CHIRLA "mobilizes" children as political canon foder

[Harry Mathews]

The facts:

1) CHIRLA came to Phoenix to "mobilize folks" and "The group's protesters gave the hundreds of high-school students lessons in civil disobedience" (see excerpt below)

2) CHIRLA has "close ties to the Mexican government" (http://www.americanpatrol.com/REFERENCE/CHIRLA.html)

3) CHIRLA is "A registered non-profit corporation that receives U.S. taxpayer funds" (www.discoverthenetworks.com)

4) CHIRLA promotes economic justice and amnesty for illegal alliens (www.discoverthenetworks.com)

Questions:

1) How did CHIRLA "mobilize" hundreds of school children? Did they go into to the highschools to do this during school hours (which is when the"walkout" took place)?

2) How do school children "walkout"? Isn't that mass truency?

3) Where were the school officials during this "walkout"? Did the school officials try to stop them? It appears that our tax dollars were not only paying for CHIRLA to be there but we were also paying those teachers and school officials to be teaching our children at the time.

5) Did all those kids, during school hours, hop in their cars and drive down to the capitol in mass or did the schools use school buses to get the children to the Capitol (also on the tax payers dime)? The later seems to be the only plausible ansswer

6) Is anyone as outraged as i am that school children were exploited for political purposes on this field trip which later turned violent?

7) Is anyone outraged that school officials and teachers appeared to aid and abet this crime?

(From April 23 article in The Arizona Republic)
About 65 members from the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles (CHIRLA) arrived at the Capitol midday Thursday. The 26-year-old organization advocates for the constitutional rights of immigrants and refugees, spokesman Jorge Mario Cabrera said.

Their main goal for coming to Arizona was to mobilize folks and get them to empower themselves, Cabrera said.

The group's protesters gave the hundreds of high-school students lessons in civil disobedience, including teaching different chants and a unity clap.

"Go home and tell them why you walked out, so they can be here tomorrow," activist Maria Rodriguez of CHIRLA told the students.

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/04/23/2...

[Lee Reynolds]

Once upon a time I would have been outraged. Today this stuff is par for the course.

The colleges that train future schoolteachers have become bastions of anti-Americanism and Gramscian Marxism (but I repeat myself). Hence our schools have become filled with teachers who seek not to educate our children, but to indoctrinate them in ideologies that are hostile to our democratic republic and the principles upon which it was founded.

How can this be remedied? I have no idea.

[Harry Mathews]

Lee,
I think your assessment is right on the money but i believe there is something we can do:
1) Educate Conservatives - There are a lot of conservatives out there who do not yet grasp the situation. Educating them will give us more support for our cause
2) Schools need tax money - as taxpayers we must demand better
3) Recent legislation has put a crimp into K-12 ethnic studies classes. If this is carried over to higher education that would help
4) So called "Liberal Arts Colleges" llike the ASU "School of Social Transformation" are founded upon bigoted, sexist, racists principles. That alone makes them inelligable for federal funds
5) We must demand better! We need to do it in large numbers and never stop till we have regained our footing in society. The main reason we lost it was largely because we didn't know exactly what was happening. As we wake up, our numbers will grow. The truth will prevail.

[Lee Reynolds]

You might want to reconsider the terminology you use to refer to K-12 classes that encourage tribalism and teach students to hate one another based on which tribe they belong to. Calling them "ethnic studies" classes only gives ammunition to the enemy. This term sounds innocuous. I've heard this very term used by the left to refer to these classes in commentaries that attack the new law. It is a leftist euphemism, and like all such euphemisms it was chosen for its ability to hide the truth of their evil behind a facade of normality.

There is a reason why they use terms like "social justice" to describe the evil they are trying to do. The uninformed hear such a term and interpret it literally, and therefore favorably. Eventually the ruse fails and people learn to interpret their euphemisms differently, which is precisely when new euphemisms are concocted. Conservatives have always been conservatives. Libertarians have always been libertarians. But leftists have gone from being marxists to socialists to progressives to liberals, and now they're calling themselves progressives again. When one name wears out its welcome they choose another, never being honest about who and what they are. Don't fall into the trap of using their own terminology as it is designed to undermine your position. Calling a leftist a "liberal" or a "progressive" only helps keep the mask they hide behind in place.

I think a good term to describe these classes might be "racial hatred." Instead of saying ethnic studies classes, say racial hatred classes. No one hearing such a sentence will come away from it with a favorable view of such classes. This will also put the leftists on the defensive trying to refute your own terminology, an argument they will lose.

The problem with conservatives and libertarians is that we are too honest sometimes. The left lies. They lie, and then they lie about the lie. They hide the truth behind multiple layers of deception, with euphemistic language being only one such layer. When we agree to use their own terminology when trying to fight them, we put ourselves at a disadvantage that is often insurmountable. This is why so many young people are leftists by default. They hear nice sounding words whose surface meanings are positive being spoken to them by people who appear sincere. So they hop on the band wagon and begin parroting those words themselves, never understanding their true meaning or significance.

Libertarians and conservatives should avoid using leftist terminology. Whenever possible, other terms should be used, non flattering ones if possible. Don't let the left choose the language of the debate. Use their own tactic against them, but with one important difference. Our terms should be non-flattering, but HONEST. Ad hominem attacks don't work.

The best way to fight leftist studies departments at public universities is to lobby the state legislatures to cut the funding, and to encourage the alumni of these universities to withhold support as well.

There are departments at ASU that are profit centers. The school of business makes a lot of money off of its MBA program. The college of engineering is supported in part by companies like Intel. Students in these degree programs are willing to pay tuition because their degree will help ensure they aren't living in a trailer park somewhere. The level of leftist nonsense in business and engineering is relatively low because these fields depend upon RESULTS. If someone builds a bridge that doesn't work, they can't claim it is because of false conciousness imposed upon the proletariat by the oppression of the patriarchy.

The leftists studies departments don't make money for the university. Neither do they receive money from outside investors because nothing they do is of any value to anyone. Their graduates have essentially been robbed of the education they paid for. Because almost everything they learn in such degree programs is a lie, they leave the university actually knowing LESS than when they arrived, leaving them intellectually disabled and incapable of finding gainful employment in any legitimate field.

These leftist studies departments depend on general funding. They are parasitic. Go after their funding. But as you do so be sure to take time to praise the academic units that are contributing to society. Don't let yourself be painted as anti-education, which is exactly what the left will try to do.

I'm sure you've already seen this documentary. In case you haven't you should check it out. These guys do an outstanding job of uncovering the truth behind these departments:

http://indoctrinate-u.com/pages/welcome.html

[Harry Mathews]

Lee,
You make many lucid points here! Indeed the main course at "The School of Social Transformation" and those various K-12 racial hatred classes is, well, hatred and bigotry which is of course what they accuse others of. And, YES going after the funding is essential and we are lobbying the legislature. I like the term "tribalism". It is so accurate and indefensible. You can't be inclusive and tribal simultaneously. The only thing that i might disagree with slightly is that i believe that the damage that is done by the Left does not escape anyone in the system. Even though course material may not include quotes by Che Guevara, the culture inside "the bubble" is insidious. Thanks for the link too! If you find anything of interest, feel free to post it in the blog or in the forum. I very much appreciate your informed input!
Harry

[Lee Reynolds]

The bubble you mention doesn't extend throughout the university. Believe me, I work there. It is not a monoculture. I couldn't even tell you what the politics are for most of the faculty within the school of engineering because it never gets brought up. But I'm quite aware of what the politics are in other schools because they won't shut up about it. The staff at the university, of which I am one, are even more heterogeneous. Academia is easy to paint as a bastion of marxism, and there are most definitely cliques within it that are guilty of that charge. But to paint everyone within academia with that brush is to make enemies of people who might otherwise support your position. If academics feel that you are attacking them en mass, they will close ranks.

http://www.thefire.org/

http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/

[Harry Mathews]

Lee,
I am not "attacking them in mass". In fact i know that most people in academia are not radical Leftists. I know some faculty members at ASU that are solid conservatives but they know that they are in the minority. I personally would like to see those solid conservatives within the system root out those destructive elements. Since you are there, please tell me, why do you think that conservatives within academia tolerate those destructive elements?

[Harry Mathews]

Oh and by the way - those are great websites you posted! I am familiar with both of them. I hope they grow in popularity!