Government Schools: Ever heard of Everson?

Like it or not, all education is by its very nature "religious." By religious, I mean it teaches a specific worldview. It could teach this worldview explicitly, or implicitly, but it teaches it nonetheless. As Bruce Shortt writes:

"There is no such thing as metaphysical neutrality. If a society or an institution rejects the Bible's teaching about the nature of God, man and the universe, then it necessarily accepts, implicitly or explicitly, some other worldview, whether it be materialist metaphysics of secular humanism, the cosmic humanism of the New Age religions, or something else. Government schools are no exception."

Perhaps you disagree, or think: "Well, there are some subjects that can be taught religiously neutral, like Math, or Geology..." Even if I would grant that (and I don't) that leaves all the other subjects being taught as not religiously neutral. Or perhaps you are of the mind that all courses can be taught in a religiously neutral way, kind of like spraying anti-bacterial religious spray on a course so all dangerous "religion" is disinfected prior to teaching. Let's look at some others and their position on this topic.

First, this principle was communicated by Jesus Christ in Luke:

"A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone who is perfectly trained will be like his teacher." - Luke 6:40

Seems pretty straightforward; Christ understood that those that were taught, ended up being like their teachers. (Putting this in context, Christ has just asked the people: "Can the blind lead the blind? Will they not both fall into the ditch?" To which we could respond about our government schools: yes, both teachers and students have fallen into the ditch)

Second, this principle was also understood by Marxist and social-engineer extraordinaire, Adolf Hitler:

“When an opponent declares, "I will not come over to your side," I calmly say, "Your child belongs to us already... What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community."” - Adolf Hitler [quote]
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." - Adolf Hitler [quote]

Third, this principle was and is understood by prominent secular humanists:

"[T]he battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classrooms by teachers who correctly perceive their role as proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity...These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and new--the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith..." - John Dunphy, The Humanist magazine. Jan/Feb 1983, p 26

"[E]ducation is thus a most powerful ally of humanism, and every public school is a school of humanism. What can the theistic Sunday school, meeting for an hour once a week, and teaching only a fraction of the children, do to stem the tide of a five-day program of humanistic teaching?" - Charles F. Potter, signer of the first Humanist Manifesto, Humanism: A New Religion, 1930, p128

"Our schools may not teach Johnny to read properly, but the fact that Johnny is in school until he is 16 tends to lean toward the elimination of religious superstition" - Paul Blanchard, humanist author, as quoted by Blair Adams and Joel Stein, Who owns the Children?, 1984

"[P]ublic education is the parochial education for scientific humanism" - Joe R. Burnett, editor of The Humanist, 1961

From those quotes can anyone really honestly hold the absurd position that "education is religiously neutral?" As my friends from the country would say: "That dog just don't hunt!"

The part that complicates most people is the use of the word "religion." Over the years, that word has been re-defined to mean: belief in God, or gods. Because of that narrow definition, it is possible for a person who "doesn't believe in God or gods" to state truthfully: "I'm not very religious." However, originally the word "religion" did not have that narrow of a meaning; originally the word meant: "to go over again" or "to consider carefully" or "to reconnect" or "a system of faith and worship." Given that broad a definition, when you see the word "religion" you should replace it in your mind with the word "worldview." This replacement in your mind is critical, because as I stated earlier, in our culture today it is acceptable for a person to claim to "not be religious" but it would intellectually dishonest for a person to claim "I don't have a worldview."

So if you are sending your children to a government school, the question you should be asking yourself is: What worldview (or religion) are they teaching?

Enter Everson v. Board of Education, 1947.
As background, recognize that the First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits, among other things, both "the establishment of religion" and interference with "the free exercises" of religion by the federal government. As a negative document, the Constititution does not grant powers to the Congress or federal courts to interject themselves into state actions affecting religion.
This meant that states could do what they wanted regarding religion and remain unaffected by the federal government; this was as intended.
Everson was a simple case. A New Jersey school board resolution was passed that stated that all parents whose children must ride public buses to school (not school buses), had to be reimbursed for the amount of the fares. The problem was that some parents were sending their children to Catholic parochial schools. The plaintiff, Arch Everson, claimed that this was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (we will ignore the fact that Arch Everson was a member of the Junior Order of United American Mechanics, an organization closely tied to the Klan).
In Everson, the Supreme Court ruled that while the Establishment Clause had not been violated, it found that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment applied to the states as a result of the adoption of the 14th Amendment. It was in this landmark case that Justice Hugo Black laid down the well known doctrine that the purpose of the Establishment Clause was to erect "a wall of separation between church and state." (I suppose we can also ignore that Justice Black had been a member of the Klan prior to his appointment to the Supreme Court).
Attorney Bruce Shortt explains the impact of this ruling this way:

"As a practical matter, Everson made the federal courts the arbiter of what the states could and could not do in the area of religion. Never mind that for the roughly eighty years following the adoption of the 14th Amendment no federal court had claimed or noticed that it had this power. Never mind...that the Congress rejected a proposed Constitutional amendment known as the Blain Amendment, which had as its express purpose the application of the religion clauses to the states.
Whatever reasons given by the Supreme Court for its actions in Everson, the truth of the matter is that the Court simple decided that it was time for the federal courts to force the transformation of American culture and its institutions -- including the government schools....A transformation in which Justice Black's 'wall of separation' language was to be intepreted eventually as requiring the elimination of all traces of a Christian worldview from government schools and, more generally, the public policies of the federal government and the states. In effect, Everson made the thorough secularization of government schools a mission of the federal courts."

Next time a person proposes that we need to "reform the public school system" remind them that it is currently the mandated mission of the federal court system to vehemently resist and thwart any such "reform" that would bring back "Christianity" into the public school system.

Curious as to how that "mission" has manifested itself in the policies of the government school system? Following are the guidelines as outlined by a report produced by the American United Research Foundation entitled: "Religion in the Public School Curriculum: Questions and Answers."

• The school's approach to religion is academic, not devotional.
• The school strives for student awareness of religions, but does not press for student acceptance of any religion.
• The school sponsors study about religion, not the practice of religion.
• The school may expose students to a diversity of religious views, but may not impose any particular view.
• The school educates about all religions, it does not promote or denigrate any religion.
• The school informs the student about various beliefs, but it does not seek to conform students to any particular belief.

What the above represents is what should be expected from the Establishment Clause: religious indifference.
But is it? As any teacher or student could attest, overt hostility toward Christianity is common in todays government schools. Currently, Department of Education attorney, Brian Jones, is trying to "bring some clarity to the perceived fuzziness in the law" which is legal-speak for: "do our best to halt some of the egregious hostility toward Christianity in government schools across the country." As expected, liberal groups like Americans United for Separation of Church and State are opposed to such "reforms."
So to recap, the current federally mandated "mission" is to achieve "religious indifference," what we have is "overt hostility to Christianity" and our current attempts to return to "religious indifference" are now being viewed as controversial by liberals. It is to this place that 85% of Christian parents send their children?

So what is the "worldview" being taught? We know it isn't Christian, but what is it?
The two most common are: secular humanism and New Age.
As you look at the two descriptions below, see if you recognize any of their "beliefs" in what you know is being taught at your child's government school.

Secular Humanism
The worldview of secular humanism is fairly easy to define because they defined it for us. The following are some of the key points of this worldview as outlined in the Humanist Manifesto (now in it's third revision).

• Regarded the universe as self-existing and not created
• Believed that man is a part of nature and that he emerged as a part of a continuous evolutionary process.
• Held an organic view of life and rejected mind/body dualism
• Rejected as scientifically unacceptable any purported supernatural or cosmic guarantee of human values
• Were convinced that the time had passed for religious views such as theism and deism.
• Considered the complete realization of human personality to be the purpose of man's life.
• Advocated establishment of a "socialized and cooperative economic order."
• Asserted that the purpose and program of humanism is the intelligent evaluation, transformation, control, and direction of all associations and institutions for the fulfillment of human life.

Currently, it is not considered a violation of the Establishment Clause to teach any of the above components of the Humanist worldview in the government school system, in fact, Darwin's theory of evolution even enjoys legal protection against competition thanks to a 1987 Supreme Court decision.


New Age
New Age is largely a worldview that stems from the work of such psychologists as Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers. Their views of "transpersonal psychology" mixed with eastern mysticism and the occult created the worldview that we commonly call: New Age. Wikipedia describes New Age this way:

The New Age (also known as the New Age Movement, New Age spirituality, and Cosmic Humanism) is a decentralized Western social and spiritual movement that seeks "Universal Truth" and the attainment of the highest individual human potential. It combines aspects of cosmology, astrology, esotericism, alternative medicine, music, collectivism, sustainability, and nature. New Age spirituality is characterized by an individual approach to spiritual practices and philosophies, while rejecting religious doctrine and dogma.

There is a general and abstract idea of God, which can be understood in many ways; seen as a superseding of the need to anthropomorphize deity. Not to be confused with pantheism.

Gods, angels, Ascended Masters, elementals, ghosts, faeries, Spirit guides and extraterrestrials can spiritually guide a person, if they open themselves to their guidance.^[24]

As you can see, the New Age worldview denies the existence of our transcendent God. In the New Age worldview, "all is god" or "all is becoming god." The New Age worldview will not lead your children toward the truth, it will lead them away from it by confusion and obfuscation.

The current basic practice of New Age is to deceive parents into accepting their theories by merely changing the terminology. As Dick Sutphen, a prominent New Ager, has written:

"One of the biggest advantages we have as New Agers is, once the occult, the metaphysical and New Age terminology is removed, we have concepts and techniques that are very acceptable to the general public. So we can change the names and demonstrate the power. In doing so, we open the New Age door to millions who would not be receptive."

A blatant example of the introduction of "New Age" thought into the public school systems is the adoption of the Waldorf curriculum, a curriculum based upon the New Age doctrines of Rudolph Steiner. The Waldorf curriculum has its roots in "Anthrosoposphy." In Anthrosopophy, Lucifer is regarded as the "god of light," his nemisis is Ahriman, the "god of darkness." According to Steiner, Christ came to earth as a sun god to balance the forces of light and darkness. The following is a snippet from The Waldorf Teacher's Survival Guide:

"Most of that which contributes to our work as teachers, preparation work, artistic work, even meditative work, is under the guardianship of Lucifer. We can become great teachers under his supervision, for he is responsible for much that has blossomed in the unfolding of the civilization and culture in the past."

A reporter researching the "Waldorf School Curriculum" sat in a government school in California and observed some of the more chilling components of the Waldorf liturgy. Before meals, children recite the following: "Earth, who gives to us this food, sun who makes it ripe and good. Dear sun, dear earth, by you we live, our living thanks to you we give."
Does this sound like teaching "religion" to you? It does to me, and yet the Waldorf program is considered by most school boards to be "non-religious" and has been spreading in government schools primarily through the charter school movement. WaldforfAnswers.org contains a list of the more than 35 Public Waldorf schools in America (3 are in Oregon).

And if it's not "Waldorf" it might be "Earthkeepers" quoted by one mother as being "more like a three-day introduction to Wicca and Deep Ecology than a program about environmental science."

Again, Bruce Shortt provides insight:

"Are you still convinced that sending your children to government schools is harmless? Is it plausible to think that given Wiccans, secular humanists, Gaia worshipers, and sundry purveyors of Easter religions or Islam the opportunity to proselytize your children through classroom instruction, textbooks, assemblies, field-trips, peer-pressure, extracurricular activities, and adult example for at least 35 hours a week makes no difference to their faith?
Evidence that Christians have failed to transmit their faith and values to their children is everywhere. Within two years of graduation from high school, between 70% and 88% of teenagers from evangelical families stop attending church."

Consider a study by the Nehemiah Institute that found a significant difference between those children attending government schools and those attending private Christian schools. For example, only 35.3% of the Christian children in government schools strongly agreed that "the foundation of all government is self-government under God," while 67.4% of the children attending private Christian schools strongly agreed.
The following contrast was even more disturbing: "Because human nature is constantly changing, values and ethics will also change. Therefore, each generation should be free to adopt moral standards appropriate to their preferences." 74.3% of Christian children attending private Christian schools strongly disagreed, which is still sad. But only a shockingly low 14.7% of Christian children attending government schools strongly disagreed with that statement!

If you still think there is nothing wrong with sending a child to be educated for 28,000 seat-hours by godless secular humanists you are either not paying attention, or are not being intellectually honest with yourself.
Ask yourself this simple question: Who benefits more by you sending your children to a government school: you or them? (if it helps, create two columns and chart the benefits for each).

When Paul wrote his second letter to Timothy, he wrote:

"No one engaged in warfare entangles himself with the affairs of this life, that he may please him who enlisted him as a soldier." - 2 Tim 2:4

We are in a battle, and the stakes are high. Isn't it time the church took a stand on the issue of childhood education and began instructing its members on the dangers inherent in "entangling ourselves with the affairs of this life?" Or will the church continue to be silent, and allow another generation to fall. In that same letter that Paul wrote to Timothy, he also wrote the following:

"And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, ^25 in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, ^26 and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will." - 2 Tim 2:24-26

As servants of the Lord, we "must not quarrel" with our brothers and sisters in Christ who blindly send their children to government schools being unaware of the dangers, but we instead "must be gentle to all" and "correct those in opposition" alerting them to the dangers, educating them to the truth, that all education by its very nature teaches a "worldview", so that "they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will." Only by doing so will be obedient to the commands of the Lord.

Charlie Rose Interviews Timothy Geithner

Timothy Geithner was on Charlie Rose on May 6, 2009.

Here are some comments he made:

TIM GEITHNER: A financial crisis reflects an unwillingness by the private sector to
take risks because of uncertainty and things they just can’t do. And
that’s why governments have to step in, in financial crisis and take risks
the market would otherwise not be prepared to make.

Duh! If the private sector won't "lend" or "take risks" that means it is likely a *bad idea* because it is a poor investment with a poor return on investment!
Since when do people believe the gov't can do a better job of predicting future value? (If you are unsure, see: Social Security; Medicare/Medicaid...)


CHARLIE ROSE: By definition some banks that hold these toxic assets
will say, “Thank you very much, Mr. Geithner. We choose to keep them and
not sell them.”

TIM GEITHNER: Right. And some will want to do that, but we’re going
to try to make it compelling to them to clean up their balance sheets and
put themselves in a position where it’s going to be easier in the future to
raise private capital.

Whenever you heard the word "compelling" from a Statist like Geithner, just break it down to its root: compel.
So he is saying if they don't want to sell, they will be "compelled" to sell. With what force Mr. Geithner? With threats like you leveled against GM and Chrysler? Like you leveled against BofA?


CHARLIE ROSE: Are you saying to the American taxpayers for all of
this money we’re pouring into these banks, the likelihood is that they will
get on their feet and be able to pay back all of the money that this
government has given them?

TIM GEITHNER: Well, what we’re going to do is to make sure, and this
is our obligation. My obligation is to protect the financial security of
the American people, and to ensure that this financial system does what it
needs to do to help get recovery back on track.
And everything we do is guided by that basic purpose. So where we put
assistance in it’s because that we think that is necessary and essential to
try to make sure there’s more lending capacity so that recovery can get --
can get traction quickly. That’s what’s going to guide our approach going
forward.

Note he did *not* answer the question. When asked very bluntly: Can the American Taxpayers expect to be paid back? He hedged. That is because their real goal is *not* payback; it is control.


CHARLIE ROSE: OK. But are these banks, 20 banks too big to fail?

TIM GEITHNER: Charlie, these banks account for the vast bulk of
lending in the United States. And we have a rich diverse financial system,
9,000 banks.

CHARLIE ROSE: But these 20...

TIM GEITHNER: These, they control between two-thirds and three
quarters of the banking as a whole now.


And if you check, you will also find that these banks (and organizations they support, such as PACs, Associations, Lobbying Orgs, etc) provided 70+% of *all* the contributions to the House & Senate re-election campaigns...so, we are bailing out the same organizations that gave us the wonderful 19% approval rating Congress that created the policies that allowed them to get us in this mess in the first place (and that is on *both* sides if the "aisle", an "aisle" that is appearing smaller and smaller as the days unfold). (For more detail on this, watch the videos here: http://www.ourcaucus.org)

But here is where the conversations starts to get just a bit *CREEPY*

TIM GEITHNER: Absolutely, 100 percent. And the president believes
strongly in this. And you saw him in the campaign lay out a set of very
ambitious proposals for reform.
...
But at the same time we have this great obligation to lay out for the
American people and the world a commitment to the kind of comprehensive
reforms so that a crisis like this never happens again. And we’re going to
move as quickly as we can on both those fronts.

CHARLIE ROSE: Can you give me some idea of what it will include?

TIM GEITHNER: Absolutely. You have to start by bringing a much
stronger set of oversight over all institutions that propose risk of damage
to the system.

What!? "by bringing a much stronger set of oversight over all institutions that propose risk of damage to the system."
Okay, I don't like the way that sounds...but maybe I misheard...

CHARLIE ROSE: Gordon Brown was in to see the president last week, and
he suggested that what is needed is global enforcement. Because this was a
crisis which started here and spread around the world, hardly any country
has not been affected.

TIM GEITHNER: Exactly.

WHAT!? "Global Enforcement"???!!! So what I am hearing is not only do we get "stronger oversight" but now I'm to understand the "oversight" is going to be "Global"? (Can anyone say: "trans-nationalism"?)

Okay, maybe the "global" is just our "friends"...so maybe it won't be so bad...but then they continue...

CHARLIE ROSE: We have gone from G-7 to the G-20, which means that
Brazil and Russia and India and China are now included.

TIM GEITHNER: Right.

HUH!? The "Global Enforcement" is to include: "Brazil and Russia and India and China"...oh, they're all our friends...does this sound like the screeching wheels of a train on a track about to crash to anyone else but me?

And then there is this little tidbit:

CHARLIE ROSE: The Chinese now hold more American debt than any other
country on the face of the earth. Are they still at this time, aggressive
about taking -- about American debt?

Yes, we are now beholden to China...outstanding!

Then Charlie helps him out with one of the biggest criticsms facing the administration today:

CHARLIE ROSE: On the other hand you get arguments that go like this,
this economic crisis is so huge and so threatening that the focus just
ought to be on the short-term. It ought to be getting credit flowing,
getting people back to work. And we can worry about long-term issues of
education, healthcare, and the environment at a later time.

TIM GEITHNER: As you know, the president doesn’t share that view, and
I think he’s right.
...
It is fiscally responsible, because we have a better capacity to live
within our means in the future and finance -- to make sure that we are
improving our capacity to grow in the future, and there is a basic moral
obligation in many of these areas again to provide better education
opportunities and out comes to all Americans so they can participate in
this economy fully, and to make our healthcare system deliver better
results and lower costs to businesses that Americans are suffering from the
burden of this healthcare system.


I cannot believe he used the word "basic moral obligation" as if these people even know what "morals" are anymore!
But he slipped up when he said: "because we have a better capacity to live within our means in the future and finance..."
Last time I checked, the *definition* of "living within your means" was contraring to "financing" anything.
Do people who "live without their means"
have to "finance" things? Can't they just pay cash?

If you have stuck with this so far...the Statism continues...

CHARLIE ROSE: I have read where you said that, we need to get back to
an economy in which people live within their means. Tell me what you mean
by that.

TIM GEITHNER: Well, you know, this crisis is caused by lots of
things. It’s caused by a bunch of very irresponsible judgments by the
financial system. But it’s also...

CHARLIE ROSE: By individuals.
TIM GEITHNER: Individuals, too.
CHARLIE ROSE: Not a system be but an individual.
TIM GEITHNER: By individuals running these institutions.
CHARLIE ROSE: Right.

TIM GEITHNER: But if you look at the amount the American people were
borrowing relative to income, you just had a huge unsustainable rise in the
basic debt obligations to the American people.

CHARLIE ROSE: That’s what the president said, in fact, I think, at
the normal (ph), that we all, the whole range of people, bear
responsibility for this.

TIM GEITHNER: Right.

CHARLIE ROSE: Most of all the people in the financial sector, but
others somehow had a contributing effect.

TIM GEITHNER: Right. You know, people borrowed and spent beyond
their means. Governments borrowed and spent beyond their means. And, you
know, we’re now dealing with the consequences of that.

So, let me get this straight, the "crisis" was caused by "overspending" and "not living with your means" and
the solution is a *massive* spending package...got it...DO I HAVE THE WORD 'IDIOT' WRITTEN ON MY FOREHEAD!
What kind of moron thinks you can solve this problem with MORE OF THE SAME?!


CHARLIE ROSE: All right. There is also this. People look at the
budget that has been proposed. And they say, “This is a giant
redistribution, a redistributionist budget.”
They look at the fact that -- and especially some conservatives, who
are non-Keynsian (ph), look at this and say, you know, this is the
direction this country has never gone in. What do you say to those people
who are critical of the budget, because of the taxing policies that are
built into it?

TIM GEITHNER: Well, let’s look at the concrete facts in the budget.
What the budget does is propose -- again, once recovery is
established, to restore the tax rates on the most affluent Americans to the
level that was prevailing in 2001.
Now, most Americans will see a significant -- will see no rise in
their taxes, and many Americans in working marriages will see a significant
reduction in their tax burdens. That moves us to a fairer, more balanced
system. But it’s a modest change, completely consistent with having an
economy that’s going to grow in the future with the gains more broadly
shared.
Again we’re talking about restoring the tax rates on the most affluent
Americans, to a level that prevailed in 2001. And if you look at the
decade of economic reforms in the United States, in the decade before then,
you saw a period where private investment was growing very rapidly,
productivity gains were out-stripping what you saw in any other country
around the world. And again you saw broad-based, much more broad-based
sharing of those gains across the economy as a whole.
So this is a -- not just a fiscally-responsible package, but it
presides -- provides more fairness and balance to our taxpayers in a way
that I think is in the interests, long-term interests of the American
people.


Don't miss the following lines above:
"moves us to a fairer, more balanced system."
"with the gains more broadly shared."
"And again you saw broad-based, much more broad-based
sharing of those gains across the economy as a whole."
"[it]...provides more fairness and balance to our taxpayers"

And *who* is going to be in charge of this forced "fairness"?
I think we all know the answer: the State.

But you had to watch almost the *entire* grueling interview to get to the
cherry on the top of the icing coated cowpie that is their "plan"

CHARLIE ROSE: Will capitalism be different?

TIM GEITHNER: I think capitalism will be different, and the financial
distribution will be dramatically different. It’s already dramatically
different.

Yep. You heard it right:
"I think capitalism will be different"

Question: How can "capitalism be different" and still be capitalism?
Answer: When it is not longer capitalism, it is Statism.


He then continues:

TIM GEITHNER: Again, if you look at the scale of adjustment and restructuring in the
financial -- it’s already happened. It’s profound in scope already. So if
you just look at the system today relative to what was true three years ago
in terms of the institutions that existed then, then and their basic shape
has changed dramatically.

And there’s going to be more changes ahead. But I think it
will merge stronger. This will clean out a lot of the excesses and bad
practices, and those that don’t get cleaned out just by experience and
knowledge now, better regulation and oversight, better rules of the game,
enforced more cleanly will fix it.

Yep, we have seen it "it's already happened"
"It's profound in scope already."
"And there's going to be more changes ahead."
And don't forget the final word he used: "enforced" - root word: "force"
Whenever I heard that, I always ask the question: with what? a gun?

But as if it couldn't get any worse, Geithner goes on to say this:

TIM GEITHNER: Because this is not about ability; it’s about will.
And it’s about the will of government to do what’s necessary to act to fix
this. And I’m confident that this president is going to have the will to
do that.

That's right, he said: "it's about the will of the government to do what's
necessary to act to fix this."

Not the people, but "the government".

But just in case the above reading caused you to somehow believe that your
future as an American might change, let me assure you with Tim's final words:

CHARLIE ROSE: And the essence of the American experience will not
change?
TIM GEITHNER: Yes.

Huh? Where did he learn english?
Question: "And the essence of the American experience will not change?"
Answer: "Yes."

Perhaps he meant "no" but maybe he just let slip what we all already know:
The American Experience is going to change and in Tim's own words:
"It's already happened, it's profound in scope already and there's going to be more changes ahead."

Pass this around to your friends and family. People need to wake up and act!
BTW: You can get the entire transcript for this inteview here:
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10137


-- Andrew Fields
Soli Deo Gloria