Greatest Hits: Education: Our Greatest Battle?

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

Education: Our Greatest Battle?  And I fear we have already lost. 

This is an article that I had commented on for another site some time ago. I thought that given the current climate of “change,” it might be a good idea to re-visit it. The article is eight years old, however, it seems to echo what is going on today.

From the August 2001 Idaho Observer:

Why Our Schools Teach Socialism

By Joe Larson

Congratulations America: Today there are over 10,000 openly marxist professors and thousands of humanist professors controlling the universities and colleges that produce America’s teachers and other professionals. Varying forms of marxist-humanism are the predominant philosophies of the educational establishment; yet we repeatedly send our most precious gift (our children) off to them for “education” (indoctrination).

Today’s schools are filled with sex education, political correctness, environmental extremism, global unity, diversity training (pro-homosexuality) and higher order thinking skills [HOTS]; which boldly claim that to become a higher order thinker one must first believe the fact that there are no absolutes, absolutely! “The Greatest Story Ever Told” based on the greatest book ever written, “The Holy Bible,” about the greatest teacher who ever lived, Jesus, is not allowed, let alone used, in the schools of America. The Bible was America’s first textbook; yet today it is referred to as a book of fables.

Our schools are filled with violence, murder, extortion, rape, unwanted pregnancy, drug use, disrespect, foul language, declining test scores and children who cannot read. While the pontificators wonder why, God doesn’t; He knows – Hosea 4:6 says, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. I will also reject thee seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God; I will also forget thy children.” Verse 7 says, “As they were increased, so they sinned against Me: Therefore, will I change their glory into shame.”

The problem with America’s educational system began with the birth of socialism and given impetus by federal government involvement. Lenin, one of the world’s leading experts on socialism, tells us – “Communism is socialism in a hurry.” Socialism, therefore, is communism by gradualism rather than by revolution. The socialist “Fabian Society,” the forerunner of most socialist groups in America, had as their motto “Make Haste Slowly.” “Democratic Socialism” became the battle cry to socialize the United States of America. The socialists’ goal was to “permeate and penetrate,” then control this nation from deep within. Their first target in America was our children through public instruction.

In the U.S. their followers would use language as their first line of attack and deceit. They would wear no badge nor socialist label, but were to call themselves “liberal,” “progressive” and even “moderate.” Words were the weapon of choice for this new war. By changing and shifting word meanings the socialists could cover their true purpose. Everything would be done under the banners of “reform” and “social justice,” suggesting all was for the public good, for humanitarian reasons, for true democracy — and finally — for the children. The buzzwords of socialism were then, and are today, “social” and “democracy” (i.e. social science, social studies and socialization of the child). Robert Conquest observed, “a communist never does anything under his own name that he can do under someone else’s.”

This is important:  Totalitarians never announce themselves.  They do not come in and say, “Hi, we’re socialists and we’re going to take away your freedoms bit by bit.  We’re going to criminalize your beliefs and your God. We’re going to control every aspect of your live from cradle to grave, and there isn’t a thing you can do about it!” They couch their intentions with pleasant sounding words; they distort and confuse the meanings of their words to make you think “it’s OK.”  How many times do we hear the term “change, reform, progressive?” Or, what of “tolerance, diversity, or fairness?”  “Change” is certainly true (not change we would want), but what of the others?  I think we all know what they really mean.

Regarding the statement, “make haste slowly,” the left does not announce their plans and intentions in full form.  They know that the public would reject them.  Instead, they move incrementally.  They take whatever step they can at a time.  Either by exploiting a crisis, or creating one, they implement their plans step by step.  It will start with some regulations or restrictions, usually in response to some real or invented event or problem.  As time wears on, they add to the regulations or restrictions.  At each phase, the politicians and media assures the public that it’s just some small sacrifices that they’re making, and the government doesn’t  really want to take some right or freedom away.  The educational system plays a role here as well.  Since so many children are indoctrinated, they will no know the reasons for the freedoms that we have.  As we have heard, there have been more than a few occasions where children have been threatened with failing grades, ridiculed, or otherwise discriminated against because they had a differing viewpoint.  Too many of these people grow to be adults with absolutely no concept of our system of government.  They don’t recognize that government control always leads to tyranny.  They have no idea that the founders wrote our Constitution to protect our rights from the very things that are happening now.

In the early 1900’s, because of unrest in Europe, thousands of socialists flocked to America for safety. Large numbers held degrees in the fields of psychology, sociology and psychiatry (behavioral sciences, dealing with behavior and [social] change). Many went on to become college and university professors.

Norman Thomas, socialist and member of the Civil Liberties Union, boldly told the world, “The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened.”

Note now that they don’t use the word “liberal.” They now refer to themselves as “progressive.”  How ironic! They use a nice sounding term to describe tyranny.

The story of how the socialists took over the American educational establishment would fill a book; so let us just listen to their own words.

John Dewey, called “the father of modern education,” was an avowed socialist, the co-author of the ‘Humanist Manifesto’ and cited as belonging to fifteen Marxist-front organizations by the Committee on Un-American Activities. Do the words (the father of modern education) now take on new meaning? Remember, Dewey taught the professors who would train America’s teachers. He was obsessed with “the group.” In his own words, “You can’t make socialists out of individualists. Children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming, where everyone is interdependent.”

How many of us were taught by our parents, or even our schools, to think for ourselves, be self-reliant, strive to achieve our dreams, be our own person?  Under the system of the future, are these traits illnesses that are to be “treated?” Are we to be replaced by successive generations of subservient drones that have no ability to critically analyze facts, and therefore will never question their masters?

Rosalie Gordon, writing on Dewey’s progressive (socialist) education in her book “What’s Happened To Our Schools,” said, “The progressive system has reached all the way down to the lowest grades to prepare the children of America for their role as the collectivists of the future. The group — not the individual child — is the quintessence of progressivism. The child must always be made to feel part of the group. He must indulge in group thinking and group activity.”

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

Collectivist = Communists.  Notice how individuality is to be eliminated.  How meaningful are the individual freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution when individuality is to be eliminated? As an update, is it any surprise that the government has been pushing mandatory pre-school? This has nothing to do with education. This is about indoctrination.  They state it plainly themselves.

After visiting the Soviet Union, Dewey wrote six articles on the “wonders” of Soviet education. The School-To-Work system in our public schools (all 50 states) is modeled after the Soviet poly-technical system.

In 1936, the National Education Association stated its position, from which they have never wavered; “We stand for socializing the individual.”

The NEA in its “Policy For American Education” stated, “The major problem of education in our times arises out of the fact that we live in a period of fundamental social change. In the new democracy [we were a Republic] education must share in the responsibility of giving purpose and direction to social change. The major function of the school is the social orientation of the individual. Education must operate according to a well-formulated social policy.”

Paul Haubner, specialist for the NEA, tells us, “The schools cannot allow parents to influence the kind of values-education their children receive in school. That is what is wrong with those who say there is a universal system of values. [Christians?] Our (humanistic) goals are incompatible with theirs. We must change their values.”

Professor Chester M. Pierce, M.D., Professor of Education and Psychiatry at Harvard, has this to say, “Every child in America entering school at the age of five is mentally ill because he comes to school with certain allegiances to our Founding Fathers, toward our elected officials, toward his parents, toward a belief in a supernatural being, and toward the sovereignty of this nation as a separate entity. It’s up to you as teachers to make all these sick children well — by creating the international child of the future.”

Some politicians agree. Listen to former Senator Paul Hoagland of Nebraska: “The fundamentalist parents have no right to indoctrinate their children in their beliefs. We are preparing their children for the year 2000 and life in a global one-world society and those children will not fit in.”

What then happens to those children that do not “fit in” to this new socialist world?  Many of the readers of this blog have been subject to the indoctrination of the public schools and universities.  We were somehow able to resist and form opinions of our own.  What will become of such people in the “new order?”

In the Humanist Review magazine it was observed that, “Education is thus a most powerful ally of humanism. What can a theistic Sunday school’s meeting for an hour once a week and teaching only a fraction of the children do to stem the tide of the five-day program of humanistic teaching?”

P. Blanchard, in ‘The Humanist” 1983, continues: “I think that the most important factor moving us toward a secular society has been the educational factor. Our schools may not teach Johnny how to read properly, but the fact that Johnny is in school until he is 16 tends toward the elimination of religious superstition. The average American child now acquires a high school education, and this militates against Adam and Eve and all other myths of alleged history.”

In a socialist state, there can be no power higher than the state. The concept of God, and for some reason, the Christian God in particular, that has to be eliminated. They won’t say that publicly, but that’s the agenda.  Even for those who aren’t religious, what other ideas might be out of synch with the new worldview?  Once they come for the Christians, who might be next?

John J. Dunphy wrote in the Jan/Feb 1983 edition of The Humanist, “The battle for mankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom. The classroom must and will become the arena of conflict between the old and the new. The rotting corpse of Christianity and the new faith of humanism.”

Our bureaucrats, politicians and educators are constantly on television blaming either parents or lack of funds for our schools’ dilemmas. The answer is always more money and more government control. For well over 50 years the American voter has believed this line of crap. Victor Gollancz, a famous socialist publisher tells us why he believed that socialism would take over America; “Christians are not exactly bright, so it will be easy for socialism to lead them down the garden path through their ideals of brotherly love and ‘social justice.’”

It’s (past) time that Christian men stand up for their families and their faith and put God back in charge of this nation and it’s schools.

Joe Larson is the director of Restoring America, a nationwide association of individuals and organizations, including The Idaho Observer, that are dedicated to networking their information, activities and resources to further the effort of a peaceful restoration of our Constitutional Republic. Larson can be contacted at restoringamerica.org or by calling: (573) 793-3156.

http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20010816.htm

I know, why this now?  I know the ObamaCare plan is oozing its way through Congress.  I know Cap and Trade lurks on the horizon.  Education is already in the hands of the left, and it has been for some time.  We vehemently defend our health care choices and our income, as well we should, but we then forget about our children?  With every successive generation of children going through the public schools, the levels of violence, the lack of ethics, and the lack of knowledge of the average American citizen continues to grow.  Yes, many of us were taught well at home.  We learned lessons of hard work, discipline, integrity, and so forth from our parents and other family members.  But as these new generations are indoctrinated with leftist ideas, there will be fewer and fewer parents able or willing to teach such lessons.  My fear is that, at some time in the future, we will reach a tipping point where people that are honest, have integrity, or are able to think independently will become a small minority.  At that point, the indoctrinated ones will freely give up all the rights that made this nation great, simply because they don’t know the utility of them.  In fact, they will have been taught to despise them.

People that believe in freedom are already the new pariahs for the left.  One only needs to look at the media coverage of the Tea Parties to confirm this.  The drumbeat will only grow.  As it does, the left will continue to indoctrinate more and more children.  We might yet defeat the socialized medicine, and we might prevent passage of Cap and Trade.  Obama may lose hig congressional majorities in 2010.  He might even be defeated in 2012.  But if we continue to give our kids to the government every day, those victories will be temporary, delaying the socialists for a few years to be sure, but in the end, futile.

Share

Why Do Teachers’ Unions Favor Pedophiles?

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

One would think that protecting children from adult predators would be pretty much a universal.  I was cheered that while myself and others were covering the #FreeKate story, we found that protecting children from predators had supporters that were gay and straight, from right and left, and Christian and not so much.  However, as much as a no-brainer that protecting children from sexual exploitation would seem, there are still a disturbingly large number of people that would allow adults access to children for the worst of purposes.  Even more disturbing is that two groups are apparently supporting pedophiles; The National Education Association,and the American Federation of Teachers, the two largest teachers unions in the US.  TPNN, notes that while the teachers’ unions favor background checks for gun owners, they have a different opinion on background checks for teachers…

But, that is not the case. Two of the most powerful teachers unions in the country, the National Education Agency (NEA) and the American Federations of Teachers (AFT), are against a proposed bill that would require better background checks for teachers. Of course, like clockwork, the excuse made by these unions, namely AFT, is wrapped around race baiting.

In the Wall  Street Journal on Thursday, Campbell Brown addresses their opposition. 

Anyone with violent or sexual convictions against a child—whether a misdemeanor or felony—would be ineligible for school employment. Background checks would be more thorough, using expanded databases including the FBI’s fingerprint database, the national and state sex offender registries. And districts would be prohibited from knowingly unloading sex abusers on other schools—a practice known as “pass the trash.”

These are sensible measures that are overdue. Yet the two most powerful teachers unions in the country have voiced objections to the bill. Both the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers complained about the bill before it passed the House. The NEA claimed in a letter to House members that background checks “often have a huge, racially disparate impact.” Randi Weingarten, the AFT chief, warned of inaccuracies in the FBI database and cautioned that teachers would be inconvenienced by potentially long screening delays.

So, keeping pedophiles away from kids is racist?  Are they suggesting that there is a racial component to pedophilia?   Or, are they just willing to protect and employ pedophiles in order to satisfy a political agenda?  Or course, who cares if a bunch of kids get raped in the process?  I would assume that it’s a small price to pay for for collecting more dues!

Share

Teachers Union Opposing Law That Prevents Sex Offenders From Working in Schools

Share

Yes, you read the title correctly.  The National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) are actively opposing a bipartisan House bill that would ban sex offenders from working in schools.  Here is a report…

Kyle Olson, with the Education Action Group Foundation told Megyn Kelly Wednesday night

” that the unions’ objection to the bill proves “unions are out to protect the adults…they are not out for the interests of the children.”

“We should have zero tolerance for issues like this,” Olson said. “We have zero tolerance policies for weapons, a kid who bites a Pop Tart into a gun or has a Hello Kitty bubble-maker will be suspended or expelled if they have those sorts of things…”

The measure would require school systems to check state and federal criminal records for employees with unsupervised access to elementary and secondary school students, and for people seeking those jobs. Workers refusing to submit to the checks would not be allowed to have school positions.

Most teachers got into the profession because of their love of kids. I guarantee that if the teachers’ union rank and file were asked to vote on the issue they would disagree with their leadership…by a wide margin.

In letters to lawmakers, the unions have claimed the measure might jeopardize workers’ protections under union contracts.

Additionally, Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., has spoken out against the bill, saying it does not allow for people to overcome their criminal backgrounds.


Olson said that the bill is not attempting to stop sex offenders from working altogether, but “they shouldn’t be in a school.”

The number one responsibility for any institution that works with children is to protect those children. Apparently the NEA and AFT do not believe that to be the case.

What does it say about he NEA and AFT, when they are trying to make it legal for sex offenders to have access to children?  Well, at least we know that there is no concerted effort under way to normalize pedophilia.

Oh wait!

The Effort to Normalize Pedophilia Marches on: Author/Professor Jame R. Kincaid Tries to Minimze the Problem, and Denies That Effort

#FreeKate and Normalizing Pedophilia

The Push to Normalize Pedophilia is Picking up Steam

Normalizing Pedophilia: British Barrister Recommends Lowering the Age of Consent to 13

Cultural Marxism Revisited: How Does #FreeKate fit in the Larger Scheme of Things?

#FreeKate Update: Screenshots Show ‘Essential Cause’ is to Legalize Sex With Kids

Why the #FreeKate Story is Important: Legalizing Pedophilia?

Liberals Favor Sex With Children: #FreeKate Means Legalizing Pedophilia?

Of course, people will deny it, while they are advocating for it, but that is the pattern of deception to which we are accustomed.

Share

Republican Teachers Feel Harassed and Pressured at NEA Annual Convention

Share

As a conservative teacher, I long ago figured out that the Republican Party best represents my interests. A rising tide floats all boats, and in a profession where income is determined by the ability of the public to pay taxes, it is vital to both my long-term and short-term financial success that our nation’s economy be vibrant and healthy, and that the last several years have proved that Democratic control does not lead to that (or at least the new progressive-version of the Democratic Party that Obama represents). In addition, I care about family values and the importance of strong and stable social structures, and the Republican Party also believes in those more so than the Democratic Party, so my choice of being a Republican teacher is natural.

But just because I am a Republican teacher does not mean that I look down on my Democratic teacher friends who have not yet realized that they are supporting the wrong people for office. I don’t wear a shirt that displays my support for Republican candidates because I’m don’t want to be a walking sheep advertisement for any party. I don’t make Democrats feel uncomfortable or unwanted by talking badly to them about their personal political choices or giving speeches about how horrible their personal decisions are working out for them and the nation. My eyes don’t glaze over and I don’t preach at them to spread the good word of Romney and pressure their friends to vote for Romney so that Romney can keep more power. And I would be very angry (and am very angry) when if any Republicans booed any Democrat who stated their own personal views at any sort of non-partisan or professional gathering of teachers.

Thus I am angry and upset to hear that the National Education Association’s week long annual convention, paid for by my union dues, turned into an (undocumented) campaign event for President Obama and that Republican teachers elected to this event were made to feel unwanted, unwelcome, and harassed.

Via Fox News story Republican teachers uneasy at Obama-themed union convention:

It had all the trappings of a re-election rally: thousands packing a convention center, Barack Obama T-shirts, videos celebrating the health care law, and a wall-size banner with encouraging messages to the incumbent president. “You are our knight in shining armor — Sarah C., Norman, Okla.,” read one inscription.

But this Obama love fest in Washington was not a campaign event. The nearly 9,000 gathered were teachers in town for the National Education Association’s weeklong annual convention.

For the Republican teachers in attendance, the digs at their political views were impossible to overlook. “What I don’t like is the harassment going on for people to be an `EFO’ — an educator for Obama,” said Maureen van Wagner, a special education teacher from Anchorage, Alaska.

In interviews with The Associated Press, roughly a dozen teachers who identified themselves as Republicans said they felt pressure from union leaders and the rank-and-file to support Obama’s re-election — and felt marginalized when they wouldn’t. Some interviewed said they were so worried about retribution from their colleagues that they wouldn’t provide their names for publication….

…72 percent of delegates at last year’s NEA convention voted to endorse Obama for re-election — the earliest the group has ever endorsed in a presidential election cycle. (This was long before the GOP nominee elections even started).

But what did take Republican teachers off guard was the criticism they received for expressing support for Mitt Romney. A Republican teacher speaking at the convention was booed for doing just that. The incident prompted NEA President Dennis Van Roekel to intervene, saying that everyone had the right to speak. And when the union invited delegates to the Democratic National Convention in September to a special meeting, no such invitations went out to delegates to the GOP convention until a Republican teacher complained to Van Roekel — an error the union said resulted from a missed newsletter deadline….

…Despite the complaints, the NEA has no plans to shy away from a full embrace of what Mary Kusler, the union’s director of government relations, called “the incredible legacy and vision of (the Obama) administration.”…

This report is entirely consistent with my own experiences with the National Education Association (NEA)- every single aspect of what was written here is entirely correct- if anything, the story downplays the hostility and harassment that Democratic teachers exhibit towards Republican teachers and this story is much more balanced and fair to the NEA than it should be.

The NEA must do more to make Republican teachers welcome and supported in the organization- after all, almost 30% of NEA members are Republicans. The NEA must continue and expand funding for its Republican Educator Caucus, must continue and expand support for its Republican Leadership Conference, and the leadership of the NEA must make more and better steps to reign in the hate and vileness that is thrown at Republican teachers at NEA-hosted events. As an organization it must be held accountable for its actions and the fact that duly elected members of a teachers organization are made to feel the way that they are at a professional event purely because of their personal political views is wrong. This culture of hate at the NEA must be changed, and that change can only occur from within- NEA members must demand it and NEA leadership must lead.

I’m a member of the NEA and I’m an active Republican- and at no point should the NEA make me feel anything but proud to be so.

Original Post:  A Conservative Teacher

Share

Unions Contributions Expected to Exceed 450 Million Dollars in the Coming Election

Share

And, it’s really an opportunity.  But, before I explain that tidbit, let’s get some details on the spending, from the Politico…

Top labor leaders say they expect to spend more than ever on both state and federal contests this year. And if recent elections are any indicator, unions could drop more than $450 million, which they reportedly doled out in the 2008 election.

The union playbook: safeguard Democratic governors’ seats, flip state legislatures and hamstring anti-union ballot initiatives.

Kindly give the article a read, as it appears to be factual.

So, what are we to take from this?

1.  The unions are stretched pretty thin this year.  They spent millions in 2010 to protect their regressive allies in office, and took a drubbing at the polls.  Last year, they spent millions in Wisconsin and Ohio, trying to undo laws, and prompting recall elections.  They have to be stretched quite a bit with the constant funding for attacks on Conservatives.

2.  As I pointed out in February, unions are losing funds due to right to work, and laws that make union dues voluntary…

  For more, kindly take a look at this excerpt from Big Government…

Over the past year, several states – including WisconsinTennessee and Idaho – have passed legislation freeing teachers from the shackles of compulsory union membership.

Now that membership has become voluntary, a growing number of teachers are choosing to quit the union, which is causing hard times for the nation’s largest teachers union.

A new report finds the National Education Association has revised its membership numbers downward – from 3.2 million to just over 3 million.

According to Mike Antonucci of the Education Intelligence Agency website, the hemorrhaging of members is contributing to the NEA’s $17 million deficit, which may force union leaders to lay off employees and cut aid to state affiliates.

So, they are already stressed by their previous spending, and are even laying off their own workers.

So then, what if it wasn’t several states, but ten, or fifteen, or even twenty?  What if they lost 20-30% of their memberships, because they rank and file could CHOOSE whether or not they wanted to be in a union, or pay dues?  What could the unions do then? There is where the opportunity lies.  But instead, the Stupid Party seems to do the following; they go one at a time, or a few at time, and the others (who might contemplate acting) sit back, wringing their hands nervously, awaiting what will happen with the few that try.  Then, the unions are able to focus their maximum force (funds, ads, goons, and the like) on the few.  Then, the others either try piecemeal (and get equally mauled), or are scared off entirely.  This is what Rommel exploited in North Africa, when he famously told a captured British officer…

“What difference does it make if you have two tanks to my one, when you spread them out and let me smash them in detail?”

As I described in my January post,  What can Conservatives Learn From Erwin Rommel?  We would benefit from hitting the opposition with overwhelming force, from multiple directions.  Maybe we can’t be Rommel, but we certainly can be Montgomery, who was a master at the war of attrition.

All it takes is some vision,with a comprehensive, and coordinated plan.  States would not have to do the exact same thing, but do what is right, given their own situation.  Some might make dues voluntary.  Others might pass a Right to Work law.  Still others might reform pensions and health care contributions.  No matter the exact reform, they need to happen as close together as possible.  Even if not every initiative or vote is won, enough will be taken to free more and more workers from the union trap, and at the same time, weaken the union bosses.

Can anyone else see this?  If some small blogger can see this, why can’t anyone in the Stupid Party?

Share

If the NEA was so Great, why are People Leaving it?

Share

If they are permitted, that is.  As several states have passed laws making  union membership voluntary, the NEA has suffered a drop in membership, and consequently precious cashflow.  For more, kindly take a look at this excerpt from Big Government…

Over the past year, several states – including WisconsinTennessee and Idaho – have passed legislation freeing teachers from the shackles of compulsory union membership.

Now that membership has become voluntary, a growing number of teachers are choosing to quit the union, which is causing hard times for the nation’s largest teachers union.

A new report finds the National Education Association has revised its membership numbers downward – from 3.2 million to just over 3 million.

According to Mike Antonucci of the Education Intelligence Agency website, the hemorrhaging of members is contributing to the NEA’s $17 million deficit, which may force union leaders to lay off employees and cut aid to state affiliates.

I have to chuckle, because the unions portray themselves as the champions of the worker, but, when given the option, a large number of their members leave.  That does lead to the question, if unions were so great, why do they have to use the force of law to keep people in?  Why do they fight Right to Work laws?  Don’t those laws give people a choice?  And, aren’t the Democrats all about choice?  I guess choice is a rather relative term for the Democrats, and their union cronies.

When you think of it, forced union membership is the Berlin Wall of the labor market.  To keep people from leaving the ranks, the bosses pay politicians to pass laws, trapping people in the unions-their individual rights be damned.

In more pragmatic considerations, how much of that 17 million dollar deficit was incurred “gooning up” Wisconsin?  How much of it was used fighting right to work legislation, or recall elections, or labor reform bills? How much will they have left to give to Obama later this year?  I have been saying for some time that it might be advantageous to hit the unions from many angles, and forcing them to expend their resources over a broad front.  I would say that it’s a great time, if possible, to pour it on!  The more bills they fight, they more resources they have to expend.  The more bills that pass, the more workers that are set free from the unions, which hit their resources even more.  And, the more their resources are stretched, the less they have to buy elections.  It could result in a death sprial for them, resulting in more and more workers being freed from their tyranny, and more jobs for all.

It seems rather encouraging, doesn’t it?

Share

Support Local Teachers Unions, Question State Teachers Unions, Oppose National Teachers Unions

Share

All around the state of Michigan, when teachers aren’t talking about their NCAA brackets, the conversation is the coming teacher’s strike. These conversations are getting tougher and tougher on me, because I have a unique position among government employees- whereas most teachers support ‘their union’, I make a distinction- I defend and support my local union and its actions, but disagree with the actions of my state union, and attack the actions of my national union. You see, there are important differences between local, state, and national teachers unions- differences in who is in them, what they do, and what they are fighting for- and those differences are important enough that my position on each level is clearly different (as should yours, if I make the argument successfully).

My local union is composed of the teachers in my district. These people are my colleagues; I know them, they know me, and more importantly, we both know what the reality of the situation is. We know what funds the district at the local level- whether we have a rural town, a big city, a shopping mall, an important factory, etc- and we know where that money is going- what buildings have to maintained, transportation costs, new stadiums, fancy administration buildings, teacher salaries, etc. At the local level, my union serves a vital and important service- collectively organizing and bargaining on behalf of all the teachers for salaries, benefits, and working conditions in the district with the local administration and school board. They bargain tough and fair, we bargain tough and fair, and society is the winner. We represent the community and are part of the community, and so we don’t try to take advantage of the community and they don’t try to take advantage of us (or if that does happen, it gets real ugly and everyone is a loser).

My state union (MEA) is composed of people who derive their salaries and pay and benefits on the backs of the teachers who are working hard to teach children. These people work in the state capitol mostly, although there are mysterious field offices too scattered about the state, employing people who do something or other. They have intermittent contact with the districts that they serve, meeting with teachers every now and then or walking through a building, but they do not know the districts or the teachers, and so don’t know where the money is coming from or where the money is going. Oh, they know they want more money- they hammer away at funds and balances trying to move numbers around, but the numbers mean nothing to them since they don’t actually represent anything. And they really don’t know why they want more money- they know more money is good because more money means more union dues and so they get a higher salary and more benefits- but they don’t actually know where the more money they fight for actually goes- whether it is to repay a furlough day, to reinstate a step increase, to create a longevity bonus, to cover some sort of health benefit, to pay disability pay for a sick colleague, or anything else. They just know it is more money, and so they fight for it. The state union has little incentive to maintain the communities that they do not know, and the state government has little incentive to maintain the union that they do not know, and so the two fight ugly and dirty and society is less so because of this.

My national union (the NEA) is composed of people who derive their salaries and benefits from dues paid by teachers in the classroom working hard, and they resemble in many ways the state union, except that they are even further removed from teachers and the communities they serve and so care less about them. The nation union blows money sponsoring experts who talk about sexualizing children at earlier ages, recommends books to teachers like Rules for Radicals, and spends its time going to fancy dinners to lobby the national government to transfer more of societies wealth to ‘education’, even though the national union is now so far removed from ‘education’ that it knows not what it speaks about. Conferences sponsored by the NEA are far disconnected from the reality of the situation that teachers experience and focus on topics and subjects that are of only marginal importance to them. Since the national union serves only one purpose- redirect wealth from the national government- and this purpose is rather corrupt, it pretends it is something more, and its pretentiousness shows. Society suffers with the existence of the NEA, and this is yet more reason why the NEA, the Department of Education, and national funding for education all need to be done away with- they are all too disconnected to the local community.

Our lunch room conversations inevitably dissolve into me trying to dance the delicate dance of defending the actions of my local union while calling into question the actions of my state union and harshly criticizing the actions of my national union, and that dance is a tough dance that I shouldn’t have to perform. My local should be the focus- teachers should be the focus, and everything else should support and assist them. But like most government workers, the MEA and NEA is now part of the entitled class, which feels that others exist to serve them, rather than the other way around. Changes need to be made.

Original Post: A Conservative Teacher

Share

Culture War: NEA and GLSEN Indoctrinate Youth

Share

Back in 2009, this blog, as well as a host of others, helped expose GLSEN’s recommending reading list, which was, for the lack of a better term, erotic literature for pedophiles.  While there was a public outrage, it eventually calmed, though I think all the bloggers have had that in the back of their minds ever since.  After all, we know that the left does not go away when confronted.  They always come back to their agenda.  In this case, attacking traditional values and western culture.

For some background on the current situation, here is a quote from C-Fam…

“Oral sex, masturbation, and orgasms need to be taught in education,” Diane Schneider told the audience at a panel on combating homophobia and transphobia.  Schneider, representing the National Education Association (NEA), the largest teachers union in the US, advocated for more “inclusive” sex education in US schools, with curricula based on liberal hetero and homosexual expression.  She claimed that the idea of sex education remains an oxymoron if it is abstinence-based, or if students are still able to opt-out.

Comprehensive sex education is “the only way to combat heterosexism and gender conformity,” Schneider proclaimed, “and we must make these issues a part of every middle and high-school student’s agenda.”  “Gender identity expression and sexual orientation are a spectrum,” she explained, and said that those opposed to homosexuality “are stuck in a binary box that religion and family create.”

Should I mention that Schneider is affiliated with GLSEN??

Beyond the shock value of their words, take a look at the last sentence.  Religion and family have been the traditional targets of the left for decades.  Both of those institutions interfere with the power of the state.

Before you scoff at that, take a look at what I wrote about that last year…

Additionally, the liberals have sought to expand their educational efforts to children at increasingly younger ages.  Their goal seems to be the indoctrination of children. To illustrate, let’s look at some quotes by prominent educators and others…

“The schools cannot allow parents to influence the kind of values-education their children receive in school; that is what is wrong with those who say there is a universal system of values. Our (humanistic) goals are incompatible with theirs. We must change their values.

–Paul Haubner, specialist for the N.E.A.

“Among the elementary measures the American Soviet government will adopt to further the cultural revolution are…[a] National Department of Education…the studies will be revolutionized, being cleansed of religious, patriotic, and other features of the bourgeois ideology. The students will be taught the basis of Marxian dialectical materialism, internationalism and the general ethics of the new Socialist society.”

–William Z. Foster, Toward Soviet America, 1932 National Chairman of the American Communist Party (1933-44, 1945-57)

“Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed.”

–Joseph Stalin

John Dewey, called “the father of modern education,” was an avowed socialist, the co-author of the ‘Humanist Manifesto’ and cited as belonging to fifteen Marxist-front organizations by the Committee on Un-American Activities. Do the words (the father of modern education) now take on new meaning? Remember, Dewey taught the professors who would train America’s teachers. He was obsessed with “the group.” In his own words, “You can’t make socialists out of individualists. Children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming, where everyone is interdependent.”

The effort here is to control, from the earliest possible age, the beliefs and thoughts of the child.  Education is a secondary concern, if it is even a concern at all.  Knowledge and facts are secondary to that of the intended ideology.  If knowledge is indeed the currency of freedom, socialists must therefore carefully control what is taught, and competing opinions should be banished, and their proponents marginalized and punished.  Therefore, in any socialist or fascist state, education was among the first institutions to receive a complete conversion.  Curriculum was changed to reflect the new order, home schooling was banned, and private schools were either co-opted, or closed.  This is meant to achieve a “monopoly of ideology,” nothing more, nothing less.  Control the child and carefully monitor what they see and hear, and the end result (the “progressives” hope) is a complaint and brainwashed minion who will not question the state, as they will know nothing more than what they learned from the state.

If you think it isn’t happening, and we’re just making more of this that what it is, take a look at this…

This is not happening in every public school…yet.  With the NEA, GLSEN, and other organizations are pushing this, and with Kevin Jennings still working for the Department of Education, you can be sure it has the support of the White House.

If you have kids in public schools, and you are able, get them out as soon as possible.

H/T: The Other McCain, Maggie’s Notebook, Wyblog, Lonely Conservative

Share

Conservative Hideout Freedom Plan: The Parental Rights Amendment

Share

If you have noticed, I have been reposting a bit this week.  There is a reason for this.  Since Obama was elected, many of us have been pointing out every flaw in the Democratic/”Progressive” agenda.  That was certainly needed, and think our efforts had an impact.  However, we need to also talk about what we should be doing instead.  So, here is the latest in that effort.  The following was originally posted in January of this year.

The left tends to define Conservatives by what they are against, rather that what they favor or support.  While this is a little piece of propaganda, i.e., “the party of no,” I think it’s always useful to define what we are supporting.  So, I thought I might review a few issues that most Conservatives and Libertarians would be able to support, and are, frankly, important to me.  As such, these are my opinions, not necessarily the opinions of the other contributors at the CH 2.0.  They are open for debate, as debate is good.

As for the series, I will cover what I think Conservative politicians should pursue.  I know repealing ObamaCare will be attempted (or there will be more “angry mobs”).  I also know that there will be other things that will need removing.  But rather than say what we’re against, and it’s pretty obvious what those things are, I will discuss things that we are for.

My top priority has most always been to free our children from the government and it’s influences.  I have posted several times before regarding the openly stated goal of achieving socialism by infiltrating the major institutions of our society and using them to manipulate the people towards a pre-determined goal.  That goal of course, is socialism (or fascism, or progressivism-all closely related).  The weapon of choice is Cultural Marxism, and the targets are children.  Here are some quotes from public education supporters to justify this point of view.

John Dewey, called “the father of modern education,” was an avowed socialist, the co-author of the ‘Humanist Manifesto’ and cited as belonging to fifteen Marxist-front organizations by the Committee on Un-American Activities. Do the words (the father of modern education) now take on new meaning? Remember, Dewey taught the professors who would train America’s teachers. He was obsessed with “the group.” In his own words, “You can’t make socialists out of individualists. Children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming, where everyone is interdependent.”

Paul Haubner, specialist for the NEA, tells us, “The schools cannot allow parents to influence the kind of values-education their children receive in school. That is what is wrong with those who say there is a universal system of values. Our goals are incompatible with theirs. We must change their values.”

Professor Chester M. Pierce, M.D., Professor of Education and Psychiatry at Harvard, has this to say, “Every child in America entering school at the age of five is mentally ill because he comes to school with certain allegiances to our Founding Fathers, toward our elected officials, toward his parents, toward a belief in a supernatural being, and toward the sovereignty of this nation as a separate entity. It’s up to you as teachers to make all these sick children well — by creating the international child of the future.”

In the Humanist Review magazine it was observed that, “Education is thus a most powerful ally of humanism. What can a theistic Sunday school’s meeting for an hour once a week and teaching only a fraction of the children do to stem the tide of the five-day program of humanistic teaching?”

P. Blanchard, in ‘The Humanist” 1983, continues: “I think that the most important factor moving us toward a secular society has been the educational factor. Our schools may not teach Johnny how to read properly, but the fact that Johnny is in school until he is 16 tends toward the elimination of religious superstition. The average American child now acquires a high school education, and this militates against Adam and Eve and all other myths of alleged history.”

So, for many decades now, there has been a concerted effort to take over our education system.  They have succeeded.    The system itself is now set up as a progressive manipulation machine.  Why try for universal daycare?  To separate kids from the parents!  Why belittle and attempt to limit home schooling, especially when home schooled kids, as a group, out perform the public schools by a large margin?  It’s all about control!  Get the kids away from the parents, and their beliefs, and indoctrinate them into the collective/progressive drones of the future.

I wrote this a few months ago…

People that believe in freedom are already the new pariahs for the left.  One only needs to look at the media coverage of the Tea Parties to confirm this.  The drumbeat will only grow.  As it does, the left will continue to indoctrinate more and more children.  We might yet defeat the socialized medicine, and we might prevent passage of Cap and Trade.  Obama may lose his congressional majorities in 2010.  He might even be defeated in 2012.  But if we continue to give our kids to the government every day, those victories will be temporary, delaying the socialists for a few years to be sure, but in the end, futile.

So, what is the solution?  The Parental Rights Amendment has been discussed since the 90’s.  It’s gaining more and more traction as our government becomes increasingly intrusive.  Its text is simple.  The following is from the site that supports the Amendment, with an explanation of each of the three sections.

SECTION ONE

The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right.

In the 1925 decision of Pierce v. Society of Sisters, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a compulsory attendance act that required all parents to send their students to public schools, instead of private or religious schools. The court concluded that the act was unconstitutional because it “unreasonably interferes with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control.”

Section Two

Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe upon this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.

Because fundamental rights are so important to our freedom as Americans, the government must meet a heightened burden of proof in order to restrict those rights. In legal terms, the government’s case begins with a positive demonstration – they must prove that there is a government interest in restricting the right, and that the government has a specific interest in restricting the right of the particular parents whose actions are being challenged. In early 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court used this very language when talking about violations of religious liberty. According to the Court, the government must “demonstrate that the compelling interest test is satisfied through application of the challenged law ‘to the person’–the particular claimant whose sincere exercise of religion is being substantially burdened.”Gonzales v. O Centro Espirito Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal, 548 U.S. 418, 430-431 (2006). The text of this proposed parental rights amendment merely takes this well-established principle of law, and applies it explicitly to the fundamental right of parents.

SECTION THREE

No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.

According to Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, international law is comprised of international treaties, international customs which have been accepted as law by general practice, the general principles of law recognized in civilized nations, and the judicial decisions and teachings of legal authors and scholars. All four channels of international law currently pose a significant threat to parental rights.

The Parental Rights Amendment would prohibit the use of all four sources of international law in determining what rights of parents should be protected. Treaties that were ratified by the United States would need to be interpreted in light of what the Amendment guarantees to citizens, instead of using the treaty to interpret the meaning and extent of constitutional liberties. Furthermore, federal courts would not be able to impose harmful principles of customary international law on parents, because the rights granted in the text of the Constitution override and overwhelm conflicting principles of customary international law.

So, this would protect the rights of parents to raise them in accordance with their wishes and conscience.  It would provide safeguards against child abuse, and would, at the same time, make children immune from such things as UN treaties that undermine families.

Will this prevent the schools from being indoctrination centers?  No.  Will it make all the Marxist professors or “progressive” educational programs go way?  Also no.  What it will do is “etch in stone” the rights of parents to guide the upbringing of children.  It prevents the government from moving on desired usurpations of rights, and it gives parents recourse to defend their children against the indoctrination machine.

So, why make this first?  For me, it protects our children from indoctrination.  It frees home-schooled families from the fear of one day being forced to subject their children to something they may not want.  But also, it is achievable; the left will have to ties itself into knots to not appear to be anti-family.  It could also give a new Conservative administration or Congress a quick win.

Now, some will say that I’m being political and playing the game.  Perhaps that is true.  But I know the left will have a significant reaction to this.  Untold billions of dollars are tied up in the public indoctrination machine.  The unions, the special interests, and the politicians that want a complaint army of useful idiots, all have a stake in indoctrinating youth.  They won’t let this pass lying down.  So, we structure the fight so they have to show their true colors.  Let them come with false claims.  We’ll show where the money goes.  Let them deride the supporters of the Amendment.  We’ll point out that they are anti-family.  We don’t have to lie, or invent any evidence.  They do.  Let them fall on their swords for it.  It’ll take the wind out of their sails for other efforts.

Share

Conservative Hideout Freedom Plan: The Parental Rights Amendment

Share

The left tends to define Conservatives by what they are against, rather that what they favor or support.  While this is a little piece of propaganda, i.e., “the party of no,” I think it’s always useful to define what we are supporting.  So, I thought I might review a few issues that most Conservatives and Libertarians would be able to support, and are, frankly, important to me.  As such, these are my opinions, not necessarily the opinions of the other contributors at the CH 2.0.  They are open for debate, as debate is good.

As for the series, I will cover what I think Conservative politicians should pursue.  I know repealing ObamaCare will be attempted (or there will be more “angry mobs”).  I also know that there will be other things that will need removing.  But rather than say what we’re against, and it’s pretty obvious what those things are, I will discuss things that we are for.

My top priority has most always been to free our children from the government and it’s influences.  I have posted several times before regarding the openly stated goal of achieving socialism by infiltrating the major institutions of our society and using them to manipulate the people towards a pre-determined goal.  That goal of course, is socialism (or fascism, or progressivism-all closely related).  The weapon of choice is Cultural Marxism, and the targets are children.  Here are some quotes from public education supporters to justify this point of view.

John Dewey, called “the father of modern education,” was an avowed socialist, the co-author of the ‘Humanist Manifesto’ and cited as belonging to fifteen Marxist-front organizations by the Committee on Un-American Activities. Do the words (the father of modern education) now take on new meaning? Remember, Dewey taught the professors who would train America’s teachers. He was obsessed with “the group.” In his own words, “You can’t make socialists out of individualists. Children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming, where everyone is interdependent.”

Paul Haubner, specialist for the NEA, tells us, “The schools cannot allow parents to influence the kind of values-education their children receive in school. That is what is wrong with those who say there is a universal system of values. Our goals are incompatible with theirs. We must change their values.”

Professor Chester M. Pierce, M.D., Professor of Education and Psychiatry at Harvard, has this to say, “Every child in America entering school at the age of five is mentally ill because he comes to school with certain allegiances to our Founding Fathers, toward our elected officials, toward his parents, toward a belief in a supernatural being, and toward the sovereignty of this nation as a separate entity. It’s up to you as teachers to make all these sick children well — by creating the international child of the future.”

In the Humanist Review magazine it was observed that, “Education is thus a most powerful ally of humanism. What can a theistic Sunday school’s meeting for an hour once a week and teaching only a fraction of the children do to stem the tide of the five-day program of humanistic teaching?”

P. Blanchard, in ‘The Humanist” 1983, continues: “I think that the most important factor moving us toward a secular society has been the educational factor. Our schools may not teach Johnny how to read properly, but the fact that Johnny is in school until he is 16 tends toward the elimination of religious superstition. The average American child now acquires a high school education, and this militates against Adam and Eve and all other myths of alleged history.”

So, for many decades now, there has been a concerted effort to take over our education system.  They have succeeded.    The system itself is now set up as a progressive manipulation machine.  Why try for universal daycare?  To separate kids from the parents!  Why belittle and attempt to limit home schooling, especially when home schooled kids, as a group, out perform the public schools by a large margin?  It’s all about control!  Get the kids away from the parents, and their beliefs, and indoctrinate them into the collective/progressive drones of the future.

I wrote this a few months ago…

People that believe in freedom are already the new pariahs for the left.  One only needs to look at the media coverage of the Tea Parties to confirm this.  The drumbeat will only grow.  As it does, the left will continue to indoctrinate more and more children.  We might yet defeat the socialized medicine, and we might prevent passage of Cap and Trade.  Obama may lose his congressional majorities in 2010.  He might even be defeated in 2012.  But if we continue to give our kids to the government every day, those victories will be temporary, delaying the socialists for a few years to be sure, but in the end, futile.

So, what is the solution?  The Parental Rights Amendment has been discussed since the 90’s.  It’s gaining more and more traction as our government becomes increasingly intrusive.  Its text is simple.  The following is from the site that supports the Amendment, with an explanation of each of the three sections.

SECTION ONE

The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right.

In the 1925 decision of Pierce v. Society of Sisters, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a compulsory attendance act that required all parents to send their students to public schools, instead of private or religious schools. The court concluded that the act was unconstitutional because it “unreasonably interferes with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control.”

Section Two

Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe upon this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.

Because fundamental rights are so important to our freedom as Americans, the government must meet a heightened burden of proof in order to restrict those rights. In legal terms, the government’s case begins with a positive demonstration – they must prove that there is a government interest in restricting the right, and that the government has a specific interest in restricting the right of the particular parents whose actions are being challenged. In early 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court used this very language when talking about violations of religious liberty. According to the Court, the government must “demonstrate that the compelling interest test is satisfied through application of the challenged law ‘to the person’–the particular claimant whose sincere exercise of religion is being substantially burdened.” Gonzales v. O Centro Espirito Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal, 548 U.S. 418, 430-431 (2006). The text of this proposed parental rights amendment merely takes this well-established principle of law, and applies it explicitly to the fundamental right of parents.

SECTION THREE

No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.

According to Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, international law is comprised of international treaties, international customs which have been accepted as law by general practice, the general principles of law recognized in civilized nations, and the judicial decisions and teachings of legal authors and scholars. All four channels of international law currently pose a significant threat to parental rights.

The Parental Rights Amendment would prohibit the use of all four sources of international law in determining what rights of parents should be protected. Treaties that were ratified by the United States would need to be interpreted in light of what the Amendment guarantees to citizens, instead of using the treaty to interpret the meaning and extent of constitutional liberties. Furthermore, federal courts would not be able to impose harmful principles of customary international law on parents, because the rights granted in the text of the Constitution override and overwhelm conflicting principles of customary international law.

So, this would protect the rights of parents to raise them in accordance with their wishes and conscience.  It would provide safeguards against child abuse, and would, at the same time, make children immune from such things as UN treaties that undermine families.

Will this prevent the schools from being indoctrination centers?  No.  Will it make all the Marxist professors or “progressive” educational programs go way?  Also no.  What it will do is “etch in stone” the rights of parents to guide the upbringing of children.  It prevents the government from moving on desired usurpations of rights, and it gives parents recourse to defend their children against the indoctrination machine.

So, why make this first?  For me, it protects our children from indoctrination.  It frees home-schooled families from the fear of one day being forced to subject their children to something they may not want.  But also, it is achievable; the left will have to ties itself into knots to not appear to be anti-family.  It could also give a new Conservative administration or Congress a quick win.

Now, some will say that I’m being political and playing the game.  Perhaps that is true.  But I know the left will have a significant reaction to this.  Untold billions of dollars are tied up in the public indoctrination machine.  The unions, the special interests, and the politicians that want a complaint army of useful idiots, all have a stake in indoctrinating youth.  They won’t let this pass lying down.  So, we structure the fight so they have to show their true colors.  Let them come with false claims.  We’ll show where the money goes.  Let them deride the supporters of the Amendment.  We’ll point out that they are anti-family.  We don’t have to lie, or invent any evidence.  They do.  Let them fall on their swords for it.  It’ll take the wind out of their sails for other efforts.

Consider this an open thread.

Share

NEA Recommends Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

Share

Here is another re-post from A Conservative Teacher.   Kindly give his site a visit.

The National Education Association, or NEA, is the largest teacher’s union in the country and one of the top lobbying groups in the nation. Almost every single state teacher’s association, including the Michigan Education Association, or MEA, belongs to the NEA. These state associations are among the most powerful lobbying groups in their respective states. And the NEA recommends that every teacher read Saul Alinksy’s Rules for Radicals.

On the NEA website, under “Tools and Ideas”, along with lesson plans and articles on classroom management, there is a resource called “Association Representative Resources.” Follow that link and then click on “Articles & Multimedia.” You will see that out of all of the books in the entire world of books, the NEA recommends reading only three, one of which is Saul Alinsky’s book Rules for Radicals.

Here is the review of this book from the largest teacher’s union in the country:

Saul Alinsky, who was a labor and civil-rights activist from the 1910’s until he died in 1972, has written here a guidebook for those who are out to change things. Alinsky was hated and defamed by powerful enemies, proof that his tactics worked. His simple formula for success…
“Agitate + Aggravate + Educate + Organize”

This is the official review of this book written by the NEA. The NEA didn’t choose many books to recommend that teachers read- they only choose three. And in its review of Alinsky, the NEA reviewer embraced Alinsky’s radical ideas.

The NEA recommends that teachers- that your child’s teacher- agitates against the rule of law in this nation, aggravates anyone who opposes the teachers and the NEA’s views on issues, educates children on what to believe, and organize in such as way as to defeat any enemies of the NEA. The NEA recommends that your teacher become a radical.

I wish I was making this stuff up, and I wish that my dues were not going to fund an organization that encourages teachers to become radicals. But it is true- read it yourself.

The NEA recommends that teachers read Alinsky’s book, follow his advice, and become radical proponents of a leftist agenda. Your children go in to classrooms every day, and your only hope is that teachers ignore the advice and pressure exerted on them by their own union leaders. Your best hope is that the teacher who teaches your children just pays dues to the NEA every year and supports it, but doesn’t really listen to what it wants them to do in the classroom. Your best hope is that the NEA member who teaches your child doesn’t ‘really’ belong to the NEA. You better hope that the teacher who is teaching your child today is not reading the books the NEA recommends for them to read.

Originally Posted at A Conservative Teacher.

Share

Education: Our Greatest Battle?

Share

This is an article that I had commented on for another site some time ago. I thought that given the current climate of “change,” it might be a good idea to re-visit it. The article is eight years old, however, it seems to echo what is going on today.

From the August 2001 Idaho Observer:

Why Our Schools Teach Socialism

By Joe Larson

Congratulations America: Today there are over 10,000 openly marxist professors and thousands of humanist professors controlling the universities and colleges that produce America’s teachers and other professionals. Varying forms of marxist-humanism are the predominant philosophies of the educational establishment; yet we repeatedly send our most precious gift (our children) off to them for “education” (indoctrination).

Today’s schools are filled with sex education, political correctness, environmental extremism, global unity, diversity training (pro-homosexuality) and higher order thinking skills [HOTS]; which boldly claim that to become a higher order thinker one must first believe the fact that there are no absolutes, absolutely! “The Greatest Story Ever Told” based on the greatest book ever written, “The Holy Bible,” about the greatest teacher who ever lived, Jesus, is not allowed, let alone used, in the schools of America. The Bible was America’s first textbook; yet today it is referred to as a book of fables.

Our schools are filled with violence, murder, extortion, rape, unwanted pregnancy, drug use, disrespect, foul language, declining test scores and children who cannot read. While the pontificators wonder why, God doesn’t; He knows – Hosea 4:6 says, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. I will also reject thee seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God; I will also forget thy children.” Verse 7 says, “As they were increased, so they sinned against Me: Therefore, will I change their glory into shame.”

The problem with America’s educational system began with the birth of socialism and given impetus by federal government involvement. Lenin, one of the world’s leading experts on socialism, tells us – “Communism is socialism in a hurry.” Socialism, therefore, is communism by gradualism rather than by revolution. The socialist “Fabian Society,” the forerunner of most socialist groups in America, had as their motto “Make Haste Slowly.” “Democratic Socialism” became the battle cry to socialize the United States of America. The socialists’ goal was to “permeate and penetrate,” then control this nation from deep within. Their first target in America was our children through public instruction.

In the U.S. their followers would use language as their first line of attack and deceit. They would wear no badge nor socialist label, but were to call themselves “liberal,” “progressive” and even “moderate.” Words were the weapon of choice for this new war. By changing and shifting word meanings the socialists could cover their true purpose. Everything would be done under the banners of “reform” and “social justice,” suggesting all was for the public good, for humanitarian reasons, for true democracy — and finally — for the children. The buzzwords of socialism were then, and are today, “social” and “democracy” (i.e. social science, social studies and socialization of the child). Robert Conquest observed, “a communist never does anything under his own name that he can do under someone else’s.”

This is important:  Totalitarians never announce themselves.  They do not come in and say, “Hi, we’re socialists and we’re going to take away your freedoms bit by bit.  We’re going to criminalize your beliefs and your God. We’re going to control every aspect of your live from cradle to grave, and there isn’t a thing you can do about it!” They couch their intentions with pleasant sounding words; they distort and confuse the meanings of their words to make you think “it’s OK.”  How many times do we hear the term “change, reform, progressive?” Or, what of “tolerance, diversity, or fairness?”  “Change” is certainly true (not change we would want), but what of the others?  I think we all know what they really mean.

Regarding the statement, “make haste slowly,” the left does not announce their plans and intentions in full form.  They know that the public would reject them.  Instead, they move incrementally.  They take whatever step they can at a time.  Either by exploiting a crisis, or creating one, they implement their plans step by step.  It will start with some regulations or restrictions, usually in response to some real or invented event or problem.  As time wears on, they add to the regulations or restrictions.  At each phase, the politicians and media assures the public that it’s just some small sacrifices that they’re making, and the government doesn’t  really want to take some right or freedom away.  The educational system plays a role here as well.  Since so many children are indoctrinated, they will no know the reasons for the freedoms that we have.  As we have heard, there have been more than a few occasions where children have been threatened with failing grades, ridiculed, or otherwise discriminated against because they had a differing viewpoint.  Too many of these people grow to be adults with absolutely no concept of our system of government.  They don’t recognize that government control always leads to tyranny.  They have no idea that the founders wrote our Constitution to protect our rights from the very things that are happening now.

In the early 1900’s, because of unrest in Europe, thousands of socialists flocked to America for safety. Large numbers held degrees in the fields of psychology, sociology and psychiatry (behavioral sciences, dealing with behavior and [social] change). Many went on to become college and university professors.

Norman Thomas, socialist and member of the Civil Liberties Union, boldly told the world, “The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened.”

Note now that they don’t use the word “liberal.” They now refer to themselves as “progressive.”  How ironic! They use a nice sounding term to describe tyranny.

The story of how the socialists took over the American educational establishment would fill a book; so let us just listen to their own words.

John Dewey, called “the father of modern education,” was an avowed socialist, the co-author of the ‘Humanist Manifesto’ and cited as belonging to fifteen Marxist-front organizations by the Committee on Un-American Activities. Do the words (the father of modern education) now take on new meaning? Remember, Dewey taught the professors who would train America’s teachers. He was obsessed with “the group.” In his own words, “You can’t make socialists out of individualists. Children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming, where everyone is interdependent.”

How many of us were taught by our parents, or even our schools, to think for ourselves, be self-reliant, strive to achieve our dreams, be our own person?  Under the system of the future, are these traits illnesses that are to be “treated?” Are we to be replaced by successive generations of subservient drones that have no ability to critically analyze facts, and therefore will never question their masters?

Rosalie Gordon, writing on Dewey’s progressive (socialist) education in her book “What’s Happened To Our Schools,” said, “The progressive system has reached all the way down to the lowest grades to prepare the children of America for their role as the collectivists of the future. The group — not the individual child — is the quintessence of progressivism. The child must always be made to feel part of the group. He must indulge in group thinking and group activity.”

Collectivist = Communists.  Notice how individuality is to be eliminated.  How meaningful are the individual freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution when individuality is to be eliminated? As an update, is it any surprise that the government has been pushing mandatory pre-school? This has nothing to do with education. This is about indoctrination.  They state it plainly themselves.

After visiting the Soviet Union, Dewey wrote six articles on the “wonders” of Soviet education. The School-To-Work system in our public schools (all 50 states) is modeled after the Soviet poly-technical system.

In 1936, the National Education Association stated its position, from which they have never wavered; “We stand for socializing the individual.”

The NEA in its “Policy For American Education” stated, “The major problem of education in our times arises out of the fact that we live in a period of fundamental social change. In the new democracy [we were a Republic] education must share in the responsibility of giving purpose and direction to social change. The major function of the school is the social orientation of the individual. Education must operate according to a well-formulated social policy.”

Paul Haubner, specialist for the NEA, tells us, “The schools cannot allow parents to influence the kind of values-education their children receive in school. That is what is wrong with those who say there is a universal system of values. [Christians?] Our (humanistic) goals are incompatible with theirs. We must change their values.”

Professor Chester M. Pierce, M.D., Professor of Education and Psychiatry at Harvard, has this to say, “Every child in America entering school at the age of five is mentally ill because he comes to school with certain allegiances to our Founding Fathers, toward our elected officials, toward his parents, toward a belief in a supernatural being, and toward the sovereignty of this nation as a separate entity. It’s up to you as teachers to make all these sick children well — by creating the international child of the future.”

Some politicians agree. Listen to former Senator Paul Hoagland of Nebraska: “The fundamentalist parents have no right to indoctrinate their children in their beliefs. We are preparing their children for the year 2000 and life in a global one-world society and those children will not fit in.”

What then happens to those children that do not “fit in” to this new socialist world?  Many of the readers of this blog have been subject to the indoctrination of the public schools and universities.  We were somehow able to resist and form opinions of our own.  What will become of such people in the “new order?”

In the Humanist Review magazine it was observed that, “Education is thus a most powerful ally of humanism. What can a theistic Sunday school’s meeting for an hour once a week and teaching only a fraction of the children do to stem the tide of the five-day program of humanistic teaching?”

P. Blanchard, in ‘The Humanist” 1983, continues: “I think that the most important factor moving us toward a secular society has been the educational factor. Our schools may not teach Johnny how to read properly, but the fact that Johnny is in school until he is 16 tends toward the elimination of religious superstition. The average American child now acquires a high school education, and this militates against Adam and Eve and all other myths of alleged history.”

In a socialist state, there can be no power higher than the state. The concept of God, and for some reason, the Christian God in particular, that has to be eliminated. They won’t say that publicly, but that’s the agenda.  Even for those who aren’t religious, what other ideas might be out of synch with the new worldview?  Once they come for the Christians, who might be next?

John J. Dunphy wrote in the Jan/Feb 1983 edition of The Humanist, “The battle for mankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom. The classroom must and will become the arena of conflict between the old and the new. The rotting corpse of Christianity and the new faith of humanism.”

Our bureaucrats, politicians and educators are constantly on television blaming either parents or lack of funds for our schools’ dilemmas. The answer is always more money and more government control. For well over 50 years the American voter has believed this line of crap. Victor Gollancz, a famous socialist publisher tells us why he believed that socialism would take over America; “Christians are not exactly bright, so it will be easy for socialism to lead them down the garden path through their ideals of brotherly love and ‘social justice.’”

It’s (past) time that Christian men stand up for their families and their faith and put God back in charge of this nation and it’s schools.

Joe Larson is the director of Restoring America, a nationwide association of individuals and organizations, including The Idaho Observer, that are dedicated to networking their information, activities and resources to further the effort of a peaceful restoration of our Constitutional Republic. Larson can be contacted at restoringamerica.org or by calling: (573) 793-3156.

http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20010816.htm

I know, why this now?  I know the ObamaCare plan is oozing its way through Congress.  I know Cap and Trade lurks on the horizon.  Education is already in the hands of the left, and it has been for some time.  We vehemently defend our health care choices and our income, as well we should, but we then forget about our children?  With every successive generation of children going through the public schools, the levels of violence, the lack of ethics, and the lack of knowledge of the average American citizen continues to grow.  Yes, many of us were taught well at home.  We learned lessons of hard work, discipline, integrity, and so forth from our parents and other family members.  But as these new generations are indoctrinated with leftist ideas, there will be fewer and fewer parents able or willing to teach such lessons.  My fear is that, at some time in the future, we will reach a tipping point where people that are honest, have integrity, or are able to think independently will become a small minority.  At that point, the indoctrinated ones will freely give up all the rights that made this nation great, simply because they don’t know the utility of them.  In fact, they will have been taught to despise them.

People that believe in freedom are already the new pariahs for the left.  One only needs to look at the media coverage of the Tea Parties to confirm this.  The drumbeat will only grow.  As it does, the left will continue to indoctrinate more and more children.  We might yet defeat the socialized medicine, and we might prevent passage of Cap and Trade.  Obama may lose hig congressional majorities in 2010.  He might even be defeated in 2012.  But if we continue to give our kids to the government every day, those victories will be temporary, delaying the socialists for a few years to be sure, but in the end, futile.

Share

NEA: Socialist, and Proud of it!

Share

I caught this on WND last week, but didn’t have a change to post it until today.  The following is a speech by the outgoing General Counsel for the NEA.  It’s a long video, so kindly start at 16:00.

They openly support socialist policies, take them to the children, and are soooo proud of it!

If your child(ren) are still in public school, this is what the NEA thinks of you!  GET THEM OUT NOW!!

Share