Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Activist Who Tried to Get Mao Tossed From Nixon Library Now Takes on School 陈凯对抗学委和“孔课堂”

Kai Chen and his daughter Alex, then a Yale basketball player, at home in 2005.

Activist Who Tried to Get Mao Tossed From Nixon Library Now Takes on School


By Matt Coker, Wednesday, Mar. 24 2010 @ 8:13AM OC Weekly

Comments (4) Categories: Politics, School Daze

KaiChenForum.com www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com

​Los Angeles-based, Chinese-American activist Kai Chen, who last September organized demonstrations against the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum in Yorba Linda for including in its permanent Hall of World Leaders exhibit a life-size statue Mao Tse-Tung, is now directing his ire at the Hacienda La Puente Unified School District.

Chen with his parents in Nanjing, China, in 1977.

Chen--an author and former member of the Red Army and the Chinese national basketball team--is upset that Cedarlane Middle School in Hacienda Heights is set to offer a "Confucius Classroom."

At no cost to the district, a nonprofit and nongovernmental organization will provide instructors and teaching materials to teach students Chinese and about China's culture under the program the district's school board approved in January with a 4-1 vote.

In the name of promoting Confucius' teachings and the Chinese language, the Office of Chinese Language Council International, or "HanBan," has established 272 Confucius Classrooms worldwide since 2005. The collegiate version, Confucius Institutes, have been implemented in 282 universities over that same period.

But critics like Chen, who vehemently opposes what he views as an oppressive Chinese regime, charge "HanBan," which is affiliated with China's Ministry of Education, is really a front for the communist government.

"This is, among other schemes, one of the most insidious and blatant acts of the Chinese communist regime to infiltrate, corrupt and pollute American political culture," Chen wrote in a letter dated Friday to district Superintendent Barbara Nakaoka (and also posted on his blog). www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com

"The untold intent of the Chinese government is to legitimize its own illegitimate and criminal regime, making despotism/tyranny acceptable as something only 'different' in the culture of freedom in America. By accepting such a philosophical premise, the poisonous effect of despotic narcotics will indeed penetrate the mindset of American youths, rendering it impotent and confused in the realm of morality and ethics."

Man, that sounds even worse than television.

Confuciusism numbs the mind enough to make it receptive to brutal regimes like China's, according to Chen, who also informs Nakaoka that news of the parent opposition to the Confucius Classroom reached mainland China, via a Chinese-language World Journal newspaper article titled, "Southern California Whites Protest Confucian Courses."

"It used racism/nationalism to confuse the real issue--the Chinese communist infiltration, encroachment and contamination upon the landscape of American political culture," Chen writes.

But as with the Mao statue in Yorba Linda, which the then-private Nixon Library installed back in 1990 alongside likenesses of other Nixon-era world leaders like Winston Churchill and Charles deGaulle, there's little Chen can do to stop the newest Confucius Classroom following the board approval.

That is, there is little he can do except organize protests, write letters and blog posts, and rile up the locals.

"I urge you and the members of Hacienda Heights School District authorities to reconsider the decision to allow the Chinese communist government to brainwash American Youths in such a blatant fashion," his letter concludes. "I urge all the parents of the students, teachers, and staff members of the school district to take action to resist and oppose such an anti-freedom course in our educational system. American Constitution is Not a suicide pact. Freedom does not mean 'freedom to abuse and destroy freedom.'"

Sounds like something Confucius would have said.



baxter says:

Wanna stop China's influence, and improve our own? Then stop buying their shit. Don't shop for cheap disposable junk at WalMart and box stores. Go without, or buy fewer better quality eco friendly and American made products from a local retailer. I suggest Kai Chen, if he is not already doing so, take up the consumer aspect. I assure you that us buying up their crap has a lot more influence than a wee pudgy statue at the Nixon library does.

Posted On: Wednesday, Mar. 24 2010 @ 10:07AM

dentrite says:

Confucius classroom is indeed an idealological weapon in the Party's toolbox.

But hundreds of them won't change much, You don't have to be so radical.

Posted On: Thursday, Mar. 25 2010 @ 5:54AM

Slick Willie = sells USa out .... says:
Free Tibet ....

.... & the USA, too ....

Good deal Mr Chen, keep fighting the good fight.

.... Don't the worlds most oppressive regimes just love to "legitimize" & "enrich" each other?

Our (then) President WJ Clinton - fought "tooth & nail" for the passage of "PNTR" - legitimizing & empowering the government of Communist China at the expense of USA families (jobs & tax base).

Thankful Special Interests - then made the formerly broke Clinton's (who left the White House millions in debt) ultra-rich (now worth in excess of $100 million).

If his actions against the interests of the country & people aren't traitorous .... then what indeed, does a "Traitor" do?


Posted On: Thursday, Mar. 25 2010 @ 11:05AM

RobE says:

First, Mr. Chen paid some bigtime dues having to live under the repressive, corrupt and usually incompetent communist Chinese regime. I can understand how emotionally all this stuff would get under his skin in a vivid way and I think we should all respect that.

However, the Confucian thing puzzles me because as I understood it, the communists sought to undo confucianism in China. So that they are now using Confucius' name as a way to get into American schools seems curious at the very least.

However, Confucianism does run through a lot of societies in Asia, especially in South Korea. So exposing students here to that is probably a good thing and will enhances their understanding of how another part of the world thinks. And if the language material they use are non-ideological then there is likely no harm in it.

Let us not forget, too, that when Chang Kai-shek abandoned the mainland to save his and the rest of his surviving Kuomintang cronies in 1949, he went to Taiwan and set up a repressive fascist regime. His government also warmly welcomed petty Vietnamese dictator Nguyen Van Thieu and his millions of dollars worth of gold bars he had looted from his country's treasury when the communists took South Vietnam over. So maybe the larger question is what is up with the Chinese predilection for authoritarian governments? Taiwan, at least, has been liberalized over the last 15 years or so. But freedom in China was ephemeral to begin with, what, 15 years after Sun Yat-sen ascended to power?

Indeed, who does Mr. Chen want to take over the country if the Chinese leadership suddenly evaporated? It's one thing to hate on the Chinese education ministry sponsoring these classes and another to have a real vision for how China could become a functioning democracy that would benefit all of its citizens.

Monday, March 29, 2010

父母(Parents)≠ 家长(Family Chief) Parents ≠ Dictators

父母(Parents)≠ 家长(Family Chief)

鞠宾 作, 陈凯 英译 3/29/10

Parents’ Roles in Rearing Their Offspring
Parents ≠ Dictators

By Ju Bin Translation by Kai Chen 3/29/10



We often hear sayings such as “my kids are too young to understand anything, so I don’t take them seriously”. We also hear questions as well such as “What do I do to make my children independent with a healthy mindset?” Indeed, these are important issues for us parents. I only want to talk a bit here about my own opinions on these important issues of parenting.

1. 做父母 、 朋友、 知己,不做家长
1. Be a parent, a confidant, a friend, not a dictator


First, I want to clarify the term in Chinese “Jiazhang”(“Family Chief” when translate Chinese word “parents” into English). “Family Chief” is a unique Chinese concept/expression for a parent which means also “the head of the family”. This is from the traditional Confucian mindset to classify a society into a hierarchy, no matter where and whom. The highest aspiration for a Chinese is to be a governmental official. Education itself is aimed at climbing an official ladder in society. Working hard is also for the same purpose. If one hasn’t achieved such goal in society, at least he/she can be “the chief of the household” – also an official sounding title, at home. With such a title, his/her authority at home will never be questioned or challenged. As for the children, they are only some subordinates or even viewed as a burden in such a family hierarchy. Their role is to obey and be fed, nothing else. So the harmful effect of inequality has been established first firmly at home, and then spread to all aspects of society – an authoritarian/dictatorial society since the beginning of the Chinese civilization.


In contrast, there is no such concept of “Family Chief” in English language. There is only a term “parents”. Parents only means “father and mother of a child”, nothing else. It does not imply a social hierarchy of inequality. This is exactly opposite of the Chinese term “Family Chief”. We Chinese have always followed such terms with the implied negative meaning in them. We have never questioned the values (or anti-values) in such terms. Now I want to tell everyone: “Family Chief” is a toxic term that has poisoned the relationship between parents and children since the invention of the Chinese language. We must realize that being a parent is not about being a chief in a family. Being a parent is not about giving orders and commands to your offspring all the time. Being a parent means to establish a loving relationship with your children and to guide them morally and spiritually, not at all to establish a dictatorial authority in the family to satisfy some sick power urge of the parents. So I suggest from now on we should use the Chinese term “father and mother” to replace the poisonous term “Family Chief”. With such a replacement, maybe we can relearn about the roles parents play in their children’s lives.

2. 尊重 鼓励 赞赏
2. Respect, Encouragement, Appreciation

在Steve Nash(纳什)联盟的篮球俱乐部,绝大多数都是在本地长大的孩子,与我们在国内俱乐部的孩子差不多的年龄。他们同样接受大致相同的篮球训练。但孩子们的表现及反应都是各不相同的。正像有的父母提到的那样,我们的孩子缺乏独立性和进取心。在国内长大的孩子,他们往往在学习的时候非常认真,对自己的要求也看的很严。但在比赛中,却不知如何去运用。在平时练习时,他们对技术动作的规范,抓的很细,练的也很认真,听话。但就是一到场上,就不知道要干什么?怎么做?只有当你去提醒他,告诉他如何如何做时,他们才会照着你说的去做。(这也就是为什么以前我在和我们的教练员开会的时候提醒大家的,教练不要把所有的细节及运用时机交代的太过于“细致”,这样会导致我们的孩子不再有自己的思考。不用动脑筋,好像除了老师说的,学习及运用技术就再也没有别的发展和想象的空间。)而在加拿大本地的孩子在学习的过程中,常常有一些并不专心,尤其是一些技术性较强的练习,会表现的没有耐心,有时还会有些耍闹的淘气现象。可他们在比赛时却往往表现出超出平时练习时水平及能力。他们积极、主动,决不放弃每一次机会去表现自己。

In Steve Nash Basketball Club (Canada), most participants are native born children. But age wise they are similar with the children in a basketball club in China. Their training in basketball skills is also similar. But the reactions from the children and the results are quite different. Some people have already observed: Children in China’s clubs lack independent thinking, spontaneity, initiatives as well as competitiveness. Children from China often are hard workers. They listen very intently and follow the coach’s instructions studiously. Yet when it comes to the real competition and games, they don’t know how to think for themselves in an independent and creative way. They have no idea how to apply what they learn in practice. They are champions in practices, but losers in competitions. In a game, they seem to stand around like chess pieces to be placed by the orders of the coach. They know how to obey, how to please, how not to offend. But they don’t know how to lead, how to cooperate, how to achieve results. In training our coaches (in Chinese club), I often stress not to tell what a player should think and do, but how a player should think and do with reason, creativity and spontaneity. But I have yet to achieve desired results. In contrast to children in Steve Nash Club, I often observe some kids not as obedient, some even with certain arrogance and impatience in following coaches’ instructions. But when it comes to competition, they often exhibit spontaneity, initiatives, creativeness and high degree of competitiveness. They are active, not passive. They are expressive, not stoic. They are alive, not half-dead.


I often talk to the parents of Steve Nash Basketball Club. I have found some rather alarming contrast between them and the Chinese parents.


First, the parents themselves are all independent thinkers and observers. They all have their own individual opinions regarding the club management, teachers, coaches, etc… Their independent assessment and opinions are based on the specific, unique characters of their own children. They are keenly aware the stages of their children’s development. They make decisions according to these stages and the unique characters of their own children. They act as their children’s teachers, guides and care takers, not as their dictators.

Nicolas和 Max都是今年上7年级的男孩子,Nicolas比较活跃,Max却有些内向。他们分别在不同的俱乐部里,都有5-6年的Hockey(冰球)经验,可现在他们都迷恋上了篮球。Nicolas的妈妈说,她儿子打6年级起就开始迷上了篮球,为了能练习打篮球,不仅放弃了6年的冰球,而且他妈妈将他转到了另一个学校,也便更加方便地参加俱乐部的训练及比赛。Max的妈妈问我,Max在打冰球的时候非常的自信,动作连贯,为什么到打篮球的时候却显得有些力不从心。我告诉她,那是因为他基本功、脚步动作还有些问题,一旦他的基本功提高,他会很快适应篮球比赛的节奏的。因为他的身体素质非常棒,Max的妈妈非常满意我的解释与回答。

For example, Nicolas and Max are 7th graders. Nicolas is an extravert and Max an introvert. Although they are in different teams, they both have 5-6 years of hockey experience as a common background. But now they love basketball. Nicolas’ mother told me that Nicolas got into basketball since the 6th grade. He also gave up hockey for it. For a better access to his basketball interest, Nicolas’ mother even transferred him to another school. Max’s mother is also very involved in her son’s basketball. She once asked me why Max seemed a little lack of confidence since he shifted from hockey to basketball. When Max played hockey, he was very confident. I told her that it took time to develop Max’s fundamentals in basketball. Once he started to improve in his fundamentals, his confidence should come back for his physical ability is above average. Max’s mother was satisfied with my answer.


In our club team (Steve Nash Club), in every practice game or game against another team, all parents show up to support and encourage their own kids. Rarely do you hear complaints or negative comments, even when their kids do not play well or the team loses the game. The parents also participate in discussions with their kids about the game, just like teammates or friends. It is obvious that children feel a positive vibe when their own parents behave in such a positive way. When the kids do not play well, they also feel secure in their parents’ encouraging words. “Next time you will do better. Next time you may have a chance to win” is often what I hear. The parents’ positive parenting also gives the coaches and staff confidence and cooperation in the improvement of their work. Because of such a positive environment, contributed largely by the parents, the team members are constantly improving. Each team member feels the meaning of their own participation and the growth in their own physical, social and spiritual development.

3. 父母在家里也要讲民主、平等
3. Equality in Dignity at Home


In a traditional Chinese family, when talking about children’s choices, most parents assert that they are too young to make a decision. They also assert that parents should choose for their own children with their (the children’s) best interest in heart. The children should grow up feeling gratitude toward their parents for these (parents’) choices. Since everything parents do is for the children, there is no need to respect the children’s will and dignity. But if you take a closer look, you will find the fact is the opposite: It is not that the parents have their kids’ best interest in heart; it is the parents who expect their children to have the parents’ best interest in heart. Without respecting the children’s will, unique character, special interest and dignity, the parents actually force their own will upon their children, putting undue burden on them. Some parents even resort to physical punishment on their children to achieve their own expectations for them. Long term effect of such a negative environment in such a family environment is extremely harmful. No wonder the Chinese children are afraid to make mistakes, afraid to initiate, afraid to stand up or stand out. Please think about your own behavior. What are you doing to your children?


Parents’ authority should never be based on fear and obedience from their own children. Parents should earn respect from their own children with a positive attitude in their family relationship. Parents should do all they can to understand each child’s uniqueness, respect the child’s own choices and decisions from that unique character. Parents should guide and influence their children, not command or dictate their children. Parents should put their children’s dignity and respect above their own vanity and face-saving in front of others. Everyone makes mistakes, even the parents do as well. So be patient with your own kids, respect their own dignity and choices, and establish trust and communication among family members. And please do not act as a “Family Chief”.


Thanks Greentree for your comments on my blog and a great poem. Keep in touch. Kai Chen

Greentree said...

Thanks for sharing this great article.

Dr Peck quoted in his book 'Further Alone The Road Less Traveled' - the finest words he thinks ever written about child-raising:

Your children are not your children.
They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself.
They come through you but not from you,
And though they are with you they belong not to you.

You may give them your love but not your thoughts,
For they have their own thoughts.
You may house their bodies but not their souls,
For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow, which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.
You may strive to be like them, but seek not to make them like you.
For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.
You are the bow from which your children as living arrows are sent forth.
The archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite,
and He bends you with His might that His arrow may go swift and far.
Let your bending in the archer's hand be for gladness;
For even as He loves the arrow that flies, so He Loves also the bow that is stable.

All the best,


Saturday, March 27, 2010

A little bit pregnant? 有点儿怀孕?有点儿爱滋病?有点儿癌症?

陈凯一语: Kai Chen's Words:

陈凯博客: www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com

有点儿怀孕?有点儿爱滋病?有点儿癌症? 以奥巴马为代表的美国左翼人士们用其扭曲病态的思维变态地相信在汽车油箱里加水、在健康机体上实验癌细胞与爱滋病毒是他们高于普通人的聪明举动。 殊不知这正是他们虚无心态与愚蠢至极的暴露与写照。 --- 陈凯

A little pregnant? A little AIDS infected? A little cancer cells on your body? American leftists represented by Obama administration perversely and pathologically think to add some water in the gas tank will make the car run better, or to experiment AIDS virus and cancer cells on your body (just a little bit) will make you healthier. Somehow these "smart" socialist intellectuals only expose themselves as the most perverse and nihilistic beings. --- Kai Chen


A little bit pregnant? 有点儿怀孕?有点儿爱滋病?有点儿癌症?

Laura Crokett


Back before Russia dumped the Soviet Union idea, I had a masseur who was from Moscow. He was an interesting character, to say the least. His name? Andrei. His background? The Moscow Circus. He knew how to get rid of those fencing, as in sword fights, aches and pains of mine. While he would work over my body we would have some of the most enlightening conversations.

I once asked him about the Soviet Union and its version of “socialism.” He laughed. “America,” he would say, “doesn’t really understand socialism.” Hmm, I thought, what’s he trying to tell me? “You see,” he continued, “America thinks you can have a little bit of socialism. That’s like being a little bit pregnant.” He laughed as he rotated my ankle bringing relief to the muscles in my feet. “You of course cannot be a little bit pregnant. You either are or you aren’t.”

Andrei was correct. One is either pregnant or not pregnant. A nation either has socialism or it doesn’t.

In the hope that some of my readers get ticked at me, I place the argument before you that we turned socialist in the 1930’s when Social Security made its debut. We really joined the European style of governing when we brought in Medicare and Medicaid. And yes, I find it rather ironic that “conservatives” used the Medicare cuts issue as a talking point against Obamacare.

Cuts in Medicare? Oh horrors? Hell no. Cut the entire program! I mean talk about an entitlement, you have one, great big fat entitlement with Medicare. And it’s available to some of the wealthiest Americans out there.

To accept Medicare and not Obamacare is, to my way of thinking, intellectually corrupt. For what makes one type of government-run healthcare good and one bad? What is the difference? What makes a senior citizen more worthy than a young person? Could it be we really don’t want to pay for mom/pop/grandma/grandpa? That we want all Americans to foot the bill for longevity? How is that exempt from the term “socialist?”

When a woman is pregnant, she has inside her, a growing life. When you introduce and accept a specific government run program, you have a growing monster. Just like that woman cannot be a little pregnant, a people cannot be a little socialistic. You either are or you aren’t.

We Americans traditionally are a generous people. We are innovative as well. Put the two together and an answer to the onerous cost of healthcare will be found. Turn the problem over to the citizens. Bright, energetic people who love a challenge can and will find a path that leads to more coverage for folks who find themselves in financial straights. Hey, we would all love to see our insurance premiums go down! But not this way. That thing that the congress just passed is dumb, dumb and dumber. Because like Medicare, it will only cost more than predicted.

At the same time, Medicare is not a sacred cow that is somehow exempt from the tag, “socialized medicine.” Medicare is controlled by the government. That, my friends, is as socialized as it gets. If you have a hard spot in your heart for the insurance companies, just think how Medicare gets insurances companies out of the job of having to provide affordable insurance for seniors. Medicare, like Social Security was created so that seniors could be independent. In truth, it has made them rely on government instead of their families. Social Security is the young paying for the old, so why not simply cut out the middle man, the government, and let families care for the seniors. Sure, it may mean grandpa has to sell his home and move in with his son. But is there something catastrophic in that? It is not independence for anyone when it’s the people’s money paying for it. For just as government controlled programs can be given, they can also be taken away.

Social conservatives like to bemoan the breakdown of America’s families. Do you know where it started? With social programs instituted by “well-meaning” politicians. It is programs like SS and Medicare that opened the door to start us on our way to Obamacare. To close the door on Obamacare has to mean shutting tightly the door on all government run healthcare programs. All.

You cannot be a little bit pregnant.

Friday, March 26, 2010

权力的道德捆绑/刘瑜 If Morality Comes from Govermental Power

陈凯一语: Kai Chen's Words:

陈凯博客: www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com

孔儒伦理/礼的邪恶精髓在于它将道德的基点归于政府、社会等级与强权。 孔儒从没有教人去询问与监督政府、地位、皇帝的道德基点与权力起源。 孔儒的文化恶习也是今天中文系的人们从不询问中共党奴朝的合法性的主要原因。 权力、救星情结与明君清官是中文系人们致死迷恋的奴性心态。 用强权命令人去做好事是灭绝真实道德的最有效手段。 没有自由,何谓道德? --- 陈凯

The evil core of Confucianism is that it attributes morality to social status and governmental power. Such a perverse mindset will protect only those in power, for those in power will be free from inquiry about the source and moral foundation of their authority. Whoever has power, according to Confucianism, decides what is morality and what is the truth. The logical and ill consequences of Confucian complex in China today are people never questioning the legitimacy of the criminal communist party-state. Instead, they only seek a savior/good emperor or official to better the tyranny/despotism while they themselves participate wholeheartedly in every immoral act within that despotic order/hierarchy. They have no idea that it is they who are prolonging the evil regime by their own illusion that good only comes from governmental power by the muzzles of guns. Without freedom, there can never be morality. --- Kai Chen


权力的道德捆绑/刘瑜 If Morality Comes from Govermental Power

刘瑜 http://www.drunkpiano-liuyu.net/?p=557

三月 25th, 2010 | Category: 政治-中国系列, 道理 《南周》,未阉割版










Wednesday, March 24, 2010

陈凯致函反对“孔子课堂” 学区允严审汉办教材 Kai Chen against Confucianism

图片: 陈凯向学区总监递交公开信,反对开办”孔子课堂”。 (记者萧融提供)

陈凯博客: www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com

陈凯致函反对“孔子课堂” 学区允严审汉办教材
Kai Chen against Confucianism


为反对洛杉矶公立中学接受中国汉办捐款开办”孔子课堂”(Confucius Classroom),反共人士陈凯23日向当地哈岗拉朋学区(Hacienda La Puente School District)递交公开信。陈凯指出,”孔子课堂”接受汉办的资金和教材,为美国青少年开办汉语课程,不可能没有政治目的。学区总监出面接下公开信后,允诺将逐页审视汉办教材,并对公众公开审视结果。


洛杉矶哈岗拉朋学区教委会经法定程序表决通过,接受中国汉办提供美金三万元和中方编写的教材,向中学生开办”孔子课堂”。此一项目经部份社区领袖反对并引起争论之后,反共人士陈凯23日带着公开信登门拜访学区总监芭芭拉.中冈女士(Barbara Nakaoka)。陈凯说:“孔子课堂’由中共提供教材,美国校方用我们纳税人的钱聘请教师,给还未成年学生研读由外国政府提供的材料,我认为这当然是洗脑,更不要说一个政府向世界推行一个价值观,而其中没有’目的’,我不相信没有目的。”

汉办援引在全球广设“孔子学院”的做法,以无偿的条件进入美国公立中学开办 “孔子课堂”,并向外宣称绝无政治目的,但陈凯对开办课堂的动机,和对学生可能的影响仍存有疑虑。他说:“我和学区总监见面时,讲了1989年天安门事件和文化大革命,这些在中国历史里都被抹掉了,我认为在中国接受教育之后,都是历史残疾啊,因为在中国了解的历史,都是中国共产党的东西,现在要藉汉办教材把这些认知带到美国来,这完全是反自由的做法。”

图片:哈岗拉彭学区总监芭芭拉.中冈允诺逐页审视汉办教材,并公开结果。 (记者萧融提供)

陈凯藉公开信强调,反对 “孔子课堂”非关族裔或保守派意见,而是攸关道德的问题。他表示:“把一个道德的争论焦点,说成是族群之间的争论焦点,这是错的,这问题和肤色没有关系,我会设法和学生家长取得联系,这很重要。”



Saturday, March 20, 2010




John Rabe / Coral Ridge Ministries


Learn to Discern by John Rabe: http://www.coralridge.org/medialibrary/default.aspx?mediaID=L2D20100319

Would you send your children to the Chinese Communist Party for indoctrination sessions? A dictatorial regime, born out of centuries of despotism, is hardly the most-sought-after role model for American children. Yet, a California school board has voted to import instructors from China to implement a controversial new program.

Cedarlane Middle School in Hacienda Heights, California plans to offer a “Confucius Classroom”, supposedly, at no cost to the district. But opponents maintain that there are plenty of negative costs to implementing Chinese-government sponsored propaganda.

Chinese immigrant and anti-communist activist Kai Chen says that, quote, “Confucianism is the foundation of Chinese despotism for 2,000 years. The combination of Chinese despotism and modern communism forms a most poisonous brew...” Unquote.

Chen says that Confucianism, which has formed the basis for millennia of emperor-rule in China, has become a virtually missionary and evangelistic ideology, with Confucius Classroom programs in 87 nations.

Teaching the truth—that America was founded as one nation under God, with the state subject to Him and our rights granted only by him—can now land you in court in some places. In a time when the basic truths about our country are virtually illegal, it’s unthinkable to import Chinese ideology, which has never produced freedom, into American classrooms.

Friday, March 19, 2010

A Letter to Hacienda La Puente School District 给“孔课堂”学区负责人的一封信

A Letter to Hacienda La Puente School District


Kai Chen 陈凯 3/19/2010

Kai Chen


Barbara Nakaoka
Superintendent of Schools
Hacienda La Puente United School District
15959 E. Gale Ave.
City of Industry, CA 91745

Dear Ms. Barbara Nakaoka:

It was my pleasure to have met you in your office today. I look forward to meeting you for the scheduled talk next Tuesday. Thanks for your time.

"Tolerance of difference is a virtue. But tolerance of evil is beyond a vice. It puts us in a position close to an accomplice of evil." My father advised me right before his passing in Alhambra in 1988. I will always savor the wisdom in his words.

I am indeed concerned and alarmed by the news that Hacienda Heights School Board voted 4-1 to allow the Chinese government to provide teachers and material to implement a Confucius course in American high school curriculum. This is, among other schemes, one of the most insidious and blatant acts of the Chinese communist regime to infiltrate, corrupt and pollute American political culture. The untold intent of the Chinese government is to legitimize its own illegitimate and criminal regime, making despotism/tyranny acceptable as something only "different" in the culture of freedom in America. By accepting such a philosophical premise, the poisonous effect of despotic narcotics will indeed penetrate the mindset of American youths, rendering it impotent and confused in the realm of morality and ethics.

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal...." American founding fathers understood they were creating a new nation with a moral and legitimate government - a government by the consent of the governed. They also understood the philosophical premise upon which such a government was founded: We are equal before our Creator. Yet Confucianism is diametrically opposed to such a premise. It aims to castrate a person's mental and spiritual faculties to distinguish right from wrong, good from evil and truth from falsehood. It aims to establish a human behavior code that will forbid any question of authority - its origin and legitimacy. A state(government)-slave, not a free human being, is what this behavior code will ultimately produce. Blind following of such a code with a strict caste system by birth, gender, age, trade, race is what Confucianism mandates. Zombies that only recognize power but not morality and ethics are the final products.

No emperors in the world have ever been elected. The Chinese communist regime is keenly aware its own illegitimacy and criminal nature. Since the communist regime took power in 1949 on the mainland of China, 80 million innocent lives perished under famine, torture, persecution and murder in peace time, more than the death toll combined in two world wars. Today the criminal regime is doing everything to cover its own bloody trail and to erase its own murderous track. Even the Tiananmen Massacre 20 years ago has been eliminated from Chinese history books. Now all the school students in China are fundamentally moral and historical handicaps with no true knowledge of world history. But the regime knows that to stabilize and legitimize its own criminal enterprise, it must spread the spiritual AIDS and subject all the people in the world as addicts of its designer drugs/narcotics, combining the ancient Chinese despotism/tyranny with modern Marxism/socialism/nationalism/racism/communism. Beijing Olympics was only one such scheme to numb the world conscience. Establishing “Confucius Institutes” around the world to control all the people, not just the Chinese-speaking population is a must, for once one accepts the premise of "government Not by the consent of the governed" but "by the muzzles of guns", the Chinese communist regime will automatically become legitimate and its anti-humanity crimes/atrocities forgotten and forgiven.

Most Chinese-speaking people, due to their collective mindset and nationalism, will refuse to see the nature of Confucianism and its connection with modern communism/socialism. Here in Southern California, as well as in most part of US, most of the Chinese media/newspapers are controlled by the advertisement money of the Chinese government. When the biggest Chinese language newspaper "The World Journal" published the article on the protest of some local parents over the Hacienda School Board's decision, it had such a title: “Southern California Whites Protest Confucian Courses”. It used racism/nationalism to confuse the real issue - the Chinese communist infiltration, encroachment and contamination upon the landscape of American political culture. Even the White House is not an exception nowadays: White House officials now have quoted Mao many times as some kind of wise “political philosopher”. Mao's image was even hanging on the White House Christmas tree last holiday season (2009). Not long ago, I protested in front of a restaurant named "Mao's Kitchen" which extols Mao’s great deeds in the Cultural Revolution. The Mao's statue displayed with other world leaders such as Winston Churchill further demonstrates the extensiveness of Chinese communist regime's effort to infiltrate/corrupt American mind and soul. In 2007, I successfully protested a display of painting of Mao and Washington together in Alhambra City Hall. The conscientious Alhambra City Hall officials simply took it down.

The pervasive and omnipresent 'political correctness" nowadays spreads like poisonous fog, obscuring all moral issues into racial, national, power, class.... Moral clarity is indeed a seldom-seen phenomenon – a rare commodity. A curious occurrence I term “affirmative action on communism” also gives breathing room and preferential treatment to communist tyrannies in non-white countries. Government as God or above God is gradually being accepted, or emulated from countries like China, in America. Freedom with personal responsibility is gradually fading away as some past mores. I am disturbed, alarmed and infuriated indeed.

I urge you and the members of Hacienda Heights School District authorities to reconsider the decision to allow the Chinese communist government to brainwash American Youths in such a blatant fashion. I urge all the parents of the students, teachers, and staff members of the school district to take action to resist and oppose such an anti-freedom course in our educational system. American Constitution is Not a suicide pact. Freedom does not mean “freedom to abuse and destroy freedom”.

I thank you for your attention on this extremely important issue.

Sincerely Kai Chen
Hacienda La Puente School District
Board of Education Members:

Mrs. Anita Perez (President) 626-706-6516
Mr. Jay Chen (Vice President) 626-534-3544
Mr. Norman Hsu (Clerk) 626-485-9511
Mr. Rudy Chavarria (Board Member) 626-961-8661
Dr. Joseph Chang (Board Member) 626-705-6359
Internet Links to learn related topics and issues:

Killer Chic (Video program on Mao and Guevara):


Revolutionary Holocaust:


Petition to Remove Mao Statue from Nixon Library:


Alhambra City Hall “Mao Portrait Incident”:


Mao’s Kitchen Protest:


Beijing Olympic Freedom T-shirt Movement:


Thursday, March 18, 2010

A Memorial to the Victims of Communism 共产大虐杀纪念碑

陈凯一语: Kai Chen's Words:

陈凯博客: www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com

Since the downfall of the Soviet Union, there has been an increasingly damaging occurrence in the free world - a complacency fueled by a nauseating amnesia toward the anti-humanity crimes and atrocities by the world socialism/communism. Without the contrast of the Soviet Union and with a mutated, increasingly powerful Nazism/communism in China, many start to think some form of socialism/communism is acceptable or experimentable. This is equivalent to accepting experimentation of implanting AIDS virus or cancer cells in one's own body. Such an idiotic act, represented by the election of Obama into the White House, will have grave consequences and cause irreparable damage to the cause of freedom. --- Kai Chen

自苏俄倒台后,一个令人担忧的现象在西方自由世界中逐渐呈现: 道德的混乱与麻痹加上令人恶心的健忘症使人们对世界社会主义、共产主义的反人类血腥罪行与历史麻木不仁、无动于衷。 没有苏俄邪恶的对比,加上日渐强大的中共党奴朝的新纳粹共产的变种,世界上许多的人迷梦般地以为有点儿社会主义、共产主义问题不大,可以被接受。 这如同说在自己的健康躯体上可以试验着去加进艾滋病毒和癌细胞一样。 这种蠢行,如将奥巴马选入白宫,将有极为严重的逆向后果和难以修复的对自由事业的损害。 --- 陈凯

The word “memorial” is somewhat misleading, though, suggesting that communism is a closed historical chapter. The fall of the Berlin Wall notwithstanding, communism in one guise or another still determines the fate of millions of hapless people around the globe. Victims in communist regimes are still starved, imprisoned, tortured and denied the most basic of human rights. --- Barbara Kay

“共产主义受害者纪念碑”是一个误导人的说法: 这种提法似乎在说共产主义的邪恶与罪行已经成为历史;我们不必为它而警觉与小心。 柏林墙虽然崩溃了,这不等于说变种的、掩盖其面目的各类社会主义、共产主义已经不再奴役千千万万的人们了。 正相反,今天在世界上各类的共产邪恶政权仍旧持续地用饥荒、囚禁、虐杀与折磨剥夺着人的自由与尊严。 --- 芭芭拉. 凯伊(作者)


A Memorial to the Victims of Communism 共产大虐杀纪念碑


Posted by Barbara Kay on Mar 18th, 2010

In 1968, naive anti-establishment American and Canadian students considered themselves courageous for locking supine university presidents in their offices, throwing computers out of windows and even burning out-of-favour academics’ research work. They knew that in the free, indulgent West, their childish parody of a revolution would result in nothing more than a suspension from their studies.

In the same year truly courageous Moscow academic Yuri Glazov signed the famous “letter of the twelve,” protesting illegal arrests and trials of dissidents, knowing full well that this real act of revolution would result in a suspension of his human rights.

Glazov was predictably fired, meaning he was henceforth unemployable and deemed a “parasite” on the state. Warned by a friend, he narrowly avoided imprisonment on a trumped-up narcotics-dealing charge. Finally, through a stroke of luck, Glazov came with his family to the West, and in 1975 took up residence in Halifax as chair of the Russian Studies department at Dalhousie University, a position he held until shortly before his death in 1998.

[Yuri Glazov's family shortly before departure from Russia. From left to right: son Greg, Yuri, daughter Elena, wife Marina and son Jamie.]

An outstanding Canadian, Glazov deserves recognition, and so do many other brave dissidents for whom Canada has been a refuge. Nine million Canadians — that’s almost a third of us according to the 2006 census — came to these shores from communist-ruled countries. Many are now dead or very old. Their descendants deserve to see their sacrifices acknowledged and Canadians exposed to the full panoply of communist atrocities.

Prospects for educating Canadians about the human toll exacted by communism through their stories will brighten when a long-sought Ottawa Memorial to the Victims of Totalitarian Communism is completed, a project singled out for endorsement in the recent Throne Speech.

This memorial isn’t just a good idea, like an also-promised national Holocaust memorial, it is a necessary idea.

The exhaustively researched Holocaust is in no danger of being forgotten. The highest term of opprobrium in Western culture, whether from leftists or rightists (rightly or wrongly) is “Nazi,” not “communist.” That’s not because Nazis and communists have been compared and Nazis found to be worse. It’s because people don’t know how bad communism was and is.

In 2006 the Swedish Ministry of Education initiated programs teaching the crimes of communism because a poll had revealed only 10% of Swedish youth could identify the Gulag. Canadian youth would not fare better. All educated Canadians associate the word “Auschwitz” with “genocide.” The equally horrific “Holodomor” is more likely to draw a blank stare.

Why has communism escaped the moral condemnation Nazism attracts in such exuberant degree? In recent years several scholars have addressed the question and provided a litany of reasons, amongst them:

* Stalin was a war ally and therefore escaped the postwar censure he deserved;

* Only since the fall of the Berlin Wall has the most damaging data emerged; by then witnesses were aging and focused on economic priorities;

* There was no Nuremburg, no Truth and Reconciliation moment for communism as there was for other genocidal regimes;

* Communist propaganda machines are extremely efficient at positive branding (Trudeau bought in; his fawning patronage of Fidel Castro was beyond contemptible).

But all reasons pale beside the glaring failure of left-wing intellectuals to admit — and to teach — that communism isn’t simply an unfortunate contingency of socialist passion but an ideology as immoral and implacably ruthless and dramatically consequential as Nazism.

Actually it is more than intellectuals’ failure, which suggests passivity; it was, and is, active avoidance. Yuri Glazov was proud to become a Canadian citizen, but was shocked and chagrined at the ignorance and even denial of communism’s crimes he found amongst his fellow academics. As his son Jamie Glazov noted in his 2009 book, United in Hate: the Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror, “[W]hile we were cherishing our newfound freedom, we encountered … intellectuals in the universities who hated my parents for the story they had to tell …”

Left-wing intellectuals’ laundering of the truth about communism has translated into a vast lacuna in the teaching of 20th century history in our schools — one we can only hope the new memorial will help to fill.

The word “memorial” is somewhat misleading, though, suggesting that communism is a closed historical chapter. The fall of the Berlin Wall notwithstanding, communism in one guise or another still determines the fate of millions of hapless people around the globe. Victims in communist regimes are still starved, imprisoned, tortured and denied the most basic of human rights.

“Centre”? “Testament”? It is not too late to find a word to remind communism’s ongoing victims that right-thinking Canadians know the truth and will not abandon them.

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

反对中共孔子课堂 陈凯在美高中传播自由人权 Kai Chen Speech at West High School

图:前中国篮球国手陈凯(右)5日应国际特赦组织邀请,前往位市的西方高中(West High School)演讲,讲述自由的价值及人权在世界推广的重要性,午间时分,吸引了4、5百高中生。旁为支持者廖铭忠。


反对中共孔子课堂 陈凯在美高中传播自由人权

Kai Chen Speech at West High School

陈凯博客: www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com

【大纪元3月12日讯】(大纪元记者袁玫托伦斯市报导)前中国篮球国手陈凯5日应国际特赦组织(Amnesty International Club )邀请,前往托伦斯市(Torrance)的西方高中(West High School)发表演讲,讲述自由的价值及人权在世界推广的重要性,午间时分,吸引了4、5百名高中生。

陈凯表示,共产党在世界所犯的罪行,美国年轻人有知的权利应该知道,在美国高中、大学在现有环境中,无论师资、教材都缺少这方面真实历史的教育。 由于对历史的不了解,反而形成如以良好的意愿来贩卖毒品、以乌托邦思想毒害人们放弃自由的价值,用物质来腐化思维。


陈凯表示,中共现在用各种方法消灭人们鉴别真假,鉴别是非,鉴别对错,鉴别好坏这样一种能力,用种种思潮来腐蚀美国,如哈岗学区的孔子学校。 在美国有以“毛泽东”名字命名的餐厅,这家以“毛厨房”命名的中餐厅,里面都是以毛时代的语录和标语做装修,播放样板戏。 又如毛蜡像陈列在尼克森图书馆,毛的形象出现在白宫圣诞树上,白宫官员会使用毛的话,甚或在自由的美国仍有人崇尚左派思潮,歌颂共产主义的电影等。


陈凯认为我们有责任保证美国的建国价值得到传递褒扬,而不能被专制腐蚀,中共专制针对美国在做这件事,因美国倒了,世界就没希望。 中共也因此得到苟延残喘的机会。



美东时间: 2010-03-11 14:37:25 PM 【万年历】
本文网址: http://www.epochtimes.com/gb/10/3/12/n2842808.htm

Monday, March 15, 2010

Is China's Politburo spoiling for a showdown with America? 中共党奴朝的自我幻觉产生的危险

Is China's Politburo spoiling for a showdown with America?


陈凯一语: Kai Chen's Words:

陈凯博客: www.kaichenblog.blopspot.com

Free market economy is only meaningful and beneficial to mankind when trade/exchange takes place among free countries. Trade/exchange of the free countries with a slave country under despotism like China is meaningless and harmful. It only increases the danger of war by strengthening despotism and tyranny through illusions. --- Kai Chen

自由市场经济的原则只对自由国度之间的贸易交换才有意义。 自由国度与专制奴役的国度(如中共党奴朝)是不可能有自由贸易交换的。 这种出于幻觉的贸易交换只能是有害的与增加战争的危险的。 --- 陈凯

“a Wolf in the World? you cannot feel at ease with a regime that still covers up Mao's murderous nihilism. He reminds us too that China has never forgiven the humilations inflicted by the West when the two civilizations collided in the 19th Century, and intends to exact revenge. Handle with care.” --- George Walden (ex-diplomat)

“(中共党奴朝)是世界上的一只狼。 你决不能对一个至今仍在否认、掩盖与删除毛泽东虚无主义的大虐杀罪行的党政奴国有任何幻想。 毛的反人类罪行使我们认知到中国的人们从没有忘却过、或原谅(西方)他们在十九世纪时所受到的羞辱。 复仇/复辟(如德国在第一次世界大战后的心态)是中国的人们的首要动机。 世界应当警惕。” --- 乔治. 威尔顿 (前美国外交官)


The long-simmering clash between the world's two great powers is coming to a head, with dangerous implications for the international system.

By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
Published: 5:33PM GMT 14 Mar 2010

US President Barack Obama shakes hands with Chinese ambassador to America Zhou Wenzhong on the Great Wall of China Photo: Reuters China has succumbed to hubris. It has mistaken the soft diplomacy of Barack Obama for weakness, mistaken the US credit crisis for decline, and mistaken its own mercantilist bubble for ascendancy. There are echoes of Anglo-German spats before the First World War, when Wilhelmine Berlin so badly misjudged the strategic balance of power and over-played its hand.

Within a month the US Treasury must rule whether China is a "currency manipulator", triggering sanctions under US law. This has been finessed before, but we are in a new world now with America's U6 unemployment at 16.8pc.

"It's going to be really hard for them yet again to fudge on the obvious fact that China is manipulating. Without a credible threat, we're not going to get anywhere," said Paul Krugman, this year's Nobel economist.

China's premier Wen Jiabao is defiant.

"I don’t think the yuan is undervalued. We oppose countries pointing fingers at each other and even forcing a country to appreciate its currency," he said yesterday. Once again he demanded that the US takes "concrete steps to reassure investors" over the safety of US assets.

"Some say China has got more arrogant and tough. Some put forward the theory of China's so-called 'triumphalism'. My conscience is untainted despite slanders from outside," he said

Days earlier the State Council accused America of serial villainy. "In the US, civil and political rights of citizens are severely restricted and violated by the government. Workers' rights are seriously violated," it said.

"The US, with its strong military power, has pursued hegemony in the world, trampling upon the sovereignty of other countries and trespassing their human rights," it said.

"At a time when the world is suffering a serious human rights disaster caused by the US subprime crisis-induced global financial crisis, the US government revels in accusing other countries." And so forth.

Is the Politiburo smoking weed?

I let others discuss the rights and wrongs of this, itself a response to the US report card on China. Clearly, Beijing is in denial about is own part in the global imbalances behind the credit crisis, specifically by running structural trade surpluses, and driving down long rates through dollar and euro bond purchases. No doubt the West has made a hash of things, but the Chinese view of events is twisted to the point of delusional.

What interests me is Beijing's willingness to up the ante. It has vowed sanctions against any US firm that takes part in a $6.4bn weapons contract for Taiwan, a threat to ban Boeing from China and a new level of escalation in the Taiwan dispute.

In Copenhagen, Wen Jiabao sent an underling to negotiate with Mr. Obama in what was intended to be - and taken to be - a humiliation. The US President put his foot down, saying: "I don't want to mess around with this anymore." That sums up White House feelings towards China today.

We have talked ourselves into believing that China is already a hyper-power. It may become one: it is not one yet. China is ringed by states - Japan, Korea, Vietnam, India - that are American allies when push comes to shove. It faces a prickly Russia on its 4,000km border, where Chinese migrants are itching for Lebensraum across the Amur. Emerging Asia, Brazil, Egypt and Europe are all irked by China's yuan-rigged export dumping.

Michael Pettis from Beijing University argues that China's reserves of $2.4 trillion - arguably $3 trillion - are a sign of weakness, not strength. Only twice before in modern history has a country amassed such a stash equal to 5pc-6pc of global GDP: the US in the 1920s, and Japan in the 1980s. Each time preceeded depression.

The reserves cannot be used internally to support China's economy. They are dead weight, beyond any level needed for macro-credibility. Indeed, they are the ultimate indictment of China's dysfunctional strategy, which is to buy $30bn to $40bn of foreign bonds every month to hold down the yuan, refusing to let the economy adjust to trade realities. The result is over-investment in plant, flooding the world with goods at wafer-thin export margins. China's over-capacity in steel is now greater than Europe's output.

This is catching up with China, in any case. Professor Victor Shuh from Northerwestern University warns that the 8,000 financing vehicles used by China's local governments to stretch credit limits have built up debts and commitments of $3.5 trillion, mostly linked to infrastructure. He says the banks may require a bail-out nearing half a trillion dollars.

As America's creditor - owner of some $1.4 trillion of US Treasuries, agency bonds, and US instruments - China can exert leverage. But this is not what it seems. If the Politburo deploys its illusiory power, Washington can pull the plug on China's export economy instantly by shutting markets. Who holds whom to ransom?

Any attempt to retaliate by triggering a US bond crisis would rebound against China, and could be stopped - in extremis - by capital controls. Roosevelt changed the rules in 1933. Such things happen. The China-US relationship is no doubt symbiotic, but a clash would not be "mutual assured destruction", as often claimed. Washington would win.

Contrary to myth, the slide to protectionism after the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act did not cause the Depression. Trade contracted more slowly in the 1930s than this time. The Smoot-Hawley lesson is that tariffs have asymmetrical effects. They devastate surplus countries: then America. Deficit Britain did well by retreating into Imperial Preference.

Barack Obama has never exalted free trade. This orthodoxy is, in any case, under threat in the West. His top economic adviser Larry Summers let drop in Davos that free-trade arguments no longer hold when dealing with "mercantilist" powers. Adam Smith recognized this too, despite efforts by free-trade ultras to appropriate him for their cause.

China's trasformation has been remarkable since Deng Xiaoping unleashed capitalism, but as ex-diplomat George Walden writes in China: a Wolf in the World? you cannot feel at ease with a regime that still covers up Mao's murderous nihilism. He reminds us too that China has never forgiven the humilations inflicted by the West when the two civilizations collided in the 19th Century, and intends to exact revenge. Handle with care.

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Roberts: Scene at State of the Union 'Very Troubling' 美首席大法官:奥巴马将暴民政治带入美政体

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts address students at the University of Alabama Law School in Tuscaloosa, Ala., on March 9, 2010.

陈凯一语: Kai Chen's Words:

陈凯博客: www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com

暴民流氓政治是社会主义独裁者们的专用技俩。(毛在中国的文化大革命就是一例。)奥巴马在国情咨文演讲中用民主党议员们的哄叫嘲笑由礼貌自愿出席演讲的美国最高法院的大法官们是他对美国宪法分权原则的蔑视的又一拙劣表演。 奥巴马的反美行径会终将被人们认知并将遭到美国良知民众的有力回击。 --- 陈凯

"Mob rule" has always been used by all the socialist dictators in the world to suppress different views in a given political environment. (China's Cultural Revolution was only one such example.) The very scene of Obama using his State of Union speech to rally his cohorts in American Congress to jeer/mock the Supreme Court Judges present demonstrated once again his contempt for American Constitution. Obama's anti-Americanism will be ultimately recognized as such and defeated by the freedom-loving people in America. I have no doubt about that. --- Kai Chen


Roberts: Scene at State of the Union 'Very Troubling' 美首席大法官:奥巴马将暴民政治带入美政体

Jay Reeves AP

TUSCALOOSA, Ala. (March 9)

U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts said Tuesday the scene at President Barack Obama's first State of the Union address was "very troubling" and that the annual speech to Congress has "degenerated into a political pep rally."

Responding to a University of Alabama law student's question about the Senate's method of confirming justices, Roberts said senators improperly try to make political points by asking questions they know nominees can't answer because of judicial ethics rules.

"I think the process is broken down," he said.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts speaks at the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa on Tuesday. He criticized the annual State of the Union address as a "political pep rally" and faulted the confirmation process for nominees to his court.

Obama chided the court for its campaign finance decision during the January address, with six of the court's nine justices seated before him in their black robes.

Roberts said he wonders whether justices should attend the address.

"To the extent the State of the Union has degenerated into a political pep rally, I'm not sure why we're there," said Roberts, a Republican nominee who joined the court in 2005.

Roberts said anyone is free to criticize the court and that some have an obligation to do so because of their positions.

"So I have no problems with that," he said. "On the other hand, there is the issue of the setting, the circumstances and the decorum. The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court - according the requirements of protocol - has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling."

Breaking from tradition, Obama used the speech to criticize the court's decision that allows corporations and unions to freely spend money to run political ads for or against specific candidates.

"With all due deference to the separation of powers, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests - including foreign corporations - to spend without limit in our elections," Obama said.

Justice Samuel Alito was the only justice to respond at the time, shaking his head and appearing to mouth the words "not true" as Obama continued.

In response to Roberts' remarks Tuesday, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs focused on the court's decision and not the chief justice's point about the time and place for criticism of the court.

"What is troubling is that this decision opened the floodgates for corporations and special interests to pour money into elections - drowning out the voices of average Americans," Gibbs said. "The president has long been committed to reducing the undue influence of special interests and their lobbyists over government. That is why he spoke out to condemn the decision and is working with Congress on a legislative response."

Justice Antonin Scalia once said he no longer goes to the annual speech because the justices "sit there like bumps on a log" in an otherwise highly partisan atmosphere.

Roberts opened his appearance in Alabama with a 30-minute lecture on the history of the Supreme Court and became animated as he answered students' questions. He joked about a recent rumor that he was stepping down from the court and said he didn't know he wanted to be a lawyer until he was in law school.

While Associate Justice Clarence Thomas told students at Alabama last fall he saw little value in oral arguments before the court, Roberts disagreed.

"Maybe it's because I participated in it a lot as a lawyer," Roberts said. "I'd hate to think it didn't matter."

Filed under: Nation, Politics, Top Stories

Tuesday, March 9, 2010

父母在孩子成长中的角色 Be Parents, Not Dictators

父母在孩子成长中的角色 Be Parents, Not Dictators


父母(parents)≠ 家长 (Dictators)

陈凯博客: www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com

鞠宾 3/8/10 陈凯博客转载

小飞人篮球俱乐部网址: http://www.lanlianmeng.com/


1.做父母 、 朋友、 知己,不做家长



2.尊重 鼓励 赞赏

在Steve Nash(纳什)联盟的篮球俱乐部,绝大多数都是在本地长大的孩子,与我们在国内俱乐部的孩子差不多的年龄。他们同样接受大致相同的篮球训练。但孩子们的表现及反应都是各不相同的。正像有的父母提到的那样,我们的孩子缺乏独立性和进取心。在国内长大的孩子,他们往往在学习的时候非常认真,对自己的要求也看的很严。但在比赛中,却不知如何去运用。在平时练习时,他们对技术动作的规范,抓的很细,练的也很认真,听话。但就是一到场上,就不知道要干什么?怎么做?只有当你去提醒他,告诉他如何如何做时,他们才会照着你说的去做。(这也就是为什么以前我在和我们的教练员开会的时候提醒大家的,教练不要把所有的细节及运用时机交代的太过于“细致”,这样会导致我们的孩子不再有自己的思考。不用动脑筋,好像除了老师说的,学习及运用技术就再也没有别的发展和想象的空间。)而在加拿大本地的孩子在学习的过程中,常常有一些并不专心,尤其是一些技术性较强的练习,会表现的没有耐心,有时还会有些耍闹的淘气现象。可他们在比赛时却往往表现出超出平时练习时水平及能力。他们积极、主动,决不放弃每一次机会去表现自己。



Nicolas和 Max都是今年上7年级的男孩子,Nicolas比较活跃,Max却有些内向。他们分别在不同的俱乐部里,都有5-6年的Hockey(冰球)经验,可现在他们都迷恋上了篮球。Nicolas的妈妈说,她儿子打6年级起就开始迷上了篮球,为了能练习打篮球,不仅放弃了6年的冰球,而且他妈妈将他转到了另一个学校,也便更加方便地参加俱乐部的训练及比赛。Max的妈妈问我,Max在打冰球的时候非常的自信,动作连贯,为什么到打篮球的时候却显得有些力不从心。我告诉她,那是因为他基本功、脚步动作还有些问题,一旦他的基本功提高,他会很快适应篮球比赛的节奏的。因为他的身体素质非常棒,Max的妈妈非常满意我的解释与回答。


3. 父母在家里也要讲民主、平等



Monday, March 8, 2010

Who Poses the Greater Threat? 对自由最大的威胁来自左翼大政府

陈凯一语: Kai Chen's Words:

陈凯博客: www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com

Communist dictators have always had admirers and apologists among intellectuals in the free world, especially in America. "The winner is the king, the loser is the bandit" mentality predominates the mindset of the left. Now the American left is using China as a model of economic growth. This is because China's communist dictators have yet to be defeated and deposed. --- Kai Chen

共产专制者们在西方,尤其是在美国的知识界一直都有仰慕者和崇拜者。 “胜者为王败者寇”崇权心态一直主宰着西方左派的的思维与行为模式。 奥巴马与美国的左派们现在看好中共党奴朝的“政府强制,高速增长”的专制模式,就是因为中共党奴朝还没有垮台、还没有被自由的人们击败。 --- 陈凯

"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.” --- Thomas Paine

“政府,即使是在最佳的状态中,也只不过是一个必要的歹徒;在最坏的状态中,政府则是不可容忍的歹徒。”--- 汤玛斯. 佩恩


Who Poses the Greater Threat? 对自由最大的威胁来自左翼大政府

Posted by Walter Williams on Mar 8th, 2010 and filed under FrontPage.

Walter Williams

Bill Gates is the world’s richest person, but what kind of power does he have over you? Can he force your kid to go to a school you do not want him to attend? Can he deny you the right to braid hair in your home for a living? It turns out that a local politician, who might deny us the right to earn a living and dictates which school our kid attends, has far greater power over our lives than any rich person. Rich people can gain power over us, but to do so, they must get permission from our elected representatives at the federal, state or local levels. For example, I might wish to purchase sugar from a Caribbean producer, but America’s sugar lobby pays congressmen hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions to impose sugar import tariffs and quotas, forcing me and every other American to purchase their more expensive sugar.

Politicians love pitting us against the rich. All by themselves, the rich have absolutely no power over us. To rip us off, they need the might of Congress to rig the economic game. It’s a slick political sleight-of-hand where politicians and their allies amongst the intellectuals, talking heads and the news media get us caught up in the politics of envy as part of their agenda for greater control over our lives.

The sugar lobby is just one example among thousands. Just ask yourself: Who were the major recipients of the billions of taxpayer bailout dollars, the so-called Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)? The top recipients of TARP handouts included companies such as Citibank, AIG, Goldman Sachs and General Motors. Their top management are paid tens of millions dollars to run companies that were on the verge of bankruptcy, were it not for billions of dollars in taxpayer money. Politicians preach the politics of envy whilst reaching into the ordinary man’s pockets, through the IRS, and handing it over to their favorite rich people and others who make large contributions to their election efforts.

The bottom line is that it is politicians first and their supporters amongst intellectuals who pose the greatest threat to liberty.

Dr. Thomas Sowell amply demonstrates this in his brand-new book, “Intellectuals and Society,” in which he points out that: “Scarcely a mass-murdering dictator of the twentieth century was without his intellectual supporters, not simply in his own country, but also in foreign democracies … Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Hitler all had their admirers, defenders and apologists among the intelligentsia in Western democratic nations, despite the fact that these dictators each ended up killing people of their own country on a scale unprecedented even by despotic regimes that preceded them.”

While American politicians and intellectuals have not reached the depths of tyrants such as Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Hitler, they share a common vision. Tyrants denounce free markets and voluntary exchange. They are the chief supporters of reduced private property rights, reduced rights to profits, and they are anti-competition and pro-monopoly. They are pro-control and coercion, by the state. These Americans who run Washington, and their intellectual supporters, believe they have superior wisdom and greater intelligence than the masses. They believe they have been ordained to forcibly impose that wisdom on the rest of us. Like any other tyrant, they have what they consider good reasons for restricting the freedom of others. A tyrant’s primary agenda calls for the elimination or attenuation of the market. Why? Markets imply voluntary exchange and tyrants do not trust that people behaving voluntarily will do what the tyrant thinks they should do. Therefore, they seek to replace the market with economic planning and regulation, which is little more than the forcible superseding of other people’s plans by the powerful elite.

We Americans have forgotten founder Thomas Paine’s warning that “Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.”

Sunday, March 7, 2010

David Horowitz/Progressives and Conservatives 左右的本质区别

陈凯一语: Kai Chen's Words:


世界上所有的左翼思潮的哲学基点都是一致的: 否认“人”的原弊并试图用“改变社会物质环境”与“塑造完美新人”来建造“人间天堂”。 其罪恶与悲惨的结局是这样的思潮幻梦带给世界的无一不是“人间地狱”。 美国的宪法是建立在基督的“原弊说”与对人性的真实解读上的。 美国的人们在对自身原弊的认知、反省与警觉下建立了一个最接近“人间天堂”的社会。 --- 陈凯

All the leftist ideals (from Nazism, Socialism to Communism) are established on the same philosophical illusion: They all deny the fact (from history) that human beings are imperfect (with original sins). They all want to implement social programs (a form of social engineering) by manipulating material/external conditions to create so-called "new human species" and "heaven on earth". All such delusional attempts to reform human nature have invariably resulted in "revolutionary holocaust" with miserable failures. Instead, all they, by playing God, have created is "Hell on Earth".

American Constitution is firmly established on Christian principle with a true understanding of human nature. Therefore, with such a self-knowledge of human imperfection (original sin), Americans have achieved the best society on earth - the closest to "Heaven on Earth". --- Kai Chen


Progressives and Conservatives 左右的本质区别


Posted by David Horowitz on Mar 5th, 2010 and filed under FrontPage.

David Horowitz

(David Horowitz was one of the founders of the New Left in the 1960s and an editor of its largest magazine,Ramparts. He is the author, with Peter Collier, of three best selling dynastic biographies: The Rockefellers: An American Dynasty (1976); The Kennedys: An American Dream (1984); and The Fords: An American Epic (1987). Looking back in anger at their days in the New Left, he and Collier wrote Destructive Generation (1989), a chronicle of their second thoughts about the 60s that has been compared to Whittaker Chambers’ Witness and other classic works documenting a break from totalitarianism. Horowitz examined this subject more closely in Radical Son (1996), a memoir tracing his odyssey from “red-diaper baby” to conservative activist that George Gilder described as “the first great autobiography of his generation.”)

Conservatives look to the past as a guide to the future. The past tells them who human beings are, and how they behave, and what is possible. In their approach to the future, conservatives are pragmatic and ground their hopes in experience. When the Founders were drawing up plans for the Republic they looked at the history of past republics and concluded that democracy was the least problematic form of government but that it posed the danger of a populist tyranny. So they instituted a system of checks and balances to guard against tyrannies of the majority and to provide the public with a cooling off period in which their emotion driven agendas could be corrected by reflection.

Progressives, by contrast, look to an imaginary future as a guide to the present and regard the experience of the past as “reactionary” and “backward.” Progressives have in their heads an image of what the future should look like based on emotion (hope and change), and they discount the experience of past and present as products of ignorance, prejudice and selfish interests, which they are determined to overcome.

Their agendas are actually much worse than this would suggest, since progressives imagine a future that is perfect, a new world in which there is no poverty, no bigotry, no irreconcilable conflict — where there is “social justice.” Against this imaginary ideal world nothing that exists can be justified or defended, or in the words of the arch rebel “everything that exists deserves to perish.” These were words were spoken by Goethe’s Mephistopheles, and quoted approvingly by Karl Marx.

Progressives are focused on destroying what is in the name of an impossible what-can-be (“hope and change”) and it’s very hard for them – impossible for the truest believers — to correct course when they are on the march and their programs aren’t working. All contrary counsel is seen not as experience-based wisdom but as obstruction and reaction.

Some years ago there was a C-Span debate between the “Democratic Socialist” — an oxymoron if there ever was one — Barbara Ehrenreich and the bloviating Cornel West on the left side and two Heritage Foundation fellows on the right. The subject was socialism and its failure in the Soviet Union and China. The Heritage team pointed out very politely and circumspectly as though embarrassed for the socialists on the platform that progressives had encountered some problems in implementing social justice in these countries and there were some casualties along the way. Responding, Barbara Ehrenreich said (or words to this precise effect): We’ve only been trying socialism for 250 years and it’s not surprising that mistakes were made. Side note: This woman’s book attacking American capitalism and re-invigorating socialist delusions is assigned reading for students in virtually every university in the nation – at some schools required for all incoming freshmen with no countervailing text.

The investment of progressives in an imaginary future that is perfect is the reason their loyalties to their country often seem uncertain. Every movement force threatening America (or as they would frame it “American power”) however barbaric (think Saddam Hussein or Hugo Chavez or Ahmadinejad or Hamas) can readily be seen by them as striving towards the imaginary future – the utopia of social justice – however distorted. It is always the reactionaries and counter-revolutionaries who are responsible. Cuba has been bankrupted by a deranged dictator and economic crackpot, but the American “blockade” is responsible. The Palestinians behave like Nazis with a national culture that is a death cult, but Israeli “apartheid” is responsible. Muslim radicals are homicidal racists, but that’s just because they’re oppressed by corporate America. Once they’re liberated and able to enter the kingdom of social justice, they will become enlightened like their progressive apologists.

While sabotaging America’s wars abroad and national security measures at home, progressives will protest that they are patriotic and love their country, and want it to live up to its ideals. But their love is reserved for an ideal America that doesn’t exist and as long as it is inhabited by flesh and blood — and therefore corruptible — human beings never will.

Saturday, March 6, 2010

黎鳴︰中國人無“人文” China - No Human Culture

黎鳴︰中國人無“人文” China - No Human Culture

把孔丘及其儒家的“文化”冒稱為“人文主義”的文化,實際上是出于傳統中國文人們的極端的無知,既是對于中國歷史的無知,也是對于人類哲學人文觀念的無知。--- 黎鳴



作者 : 黎鳴 2010-03-06 12:00 AM













Friday, March 5, 2010

The legacies of Stalin and Mao, if not as they specified 斯大林与毛泽东的罪恶遗产


The legacies of Stalin and Mao, if not as they specified


Lev Navrozov Thursday, March 4, 2010

(Lev Navrozov emigrated from the Soviet Union in 1972. His columns are today read in both English and Russian. To learn more about Mr. Navrozov's work with the Center for the Survival of Western Democracies.)

Stalin wanted to see himself as the incarnation of all virtues — and of all genius ever appreciated on earth. Said a poem about Stalin:

When the Sun in the East begins to rise,
All stars pale and melt like ice.
What all the greatest in the world have done
Is like the stars at dawn, compared with the rising Sun!

Stalin's industrial-military development (industrialization) of Russia was based on his spending on the population as little as possible to invest as much as possible into the Industrialization. Thus, Stalin's workers and low-level clerks were living in "barracks," the cheapest to build per inhabitant, and Stalin's peasants were living in the same huts in which they and their ancestors had been living, but now they were called not peasants, of course, but "collective farmers," since they worked for "collective farms," and in exchange they were permitted to grow food for themselves on their little plots of land close to their huts.

What kind of tenants lived in a Moscow ordinary apartment? Before 1917, our Moscow six-room apartment was occupied by one small family. But in the 1930s, it was occupied by six families: a lawyer and his wife; a physician with his wife and their child; a writer (my father) and his wife, a physician (my mother); a bookkeeper and his family; and a car driver of an important official, the car driver's wife, their many children, and her mother.

Built for top Soviet officials was a huge apartment building, in which every family had an apartment of their own, a unique luxury. My aunt, her high-placed husband, their nine-year-old daughter (my cousin, two years younger than myself), and their housekeeper each had their own room, until one day my cousin's father was arrested and shot. What for? Stalin was destroying the Communist Party, since he was the Communist Party, the "Soviet Government," and all organizations which did what he ordered them to do. My cousin's father praised some Communist to another Communist, who got scared and "informed" on him.

The next morning, after her father's arrest, my cousin and an adult who accompanied her appeared in our room. "My father had been arrested," she told me. "But he is innocent, he has committed no crime."

Known all over the world is an independent periodical The Epoch Times, published outside China by the freedom-loving Chinese. Its Feb. 31, 2010, article was devoted to the Chinese economy, and it is amazing to what extent the picture coincides with what I had observed in Stalin's Russia. Amazing but not surprising. Stalin discovered that a modern army able to rout Hitler's German army could be created in Russia by robbing that same population stratum which the Soviet propaganda described as having been robbed by Hitler in Germany. Mao, who came to power in 1949, followed Stalin's recipe, except that with its population of 1.331 billion, the owners of China are expected to create, by Stalin's recipe, an army able to rout not only a German army, but the U.S. army as well, to be followed by routing whoever will still remain to resist their world power.

Mao was different. He was a son of a fairly rich peasant. From 1949 to 1975, he is believed to have killed close to 70 million people. Why not? On his photograph at the end of his stay in power, that is, his stay in life, his face is fat, his forehead small, and his smile without parting his lips expresses his general satisfaction with life.

Google supplies the references to Mao's ritual, according to which it was stated whether the death sentence meant death only or torture as well. Different kinds of torture had different names, and so the kind of torture could be specified: "sitting in a sedan chair," "airplane ride," "toad drinking water," and "monkey pulling reins."

Mao seemed to have failed to understand what was wrong in his murders with or without torture. His face in old age is as innocent as that of a docile domestic animal.

In the final period of his rule, when his glory was still unblemished, Stalin was preparing to enter a new, splendid phase of his life, as I learned from his close subordinate, who had a villa not far from ours, in the countryside. In his youth, Stalin was studying to become an Orthodox priest (Orthodox Christianity was practiced in his native Georgia as it was in Russian Russia). Now, Stalin was planning to be God, according to Stalin, in Orthodox Christianity, and his sculptured holy image was to be ensconced in the important Orthodox churches, to be then spread all over the country. "Of course!" said ironically our neighbor Alisa Poret, an artist and the widow of a writer, "Remember the song: 'Stalin is our glory in all battles, Stalin is our youth and our flight'? Obviously, such words do not express divinity or eternity, but this is what they called for."

To Stalin, all that occurred in Russia since 1917 had been Stalin, and to Mao, all that occurred in China since 1949 had been Mao. All that was needed was to stretch their greatness to eternity. But that did not happen. Stalin had died before he became God. Mao died without sanctification, because religion in China occupied a lesser emotional space than Christianity in Russia. Both Stalin and Mao went through "the criticism" after their infinite power (and life) were gone. Possibly, they will be remembered no more and no less than Ivan the Stern in Russia. Outside Russia, he is not Ivan the Stern but Ivan the Terrible, and terrible is terrible. Perhaps Stalin and Mao should be recalled everywhere not as the Terrible, but as the Horrible. Stalin the Horrible and Mao the Horrible, who dragged the history of the twentieth century to the prehistoric horror, into which the entire mankind may yet sink as to its eternal live grave, with or without total extinction.


Lev Navrozov can be reached by e-mail at navlev@cloud9.net. To learn more about and support his work at the Center for the Survival of Western Democracies, click here. If you intend to make a tax-exempt donation to the non-profit Center, please let us know via e-mail at navlev@cloud9.net, and we will send you all relevant information. Thank you.

Wednesday, March 3, 2010

不能实现自然法理-- 中国文人的悲哀 Against Natural Law


基督教vs. 佛教,伊斯兰教,道教等  
跨域各宗教之自然法理(自然法则)vs. 违反自然法理的法理(法则)  

牛顿定律,化学周期表,解剖学 vs. 马列学说,月亮中心学说,地平学说,

细胞学,自由,正义,个体精神等 vs. 同位素相补(吃哪补哪),人血馒头治病,

自然法则学说,三权分立思想 vs. 群体意识,等级制度,统一,大国梦
以保护个体自由为基点的宪法 vs. 专制制度,以保护皇权为基点的


不能实现自然法理-- 中国文人的悲哀 Against Natural Law


张汉废 2010年3月2日 星期二