History Lost

Please Refresh Page

This is a work in progress

Learning About The American Flag Salute

 

When my mama and daddy attended public school in the United States of America:

   John and Maxine were coming into the schoolyard..  At the top of the tall flagpole a red, white, and blue flag was waving in the breeze.

   "Oh, look!" cried John. "See the new flag!"

   "Yes, isn't it pretty?" said Maxine. "I love the bright colors in our flag.  I love the stars, too."

   Just then the bell rang.  The boy and girl hurried into the building.

   When everyone was seated, the teacher read a poem about our flag. Then asked, "How many of you saw our new flag?"

   "John and I did," said Maxine.  "The patrol boys had just put it up.  They were giving the flag salute.  May we learn to say it?"

   The teacher laughed. "See what I have written on the board," she said.  "It is the flag salute. I will read it to you first.  Then you may all read it."

This is the salute that the children read.

I pledge allegiance

to the flag of the

United States of America

and to the Republic

for which it stands,

one Nation indivisible,

with liberty and

justice for all.

   The children learned to say the salute by heart.

Then they went out into the yard and saluted the flag. They sang songs about our country, too.

John and Maxine learned the words:

pledge       America       indivisible

allegiance   republic     liberty

united         nation         justice

   When John was at my house yesterday, Mother let us study in the garden.  We put a small table under the apple tree. Our word list on the table. John played student and I played teacher. Then I played student and John played teacher.

pledge:

We took turns saying and defining the words  in the flag salute.

   We  both memorize the pledge and learned the definitions of the words on the list, by the time John had to leave for home.

The phrase "under God"

My daddy was 31 and my mama was 24, when the phrase "under God" was added to the pledge by a Congressional act approved on June 14, 1954. I was almost five-years-old. My brothers were just a few years older than me.


Let me say, right now, the 50s was hard on the average American family but during that period in American history government did not interfere in family matters. And a child did not hold the power that children gained after state, federal and world governments laws were passed that tied the hands of parents to disciple their own children.

 I remember my daddy saying "Let's see what they [meaning the government] can do with them."

What The Government  "Do With Them"

On any given day, nearly 53,000 youth are held in facilities away from home as a result of juvenile or criminal justice involvement. Nearly one in ten is held in an adult jail or prison. Even for the youth held in juvenile “residential placement,”1 the situation is grim; most of them are in similarly restrictive, correctional-style facilities. Thousands of youths are held before they’ve been found delinquent,2 many for non-violent, low-level offenses — even for behaviors that aren’t criminal violations. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/youth2018.html

Biological Parents-v- Science

   Children are the back bone of every country ,worldwide. The fathers, mothers, and other family members are the first teachers in a child's life. Home government, where parents rule, was once respected. Then science started inventing ways that a baby could be born without either biological parent  having ever met face-to-face.

 In November 1977, Lesley  Brown who had suffered years of infertility due to blocked fallopian tubes] ,  underwent an experimental in vitro fertilization  (IVF) procedure. A mature egg was removed from one of her ovaries and combined in a laboratory dish with her husband’s sperm to form an embryo. The embryo then was implanted into her uterus a few days later.   

On July 25, 1978, Louise Joy Brown, the world’s first baby to be conceived via in vitro fertilization (IVF) is born at Oldham and District General Hospital in Manchester, England, to parents Lesley and Peter Brown. The healthy baby was delivered shortly before midnight by caesarean section and weighed in at five pounds, 12 ounces.


Not Genetically Related To Either Parent


ART procedures sometimes involve the use of donor eggs (eggs from another woman), donor sperm, or previously frozen embryos. Donor eggs are sometimes used for women who cannot produce eggs. Also, donor eggs or donor sperm are sometimes used when the woman or man has a genetic disease that can be passed on to the baby. An infertile woman or couple may also use donor embryos. These are embryos that were either created by couples in infertility treatment or were created from donor sperm and donor eggs. The donated embryo is transferred to the uterus. The child will not be genetically related to either parent.

https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/infertility/index.htm

True Story jt

   An older woman wants to have a baby. Her daughter is embryo/egg donor.

Both the Mother and daughter are pregnant with the daughter's baby, at the same time. 

The older woman will be the mother and grandmother of the baby she is pregnant with.

The younger woman will be the mother and sister of the baby her mother is carrying.

  The baby the younger woman is carrying will be the grandchild of the older woman and

 the niece/nephew and the brother/sister of  the older woman's baby.

   Note:The biological parents, those who donated eggs, and sperm, have no legal right to the child [ren] they donated [or sold] to science. And chances are they go through their whole life thinking of their biological children as only the sperm or egg they donated.

What about the psychological damage,  when both children learn they are siblings?

NOTE: In trying to figure out what happened to the United States of America [ the country I was born in, grew up in, and love] my research took me to information that leaves no doubt in my mind that communist are at the roots of the moral decay inside my country [USA] and other countries worldwide.

Where does communism fit in? Pay attention to how history unfolds.

 The US lacks uniform regulation. “We certainly don’t have any federal level requirements around egg donation and sperm donation, save for the FDA requiring that sperm banks do contagious disease testing,” Yale sociology professor Rene Almeling said, adding that there is no required genetic testing.

“We don’t have any regulations about how often donors donate, how much they’re paid, how many children can be born from any one donor.”

The opposite is true in France, which gives birth to other issues.

In France, there is a state-run, national sperm bank. “So they know exactly how many donors they have and how often they donate and how many children are born with which birth defects, etc.,” Almeling said.

France used to require that to receive that sperm, you had to be a heterosexual, married couple. “They have dropped the marriage requirement, so now you just have to be a heterosexual couple, but you cannot be a single woman or a lesbian couple,” Almeling said.

“So France has regulated sperm donation, but it’s also written discrimination into the regulations, such that lesbians and single women often get on the train to purchase it from, say, the Netherlands.”...At California Cryobank, the current breakdown is: 308 anonymous donors; 116 “open donors”, who agree to be contacted through the bank as an intermediary; and 134 “ID disclosure”, who agree to direct contact, said Brown. In all cases, any relationship is initiated exclusively by the offspring, not the donor.

Laws dictating how many families or children a single donor can provide also affect a country’s sperm practice. For example, in the UK one donor can only endow 10 families domestically. In Spain, which mandates anonymous donation, it’s six live births (factoring in a donor’s own children).

The US has no limit to how many families can use one donor. In Denmark, one man can contribute to 12 families, maximum. But internationally, he may provide to six couples in Sweden and eight in Switzerland, and so on. “It’s not exactly illegal,” said Wahlberg. “One donor in Denmark could father 30, 50, 80 children. Who knows?”

WHO KNOWS!?

California Cryobank changed its policy this year, to take only non-anonymous donations going forward. Historically, heterosexual couples have tended to favor anonymous donations and offspring whose physical resemblance wouldn’t give rise to questions about paternity. However, with lesbian and single mothers, the use of a donor is obvious, and clients and their children tend to be curious about their backgrounds.

“The concept of being an anonymous donor now is pretty hard to control, with services like 23andMe and Ancestry anyway,” California Cryobank’s Brown said. “Suggesting to a donor he could remain anonymous seemed like it wasn’t realistic.”

Sperm from the US and Denmark dominate the market because those countries currently have the most supply, experts say. It’s unclear whether their rivalry is serious or in jest, but US-based California Cryobank and Denmark’s Cryos International each insist that their sperm repository is biggest.

California Cryobank claims it is the largest sperm bank in the world by “any metric”; Scott Brown, director of client experience, noted that the firm has a pool of roughly 600 donors and a track record of 75,000 live births globally since 1977. The company has locations in Palo Alto, Los Angeles, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and New York.

In Denmark, Cryos, the superstore for Viking sperm, is the main player. “California Cryobank is definitely the largest in the United States, but worldwide, we absolutely crush them,” Corey Burke, the tissue bank director at Cryos International’s Florida outpost, told the Guardian.

“In Europe alone, we have close to 1,400 active and real donors; in the US around 200 donors,” Burke said. “We sell to over 100 countries worldwide. We own Europe. If you want sperm in Europe, Cryos comes up, always,” added Burke. The email signature on Cryos emails boasts: “The highest number of registered pregnancies in the world.”

About 90% of Danish sperm goes to other EU countries, said Karlstad University’s Sebastian Mohr, who wrote a book on Danish sperm banks.

One reason the US and Denmark are the heaviest hitters in the global sperm market: Laws allowing anonymity for donors, said Ayo Wahlberg, an anthropology professor at the University of Copenhagen.

“The repeal of anonymity in many parts of the western world totally changed the game” in the past 10 to 15 years, Wahlberg said. While most European countries don’t allow anonymity, Denmark still does. “As soon as [anti-anonymity] legislation kicks in, numbers plummet.”

source:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/aug/15/americas-hottest-export-sperm-fertility

 Is the above the reason why some choose to call themselves "world citizens"?

Because they robbed their offspring of their rightful country!

 

United States History 101


"To know nothing of the past is to understand little of the present and to have no concept of the future."

In the 1948 book, I am holding in my hand, the Introduction tells me that the result of a failure to relate past events to the problems of contemporary life was well expressed by an ancient philosopher who said: "To know nothing of the past is to understand little of the present and to have no concept of the future."

With Wikipedia rewriting American and world history I feel I owe it to all past generations of Americans to pass on to this and all future generations  the history of America, as it was taught to my generation.

Without a knowledge of the early period of American history, it would be difficult to understand why in certain sections of America the Spanish, language, and religion prevail, and why in others the French influences are paramount. The social problems we see taking place today

I went to a Spanish site after typing in  the name of  the author of "Social Problems in American Society," a text book,1983, Melvin L. DeFleur. Most was in Spanish, but  on the right side was two links in English. I clicked on "A survey in high schools in 12 countries helps reveal Why They Hate Us..." and got a message saying link might be out of date or I might have typed in wrong URL. I then pasted "A survey in high schools in 12 countries helps reveal Why They Hate Us... " in search and found nothing even close.

Summary, from the Introduction page to the book "Social Problems in American Society" :

Generally, then, some difficulties are a result of ill-advised choices, pure and simple. But many actions are influenced either slightly or overwhelmingly by the social rules, customs, and traditions that surround people. Social problems fit in these latter categories... In other words, a social problem has its origins in the workings of the society...There may be additional causes for the problems of minorities, but the point is that social problems have social origins.

I have to wonder if the authors of the book have ever considered  their own contributions to  America's 'social' problems?

American children need to be taught American history. Then they would know that we, each , as Americans, are a part of a minority and a majority.

Note: I started  collecting old books, about 55 years ago [mostly American, and world history books] because I wanted to save history for my children and future generations. Reading the propaganda on the internet is like watching the warnings [documented in books, by past generations] coming to full bloom.

Knowledge is power.

WWII

Japanese declaration of war on the United States and the British Empire
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The declaration of war by the Empire of Japan on the United States and the British Empire was published on December 8, 1941, after Japanese forces had executed an attack on the United States naval base at Pearl Harbor and attacks on British forces in Malaya, Singapore, and Hong Kong.

American History!

"We interrupt this program to bring you a special news bulletin. Early this morning Japanese airplanes attacked the American naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Loss of American lives is heavy; one observer sets it in the hundreds. The sky over Pearl Harbor is black with the smoke of burning ships and aircraft. American planes at Hickam Field were destroyed on the ground before they could take off to repel the invaders. There is still no official word from Washington. Stay tuned for further developments."

The American people were stunned. The idea of a sneak attack, at the very moment the Japanese diplomats were in Washington discussing peace, stirred their anger. The next day President Roosevelt addressed Congress, He described the Japanese attack as "dastardly," called December 7 "a date which will live in infamy," and asked that war be declared. When Congress did declare war on Japan, Germany and Italy in turn declared war on the United States.

Communism versus Democracy

Communism aims its propaganda at the poor and discouraged in every country. It leads them to believe that the wealth and resources of the country would be used for the equal benefit of all the people if communism were accepted.

This, in effect, is a promise to redistribute the wealth so as to do away with poverty. It is a promise that appeals to some of the poor and to some of those who would like to see the poor have a better way of life. As it happens, the promise is never carried out.

What those listening to the promises of communism do not see, and what Communist leaders do not say, is that the Communist party controls the life and thoughts of every man, woman, and child under its command.
A Communist-controlled country and all of the people are puppts. They are used to accomplish the aims of the Communist party, jumping whenever it pulls the strings.

On October 1, 1949, Chinese Communist leader Mao Zedong declared the creation of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The announcement ended the costly full-scale civil war between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the Nationalist Party, or Kuomintang (KMT), which broke out immediately following World War II and had been preceded by on and off conflict between the two sides since the 1920’s. The creation of the PRC also completed the long process of governmental upheaval in China begun by the Chinese Revolution of 1911. The “fall” of mainland China to communism in 1949 led the United States to suspend diplomatic ties with the PRC for decades.

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/chinese-rev 

China 1938

 

 

   Our present age [1938], more than any other in the world's history, is intensely concerned with the problems of international relations. Children in school today are going to solve that problem tomorrow.  Texts and teachers should serve only to show the way to truth; the pupil must find the truth himself.  Let him make his own decisions about water power, and tariff walls, and war, and peace, but see to it that the decisions are made, and that the pupil has every possible facility for making them, --- and hope mightily that he may vision the brotherhood of man as the outstanding aim of modern civilization.  To this purpose Our World Today is dedicated.

De Forest Stull [Teachers College, Columbia University]
Roy W. Hatch [State Teachers College, Montclair, New Jersey]

Here we are, it's 2019, and China is a Communist country.

Shenzhen, China

Chinese leaders are letting millions go homeless ,while they spend money to create 'dream' cities. Such as the one above.

"It appears the many Chinese people have forgotten the teachings of old; right along with many American people."

Today's China leaders are a disgrace to  all past generations of  Chinese people. jt

Communist China operates schools on American soil...

When China sought to market itself to students around the world, it looked to
its past. Confucius, the ancient Chinese philosopher, is synonymous with morality,
justice, and honesty. The Chinese government capitalized on this rich legacy and
began establishing Confucius Institutes on college campuses around the world in
2004, including the first in the United States at the University of Maryland. Today,
there are more than 100 Confucius Institutes in the United States, the most of any
country.

Confucius Classrooms are currently in 519 elementary, middle, and high schools in
the United States. Continued expansion of the program is a priority for China....
China’s Lack of Reciprocity. In response to the growing popularity of
Confucius Institutes in the United States, the State Department initiated a public
diplomacy program in China. Since 2010, the State Department has provided $5.1
million in grant funding for 29 “American Cultural Centers” or ACCs in China. ...
ACCs are notably different from Confucius Institutes,
however, as the State Department does not pay or vet instructors or directors;
provide books or materials; or veto proposed events. Even so, the Chinese
government stifled the establishment of the ACC program from the start.

In all, the State Department provided 29 U.S. schools with grant funds to
establish ACCs with a partner Chinese schools. For some U.S schools, roadblocks to
opening their ACCs appeared immediately. For example, after extensive
negotiations, one Chinese school refused to open a proposed ACC, stating it didn’t
see a need to move forward. An official from the U.S. school seeking to open the
ACC, however, believed China’s Ministry of Education told the partner school not to
proceed with the contract. This official wrote in an email to his colleagues, “This is a typical Chinese political euphemism. Obviously, [the Chinese University] was
instructed by [the Ministry of Education] not to proceed with our proposal.” The
U.S. school returned the grant funds to the State Department.
The ACCs that did open found they needed permission from their Chinese
host schools to hold most cultural events. One Chinese host school refused to allow
its ACC to host a play about the life of Muhammad Ali. Another denied approval
for a lecture series on policy issues facing Americans. One U.S. school official who
staffed an ACC told the Subcommittee that members of the local Communist Party
often participated in the approval process. Another U.S. school official left the ACC
after two sessions of extensive questioning by Chinese police officers regarding her
involvement with the ACC and the State Department. When the U.S. school official
returned to the United States, a colleague told her that Chinese police interrogation
of school officials was common and that she was now just “part of the club.”
In all, the State Department documented over 80 instances in the past four
years where the Chinese government directly interfered with U.S. diplomacy efforts
in China. Interference with State Department officials or events took a number of
forms. One example involved a Chinese official telling a U.S. official an ACC no
longer existed; the U.S. official easily confirmed the continued existence of the ACC
through its U.S. partner school. One U.S. official was told she applied too late to
attend the opening of an ACC after submitting the request a month before. In other
instances, the Chinese school canceled approved events, sometimes as late as the
night before.
In December 2017, the State Department Inspector General found the ACC
mission was largely ineffective. In October 2018, the State Department ended all
ACC program grant funding in order to conduct an internal assessment of the
program. There are currently no plans for future ACC grants.
The Need for Transparency and Reciprocity. Schools in the United States—
from kindergarten to college—have provided a level of access to the Chinese
government that the Chinese government has refused to provide to the United
States. That level of access can stifle academic freedom and provide students and
others exposed to Confucius Institute programming with an incomplete picture of
Chinese government actions and policies that run counter to U.S. interests at home
and abroad. Absent full transparency regarding how Confucius Institutes operate
and full reciprocity for U.S. cultural outreach efforts on college campuses in China,
Confucius Institutes should not continue in the United States.

II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Findings of Fact
1) In the last 15 years, the Chinese government has opened over 100
Confucius Institutes on college and university campuses in the
United States. While there are currently more than 500 Confucius
Institutes worldwide, the United States has more Confucius Institutes than
any other country. Recently, ten U.S. colleges and universities have decided
to close Confucius Institutes.
2) The Chinese government also funds teachers for Confucius
Classrooms in the United States, which teach Chinese language and
culture in kindergarten through 12th grade schools. There are over
1,000 Confucius Classrooms worldwide and more than 500 in the United
States. Expanding the Confucius Classroom program is a priority for the
Chinese government. A document obtained by the Subcommittee details a
sophisticated plan to expand Confucius Classrooms by seeking the “top-down
policy support from the state government, legislative and educational
institutions, with a particular emphasis on access to the support from school
district superintendents and principals.”
3) U.S. government officials have expressed concerns about Confucius
Institutes. FBI Director Chris Wray testified that the FBI is “watching
warily” Confucius Institutes and “in certain instances have developed
appropriate investigative steps.” Bill Priestap, the FBI’s Assistant Director
for the Counterintelligence Division, testified that Confucius Institutes “are
not strictly a cultural institute [and that] they’re ultimately beholden to the
Chinese government.”
4) The Chinese government controls nearly every aspect of Confucius
Institutes at U.S. schools. Confucius Institutes report to the Chinese
government’s Ministry of Education Office of Chinese Language Council
International, known as “Hanban.” Confucius Institutes are funded,
controlled, and mostly staffed by Hanban to present Chinese-government
approved programming to students at U.S. schools. Hanban approves each
Confucius Institutes’ annual budget and has veto authority over events and
speakers.
5) Hanban provides no information to U.S. schools on how candidates
for Chinese director and teacher positions at Confucius Institutes
are screened or selected in China. U.S. Schools told the Subcommittee
they did not know how Hanban selects the candidates they must choose when
filling the Chinese director and teacher positions at Confucius Institutes, but
were generally aware of an English proficiency test and psychological exam.
6
Nor did U.S. schools know if the Chinese directors and teachers would meet
the U.S. schools’ hiring standards.
6) Chinese directors and teachers at Confucius Institutes pledge to
protect Chinese national interests. The Subcommittee obtained a
contract between Chinese teachers and Hanban that requires Chinese
instructors at U.S. schools to “conscientiously safeguard national interests”
and terminates if the Chinese instructors “violate Chinese law” or “engage in
activities detrimental to national interests.”
7) Some U.S. schools’ contracts with Hanban include non-disclosure
provisions and require adherence to both U.S. and Chinese law.
Some contracts reviewed by the Subcommittee included provisions that
prevent public disclosure of the contract and a provision that both Chinese
and U.S. law applies at the Confucius Institute at the U.S. school. When one
U.S. school refused to include a provision requiring adherence to Chinese law,
Hanban officials cancelled the entire contract.
8) Some Hanban contracts include a clause requiring a U.S. school to
pay back Hanban funds for early termination of the Confucius
Institute. This provision creates a disincentive for the U.S. school to
terminate an agreement early if the school decides it no longer wants to host
a Confucius Institute. The typical length of a contract between a U.S. school
and Hanban is five years.
9) U.S. school officials’ impressions of Hanban’s control of Confucius
Institutes varied. Some U.S. school officials, administrators, and
instructors told the Subcommittee that they had concerns about the Chinese
government’s control and influence over Confucius Institute planning and
programming. Government Accountability Office investigators interviewed
several U.S. school officials who “expressed concerns that hosting a Confucius
Institute could limit events or activities critical of China—including events at
the Confucius Institute and elsewhere on campus.” Other U.S. school
administrators and American directors reported they had no concerns about
academic freedom or undue Chinese influence.
10) The State Department does not collect information on the Exchange
Visa Program (or “J-1 visa”) related to Confucius Institutes or
Hanban. The State Department told the Subcommittee that when a Chinese
national applies for a J-1 visa, the Department does not record if that
individual is associated with a Confucius Institute. As such, the State
Department does not know the number of Chinese nationals in the United
States associated with the Confucius Institute program. This gap affects the
State Department’s ability to effectively ensure proper visa use.
7
11) Since 2017, the State Department issued four Letters of Concern to
U.S. schools for inappropriately using J-1 visas related to Confucius
Institutes. The State Department revoked 32 visas for Confucius Institute
exchange visitors following reviews at two of the schools that received letters.
At both of these schools, Chinese nationals asserted they were in the United
States conducting research when they were actually teaching at K−12
schools. When State Department officials interviewed officials and staff at
one school, they found evidence of efforts to deceive them and determined the
Confucius Institute’s Chinese co-director “conducted rehearsal interviews
with the exchange visitors to practice discussing their research topics in
advance of [State’s] review.”
12) The State Department conducted two field site reviews of Confucius
Institutes in 2018 in response to visa violations discovered during a
field site review. The State Department also issued a reminder to U.S.
school sponsors to review guidance on the proper use of J-1 visas for
Confucius Institutes. The State Department plans to conduct four field site
reviews in 2019.
13) Since 2006, Hanban has provided more than $158 million to more
than 100 U.S. schools for Confucius Institutes. Those U.S. schools
provided the Subcommittee with financial data detailing all payments
received from Hanban. Hanban states it spent more than $2 billion on
Confucius Institutes worldwide from 2008 to 2016; starting in 2017, it no
longer reports spending on the program.
14) U.S. schools failed to comply with statutory requirements to report
foreign gifts to the Department of Education. Current law requires all
post-secondary schools to biannually report funding provided by a foreign
entity valued at more than $250,000. Nearly seventy percent of U.S. schools
with a Confucius Institute that received more than $250,000 in one year
failed to properly report that information to the Department of Education.
15) The Department of Education does not conduct regular oversight of
U.S. schools’ compliance with required foreign gift reporting. The
Department of Education maintains a database detailing the reporting of
foreign gifts provided to U.S. schools, but relies solely on the U.S. schools to
self-report gifts.
16) The Department of Education has failed to update U.S. school
reporting requirements. The Department of Education has not issued
guidance on foreign gift reporting by post-secondary schools since 2004. As a
result, U.S. schools told the Subcommittee the reporting requirements were
8
unclear and confusing. They also said the Department of Education website
used to receive gift reports was dated and difficult to use.
17) The State Department created the American Cultural Center (“ACC”)
program in 2010 to partner U.S. schools with a Chinese school. The
State Department awarded $5.1 million in grant funds through the program
for U.S. schools to create a space on the campus of a Chinese partner school.
The ACC would host events and lectures to promote American culture.
18) The Chinese government fails to provide appropriate reciprocity for
U.S. officials and educators in China. The State Department has
documented at least 80 examples of Chinese interference with American
public diplomacy efforts from January 2016 to July 2018. Chinese officials
routinely cancelled events at ACCs that involved U.S. embassy officials. In
other instances, the host Chinese school would not allow State Department
officials to attend events at the ACC, even when they applied for admission
weeks in advance.
19) The State Department Inspector General found that the American
Cultural Center Program was “largely ineffective” in its mission due
to Chinese interference. The State Department responded that “[t]he
Embassy agrees that there are concerns related to the stability of specific
Centers due to active interference by the Chinese government as well as
limitations in visiting individual centers.”
20) The Chinese government prevented at least seven American Cultural
Centers from ever opening. The U.S. schools cited “politics” and having to
secure the permission of either the Chinese Communist Party or local
provincial government as reasons for failing to open an American Cultural
Center.
21) One U.S. school official told the Subcommittee that Chinese police
officials detained and questioned her about her involvement with
the American Cultural Center program. She further explained that
when she later told a colleague about the questioning, her colleague was not
surprised and told her the Chinese police routinely question Americans in
this manner. The colleague concluded that she was now “part of the club.”
22) U.S. schools operating in China may self-censor events and
programming as part of the State Department’s American Cultural
Center program. For example, one U.S. school told the Subcommittee that
they would never even propose to hold an event on Tibet or Taiwan. That
same U.S. school said they successfully hosted programs in China, but that
the school did not want to “promote American culture too much.”
9
Recommendations
1) Congress should require all U.S. schools to publish any contracts
with foreign governments, including all Confucius Institute
contracts, online for students and faculty to review. Those contracts
should have clear and irrefutable provisions protecting academic freedom at
the school and avoid provisions that would apply the law of a foreign country
on a U.S. campus.
2) U.S. schools should ensure that Hanban does not exercise line-item
veto authority when approving annual Confucius Institute budgets.
U.S. schools must ensure that any foreign-government-funded activities or
research do not hinder academic freedom or present one-sided, selective
positions to American students. Confucius Institute events and activities
should also include disclaimers about the sources of funding.
3) U.S. schools should ensure that Hanban’s vetting, screening, and
interview processes are aligned with their own hiring procedures
and protocols. The process of selecting directors and teachers should be
fully transparent to U.S. schools. U.S. schools should also attempt to recruit
Chinese language instructors outside of Hanban’s purview.
4) Congress and state and local education officials should study the
need and demand for Chinese language education programming in
the United States and consider additional investments where
necessary. U.S. schools and state and local boards of education should not
outsource Chinese language teaching to Hanban.
5) The Department of Justice should determine if Confucius Institutes
engage in activity to influence the U.S. government or public on
behalf of foreign principals. The Department of Justice should then
assess whether any Confucius Institute or its employees should register
under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (“FARA”) for work on behalf of the
Chinese government.
6) The State Department should review all active Confucius Institutes
and Confucius Classrooms for compliance with visa regulations,
standards, and practices. The State Department should collect foreign
visa information for J-1 researchers and teachers associated with Confucius
Institutes in the United States.
7) U.S. schools must comply with the law and properly report foreign
gifts to the Department of Education. U.S. schools that failed to properly
10

II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Findings of Fact
1) In the last 15 years, the Chinese government has opened over 100
Confucius Institutes on college and university campuses in the
United States. While there are currently more than 500 Confucius
Institutes worldwide, the United States has more Confucius Institutes than
any other country. Recently, ten U.S. colleges and universities have decided
to close Confucius Institutes.
2) The Chinese government also funds teachers for Confucius
Classrooms in the United States, which teach Chinese language and
culture in kindergarten through 12th grade schools. There are over
1,000 Confucius Classrooms worldwide and more than 500 in the United
States. Expanding the Confucius Classroom program is a priority for the
Chinese government. A document obtained by the Subcommittee details a
sophisticated plan to expand Confucius Classrooms by seeking the “top-down
policy support from the state government, legislative and educational
institutions, with a particular emphasis on access to the support from school
district superintendents and principals.”
3) U.S. government officials have expressed concerns about Confucius
Institutes. FBI Director Chris Wray testified that the FBI is “watching
warily” Confucius Institutes and “in certain instances have developed
appropriate investigative steps.” Bill Priestap, the FBI’s Assistant Director
for the Counterintelligence Division, testified that Confucius Institutes “are
not strictly a cultural institute [and that] they’re ultimately beholden to the
Chinese government.”
4) The Chinese government controls nearly every aspect of Confucius
Institutes at U.S. schools. Confucius Institutes report to the Chinese
government’s Ministry of Education Office of Chinese Language Council
International, known as “Hanban.” Confucius Institutes are funded,
controlled, and mostly staffed by Hanban to present Chinese-government
approved programming to students at U.S. schools. Hanban approves each
Confucius Institutes’ annual budget and has veto authority over events and
speakers.
5) Hanban provides no information to U.S. schools on how candidates
for Chinese director and teacher positions at Confucius Institutes
are screened or selected in China. U.S. Schools told the Subcommittee
they did not know how Hanban selects the candidates they must choose when
filling the Chinese director and teacher positions at Confucius Institutes, but
were generally aware of an English proficiency test and psychological exam.
6
Nor did U.S. schools know if the Chinese directors and teachers would meet
the U.S. schools’ hiring standards.
6) Chinese directors and teachers at Confucius Institutes pledge to
protect Chinese national interests. The Subcommittee obtained a
contract between Chinese teachers and Hanban that requires Chinese
instructors at U.S. schools to “conscientiously safeguard national interests”
and terminates if the Chinese instructors “violate Chinese law” or “engage in
activities detrimental to national interests.”
7) Some U.S. schools’ contracts with Hanban include non-disclosure
provisions and require adherence to both U.S. and Chinese law.
Some contracts reviewed by the Subcommittee included provisions that
prevent public disclosure of the contract and a provision that both Chinese
and U.S. law applies at the Confucius Institute at the U.S. school. When one
U.S. school refused to include a provision requiring adherence to Chinese law,
Hanban officials cancelled the entire contract.
8) Some Hanban contracts include a clause requiring a U.S. school to
pay back Hanban funds for early termination of the Confucius
Institute. This provision creates a disincentive for the U.S. school to
terminate an agreement early if the school decides it no longer wants to host
a Confucius Institute. The typical length of a contract between a U.S. school
and Hanban is five years.
9) U.S. school officials’ impressions of Hanban’s control of Confucius
Institutes varied. Some U.S. school officials, administrators, and
instructors told the Subcommittee that they had concerns about the Chinese
government’s control and influence over Confucius Institute planning and
programming. Government Accountability Office investigators interviewed
several U.S. school officials who “expressed concerns that hosting a Confucius
Institute could limit events or activities critical of China—including events at
the Confucius Institute and elsewhere on campus.” Other U.S. school
administrators and American directors reported they had no concerns about
academic freedom or undue Chinese influence.
10) The State Department does not collect information on the Exchange
Visa Program (or “J-1 visa”) related to Confucius Institutes or
Hanban. The State Department told the Subcommittee that when a Chinese
national applies for a J-1 visa, the Department does not record if that
individual is associated with a Confucius Institute. As such, the State
Department does not know the number of Chinese nationals in the United
States associated with the Confucius Institute program. This gap affects the
State Department’s ability to effectively ensure proper visa use.
7
11) Since 2017, the State Department issued four Letters of Concern to
U.S. schools for inappropriately using J-1 visas related to Confucius
Institutes. The State Department revoked 32 visas for Confucius Institute
exchange visitors following reviews at two of the schools that received letters.
At both of these schools, Chinese nationals asserted they were in the United
States conducting research when they were actually teaching at K−12
schools. When State Department officials interviewed officials and staff at
one school, they found evidence of efforts to deceive them and determined the
Confucius Institute’s Chinese co-director “conducted rehearsal interviews
with the exchange visitors to practice discussing their research topics in
advance of [State’s] review.”
12) The State Department conducted two field site reviews of Confucius
Institutes in 2018 in response to visa violations discovered during a
field site review. The State Department also issued a reminder to U.S.
school sponsors to review guidance on the proper use of J-1 visas for
Confucius Institutes. The State Department plans to conduct four field site
reviews in 2019.
13) Since 2006, Hanban has provided more than $158 million to more
than 100 U.S. schools for Confucius Institutes. Those U.S. schools
provided the Subcommittee with financial data detailing all payments
received from Hanban. Hanban states it spent more than $2 billion on
Confucius Institutes worldwide from 2008 to 2016; starting in 2017, it no
longer reports spending on the program.
14) U.S. schools failed to comply with statutory requirements to report
foreign gifts to the Department of Education. Current law requires all
post-secondary schools to biannually report funding provided by a foreign
entity valued at more than $250,000. Nearly seventy percent of U.S. schools
with a Confucius Institute that received more than $250,000 in one year
failed to properly report that information to the Department of Education.
15) The Department of Education does not conduct regular oversight of
U.S. schools’ compliance with required foreign gift reporting. The
Department of Education maintains a database detailing the reporting of
foreign gifts provided to U.S. schools, but relies solely on the U.S. schools to
self-report gifts.
16) The Department of Education has failed to update U.S. school
reporting requirements. The Department of Education has not issued
guidance on foreign gift reporting by post-secondary schools since 2004. As a
result, U.S. schools told the Subcommittee the reporting requirements were
8
unclear and confusing. They also said the Department of Education website
used to receive gift reports was dated and difficult to use.
17) The State Department created the American Cultural Center (“ACC”)
program in 2010 to partner U.S. schools with a Chinese school. The
State Department awarded $5.1 million in grant funds through the program
for U.S. schools to create a space on the campus of a Chinese partner school.
The ACC would host events and lectures to promote American culture.
18) The Chinese government fails to provide appropriate reciprocity for
U.S. officials and educators in China. The State Department has
documented at least 80 examples of Chinese interference with American
public diplomacy efforts from January 2016 to July 2018. Chinese officials
routinely cancelled events at ACCs that involved U.S. embassy officials. In
other instances, the host Chinese school would not allow State Department
officials to attend events at the ACC, even when they applied for admission
weeks in advance.
19) The State Department Inspector General found that the American
Cultural Center Program was “largely ineffective” in its mission due
to Chinese interference. The State Department responded that “[t]he
Embassy agrees that there are concerns related to the stability of specific
Centers due to active interference by the Chinese government as well as
limitations in visiting individual centers.”
20) The Chinese government prevented at least seven American Cultural
Centers from ever opening. The U.S. schools cited “politics” and having to
secure the permission of either the Chinese Communist Party or local
provincial government as reasons for failing to open an American Cultural
Center.
21) One U.S. school official told the Subcommittee that Chinese police
officials detained and questioned her about her involvement with
the American Cultural Center program. She further explained that
when she later told a colleague about the questioning, her colleague was not
surprised and told her the Chinese police routinely question Americans in
this manner. The colleague concluded that she was now “part of the club.”
22) U.S. schools operating in China may self-censor events and
programming as part of the State Department’s American Cultural
Center program. For example, one U.S. school told the Subcommittee that
they would never even propose to hold an event on Tibet or Taiwan. That
same U.S. school said they successfully hosted programs in China, but that
the school did not want to “promote American culture too much.”
9
Recommendations
1) Congress should require all U.S. schools to publish any contracts
with foreign governments, including all Confucius Institute
contracts, online for students and faculty to review. Those contracts
should have clear and irrefutable provisions protecting academic freedom at
the school and avoid provisions that would apply the law of a foreign country
on a U.S. campus.
2) U.S. schools should ensure that Hanban does not exercise line-item
veto authority when approving annual Confucius Institute budgets.
U.S. schools must ensure that any foreign-government-funded activities or
research do not hinder academic freedom or present one-sided, selective
positions to American students. Confucius Institute events and activities
should also include disclaimers about the sources of funding.
3) U.S. schools should ensure that Hanban’s vetting, screening, and
interview processes are aligned with their own hiring procedures
and protocols. The process of selecting directors and teachers should be
fully transparent to U.S. schools. U.S. schools should also attempt to recruit
Chinese language instructors outside of Hanban’s purview.
4) Congress and state and local education officials should study the
need and demand for Chinese language education programming in
the United States and consider additional investments where
necessary. U.S. schools and state and local boards of education should not
outsource Chinese language teaching to Hanban.
5) The Department of Justice should determine if Confucius Institutes
engage in activity to influence the U.S. government or public on
behalf of foreign principals. The Department of Justice should then
assess whether any Confucius Institute or its employees should register
under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (“FARA”) for work on behalf of the
Chinese government.
6) The State Department should review all active Confucius Institutes
and Confucius Classrooms for compliance with visa regulations,
standards, and practices. The State Department should collect foreign
visa information for J-1 researchers and teachers associated with Confucius
Institutes in the United States.
7) U.S. schools must comply with the law and properly report foreign
gifts to the Department of Education. U.S. schools that failed to properly
10

report any foreign gifts should submit corrected and updated reporting as
soon as practicable to the Department of Education.
8) The Department of Education should update its guidance requiring
U.S. schools to report any funds provided by an institution owned or
controlled by a foreign source, especially a foreign government. The
Department should also update and modernize its website so U.S. schools can
easily upload foreign gift information. The Department of Education and the
Department of Justice should conduct oversight and pursue appropriate
action against any U.S. schools that willfully fail to comply with reporting
requirements.
9) The State Department should demand reciprocal and fair treatment
of its diplomats and employees in China. This should include routine
access to all U.S. taxpayer-funded sites, projects, and events. The State
Department should also complete its own internal review of the effectiveness
of the American Cultural Center program.
10) The State Department should remain in close contact with grantees
in foreign countries and develop a formal system to collect
information about interference, harassment, or questioning by
foreign authorities. The State Department should use that information to
assess both the safety of grantees working in foreign countries and the
effectiveness of their programs.
11) U.S. schools should continue to partner with Chinese universities.
Partnering with foreign universities offers students unique international
learning experiences and enhance research opportunities. U.S. schools,
however, should never, under any circumstances, compromise academic
freedom. U.S. schools operating in China should inform students about
China’s internet censorship and other relevant constraints.
12) U.S. schools should demand that Hanban be fully transparent about
Confucius Institute hiring practices and provide reciprocity to U.S.
school programs at Chinese schools. Given the concerns regarding
academic freedom and broader U.S. interests related to China, U.S. schools
should be fully aware of any drawbacks associated with hosting Confucius
Institutes. Absent full transparency regarding how Confucius Institutes
operate and full reciprocity for U.S. cultural outreach efforts on college
campuses in China, Confucius Institutes should not continue in the United States.
https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/PSI%20Report%20China%27s%20Impact%20on%20the%20US%20Education%20System.pdf

[2018] https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/PSI%20Report%20China%27s%20Impact%20on%20the%20US%20Education%20System.pdf

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/01/09/colleges-move-close-chinese-government-funded-confucius-institutes-amid-increasing

https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2019/05/01/3-more-universities-close-confucius-institutes

https://www.newsweek.com/confucius-institute-pentagon-communist-chinese-1406772

The only way to make sure that communist China's schools aren't operating on American soil is to  demand  that US Congress shut  ALL communist owned/run schools down. The first link is to US Senate site. Read what's going on, for yourself. The majority in the media business twist the truth/or tell plain out lies. jt

 



SHUT COMMUNIST CHINA SCHOOLS ON AMERICAN SOIL DOWN


         "One does not help communism thrive without paying a high toll"
 

Karl Marx [2019]


Karl Marx (1818-1883) was a German philosopher and economist who
Karl Marx, revolutionary, socialist, historian, and economist who,
Karl Marx (1818-1883) was a philosopher, author, social theorist, and an economist.


First published Tue Aug 26, 2003; substantive revision Wed Apr 12, 2017
Karl Marx (1818–1883) is best known not as a philosopher but as a revolutionary, whose works inspired the foundation of many communist regimes in the twentieth
century. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marx/

                                                                       
 History 1920
 

Marx, Karl {1818-1883, a German socialist.  He was educated at the Universities of Bonn and Berlin.  He is regarded as the father of German socialism.  In 1842, he became the editor of the Rheinische Zeitung (Rhine Times) , a paper of democratic tendencies.  It was suppressed by the government in the following year.  He went to Paris and engaged again in journalism.  In 1845 he was expelled from France and went to Brussels where he organized a German workingmen's association.   In 1848 he returned to Germany and revived his Zeitung.  He took part in the  socialistic revolution of that year, and was again banished.  He went to Paris, then to London, where he remained during the rest of his life, writing books and articles for newspapers.   He was a correspondent for a time of the New York Tribune. His articles, afterward published in book form, aimed to give an idea of industrial conditions in Germany.   In 1864 he was instrumental in organizing the International Working Men's Association.   In 1873 his first serious work, Capital, appeared. While it is not practicable to go into a detailed statement of his arguments, it may be said that he believed in the management of industries by the state, not the individuals.  He went farther than municipal and government ownership of railroads, telegraph lines, gas works, waterworks, and the like. He believed that manufactures and all other productive industries requiring capital should be owned by the government and managed for the benefit of workingmen.  Wage earners should have all the profits, if any. In that case, there would be no opportunity for private individuals to amass fortunes, and capitalists as a class would cease to exist. He held that with a more equal distribution of earnings, a more general opportunity for education, compulsory industry on the part  of the able-bodied, and  state care for those who were unable to work,  poverty and distress would disappear in civilized countries.



The Washington Post
Trump ‘hereby’ orders U.S. business out of China. Can he do that?
Jeanne Whalen, Abha Bhattarai, Reed Albergotti
August 23, 2019

President Trump’s extraordinary edict demanding U.S. companies move out of China — delivered in a series of angry tweets Friday — left industries of every stripe scrambling to understand how seriously to take the order, and how the White House might enforce it.

Donald Trump wearing a suit and tie: Photo by Nicholas Kamm / AFP / Getty Images© Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images Photo by Nicholas Kamm / AFP / Getty Images
Businesses from retail to electronics to home goods, many already under pressure from a months-long U.S.-China trade war, were contacting their industry associations for guidance and awaiting more substantive announcements from the White House.

“I’m trying to keep my cool and not get worried and upset, but it’s becoming hard,” said Magi Raible, founder of LiteGear Bags, a luggage maker based in Vallejo, Calif.

She has a meeting next week with an industry colleague to discuss moving more of her manufacturing from China to India or South Africa, she said.

Subscribe to the Post Most newsletter: Today’s most popular stories on The Washington Post

“I don’t know how much faster I can move or how much more urgency I can have,” she said.

Trump does not have the authority to “duly order” companies to leave China, according to Jennifer Hillman, a Georgetown University law professor and trade expert at the Council on Foreign Relations.

He does have power under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to prevent future transfers of funds to China, “but only if he has first made a lawful declaration that a national emergency exists,” she said.

Congress could terminate the declaration if it wishes, she said.

“Moreover, even if all this happened, it would not provide authority over all of the U.S. investments that have already been made in China,” Hillman said.

Other trade experts said Trump does have powerful tools at his disposal to encourage companies to leave.

They include continuing to hike tariffs on imports from China, as Trump did again on Friday. The White House could also try to punish companies by cutting them out of federal procurement deals, economists said.

“The tweet isn’t entirely cheap talk,” said Derek Scissors, a China expert at the American Enterprise Institute, a think tank partly funded by industry.

Trump fired off the tweets after China imposed a new round of retaliatory tariffs on $75 billion worth of American imports Friday.

Xi Jinping wearing a suit and tie: China strikes back with new retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods

“We don’t need China and, frankly, would be far better off without them,” Trump wrote. “… Our great American companies are hereby ordered to immediately start looking for an alternative to China, including bringing your companies HOME and making your products in the USA.”

The message made public what Trump has been telling companies in private for more than two years, said William Reinsch, a trade expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

“The reality is many companies have been thinking about leaving, anyway,” Reinsch said.

“Labor costs are going up in China, the regime is repressive, and American companies continue to suffer discrimination,” he added.

Some apparel and electronics makers have been moving out of China, propelled lately by the U.S. slapping ever-higher import tariffs on goods made in China.

But few of these companies have been moving jobs back to the United States. Instead, they’ve been shifting to other low-cost countries such as Vietnam or Bangladesh.

Other industries that would like to leave China say they’ve found it difficult to find manufacturing of the same quality and low cost elsewhere.

“Companies would love to find alternate sources, but it can’t happen overnight,” said Jonathan Gold, vice president of supply chain and customs policy at the National Retail Federation. “And even when it does, unfortunately a lot of that [manufacturing] won’t come back to the United States. We agree that China has been a bad actor, but we need to get back to the table and work out a trade deal.”

Some analysts saw Trump’s tweets as a particularly aggressive move against Apple and other tech companies, which manufacture many of their goods in China. Dan Ives of Wedbush Securities called Trump’s command “a clear shot across the bow at Apple and the semi space,” referring to the semiconductor sector.

Over decades, Apple has become intertwined with China’s electronics assembly infrastructure to a degree that is extremely difficult to undo. In a best-case scenario, it would take Apple five years to move just half of its iPhone production out of China, Ives said.

In many ways, Apple’s rise from an also-ran in the market for personal computers to one of the most valuable companies on the planet is due to its partnership with Foxconn, a Taiwanese juggernaut that manufactures in China.

Apple may have come up with the ideas for its consumer products, but Foxconn founder Terry Gou made them a reality, starting in the early 2000s by leveraging China’s manufacturing prowess to build sleek devices at such low cost that they were also profitable.

Apple has toyed with assembling products outside China in the past, building comparatively small numbers of desktop computers in the United States and exploring iPhone manufacturing in India and Southeast Asia, but the company remains highly dependent on China.

Apple chief executive Tim Cook has been among the friendliest to Trump of the big technology CEOs, repeatedly meeting with the president to discuss trade policy. Even as some tech-industry leaders have faced criticism for involving themselves with Trump, Cook has steadfastly engaged, even serving on the Workforce Policy Advisory Board, chaired by Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and Ivanka Trump, the president’s daughter.

After tweeting about a recent dinner with Cook, the president praised the CEO in front of reporters earlier this week, telling them that Cook calls him whenever there’s a problem.

“Others go out and hire very expensive consultants, and Tim Cook calls Donald Trump directly,” Trump said.

China, because of its sheer size, is also an important market for iPhone sales, compounding Apple’s reluctance to disrupt its manufacturing presence there. In the third fiscal quarter of 2019, the country was responsible for $9.19 billion of Apple’s revenue, compared with $25 billion in the Americas.

Plenty of other industries rely on China, too. Delta Children, a U.S. manufacturer of baby furniture, makes about 80 percent of its products in China.

Joe Shamie, the company’s president, said that he has tried in recent months to move production to other countries, including Indonesia, Malaysia and Vietnam, but that factories in those countries are already saturated with orders.

He has also tried to find ways to manufacture mattresses in the United States, he said, but would need about $1 million worth of machinery from China, which is now subject to the Trump administration’s recent 25 tariffs on imports.

“I’m trying my best, and now you want to tax me on the machinery I need to manufacture in the United States? That’s real smart,” he said. “This has been a disaster.”

Columbia Sportswear says it began moving its manufacturing out of China about 15 years ago as cheaper alternatives emerged in other parts of Asia and Africa. The company now sources from 19 countries but still gets about 10 percent of its imports from China.

“It’s not the cheapest place in the world to make stuff anymore, but the merchandise that still comes from China is very specialized and can’t be moved easily,” said Timothy Boyle, the company’s chief executive.

LiteGear Bags used to manufacture all of its luggage and accessories in China. In recent months, founder Raible says she has spent tens of thousands of dollars moving about one-third of the company’s operations to Cambodia.

“It was an incredibly difficult process,” she said. “It took them months to get up to speed. I mean, this was a factory that was making sunglass pouches and all of a sudden I’m asking them to make shoulder bags, packing cubes and backpacks.”

The majority of her products continue to come from China, and she said the Trump administration’s tariffs have caused import duties to rise to 42.6 percent on many of her items, up from 17.6 percent less than a year ago. She’s had to lay off her staff of six, and now relies on hourly contractors to help with accounting, shipping and graphic design.

“I’m fighting tooth and nail to hang on,” she said.

Trump himself has long capitalized on foreign manufacturing, particularly in China, for the production of Trump brand merchandise.

In the retail shop operated by the Trump Organization in the back of Trump’s D.C. hotel, golf caps and travel coffee mugs emblazoned with the Trump name and made in China are still offered for sale, alongside other products produced in Indonesia, Vietnam and other countries.

A spokeswoman for the Trump Organization, Amanda Miller, did not respond to a request for comment Friday about whether the company would stop selling or producing Chinese products in response to the president’s directive.

Trump still owns his company, but it is being managed by his adult sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, while he is in office.

Amid criticism that Trump’s company continued to rely on imported merchandise while Trump railed against others for doing so, the Trump Organization began offering more merchandise clearly labeled “Made in America,” including T-shirts and hats. On its retail site, TrumpStore.com, the company now lists a “Made in America” section.

During the presidential campaign, Trump responded to a question about why he imported products by saying, “We’re allowed to do it. … But I’m the one that knows how to change it.”

Jonathan O’Connell contributed to this report.


http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-hereby-orders-us-business-out-of-china-can-he-do-that/ar-AAGeJra?ocid=ientp


 

 

Flag Counter