational experience for all students.”
  • Beginning in 2007, the President’s Climate Commitment tapped the power of college presidents to set the agendas for their institutions.  Sustainability is now among the highest priorities at colleges and universities.  Colleges are currently ranked by their success in meeting sustainability goals. There seems no limit to the extent those behind this movement will go.  An example of this extremism is evident at the University of Virginia, where students are asked to pledge themselves to sustainability.  We could not find any example of the school requesting students to make a pledge to our flag or country.
  • Universities seek to use the campus as a “living laboratory” where students will not only learn about sustainability in the classroom, but will encounter it everywhere on campus.  The goal is to modify students’ values.  The question is whether parents, who have saved all their lives to send their children to college, know their children are being intentionally manipulated rather than taught.  There is no balance offered, only intense indoctrination to a specific “progressive” viewpoint embraced by the professors and others of their ilk.
  •  Nudging is a way of prodding students to do what activists want.  This technique was promoted in a 2008 bestseller, “Nudge”, by Richard Thaler and Cass Sustein.  There adherents contend people should be manipulated into making the choices that social planners think are the best options.  About 80 institutions hire student “eco-reps to shame their peers into riding a bike to classes or buying carbon offsets to make up for their flights home at Christmas.

Sustainability advances indoctrination to nurture Pavlovian responses 

The sustainability movement represents a significant shift in higher education:  from educating students with rational and moral knowledge that prepares them to make future prudent, conscious choices to that of an indoctrination program with the feverish goal of training operations designed to elicit Pavlovian responses.  The liberals call that progress.  We call it indoctrination that deprives students of opposing opinions and facts; thus limiting their ability to discern the truth.

Sustainability projects cost U.S. higher education schools nearly $3.4 billion per year.  Society is interested in reducing costs of education, so that more students can attend college and not be forced into borrowing money and accumulating debts before they even begin their careers.

As a remedy to soaring college tuition, George Will suggests the following: “Hundreds of millions could be saved, with no cost to any institution’s core educational mission, by eliminating every position whose title contains the word ‘sustainability’– and, while we are at it, ‘diversity,’ ‘multicultural’ or ‘inclusivity.’  The result would be higher education; higher than the propaganda-saturated version we have, and more sustainable.”

Mr. Will’s conclusions are correct. On campuses across the United States, where sustainability has become dogma, an honest investigation of global warming is nearly impossible.  Scientific debate requires openness, not conformity to a fixed theory exempt from external review. Instead, debate is discouraged, by the continual comment that Climate Change is “settled science”.  But what does that mean?  Of course Climate Change exists and has since the Earth began.  The question and demand for proof, is whether it is even possible for man to influence changes in Earth’s climate, before assuming it has done so.

A young person attending Cornell will find that 13% of all Cornell’s undergraduate courses deal in one way or another with sustainability; at Colorado State University the percentage is 22%; and at Middlebury College in Vermont it is a full 25% of all courses offered.  Of all the “degree programs” in sustainability, offered worldwide, 95% of them are offered by colleges and universities in the U.S.   Unfortunately, out of 772 colleges and universities globally who are members of the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE), 90% of that membership – a whopping 694 of the colleges and universities are in the United States.

Wood’s “Sustainability’s War on Doubt?” states:

“As closed as the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and the New York Times are to expressions of alternative views, the typical college campus is even worse.  To agree to debate the pro-sustainability position would imply the existence of contrary arguments and evidence worthy of consideration.”  That is their excuse and no mention is made of the many scientists and scholars who disagree with the “elites” position, and who have serious facts to offer, which would be excellent contributions to an intensive debate.

Young people and parents and being hoodwinked and short-changed

Do young people really need to devote their education to the noble goal of saving the Earth, and, if so, saving it from what?  During the entire lives of most college students there has been no global warming.  Not withstanding, sustainability advocates prefer a campus on which they can expand their control over every detail of student life.  Many campuses have created “trayless cafeterias” in which students have to juggle their plates. Bottled water is similarly frowned on. Presented as energy saving, the intent is to prod students into thinking at every turn about the need to be sustainable.  Those students who disagree with the sustainability doctrine are made to feel shamed if they don’t conform to the latest “green” gimmick.  They are even considered a threat to society.

Parents are now tasked with deciding whether the excessive cost of a college education and their children’s obvious indoctrination to a liberal agenda is the best course for their lives.  Would the time and money be better spent on starting or investing in a business of interest?   How concerned are parents that schools are intruding into areas other than what is needed for a future career?    Is it the right of university professors to indoctrinate vulnerable students to their liberal social ideals, and are parents even aware that many college courses seek to instill the ideals of a movement that aims for drastic change in the way humanity relates to the natural world?  Do parents know or care what is happening in college classrooms?  Is the average taxpayer even aware of the intensive indoctrination?

Should our tax-funded universities be allowed to indoctrinate students with a controversial and disputed agenda that is presented from one viewpoint only?  Is it time for parents and all citizens to demand equality, thus allowing critical thinking to develop among students and hopefully even professors. There is nothing fair about current hiring practices in most colleges and universities that favor liberal professors at as high as a 9 to 1 ratio. With such liberal domination, Conservatives tend to seek other careers knowing they will be largely ignored, even shunned by those who dominate the world of academic today.  Conservatives claim they are not provided a fair chance to advance.  Thus the few in the system, who have opposing liberal viewpoints, rarely present them.  If we want fairness in our universities, taxpayers will have to demand changes in a variety of areas, beginning with an unbiased study and evaluation of the issue, and concluding with sweeping changes that emphasize equality and fairness in every area.

Bill Ayers and other professors of his ilk must be shown the back door. It is time to demand something more of America’s professors and colleges, rather than continue with the current expensive brain washing indoctrination by socialist/progressive instructors, who oppose our historical values and Constitution in favor of an agenda filled with disputable and unproven facts, most often created behind closed doors and within the United Nations.

Will American patriots call their elected officials and demand equitable changes?  Who among us will demand positive, historical values be reinstated, that credible arguments be presented in every classroom, and that liberal professors not be allowed to dominate our colleges and universities?

The future of our country hangs in the balance, and only those who have studied and remember history will know the impotence of taking action while we still have the opportunity to do so.

Please consider calling your representatives, at the state and federal level, asking, if not demanding equality. Our institutions of higher learning need to be more conscious of fairness and diversity, within their hiring practices and certainly classroom curriculum and professors’ teachings, especially if they receive any government funding.  The one-sided liberal approach must cease and be replaced with opportunities to learn both sides of arguments on controversial issues.  Our children deserve an education, not an indoctrination!


Thorner/O’Neil:  Sustainability: The Overly Used Word intended to Silence Conservatives

Thorner/O’Neil:  Little Green Steps Reflect Sustainability in Education 

Friday, December 05, 2014
Former Weather Underground leader Bill Ayers taught until 2010  at the University of Chicago

By Nancy Thorner and Bonnie O’Neil – 

What has happened to universities and colleges, school that once identified themselves as sanctuaries for free speech, tolerance, and diversity? Why did they abandon that excellent goal as an open market place for thought and ideas, to become instead institutions of indoctrination to a specific political viewpoint?

It is an understatement to say that there is a lack of political diversity within our nation’s schools of higher learning, when every survey indicates self-proclaimed liberal professors significantly dominate our colleges and universities. Democrat Neil Gross, a professor of sociology at the University of British Columbia, investigated this issue and agreed that Democrats outnumber Republicans by about 4 to 1 among professors; by at least 6 to 1 at elite universities; and by still higher ratios in departments of the humanities and social sciences.

Those facts alone should be troublesome at several levels. It is an indication that hiring practices could be favoring a specific mindset, possibly for the purpose of achieving a specific desired result. Professors have enormous power over their students, which enables them to persuade vulnerable students to accept their political and social opinions. The important question is whether professors actually take advantage of their position of power to do so?

They absolutely do take advantage, according to the testimony of college students and a study on the subject by David Horowitz and Jacob Laksin who recently investigated the issue.  By scrutinizing course catalogs, reading lists, professors’ biographies, scholar records, and most of all testimonies of students and faculty, they found violations of academic standards and systematic indoctrination, some of which could be considered not just liberal, but liberal to the degree of being classified as politically radical.

Those of us who did not experience college classrooms as indoctrination centers wonder how and/or why this liberal dominance was allowed to take place?  The fact professors are given great latitude in what and how they teach, makes the inequality troubling.   Professors are not required to create a fair and balanced classroom of ideas, nor is there evidence of repercussions when proof of obvious indoctrination has occurred. Professors not only have tenure, but deans, presidents, and faculty are often sympathetic, if not in lock-step, with the professors’ liberal views and agenda. attention is paid to how a one-sided indoctrination is harming students’ scope of knowledge, understanding, and success when they leave classrooms for the real world. Imagine that you are a freshman at college, eager to learn and devoted to making top grades, when your beloved professor begins to lecture on a hot, divisive political topic. You discover that your professor is taking a position that is very much opposed to your personal beliefs.  The way the lecture proceeds, you become acutely aware he is consistently labeling those who hold your belief and viewpoint in contempt, by using a variety of negative adjectives. To make matters worse, everyone in the classroom is laughing and seems to be in total agreement with the professor.

Without any fear of losing their positions or being disciplined in any way, liberal professors are unconcerned about complaints or negative consequences. Whether they behave bullishly to scare some students into silence, or have persuasive personalities that quietly and systematically convince students their parent’s principles, philosophies, and values are incorrect, the result is the same: students are leaving with only one viewpoint on issues and thus are unprepared to listen or debate opposing opinions with an open mind.

Former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, at a commencement address at Harvard in May, sharply criticized liberal students, professors, and administrators across the country for their pattern of silencing the voices of those with whom they disagreed, accusing them of “censorship” and a modern-day form of McCarthyism. Bloomberg’s legitimate concern may have stemmed from the fact that 96% of the Harvard faculty and employees donated to Obama’s reelection campaign.  Certainly that large donation figure would seem to add proof to Bloomberg’s assertions.

Bias in education deserves more exposure

In what should have been a shocker, Emily Esfahani Smith, in a special to The Washington Times on Wednesday, August 1, 2012, wrote about a peer-reviewed study of political diversity in the field of social psychology.  Liberal professors admitted they would discriminate against conservatives in hiring and advancement.  According to Smith, the anti-conservative bias is real and pronounced.  It is not a respectable position to hold in universities where Republicans are maligned and publicly degraded if they listen to Rush Limbaugh or are Fox News enthusiasts. These certainly are explosive facts the public deserves to know, but few media sources expose.

The excerpts noted below are from the article Liberal Bias in Education: Campus, Classroom and College.  It offers more evidence of what is being taught in our classrooms of higher learning and additional proof that American citizens deserve to know the facts.

Bias in academia more often than not is liberal bias. Many professors and students admit to possessing liberal ideologies or Democratic voting tendencies. It is natural and right for liberal students and professors to freely express their liberal philosophies, but is it right for liberal professors to continually advance their ideas in the classroom while squelching all other opinions?  Certainly, the answer to that must be absolutely No.

Universities are the breeding grounds for a variety of ideas and thought processes. Students who attend American colleges and universities should be able to gain a well-rounded view of their country, its founding principles, and ideas – from all points on the political spectrum – that continue to shape and mold our future. Unfortunately, today’s colleges have drifted away from these ideals and become bastions of liberal thought and activism.

Consider Professor Smith, a professor at the University of North Carolina and a supporter of traditional marriage, whose conservative opinions make him an outcast in the academic community.  An online commenter not only called for the professor to resign, but went so far as to claim Smith was “the biggest embarrassment to higher education in America”.   Professor Smith responded to that criticism by describing the antics of liberal professors, official campus groups, and then invited campus speakers at other North Carolina institutes of higher learning, as noted below, so objective people could determine and judge what constitutes legitimate cause for embarrassment:

  • In the early spring semester of 2013, a women’s studies professor and a psychology professor at Western Carolina University co-sponsored a panel on bondage and S&M. The purpose of the panel was to teach college students how to inflict pain on themselves and others for sexual pleasure.
  • At UNC Chapel Hill, there is a feminist professor who believes that women can lead happy lives without men. That’s nothing new. But what is different is that she thinks women can form life-long domestic partnerships with dogs and that those relationships will actually be fulfilling enough to replace marital relationships with men.
  • A feminist administrator at UNC-Wilmington sponsored a pro-abortion event. During the event they sold tee shirts saying “I had an abortion” to students who … well, had abortions. Students were encouraged to boast about the fact that they had killed their own unborn infants.

If this is happening in North Carolina, what is happening throughout the university system in states like California, New York, Washington state, Illinois, etc., which are funded by tax paying citizens?  We know rape has become a major issue on college campuses throughout America.  An investigation indicated the number of reported sexual assaults on college campuses has increased by 50 percent over the last decade.  Liberals argue the increase is not linked to provocative classes in which students are given heavy doses of sexual information, such as details of how to best perform intimate sex acts.  Conservatives believe that casual approach to sensitive personal issues has created a general decline in morality, the proof of which is evidenced in the increased rate of rape.

Consider how many colleges, especially Ivy League schools, begin their school year with thousands of students experiencing what they call “Sex Week”.   That week includes everything from students going nude around the college campus to school sponsored sex classes that teach exceedingly personal sexual information.  Discussing sexual acts and behavior during college “Sex Week” may not be responsible for the rapes, but the increase does coincide with the blatant, permissive campus sexual atmosphere.   Do we really want our young adults to treat sex with the same casual behavior as they do deciding what to have for breakfast?  Sexual intimacy was once something so sacred, we encouraged our young people to reserve and share it with only one special person.  Today, colleges appear to have no respect for those standards or viewpoint, and thus neither do its students.

What has changed on the campuses that might encourage the extraordinary increase in rape? Administrators claim there is no significant increase, but that rape is just being more widely reported.   Really?  How would administrators ever know that if rapes went unreported?  Conservatives claim the initiating of a liberal sexual culture on college campuses is the one factor that coincides with the rape increase.  The subject deserves a bi-partisan investigation to determine if “Sex Week” is a factor.  Most college administrators believe drinking and drugs are a factor, largely seen at fraternity parties.  Some colleges have now banned fraternities from their campuses, which might help determine if excessive drinking has been a factor.   Unfortunately, the good students, those who are quite responsible and who do not even drink, end up being punished by the restrictions too.  It has been pointed out that there have always been frat parties and drinking, so why is rape suddenly happening?

There is a growing outcry from the public for colleges and universities that accept federal funding to prove there is no bias in their hiring practices.  Parents are demanding their children should be guaranteed a safe environment, not one that leaves coeds in fear of being raped.  The challenge is to convince our college administrators that the trend which ushered in significant increases in liberal professors, a monopoly of liberal classes, plus highly charged events, such as “Sex Week”, may not be benefiting the students, but instead harming them.

Schools are not meant to entertain, they are to challenge students, and thus create responsible citizens prepared for their future.  That is best accomplished when students are given all sides of issues without any bias, and thus allowed to be critical thinkers who act and think responsibly not just in college, but in their careers, marriage, and parenting skills throughout their lives.

Part Two will explore why are colleges and universities are dominated by Liberals.

Friday, August 29, 2014

Thorner & O’Neil: Part 1 – Christian persecution beyond the Middle East

By Nancy Thorner & Bonnie O’Neil – 

Are Christians in America Under Attack? We know that Christians around the World are suffering and even being murdered simply because they profess to be Christians.  The result has prompted a Judo-Christian Culture that is at war with Islam. Jews and Christians know this important commandment: “Choose life”: Deuteronomy 30:19, because it pushes forward the narrative of growth, learning, and moral advancement. As Golda Meir once said, “Peace will come to the Middle East when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us.” Sadly, Muslims love death and submission to Islam more than they value life. As stated in the Koran 3:151:  “We will put terror into the hearts of the unbelievers.”

Islam demands much of their followers. A new study by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life found that 64 nations — about one-third of the countries in the world — have high or very high restrictions on religion. Because most restrictive countries are also very populous, the percent of people under severe religious restrictions rises to 70 percent of the world’s 6.8 billion people. Those people are often subjected to excessive restrictions, and live their lives intensely obedient to their religious beliefs and their leaders’ commands. Christians living in Muslim countries face more than just restrictions. Professing their faith or failing to deny their God can result in a mandate to “convert or be killed” and/or being falsely accused of a crime which will cause a long and miserable imprisonment. It is there where you will most likely be regularly beaten by guards and Muslim prisoners who do not tolerate any religion but their own.

A Muslim convert to Christianity is victimized

Saeed Abednini has been a victim of that Islamic intolerance.  Born and raised in Iran as a Muslim, Saeed moved to America, fell in love and married his first love.  He learned of Jesus. and converted to Christianity, eventually becoming an ordained minister.  Shortly after the birth of his two children, Saeed went back to visit his Iranian family and build an orphanage in Iran, but was arrested and charged with “compromising national security”:  Iran’s excuse for punishing those who refuse to renounce their Christian faith.  The Iranian government sentenced Saeed to 8 years in prison.  He has served 2 years of that sentence, and during that time has endured torture from both officials and prisoners.   His repeated beatings and left him in such poor health, that his life is now in serious danger.   His devoted wife will not give up hope, and thus  travels around the world, especially in America, doing her best to remind Christians of Saeed’s plight and with the hope our government will reignite negotiations for his release.

As horrendous as that treatment has been in Iran for Saeed, the World has been witnessing something so horrific in Iraq that it is hard to comprehend such evil exists.  I.S.I.S, the recently formed terrorist group comprised of jihadists from many countries and who claim religious authority over Muslims world-wide, has astounded the World by conducting a ruthless, merciless killing spree in Iraq.  In June 2014, ISIS’s, with an estimated 4,000 fighters murdered thousands of civilians, most of whom were innocent Christians whose family’s roots date back to the first century of Christianity.  It is estimated that 450 thousand Christians have been brutally murdered.   It is genocide – a crime against humanity.  But Isis threatens people world-wide, not just the Christians in Iraq.

Christians in America are not subjected to anything near that type of persecution, but mounting evidence indicates there has been a definite decades-long attack on Christianity and morality in America.   It has been subtle and gradual; few have paid much attention to it.   That tactic by opponents of Christianity is smart, because anything more obvious or severe would alert the 78.4 percent of Americans who identify themselves as Christians, and thus motivate and energize the approximately 240 million Americans to fight back against any actions they deem threatening to their families or their faith. 

Yet most pastors and priests seem unaware or at least unwilling to fight back against an equally horrendous danger to their faith and families:  the invasive immorality and loss of biblical values that has and is cursing our land.  Where is the outrage among Christians?  What are they doing to protect their children from the drugs, gangs, unbiblical laws, lack of respect for traditional values, and attacks on Christianity from within.  Are they strongly preaching against these sins from the pulpit?  Do Christian parents daily teach their children respect for others, especially for their Lord and Savior?   It seems Christians even fight among themselves, especially when of a different racial background.  This is not what their Bibles or Christian faith teaches.  This is important because if we are to retain the purity of our faith, we must live it according to the Word so easily available to each of us.

Liberal progressives chip away at Christian values

Our forefathers lived their faith; they believed and followed the Words of their Bible.  What happened?  How did this Immorality slip into our society and chip away at Christian values one law, one smear, one lost freedom, and one negative anti-Christian article or speech at a time. Think back to the 1950’s for an answer, when liberal progressives boldly and intently began changing our culture and laws. 

During the 1950’s there began a shift in American culture, largely inspired by the “Beat Generation”,  a group of post-World War II writers such as Allen Ginsburg and Jack Kerouac, who became known for rejecting materialism while experimenting with drugs and sexual liberation.  That trend continued and expanded during the 1960’s, largely due to Timothy Leary and his associates who took advantage of a generation of young, confused, unhappy adults angered by the Viet Nam war and seeking a quick fix to forget their lack of interest in life.   They were easy targets for extensive drug experimentation that led to a reckless, irresponsible society whose marks can still be seen today.  The movie “The Giver” provides a glimpse into what happens when a society seeks to anesthetize themselves from that which is difficult or harsh. Drugs are enticing in that they allow “users” to escape from reality, but in the process they become prisoners unable to reach their potential and ultimately dependent upon society. Their ability to relate to God, to the Church, and even to their families is lost in a fuzzy world of make believe. 

Influence of Weatherman Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn

The decades of the 50’s and 60’s inserted a type of poison into our society that remains today.  Products of that era remain at war with religion, moral codes, and historical values that Americans have treasured for centuries.  Recently Meagan Kelly of FOX News hosted a debate of sorts between Bill Ayers and Dinesh D’Souza over whether America is exceptional.  Ayers, a product of the 50’s and 60’s argued against that premise, while Iranian born D’Souza spoke of America as the most amazing country in the World with words that conveyed unequivocal love for his new Country.  D’Souza explains why America is exceptional in such a sincere and beautiful way as to invoke an immediate sense of pride.  

Bill Ayers was one of the founders and leaders of the Weather underground.  He is an unrepentant terrorist whose group bombed at least 20 American sites.  In his book “Fugitive Day,”  Ayes characterized Weatherman as “an American Red Army,” summing up the organization’s ideology as follows:  “Kill all the rich people.  Break up their cars and apartments.  Bring the revolution home. Kill your parents.”  Ayes joined the Communist Party as an active member.  

Instead of being in jail for his acts of terrorism, he and his wife (also a weather underground terrorist and a professed Communist) became professors in our nation’s universities, teaching our children liberal propaganda in their classrooms.  Bill Ayes retired from the College of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago in 2010, while his wife,Bernadine Dohrn, remains a clinical Associate Professor of Law at Northwestern University.  Ayers and Dohrn were joined by many other liberal professors through the years, resulting in colleges and universities throughout this nation now comprised of 90% self-confessed liberals.  A question that is deserving of our consideration is:  “Why were Ayers and Dohrn, two exceedingly liberal and unrepentant terrorists, allowed to be professors in American schools?”  Unsuspecting parents spend hundreds of thousands of dollars sending their precious children into classrooms with left leaning professors, and then wonder why their children return home with progressive, atheist, anti-American leanings.    

The scarcity of Conservatives in places of higher learning brings into question the liberal mantra which demands “diversity and justice.”  It also provides evidence as to why there appears to be a war on conservatism and Christianity in America today.   Our citizens are either unaware of this travesty or think they must tolerate this lack of diversity in our institutes of higher learning.  These are the same professors who teach and often demand “equality” and “diversity” when the subject deals with their non-traditional social issues.  Why do we accept the hiring practices of colleges/universities that are openly prejudiced against Conservative professors?  The few token Conservatives who are hired do not feel free to oppose the liberal agenda that permeates the institutions.

Candidate Obama and later President Obama ushers in negative change

It is not an idle claim that Ayers and his friends continue to influence American politics and society.  Consider that Bill Ayers had a relationship with Candidate Obama, which both denied during the election period.  Yet, Ayers held a fund raiser at his home for Barack Obama, and they served on a Board together for several years.   An interesting question is why they denied a relationship and why the media kept quiet about those facts.  Candidate Obama also minimized his association with the Reverend Wright, even though Reverend Wright videos demonstrated his anti-American rants. Wright’s famous quote “God d_ _ _ America” became public and Obama distanced himself immediately.  It is interesting that Wright was not unlike Bill Ayers in condemning America?        

It speaks volumes that America elected a relatively unknown and inexperienced candidate for president; a man whose past should have raised red flags, but was ignored.  He was the most inexperienced candidates in the race for the most powerful position in the country;   He won over a man who was exceedingly experienced, with an impeccable reputation, and a poster boy of achieving the American dream.  The media rarely exposed Obama’s inexperience, that he was raised in Africa, that his parents and grandparents were Muslims and/or Communists.  He spent his boyhood in Africa and went to Muslim dominated schools.  Can such a person truly understand the depth of patriotism like those who served as president before him?  Many would say his actions and decisions of the past 6 years do not always reflect the deep love for country expected and seen in past presidents.  Yet, the majority of Americans voted for him …. twice.    

Few dispute there has been a major change in the culture of our Country since the 1950’s and 60’s, and Obama ushered in many of those changes.  Where once Communism was a word that could only be whispered, due to its negative connotations, today people proudly parade signs indicating they are members of the Communist Party.  Are these people ignorant of what a privilege it is to be in a country with freedoms denied to those under Communism?  One of the Communists goals is to abolish religion.  We witness much progress by the Communists and liberals among us today, as they continue to infiltrate so many areas of our country and culture.  Many are wondering “what happened to the country I knew and loved?”  Folks, the answer is “we were not paying attention, and it has silently slipped away”.

Part 2 of Article One:  Explored will be the hostility that is happening here in America toward professed Christians, as a myriad of policies and decisions from the White House are eroding Christian morals and values, in tandem with the indoctrination of our children by liberals, humanists, and atheists in our classrooms?

Friday, August 29, 2014 at 10:29 AM | Permalink





Imgres-2By Nancy Thorner & Elizabeth Clarke – 

Co-author Elizabeth Clarke remembers attending a speech in Waukegan, IL with her late husband in the summer of 1967, at which Senator Everett Dirksen (Senator Dirksen represented Illinois in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1933 – 1939 and the U.S. Senate from 1951 until his death in 1969.) spoke passionately against the then-pending Supreme Court case of Keyishian et al v Board of Regents that ruled against loyalty oaths.

Dinsh D’Souza, star and director of the movie, “America:  Imagine the World without Her,” engaged in a recent one-on-one debate with Bill Ayers on Friday, January 31, at Dartmouth in which Ayers began by celebrating what he considered to be great about America. Ayers made no reference to the Founding Fathers, nor did Ayers mention Abraham Lincoln. Instead, Ayers spoke of a protest tradition in America, going back to the 19th-century socialists and continuing through the 20th-cntury progressives, right up to himself.

It is evident that Bill and Bernardine Dohrn, as unrepentant radicals of the sixties, figured out that by becoming professors they would be able to change the system to achieve their same revolutionary goals through the classroom where they could shape young minds. Listen here to the Dinesh D’Souza/Bill Ayers debate at Dartmouth College. 

Expansiveness of Ayers/Obama relationship

Regarding Ayers’ radical background and his connection to Obama, which Ayers denies and which Senator Obama dismissed when running for president in 2008 as “just a guy who lives in my neighborhood,” reporter Stanley Kurtz relates how Obama’s first run for the Illinois State Senate was launched at a 1995 gathering at the Ayers’ Chicago home.  Moreover, Bill Ayers has ties to at least ten people in the White House Administration.

Kurtz also links Obama in a big way to the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.  Founded by Ayers in 1995, Obama was appointed the first chairman of the CAC board in 1995. In archives reviewed by Kurtz housed in the Richard J. Daley Library at the University of Illinois at Chicago, Kurtz uncovered information showing how Barack Obama and Bill Ayers worked as a team to advance the CAC agenda patterned after Bill Ayers’ radical educational philosophy which “called for infusing students and their parents with a radical political commitment.” Achievement tests were downplayed in favor of activism.    

According to a lengthy article, titled, They’re all Together, appearing in the September 2011 issue of the “American Spectator” and written by Alfred S. Regnery, a former publisher of The American Spectator who served in the Justice Department during the Reagan Administration, “They’re all together” refers to Mr. and Mrs. Bill Ayers and their friend, the president.  Four factors were related in Mr. Regnery’s article as to why the importance of Bill and Bernadine Ayers’ long friendship with President Obama.  

1. It is important, first, because Obama along with Ayers and Dohrn, went to great lengths to mislead voters during the fall of 2008.  They “just lived in the same neighborhood” and had little contact, they pretended.  On the contrary, The American Spectator’s investigation has concluded that Obama and his campaign staff, with the help of the mainstream media, lied outright about his relationship with Ayers.  It has also concluded that Ayers lied about it as well. 

 2. The relationship is important, second, because Ayers and Dohrn are not reformed former radicals who have abandoned their old habits. Indeed, they are unrepentant violent radicals. . . who may have adopted new tactics to upend the U.S. and what it stands for, but whose goals remain just what they were in 1970. 

 3. Furthermore, the relationship is important because of the policies and issues that both Ayers and, to a lesser degree, Dohrn worked on with Obama during the 20 years preceding his election to the presidency and to the extent to which these hard-core left-wingers influenced today’s president of the United States.

 4. Finally, it is important because of Ayers’ relationship, through his powerful businessman father, with Chicago’s Daley family, who happens to be among the most ardent Obama supporters and promoters.  Interesting is that Richard M. Daley as Chicago’s states’s attorney presided over the plea bargain of Bernadine Dohrn when she surfaced from the underground. 

If you still doubt the close and 20-plus-year-relationship between Bill and Bernardine Dohrn and President Obama, read this riveting and all-telling comprehensive article titled, “The Obama File, Bill Ayers”. In that the two men shared an office, Obama knew very well who he was associating with. In 1989, Bernadine Dohrn and Michelle Obama were associates at the Chicago law firm of Sidley & Austin, when Obama joined the firm as a summer intern. Claims by Ayers and Obama that they have encountered each other occasionally in pubic or in the neighborhood, is dead wrong.  Ayers had a part in bringing the 24-year old Obama to Chicago when Obama was hired by the Woods Fund in 1985 as an organizer on Chicago’s economically depressed South Side.” 

Is this nation already The United Socialist States of America?  

The liberal college campus professors who helped reelect Barack Obama are now hard at work indoctrinating a new generation of students to turn into radical leftists.  Radical liberal professors, such as Ayers now retired, and Dohrn are entrenched at America’s universities and have tenure with scores of allies in the media and at academic institutions throughout the world. They despise America and are working to turn out yet another generation of American students who don’t understand why our country is unique and our freedom so precious.   

An interesting perspective of this nation was presented by Jeffrey T. Kuhner in his published article in March of 2010, titled, The United Socialist State of America.  Kuhner believed four years ago that President Obama was close to completing his socialist revolution to transform America. In Kuhner’s words:

From his days as a student radical, Mr. Obama has been obsessed with smashing the traditional free-market system.  Like most leftists, he thinks capitalism is the enemy.  ‘He was a Marxist-socialist in college,’ according to John C. Drew who knew Mr. Obama as a university student.  In an interview Drew told Kuhner that ‘He [Obama] kept talking about the need to overthrow capitalism in favor of a working-class revolution.’  

It is not by chance that both Standley Kurtz and Jeffrey Kuhner linked Obama with his longtime associates William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, who along with Obama’s minister, Jeremiah Wright — all supporters of Marxist liberation, — expressed deep hatred for the United States, further believing that “only fundamental, sweeping change can redeem America.”  

The claim Kuhner made in 2010 that President Obama is giving birth to a new nation, the United Socialist States of America (USSA) is not far-fetched.  Obama learned his lessons well as a student of activism in “Rules for Radicals” by neo-Trotskyite Saul Alinsky, which Obama applied when he worked with Bill Ayes as a Chicago community organizer in association with the Annenberg Challenge.  Jeffrey Kuhner’s article is a must read in its entirety.    

Fast forward to today when Obama continues to undermine the traditional system of checks and balances established by the Founding Fathers.  Much quoted is what was said in 1887 by Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years before:

 A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. . . From that moment on the majority always vote for the candidates who promises the most benefits from the public treasury. . . every democracy will finally collapse . . . always followed by a dictatorship.  The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been about 200 years.

Common Core as the final nail in the coffin

As a final thought, radical progressive educators, enabled by massive funding from left-leaning Bill Gates, concocted Common Core.  States bought into it in 2010, sight unseen, as Obama’s new and improved education program. Common Core History standards, which reflect the thinking of progressive educators like Bill and Bernadine Ayers and President Obama, are already being taught to our children. Are you fine with this as parents?

  • A relentlessly negative view of American history, which emphasizes every problem and failing of our ancestors while ignoring or minimizing their achievements.
  • Almost total silence about the Founding Fathers, including no mention of Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, and Adams, and almost none of the Declaration of Independence.
  • Omission of military history, battles, commanders, and heroes.
  • A biased and inaccurate view of many important facets of American history, including the motivations and actions of 17th-19th-century settlers, American involvement in World War II, and the conduct of and victory in the Cold War.

If allowed to continue unchecked in the public schools, the progressive Common Core standards will be the final nail in the coffin that will complete the transition from a once proud, prosperous and strong Republic to the United Socialist States of America, without a shot being fired, through the indoctrination of impressionable children with socialist ideas and doctrine.

This is not the time to sit back and do nothing. Time is running out. Take an active role in what your children are learning in school. Furthermore, become involved in promoting candidates who will, if elected, follow constitutional principles and fight for what is right and just.


Other articles by Nancy Thorner and Elizabeth Clarke on the radicalization of colleges where nontenured, radical  professors indoctrinate young people with ideas and policies akin to Socialism.  

1.  Cloward and Piven’s Marxist-based radicalism alive today: 

2. Past time for Ayers to confess past terrorism acts and Obama ties: 

3. Terrorists Bill and Bernadine Ayers slip unchallenged into roles as distinguished professors: 




By Nancy Thorner & Elizabeth Clarke – 

Shouldn’t the substantial taxes we pay to support our local school districts ensure that our children are receiving quality education? Then there is the cost of a college education which keeps escalating but which is deemed necessary by society for young people to succeed. Yet more and more college students are being saddled with massive education debts to pay after graduating from college, coupled as they are with limited job opportunities.

How many Americans realize that the education in our public schools (K-12), and in most colleges, is progressive in its nature. The explosion of progressive education in the 1990’s was outlined by Thorner and Clarke in their published article in Illinois Review on Thursday, August 31, Cloward and Pivens Marxist-based radicalism alive today.

In grades K-12 Common Core education, adopted sight unseen in 2010 in every state but Alaska, Nebraska, Texas, and Virginia, is imposing a centralization of authority over the nation’s historically decentralized K-12 education system. The public’s lack of knowledge about Common Core is troubling because education is of fundamental importance to this nation’s democracy for individual freedom, and prosperity. Those who characterize Common Core as anything other than a national takeover of schooling to implant progressive, socialist ideas in the minds of gullible and trusting children are deliberately hiding the truths from the public. This article tells of an educator who changed from being a supporter of Common Core to her disillusionment by what she observed. As the notorious Russian Communist Vladimir Lenin once said: “Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.”

While attending college the brainwashing continues.  It is difficult for conservative college students to express their beliefs and core values to their professors verbally or through their written work. Co-author Elizabeth Clarke remembers what happened to a granddaughter when she first entered college.  Her granddaughter, when attending an auditorium assembly meeting for freshmen, was told to forget all that she had ever learned before she entered college, a new way to think.

Ayers and Dohrn transition from terrorist to college professors

The nation’s colleges have long been infused with liberal progressive doctrine and professors.  Columbia University was cited by Thorner and Clarke as one such institution influenced early on by Communist-leaning John Dewey who taught at Columbia in the 1930’s.  Columbia went on to produce many educators in the 50’s who went out to spread the liberal, progressive gospel across the nation.  

 It was Roger Kimball’s claimed in his book, “Tenured Radicals,”  that “yesterday’s radical thinker has become today’s tenured professor” carrying out “ideologically motivated assaults on the intellectual and moral substance of our culture.”  Bill Ayers’ proclivity toward terrorism was fostered by a 1965 Ann Arbor Teach-In against the Vietnam war.  At the event Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) President Paul Potter, asked his audience, “How will you live your life so that it doesn’t make a mockery of your values?” Ayers later wrote in his memoir, Fugitive Days, of his reaction: “You could not be a moral person with the means to act, and stand still. […] To stand still was to choose indifference. Indifference was the opposite of moral”.

The transition from Underground terrorists to distinguished college professors by Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn was apparently an easy one to attain. Granted their professorships were at established liberal institutions; however, there is more to the story to explain today why there is a preponderance of liberal activist professors to conservatives ones at most institutions of higher learning. 

Impact of McCarthy era  

How was the transition by Ayers and Dohrn from terrorists to distinguished college professors accomplished?  To understand how radical terrorist like Ayers and Dohrn were able to obtain university position as former terrorists even at liberal universities, it is necessary to go back to the era of McCarthyism, so coined to criticize the anti-communist pursuits of Senator Joe McCarthy from a period in the United States known as the Second Red Scare lasting roughly from 1950 to 1956.  During that period there was heightened political repression against communists, as well as a fear campaign spreading paranoia of their influence on American institutions. 

Beginning in 1950, Joseph McCarthy, who served as a Republican U.S. Senator from the state of Wisconsin from 1947 until his death in 1957, became the most visible public face of a period in which Cold War tensions fueled fears of widespread Communist subversion.  McCarthy, in his U.S. Congressional hearings, made claims that there were large numbers of Communists and Soviet spies and sympathizers inside the United States federal government and also in universities. Ultimately, McCarthy’s tactics led him to be censured by the United States Senate. 

Co-author Elizabeth Clarke remembers the McCarthy era well. It is her opinion that McCarthy’s hearings were useful, but that he ultimately overstepped his bounds.  Hatred for Richard Nixon by Democrats when he became president can be traced back to the McCarthy hearings. Richard Nixon, as a young prosecutor, was involved in the McCarthy hearings. This hatred for Nixon by Democrats ultimately led to the effort to impeach Nixon, which Democrats were seeking to maneuver from the moment Nixon became president, with Nixon resigning before the impeachment vote could take place. 

Laws passed by the Supreme Court finally result in banning loyalty oaths

Prior to the McCarthy era of the 1950’s, the Smith Act was enacted, June 29, 1940.  It set penalties for advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government or to organize of be a member of any group or society devoted to such advocacy.  Formally known at the “Alien Registration Act of 1940,” all non-citizen adult residents were required to register with the government. 

Following WWII the Smith Act was made the basis of a series of prosecutions against leaders of the Communist Party and the Socialist Workers Party.  In Dennis v. United States (1951), the Court ruled that Eugene DennisGeneral Secretary of the Communist Party USA, did not have the right under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution to exercise free speech, publication and assembly, if the exercise involved the creation of a plot to overthrow the government.  In a later case, Yates v. United States in 1957, the court offset this position somewhat by a strict reading of the language of the Smith Act, construing “advocacy” to mean only urging that includes incitement to unlawful action 

It was in 1967 that the Supreme Court in Keyishian et al v Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York granted protection to terrorist-turned professors. The lawsuit grew out of professors at the University of State of New York refusing to either sign a certificate or answer in writing under oath this question:  “Have you ever advised or taught or were you ever a member of any society or group of persons which taught or advocated the doctrine that the Government of the United States or of any political subdivisions thereof should be overthrown or overturned by force, violence or any unlawful means?”  Decided on January 23, 1967, in a 5-4 Supreme Court decision, Keyishian et al v Board of Regents held that states cannot prohibit employees from being members of the Communist Party or other seditious groups

Thomas G. Ayers, who was later Chairman and CEO of Commonwealth Edison (1973 to 1980), and for whom Northwestern’s Thomas G. Ayers College of Commerce and Industrywas named, undoubtedly had a big part in getting university teaching positions for his son and wife.  In the eyes of Thomas Ayers, whose tentacles of political influence in Chicago reached far and wide, his son could do no wrong. 


Cloward and Piven’s Marxist-based radicalism alive today: 

Part 4 to follow:  Thorner & Clarke: Will radical universities dominated by radicals, tenured professors doom this nation?

Articles by Nancy Thorner and Elizabeth Clarke on the radicalization of colleges where nontenured, radical  professors indoctrinate young people with ideas and policies akin to Socialism.  

Cloward and Piven’s Marxist-based radicalism alive today: 

Monday, August 04, 2014

Thorner & Clarke: Past time for Ayers to confess past terrorism acts and Obama ties?


By Nancy Thorner and Elizabeth Clarke – 

In Thorner’s Illinois Review article of Thursday, July 31, the progressive-based education system in place today is traced back to Karl Marx in Germany to New England-born John Dewey and his tenure at Columbia University, ending with Dewey’s acolytes, the husband and wife team of Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven at Columbia in the 60’s. The two produced the Cloward-Piven strategy in play today in the Obama administration.

Progressive Education explodes in the 90’s 

Chicagoan Bill Ayers’ direct involvement with progressive education, before his activities as a terrorist in the Weather Underground movement, can be traced back to his college years at the University of Michigan where he graduated in 1968 with a B.A. in American Studies. Ayers became a teacher at the Children’s Community School located in the basement of a church, a preschool with a small enrollment founded by a group of students who were enamored by the Summerhill method of education as part of the nationwide “free school movement”. 

The Summerhill method had no grades or report cards and encouraged cooperation rather than competition. Within a few months, at age 21, Ayers became director of the school.  Considered a radical alternative to conventional education (or was it a form on anarchy?), the Summerhill method catered to do-as-you-like kids. 

Consider what Roger Kimball — a notable American art critic and social commentator, editor and publisher of The New Criterion, and publisher of Encounter Book — had to say in his book, “Tenured Radicals,” first published in 1990 with expanded 2nd and 3rd editions.  Kimball makes the claim that yesterday’s radical thinker has become today’s tenured professor, carrying out “ideologically-motivated assaults on the intellectual and moral substance of our culture.”

Another American author, Karl Zinsmeister, wrote in his article, “The Shame of American’s One-Party Campuses,” published in the September 2002 issue of The American Enterprise while yet its editor-in-chief: 

Today’s colleges and universities are not, to use the current buzzword, diverse places.  Quite the opposite:  they are virtual one-party states, ideological monopolies, badly unbalanced ecosystems…They do not, when it comes to political and cultural ideas, look like America.

Dr. Zinsmister’s 2002 article is referenced in this study.  Zinsmeister served in the White House as President George W. Bush’s chief domestic policy advisor from 2006 to 2009.

Without doubt, conservative students suffer under the intense liberal indoctrination of many colleges, but being white also proved to be a disadvantage.  In 2011, white students were targeted by a campaign sponsored by the University of Minnesota, in tandem with champions of social justice such as the NAACP, YWCA, and the League of Women Voters, to raise awareness that it’s “unfair to be white.” Its “Un-Fair Campaign” stated any success a white person has comes from “white privilege” and inherent racism instead of learning founding principles that made America great.  

Disinformation to students from a historical perspective has been spread through Howard Zinn’s best known 1980 book, A People’s History of the United States, which has been used to instruct generations of faculty members and their own students.  In July of 2013 when Mitch Daniels was yet governor of Indiana (2005 to 2013),  Daniels requested that no public universities or high school should teach the works of Howard Zinn, a longtime Boston University professor who died in 2010, which riled the Left at the time.  Daniel’s was referring specifically to Zinn’s “A People’s History of the United States.” 

Mitch Daniel was correct in his assessment of Zinn’s textbook, a textbook of choice in many high schools and colleges around the country.  Daniels described Zinn’s history textbook as “a truly execrable, anti-factual piece of disinformation that misstates American history on every page. Can someone assure me that it is not in use anywhere in Indiana? If it is, how do we get rid of it before more young people are force-fed a totally false version of our history?”

UN advances progressive education in the 90’s

The Rio Conference of 1991 produced Agenda 21.  Chapter 36 is all about Promoting Education, Public Awareness and Training.  In a lecture given by Dr. Dave Lehman   in June of this year, he talks about Agenda 21 and the history of Progressive Education, first tested in Chicago through “Mastery Learning” (Outcome-based education), geared to brainwash young, impressionable children.   Also cited by Dr. Lehman was Clinton’s Governor’s Program.

It is not at all surprising that a year after the Rio Conference, November 12, 1992, a letter known as Tucker’s “Dear Hillary” letter was written to Hillary Clinton at the Governor’s Mansion in Little Rock, AR by Marc Tucker, president of the National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE).  In his letter Tucker laid out his plan, supported by Hillary, “to remold the entire American system” into “a seamless web that literally extends from cradle to grave and is the same system for everyone,” further coordinated by “a system of labor market boards at the local, state and federal levels.” 

The aim of Tucker’s progressive education plan was to change the mission of the schools from teaching children academic basics and knowledge to training them to serve the global economy in jobs selected by workforce boards. Nothing in Tucker’s comprehensive plan had anything to do with teaching schoolchildren how to read, write, or calculate; nevertheless, three laws were passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton, in keeping with Tucker’s grand plan, the Goals 2000 Act, the School-to-Work Act, and the reauthorized Elementary and Secondary Education Act.  The latter law established the following mechanisms to restructure the public schools now being implemented in this nation’s public schools through Common Core, Obama’s educational program:  

  • Bypass all elected officials on school boards and in state legislatures by making federal funds flow to the Governor and his appointees on workforce development boards
  • Use a computer database, a.k.a. “a labor market information system,” into which school personnel would scan all information about every schoolchild and his family, identified by the child’s social security number: academic, medical, mental, psychological, behavioral, and interrogations by counselors. The computerized data would be available to the school, the government, and future employers.
  • Use “national standards” and “national testing” to cement national control of tests, assessments, school honors and rewards, financial aid, and the Certificate of Initial Mastery (CIM), which is designed to replace the high school diploma.

Marc Tucker, still active today, ranks as #3 among the top ten scariest people leading education in America.  Noteworthy is that the National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE), the organization over which Tucker presides, is paid millions  by Common Core main-funder Bill Gates, to promote Tucker’s progressive ideas.  For example, Tucker hopes to remove “the policy of requiring a passing score on an Algebra II exam for high school graduation” because he feels that over educating the masses is a waste of collective tax money.

In October, 2013 Marc Tucker addressed members of the New Hampshire legislature where Tucker was accused of telling more fibs that Pinocchio ever did.  As quoted: Tucker doesn’t know a mathematician from a mathematics educator, raising the question whether he knows what he is talking about at all.”

Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, as progressive radicals, become distinguished educators

Given that many of the terrorists and radicals thinkers of the past are today’s college professors at universities and colleges, which are hotbeds of liberalism, it is not surprising that William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, after their terrorist days as Underground Weathermen, became distinguished professors, William Ayers at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and Bernadine Dohrn at Northwestern University in Evanston. By the same token, this also explains why many of today’s journalist espouse liberal policies — which amounts to a corrupted, one-sided media — as many journalists received their training at Schools of Journalism from liberal institutions such as Columbia and Northwestern Universities.

William Charles “Bill” Ayers was born on December 26, 1944. Ayers is known as an American elementary education theorist and a former leader in the counterculture movement that opposed U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War.  In 1969 he co-founded the Weather Underground, a self-described communist revolutionary group that conducted a campaign of bombing public buildings (including police stations, the U.S. Capitol Building, and the Pentagon) during the 1960s and 1970s in response to U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War.  Now a retired professor in the College of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, Ayers formerly held the titles of Distinguished Professor of Education and Senior University Scholar. He is married to Bernadine Dohrn who was also a leader in the Weather Underground.

Bernardine Rae Dohrn’s birth dateis January 12, 1942.  She is a  Clinical Associate Professor of Law at Northwestern University School of Law and the immediate past Director of Northwestern’s Children and Family Justice Center. As a leader and member of the Weather Underground, Dohrn helped to create a “Declaration of a State of War” against the United States government, and was placed on the FBI’s 10 Most Wanted list, where she remained for three years. 

Bill Ayers continues to justify his terrorist background

Three Decades after the end of  the Weather Underground, Bill Ayers is still attempting to justify his actions in the 50’s and 60’s when his opposition to the Vietnam War turned violent.  It is time for Ayers to cut the sophistry and admit to his violent acts, reckoning in retrospect, that his Weather Underground activities accomplished nothing but to undermine the peaceful antiwar movement of the time. 

Ayers has chosen to remain an unrepentant terrorist.  Recently Bill Ayers attempted to justify his actions when he went toe-to-toe with Megyn Kelly in two explosive interviews during which Kelly repeatedly confronted Ayers about bombings and killings that the Weather Underground group was reportedly involved in. View here Kelly’s two incredulous interviews with Bill Ayers. 

According to Ayers, he was a victim of a profoundly dishonest drama. Although Ayer’s Weather Underground committed symbolic acts of extreme vandalism directed against monuments to war and racism, Ayers did not consider this terrorism. Bombings were surgical strikes meant to respect human life. Ayers insisted that he never killed or hurt anyone and never intended to.  As to the bombing of the Pentagon by Ayers and his cohorts, Ayers didn’t believe an apology was called for.

Bill Ayers’ comments expressed to Megyn Kelly about his Weatherman Underground involvement were in keeping with those he expressed on December 6, 2008 in an Op-Ed to the “New York Times.”  (At the time William Ayers was professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago and the author of “Fugitive Days.”).  In his Op-Ed, “The Real Bill Ayers,” Ayers bemoaned his inability to refute prior to the 2008 election an untrue casting of himself as an unrepentant terrorist with ties to Barack Obama.  It was the aim of Ayers’ article to inform the public that the character invented to serve this drama wasn’t Bill Ayers, not even close. 

Part 2 will explore the nature of McCarthyism; the law passed (The Smith Act) to require college professors to take an oath of loyalty to this nation; how the loyalty oath was abandoned by a 1967 law which allowed terrorists like Ayers and Dohrn to become college professors; Ayers’ progressive ties to President Obama; and whether this nation has already become “The United Socialist States of America.”


Tuesday, December 10, 2013

Thorner: First ObamaCare, Now ObamaCore


By Nancy Thorner – 

Part 1:  Common Core sows seeds of Socialism in young

For over 100 years an educational system was in place that served this nation well. Those of us who can relate back to the 1950’s and before remember a time when the curriculum was left to individual teachers, or to department personnel in larger school systems, and where textbooks were likewise selected by individual teachers or department committees from a state-approved list of school textbooks.

It was an era when if teachers weren’t doing their jobs, they were usually let go after having a chance to improve. This same accountability existed from grades K through graduate school until the 60’s when teacher unions were organized and took hold in states.  The Illinois Education Association (IEA) is one of the strongest in the nation.  Its influence is far reaching in setting teacher salaries and in determining rules and regulations under which teachers work in local school districts.

Young men, having been educated under an educational system that some now view as haphazard, were prepared for work and for college. They further acquitted themselves well on the battle field when serving in World War I and II.  After the wars these same ordinary men and women built businesses and proved to be productive in many ways.

What happened in the interim, despite all the money this nation has plowed into education, when fast forwarding to 2010 a new education program, Common Core, was  conceived and created by the National Governors Association?  President Obama and his administration wasted no time in embracing the new Common Core program.

Concluded by the NGA and the SCSSO was that for children to be properly educated there must be national standards, or a national curriculum, with lock-step performance testing curriculum to enable this nation to catch up with the rest of the world in science, math, and engineering.  This despite that during much of the last hundred years this nation led the world in the disciplines of science, math and engineering and produced a large number of competent and brilliant scientists, doctors, engineers, architects, etc.

According to an article published on December 4th at, Barack Obama didn’t simply embrace a concept that others had developed. Rather, the very roots of Common Core are in the early ideas generated by Obama and his fellow radical community organizer, Bill Ayers. It was Obama who headed the Chicago Annenberg Challenge from 1995 to 1999, a school “reform” organization founded by Bill Ayers, which funneled more than $100 million into community organizations and radical education activists.

Regarding the  National Governors Association and the Council to Chief State School Officers, who are often cited and given credit for being the originators of Common Core standards, the real architect behind Common Core was David Coleman.  As such, Coleman is responsible for bringing change to the entire American education system, even in the absence of any teaching experience.

In applying for a high school teaching job Coleman was turned down, after which he worked for a consulting firm where he advised public schools and became a fixture at NYC Department of Education meetings.

Coleman’s agenda:  Transforming the American education system to fit his lofty ideas of what “real” education is.  And it has nothing to do with learning useful skills to help you say, write a cohesive and grammatically correct resume or long division.

Of great concern is that Coleman was hired this past summer to lead the College Board organization.  He is now redesigning the SAT’s and AP Program.  In this position Coleman has the opportunity to tie what kids are learning to what colleges are expecting.

Part 2:  Riveting Facts about Common Core that can’t be ignored
Related articles

Tuesday, December 10, 2013 at 10:00 AM | Permalink

Technorati Tags: , , ,