Little Red Riding Hood

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt#NO WAY ESEA  #NO WAY ESEA  #NO WAY ESEA
MAKE THIS GO VIRAL!!!

MENU FOR THE 21ST CENTURY: COMMUNISM, SOCIALISM, FASCISM?

(1) Excerpt from “Clus­ters Pro­mote Com­mu­ni­ty Growth” arti­cle below :

Metro Unit­ed Way’s vice pres­i­dent of com­mu­ni­ty invest­ments, Ger­a­lyn Shee­han, calls the teams a pilot pro­gram for the entire nation, teach­ing res­i­dents through­out Amer­i­ca how to recon­nect with oth­ers to build a health­i­er com­mu­ni­ty.”

(2) Excerpt from last page of this post:

Humphrey-Hawkins Child and Fam­i­ly Ser­vices leg­is­la­tion (mid-1970s):

Mr. Nixon not only vetoed the bill [Humphrey-Hawkins] but also fired off a scathing mes­sage to Con­gress, pro­claim­ing that he would have no part in the “Sovi­etiz­ing” of Amer­i­can Soci­ety. “Good pub­lic pol­i­cy requires that we enhance rather than dimin­ish both parental author­i­ty and parental involve­ment with chil­dren.””

OPEN HUBABCs of Dumb­Down: The Delib­er­ate Dumb­ing Down of the Vil­lage

Reau­tho­riza­tion of ESEA (SB 106)

http://edworkforce.house.gov/uploadedfiles/student_success_act_-_

(Why would Amer­i­cans sup­port leg­is­la­tion call­ing for such a total­i­tar­i­an uncon­sti­tu­tion­al sys­tem, not just of gov­ern­ment by unelect­ed coun­cil, but relat­ed to edu­ca­tion, health, and men­tal health as well, an agen­da clear­ly spelled out in the above quote from Metro Unit­ed Way?)

If Amer­i­cans don’t sup­port such a total­i­tar­i­an sys­tem, they had bet­ter imme­di­ate­ly email or tele­phone their Sen­a­tors and Rep­re­sen­ta­tives and say NO WAY ESEA!

For the fol­low­ing rea­sons:

Sen­a­tor Lamar Alexander’s bill, which was unan­i­mous­ly passed by the Sen­ate Edu­ca­tion Com­mit­tee, and will be vot­ed on short­ly by the full Sen­ate and House, will insti­tu­tion­al­ize and make manda­to­ry much of which is already going in all over the coun­try, in bits and pieces, as I write, often decid­ed on by unelect­ed region­al coun­cils, tax-exempt com­mu­ni­ty groups, etc.

See below for impor­tant arti­cle enti­tled “Clus­ters Pro­mote Com­mu­ni­ty Growth”, by staff writer Lau­ra Ingram, the Gwin­nett Dai­ly Post of Lawrenceville, Geor­gia, dat­ed Jan­u­ary 24, 1999, for doc­u­men­ta­tion of what has been going on cer­tain­ly since 1999 in the Unit­ed States of Amer­i­ca, as many of us were sleep­ing (?)

Lau­ra Ingram should be con­grat­u­lat­ed for a first-class job of doc­u­ment­ing and report­ing the facts relat­ed to plans to change our tra­di­tion­al form of gov­ern­ment which allows for free­dom of the indi­vid­ual to deter­mine his/her own future.

As an appetizer…so you know that the “Stu­dent Suc­cess Act” does in fact insti­tu­tion­al­ize much of what is dis­cussed in the “Clus­ters” arti­cle … I am pro­vid­ing a very few direct quotes from SB 106, the ESEA Reau­tho­riza­tion Act, aka “Stu­dent Suc­cess Act” which relate to infor­ma­tion in “Clus­ters Pro­mote Com­mu­ni­ty Growth” arti­cle:

Page 253, line 1: “(iii) Effec­tive­ly engage par­ents, fam­i­lies, and com­mu­ni­ty part­ners and coor­di­nat­ed ser­vices between school and com­mu­ni­ty.”

Page 347, Title IV “Safe and Healthy Stu­dents.”

Page 350, 1.18 (4) School-based men­tal health ser­vice providers.

Page 364, (B) Pro­grams that sup­port learn­ing activ­i­ties before and after school, sum­mer, that extend the school day, week, or school year cal­en­dar.

Page 364, lines 10–17. Ear­ly iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of men­tal health symp­toms and appro­pri­ate refer­rals to direct indi­vid­ual or group coun­sel­ing ser­vices pro­vid­ed by school or com­mu­ni­ty-based men­tal health ser­vices providers.

Page 367, line 3. (J) School­wide pos­i­tive behav­ioral inter­ven­tion and sup­ports.
line 11: “Use music, arts”.

Page 368, line 3. Pro­vid­ing inte­grat­ed sys­tems of stu­dent and fam­i­ly sup­ports and build­ing teacher, prin­ci­pal, and oth­er school leader capac­i­ty.

Page 368, line 17. PAY FOR SUCCESS…Initiatives that pro­duce a mea­sur­able, clear­ly defined out­come.

The Reau­tho­riza­tion of ESEA, if passed, will insti­tu­tion­al­ize many, if not all, or pos­si­bly even “more” of the activ­i­ties and pro­grams dis­cussed in the fol­low­ing entry enti­tled “Clus­ters Pro­mote Com­mu­ni­ty Growth”, the Gwin­nett Dai­ly Post of Lawrenceville, Geor­gia, dat­ed Jan­u­ary 24, 1999, includ­ed in the delib­er­ate dumb­ing down of amer­i­ca, a FREE down­load at the delib­er­ate dumb­ing down of amer­i­ca pages 438–443.

SPEAKING OFLITTLE RED RIDING HOOD,” THE JANUARY 24, 1999 ISSUE OF THE GWINNETT Dai­ly Post of Lawrenceville, Geor­gia con­tained an arti­cle by staff writer Lau­ra Ingram enti­tled “Clus­ters Pro­mote Com­mu­ni­ty Growth.”

Ingram’s arti­cle describes a sec­ond-step phase of a “sys­tems change” effort out­lined in a joint pub­li­ca­tion from the U.S. Depart­ment of Edu­ca­tion and the U.S. Depart­ment of Health and Human Ser­vices, Togeth­er We Can. The arti­cle, which illus­trates the shift from rep­re­sen­ta­tive (elect­ed) gov­ern­ment to region­al (unelect­ed) gov­er­nance with its “Big Bad Wolf” use of part­ner­ships to accom­plish its goals, is includ­ed in its entire­ty below:

Unique groups called Com­mu­ni­ty Clus­ter Care Teams were born last April, com­prised of 12 Gwin­nett com­mu­ni­ties, and have tak­en their first steps toward unit­ing sec­tions of the coun­ty into neigh­bor­hoods.
“The entire com­mu­ni­ty needs to get involved,” said Suzanne Brighton, coor­di­na­tor for the teams. “We need to look at the envi­ron­ment we’re rais­ing our chil­dren in. Every­body has a respon­si­bil­i­ty to cre­ate a healthy envi­ron­ment where chil­dren can grow.” Par­ents, teach­ers, senior cit­i­zens, cler­gy, busi­ness peo­ple, school offi­cials and social ser­vice work­ers first met this new cre­ation April 15 at a con­fer­ence called “Togeth­er We Can,” spon­sored by the Gwin­nett Coali­tion for Health and Human Ser­vices and Bell­South. The 200 par­tic­i­pants split into 12 groups based on high school clus­ters and came up with par­tic­u­lar ways to improve each cluster/community. But they did not stop at just a sketch. The 12 teams con­tin­ued meet­ing through out the year, draw­ing more com­mu­ni­ty mem­bers and resources into their group, and cre­at­ing strate­gic plans to accom­plish their goals and shrink scary sta­tis­tics that show chil­dren find­ing their way into drugs, preg­nan­cy and vio­lence.

This fall, their imper­a­tive to heal and unite their neigh­bor­hoods took shape as tree plant­i­ngs, youth dia­logues, new youth bas­ket­ball teams, grand­par­ent adop­tions and bilin­gual ser­vices.

Metro Unit­ed Way’s vice pres­i­dent of com­mu­ni­ty invest­ments, Ger­a­lyn Shee­han, calls the teams a pilot pro­gram for the entire nation, teach­ing res­i­dents through­out Amer­i­ca how to recon­nect with oth­ers to build a health­i­er com­mu­ni­ty.

[Ed. Note: To fur­ther illus­trate what the U.S. Depart­ment of Edu­ca­tion and U.S. Depart­ment of Health and Human Ser­vices book Togeth­er We Can: A Guide for Craft­ing a Pro-fam­i­ly Sys­tem of Edu­ca­tion and Human Ser­vices (Con­tract #RP912060001: Prism DAE, a divi­sion of DAE Cor­po­ra­tion: Chevy Chase, Mary­land, 1993) out­lined as a blue­print to fol­low for “local sys­tems change,” the writer will offer some excerpts from this pub­li­ca­tion. Joint­ly signed by Sec­re­tary of Edu­ca­tion Richard W. Riley and Sec­re­tary of Health and Human Ser­vices Don­na E. Sha­lala, the fore­word to this book reads:

This book was devel­oped joint­ly… to help com­mu­ni­ties improve coor­di­na­tion of edu­ca­tion, health and human ser­vices for at-risk chil­dren and fam­i­lies. Togeth­er We Can: A Guide for Craft­ing a Pro-fam­i­ly Sys­tem of Edu­ca­tion and Human Ser­vices reflects the work and expe­ri­ence of a study group of researchers and front-line admin­is­tra­tors and prac­ti­tion­ers work­ing with promis­ing pro­grams that link edu­ca­tion and human ser­vices. Togeth­er We Can leads the read­er through a five-stage col­lab­o­ra­tive process with mile­stones and land­mines por­trayed through vignettes and case stud­ies describ­ing the per­son­al expe­ri­ences of the study group mem­bers.]

Togeth­er We Can is a prac­ti­cal guide that can assist local com­mu­ni­ties in the dif­fi­cult process of cre­at­ing a more respon­sive edu­ca­tion and human ser­vice deliv­ery sys­tem. The guide­book empha­sizes the effec­tive deliv­ery of sup­ports for fam­i­lies, a cru­cial step toward assur­ing the future suc­cess of America’s chil­dren. Rec­og­niz­ing that the cur­rent sys­tem of pro­grams serv­ing chil­dren is frag­ment­ed, con­fus­ing and inef­fi­cient, the guide­book advo­cates a rad­i­cal change in the ser­vice deliv­ery sys­tem. It encour­ages a holis­tic approach in treat­ing the prob­lems of chil­dren and fam­i­lies; easy access to com­pre­hen­sive ser­vices; ear­ly detec­tion of prob­lems and pre­ven­tive health care ser­vices; and flex­i­bil­i­ty for edu­ca­tion, health and human ser­vices. We believe this guide is a prac­ti­cal tool for the many com­mu­ni­ties that are work­ing to cre­ate more com­pre­hen­sive, fam­i­ly-focused ser­vice deliv­ery sys­tems for chil­dren and their fam­i­lies.

[Ed. Note: This is pure, unadul­ter­at­ed “com­mu­ni­tar­i­an­ism,” which is defined as: “communitarian—a mem­ber or advo­cate of a com­mu­nis­tic com­mu­ni­ty” (p. 288) and “ism”—a doc­trine, the­o­ry, sys­tem” (p. 474) in Webster’s New World Dic­tio­nary of the Amer­i­can Lan­guage (William Colliers—World Pub­lish­ing Co., Inc.: New York, 1976.), the sys­tem we have been told is “dead.”]

In the pref­ace to Togeth­er We Can we find the fol­low­ing:

Across Amer­i­ca, peo­ple are rec­og­niz­ing that all of the insti­tu­tions and agen­cies whose mis­sion is to nur­ture and strength­en chil­dren and fam­i­lies must col­lab­o­rate.…

The U.S. Depart­ment of Edu­ca­tion and the U.S. Depart­ment of Health and Human Ser­vices charged the School-Linked Inte­grat­ed Ser­vices Study Group with cap­tur­ing the expe­ri­ences of col­lab­o­ra­tive endeav­ors across the coun­try and cre­at­ing a guide for inte­grat­ing ser­vices.…

Basic to the guide is the con­cept of sys­tems change [empha­sis in orig­i­nal]. We define sys­tems change as a revi­sion of the ways that peo­ple and insti­tu­tions think, behave, and use their resources.… The Study Group believes col­lab­o­ra­tive strate­gies [empha­sis in orig­i­nal] are the key to sys­tems change.… Col­lab­o­ra­tive strate­gies, in which part­ners share a vision, estab­lish com­mon goals, and agree to use their pow­er to achieve them are nec­es­sary; com­mit­ment of resources and will­ing­ness to alter exist­ing poli­cies are a vital part of such strate­gies. Most impor­tant­ly, the chil­dren and fam­i­lies who par­tic­i­pate in our edu­ca­tion and human ser­vice sys­tems are essen­tial to its rein­ven­tion. They are indis­pens­able part­ners with edu­ca­tors, human ser­vice pro­fes­sion­als, busi­ness lead­ers, civic and reli­gious lead­ers, lead­ers of com­mu­ni­ty-based orga­ni­za­tions, and oth­er cit­i­zens in cre­at­ing the pro-fam­i­ly sys­tem that the guide envi­sions.
The School-Linked Inte­grat­ed Ser­vices Study Group con­sist­ed of rep­re­sen­ta­tives of: “Insti­tute for Edu­ca­tion­al Leadership,Washington, D.C.; Flori­da Inter­na­tion­al Uni­ver­si­ty Human Resource Ser­vice Pro­fes­sion­al Devel­op­ment Cen­ter, Mia­mi, Flori­da; Wal­bridge Ele­men­tary School, St. Louis, Mis­souri; Nation­al Cen­ter on Adult Lit­er­a­cy, Philadel­phia, Penn­syl­va­nia; Cen­ter for Col­lab­o­ra­tion for Chil­dren of Cal­i­for­nia State Uni­ver­si­ty, Fuller­ton, Cal­i­for­nia; Prince Georges Coun­ty Pub­lic Schools, Suit­land, Mary­land; San Diego City Schools, San Diego, Cal­i­for­nia; Pub­lic School 146M, New York City; Savan­nah-Chatham Coun­ty Youth Futures Author­i­ty, Savan­nah, Geor­gia [Anna Casey grant recip­i­ent which pro­mot­ed school-based clin­ics]; School of Edu­ca­tion at Stan­ford Uni­ver­si­ty, Stan­ford, Cal­i­for­nia; Ear­ly Child­hood and Fam­i­ly Edu­ca­tion divi­sion of North Cen­tral Region­al Edu­ca­tion­al Lab­o­ra­to­ry, Oak Brook, Illi­nois; Dan­forth Foun­da­tion, St. Louis, Mis­souri; Cities in Schools, Char­lotte, North Car­oli­na; Com­mu­ni­ty Edu­ca­tion Lead­er­ship Project of the Insti­tute for Edu­ca­tion­al Lead­er­ship, Wash­ing­ton, D.C.; Bet­ter Boys Foun­da­tion, Chica­go, Illi­nois; Nation­al Cen­ter for Ser­vices Inte­gra­tion of Math­tech, Inc., Falls Church, Vir­ginia; Com­mu­ni­ty Schools of Rochester City School Dis­trict, Rochester, New York; Clin­ic Services/Family Coun­sel­ing Cen­ter of the Mass­a­chu­setts Soci­ety for Pre­ven­tion of Cru­el­ty to Chil­dren, Boston, Mass­a­chu­setts; Lans­ing School Dis­trict, Lans­ing, Michi­gan; Par­ent Action, Bal­ti­more, Mary­land; New Jer­sey Depart­ment of Human Ser­vices, Tren­ton, New Jer­sey; School of the Future of El Cen­tro Famil­iar Office of the Fam­i­ly Ser­vice Cen­ter, Hous­ton, Texas; New York State Depart­ment of Edu­ca­tion, Brook­lyn, New York; Wal­bridge Car­ing Com­mu­ni­ties Pro­gram, St. Louis, Mis­souri; and a prac­tic­ing psy­chol­o­gist.”

[Ed. Note: In the inter­est of ful­ly inform­ing the read­er of just exact­ly what these projects are about and hope to accom­plish, the writer is includ­ing high­lights of a two-part appen­dix which are so total­ly inva­sive and fright­en­ing in their impli­ca­tions that they should rel­e­gate George Orwell’s 1984 to the “light read­ing” stacks!]

Appen­dix A
Check­list 1

Process for Craft­ing a Pro-fam­i­ly Sys­tem of Edu­ca­tion and Human Ser­vices

Stage One: Get­ting Togeth­er
• Has a small group decid­ed to act?
• Do the play­ers meet the fol­low­ing cri­te­ria for mem­ber­ship in the col­lab­o­ra­tive:

___clout;

___commitment; and

___diversity?

• Are the right peo­ple involved…
• Have part­ners reflect­ed on their work and cel­e­brat­ed their accom­plish­ments?

Stage Two: Build­ing Trust and Own­er­ship

• Has the col­lab­o­ra­tive con­duct­ed a com­pre­hen­sive com­mu­ni­ty assess­ment that…

___produces a pro­file of child and fam­i­ly well-being in the com­mu­ni­ty; …
• Have part­ners defined a shared vision and goals for chang­ing edu­ca­tion and human ser­vices?…

Stage Three: Devel­op­ing a Strate­gic Plan

• Has the col­lab­o­ra­tive nar­rowed its focus to a spe­cif­ic neigh­bor­hood for launch­ing a ser­vice deliv­ery pro­to­type?
• Has the col­lab­o­ra­tive con­duct­ed a neigh­bor­hood analy­sis…
• Has the col­lab­o­ra­tive defined the tar­get out­comes?…
• Is a mech­a­nism in place for using pro­gram-lev­el intel­li­gence to sug­gest sys­tem-lev­el changes?…

Stage Four: Tak­ing Action
• Is the col­lab­o­ra­tive eval­u­at­ing progress by:
___using process eval­u­a­tion tech­niques; and

___mea­sur­ing out­comes? (Poster’s com­ment: Prof .B.F. Skin­ner, total qual­i­ty man­age­ment)

• Have part­ners reflect­ed on their work and cel­e­brat­ed their accom­plish­ments?

Stage Five: Going to Scale

• Has the col­lab­o­ra­tive built a for­mal gov­er­nance struc­ture?…

• Is the col­lab­o­ra­tive pro­mot­ing change in the fed­er­al government’s role in deliv­er­ing ser­vices for chil­dren and fam­i­lies?

• Is the col­lab­o­ra­tive con­tin­u­ing to reflect and cel­e­brate as it “climbs the moun­tain” of sys­tems change?

Check­list 2

Indi­ca­tors of Sys­tems Change

Are agency agree­ments in place?…

Do pro­gram-lev­el infor­ma­tion and intel­li­gence trig­ger pol­i­cy-lev­el changes across mul­ti­ple sys­tems?…
Have part­ners devel­oped shared infor­ma­tion sys­tems?

Is there ready access to each other’s records? …
• Have agen­cies replaced sep­a­rate in-house forms to gath­er the same kind of infor­ma­tion with a com­mon form used by all mem­bers or oth­er orga­ni­za­tions to estab­lish pro­gram eli­gi­bil­i­ty? Assess case man­age­ment needs? Devel­op case plans? Have part­ner agen­cies incor­po­rat­ed the vision and val­ues of the col­lab­o­ra­tive at their admin­is­tra­tive and staff lev­els?
• Have part­ners altered their hir­ing cri­te­ria, job descrip­tions, and pre­ser­vice or in-ser­vice train­ing to con­form to a vision of com­pre­hen­sive, acces­si­ble, cul­tur­al­ly appro­pri­ate, fam­i­ly-cen­tered, and out­come-ori­ent­ed ser­vices? …
• Are out­come goals clear­ly estab­lished?
Has the col­lab­o­ra­tive used its data col­lec­tion capac­i­ty to doc­u­ment how well chil­dren and fam­i­lies are far­ing in their com­mu­ni­ties and how well agen­cies and child-serv­ing
insti­tu­tions are meet­ing their man­dates? …
• Are out­comes mea­sur­able? Do they spec­i­fy what degree of change is expect­ed to occur in the lives of chil­dren and fam­i­lies dur­ing what peri­od of time?
• Is shared account­abil­i­ty a part of out­comes that reflect edu­ca­tion, human ser­vice, and com­mu­ni­ty goals and objec­tives? Has the col­lab­o­ra­tive devised a financ­ing strat­e­gy to ensure long-term fund­ing? (Poster’s note: Watch out tax­pay­ers!)
Has the col­lab­o­ra­tive gained legit­i­ma­cy in the com­mu­ni­ty as a key vehi­cle for address­ing and resolv­ing com­mu­ni­ty issues regard­ing chil­dren and fam­i­lies? (Poster’s Note: Def­i­n­i­tion of “gain­ing legit­i­ma­cy…” = BRAINWASHING.)
• Are the collaborative’s posi­tions on com­mu­ni­ty issues sup­port­ed by com­mit­ments from pub­lic and pri­vate ser­vice providers, the busi­ness com­mu­ni­ty, and the church and neigh­bor­hood based orga­ni­za­tions whose mem­bers are often most direct­ly affect­ed by col­lab­o­ra­tive deci­sion mak­ing?”

[Ed. Note: The above activ­i­ties are advo­cat­ed and coor­di­nat­ed through a cen­ter which was estab­lished with tax­pay­ers’ mon­ey and is described in the fol­low­ing expla­na­tion of its activ­i­ties:

Nation­al Cen­ter for Ser­vices Inte­gra­tion

The Nation­al Cen­ter for Ser­vices Inte­gra­tion (NCSI) was estab­lished in late 1991 with funds from the U.S. Depart­ment of Health and Human Ser­vices and pri­vate foun­da­tions to improve life out­comes for chil­dren and fam­i­lies through the cre­ative inte­gra­tion of edu­ca­tion, health and human ser­vices. The cen­ter itself is a col­lab­o­ra­tion of six orga­ni­za­tions: Math­tech, Inc.; the Child and Fam­i­ly Pol­i­cy Cen­ter; Nation­al Cen­ter for Chil­dren in Pover­ty; Nation­al Gov­er­nors’ Asso­ci­a­tion, Pol­i­cy Stud­ies Asso­ciates; and the Yale Bush Cen­ter.
It also receives guid­ance from dis­tin­guished advi­sors knowl­edge­able about the issues and insti­tu­tions con­cerned with ser­vice inte­gra­tion. The pri­ma­ry pur­pose of NCSI is to stim­u­late, guide, and active­ly sup­port ser­vice inte­gra­tion efforts through­out the entire coun­try. To accom­plish its mis­sion, NCSI has under­tak­en a vari­ety of activ­i­ties through its Infor­ma­tion Clear­ing­house on Ser­vice Inte­gra­tion and a Tech­ni­cal Assis­tance Net­work. The Clear­ing­house, which is oper­at­ed by the Nation­al Cen­ter on Chil­dren in Pover­ty at Colum­bia Uni­ver­si­ty, col­lects and dis­sem­i­nates infor­ma­tion and mate­ri­als on ser­vice inte­gra­tion issues and relat­ed top­ics. They have devel­oped a com­put­er direc­to­ry of ser­vice inte­gra­tion pro­grams, a sep­a­rate direc­to­ry of orga­ni­za­tions, and an exten­sive research library col­lec­tion that can pro­vide infor­ma­tion and sup­port to com­mu­ni­ty-based pro­grams. Indi­vid­u­als, orga­ni­za­tions, and local­i­ties can access any of the Clear­ing­house services.…The Tech­ni­cal Assis­tance Net­work, which is oper­at­ed by Charles Bruner of the Child and Fam­i­ly Pol­i­cy Cen­ter [Kids Count] and Math­tech [gov­ern­ment con­trac­tor for the eval­u­a­tion of sex edu­ca­tion pro­grams], brings togeth­er lead­ing ser­vice inte­gra­tion plan­ners, prac­ti­tion­ers, admin­is­tra­tors, and experts to exchange ideas and infor­ma­tion, to devel­op writ­ten resource mate­ri­als for com­mu­ni­ties and prac­ti­tion­ers and to con­vene work­ing groups com­posed of per­sons in the fore­front of par­tic­u­lar issues to devel­op strate­gies for suc­cess­ful­ly resolv­ing some of the chal­lenges fac­ing com­mu­ni­ties and gov­ern­men­tal enti­ties involved in ser­vice inte­gra­tion efforts.] [Ed. Note: If the read­er has any ques­tions about why school-based clin­ics, school-to-work, com­mu­ni­ty edu­ca­tion pro­grams, year-round schools, one-stop train­ing cen­ters, and all of the oth­er “local­ly con­ceived” pro­grams have come into their com­mu­ni­ties with such force and fun­da­men­tal sup­port, the above fed­er­al­ly fund­ed and con­ceived plans should answer them. Togeth­er We Can brings togeth­er nation­al and inter­na­tion­al plans for social­iz­ing all ser­vices to our cit­i­zen­ry. One exam­ple is the Inter­na­tion­al Year of the Child pro­pos­als which orig­i­nat­ed in 1979 and are here­by fund­ed, for­mat­ted, and ful­filled in Togeth­er We Can’s “how-to” instruc­tion man­u­al. These are the process­es nec­es­sary to cre­ate the “per­fect human resource”—the glob­al work­er. Pres­i­dent Nixon vetoed the child and fam­i­ly leg­is­la­tion encom­pass­ing all of the above activ­i­ties (the Humphrey-Hawkins Child and Fam­i­ly Ser­vices Act) in the mid–1970s, call­ing it the most social­is­tic leg­is­la­tion he had ever seen. The New York Times car­ried an arti­cle by Edward B. Fiske enti­tled “Ear­ly School­ing Is Now the Rage” in its April 13, 1986 issue which explained:

Mr. Nixon not only vetoed the bill (Humphrey-Hawkins] but also fired off a scathing mes­sage to Con­gress, pro­claim­ing that he would have no part in the “Sovi­etiz­ing” of Amer­i­can Soci­ety. “Good pub­lic pol­i­cy requires that we enhance rather than dimin­ish both parental author­i­ty and parental involve­ment with chil­dren.”

This com­pre­hen­sive pro­gram links almost every entry in this book, from cra­dle to grave. None of this could have been accom­plished with­out the use of behav­ior­ist meth­ods and change agent tac­tics care­ful­ly doc­u­ment­ed in this book. Amer­i­cans would not have will­ing­ly turned over deci­sion mak­ing in these areas unless manip­u­lat­ed into doing so; no one ever vot­ed to con­duct our gov­ern­ment in this man­ner. The Mont­gomery Coun­ty Blue­print of 1946—fifty-plus years ago—spelled out this approach. In the Blue­print Paul Mort point­ed out that it takes fifty years to accom­plish “sys­tems change.” He was right on tar­get.]