8/31/2012

Romney a bully?

Mitt Romney returned from a three-week spring break in 1965 to resume his studies as a high school senior at the prestigious Cranbrook School. Back on the handsome campus, studded with Tudor brick buildings and manicured fields, he spotted something he thought did not belong at a school where the boys wore ties and carried briefcases. John Lauber, a soft-spoken new student one year behind Romney, was perpetually teased for his nonconformity and presumed homosexuality. Now he was walking around the all-boys school with bleached-blond hair that draped over one eye, and Romney wasn’t having it.
“He can’t look like that. That’s wrong. Just look at him!” an incensed Romney told Matthew Friedemann, his close friend in the Stevens Hall dorm, according to Friedemann’s recollection. Mitt, the teenage son of Michigan Gov. George Romney, kept complaining about Lauber’s look, Friedemann recalled.

Video
 
Mitt Romney appeared on the Fox News Radio show “Kilmeade and Friends” and addressed The Washington Post article about pranks he played during his years at the Cranbrook Schools in Michigan.

Mitt Romney, responding to a Washington Post article, said he was sorry for high school pranks that “might have gone too far.”

As a student at a chaotic time for the Mormon school, he focused on family and his church.
Why does Romney seem so stiff?
Friends say the fun, affable man they know hasn’t appeared on the campaign trail — perhaps because he’s trying too hard.
A few days later, Friedemann entered Stevens Hall off the school’s collegiate quad to find Romney marching out of his own room ahead of a prep school posse shouting about their plan to cut Lauber’s hair. Friedemann followed them to a nearby room where they came upon Lauber, tackled him and pinned him to the ground. As Lauber, his eyes filling with tears, screamed for help, Romney repeatedly clipped his hair with a pair of scissors.
The incident was recalled similarly by five students, who gave their accounts independently of one another. Four of them — Friedemann, now a dentist; Phillip Maxwell, a lawyer; Thomas Buford, a retired prosecutor; and David Seed, a retired principal — spoke on the record. Another former student who witnessed the incident asked not to be identified. The men have differing political affiliations, although they mostly lean Democratic. Buford volunteered for Barack Obama’s campaign in 2008. Seed, a registered independent, has served as a Republican county chairman in Michigan. All of them said that politics in no way colored their recollections.
“It happened very quickly, and to this day it troubles me,” said Buford, the school’s wrestling champion, who said he joined Romney in restraining Lauber. Buford subsequently apologized to Lauber, who was “terrified,” he said. “What a senseless, stupid, idiotic thing to do.”
“It was a hack job,” recalled Maxwell, a childhood friend of Romney who was in the dorm room when the incident occurred. “It was vicious.”
“He was just easy pickin’s,” said Friedemann, then the student prefect, or student authority leader of Stevens Hall, expressing remorse about his failure to stop it.
The incident transpired in a flash, and Friedemann said Romney then led his cheering schoolmates back to his bay-windowed room in Stevens Hall.
Friedemann, guilt ridden, made a point of not talking about it with his friend and waited to see what form of discipline would befall Romney at the famously strict institution. Nothing happened.


Romney is now the presumed Republican presidential nominee. His campaign spokeswoman, Andrea Saul, said in a statement that “anyone who knows Mitt Romney knows that he doesn’t have a mean-spirited bone in his body. The stories of fifty years ago seem exaggerated and off base and Governor Romney has no memory of participating in these incidents.”
 Campaign officials denied a request for an interview with Romney. They also declined to comment further about his years at Cranbrook.
In a subsequent interview Thursday morning with Fox News Radio, Romney said he didn’t remember the incident but apologized for pranks he helped orchestrate that he said “might have gone too far.” 

After the incident, Lauber seemed to disappear. He returned days later with his shortened hair back to its natural brown. He finished the year but ultimately left the school before graduation — thrown out for smoking a cigarette.
Sometime in the mid-1990s, David Seed noticed a familiar face at the end of a bar at Chicago O’Hare International Airport.
“Hey, you’re John Lauber,” Seed recalled saying at the start of a brief conversation. Seed, also among those who witnessed the Romney-led incident, had gone on to a career as a teacher and principal. Now he had something to get off his chest.
“I’m sorry that I didn’t do more to help in the situation,” he said.
Lauber paused, then responded, “It was horrible.” He went on to explain how frightened he was during the incident, and acknowledged to Seed, “It’s something I have thought about a lot since then.”
Lauber died in 2004, according to his three sisters.
Romney came of age during his six years at Cranbrook. First as a day student and later as a full-time boarder, he embraced and became emblematic of the Cranbrook way — a strict disciplinary code and academic rigor that governed the school by day and a freewheeling unofficial boys code of “Crannies” at night. Wherever the action was, so was Romney. He wrote the most letters to the girls at the sister school across the lake and successfully petitioned to get placed in the top classes. He was not a natural athlete but found his place among the jocks by managing the hockey team and leading megaphone cheers for the football team. Although a devout Mormon, one of the few at the school, he was less defined by his faith than at any other time in his life. He was a member of 11 school organizations, including the Spectators’ Club and the homecoming committee, and started the school’s booster outfit, the Blue Key Club.
It was at Cranbrook where he first lived on his own, found his future wife and made his own decisions. One can see the institution’s influence on his demeanor and actions during those years, but also how it helped form the clubbiness and earnestness, the sense of leadership and enthusiasm, apparent in his careers as a businessman and a politician. “He strongly bought in to community service,” said Richard Moon, a schoolmate at the time. “That hard work was its own reward.” What is less visible today is what was most apparent to his prep-school peers: his jocularity.
Now, nearly half a century later, Romney’s presidential campaign has turned to the candidate’s youthful antics as evidence of his capacity for harmless, humanizing pranks and as an indication of his looser, less wooden self.
“There’s a wild and crazy man inside of there just waiting to come out,” Romney’s wife, Ann — a graduate of Cranbrook’s sister school, Kingswood — attested in a television interview this month, evoking what she saw as his endearing and fun-loving prep-school persona. Many of Romney’s peers from his high school days echo that version of the candidate, describing him as the humble son of an automobile executive-turned-governor who volunteered at the nearby mental hospital. They recall an infectious laugh, a characterization first documented in his senior yearbook.
 “If you should ever by chance be walking down the [Stevens Hall] corridor at 2:00 a.m. and hear rising tones of boisterous, exuberant laughter, you are almost sure to find its source is Mitt Romney,” the yearbook reported. “A quiet joke, a panicky laughter and another of the Friedemann-Romney all-night marathon contests has begun.”
But Friedemann and several people closest to Romney in those formative years say there was a sharp edge to him. In an English class, Gary Hummel, who was a closeted gay student at the time, recalled that his efforts to speak out in class were punctuated with Romney shouting, “Atta girl!” In the culture of that time and place, that was not entirely out of the norm. Hummel recalled some teachers using similar language. 

Saul, Romney’s campaign spokeswoman, said the candidate has no recollection of the incident.
Teachers were also the butt of Romney’s brand of humor.
One venerable English teacher, Carl G. Wonn­berger, nicknamed “the Bat” for his diminished eyesight, was known to walk into the trophy case and apologize, step into wastepaper baskets and stare blindly as students slipped out the back of the room to smoke by the open windows. Once, several students remembered the time pranksters propped up the back axle of Wonnberger’s Volkswagen Beetle with two-by-fours and watched, laughing from the windows, as the unwitting teacher slammed the gas pedal with his wheels spinning in the air.
As an underclassman, Romney accompanied Wonnberger and Pierce Getsinger, another student, from the second floor of the main academic building to the library to retrieve a book the two boys needed. According to Getsinger, Romney opened a first set of doors for Wonnberger, but then at the next set, with other students around, he swept his hand forward, bidding the teacher into a closed door. Wonnberger walked right into it and Getsinger said Romney giggled hysterically as the teacher shrugged it off as another of life’s indignities.
“I always enjoyed his pranks,” said Stu White, a popular friend of Romney’s who went on to a career as a public school teacher and said he has been “disturbed” by the Lauber incident since hearing about it several weeks ago, before being contacted by The Washington Post. “But I was not the brunt of any of his pranks.” [Updated: See Editor’s Note below]
In later years, after Romney went on a Mormon mission, married and raised five sons, he seemed a different person to some old classmates. “Mitt began to change as a person when he met Ann Davies. He gradually became a more serious person. She was part of the process of him maturing and becoming more of the person he is today,” said Jim Bailey, who was a classmate of Romney’s at Cranbrook and later at Harvard
By the 1950s, George and Lenore Romney had cracked the Motor City firmament and made their home in the exclusive enclave of Bloomfield Hills. When it came to educating their children, the clear choice was Cranbrook.
Built in 1927 by George Booth, publisher of the Detroit News, and named after his father’s alma mater in Kent, England, Cranbrook stood out as an architectural gem in the Michigan woods. Modeled on British boarding schools with “forms” instead of grades, “prefects” instead of RAs, “masters” instead of teachers, it also boasted the work of famed Finnish architect Eliel Saarinen. Cranbrook had all the trappings of an elite school where kids walked around like junior executives and, as Tom Elliott, Class of 1966, recalled, learned mantras such as, “Remember who you are, and what you represent.”
 “If you went to Cranbrook,” said a classmate, Peter “the Bird” Werbel. “You were creme de la creme.”
The Romney children walked under arches reading “A Life Without Beauty Is Only Half Lived”; past a field overlooked by Greek-style sculptures where the Detroit Lions practiced; and then a statuette of the school’s symbol, the archer from Book V of Virgil’s “Aeneid,” who “aimed an arrow high.” (In the mug honoring Romney’s Class of 1965, a naked woman replaced the aiming archer.) They looked out of leaded-glass windows in the academic buildings, crossed the spruce-spotted quad lined with modernist fountains and sleek statues of coursing hounds. They studied in reading rooms featuring frescoes and marble friezes. In the chandeliered dining room, students waited on fellow students and sat on straight-backed spindle chairs bearing the school’s insignia of a proud crane. After dinner, they wiped their mouths with cloth napkins. 

In 1959, Mitt Romney enrolled at Cranbrook as a 12-year-old seventh-grader.
For the most part, the school broke down along the usual lines of jocks and brains, popular kids and introverts, all trained with the expectation of joining the next generation’s elite. The students gave one another chummy nicknames. There was Moonie and Butch, the Kraut and Flip. Romney, his name short to begin with, was playfully teased with chants of Wiiillard, Wiiillard by his friends.
Ron Sill, a Romney classmate especially attuned to the counterculture of the 1960s, rolled his eyes at the dance instruction and lessons on how to hold a teacup and properly shake a man’s hand. He preferred to listen to folk music in the coffee shops of neighboring Birmingham. Taro Yamasaki, the son of the architect of the World Trade Center and several Bloomfield Hills houses, then went by the name Michael and encountered what he called a “veiled racism.” “I was a linebacker in football,” said Yamasaki, who went on to become a Pulitzer Prize-winning photographer. “And the coaches would call me Kamikaze.” Sidney Barthwell, the son of a prominent Detroit pharmacist, was the only African American student in Romney’s class from the seventh through 12th grades. Now a Detroit magistrate, he said he tried to introduce some west Detroit swagger to the school, but it was, he said, “pretty Republican and pretty WASP-y.”
There was a significant Jewish contingent, and several of those students said they never sensed any obvious prejudice. During Romney’s tenure, there were also Middle Eastern exchange students, usually from Kuwait.
Abdulhadi M. al-Awadi, a Kuwaiti student, had fond memories of the school and the respect and special attention he received from teachers. He recalled Romney as the “son of Governor Romney” who was “very sociable.” When some students put up pictures of Israeli statesman David Ben-Gurion in the hallway near his room, he did not believe it was meant intentionally to offend him, but he was bothered by it. “It’s human nature. But they did it. That’s their right.”
 Faisel F. al-Abduljadir, a Kuwaiti student spending his senior year at Cranbrook in part to improve his English, said the teachers and students went out of their way to treat him with respect, showing consideration for his celebration of Ramadan and bathing requirements. But he acknowledged being “angry” about a caption under his picture in the senior yearbook that read, “Take a left at the next Synagogue.”
Religion was not much of an issue for the students. There was mandatory chapel time on Tuesdays and Thursdays when they sang Episcopalian hymns and the school song, “Forty Years On,” but it was studiously nondenominational. The campus’s elegant Christ Church had a Star of David, an Islamic crescent, and yin-and-yang sign above its wooden door. The Mormon Romney joined Jews and Protestants on Cranbrook’s Church Cabinet, which focused on community service. 

Some students admired Romney for what they saw as his lack of airs, saying he did not trade on his father’s status as an auto executive and governor. Romney even came in for teasing because American Motors, the company his father ran, was considered at the bottom rung of the big-auto hierarchy, below General Motors, Ford and Chrysler.
“Boys in a boys’ school can tease and make fun of almost anything,” said Bailey, a scholarship student and head prefect of the school who described Romney at the time as an awkward adolescent with a penchant for practical jokes. The children of other auto executives would taunt Romney for the Ramblers he and his father drove. “That’s not a car, that’s a bicycle with a dishwasher for an engine,” Bailey recalled them saying.
Others noticed a distance between themselves and Romney. “I was a scholarship student, and he was the son of the governor,” said Lance Leithauser, now a doctor, who attended the school with his brother, Brad, now a noted poet. “There was a bit of a gulf.” Even a close pal like Friedemann felt that distance; their friendship was confined to the dorms. When Romney left the campus on weekends, he never invited him. “I didn’t quite fit into the social circle. I didn’t have a car when I was 16,” Friedemann said. “I couldn’t go skiing or whatever they did.”
Lou Vierling, a scholarship student who boarded at Cranbrook for the 1960 and 1961 academic years, was struck by a question Romney asked them when they first met. “He wanted to know what my father did for a living,” Vierling recalled. “He wanted to know if my mother worked. He wanted to know what town I lived in.” As Vierling explained that his father taught school, that he commuted from east Detroit, he noticed a souring of Romney’s demeanor.
Romney was bowled over by the wealth of some of his friends. He briefly dated Mary Fisher, the daughter of the philanthropist and diplomat Max Fisher, who acted as a finance chairman to George Romney’s political campaigns. At her house, he watched the James Bond film “Goldfinger” in the family’s private theater before it was widely released. He reported excitedly back to Friedemann about the theater, noting that the seats even had numbers.
The largest chasm of all at Cranbrook was between the boarders and the “day boys.” Students within the limits of Detroit’s Eight Mile Road had the option to attend the school without boarding. The requirements for enrollment as a day student were generally tougher, leading day boys to consider themselves academically superior. Day boys also had the freedom to leave campus when school let out late in the afternoon. Often those with cars would gas up at nearby service stations, cruise Woodward Avenue and plot “how and where we could get some beer,” said Gregg Dearth, who went by the nickname Daiquiri Dearth. Drugs were generally unheard of, but day boy parties often included someone downing beers or toting bottles of scotch.
Romney began his Cranbrook career as a day boy and quickly adapted to the school’s unofficial code. He was prohibited by his religion from drinking alcohol but excelled at elaborate practical jokes.
During spring break of his senior year, when most of his friends went to Florida for vacation, Romney stayed behind to make movies for an upcoming Cranbrook talent show. For one, he filmed his friends Stu White and Judy Sherman seated at a table to dine on fine china on a Woodward Avenue median as their friend Pike John, now deceased, acted as the waiter. Romney filmed the luncheon until a police officer pulled up. “And that was it,” Sherman said.
But in a well-known prank in which Romney flashed a police siren and, bearing a fake badge and cap, approached two friends and their dates parked on a dark country road, there was a stronger undercurrent of fear to the incident than commonly conveyed. Candy Porter, a Kingswood boarder from a small town in Ohio, had a strict 11 p.m. curfew. As Romney and his Cranbrook pals played out the joke, pretending to be shocked over empty bourbon bottles in the trunk, Porter thought of the dorm mothers waiting at the door and the threat of expulsion. “I just remember being like a deer in headlights,” she said. “I just remember being terrified.” Once she realized it was all a prank, and was safely back at her dorm, Porter joined in the laughter.
Romney’s sense of humor ran through his family.
Sherman, a friend of the Romneys from high school, recalled Ann telling her about the time Romney and his older brother, Scott, dressed up in white coats and wheeled a gurney up to the Birmingham train station to meet their aunt. When she got off the train, they rushed her away as if to a madhouse.
By the time Romney started dating Ann in his senior year, he had immersed himself into the Cranbrook culture. In 1962, when his father won the governorship and his parents moved to Lansing, he entered the boarding life as a resident of Stevens Hall, named after the school’s first headmaster. From the inside, Cranbrook was an entirely different place.
“The day students,” said Steph Lady, a boarder and now a screenwriter in Hollywood, “it was like they didn’t even go there.”
Romney breathed Cranbrook day and night.
He met the Kingswood girls at the Get Acquainted Dance in the school gym. There was the Chateau de Noel girl-ask-boy dance at Christmas, and the World A-Fair, in which students dressed up in the garb of other nations. He sang in the Glee Club and started the Blue Key Club, an organization of students who “know the campus and Cranbrook traditions well” and served as ambassador to parents and prospective students. The school newspaper noted that his “diligent and capable leadership” of the homecoming weekend, where he delivered a “brilliantly hilarious monologue,” earned him a citation reserved for “students whose contributions to school life are often not fully recognized through already existing channels.” He was co-chairman of the Speculators Club and played a leading role in the American Field Service, which helped bring foreign students to the campus. He also served a leadership role on a student cabinet organization and during his senior year took a bus with some Kingswood girls to volunteer at the nearby state mental hospital. There, he danced to spinning 45s and talked and ate chips with the young patients.
“His altruism was apparent then and is apparent now,” said Candy Porter, who volunteered with Romney at the hospital. “I just remember him being really nice,” said Mary Fisher.
Romney also found time to contribute to the school paper as a special correspondent at the funeral of President John F. Kennedy. “Mitt Romney Comments on Kennedy Funeral,” read the front page headline on the Dec. 17, 1963, edition of the Crane. “Note: Personal comments and observations made by Mitt Romney in Washington, Nov. 25, 1963.”
“The old Washington theory of relativity, briefly: one is important only until a bigger brass appears, was blatently [sic] obvious for whenever before have we had the top potentates of the world here to outrank our dignitaries? We all recall the day when we saw a senator of the like in some big, black limosine [sic] drive through our town. Most likely our mouths were hanging wide open as our Mommies and Daddies told us the man out there was a very important person who worked in Washington.”
Even without extracurricular activities, Cranbrook demanded long days. The morning bell rang at 7 and breakfast was served in the dining hall at 7:30, coat and tie required. After breakfast, students returned to clean their rooms in anticipation of white-gloved senior prefects who scoured the bed frames for dust. After classes and study hall at 9:30, students could go beneath Stevens Hall to the school store, where the boys received letters, via an inter-school postal service, from the girls at Kingswood. Some were perfumed.
The letters Romney wrote were delivered to the Green Lobby in Kingswood. Around 10:15 every morning, the girls, all wearing saddle shoes, hoped to hear their names called amid walls of rich green tile, and banisters, benches and clocks all in the art deco style.
“The person who wrote the most consistently was Mitt,” said Lyn Moon Shields, who dated Romney in the fall semester of 1964. Gentlemanly and fun, Romney was her best date in her six years at school. He called every evening and picked her up in his powder blue Rambler and drove her up and down Woodward Avenue on weekends, and to school dances where she wore blue-green formal dresses and he a dark suit and tie. “Things were so innocent,” she said. “We kissed each other, I think Mitt would admit to that.” One day, she said, Romney just stopped calling. He had taken an interest in a Kingswood sophomore. “They got intentional about their relationship very soon,” Shields said of Mitt and Ann.
Like every other student, Romney completed a rigorous workload that made most college requirements seem easy by comparison. Between the seventh and eighth grades, the faculty selected a dozen or so students to enter an advanced-placement program. Romney at first was not among the chosen, and he objected. “He went into the headmaster and convinced him that ‘I should be in this,’ ” John French, who had been friends with Romney since they served together as Cub Scouts, recalled Romney telling him. “He had gumption. He had his sights on what he wanted to achieve.”
The time after class was set aside for sports. Romney wore the Cranbrook “C” on his white tank top as a cross-country runner, but the greatest impression he made in that pursuit was collapsing near the finish line during a meet — although his perseverance won him admiration and applause. He was more at home on the sideline, cheering the football team on as a member of the Pep Club, chanting such cheers into a megaphone as “Iron them out. Iron them out. Smooooth.”
He participated on the school’s hockey team as its manager, lugging a duffle bag full of pucks and sticks. Dressed in suit and tie and three-quarter coat, he rode the bus with the uniformed players and kept stats in the coach’s box at the cold outdoor rink. The team’s senior year began with promise, but ended badly. The players took out their frustration on the ice, getting into brawls with Lakeview and Catholic Central. During one fight, Maxwell pulled the jersey over the head of an opposing player and pummeled away. Romney dashed onto the ice, slipping and sliding in his Brogan wingtips in an apparent attempt to break up the fight.
During the winter of Romney’s sophomore year, the faculty assigned him and Maxwell to mop the floors of the academic halls, part of a World War II-era program meant to instill a work ethic in the students. During their six-week detail, the two old friends had long, rambling conversations about religion, and Maxwell pressed Romney on how he could believe in Mormonism.
As Maxwell later recalled their discussion, he asked Romney, “How can you believe that thing about the tablets?” referring to the divine gold tablets Mormons believe were discovered in New York and translated by Joseph Smith.
Romney, he said, responded, “What about the Virgin Birth and the Holy Trinity?”
“I don’t believe that, either,” Maxwell responded. The discussions ultimately came down to a faith vs. reason equation.
“You simply have to have faith,” Romney concluded.
“That’s a cop-out,” Maxwell said.
While there were seeds of Romney’s future devoutness at Cranbrook, he was then more interested in goofing off. In the evenings, he cut loose with Friedemann, a scholarship kid from the small town of Romeo, dubbed the Kraut. The two boys stayed up late, joking around and racing mops like racehorses up and down the hallway.
One regular in the Stevens Hall revelry was the school’s security guard, Chester. In police uniform, chubby and middle-aged, Chester would let Romney and Friedemann examine and play with his gun. In the student yearbook, Romney posed with his arm around Chester wearing thick black glasses, similar to those the guard wore, but also a ski hat and a silly Jerry Lewis expression. At the Swingin’ Sweeney Dance, Romney pointed a toy gun under his chin as two girls shook hands in front of him. A photo of the pose ran in the yearbook above the caption, “Give a guy enough rope and he’ll hang himself.”
Romney spent months trying to convert Friedemann, the son of New Deal-worshiping Democrats, to the Republican Party. He asked to meet his friend’s grandmother, so that he could convert her, too. “He talked politics all the time,” Friedemann said. “It was more big government versus small government. He was a business guy back then.”
Romney’s political and personal idol, George Romney, was never far away. Once Crawford Elder, a student a year behind Romney, saw the governor in the basement under Stevens Hall getting a haircut from Everett Arthurs, the school barber and part-time bartender at faculty cocktail parties. When Ev, as he was widely known, dropped dead after a round of golf, Gov. Romney eulogized him at a tree dedication ceremony on the quad, a few steps away from his son’s room.
* * *
After lights out, John Lauber often left his door open. Larry Olson and some other boarders would check for the hall monitor they called Sneaky Pete and slip into Lauber’s room. From there, they would crawl out his window, climb over the bushes and scurry off campus to Lone Pine Road, where a pizza truck regularly parked. Sated, they would climb back through the window and check on the bottles of apple juice that they hoped fermenting grapes would turn into hard cider. Then Lauber and his friends played poker until the early morning.
When Lauber’s younger sister, Betsy, visited the campus, she said she found him happy and sporting a preppy look. He took her to an off-campus party at a fellow student’s house where they danced to Motown records and laughed.
But he was always a bit different from the rest. During breaks from school, he worked as a mortician’s assistant. He spent more time devouring books than making friends in clubs.
“He was very quiet, not a jock,” said Steph Lady. “Very soft-spoken. I know nothing, probably gay, but who knows. We were so stupid and naive. I know there was homosexuality there, but we didn’t even have a word for it. And there was homophobia then, too.”
On an overcast Saturday, David Craig, a senior prefect and day student, drove his car down Martell Drive along the school grounds and saw a figure duck into the hedges. He thought the person might be trespassing and stopped, only to find Lauber puffing on a cigarette. In a move that he said he later regretted as an excess of the “dorm trooper” mentality instilled by Cranbrook, Craig reported Lauber to the headmaster. Soon after, Lauber was expelled.
“He just disappeared,” Lady said.
Sudden disappearances at Cranbrook were not unheard of. Students might pass a dorm neighbor on the way to class and come back hours later, with all their belongings gone and their beds stripped by maintenance staff. Bad behavior and bad grades were not tolerated.
Ben Snyder, who as an assistant headmaster later spearheaded the school’s effort to recruit inner-city students, said Cranbrook in Romney’s time “had its standards and applied them briskly when needed.” As chairman of a group of faculty members and students who were in charge of discipline, he described a strict school in which offenders could be “dismissed, period.” Snyder could not recall dealing with any transgressions involving Romney. “I wouldn’t expect to see him,” Snyder said of the disciplinary tribunals. “The family was so straight, they don’t do those types of things.”
On June 12, 1965, Romney concluded his Cranbrook career at a commencement ceremony at the Christ Church, in which his father delivered a keynote address reported on by the local papers.
“This is a special occasion for us as a family,” George Romney told the gathered boys before emphasizing that religion and “the one girlfriend whom you finally take the greatest interest in” and good health habits were critical for a successful life. So, he said, was character. “Developing character is going to be more important than your education from now on.” The ceremony concluded with all the boys singing a final rendition of their school song, “Forty Years On.”
Forty years on, when afar and asunder
Parted are those who are singing today,
When you look back, and forgetfully wonder
What you were like in your work and your play,
Then, it may be, there will often come o’er you,
Glimpses of notes like the catch of a song –
Visions of boyhood shall float them before you,
Echoes of dreamland shall bear them along,
Follow up! Follow up! Follow up!
Forty years on, Mitt Romney accepted the school’s 2005 Distinguished Alumni Award.
A year earlier, John Joseph Lauber died at a Seattle hospital.
The boy few at Cranbrook knew or remember was born in Chicago, grew up in South Bend, Ind., and had a hard time fitting in. He liked to wander and “had a glorious sense of the absurd,” according to his sister Betsy. When the chance to get out of Indiana presented itself, he jumped at it and enrolled at Cranbrook. He never uttered a word about Mitt Romney or the haircut incident to his sisters. After Cranbrook asked him to leave, he finished high school, attended the University of the Seven Seas for two semesters, then graduated in 1970 from Vanderbilt, where he majored in English.
He came out as gay to his family and close friends and led a vagabond life, taking dressage lessons in England and touring with the Royal Lipizzaner Stallion riders. After an extreme fit of temper in front of his mother and sister at home in South Bend, he checked into the Menninger Clinic psychiatric hospital in Topeka, Kan. Later he received his embalmer’s license, worked as a chef aboard big freighters and fishing trawlers, and cooked for civilian contractors during the war in Bosnia and then, a decade later, in Iraq. His hair thinned as he aged, and in the winter of 2004 he returned to Seattle, the closest thing he had to a base. He died there of liver cancer that December.
He kept his hair blond until he died, said his sister Chris. “He never stopped bleaching it.”

Researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.
Editor’s Note: An earlier version of this story reported that White “has long been bothered” by the Lauber incident. White later clarified in a subsequent interview that he has been disturbed by the incident since he learned of it several weeks ago from a former classmate, before being contacted by The Washington Post.
Correction: An earlier version of this story reported that Mitt Romney apologized for past pranks on Fox News Channel. The interview actually occurred on Fox News Radio. The text has been corrected.

8/25/2012

Mosquito, or Government drone?

Smack! Was that a Mosquito You Killed, Or a Drone?



Johns Hopkins researchers help develop MAV …Or maybe that high-agility flying robot was a tasty snack for an artificial toad. In a real-life nod to the classic science fiction novel “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” a team of researchers at Johns Hopkins University is helping to develop a micro aerial vehicle (MAV for short) that will be no bigger than a bug.

So, What Good is a Micro Aerial Vehicle?

An MAV would be used for military reconnaissance operations in urban areas, where densely packed buildings and unpredictable winds create unique challenges for a small flying device – no surprise here, since the Hopkins research is partly funded by the U.S. Air Force Office of Scientific Research.


And then there’s the Internet

On the other hand, the Internet started as a defense-funded project and look where we are now. As highly fuel efficient micro machines, MAV’s could become an essential part of the sustainable tech landscape, for example in wind turbine maintenance and other clean energy tasks, data collection, and  environmental monitoring. They could also be useful in emergency response, especially as the “search” part of a search and rescue operation

Secret of the Hopkins MAV

Student researchers Tras Lin and Lingxiao Zheng are spearheading the Johns Hopkins contribution to MAV research, using high-speed video cameras to analyze the way a butterfly’s body moves in flight. The advanced cameras enabled the researchers to separate one-fifth of a second of movement into 600 frames. According to Lin, the breakdown shows that the insect’s body in flight shares some characteristics with the body movements of figure skaters, who use their arm position to modify their speed while spinning.
According to Phil Sneiderman of Johns Hopkins, the key discovery so far has been to recognize that changes in the distribution of the insect’s body mass play an important role in its ability to perform intricate maneuvers while flapping its wings. Previous research into flight dynamics had overlooked this area of study and focused primarily on wing movements.

Look Out! More MAV’s on the Way

If something rings a bell about this project, you may recall that last year DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, released photos of the Hummingbird, a tiny, ultra lightweight remote-controlled flying vehicle designed to resemble an actual hummingbird. The Hummingbird was designed specifically to let troops in urban combat to get a look around corners and inside buildings.
The military’s interest in cutting edge urban combat technologies is not a new development. In an eerily prescient 1999 report prepared by the Foreign Military Studies Office at Fort Leavenworth, researchers noted that the frequency and scale of urban combat is “likely to increase,” further noting that:
“From early history on, urban combat has required masses of dismounted infantrymen, a significant amount of time, combined arms and astonishing quantities of ammunition. The assaulting force runs the risk of its own attrition by combat, insufficient supplies and epidemic diseases. Assaults on cities have resulted in heavy military and civilian casualties and shattered cities. Modern urban combat has often destroyed operations tempo, drained logistics stockpiles and ruined the reputations of promising commanders.”
That report must have been overlooked when the previous Administration planned its operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The current Administration seems to have absorbed the lessons with a focus on long-distance air and sea power, which by nature involves a renewed effort on cutting edge technology, so look for lots more than flying bug-type gadgets in the future.
Image: Mosquito (could outweigh an MAV). License Attribution Some rights reserved by tanakawho.

8/23/2012

Holder: U.S. can lawfully target American citizens


Holder: U.S. can lawfully target American citizens

J. Scott Applewhite/AP - Attorney General Eric Holder’s discussion of lethal force against U.S. citizens did not mention any individual by name, but his address followed the September killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, a senior figure in al-Qaeda’s Yemeni affiliate.

The U.S. government has the right to order the killing of American citizens overseas if they are senior al-Qaeda leaders who pose an imminent terrorist threat and cannot reasonably be captured, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said Monday.
“Any decision to use lethal force against a United States citizen — even one intent on murdering Americans and who has become an operational leader of al-Qaeda in a foreign land — is among the gravest that government leaders can face,” Holder said in a speech at Northwestern University’s law school in Chicago. “The American people can be — and deserve to be — assured that actions taken in their defense are consistent with their values and their laws.”


Holder’s discussion of lethal force against U.S. citizens did not mention any individual by name, but his address was clearly animated by the targeting of Anwar al-Awlaki, a senior figure in al-Qaeda’s Yemeni affiliate. Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico, was killed in a U.S. drone strike in Yemen in September.
Since that operation, the Obama administration has faced calls to explain the legal framework behind its decision to target Awlaki and to release at least portions of a classified memorandum by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel that contains its evidence, reasoning and conclusions.
Holder’s speech represented the administration’s most elaborate public explanation to date for targeted killings. And it followed a prolonged internal debate about how to inform the public about one of the most extraordinary decisions a government can take without explicitly acknowledging the ongoing classified drone program.
Among the most revealing parts of the speech was Holder’s discussion of some of the factors the administration reviews before deciding that an individual represents an “imminent threat.” He said the critical factors include the “relevant window of opportunity to act, the possible harm that missing the window would cause to civilians and the likelihood of heading off future disastrous attacks against the United States.”
He said the president is not required by the Constitution to delay action until some “theoretical end stage of planning — when the precise time, place and manner of an attack become clear.”
The attorney general’s “flexible definition of ‘imminent threat’ is absolutely appropriate as applied to terrorist planners, but it may be unsettling to many in the international community who criticized President Bush for his principle of preemption,” said John B. Bellinger, who served as a legal adviser to the State Department in the George W. Bush administration.
Bellinger said he agreed with the attorney general’s statement of U.S. law for targeting an American, although he noted that the speech was less clear about how targeted killings comply with international legal rules.
There are no known U.S. citizens on target lists maintained by the CIA or the military’s Joint Special Operations Command.
Holder emphasized Monday that he would discuss the issue only in the abstract and would not “discuss or confirm any particular program or operation.”

“In the deliberations over whether the attorney general should make a speech, the CIA was an early and vocal proponent of explaining publicly the legal framework for the use of force in U.S. counterterrorism operations,” said a U.S. official familiar with the interagency deliberations and the drafting of the speech.
Critics of the administration said the government has assumed dangerous new powers.
“While the speech is a gesture towards additional transparency, it is ultimately a defense of the government’s chillingly broad claimed authority to conduct targeted killings of civilians, including American citizens, far from any battlefield without judicial review or public scrutiny,” said Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project.
Holder argued that a careful and thorough executive branch review of the facts in a case amounts to “due process” and that the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment protection against depriving a citizen of his or her life without due process of law does not mandate a “judicial process.”
“Where national security operations are at stake, due process takes into account the realities of combat,” Holder said. “Some have argued that the president is required to get permission from a federal court before taking action against a United States citizen who is a senior operational leader of al-Qaeda or associated forces. This is simply not accurate.”
Holder said that the question of “whether the capture of a U.S.-citizen terrorist is feasible is a fact-specific, and potentially time-sensitive, question.”
“Given the nature of how terrorists act and where they tend to hide,” he continued, “it may not always be feasible to capture a United States-citizen terrorist who presents an imminent threat of violent attack. In that case, our government has the clear authority to defend the United States with lethal force.”
Holder also noted that in using lethal force, the United States must make sure that it is acting within the laws of war by ensuring that any target is participating in hostilities and that collateral damage is not excessive. And he noted that law-of-war principles “do not forbid the use of stealth or technologically advanced weapons” — an apparent reference to drones.
More broadly, Holder argued that the targeting of specific senior belligerents in wartime in not unusual, and noted the 1943 U.S. tracking and shooting down of the plane carrying Japanese Adm. Isoroku Yamamoto, the commander of the attack on Pearl Harbor.
He said that “because the United States is in an armed conflict, we are authorized to take action against enemy belligerents under international law . . . and our legal authority is not limited to the battlefields of Afghanistan.”
Holder said he rejected any attempt to label such operations “assassinations.”
“They are not, and the use of that loaded term is misplaced,” he said. “Assassinations are unlawful killings. Here, for the reasons I have given, the U.S. government’s use of lethal force in self-defense against a leader of al-Qaeda or an associated force who presents an imminent threat of violent attack would not be unlawful — and therefore would not violate the executive order banning assassination or criminal statutes.”
Holder said “it is preferable to capture suspected terrorists where feasible — among other reasons, so that we can gather valuable intelligence from them — but we must also recognize that there are instances where our government has the clear authority — and, I would argue, the responsibility — to defend the United States through the appropriate and lawful use of lethal force.”

8/22/2012

Military drones, can "ACCIDENTALLY" spy on us!!!


 Again, this article and its respective photos, belongs to its original author, and therefore credit goes solely to them.

The Age Of Drones: Military May Be Using Drones In US To Help Police

Critics fear invasion of privacy

Share this 794
View Comments
(CBS) Reporting Charles Feldman
A non-classified U.S. Air Force intelligence report obtained by KNX 1070 NEWSRADIO dated April 23, 2012, is helping fuel concern that video and other data inadvertently captured by Air Force drones already flying through some U.S. airspace, might end up in the hands of federal or local law enforcement, doing an end-run around normal procedures requiring police to obtain court issued warrants.
photo1 The Age Of Drones: Military May Be Using Drones In US To Help Police
Charles Feldman flies a drone in Simi Valley
LISTEN: PART ONE OF KNX 1070′S CHARLES FELDMAN’S INVESTIGATIVE REPORT

“We’ve seen in some records that were released by the Air Force just recently, that under their rules, they are allowed to fly drones in public areas and record information on domestic situations,” says Jennifer Lynch, an attorney with the San Francisco based Electronic Frontier Association, who is looking into various government surveillance techniques.
“This report noted that they are able to collect that information and then determine whether or not they can keep it.”
The revised Air Force report is a continuation of a policy already a few years old, but is causing more alarm now as drones appear poised to soon become a ubiquitous presence in U.S. skies thanks to a federal policy to promote their use, first by law enforcement agencies, and then by commercial concerns.
A “streamlined” process for police departments to apply for permits to fly drones was recently introduced by the FAA.
LISTEN: PART TWO OF KNX 1070′S CHARLES FELDMAN’S INVESTIGATIVE REPORT

Drone manufacturers are gearing up to pitch an estimated 18,000 police departments in the U.S. on the benefits of flying drones.
Many law enforcement agencies in Southern California — including the LAPD and Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department — are evaluating the usefulness of drones in the greatly restricted and highly congested airspace that surrounds the L.A. basin.
Neither agency has yet purchased a drone, officials at both departments tell KNX 1070 NEWSRADIO.
LISTEN: PART THREE OF KNX 1070′S CHARLES FELDMAN’S INVESTIGATIVE REPORT

Under U.S. Air Force rules, drones are not allowed to conduct “non-consensual surveillance” on U.S. citizens or property, though there are some apparent exceptions.
photo The Age Of Drones: Military May Be Using Drones In US To Help Police
Charles Feldman holds a police UAV in Simi Valley
What has critics alarmed is that data collected by drones accidentally, under the guidelines, can be kept by the military up to three months before being purged and can also be turned over to “another Department of Defense or government agency to whose function it pertains.”
The Air Force guidelines permit using drones domestically to assist law enforcement in “investigating or preventing clandestine intelligence activities by foreign powers, international narcotics activities , or international terrorist activities.” More vague is language that also allows military cooperation with local law enforcement for the purposes of “preventing, detecting, or investigating other violations of law.”
In an email to KNX 1070 NEWSRADIO, Air Force spokesperson Capt. Rose Richeson said, “The Executive Branch has promulgated detailed Departmental and Intelligence Community-wide instructions and directives about when it is appropriate to share information with federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies consistent with the protection of privacy and civil liberties.”
But Capt. Richeson goes on to say that “a court order or warrant is not required in all circumstances.”
The military’s use of drones domestically will pale by comparison should sales to police departments take off.
AeroVironment, a defense contractor based in Monrovia, California, is trying to market a three-foot long, roughly five-pound drone called Qube specifically to police departments.

8/20/2012

Military Surveillance

 I found this post in another blog, and believe it is of great import to read.  All credit go to corresponding author, listed below.

Congress Approves Military Use of Surveillance Drones Over US Civilians

Dawn Of The Drones: The Realization Of The Total Surveillance State

Monday, February 13, 2012 
Rev. John Whitehead
By John W. Whitehead
“To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonoured. That is government; that is it’s justice; that is it’s morality.” – Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, 19th century French philosopher
Imagine a robot hovering overhead as you go about your day, driving to and from work, heading to the grocery store, or stopping by a friend’s house. The robot records your every movement with a surveillance camera and streams the information to a government command center. If you make a wrong move, or even appear to be doing something suspicious, the police will respond quickly and you’ll soon be under arrest. Even if you don’t do anything suspicious, the information of your whereabouts, including what stores and offices you visit, what political rallies you attend, and what people you meet will be recorded, saved and easily accessed at a later date. It is a frightening thought, but you don’t have to imagine this scenario. We are only a few years away from the realization of this total surveillance society.
Congress has just passed a bill, the FAA Reauthorization Act, mandating that the Federal Aviation Administration create a comprehensive program for the integration of drone technology into the national air space by 2015. The FAA predicts that there will be 30,000 drones crisscrossing the skies of America by 2020, all part of an industry that could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars per year. This mandate is yet another example of the political power of the military-industrial complex, Congress’ disdain for the privacy of American citizens, and the rampant growth of government. With this single piece of legislation, Congress is opening the floodgates to an entirely new era of surveillance, one in which no person is safe from the prying eyes of the government. This may prove to be the final nail in the Fourth Amendment’s coffin.
Attempts to integrate drone technology into the national air space were underway long before Congress put its stamp of approval on the FAA Reauthorization Act. In fact, the FAA authorized 313 certificates for drone operation in 2011, 295 of which were still active at the end of the year, although the agency refuses to say which organizations received the certificates and for what purposes they were used. However, we do know that the FAA had already approved drones for use by the Department of Homeland Security, US Customs and Border Patrol (which uses the drones to conduct surveillance and counternarcotics missions), and certain state and local law enforcement operations. For example, in June 2011, a family of cattle farmers accused of stealing some cows were spied on with a Predator drone before being apprehended by police.
The fact that drones—pilotless, remote controlled aircraft that have been used extensively in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan to assassinate suspected terrorists, as well as innocent civilians—are coming home to roost (and fly) in domestic airspace should come as no surprise to those who have been paying attention. The US government has a history of commandeering military technology for use against Americans. We saw this happen with tear gas, tasers, sound cannons and assault vehicles, all of which were first used on the battlefield before being deployed against civilians at home.
Thus, while 83% of Americans approve of the use of drones abroad, and 65% approve of using drones to assassinate suspected terrorists abroad, even if they are American citizens, it remains to be seen how those same Americans will feel when they are the ones in the sights of the drones. Needless to say, they won’t have to wait too long to find out.
While there are undoubtedly legitimate uses for drone technology, such as locating missing persons, there is no legitimate reason for the government to collect a constant stream of information on the whereabouts of Americans. However, if this drone program is implemented in the way that Congress intends, we will have drones armed with “less-lethal” weaponry, including bean bag guns and tasers, flying over political demonstrations, sporting events, and concert arenas. Eventually, these drones will be armed with the lethal weaponry that is currently being used overseas in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The power of these machines is not to be underestimated. Many are equipped with cameras that provide a live video feed, as well as heat sensors and radar. Some are capable of peering at figures from 20,000 feet up and 25 miles away. They can also keep track of 65 persons of interest at once. Some drones are capable of hijacking Wi-Fi networks and intercepting electronic communications such as text messages. The Army is currently developing drones with facial recognition software, as well as drones that can complete a target-and-kill mission without any human instruction or interaction. They are the ultimate killing and spying machines.
In addition to the privacy concerns, the safety of drone technology has been called into question. There have been a handful of high-profile crashes involving American drones abroad, including in Iran, the island nation of Seychelles, and most recently in Somalia. The Iranian government claimed they brought down the drone flying in their territory via a computer hack. This is two years after Iraqis were able to hack into the live feed of a few drones using “$26 off-the-shelf software.” Mind you, back in October 2011, the US military admitted that their drone fleet had been infected by a ‘mysterious virus.’ The faultiness of the drone technology and the fact that amateur hackers can access the controls and camera feeds are reason enough to ground these devices indefinitely.
Unfortunately, with the wars abroad winding down, America has become the new battleground in the war on terror, to the delight and profit of the military-industrial complex. In fact, with companies like Boeing and Lockheed Martin making their influence felt among members of Congress (Boeing spent over $12 million lobbying in 2011, and Lockheed spent over $11 million), you can be sure that their technologies will continue to be purchased by the government, even when there is no need for them. Thus, in the same way that our domestic police forces are now armed with mini-tanks and grenade launchers taken from the military’s armory, it was simply a matter of time before drone technology made its way back home.
While most Americans are unaware of the electronic concentration camp which is slowly enveloping our society, a select few groups are working to push back against government control. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has filed a lawsuit against the FAA, demanding the records of the drone certificates which the FAA has issued to various agencies, but it is unlikely that the implementation of this technology can be stopped. Based upon the government’s positions on wiretapping, GPS tracking devices, and Internet tracking technologies, it is also unlikely that our elected officials will do anything to protect the American people from the prying eye of the American government.
We can sit around waiting for some member of Congress with a conscience or some judge concerned about the coming tyranny to push back against the drone empire from within. However, until the American people succeed in raising their collective voices against this technological tyranny, the powers that be will continue on the path to total control, and the condition of our civil liberties will become more dire with every passing day.
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His new book The Freedom Wars (TRI Press) is available online at www.amazon.com. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org

Read more: http://njtoday.net/2012/02/13/dawn-of-the-drones-the-realization-of-the-total-surveillance-state/#ixzz1mIWybsxq
Tell everyone to get New Jersey News from WWW.NJTODAY.NET

8/06/2012

What ever happened to "Eminent Domain"?

 Federal Government Bypasses Constitutional Law, "EMINENT DOMAIN"

Article by No Border Wall

Condemning Land to Build Border Walls

In order to build the border wall, the federal government has brought condemnation lawsuits against more than 400 landowners along the Rio Grande. This land has long been prized because of its rich soil and the year-round availability of water. Indeed, many families along the river still hold title to lands that were granted to their forefathers by the King of Spain as early as the 1760's, decades before the United States and Mexico became sovereign nations, and more than a century before the Rio Grande became their shared border. But now homeowners, farmers, municipalities, as well as privately-owned nature preserves have been forced to give up their property to the federal government, so that it can erect a patchwork of border walls that the Border Patrol describes as nothing more than a "speed bump."
Sign on private property that is now south of the border wall near Brownsville, Texas
Sign on private property that is now south of the border wall near Brownsville, Texas (Photo by Scott Nicol)

Bisected by the Border Wall

In the low-lying river delta of South Texas, flood-control levees parallel the Rio Grande. A treaty with Mexico forbids the construction of walls or fences between these levees and the river, because a structure immediately adjacent to the river could deflect floodwaters and shift the river's course, resulting in flooding and a change in the location of the international boundary. So, to comply with the treaty, the border wall is being built into, on, or north of the levees. These are located up to two miles from the Rio Grande, leaving thousands of acres of U.S. territory, much of it privately owned, behind the border wall.
Eloisa Tamez' property has been in her family since the King of Spain issued the San Pedro Carracitos Land Grant in 1763. In 2007 the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) demanded access to her land for border wall surveys, then initiated condemnation proceedings. Dr. Tamez enlisted the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law and initiated a class-action lawsuit, alleging that DHS had refused to negotiate with landowners before condemning their property, as required by law. She also demanded that DHS reveal its criteria for siting the border wall, which in places runs for miles through poor and/or minority communities, then ends abruptly at the property line of an exclusive golf resort. On April 15, 2009 a federal judge ruled against Dr. Tamez, allowing the federal government to seize her land, but requiring that DHS consult with her regarding access to her walled-off property. Ignoring the judge's order DHS immediately began construction without first consulting with Dr. Tamez, and within a week the border wall bisecting her property was finished.
A child playing in the shadow of the border wall behind her Brownsville, Texas home
A child playing in the shadow of the border wall behind her Brownsville, Texas home (Photo by Scott Nicol)
This indifference to property rights and court rulings on the part of DHS was not an isolated occurrence. In February 2009, Eva Lambert awoke to the sound of heavy equipment erecting the border wall's steel posts on her land. In her case, either through disregard for the law or gross incompetence, DHS finished construction of the wall before anyone had contacted her to negotiate a price or condemn her property. Denied her day in court as well as her property, Ms. Lambert told the Brownsville Herald, In the end, the government does what it wants."
When it has taken land, the Department of Homeland Security has only offered to pay for the exact footprint of the border wall (typically a 60-foot wide strip) as it passes through a given parcel of land. In their simplistic calculations, the agency has completely ignored issues such as the devaluation of contiguous property, problems accessing land and homes behind the wall, impacts on livelihood, and the importance of cultural heritage. Despite the range and complexity of these issues, DHS has steadfastly refused to enter into meaningful negotiations with property owners.

Family Farms and Nature Preserves Hit Hard

Leonard Loop was born 72 years ago on land farmed by his father and grandfather. He lives alongside his children and grandchildren on the land, which is now a productive citrus orchard. The border wall slices the Loop property in half. To build it, more than 70 mature grapefruit trees were bulldozed. Like other landowners, the Loops were given no opportunity for input into what would be built on their land, or whether there would be gates to accommodate their equipment and operations. Leonard's son lives in a house that is now behind the wall, and his granddaughter will have to pass through it every day to get to the school bus stop, assuming the Border Patrol decides to leave the gate unlocked. DHS has sued the Loops three times, so far, to condemn different portions of their orchard. The most recent condemnation was for the driveway to their home.
Border wall construction tearing through the Loop Orchard
Border wall construction tearing through the Loop Orchard (Photo by Maurice Sharif)
The Nature Conservancy's Lennox Foundation Southmost Preserve maintains one of the last remaining Sabal Palm forests along the banks of the Rio Grande. The border wall will bisect the preserve, cutting off more than 700 acres along with an equipment barn, office, and caretaker's residence. The property was purchased in 1999 for $2.6 million, but DHS has only offered to pay $114,000 for the wall's footprint, a strip of land 60 feet wide and 6,000 feet long. DHS claims that gates will be built, but they won't say who will get keys or under what circumstances Conservancy staff will be able to access the property.

Walling Out Americans

Other homes, businesses, and properties that are behind the levees will be walled off entirely, trapped between the border wall and the Rio Grande. DHS has refused to grant any compensation whatsoever for properties left on the "Mexican" side of the wall. Indeed, because DHS is focused solely on the wall's exact footprint, they have failed to even make contact with some of the landowners whose property is behind the wall.
The Sabal Palm Audubon Center and Sanctuary preserves another 557 acres of Sabal Palm forest, all of which will be behind the border wall. Because the wall will be built a few feet to the north of their property line, DHS has not offered Audubon any compensation whatsoever. Anne Brown, executive director of Audubon Texas, said, "One of our huge frustrations has been lack of consultation and lack of any formal process to voice our concerns. That affects how we do our planning and budgeting. From what we've heard, we'll have to close." True to her prediction, in April of 2009 the Sabal Palm Audubon Center was closed to the public.
Border wall construction cutting off the Sabal Palms Audubon Sanctuary
Border wall construction cutting off the Sabal Palms Audubon Sanctuary (Photo by Scott Nicol)
The Department of Homeland Security has repeatedly claimed that they have consulted with landowners and local officials regarding border wall construction. But when the Texas Border Coalition invited DHS and Customs and Border Protection officials to "walk the line" and see the impacts that the border wall will have on specific communities, they responded that they would only do so if the owners of the property that they would be crossing were kept away. Apparently, their preferred method of consultation is a condemnation proceeding.
In July 2008, following Secretary Chertoff's use of the Real ID Act to waive laws such as the Farmland Protection Policy Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Department of Homeland Security prepared Environmental Stewardship Plans (ESPs) for the border walls that it planned to erect. With no laws in place to dictate standards for the documents, DHS was free to say anything, no matter how ridiculous, to justify the border wall. In the ESP for Texas' Rio Grande Valley, where many of the land condemnations have occurred, DHS predicted that the border wall's "effects upon the Nation's health and economy, drug-related crimes, community cohesion, property values, and traditional family values will be long-term and beneficial, both nationally and locally."
A Brownsville, Texas, home in the shadow of the border wall
A Brownsville, Texas, home in the shadow of the border wall (Photo by Scott Nicol)
Setting aside the impossibility of scientifically defining or quantifying "traditional family values," it is difficult to imagine that condemning land that has been part of a family's heritage for generations will prove beneficial to those families. The impact on property values is easier to quantify. The erection of a border wall that cuts off homes or productive farmland destroys their value. No one will buy them, and no bank will accept them as collateral for a loan. Rather than working farms and vibrant communities that extend to the river bank, the Department of Homeland Security is creating a literal no-man's land by potentially bankrupting private property owners and pushing them off of their land.

8/04/2012

Government sanctioned Brainwashing?


Click on picture

Brainwashing in America

WHY FEW DARE CALL IT CONSPIRACY

by Berit Kjos - 2001

Background information: Reinventing the World, Parts 1 & 2


Skip down to -

"Information is useful only if citizens can put it into a framework of knowledge and use it to solve problems, form values, and make choices. Education for sustainability will help them make individual and collective decisions that both benefit themselves and promote the development of sustainable communities. [It] must involve everyone." [1] President [Clinton]'s Council on Sustainable Development
"...absolute behavior control is imminent.... The critical point of behavior control, in effect, is sneaking up on mankind without his self-conscious realization that a crisis is at hand. Man will... never self-consciously know that it has happened." [2]  Raymond Houghton, To Nurture Humaneness, ASCD (curriculum arm of the NEA), 1970

"The Protestant Ethic will atrophy as more and more enjoy varied leisure and guaranteed sustenance.... Most people will tend to be hedonistic..."[3] Behavioral Science Teacher Education Program (B-STEP), Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1969.

"We were trained in all phases of warfare, both psychological and physical for the destruction of the Capitalistic society and Christian civilization. In one portion of our studies we went thoroughly into the matter of psychopolitics. This was the art of capturing the minds of a nation through brainwashing and fake mental health... During the past few years I have noted with horror the increase of psychopolitical warfare upon the American public." [4] Kenneth Goff, member of the U.S. Communist Party from 1936 to 1939.

Brainwashing is not, as some anti-Christian educators and students contend, the Biblical  process of training our children to love and follow God. The word "brainwashing" refers to a planned, step-by-step attempt to "wash" family-taught beliefs from the minds of those who oppose government ideology. In America, it would mean replacing the old Biblical values and world view with a new way of thinking that would support a totalitarian agenda. In other words, every child must become a peace child, a willing and active servant of a new world order. 
A massive world-wide partnership is pioneering new strategies for social transformation. The media, the entertainment industry, computer companies, government agencies, educational institutions, the United Nations and its accredited non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have all joined together in a common quest for a global mind change. They seek solidarity -- a worldwide unity based on a new set of beliefs and values.  "Obsolete" and "exclusive" loyalties to national sovereignty, Biblical values, and the unadulterated U.S. Constitution stand in their way.
Conforming the masses to their way of thinking requires all the sophisticated tools and tactics developed at the various "behavioral science research" institutes and "education laboratories" established first in England, then in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, and finally in the United States.  If these psycho-social engineers win their battle against an unsuspecting public, they would "wash" away individual thinking, free speech and all the other "rights" that have made America unique. The vacuum would be filled with lofty ideals, enticing images and deceptive promises designed to mold minds that match their global vision. Group thinking and other controls and "incentives" would enforce compliance. (See Mind Control and The UN Plan for Your Mental Health)
Bombard children with mind-changing suggestions
A familiar tale told to first-graders in Pennsylvania illustrates both the tactics and the planned  transformation of the world. We all know the story of the Little Red Hen who wanted some bread to eat. She asked some of her barnyard friends to help make it. But the cat, the dog, and the goat all said "no." Finally she did all the work herself. Yet, when the bread was done and its fragrance spread throughout the farm, her unwilling neighbors were more than willing to help her eat it.
"Won't you share with us?" they begged.
"No," she answered. "Since you didn't help, you don't get anything."
In the context of  traditional values, the moral of the story is: you get what you work for. But those who have learned to think and see from the new global perspective are led to a different conclusion. Listen to the kinds of questions the first grade teacher asked her class: 
"Why was the Little Red Hen so stingy?  Isn't it only right that everyone gets to eat? Why wouldn't she share what she had with some who had none?"[5]
The concerned mother who heard and reported this story asked, "What kinds of values were the children taught?"  The new interpretation emphasizes love and sharing, but what is missing?  How might it confuse a child's values?  
The answers are obvious. The children were taught socialist values. The new interpretation vilified values that had motivated Americans to be diligent, responsible and fair. The teacher's questions were actually strategic suggestions prompting the group to ridicule traditional values, to see reality and society from the new politically correct perspective, and to intimidate and shame anyone who dared to disagree. 
A new mental "framework" is vital to this paradigm shift [see chart]. But to launch the new system, the old patterns must be blurred and broken. The educational establishment knows that children who are fed a daily diet of biblical truth will resist their plans for change. They also know that students bombarded with strategic suggestions and idealized pagan images will probably reject Christianity. If schools can build the "right" kind of framework or filter in the minds of children early enough, the new global beliefs will fit right in. In other words, the battle for the hearts and minds of America's children will be won by the side that first trains children to see reality from its point of view. 
     This paradigm shift was no mystery to Aldous Huxley, author of Brave New World. He wrote that education must provide a mental "framework... within which any piece of information acquired in later life may find its proper and significant place." [6]  
     In the old days, that mental framework was the biblical world view. But Huxley, like most of today's change agents, called for a New Age/global framework. Like a filter, it blocks facts and ideas that don't fit, but welcomes input that strengthens the framework -- especially when communicated through stories and images that stir the imagination and arouse strong feelings.  
Focus on feelings, not facts
This shift from factual education to feeling and experience-based learning began over seventy years ago. Through the decades, the strategies used to manipulate minds in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were developed, first at the Tavistock Clinic near London and later at Germany's Frankfurt School (originally called Frankfurt Institute for Social Research). Their mind-bending methods soon spread to a rising number of psycho-social research centers in America. They were fine-tuned at Columbia, Harvard, Stanford and other American universities, at our regional educational laboratories [7] and at the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies where Elian Gonzales was remediated in preparation for his return to a Communist system. (See Elian Starts Re-Education)
Bob Buford, former head of the Drucker Foundation for Nonprofit Management and the founder of Leadership Network also taught the new "Christian" leadership methods at the Aspen Institute.
More recently, at the 1989 Governor's Conference on Education in Kansas, Dr. Shirley McCune, then head of the Mid-Continent Regional Educational Laboratory, summarized the policy in her keynote speech:
“The revolution… in curriculum is that we no longer are teaching facts to children…. We no longer see the teaching of facts and information as the primary outcome of education.”[7]
"What will take the place of logic, fact and analysis in the coming age?" This rhetorical question was raised by Dr. Donald A. Cowan, president emeritus of the University of Dallas. His revealing answer exposes an important step toward the new consensus: 
"The central way of thought for this new era will be imagination.... Imagination will be the active, creative agent of culture, transforming brute materials to a higher, more knowable state." [8]
It's easy to see why visionary change agents would prefer to inspire the imagination rather than teach facts and logic. Unlike facts and convictions, the imagination can easily be manipulated. Today's popular books, games and other forms of edutainment bring all kinds of suggestions and images that confuse the old ways of thinking and promote the new values.  They twist facts, turn right and wrong upside down, stir the imagination with unthinkable suggestions, redefine words, and give new meanings to old images such as the Little Red Hen. (See Establishing a Global Spirituality)
Eventually, most students become conditioned to see everything through the new politically correct mental filter. The sight of an old social symbol (i.e. flag) or the sound of an word they have learned to hate (pastor, evil, capitalism, etc.) can now trigger emotional reactions that cannot be resolved with facts and logic.  
A simple example of this process was exposed by a Christian teacher in Sunnyvale CA. During a public elementary school assembly, the students sang the words of the Peacemakers' Planetary Anthem to the tune of the Star Spangled Banner. This melody, which has symbolized freedom to those who have loved America, now became a tactical trigger used to turn hearts from the old ways to the new vision: 
O Say can you see by the one light in all
A New Age to embrace at the call of the nations,
Where our children can play in a world without war
Where we stand hand in hand in the grace of creation,
Where the rivers run clean through forests pristine.... 
Inspiring, isn't it? The mental images behind those words illustrate the "visioning" part of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) as well as Total Quality Management (TQM). Both use the consensus process to create the collective consciousness needed for the new communities and social organizations. 
In the classroom, this process of change often begins with planned "visions" that plant vivid but unrealistic goals into children's minds and emotions.  
Next, students must learn to visualize scary images of the current crisis. The crisis is vital to the process. It provides the justification for environmental activism, government control, and unthinkable changes. So, in stark contrast to the lofty ideal in the song above, the students must learn to feel the pain of a dying earth abused by the ruling generation. The colorful classroom manual on global change, Rescue Mission Planet Earth, fits the bill. It is full of scary, sensational pictures and misguided children's opinions that fire the imagination and fuel anger. 
Trained teacher/facilitators turn this anger toward parents and grandparents who must bear the blame for destroying our planet. This is important, because -- as in totalitarian countries around the world -- children must learn to submit to state-defined values and loyalties -- not their parents or traditional values.
In Rescue Mission Planet Earth, page after page of pseudo-science and twisted facts prepare the reader to follow the call to political action on behalf of the United Nations and planet Earth. Unless they know the facts, children and their teachers will have little resistance to the heart-breaking images of dying trees, starving children, abused women and an overcrowded planet drowning in pollution and rising oceans. 
As Al Gore wrote in Earth in the Balance, "I strongly urge the establishment of a Mission to Planet Earth, a worldwide monitoring system staffed by children...design to rescue the global environment."
It's all part of the plan: create and/or publicize a crisis, vilify the "enemy of the people", then market the pre-planned global solution to the world -- starting with the children. As in the former Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, the school becomes a boot camp for an army of angry and self-righteous rescuers, ready to argue using their feelings, not facts, against anything that opposes their new and narrow idealism. (See third point in Paradigm Shift)  
Rescue Mission Planet Earth is nothing less than "the children's version" of the United Nations' Agenda 21.  Sponsored by UNESCO and other UN agencies and promoted by the President's Council on Sustainable Development (see Local Agenda 21), the propaganda-filled children's book helps create the needed "gap" between inspiring visions and a perceived crisis scary enough to evoke strong feelings, change values and motivate children to government-led social action.  
"We have to re-orient education so that we turn out planetary carers (sic)," explained David R. Woollcombe [9], President of Peace Child International and head of the Rescue Mission Planet Earth project. He also serves as Consultant to the Global Vision Corporation,[10] a massive international NGO (Non-Governmental Organization) accredited to the UN Commission on Sustainable Development.  Behind the backs of parents around the world, it works to transform the goals, the methods, the leaders, and the process of education. "And that," continued Mr. Woollcombe, 
"...requires, as Agenda 21 said, a re-orientation of education towards sustainable development. It's a revolution we're talking about here! It's going to require new materials, it's going to require much greater involvement by young people themselves in their own teaching and education, because actually, adults don't know as much and don't care as much about the environment as many young people do. And it's going to require a much better sort of facultative education, where teacher and students together are on this exploratory journey about how you can square the circle between economic growth and prosperity...." [11]
Before you dismiss Global Vision's power and influence, consider a few of its partners and sponsors. They include UN agencies such as the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the World Health Organization (WHO), the UN Centre for Human Settlements and the UN Centre for Human Rights.
It also includes numerous foundations, environmental groups, educational institutions, and media and corporate giants such as the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), Princeton University Centre of International Studies, Columbia University Department of Religion,  Mystic Fire Video, Apple Computer, Sun Microsystems, The Image Bank, Bell Labs, Robert Muller, Noel Brown, Federico Mayor, Nafis Sadik, Maurice and Hanne Strong (See World Heritage "Protection?"), Gro Harlem Brundtland (Head of The World Health Organization), the Dalai Lama, and movie moguls Bernardo Bertolucci and Martin Scorsese. All have joined their talents and resources in a common pursuit of the global consciousness envisioned by the United Nations.
A "new way of thinking" 
In 1994, President Clinton’s Council on Sustainable Development took a big step toward that global vision. It met with an influential  group of like-minded change agents at the Presidio – the former army base in San Francisco that now houses the Gorbachev Foundation USA and dozens of other UN-related organizations. Its partners  included the UN Environmental Programme, the EPA, the U.S. Departments of Education, Labor, State and Energy, the Council of Chief State School Officers, the American Federation of Teachers, Stanford, Colombia and other major universities, the Sierra Club... and the organizers of the Rescue Mission Planet Earth project.
Their joint report, “Education for Sustainability,” became a model for sustainable education. Quoting David Orr, author of Earth in Mind, it states,
"One result [of formal] education is that students graduate without knowing how to think in whole systems, how to find connections, how to ask big questions, and how to separate the trivial from the important. Now more than ever, however, we need people who think broadly and who understand systems, connections, patterns and root causes."[12] emphasis added
"Root causes" involve far more than ecology. Anything that blocks the general acceptance of the new global ideology is suspect and must be challenged. Traditional beliefs and values rank high on the list of villains to their vision of peace. For example, an international "Declaration on Tolerance," prepared by UNESCO and signed by its member nations, shows one of the major "root causes:"
  • "Tolerance involves the rejection of dogmatism and absolutism." 
  • "Scientific studies and networking should be undertaken to coordinate the international community's response to this global challenge, including analysis of root causes and effective countermeasures, as well as research and monitoring... "
  • "Promote rational tolerance teaching methods that will address the cultural, social, economic, political and religious sources of intolerance-- major roots of violence and exclusion.Emphasis added [13]
The earlier statement from Education for Sustainability stressed the "need" for "people who think broadly and who understand systems, connections, patterns and root causes" from a predetermined perspective. This kind of thinking is -- and always have been -- crucial to brainwashing in totalitarian regimes with a global mission. 
A basic goal of UNESCO’s worldwide program for "lifelong learning" was summarized in Our Creative Diversity, the 1995 book-sized report from the UN Commission on Culture and Development. Published by UNESCO, it tells us that, 
"The challenge to humanity is to adopt new ways of thinking, new ways of acting, new ways of organizing itself in society, in short, new ways of living." [14]
This "new way of thinking" has become the standard for mental health in America. (See The UN Plan for Your Mental Health) As head of the Department of Health and Human Services, Donna Shalala helped organize The National Mental Health Services Knowledge Exchange Network. Ponder its definition for mental health:
"Mental health refers to how a person thinks, feels, and acts when faced with life's situations. It is how people look at themselves, their lives, and the other people in their lives ...and explore choices." [15]
Do you wonder what Dr. Shalala and her network of health planners would consider good thinking? Or bad thinking? This definition doesn't tell us. But Al Gore's 1992 best-seller, Earth in the Balance, helps answer the question:
"The fifth major goal of the Global Marshall Plan should be . . . to organize a worldwide education program to promote a more complete understanding of the crisis. In the process, we should actively search for ways to promote a new way of thinking about the current relationship between human civilization and the earth." [16]
Vice-President Gore was referring to an environmental crisis with psychological overtones. As we pointed out in the article on Al Gore's Vision of Global Salvation, he has diagnosed our basic social problem in America and suggested a solution: 
"...we feel increasingly distant from our roots in the earth...we lost our feeling of connectedness to the rest of nature."[17]
"The richness and diversity of our religious tradition throughout history is a spiritual resource long ignored by people of faith, who are often afraid to open their minds to teachings first offered outside their own system of belief. But the emergence of a civilization in which knowledge moves freely and almost instantaneously throughout the world has. . . spurred a renewed investigation of the wisdom distilled by all faiths. This panreligious perspective may prove especially important where our global civilization's responsibility for the earth is concerned." [18] emphasis added
Al Gore's "panreligious perspective" has helped lay the foundation for a global environmental ethic. His vision of a "world education program" is nearing reality. It fits right into the United Nations' education system. This "seamless system" of partnerships and governmental agencies around the world has two main goals: 
In other words, people must learn "to look at themselves" as part of the collective society, not as individuals. Their sense of worth must be based on participation in the community and compliance with the new ideology, not on individual beliefs or independent choices. A continual barrage of classroom "assessments" and surveys must test and track how children and their parents think, "explore choices" and draw conclusions.
To win this battle for the minds of the world, the United Nations and its powerful partners have agreed to put aside integrity and employ any possible means to reach their end. But they must still must operate according to guidelines that demand, at least, a perception of the consent of the masses. Therefore, the means to their end must be both subtle and deceptive, employing all the skills and strategies proven successful in the totalitarian countries of the 20th century. Al Gore summarized the attitude behind this global agenda well:
"Adopting a central organizing principle – one agreed to voluntarily – means embarking on an all-out effort to use every policy and program, every law and institution, every treaty and alliance, every tactic and strategy, every plan and course of action – to use, in short, every means to halt the destruction of the environment. . . . Minor shifts in policy, moderate improvement in laws and regulations, rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change—these are all forms of appeasement, designed to satisfy the public’s desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary." [19] Emphasis added
Our leaders have already shown us that Al Gore's words, "every tactic and strategy..." includes compromise, lies, deception, and propaganda. Where Biblical values have been dismissed as obsolete, these tactics seem are perfectly acceptable to those who lead this spiritual and psychological war for control of the masses. The UN, with help from the Clinton-Gore administration, have already re-invented the concept of government. Its new global management system would be based on its principle of sustainable development or rather, the 3 E's: Environment, Economy and Equity. It means using a grossly exaggerated view of the environmental "crisis" to re-educate the masses, persuading them to accept totalitarian tactics for redistributing the world's economic resources and creating socialist equality. (See Local Agenda 21- The U.N. Plan for Your Community). 
Take a look at the envisioned world of the 21st century:

OLD PARADIGM
NEW PARADIGM
 Beliefs
 Based on Bible
 Blend of New Age & earth-centered religions
 Culture
 Western individualism
 Global solidarity
 Values
 Based on the Bible
(absolute, unchangeable truth)
 Based on human idealism
(easy to manipulate)
 Morals
 Moral boundaries
  Sensual freedom
 Rights
  Personal freedom
  Social controls
 Economy
  Free enterprise
 Socialist collective
 Government
  By the people
 By those who control
the masses
The masses would be controlled through the Hegelian dialectic (consensus) process by globalist leaders who would view the world through the new filter of globalism. Polls, propaganda, simple slogans, and continual conflicts would be essential to its success. In fact, the greater the perceived crisis, the faster the leader can assume the coveted political powers that true freedom forbids. President Clinton has already mastered these totalitarian strategies, as Mikhail Gorbachev suggested in a 1993 editorial:
"Bill Clinton will be a great president if he can make America the creator of a new world order based on consensus."[20]
Remember, consensus demands a felt crisis, and today's moral crisis -- created by trading moral boundaries for sensual freedom -- serves the purpose well. The absence of absolute boundaries leads to social chaos which, in turn, calls for social controls that would have been unthinkable under the old paradigm. In other words, the official promotion of sensual indulgence serves a political purpose.  Aldous Huxley summarized it well in Brave New World:
"As political and economic freedom... diminishes, sexual freedom tends compensatingly to increase. And the dictator... will do well to encourage that freedom.  In conjunction with the freedom to daydream under the influence of dope, movies and the radio, it will help to reconcile his subjects to the servitude."[21]
Psalm 2 fit our times:
Why do the nations rage and the people plot a vain thing?
The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together,
Against the Lord and against His Anointed, saying,

"Let us break Their bonds in pieces and cast away Their cords from us."
He who sits in the heavens shall laugh....  
Then He shall speak to them in His wrath 
And distress them in His deep displeasure:
"Yet I have set My King on My holy hill of Zion." ....
Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him.


Endnotes:  
[1] Sustainable America: A New Consensus, The 1996 Report from the President's Council on Sustainable Development, page 70, one of over 150 similar national councils implementing Agenda 21 under the direction of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development.  (The President's Council on Sustainable Development, 1996); page 70.
[2]Raymond Houghton, To Nurture Humaneness: Commitment for the '70's (The Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development of the NEA, 1970), pages 46-47.
[3] Feasibility Study, Behavioral Science Teacher Education Program (B-STEP), Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Bureau of Research, 1969
[4] The Soviet Art of Brainwashing: A Synthesis of the Russian Textbook on Psychopolitics, pages 19-20. Edited by the late Kenneth Goff, a former member of the communist Party, USA, who voluntarily testified before the Un-American Committee in Washington DC in 1939. His testimony can be found in Volume 9 of that year's Congressional Record. A friend of mine knew him and respected him greatly for his integrity and courage -- the willingness to risk his life to expose this agenda.
[5] This story was included in the first grade curriculum in New Pittsburgh, PA. The story was also told--using the new paradigm context--at a parents' meeting explaining Character Education. Anita Hoge, formerly a Pennsylvania mother and researcher, reported the story to me.
[6] James Quina, "Aldous Huxley's Integrated Curriculum," Holistic Education Journal (December 1993); 54. 
[7]At the time of her 1989 keynote speech, Shirley McCune presided over the Mid-Continent Regional Educational Laboratory (McREL). The Regional Educational Laboratories are private, non-profit corporations which are funded, in whole or in part, under Title IV of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Each lab operates under a contract with the Division of Educational Laboratories, Bureau of Research, U.S. Office of Education.
[8] Spoken at a 1988 forum address at the Dallas Institute of Humanities and Culture. This address formed the nucleus for his book Unbinding Prometheus: Education for the Coming Age.
[12] Education for Sustainability: An agenda for action, the report from the "National Forum on Partnerships Supporting Education about the Environment," a demonstration project of the President's council on Sustainable Development, held at the Presidio, San Francisco, in the fall of 1994, page 11.
[14] Our Creative Diversity, UNESCO, 1995, p.11.
[15] The National Mental Health Services Knowledge Exchange Network (KEN) at http://www.mentalhealth.org/child/Wefsk4.htm
[16] Al Gore, Earth in the Balance--Ecology and the Human Spirit (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1992), page 355.
[17] Ibid., page 1. 
[18] Ibid., pages 258-259.
[19] Ibid., page 274. 
[20] Mikhail Gorbachev, “New World Order: Consensus,” The Cape Cod Times, January 28, 1993.
[21] Aldous Huxley, Brave New World (New York: HarperCollins, 1932), page xvii.

The Frankfurt Institute:  According the Encyclopedia of Marxism, "The Institute for Social Research was founded in 1923 by Felix Weil to be an independent academy for Marxism intended to rival any University in the standards of scholarship, and the institute carried out important research on the history and condition of the German workers' movement. It was possibly the first body to use opinion polls as a research tool."

Max Horkheimer (1895-1973), a German philosopher and social scientist directed the Institute from 1930 to 1958. He was a "close associate of Theodor Adorno, who mixed Marxism with influences as diverse as Schopenhauer, Dilthey, Nietzsche and Freud."
"After the 1923 defeat of the German Revolution, Horkheimer,  and other members of the Institute to some degree, drew the conclusion that the working class could never be the vehicle for social change simply as a result of its position within the production process, and concluded that only the development of theory itself could be the scene of liberation. Horkheimer co-authored Dialectic of Enlightenment with Theodor Adorno while in the US during the 1940s.... In 1949, Horkheimer returned to Frankfurt and re-established the Institute, and retired to Switzerland in 1958."
"Others to be associated with the Institute as well as Horkheimer and Adorno included Leo Lowenthal, Raymond Aron, Erich Fromm, Herbert Marcuse, Walter Benjamin and Ernst Krenek."   http://marxists.org/glossary/people/h/o.htm

Marxist philosopher Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979) co-founded the Frankfurt Institute. The Encyclopedia of Marxism, <http://marxists.org/glossary/people/m/a.htm>, reports that... 
"He fled to Geneva in 1933 when Hitler came to power, then went to the United States in 1934, where he taught at Columbia University and became a US citizen in 1940. His Reason & Revolution, written in 1941, made an important contribution to the understanding of Hegel and his influence on Marx.
"An intelligence analyst for the U.S. Army during World War II, he headed the Central European Section of the Office of Intelligence Research after the war. He returned to teaching in 1951 at Columbia and Harvard, Brandeis University (1954-65), and the University of California at San Diego (1965-76), where after retirement he was honorary emeritus professor of philosophy until his death.
"A Hegelian-Freudian-Marxist, Marcuse highlighted the cultural forms of repression and the role of technology and the expansion of the production of consumer goods in the maintenance of the stability of capitalism." 
The current name seems to be Frankfurt Institute for Transformation Studies. You may find their Project overview interesting.