Time: Fri Nov 15 21:14:27 1996 To: joyce@mlode.com From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: Re: [Fwd: 1of2) Tucker to Hillary - 1992 letter] Cc: Bcc: Joyce, I am working up At 07:37 PM 11/15/96 -0800, you wrote: >Paul....This article is in two parts. It is very interesting reading. I >hope you make time to read it as I did. Jackie Patru is a personal >friend of mine. She is extremely active in bringing this type of >information to the public. She is living with a guy who, in my opinion, >is one of the most informed people on the subject of the CFR, IMF, World >Bank, U.N., Regionalism, shadow government, etc., etc., etc. >I testified before the Penna. Senate Judicary on the issue of War Power >legislation and the growth of the militia in the State in July of 95. In >the process of researching Pa. state legislation under Roosevelt's >declared bankruptcy I think I may have found the legal mechanism which >enabled the states to turn over its delegated legislative authority to >the feds. Someone who I showed it to refered to it as "the smoking gun." >Interested in seeing it? I would like your input on the matter. > Joyce >Return-path: <104645.452@compuserve.com> > id NAA15222; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 13:20:01 -0500 >Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 13:16:24 -0500 >From: Jackie Patru <104645.452@compuserve.com> >Subject: 1of2) Tucker to Hillary - 1992 letter >Message-ID: <199611151319_MC1-C05-347D@compuserve.com> >Apparently-To: jadam2594@aol.com >Apparently-To: wab@well.com >Apparently-To: baker@universalweb.com >Apparently-To: beck_ch@leg.wa.gov >Apparently-To: DotHB@aol.com >Apparently-To: glenlb@southwind.net >Apparently-To: david.d.w.c.carpenter@txmta1.amd.com >Apparently-To: lancehamilton@sisna.com >Apparently-To: comminc@fortnet.org >Apparently-To: jdulaney@best.com >Apparently-To: BudLidMan@aol.com >Apparently-To: FireTheFed@email.corenet.net >Apparently-To: jimfloyd@cneti.com >Apparently-To: ADHDDOC@aol.com >Apparently-To: carolyn@tiac.net >Apparently-To: luhaynes@plix.com >Apparently-To: nssc@vulcan.inlink.com >Apparently-To: Ken_Jarvis@prodigy.com >Apparently-To: JJOHNSON72@aol.com >Apparently-To: eplurib@megalinx.net >Apparently-To: trinet@net-master.net >Apparently-To: radiotimk@aol.com >Apparently-To: AlphaFran@aol.com >Apparently-To: glewis@telis.org >Apparently-To: loeffler@comtch.iea.com >Apparently-To: m9776@erols.com >Apparently-To: helenm@interport.net >Apparently-To: mts@wavefront.com >Apparently-To: newland@juno.com >Apparently-To: powens19@mixcom.com >Apparently-To: pnet@uscom.com >Apparently-To: patriot@netaxs.com >Apparently-To: stellap@ix.netcom.com >Apparently-To: cjr@paloverde.com >Apparently-To: pawlrevere@aol.com >Apparently-To: mikeb@mlode.com >Apparently-To: Nicsmith1@aol.com >Apparently-To: rjtavel@iquest.net >Apparently-To: TonyWMFO@aol.com >Apparently-To: bigbend@juno.com >Apparently-To: jwhitley@inforamp.net >To: mikeb@mlode.com > >This will be a two-part message because I'm concerned it's >too text-intensive for one. It's 15 typed pages (12 pt.) >---------------------------------------------------------- >Following is a letter from Marc Tucker to Hillary Clinton >just after the election in 1992. Tucker tells us David >Rockefeller was "delighted" and "radiating happiness" . >This could be termed a "doomsday" letter for America because >it is a plan to put their "system" in place within the "first >four years" before Bill has to run again. In fact, Tucker >says it is the opportunity to institute the "entire American >system for human resources development, almost all of >the current components of which were put in place before >World War II." > >Those who have studied and fully understand the meaning in and >behind the words, terms and phraseology used by the so-called >"educators" will no doubt understand the implications in the >letter. For some of us the implications won't be as clear; >however, the facts that the components of this plan were "put >in place before WWII" and that David Rockefeller is apparently >the "engine driving this planned system" should be enough to >make us shudder with dread. How far have they come in these >four years? I would imagine their success varies from State >to State, however the mechanisms have been / are being put in >place on a country-wide scale. > >State legislators should beware because like it or not, your >children and grand children will be captured in what Tucker >calls their "seamless web". For any elected officials who >believe they will be safe if they "don't make waves", or for >those legislative "leaders" who believe they will be "taken >care of" after they've helped to destroy America and hand our >children [David Hornbeck prefers the term - HUMAN CAPITAL - >when referring to our children ] over to these people - GUESS >AGAIN. Your investments, your savings stashed away, your >property, all the STUFF you've accumulated or hope to >accumulate will be lost or worthless. If you have off-shore >accounts, just try to get them back into the country when the >"system" is in place. If you have property, remember that >there will be no private-ownership of property when the >"system" is in place. If you allow your plans for climbing >further up the political ladder to prevent you from taking a >firm, solid, unwavering stand against all that is unholy... >you will never rest in peace and when America is lost you will >realize you lost your soul along the way. > >You have a critical and grave decision to make NOW. Will you >continue voting for bills based on a "legal summary" which >leaves out the most pertinent information, or based only on >the lies told you by your legislative "leaders" who you know >in your heart have sold out? Will you continue to vote for >bills based on promises and gifts from lobbyists - or will you >NOW make the determination to "never again vote for a bill >without having read and FULLY UNDERSTAND it" ? Will you NOW >begin lobbying against bills that you know will further the >plans of the world policymakers like Rocky and friends? > >The choice shouldn't be difficult if you have the strength of >character, integrity and honesty necessary to serve as your >foundation and if you rely on God to be your Leader and Judge. > >May He bless us, everyone, and may He guide our efforts to >keep America[n's] free. > >In love and pursuit of Liberty >Jackie Patru >Council on Domestic Relations >Pennsylvania Kitchen Militia > >Note: The letter came from Congressman Henry Hyde's office. >The original is 18 pages and very difficult to read in some >places. I've transcribed it exactly and to the best of my >ability as some of the words were nearly unreadable. If you >want a copy of the original you may send a business sized, >self-addressed, stamped (2 stamps) envelope and 3 Federal >Reserve Notes (to help defray my cost and time) to: CDR, P.O. >Box 190, Millerton, Pennsylvania [16936]. > >To: My friends on the fax network... I'm sending only the >first page with this cover to give you an idea of the letter's >contents. I cannot afford to fax 18 pages, nor would you be >able to read it as it has lost legibility through several >faxings before it made its way to me. > >-------------------------------------------------------- >-------------------------------------------------- > > >11 November 1992 > >Hillary Clinton >The Governors Mansion >1800 Canter Street >Little Rock, Ark 72206 > >Dear Hillary: > >I still cannot believe you won. But utter delight that you >did pervades all the circles in which I move. I met last >Wednesday in David Rockefeller's office with him, John >Sculley, Dave Barram and David Haselkorn. It was a great >celebration. Both John and David R[ockefeller] were more >expansive than I have ever seen them -- literally radiating >happiness. My own view and theirs is that this country has >seized its last chance. I am fond of quoting Winston >Churchill to the effect that "America always does the right >thing -- after it has exhausted all the alternatives." This >election, more than anything else in my experience, proves >his point > >The subject we were discussing was what you and Bill should do >now about education, training and labor market policy. >Following that meeting, I chaired another in Washington on the >same topic. Those present at the second meeting included Tim >Barnicie(?) Dave Barram, Mike Kohen, David Hornbeck, Hilary >Pennington, Aney(?) Planner, Lauren Resnick, Betsy Brown >Ruzzi, Bob Schwartz, Mike Smith and Bill Spring. Shirley >Malcolm, Ray Marshall(?) and Susan McGuire were also invited. >Though these three were not able to be present at last week's >meeting, they have all contributed by telephone to the ideas >that follow. Ira Magaziner was also invited to this meeting. > >Our purpose in these meetings was to propose concrete actions >that the Clinton administration could take -- between now >and the inauguration, in the first 100 days and beyond. The >result, from where I sit, was really exciting. We took a very >large leap forward in terms of how to advance the agenda on >which you and we have all been working -- a practical plan for >putting all the major components of the system in place within >four years, by the time Bill has to run again. > >I take personal responsibility for what follows. Though I >believe every one involved in the planning effort is in broad >agreement, they may not all agree on the details. You should >also be aware that, although the plan comes from a group >closely associated with the National Center on Education and >the Economy, there was no practical way to poll our whole >Board on this plan in the time available. It represents, >then, not a proposal from our Center, but the best thinking of >the group I have named. > >We think the great opportunity you have is to ____(?) the >entire American system for human resources development, almost >all of the current components of which were put in place >before World War II. [At the side column is hand written the >date 1942] The danger is that each of the ideas that Bill >advanced in the campaign in the area of education and training >could be translated individually in the ordinary course of >governing into a legislative proposal and enacted as a >program. This is the path of least resistance. But it will >lead to these programs being grafted onto the present system, >not to a new system, and the opportunity will have been lost. >If this sense of time and place is correct it is essential >that the administrations' efforts be guided by a consistent >vision of what it wants to accomplish in the field of human >resource [our children] development with respect both to >choice of key officials and the program. > >What follows comes in three pieces: > >First, a vision of the kind of national -- not federal -- >human resources development system the nation could have. >This is interwoven with a new approach to governing that >should inform that vision. What is essential is that we >create a seamless web of opportunities, to develop one's >skills that literally extends from cradle to grave and is the >same system for everyone -- young and old, poor and rich, >worker and full-time student. It needs to be a system driven >by client needs (not agency regulations or the needs of the >organizations providing the services), guided by clear >standards that define the stages of the system for the people >who progress through it, and regulated on the basis of >outcomes that providers produce for their clients, not inputs >into the system. >Second, a proposed legislative agenda you can use to implement >this vision. We propose four high priority packages that will >enable you to move quickly on the campaign promises: > >1. The first would use your proposals for an apprenticeship >system as the keystone of a strategy for putting a whole new >postsecondary training system in place. That system would >incorporate your proposal for reforming postsecondary >education finance. It contains what we think is a powerful >idea for rolling out and scaling up the whole new human >resources system nation wide over the next four years, using >the (renamed) apprenticeship idea as the entering wedge. > >2. The second would combine initiatives on dislocated >workers, a rebuilt employment-service and a new system of >labor market boards to offer the Clinton administration's >employment security program, built on the best practices >anywhere in the world. This is the backbone of a system for >assuring adult workers in our society that they need never >again watch with dismay as their jobs disappear and their >chances of ever getting a good job again go with them. > >3. The third, would concentrate on the overwhelming problems >of our inner cities, combining elements of the first and >second packages into a special program to greatly raise the >work-related skills of the people trapped in the core of our >great cities. > >4. The fourth, would enable you to take advantage of >legislation on which Congress has already been working to >advance the elementary and secondary reform agenda. > >The other major proposal we offer has to go with government >organization for the human resources agenda. While we share >your reservations about the hazards involved in bringing the >reorganization proposals to the Congress, we believe that the >one we have come up with minimizes those draw backs while >creating an opportunity for the new administration to move >like lightning to implement its human resources development >proposals. We hope you can consider the merits of this idea >quickly because if you decide to go with it or something like >it, it will greatly affect the nature of the orders you make >to prospective cabinet members. > >THE VISION > >We take the proposals Bill put before the country in the >campaign to be utterly consistent with the ideas advanced in >Americas Choice, the school restructuring agenda first stated >in A Nation Prepared, and later incorporated in the work of >the National Alliance for Restructuring Education, and the >elaboration of this view that Ray and I tried to capture in >our book, Thinking for a Living. Taken together, we think >these ideas constitute a consistent vision for a new human >resources development system for the United States. I have >tried to capture the essence of that vision below. > >AN ECONOMIC STRATEGY BASED ON SKILL DEVELOPMENT > > >* The economy's strength is derived from a whole population >as skilled as any in the world, working in workplaces >organized to take maximum advantage of the skills those people >have to offer. > >* A seamless system of unending skill development that begins >in the home with the very young and continues through school, >postsecondary education and the workplace. > >THE SCHOOLS > >Clear national standards of performance in general education >(the knowledge and skills that everyone is expected to hold in >common) are set to the level of the best achieving nations in >the world for students of 16 and public schools are expected >to bring all but the most severely handicapped up to that >standard. Students get a certificate when they meet the >standard allowing them to go on to the next stage of their >education. Though the standards are set to international >benchmarks, they are distinctly American reflecting our needs >and values. > >We have a national system of education in which curriculum, >pedagogy, examinations and teacher education and licensure >systems are all linked to the national standards, but which >provides for substantial variance among states, districts and >schools on these matters. This new system of linked >standards, curriculum and pedagogy will abandon the American >tracking system, combining high academic standards with the >ability to apply what one knows to real world problems and >qualify all students [three crossed out words-could not read] >learning in the postsecondary system and at work > >We have a system that rewards students who meet the national >standards with further education and good jobs providing them >a strong incentive to work hard in school. > >Our public school systems our reorganized to free up school >professionals to make the key decisions about how to use all >the available resources to bring students up to the standards. >Most of the federal, state, district and union rules and >regulations that now restrict school professionals' ability to >make these decisions are swept away, though strong measures >are in place to make sure that vulnerable populations get the >help they need. School professionals are paid at a level >comparable to that of other professionals, but they are >expected to put in a full year, to spend whatever time it >takes to do the job and to be fully accountable for the >results of their work. The federal, state and local >governments provide the time, staff development resources, >technology and other support needed for them to do the job. >Nothing less than a wholly restructured school system can >possibly bring all of our students up to the standards only a >few have been expected to meet up to now. > >There is a real -- aggressive -- program of public choice in >our schools, rather than the flaccid version that is >widespread now. > >All students are guaranteed that they will have a fair shot at >reaching the standards: that is, that whether they make it >or not depends on the effort they are willing to make, and >nothing else. School delivery standards are in place to make >sure this happens. These standards have the same status in >the system as the new student performance standards, assuring >that the quality of instruction is high every where, but they >are fashioned so as not to constitute a new bureaucratic >nightmare. > >POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION AND WORK SKILLS > >All students who meet the new national standards for general >education are entitled to the equivalent of three more years >of free additional education. [Does that mean at age 16 a >child's school days are over if they haven't "met the >standards"?] We would have the federal and state governments >match funds to guarantee one free year of college education to >everyone who meets the new national standards for general >education. So a student who meets the standard at sixteen >would be entitled to two free years of high-school and one of >college. Loans, which can be forgiven for public service, are >available for additional education beyond that. National >standards for sub-baccalaureate college-level professional and >technical degrees and certificates will be established with >the participation of employers, labor and higher education. >These programs will include both academic study and structured >on-the-job training. Eighty percent or more of American high >school graduates will be expected to get some form of college >degree, though most of them less than a baccalaureate. These >new professional and technical certificates and degrees >typically are won within three years of acquiring the general >education certificate. So, for most postsecondary students, >college will be free. These professional and technical degree >programs will be designed to link to programs leading to the >baccalaureate degree and higher degrees. There will be no >dead ends in this system. Everyone who meets the general >education standard will be able to go to some form of college, >being able to borrow all the money they need to do so, beyond >the first free year. > >This idea of post-secondary professional and technical >certificates captures all of the essentials of the >apprenticeship idea, while offering none of its drawbacks (see >below). > >But it also makes it clear that those engaged in apprentice- >style programs are getting more than narrow training: they >are continuing their education for other purposes as well, and >building a base for more education later. Clearly, this idea >redefines college. Proprietary schools, employers and >community-based organizations will want to offer these >programs, as well as community colleges and four-year >institutions, but these new entrants will have to be >accredited if they are to qualify to offer the programs. >[CONTROL] > >Employers are not required to provide slots for the structured >on-the-job training components of the program but many do so, >because they get first access to the most accomplished >graduates of these programs, and they can use these programs >to introduce the trainees to their own values and way of doing >things. > >The system of skill standards for technical and professional >degrees is the same for students just coming out of high- >school and for adults in the workforce. It is progressive >[Communist], in the sense that certificates and degrees for >entry level jobs lead to further professional and technical >education programs at higher levels. [Where?] Just as in the >case of the system for the schools, though, the standards are >the same everywhere (leading to maximum mobility for >students), the curricula can vary widely and programs can be >custom designed to fit the needs of full-time and part-time >students with very different requirements. Government grant >and loan programs are available on the same terms to full-time >and part-time students, as long as the programs in which they >are enrolled are designed to lead to certificates and degrees >defined by the system of professional and technical standards >[more government control]. > >The national system of professional and technical standards is >designed much like the multi-state bar, which provides a >national core around which the states can specify additional >standards that meet their unique needs. There are national >standards and exams for no more than twenty broad occupational >areas, each of which can lead to many occupations in a number >of related industries. Students who qualify in any one of >these areas have the broad skills required by a whole family >of occupations and most are sufficiently skilled to enter the >workforce immediately, with further occupation specific skills >provided by their union or employer. Industry and >occupational groups can voluntarily create standards building >on these broad standards for their own needs as can the >states. Students entering the system are first introduced to >very broad occupational groups, narrowing over time to >concentrate on acquiring the skills needed for a cluster of >occupations. > >This modular system provides for the initiative of particular >states and industries while at the same time providing for >mobility across states and occupations by reducing the time >and cost entailed in moving from one occupation to the other. >In this way, a balance is established between the kinds of >organic skills needed to function effectively in high- >performance work organizations and the skills needed to >continue learning quickly and well through a lifetime of work, >on the one hand, and the specific skills needed to perform at >a high level in a particular occupation on the other. > > Institutions receiving grant and loan funds under this system >are required to provide information to the public and to >government agencies in a uniform format. This information >covers enrollment by program, costs and success rates for >students of different backgrounds and characteristics, and >career outcome for those students, thereby enabling students >to make informed choices among institutions based on cost and >performance. Loan defaults are reduced to a level close to >zero, both because programs that do not deliver what they >promise are not selected by prospective students and because >the new postsecondary loan system uses the IRS to collect what >is owed from salaries and wages as they are earned. [DATA >TRANSMISSION!] > >EDUCATION AND TRAINING FOR EMPLOYED AND UNEMPLOYED >ADULTS > >The national system of skill standards establishes the basis >for the development of a coherent, unified training system. >That system can be accessed by students coming out of high >school, employed adults who want to improve their prospects, >unemployed adults who are dislocated and others who lack the >basic skills required to get out of poverty. But it is all >the same system. There are no longer any parts of it that are >exclusively for the disadvantaged, though special measures are >taken to make sure that the disadvantaged are served. It is a >system for everyone, just as all the parts of the system >already described are for everyone. So the people who take >advantage of this system are not marked by it as "damaged >goods". The skills they acquire are world class, clear and >defined in part by the employers who will make the decisions >about hiring and advancement. > >The new general education standard becomes the target for all >basic education programs, both for school dropouts and adults. >Achieving that standard is the prerequisite for enrollment in >all professional and technical degree programs. A wide range >of agencies and institutions offer programs leading to the >general education certificate, including high schools, dropout >recovery centers, adult education centers, community colleges, >prisons and employers. These programs are tailored to the >needs of the people who enroll in them. All the programs >receiving government grant or loan funds that come with >dropouts and adults for enrollment in programs, preparing >students to meet the general education standard must release >the same kind of data required of the postsecondary >institutions on enrollment, program description, cost and >success rates. Reports are produced for each institution and >for the system as a whole showing differential success rates >for each major demographic group. > >The system is funded in four different ways, all providing >access to the same or similar set of services. School >dropouts below the age of 21 are entitled to the same amount >of funding from the same sources that they would have been >entitled to had they stayed in school. Dislocated workers are >funded by the federal government through the federal programs >for that purpose and by state employment insurance funds. The >chronically unemployed are funded by federal and state funds >established for that purpose. Employed people can access the >system through the requirement that their employer spend an >amount equal to 1.1/2 % of their salary and wage bill on >training leading to national skill certificates. People in >prison could get reductions in their sentences by meeting the >general education standard in a program provided by the prison >system. Any of these groups can also use the funds in their >individual training account, if they have any, the balances >in their grant entitlement or their access to the student loan >fund. > >LABOR MARKET SYSTEMS > >The employment service is greatly ungraded and separated from >the unemployment insurance fund. All available front-line >jobs -- whether public or private -- must be listed in it by >law. (This provision must be carefully designed to make sure >that employers will not be subject to employment suits based >on the data produced by the system -- if they are subject to >such suits, they will not participate.) All trainees in the >system looking for work are entitled to be listed in it >without a fee. So it is no longer a system just for the poor >and unskilled, but for everyone. The system is fully >computerized It lists not only job openings and job seekers >(with their qualifications), but also all the institutions in >the labor market are offering programs leading to the general >education certificate and those offering programs leading to >the professional and technical college degrees and >certificates, along with all the relevant data about the cost, >characteristics and performance of those programs -- for >everyone and for special populations. Counselors are >available to any citizen to help them asses their needs, plan >a program and finance it, and, once they are trained, to find >an opening. [womb to tomb]. > >A system of labor market boards is established at the local, >state and federal levels to coordinate the systems for job >training, post secondary professional and technical education, >adult basic education, job matching and counselling. The >rebuilt Employment Service, is supervised by these boards. >The system's clients no longer have to go from agency to >agency filling out separate applications for separate >programs. It is all taken care of at the local labor market >board office by one counselor assessing the integrated >computer-based program which makes it possible for the >counsellor to determine eligibility for all relevant programs >at once, plan a program with the client and assemble the >necessary funding from all the available sources. The same >system will enable counselor and client to array all the >relevant program providers side by side, assess their relative >costs and performance records and determine which providers >are best able to meet the client's needs based on performance. > >SOME COMMON FEATURES > >Throughout, the object is to have a performance -- and >client-oriented system, to encourage local creativity and >responsibility by getting local people to commit to high goals >and organize to achieve them, sweeping away as much of the >rules, regulations and bureaucracy that are in their way as >possible, provided that they are making real progress against >their goals. For this to work, the standards at every level >of the system have to be clear; every client has to know what >they have to accomplish in order to get what they want out of >the system. The service providers have to be supported in the >task of getting their clients to the finish line and rewarded >when they are making real progress toward that goal. We would >sweep away means-tested programs because they stigmatize their >recipients and alienate the public, replacing them with >programs that are for everyone, but also work for the >disadvantaged. We would replace rules defining inputs with >rules defining outcomes and the rewards for achieving them. >This means, among other things, permitting local people to >combine as many federal programs as they see fit, provided >that the intended beneficiaries are progressing toward the >right outcomes (there are now twenty-three separate federal >programs for dislocated workers). We would make individuals, >their families and whole communities the unit of service, not >agencies, programs and projects. Wherever possible we would >have service programs compete with one another for funds that >come with the client, in an environment in which the client >has good information about the cost and performance record of >the competing providers. Dealing with public agencies -- >whether they are schools or the employment service -- should >be more like dealing with Federal Express than with the old >Post Office. > >This vision, as I pointed out above, is consistent with >everything Bill proposed as a candidate. But it goes beyond >those proposals, extending them from ideas for new programs to >a comprehensive vision of how they can be used as building >blocks for a whole new system. But this vision is very >complex, will take a long time to sell, and will have to be >revised many times along the way. The right way to think >about it is as an internal working document that forms the >background for a plan, not the plan itself. One would want to >make sure that the specific actions of the new administration >were designed in a general way, to advance this agenda as it >evolves while not committing anyone to the details which would >change over time. > >Everything that follow is cast in the frame of strategies for >bringing the new system into being, not as a pilot program, >not as a few demonstrations to be swept aside in another >administration, but everywhere, as a new way of doing >business. > >In the section that follows, we break these goals down into >their main components and propose an action plan for each. > >MAJOR COMPONENTS OF THE PROGRAM > >The preceding section presented a vision of the system we have >in mind, chronologically from the point of view of an >individual served by it. Here we reverse the order, starting >with descriptions of program components designed to serve >adults and working our way down to the very young. > >
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail