Commie plot that put us in the red ~ By Diana West

In Blogging in Our Time 2 Escape, I do my best to provide you with the information in order to help you teach your children, and others, about the difference between capitalism and communism, and how one ideology promotes freedom while the other promotes tyranny. Fortunately, I have plenty of resources to lean on. Today, it is WND columnist Diana West that provides us with the information that helps to promote that goal. Along with Diana's column are several videos that I will be providing in my commentary below.

I learned in a segment on Fox and Friends with Tavis Smiley and Cornell West that since the 1960's, America has spent $16 Trillion to fight poverty, and yet, poverty has become even worse than when the government's war on poverty programs began.

What Diana West writes about in this column is important for us to know. Diana is right when she states "...how matter-of-fact we are in contemplating massive government interventions."  That statement struck me.  In this column, you will find out the reason why we've accepted the deficit spending plot, that is, if you read it closely enough.

It is important for your children and grandchildren to learn how deficit spending is destroying this country, especially when it comes to "fighting poverty." It doesn't work, nor has it ever. They aren't going to learn about this stuff at any time during their K-12 public school days, and probably not even during their days of collegiate curricula. So, it is up to you to teach them.

Diana West does an excellent job in this column to help you understand where the idea of all of this deficit spending came from. And now, I have found another video segment that supports what Diana has to say about the deficit spending.

[Diana West is the author of "The Death of the Grown-up: How America's Arrested Development Is Bringing Down Western Civilization," and blogs at dianawest.net]

*     *     *     *

Commie plot that put us in the red

DIANA WEST

By Diana West

October 06, 2011 ~ 2:51 pm Eastern

© 2011

The most amazing aspects of the accelerating American submission to the state are: 1) how matter-of-fact we are in contemplating massive government interventions, such as President Barack Obama's latest stimulus "jobs" plan, and 2) how virtually no one notices the blatant Marxist overtones. When someone does, a la "Joe the Plumber" at the end of the 2008 campaign season, he or she is mocked off the stage.

President Obama demonstrated how this is done in January 2010 when, during an unusual White House meeting with congressional Republicans about his pending health-care legislation – another massive government intervention into the private sector – he declared: "If you were to listen to the debate, and, frankly, how some of you went after this bill, you'd think this thing was some Bolshevik plot."

I remember cringing when a smattering of applause arose from the GOP ranks, as though some Republicans actually believed the president had delivered a punch line revealing the absurdity of considering "Obamacare" a government apparatus for seizing control of the lives of citizens – which it is. And that's no joke.

I wish any Republican had replied: "Not necessarily a 'plot,' sir, but a program that is indeed 'Bolshevik' in conception, design and purpose nonetheless. Government control of private sector activity, as the American people well know (or should), is aptly described as 'Bolshevik' – or Marxist, socialist, collectivist, statist and, for that matter, fascist, too. Indeed, nationalized health care was one of the first programs enacted by the Bolsheviks after they seized power in 1917."

READ MORE on WND.com

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

A fuddy-duddy speaks on the generation gap ~ By Patrice Lewis

I think that I noticed a level of intensity in this Patrice Lewis column that stood out to me. And I really had to ask myself if there are enough of those kind of kids in existence that could eventually collapse our system of society. Just hearing Glenn Beck talking about what is going on with the "Occupy Wall Street" demonstrations, and I have to wonder.

I was struck by several of the points that Patrice makes in this column. For example, Patrice wrote, "Fifty years ago, manners and courtesy were drilled into children from infancy. That practice began its decline in the '60s, and it's been downhill from there." I have to agree with Patrice that the turning point was in the 1960's, especially somewhere during the latter half of the decade. There was a lot of social upheaval - chaos - from about 1967 to 1972. And everything changed.

If you are an old "fuddy-duddy" like me, you may have the same reaction that I experienced when reading this column. One of my first thoughts was that the spontaneous combustion of the Occupy Wall Street movement is made up with a bunch of dumb-downed useful idiots that were easily manipulated to be the foot soldiers in the "American Autumn." Or should that be the "American Fall"? (Or the "American Fail?")

Do those of us that respect others, that have some decency left, still outnumber those that don't? I'm pretty sure that we do. I do not disagree with the assessment in this column in that there is a disgusting number of people that just don't care about their ability to contribute positive influence on our society. There are not a lot of hard workers like Steven Jobs available at the moment. There is influence from the media, and from the schools, that tend to make some want to rebel against authority, especially the authority of parents. I'm not sure that we can blame parents for the problems we are facing.

*     *     *     *

A fuddy-duddy speaks on the generation gap

PATRICE LEWIS

By Patrice Lewis

September 30, 2011 ~ 2:49 pm Eastern

© 2011

A seemingly minor incident happened this week, which left me thoughtful.

I was in the city with my younger daughter. We needed to swing into a post office to mail a letter. The post office had a dedicated lane in its parking lot for cars to drive up to the mailboxes. The street was busy so I needed to swing into the parking lot quickly, not slowly … except I couldn't, because two teenage boys were walking across the driveway.

Well, can't be helped. They were there first, after all, and pedestrians have the right of way.

Except they wouldn't move. They deliberately stopped and just stood in my way, so that my car stayed half in the street, blocking traffic.

After a few moments one of the boys moved, but the other started walking toward the car as if daring me to run him over. He wasn't being threatening or dangerous. He was just being a jerk.

I managed to pull the car to one side and nip past him, and that was that. I mailed my letter and drove away. In my rearview mirror I saw them laugh. The incident left me fuming.

The boys were the typical teenagers we often see these days – slouching, insolent, eyes half closed in a perpetual sneer at life. The one boy's reaction to my presence – I dare you to run me over – was spontaneous and arrogant.

"If this is the future of America," noted my 13-year-old daughter, "we're doomed."

My anger turned to sadness and concern. Multiply these boys by millions, and you do indeed have the future of America. These boys had no sense of social courtesy, no understanding of civic consideration and apparently no desire to obtain either. Get a bunch of these types of kids together, and the situation is ripe for flash mobs and other social chaos.

I realize this sounds like the classic fuddy-duddy generation-gap thing, but in point of fact I'm not the only one to note the changing face of young people in our society. Fifty years ago, manners and courtesy were drilled into children from infancy. That practice began its decline in the '60s, and it's been downhill from there.

READ MORE on WND.com

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

The tyranny of socialization ~ By Patrice Lewis

Naturally, homeschooling parents who want to protect their children from some of the negative socialization that takes place in schools are viewed as sick, twisted and controlling. Apparently, no one has ever bothered to actually ask homeschooled kids whether they regret not mingling with their publicly schooled peers.

Now that my girls are both teens, I believe homeschooling socialization skills are more important than ever. In a few short years, they'll be leaving the nest and facing the job market in the real world. In this tough economy, it's important for young people to possess basic manners, have vocabularies greater than 800 words, know how to dress neatly and speak respectfully, and have solid academic credentials. It is not important that they know how to use drugs, hook up, get on welfare, or create more children to be dumped into school-day care to complete the cycle.

Call me weird.

Are we crazy? Why are we allowing the socialists to socially engineer our children in the public schools to be the way they are, as discussed in this amazing column by Patrice Lewis? Is there a way to stop this nonsense perpetrated by the Left?

Well, of course there is. But do we have the courage to make the necessary changes? What kind of changes would need to be made? An end to public education? Yes! That would be a great start! But just how would we ever get that done? I really don't know. I am not sure any of us know the solution at this time, but, don't you think we should start considering it?

I refuse to say that we can't turn it around. However, to be honest, the situation seems to be pretty bleak. The teachers' unions are very powerful. The Democrats will continue to give them strength by their actions in order to get their votes. Was that not obvious when the State Senate Democrats went AWOL in Wisconsin?

We know what mass "re-education" of the the people, one generation at a time, by "educators" that have been indoctrinated in the left-leaning "higher learning" institutions, will lead to: Tyranny. I'm just sayin'...

RELATED STORIES:
The altar of indoctrination ~ By Patrice Lewis

• Click here for more related stories!

*    *    *

The tyranny of socialization

PATRICE LEWIS

By Patrice Lewis

May 14, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

Have you ever noticed that socialization has now become – apparently – the sole and exclusive purpose of education? Every single homeschooler on the planet, it seems, has heard the question: "But what about socialization?" (The proven quality of homeschooling be damned.) The implication is that unless children attend public schools, their socialization skills will atrophy to the point where they will become drooling blobs unable to mingle with their coworkers at a cocktail party when they grow up.

And naturally, the ONLY place where "correct" socialization is possible is in government schools.

We have elevated this mythical necessity for "socialization" into an oracle-like status. What child can exist without government-approved social skills? How will they learn to chat, volunteer, work, shop, date, marry, or partake in any other activity unless they're inculcated with the values taught in school?

Many years ago I heard a radio interview between a homeschooling advocate and a bewildered host who asked that age-old question, "What about socialization?" The guest gave an answer I'd never considered before: "What is the purpose of school? Is it to teach academic basics, or is it to teach socialization?"

The answer, it seems, is very much the latter. To this observation I'll add that the apparent emphasis on socialization is presumably because the public schools are failing in every academic aspect. But since socialization is hard to quantify, it's therefore easy to demand.

An extreme case in point for the emphasis on socialization came out of Quebec recently in which a judge ordered three homeschooled children (ages 5, 7 and 9) into public schools so they could be socialized. In what seems like a tyrannical abuse of power, the judge then ordered the family's 3-year-old son into day care so he, too, could be socialized.

I know nothing more about this particular case except what was reported through the article. But the specifics are not the focus of this column. The tyranny of socialization is.

According to the dictionary, socialization is "a continuing process whereby an individual acquires a personal identity and learns the norms, values, behavior and social skills appropriate to his or her social position."

That sounds great. I have no objection to this definition. What I object to is the type of socialization found in public schools with which government officials seem entranced and without which they feel homeschooled kids will be unable to function.

READ MORE at WND.com

Are you part of the MOB?

WE the People?

Then check this out now:
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

1 size fits all (whether you like it or not) ~ By Patrice Lewis

If we follow the one-size-fits-all road of micromanagement to its logical conclusion, the result is slavery, not citizenship. This is, of course, precisely what the government wants. Remember what George Washington said: "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." In exchange for (cough) security, we have given up our unalienable rights to a fearful master that has long since exceeded the lengthy list of abuses outlined in the Declaration of Independence.

This is why the State cannot tolerate any challenges to its authority. This is why homeschooling is so roundly damned. This is why housewives are classified as domestic terrorists. This is why Obamacare is so necessary to impose on this nation.

Children are, of course, the most critical pawns in this progressive game. Their brainwashing is essential. Parents are only grudgingly permitted to influence their kids. The government tells us how we must raise our children in almost every respect: what they should eat, what they should wear, what they should learn and what they should worship (hint: it's spherical and has continents). At what point do we just hand the baby over at birth? The old science-fiction horror stories about children being raised in state-run institutions in order to turn out clones bred for the State (think Nazi Germany) is closer than we imagine.

To conclude this outstanding column, Patrice quotes C. S. Lewis:

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

Patrice Lewis could not have chosen a better quote to make her point even more clear. "Omnipotent moral busybodies" defines the modern day progressives to perfection. And do you want to know what really galls me? The progressive "one-size-fits-all" vision applies to everyone... but "them" (the Elite).

And here's the thing. This isn't a bipartisan problem when it comes to the progressive elites tormenting us with their absolute belief that they know what is best for you and I. These people who are eroding our liberty can be (most) Democrats as well as (too many) Republicans.

Patrice may have started out this great column with the story about the Chicago elementary school that is going to ban kids from bringing their own lunches, but the deeper issue in the commentary is the fact that we had been allowing the State to get to where it is. It is way too big, way too powerful. And when I say, "the State," I mean any government entity from federal down to the most local.

We have to ask this pertinent question: Is it still going to be possible to reign in the amount of power the State has gained over us? Could it be too late? No, it isn't, fortunately. Patrice is still allowed to homeschool her children. We are still allowed to write our columns and blogs. Joseph Farah is still allowed to run WND without the government censoring the news and columns that he provides to us.

It is up to many of us that will take the time to educate ourselves and then pass what we learn on to our children, friends, and neighbors. But I can understand anyone who hesitates. It takes courage, because you are not always going to get a positive response from people. In fact, it doesn't take long before enemies start coming out of the woodwork, so to speak. But, decide what you are going to do now. Because there could be a time when it is too late. Just sayin'....



1 size fits all (whether you like it or not)

PATRICE LEWIS

By Patrice Lewis

April 16, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

Doubtless you've heard about the elementary school in Chicago that implemented a draconian policy forbidding students from bringing their own lunches from home. Instead they must purchase lunches from the school cafeteria or go hungry.

The patronizing justification given by the administration focuses on the superior nutrition of the school lunches compared to the soda-and-candy-bar meals some of the students were bringing. But here's the thing: It's not the school's concern if students bring junk food for lunch. Stupid as the parents may be who provide their children with that kind of meal, it's not the school's business. Helloooo?

The government loves nothing more than to punish the many for the sins of the few. A few students bring junk food for lunch, and bang! Everyone is guilty. All the moms who take the time to pack healthy food are lumped with the same people who think Coke and Snickers provide optimal nutrition.

This is another small example of the trend over the last 50 years, a trend that illustrates the progressive's desire to dispense with the Constitution and Bill of Rights. After all, these troublesome documents insist upon limited government interference and maximum individual rights and responsibilities. Instead, the state prefers to impose one-size-fits-all policies on all citizens, forcing them to comply with draconian regulations. Please tell me by what authority the government can control what children eat? Progressives will cite the cost of childhood (and later adult) obesity levels. But obesity is only the concern of government if the government controls health care … and government-controlled health care is another profoundly unconstitutional power grab.

In our homeschool civics class, we are currently doing a thorough study of the Declaration of Independence with the aid of an excellent study guide. It is captivating to go through our founding documents line by line and discuss their meaning. It reminds us of the ideals these brilliant men installed in our nation – as well as how far we've fallen. The Founding Fathers put restraints on government because they were prescient enough to know "a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism …" which would result in such monstrosities as Obamacare and (in miniature) forced cafeteria food.

But here's the thing: We asked for it. We ask the government for security and then act surprised when it gives us tyranny. A friend wrote an excellent blog post outlining this.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

The altar of indoctrination ~ By Patrice Lewis

Schools are merely brainwashing centers. And I, for one, refuse to sacrifice my children on the altar of government indoctrination.

It took me a couple of days to think about this column by Patrice Lewis. I absolutely agree with Patrice in regard to homeschooling. For now, it is the only way to make sure that your kids learn the values you believe in.

However, there is a problem. For many of us, we can not take the time off to homeschool our children. Seriously, many of us can not even take the time off from work for meetings at school with our kids' teachers.

When I was a kid, parents were involved in our education. The PTA (Parents and Teachers Association) was a local organization that was involved in our education. It really did make a difference in how we were taught and what we learned.

Things changed over the last 50 years since I was in public schools. Yes, I believe Patrice is right. Kids are being indoctrinated! But can we stop it? Should public schools be abolished? Should we all be responsible for our kids' education, quit our jobs, and homeschool them all? No, and you and I know that can not happen.

I have a better idea.

We need to shift the reigns of education from a Federal program to a more local plan. Parents need to take more control in education. And as parents, homeschool your kids while they are going to the public schools. Parents, teach your kids when you get home from work. Have dinner together, as a family... We can be teaching our kids the values that you see lacking in the public schools. We can be teaching our kids ANYTHING that we feel the public schools are not doing.

That's right. It is up to the parents, not the schools. Just sayin'...

However, there is something that gives me hope with regards to greater parental control over our children's education. That something – oddly – is the Internet.

Prior to the Internet, most people were only exposed to information through mainstream sources such as newspapers, magazines and television. I hardly need to point out that these mainstream sources are biased toward the liberal/progressive agenda. People were spoon-fed only what the government-approved media wanted them to hear. As my husband points out, it was never the "information" age, it was the "propaganda" age.

But the Internet has changed all that. We are now truly in the "information" age because parents who once thought they were lone voices crying in the wilderness found out they weren't alone. (A common divide-and-conquer tactic for a parent concerned about his child's school agenda is to be told he's the only one to complain.)

As a result of entering the real Information Age, the progressives are furious and helpless to stop the tide of true and honest information flooding Real America.

The altar of indoctrination

By Patrice Lewis

Posted: October 16, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010



I got a troll on my blog this week. Although allegedly a "conservative Christian" (though I have my doubts), he indulged in a spate of name-calling about my "barely coherent little articles" and "ridiculous" content (not to mention my horrible "grammer" [sic]) without actually pointing out specific examples of what he found offensive in my writing.

But in one thing he was clear: He took exception to my self-description as a "gun-toting homeschooling" mom by saying I "know little about American history" and that "violence is a part of [my] DNA." He then went on to laud public education. "One of the greatest accomplishments of American [sic] was to create a public school system that enabled all children – all GOD's children – to attend school and to learn from each other – i.e., children from all backgrounds." (Read the entire snark here.)

Actually, I flatter myself that I do have some familiarity with American history, certainly enough to know that a) the Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights for a reason, and it wasn't because we all have "violence as part of our DNA"; and b) public education was not included in the Bill of Rights because the education of children was presumed to be a private affair or at most a state issue, not a federal matter.

But times have changed, and thanks to the influence of such (cough) luminaries as John Dewey (the father of our modern educational system), we now view education as strongly – some would argue strictly – a government matter.

I thought Dewey's Marxist leanings were common knowledge, but I guess there are still many people who don't realize Dewey's obsession for public education stemmed from his desire to "socialize" children into state-controlled compliance. "What is important under the Dewey system is not adherence to some universal and absolute standard of the true and the good," notes Gennady Stolyarov in a fascinating essay, "but rather conformity to whatever social standard has been established within a given age group – which is virtually always the dismal lowest common denominator."

The realization that schools are merely indoctrination centers is becoming more obvious as the years go by. Consider the words of Rep. John Sarbanes, D-Md., who said that environmental education in schools can "promote the agenda" of climate change and population growth through the influence it has on children.

Rep. John Sarbanes (D-Md.) Calls For Schools To ‘Promote The Agenda’ Of Climate Change, Population Limitation


I'm sorry, but you're not going to convince me that public schools are anything but the seat of brainwashing.

Critics accuse me of trying to push my notions of morality on others; but what about when they push their loathsome notions of morality on us? Or more specifically, our children? Why are they surprised when we object?

Homeschooling parents are understandably leery of government involvement in their children's education. In a recent article by MSNBC, reporters concluded that one of the reasons the exact number of homeschoolers in this country is so hard to pinpoint is because of homeschoolers' desire to avoid government involvement – "a sentiment echoed by several researchers and homeschoolers who spoke to TODAYshow.com." No duh.

In a superb article called "Get the State Out of Education," David Warren writes, "The state has no business in the minds of the nation." He also writes:

• "The notion that 'education is too important to be left to chance' is so universally accepted, that the public at large is capable of overlooking universal failure. Our state schools, which were (contrary to myth) never all that good, have degenerated into dysfunctional propaganda mills."

• "We easily accept the associated notion that 'in a democracy, public schooling is necessary to assure minimum standards for citizenship.' That schools should provide the machinery for the indoctrination of the masses follows naturally from this. … And remember … all 'progressive' educational proposals require political compulsion." [Emphasis added]

• "We could hardly do worse, than achieve this state in which a child homeschooled in the most derelict family may emerge into adulthood in better moral and intellectual condition than the child criminalized by his peers in the perpetual day care."

The notion that public education should be eliminated in favor of parent-chosen educational options is too radical to be done easily. The government propaganda machine is too strong and the notion is routinely ridiculed, since progressives refuse to recognize the depth to which public "education" has sunk. But if a bunch of uneducated yokels called parents can produce a homeschooled crop of children that routinely beat the pants off public school kids in all standardized tests, then perhaps it's a notion whose time has come.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Public schoolers: How's that indoctrination workin' out? ~ By Patrice Lewis

After reading what Patrice has to say in her column, would you really send your kids to a public school? And we can't even blame Obama for the sorry shape our public schools are in, because this started many decades ago, as you will learn here. However, I do kind of wonder if we can blame the public schools for Obama! Just sayin'...

Of course not every teacher agrees with the radical left-wing garbage pushed in schools. Most teachers enter the profession with a sincere love of children and a desire to shape their futures for the good. But their often mandatory involvement with teachers' unions and government mandates wipes away their innocent and naïve interest, leaving behind jaded, bitter and disillusioned people who once hoped to shape our children with great care.

Homeschool your kids, folks. It's the only way to save them.

By Patrice Lewis

Posted: April 24, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

I recently did something I haven't done in decades: I re-read the Laura Ingalls Wilder series (the Little House books). The contrast between the schools of Laura's time (late 1800s) and the schools of today is staggering. Utterly incomprehensible.

To illustrate, consider some recent headlines:

• Obama czar's "homo-genda" proposed for U.S. schools; Congressional legislation called "a sexual revolutionary's dream"

• Look what they're erasing from U.S. history! American heroes could get swapped for hip-hop culture in textbooks

• Survey asks students when they lost virginity; Results in newspaper show classes counseled "why not" be sexually active

• Schools' assignment: Squelch family values; State lawmakers urge "meaningful" counseling for wrong attitudes

• Liberal intolerance alive and well in moronic teacher from Oregon; Oregon teacher panel probes educator determined to "demolish" tea party

• Bill would require sex education starting in kindergarten

• Memo to public schools: Stop pushing sex! Group demands California implement programs promoting abstinence

Can you imagine these headlines happening during Laura's time?

If you read the sobering history of public schools, it becomes painfully clear that their purpose is not (necessarily) education; it's social change. "The public schools movement began in the 1830s, led by Horace Mann," notes George L. O'Brien in "Government Schools in Crisis." "Supposedly, the goal was to ensure that every child would have access to an education. However, from the beginning there was another agenda, and that was to control what was being taught so as to create so-called model citizens. Public schools meant taking control of education from the parents and placing it in the hands of social engineers and the government."

The early successes of these social-engineering experiments were limited because most school districts were independent and under the power of a local school board (meaning parents). But then the "unified school" movement came along at the turn of the century, which destroyed the system of local control. After World War II, educational jurisdiction was transferred to state governments. Things spiraled down even faster under President Carter, who created the U.S. Department of Education.

"Once the parents lost control of the schools," laments Mr. O'Brien, "the schools quickly became laboratories for social-engineering experiments. … The central struggle, of course, is money. As long as the government schools take so much money from parents in taxes, it is hard for parents to afford to send their children to non-government schools. Attempts to change this through tax credits and vouchers have resulted in vicious counter-attacks from the NEA among others."

Since schools are the mandatory gathering place of our society's future, it's the natural laboratory for any agenda – anything at all – to be forced upon our children. Since teachers' unions are extremely left-wing, it's the left-wing propaganda that gets pushed. Anything green, anything abortionist, anything feminist, anything homosexual, anything victimized, anything revisionist – it's all there, shoved down our children's gullets.

And since the liberal education machine is obsessed with sex – and make no mistake, liberals as a whole are obsessed with sex – schools are unwilling to comprehend, much less encourage, family values. Therefore, children become corrupted.

Which is why we now have sex education in kindergarten. Can you imagine this happening during Laura's time?

It's to the point where all the "agenda-izing" has pushed out academics. Who has time for science, history, math, English, etc.? We've got graduates who can't even find the United States on a world map. No wonder we're unable to compete with Korea or Turkey on international math scores.

It also means we now have government thugs whose job it is to catch desperate parents who lie and claim their children are living in a better district (so the kids have a chance at a higher quality education) in order to force those children back to dangerous inner-city schools. "I was actually crying," said a grandmother, "and all I'm wanting to do is just to have my grandchild have a better education. … Why can't they just let parents to get in the school of their choice?"

Because, in the words of John Stossel, the government monopoly thinks it knows best.

As if this isn't bad enough, we hear from a furious mother in Wyoming – Wyoming of all places! – on the Rush Limbaugh show that her high-school son was told by his government teacher, "The old people just need to shut up and go along with what needs to be done for this country. … This country will be better off when the old people are gone."

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Profits derived from your purchases
will help me to attend tea party rallies!

Union-controlled disasters ~ By Star Parker

Star explains why unionized teachers are failing to educate minority children in public schools.

A recent Wall Street Journal op-ed reported on the glowing success of charter schools in Harlem. "Nationwide the average black 12th-grader reads at the level of a white eighth-grader. Yet, Harlem charter students … are outperforming their white peers in wealthy suburbs."


Yet, in 2009 the New York teachers union successfully lobbied the state legislature to freeze charter school spending and now is pushing to limit penetration of charters in school districts.

By Star Parker

Posted: March 20, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Speaking a couple years ago about technology and education, Apple CEO and founder Steve Jobs said that technology wouldn't matter as long as you can't fire teachers.

"I believe that what is wrong with our schools in this nation is that they have become unionized in the worst possible way," he said.

Jobs likened schools to running a small business, which he said could never succeed if you can't hire and fire.

Reasonable? I think so.

Would anyone question that there is no single thing more critical to a nation's future than educating its children?

Yet, consider that 88 percent of our children get K-12 education in public schools and that 70 percent of the teachers in these schools have union-protected jobs.

Gallup has been polling public opinion about unions since the 1930s. Last year, for the first time, less than half (48 percent) of those surveyed approved of unions. Fifty-one percent said unions "mostly hurt" the U.S. economy, and 39 percent said they "mostly help."

The percentage of the nation's private-sector work force that belongs to a union has dropped precipitously. In the 1950s, over 30 percent belonged to unions. Today it's a little over 7 percent.

But in our public schools, the direction is completely opposite. In 1960, about 35 percent of public school teachers belonged to unions, and today it's twice that at 70 percent.

Is it not counterintuitive that most Americans feel unions hurt us, that we allow increasingly fewer goods and services produced in our private sector to be controlled by unions, but we turn increasingly more of our most precious commodity – our children and their education – over to a union-controlled workforce?

In an article in the latest edition of Cato Journal, Andrew Coulson notes that, on average, compensation of public-school teachers is about 42 percent higher than their counterparts teaching in non-unionized private schools. Yet, according to Coulson, research shows that private schools consistently outperform public schools.

He attributes the higher average wages of public-school teachers less to union collective bargaining and more to the political clout of unions to maintain the public-school monopoly over K-12 education.

Over 95 percent of the political contributions of the two national teachers' unions – the NEA and AFT – go to Democrats or to the Democrat Party. Their $56 million in political contributions since 1989 equals that of "Chevron, Exxon Mobil, Lockheed Martin and the National Rifle Association combined."

The main beneficiaries of education alternatives are minority children. Yet, at the state level, unions provide a unified lobbying front to block such initiatives.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Look what they're erasing from U.S. history!

From WorldNetDaily

American heroes could get swapped for hip-hop culture in textbooks

By Chelsea Schilling

Posted: February 11, 2010 ~ 12:50 am Eastern

© 2010 WorldNetDaily

A state board of only 15 people will vote on whether to revise U.S. textbooks to omit references to Daniel Boone, Gen. George Patton, Nathan Hale, Columbus Day and Christmas.

The Texas State Board of Education will also vote on a proposal to substitute the term "American" with "global citizen."

Mathew Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, is warning Americans to speak up before only eight people, with a majority vote, have a chance to literally rewrite American history.

He appeared on the "Huckabee Show" to explain why the board's vote matters to the rest of America. Staver said Texas and California are the two largest textbook purchasers in the nation.

"Whatever textbooks they select affect the rest of the country because publishers publish those kinds of books, and the rest of the country follows," he said.

But because of California's budget crisis, the state hasn't been able to purchase as many new textbooks, he explained. So the default is Texas.

"So when this 15-member board – eight people of that will make a majority – make a decision, it will affect the entire nation," Staver said.

Those eight people could decide what children will learn in various other parts of the country.

READ FULL STORY >

RELATED VIDEO:

February 07, 2010 - Huckabee - TX Textbook Selection Could Effect The Country

Video provided by SomePoliticalClips

Let's hear it for the teens! ~ By Patrice Lewis

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Patrice Lewis Posted: December 19, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 Our older daughter woke up crying one morning this week. "I dreamed about Gypsy and Hopi," she sobbed, referring to the pets we lost in the last few months. "They were good dreams, but when I woke up they weren't there." We snuggled in front of the wood stove on that snowy morning while I comforted her. And I thought, here's a kid who still has a tender, unhardened, uncynical heart. What a blessing. Today is that kid's 14th birthday. When I was pregnant with her, I had the extraordinary experience of being told by a stranger that I would hate my child. No kidding. A woman sitting next to me at a craft fair, instead of congratulating me on my pregnancy, told me I would hate my baby. "I have six kids, and I hate them all," she said. Being a captive audience (I was manning our craft booth and couldn't leave), she poured poison in my ear for half an hour before departing. By the end of her diatribe I felt beaten until I was able to shake off her influence. "It's no wonder you hate your kids," I thought. "You're a hateful woman." Then, on Dec. 19, 1995, I brought forth our firstborn child and we named her after a woman in the Bible. What a Christmas present! And no, I didn't hate her at all. Not even a teensy little bit. But we did wonder what lay in store as she, and later her younger sister, grew older. We knew these gifts from God were too important to entrust to a succession of strangers for their education, so we decided to homeschool. We didn't realize at the time that homeschooling would result in not just an academically sound education but a morally sound one as well, because there were no significant outside influences to dilute their training. Some people don't like this idea. They accuse us of child abuse, of isolating our kids because we try to limit what we see as damaging outside influences. The relatively recent "reality show" mentality of our modern culture is designed to introduce children to adult concepts at younger and younger ages. These "real world" proponents don't seem to understand that parents are supposed to protect their children and keep them from growing up too fast in an often harsh and merciless world. In what could only be called twisted logic, we are sometimes criticized that since our girls are polite and respectful, we must therefore be beating them into submission in order to present a false and polite façade. These people can't seem to wrap their minds around the idea of decent teens. Whenever I suggest that some adolescents are being raised as civilized young men and women, I get snarky comments about how these teens must be whupped by their parents. Some folks are judgmental of how my husband and I are raising our kids, suggesting dark and devious explanations to justify their polite behavior. They dismiss the concept that because the kids aren't locked in a classroom with 30 other children for seven hours a day, they might actually learn real-life skills rather than guerrilla-survival skills. These critics are certain that because our girls spend the majority of their waking hours with us, they'll grow up with the social skills of, say, wood lice. READ FULL STORY >

Celebs to kids: America stinks!

From WorldNetDaily

'55 rich white men drafted Constitution to protect their class – slaveholders' By Drew Zahn Posted: December 14, 2009 ~ 8:49 pm Eastern © 2009 WorldNetDaily Hollywood celebrities and education gurus have teamed together to distribute to schools across the country a dramatic new curriculum that casts American history as an epic march of victims seeking to shrug off the shackles of the warmongering, racist, capitalist, imperialist United States. The History Channel's airing of the "The People Speak" last night marks the public coming-out party of a movement that has been in place since last year to teach America's school children a "social justice" brand of history that rails against war, oppression, capitalism and popular patriotism. The television special featuring performances by Matt Damon, Benjamin Bratt, Marisa Tomei, Don Cheadle, Bruce Springsteen and others condemns the nation's past of oppression by the wealthy, powerful and imperialist and instead trumpets the voices of America's labor unions, minorities and protesters of various stripes. The accompanying curriculum guide for schools that show "The People Speak" in classrooms, for example, highlights an 1852 reading from abolitionist Frederick Douglass:

What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer; a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciation of tyrants brass fronted impudence; your shout of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, are to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy – a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of the United States, at this very hour.

The program and discussion guide is the most ambitious resource among many offered to America's schools by the Zinn Education Project, a collaboration of Rethinking Schools and Teaching for Change, as part of a push to encourage history instruction based on educator Howard Zinn's 1980 tome exposing the abuses of America's past, "A People's History of the United States." The project states its goal is to "introduce students to a more accurate, complex and engaging understanding of United States history than is found in traditional textbooks and curricula. … Zinn's 'A People's History of the United States' emphasizes the role of working people, women, people of color and organized social movements in shaping history. Students learn that history is made not by a few heroic individuals, but instead by people's choices and actions, thereby also learning that their own choices and actions matter."

Government-school 'edjikation' ~ By Patrice Lewis

From WorldNetDaily

By Patrice Lewis Posted: October 24, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 A few months ago, a homeschooling friend called in tears. The curriculum she'd purchased for her three children was patently unsuited to her 16-year-old daughter, Jane. Jane was rebelling for the first time. "She tells me she doesn't want to learn physics," my friend sobbed. "Does Jane know what she wants to do when she grows up?" I asked. "Yes. She wants to be a paralegal. She's wanted to do that for years." "What's wrong with being a paralegal? That's an excellent career choice." "Nothing. I'm proud of her. But she won't know any physics." "What does a paralegal need with physics?" I asked. My friend was silent a moment. "Nothing," she admitted. After a lengthy discussion, my friend decided her daughter was mature enough to choose her own studies, which she could tailor toward her career choice. End of rebellion. This conversation led me to give some serious thought about the purpose of education, especially for older teens. Is it to cram every subject down every adolescent's throat, despite his natural talent, interest, or future career plans? Or is it to prepare a teen to enter the adult world as a useful, productive member of society? Needless to say I'm inclined toward the latter, not the former. Obviously, there are things children must know. I happen to think it's useful if a 12th-grader knows where the United States is on a map and can multiply 12 x 12. I believe a working knowledge of history and science come in handy no matter what career they choose. I believe the ability to communicate in English, verbally and in writing, is critical. These are the foundations for education. But most children eventually reach an age – like Jane – when the foundations are achieved. What's left is higher learning in various subjects. Then what? If your daughter wants to be a paralegal, is it necessary – really necessary – for her to know physics? If your son wants to be a physicist, is it really necessary that he knows the imports and exports of Zimbabwe? I know a lot of you are sputtering right now, particularly the physicists. Doubtless some of you think I'm an unedjikated troglodyte, unappreciative of the finer points of a sound education. Let me assure you that my husband and I both have master's degrees in the sciences and a passion for history. Our admiration for academics is second to none. But I believe most kids, given sufficient time to think it through, have a pretty good idea what they want to be when they grow up. After the foundations are achieved, why not let them decide what areas they should study? Why make them miserable forcing them to "learn" subjects they may grow to hate because they're being, well, forced? [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]

More About Being Schooled: Indoctrination ~ By John Kubicek

In my last column, "Being Schooled," I wrote, "those that are going to the public schools are being indoctrinated by a political force with an evil agenda. I do not believe that agenda really has a happy ending for those of us that value freedom." A recent news segment confirmed those beliefs. It also confirmed that there may be a solution. read more ~ and see the video included! And there are other blogs that linked to the video in this story: Federal judge rules that Christian-bashing teacher violated First Amendment Are schools hostile to Christian students? digg story

Playing God with homeschoolers - By Patrice Lewis

A judge ordered three normal, well-adjusted, academically superior children into public school, because, I don't know, he was having a bad hair day or something. To add insult to injury, the mother was ordered to undergo a mental evaluation, assumedly because she holds conservative Christian beliefs...

Read it for yourself. A judge ordered three normal, well-adjusted, academically superior children into public school, because, I don't know, he was having a bad hair day or something. The bizarre thing is the mother was not in court for anything having to do with school, home or otherwise. She was in court for some divorce proceedings, and the judge decided that decent, well-behaved Christian children are a bad thing and ordered them to get their beliefs and values "challenged." He wanted them to have a more "well-rounded" education. I assume his definition of well-rounded includes teaching children to put condoms on bananas, learn a sailor's vocabulary, and discover that rebellion against one's parents is a preferred state of affairs.

But it gets even better... Oh, I'm sorry, I meant to say - emphatically - worse:

To add insult to injury, the mother (not the father, even though he's the one allegedly having an affair) was ordered to undergo a mental evaluation. This is assumedly because she holds conservative Christian beliefs, thus implying that being Christian and conservative is a mental condition that should be overcome. May I suggest the judge be next in line? As in, can we get this guy's head examined?

Patrice makes a final plea to "let this judge know your thoughts". Read this column digg story