Using Children to Lobby for D.C. Statehood
In November, D.C. shadow Senator Michael D. Brown traveled to the annual National Council for the Social Studies conference in Atlanta to recruit social studies teachers of nonvoting-age students to help him in his effort to obtain statehood for the District of Columbia. Presenting his mission as ending “taxation without representation,” he and D.C. statehood activist Anise Jenkins urged teachers attending his workshop to use students as political tools. Very receptive teachers, who were earning continuing education or graduate credit by attending his workshop, “Fulfilling Democracy for All Americans,” took Senator Brown’s one-sided lessons back to the classroom. Several teachers asked for copies of the presentation, Brown told me recently. He has offered to march with a Missouri middle school teacher and her students to the state capitol on behalf of D.C. statehood.
With a heavily Democratic district (92% voting for Barack Obama), D.C. statehood has been a cause taken up by Democrats and Greens. A superdelegate who endorsed Obama, according to Barack Obama’s Organizing for America website, Senator Brown also participated in the Green Party forum for D.C. statehood. In fact, I received a “special invitation” postcard in the mail for this workshop, with a quotation from President Obama: “Senator Brown has always been a strong advocate for the rights of D.C. residents.” With the election of another senator — Scott Brown — the issue of ensuring Democrat power is sure to gather urgency. As Democrats lose voters, they seek to gain them by changing the rules — among them granting congressional voting representation for the citizens living in the nation’s capitol.
Senator Michael Brown calls D.C. statehood the “oldest civil rights struggle” and that is how it is presented to schoolchildren. At the workshop, self-described “activist” Anise Jenkins told teachers that her “entrance in the movement came out of anger” and she recommended they visit her blog Free DC, which has some (non-working) links for “teach-ins.” “We’re talking about power,” she told them. Senator Brown’s wife, an employee of the D.C. public school system, showed movies, one with Young Suffragists (as young as eight) at the White House, brought there by Senator Brown. One child explained (absurdly), “We pay taxes but don’t have a senator.” “These kids get these issues,” explained Brown, noting that on Valentine’s Day students sent “Be mine” messages to all senators.
During the recent interview, Brown reiterated the similarity to the civil rights movement, but did not note that back then most of the students were of college age. Because he hopes to achieve statehood through a vote in Congress, he says he is using the schools to reach communities. It is “critical,” he said, to get those too young to vote, but who have “well-defined hypocrisy meters” about fairness, involved to expose what most people, according to polls, don’t know: that D.C. does not have voting representatives in Congress. Students are “fertile ground” in what is a “long-term struggle,” according to Brown. Middle school children can get the “point across” to adults and 15- to 17-year-olds will remember their lessons as they enter voting age. Although they cannot vote, Brown explained, children are the first to be affected by budget cuts, as cuts are applied first to education. This is one way he justifies the use of children in the democratic “participatory process.”
But are eight-year-olds knowledgeable enough and mature enough to make their own decisions about participating in political efforts? What I found at the NCSS workshops, including Senator Brown’s, was a blatant disregard for historical facts and open technique-sharing on how to emotionally manipulate children. The recent revelations about recruitment efforts by Barack Obama’s Organizing for America in public high schools form a tip of the iceberg of political indoctrination and emotional manipulation in our schools, which I reveal in my 60-page report on the NCSS conference, attended by over 3,200 mostly public school teachers from across the country at taxpayer expense.
As at the other conference workshops, the biased leftist version was the only one presented. The opposing view — the concern by the Founding Fathers of a conflict of interest and the danger of power vested to a state that holds the advantage of being the seat of government power — was not addressed. Nor did any of the teachers seem bothered by the omission. Instead, they dutifully noted the websites Brown suggested, like www.TeachDemocracy.net, which links to DC Vote, which itself lists a number of “national partners,” like Friends of the Earth, Hip Hop Caucus, and People for the American Way. The teacher talking points handout, too, states, “The overwhelmingly white Congress has traditionally been hesitant to grant the District’s African-American majority a vote in the House and the Senate” (emphasis added). But this example was one of the oft-repeated lessons on race that provided the focus of the workshops.
Senator Brown, who is not paid a salary, said his and his wife’s travel expenses, as well as those of Jenkins, were paid for by a fund of voluntary contributions by D.C. taxpayers.
The left has a history of using children to advance its political agenda, going back to the SDS parents involved in the Tinker v. Des Moines case. They won the right of their children (ages eight to 15) to wear black armbands in school to protest the Vietnam War. The Supreme Court then famously declared that students and teachers do not “shed their constitutional rights to free expression at the schoolhouse gate.”
The Tinker case opened the way for parents to use children to advance their political views. Now, teachers and senators feel no compunction about using class time to advance a political agenda. The only ones not free are the children ill-equipped with knowledge and too young to discern and resist emotional manipulation from adults.
For my full report at America’s Survival, “Indoctrination without Apology: Social Studies Teachers Share Strategies on How to Mold Students,” go here.






The part of DC that came from Virginia reverted to VA. The part of DC that MD contributed should revert to MD.
Boom! All right and privileges that inhere to state citizenship are then available to DC residents.
The only problem with this idea is that it doesn’t give the Dems an additional set of Reps and Senators.
‘Course I think that’s a feature.
good reporting Mary.
there are threats all round today. It is increasing and a bit like the Tet offensive when the communists thought they had the strength to beat the south.
I followed several of your links and see that Marc Lamont Hill has returned to Fox News as a guest of the socialist light Bill O’Rielly. (Bill is hard to describe …a conservative with socialist tendencies, he is more like the flaming socialist Geraldo Rivera).
There is the other threat that may be worse …Islam.
http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/1261/Should-Fox-News-Register-as-a-Saudi-Agent.aspx
the link is worth looking at. I sent Fox emails but haven’t received any reply. Diane West raises a question about the fair and balanced news corp.
regards
Ms Grabar:
“Students are “fertile ground” in what is a “long-term struggle,” according to Brown. Middle school children can get the “point across” to adults and 15- to 17-year-olds will remember their lessons as they enter voting age.”
Well, they’re correct there, since only children are naiive enough to fall for the moonbat group-think,(at least for a short while, one hopes).
Don’t forget the Constitution’s part about the “several states.” It can’t be done.
Not a chance in hell DC would be admitted as a state. DC should be a part of Maryland (or preferably sold off to some third world country if they agree to keep all members of congress and their staffs).
that would make it the 58th state by Obama’s count
We could declare it a National Park and forbid further residency there.
1. Tom Perkins:
The part of DC that came from Virginia reverted to VA. The part of DC that MD contributed should revert to MD.
————————————————————
But the Maryland part isn’t wanted back by Maryland. The last thing we need in this state is a population of failed social engineering full of drug addicts and criminals.
The NCSS conference had some 3,200 attendees, mostly public school teachers on the taxpayer’s dime? Hmph.. I wonder why people hold such contempt for our floundering public education system and its handlers..!
If it weren’t for the wonderful Smithsonian and other museums, monuments, D.C. would be considered a modern Alcatraz Island..
So, okay. DC gets to be a state. But we get to divide Alaska into 8 states and Texas into 2. That should hopefully give us 20 Republican senators and a whole lot of congresscritters. Fair trade.
The problem with DC statehood has always been the same: it’s not a state. It lacks many of the things states have (countryside, agriculture, etc., is a big one). The District is actually a city, and cities aren’t represented in Congress except through their states. The idea that it would be otherwise is just silly.
When this was proposed the last time, I took to asking people why Long Beach, California, wasn’t a state, if Washington, D.C. was to become one. Long Beach is about the same size (a bit larger, I think) and it could use representation in the Senate. After all, our two Senators are from Northern California (Feinstein, San Francisco; Boxer, Marin County on the other side of the Golden Gate). Come to think of it, Speaker Pelosi lives up there too.
The absurdity of this is quickly apparent to all but the most narrow-minded. The Democrats aren’t really interested in getting representation for these people, they’re mesmerized by the idea of having two more Senators. The addition in the House would be nominal, and since the House’s size is limited to 435, it would probably just mean that one of the larger states (probably California) would lose one or two Congressman. Since California is largely Democratic itself, this probably wouldn’t mean much to their party, but the two extra Senators would be very important.
This is a naked power grab, and it always has been. I’ve always said I would be willing to accept D.C. Statehood, if in return we as Republicans got the original intention of the founders in denying those in the District voting rights. The whole point is that 200+ years ago, the founders didn’t want people voting for the Congressman or Senator who employed them, personally, to work somewhere in the Federal Government.
The result should be that anyone in Civil Service loses their franchise while they’re there. Soldiers are traditionally patriotic and nonpartisan anyway; everyone else in Civil Service would be restrained from voting, and also their unions wouldn’t be allowed to contribute money, directly or indirectly, to political campaigns. I’d be in favor of similar laws at the State level; frankly, in California they’d be much more effective and important. Thing is, no liberal would ever agree to their major source of funding and activism being cut off, regardless of what they gained in the process. Without funding from public employee unions, they’d probably have a couple of dozen Senate seats anyway, no more.
Artice IV Section 3
“New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.”
I think someone better consult with Maryland first.
The issue is that 40,000 veterans live in the District of Columbia. More veterans per capita than California, New York or New Jersey. Their service to their country is devalued because they have no say in the government they put their lives on the line to defend. This is a national disgrace. More than 200,000 brave Americans have served from DC 2,000 have died in the service of our coutry. 45 Congressional Medal of Honor winners have come from DC. This violates every principal on which this great country was founded. YOU CAN’T TAX PEOPLE MAKE THEM SERVE IN WARTIME AND NOT GIVE THEM A SAY IN THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT even if they are Democrats.
I fully support legislation to remove all persons currently residing with the boundaries of the District of Columbia. Washington D.C. was specifically created to be the “home/seat” of the federal government – and be an area distinct and separate from “the states”.
From Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution: Congressional Powers
“To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;—And”
As stated above – the US Congress has “exclusive” power over the “district”.
IMHO – no one should ever be allowed to live there. Other than the President or congressional employee – and they definitely don’t get any rights as a state. Actually I can’t believe they even get a mayor – they shouldn’t.
completely agree with you Redbear.
Redbear is right and that’s exactly what statehood would do. It would shrink the Capital to include all Federal Buildings the Monuments, the White House and the Capitol Building(as you note there is no minimum size for the capital in the Constitution)The new state would include only the areas in which the 600,000 loyal tax paying, military serving residents of DC live. Congress would remain in complete control of the Capital and the people of DC would be represented in both houses of Congress the way Thomas Jefferson promised.
Is there something wrong with using kids to promote your political agenda?
@ CJ, #12 & Phranc, #8
“but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State;”
Note it does not prohibit adding to the territory of a State. We aren’t talking about a new state formed or erected within the jurisdiction of a State. It would be the same old Maryland, only as large as it used to be.
Patriot may be a patriot, but he (she?) doesn’t think clearly. Patriot, that land belonged to Maryland. Sooooo, if it reverts to Maryland than additional statehood is not required. Isn’t that what you want? Or, as I suspect, is the whole idea one of adding to the Democrats in congress?
JJ Sefton, your reasoning gets you an F in civics. Texas and Alaska already have two Senators each (that makes four) if Texas became two states and Alaska became 8 that would total 10 states, but you only get 16 additional senators and no additional “congresscritters” as the total number is limited to 435 members.
Supreme Allied Commander… well, given your thoughts on Fox News what can I say except that there is medication that can help.
skeeziks… so, the Hitler Youth and the Young Pioneers were a good idea? How about using kids to promote a social agenda of reporting parents for “unpatriotic thoughts?”
Is there something wrong with using kids to promote your political agenda?
If you have to ask that question you have demonstrated that you are incapable of understanding the answer.
But perhaps, just perhaps, you are not totally incapable of reason. So I will give you an extreme example to try to illustrate the point. Strap a radio controlled bomb on little Jenny, and tell her to go and hug Mr. Politician. When she does, hit the button and blow them both to hell.
All the lesser alternatives are just pale reflections of the same lack of morality. Pretending otherwise doesn’t make it so.
Children aren’t tools. Anyone who thinks they are or uses them as such is beneath contempt.
GM Roper You’re half right. Retrocession (that’s what it’s called by the way) to Maryland is a perfectly acceptable option. Unfortunately it would totaly change the political dynamics of the state. DC would become the second biggest city in Maryland only a little smaller than Baltimore. The Republicans of Maryland don’t want the largly Democratic District. The rural areas don’t want a new large urban center. 210 years have passed since DC was part of Maryland. This would be like trying to give West Virginia back to Virgina or trying to reunite North and South Carolina. It’s an acceptable solution but “clearly” not politicaly feisable. And by the way if it did happen you would add new Democarts because you would add a Democratic voting block so large no Republican could hope to win state wide elected office.
One more thing you mention the Hitler Youth but forget the Boy Scouts, 4-H, ROTC, Junior Achievement and many religious groups who have always pushed a political and social agenda involving children.
Eleanor Norton, who has been a non-votinh representative from the district should be put out to pasture. The city of Washington can bearly handle dealings without statehood. It would soon overtake Chicago and other cxesspools as the most corrupt city in the US.
I was all set to agree with the people who say DC shouldn’t be a state. I assumed DC had a population and GDP far smaller than any state and that the very idea of comparing it to a small state would be ridiculous. What I found was that DC’s population would make it the 2nd smallest state, after Wyoming. It’s gross product for 2008 was 93.8 billion dollars, more than the 15 smallest states. Although 28% of the jobs are federal government, even 72% of 93 billion dollars is still 67 billion which would bring it down to 32nd in the rankings if it were a state. Lack of agriculture and natural resources seems like a poor reason for discriminating.
If Wyoming, with it’s 544,000 people and 31 billion dollar gross product, is entitled to 2 senators and a representative, then is there a good reason besides partisan politics for denying these things to the people of DC? I’m willing to accept that the population should be reabsorbed by Maryland and Virginia.
#19 GM Roper:
“if Texas became two states and Alaska became 8 that would total 10 states, but you only get 16 additional senators and no additional “congresscritters” as the total number is limited to 435 members.”
A bit OT, but under the resolution annexing the Republic of Texas to the United States, Texas, on it’s own say-so, can create as many as four additional states from its own territory.
One of those fascinating bits of historical trivia that gets stowd away, and is occasionally useful.
19. GM Roper:
“skeeziks… so, the Hitler Youth and the Young Pioneers were a good idea”
You’ll have to ask the Pope that one, or maybe the Tea Baggers who put signs in their kids’ hands.
Partisan politics is the only kind there is, “partisanship” and the differences in policy which underlay the parties are very good reasons not to expand the power of the Democrat party by 2 Sen. and a Rep. I have heard some complain the small states have disproportionate power because their small populations do not merit of themselves even one seat in the House, and of course no state–no matter how large–has more Senators than another. If that is an injustice at all, you would have to explain how it is not retrograde–or sideways at best–to grant DC statehood.
It is an injustice that the citizens of DC have no state government, it will be an increased injustice of another sort if they have their own state.
DC should be grafted back onto Maryland.
To go by who MD has sent to the Senate recently, it won’t hurt the D/R balance anyway. If there is a citi/country imbalance in MD,and that hurts the Republicans, then they should address it.
There are MANY ways to accomplish that, but ALL must pass muster with the residents of the fifty states, and NONE depend in any way on the opinions of we DC residents. (If that isn’t close to slavery, I don’t know what IS).
But here’s a suggestion anyway.
Since expatriate Americans are allowed to vote in the State of their last residence, why not create a similar allowance for (expatriate) DC residents? Allow them to “affiliate” with one of the states and vote there. After all, it does say “people “of” the several states”, not people “residing in” the several states. This would alleviate the partisan problems of making DC a state, or retroceding it to Maryland. I could have moved from my home state to anywhere else in the WORLD (except Washington, DC) and continued voting for the last thirty-five years. And the people of DC are clearly “of” the several states, as opposed to being the people “of” the Asian steppes, or “of” the African savannah, or “of” the Argentinian pampas, or “of” the (Ant-)Arctic tundra.
Look up the definition of the word “of”.
And if you want to alleviate or mitigate an even wider disparity, allow them to affiliate only with the –smaller– states; Wyoming has two Senators for only about half a million people, whereas California has only two Senators for well over 25 million, a greater than fifty-to-one disparity.
That solution, along with a more restrictive limit on the local power of the Congress over DC (for example, make them pass exclusive legislation over DC “in all cases whatsoever” by a super-majority of both houses, if it is for such a compelling national interest!), would resolve most if not all of the objections to the present situation.
Power corrupts, and Absolute Power, “in all cases whatsoever”, corrupts absolutely. Government without Consent is Tyranny.
There are MANY ways to accomplish that, but ALL must pass muster with the residents of the fifty states, and NONE depend in any way on the opinions of we DC residents. (If that isn’t close to slavery, I don’t know what IS).
But here’s a suggestion anyway.
Since expatriate Americans are allowed to vote in the State of their last residence, why not create a similar allowance for (expatriate) DC residents? Allow them to “affiliate” with one of the states and vote there. After all, it does say “people “of” the several states”, not people “residing in” the several states. This would alleviate the partisan problems of making DC a state, or retroceding it to Maryland. I could have moved from my home state to anywhere else in the WORLD (except Washington, DC) and continued voting for the last thirty-five years. And the people of DC are clearly “of” the several states, as opposed to being the people “of” the Asian steppes, or “of” the African savannah, or “of” the Argentinian pampas, or “of” the (Ant-)Arctic tundra.
Look up the definition of the word “of”.
And if you want to alleviate or mitigate an even wider disparity, allow them to affiliate only with the –smaller– states; Wyoming has two Senators for only about half a million people, whereas California has only two Senators for well over 25 million, a greater than fifty-to-one disparity.
That solution, along with a more restrictive limit on the local power of the Congress over DC (for example, make them pass exclusive legislation over DC “in all cases whatsoever” by a super-majority of both houses, if it is for such a compelling national interest!), would resolve most if not all of the objections to the present situation.
Power corrupts, and Absolute Power, “in all cases whatsoever”, corrupts absolutely. Government without Consent is Tyranny.
Quite possibly, D.C. will become a satellite territory of Venesuela. Please check the notes on the teachers hands; the ‘slight’ one. The liberals found a better way to stay on the subject. I wonder who gave them that idea?
I live in Washington DC. These are the people that reelected Marion Barry.and would STILL be voting for him if the Feds hadnt stopped it. You DO NOT want to give this group of people two US Senators. This is the most corrupt, lazy, inefficient, victimhood pleading, over privileged, pampered, insulated and utterly delusional group of people in the world. They make Hollywood look sane.
Do NOT give these people the ability to influence the course of the nation by giving them tie-breaking super super liberal Senators.
Which of these quotes is not American?
“That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity;”
Virginia Bill of Rights
” That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people, in assembly, ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage, and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for publick uses without their own consent, or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assented, for the publick good.”
Virginia Bill of Rights
“That no free government, or the blessing of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.”
Virginia Bill of Rights
“Bad principles in a Govt. tho slow are sure in their operation, and will gradually destroy it.”
A. Hamilton
“Equal laws, protecting equal rights, are found, as they ought to be presumed, the best guarantee of loyalty and love of country;…”
J. Madison
“[T]he right of electing the members of the government constitutes more particularly the essence of a free and responsible government.”
J. Madison
“[M]en cannot be justly bound by laws, in making which they have no share.”
J. Madison
” Extreme cases of oppression justify… a resort to the original right of resistance, a right belonging to every community, under every form of Government…”
J. Madison