Watch Your Language

Words mean things. Beware when people endeavor to redefine them in service to a political agenda.

Nate Jackson · The Patriot Post. Jan. 23, 2018

Language is critically important when it comes to understanding other people. It’s one of the things that separates man from beast. But perhaps ever since the Tower of Babel, we humans are destined to misunderstand each other. Unfortunately, sometimes, that misunderstanding is due to people deliberately reshaping language for political ends. Time and space won’t permit a comprehensive list, but here are a few prominent examples.

Much of the current debate in Washington revolves around immigration, where there’s no shortage of manipulated and deceitful terminology. The technical and legal term “illegal alien” has been not just discarded but rejected with prejudice by leftist open-borders advocates, who for years now have referred to illegals as “undocumented.” Sometimes for good measure they add “workers,” so we don’t think these folks are taking from the system. News flash: they are.

“Dreamer” is another one. Granted, that’s actually derived from an unpassed bill called the DREAM Act (an acronym for Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act), but that title too was a clever spin on the language to make amnesty for certain illegals sound as appealing as possible. Who could possibly oppose “dreamers”? Hence the word play.

In days past, “racism” meant prejudice against another race. Now it’s a catch-all term for conservative policies on taxes, “welfare” (another distorted word), immigration, etc. Leftists don’t argue policy merits, they shout “racism” and spike the football, thinking they’ve won the argument.

The homosexual agenda, too, is rife with redefinitions. “Gay,” of course, used to mean carefree. “Love” once meant selfless acts of compassion for someone else; now that “love wins” is the slogan for same-sex marriage, it means forcing your political agenda upon someone else. “Love” — “tolerance” too — means putting good people out of business for conscientiously objecting to providing artistic services for same-sex weddings.

That agenda has expanded to include transgenderism, so we read and watch emotional stories about boys using feminine pronouns and vice versa with the desired result being our celebration of a “brave” choice. Bruce and Bradley are now Caitlyn and Chelsea. Enabling a young child to decide she’s a “boy” is no longer child abuse, it’s “tolerance.” All that matters is affirming a person’s gender dysphoria, not sticking with facts or science - much less actually helping such people.

“Phobia” is a suffix now attached to numerous words and it serves much the same purpose as “racism.” Conservatives are “homophobic,” “transphobic,” “xenophobic” and so on, because it helps leftists dismiss good-faith policy or moral arguments as irrational fear.

Along a similar cultural vein, media organizations refer to “pro-life” groups as “anti-abortion,” which is true in a sense yet woefully inadequate and deliberately negative. “Life” itself has been shifted from conception to birth. “Choice” is a sick euphemism for ending life. Again, never mind scientific definitions when an agenda is on the line.

One of the more sinister efforts at language manipulation is with guns. Media reports ubiquitously refer to certain guns with the misnomer “assault weapons,” or they speak of “high-capacity” magazines instead of standard capacity. When a deranged individual or a religious fanatic murders numerous people, he is, according to the media, a “gunman,” because that puts the focus on the instrument of death rather than the killer himself. Subtly, that sways people’s emotions against a tool, and it provides - pardon the pun - ammunition for those who would curtail our Second Amendment rights.

Terrorists motived by loyalty to a worldwide entity we in our humble shop call Jihadistan are, to the media, “lone wolves.” And yet fatherless, medicated and unaffiliated killers are somehow motivated by the “gun lobby”?

Far more broadly speaking is calling our “republic” a “democracy.” The latter has become lazy shorthand for getting to vote for stuff, while “republic” is too often associated with communist tyranny that isn’t republican at all, as in The People’s Republic of… For many Americans, accepting this terminology shift is largely just lazy, but make no mistake - Democrats benefit from the widespread good feelings associated with “democracy,” while the converse is true for Republicans. That same marketing technique was employed when the media shifted red and blue states 30 years ago. Ronald Reagan’s map was blue, but Democrats didn’t want the association with communist red. Hence the change.

Walter Williams recently wrote an outstanding explanation of why the Founding Fathers “went to great lengths to ensure that we were a republic and not a democracy.” Moreover, Williams notes, “The word democracy does not appear in the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution or any other of our founding documents.” In fact, the Founders warned against democracy as its own form of tyranny.

We could go on ad nauseum, but readers can see the point. Words mean things, and all Americans should beware and reject the mainstream media’s redefinitions, which often advance specific points in the Left’s agenda. Unfortunately, most other conservative media outlets don’t bother getting these words right and thus cede ground to leftists. Your Patriot Post team, on the other hand, has endeavored for more than 21 years to fight for the language as part of our fight for both truth and Liberty. We aim for that to continue.

https://patriotpost.us/articles/53634-watch-your-language

"There are only two means by which men can deal with one another: guns or logic. Force or persuasion. Those who know that they cannot win by means of logic, have always resorted to guns." —Ayn Rand

"The Gun Is Civilization"

By Marko Kloos

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another:reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force.

Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a car load of drunk guys with baseball bats.

The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender,  not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid.

It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

Marko’s blog can be found at http://munchkinwrangler.blogspot.com/index.html

18 Reasons Why Doctors and Lawyers Homeschool Their Children

by Kathleen Berchelmann, M.D. on March 25, 2013

I’m going public today with a secret I’ve kept for a year—my husband and I are homeschooling our children. I never dreamed we would become homeschoolers. I wanted my kids integrated and socialized. I wanted their eyes opened to the realities of the world. I wanted the values we taught at home put to the test in the real world. But necessity drove me to consider homeschooling for my 2nd and 4th graders, and so I timidly attended a home school parent meeting last spring. Surprisingly it was full of doctors, lawyers, former public school teachers, and other professionals. These were not the stay-at-home-moms in long skirts that I expected.   The face of homeschooling is changing. We are not all religious extremists or farmers, and our kids are not all overachieving academic nerds without social skills.

An estimated 2.04 million k12 children are home educated in the United States, a 75% increase since 1999.   Although currently only 4% of all K12 students nationwide are educated at home, experts are predicting an exponential boom in homeschooling in the next 5-10 years. Most states even provide free online public schools, known as virtual schools or virtual homeschools for K12 students. An information site called College@Home provides some useful information.

For a year I was afraid to tell any of my work colleagues that we were homeschooling. People would stereotype me as a right-wing kook. My boss might assume that I couldn’t possibly be committed to an academic medical career. I wasn’t sure I could homeschool my kids well. I feared the whole year would be an academic failure and emotional nightmare. I was so unsure about this homeschooling experiment that I even kept a spare school uniform in case I had to send my kids back to school at the last moment.

This week our kids are finishing their standardized curriculum and we will spend the rest of the school year doing enrichment activities. Alas, I think we can call this success.

We’ve had our kids in both public and private schools, but homeschooling has turned out to be the best option for our family. Here are 18 reasons why we have joined America’s fastest growing educational trend:

1)      We spend less time homeschooling each day than we used to spend driving. With four kids in four locations last year (including a newborn at home), school drop-off and pick-up took four hours, on a good day. We’d get home at about 4:30 and still have homework, music practice, sports, chores, dinner and bath to fit into the 4 hours before bed. Now we spend about four hours per day homeschooling, instead of four hours in the car.

2)      We can’t afford private education. Even on a doctor’s salary, private education has become unaffordable, especially for larger families. Which choice would you make: save for college, save for retirement, or pay private school tuition? Few families can afford for all three, and most can only afford one. As educational debts loom larger for each successive generation, this financial crunch will only get worse.

3)      Our kids are excelling academically as homeschoolers. Homeschooling allows us to enrich our children’s strengths and supplement their weaknesses. The kids’ education moves as fast or as slow as required for that particular subject area. They are not pigeon-holed and tracked as gifted, average, or special needs.

4)      Homeschooling is not hard, and it’s fun! We bought a “box curriculum” from a major homeschool vendor, and all the books and the day-by-day curriculum checklist came in the mail. We have a lot of fun supplementing material through YouTube and online educational sites like Dreambox, Khan Academy, and others. Our kids do about half of their math online.

5)      Use whatever public school services you like. Need speech therapy, the gifted program, or remedial academics? Homeschooled kids are still eligible for all these services. Some homeschoolers come into public school daily for “specials” like art, music, PE, or the school play. Your kids can even join high school sports teams once they are old enough. Our kids are still in sports and scouts sponsored by their old schools.

6)      I like parenting more, by far. As a mom of school-aged kids, I felt like my role as parent had been diminished to mini-van driver, schedule-keeper, cook and disciplinarian. And there was no mercy from the schools– six minutes late for pickup and they’d be calling my husband at work, unpaid 5 cent library fine and they’d withhold my child’s report card. Every day I’d unpack a pile of crinkled notice papers from three backpacks and hope that I didn’t miss the next permission slip. I was not born, raised and educated to spend my days like this. Now, I love being a mom.

7)      Our family spends our best hours of each day together. We were giving away our kids during their best hours, when they were rested and happy, and getting them back when they were tired, grumpy and hungry. I dreaded each evening, when the fighting and screaming never seemed to end, and my job was to push them through homework, extracurriculars, and music practice. Now, our kids have happy time together each day. At recess time, the kids are actually excited about playing with each other!

8)      We yell at our kids less. Homeschooling forces us as parents to maintain a loving authority in the household. We stopped spanking our kids. You can’t get your kids to write essays or complete a large set of math problems if you don’t have their respect and obedience. Spanking and corporal punishment establish fear, not effective, loving obedience.

9)      Our kids have time for creative play and unique interests. Once my kids entered school, they seemed to stop making up their own creative play together. They didn’t have time for creative play during their busy evenings. Now they build forts and crazy contraptions, play dance parties, and pursue their own unique interests. My eight-year-old has taken up computer programming and taught himself how to play the organ. My six-year-old is learning to cook.

10)   We are able to work on the kids’ behavior and work ethic throughout the day. My son’s poor work effort at school was nearly impossible to address. The teachers didn’t have time to make my son repeat work they felt was average quality. We wouldn’t see the work until days after it was completed. Finally, we’ve been able to push him to his full potential.

11)   Get rid of bad habits, fast. Dirty clothes dropped on the floor? They used to stay there all day. Now there is no recess until they are cleaned up. I never really had the time to implement most behavioral techniques when my kids were in school. I knew what I needed to do to get my kindergartner to dress herself, but it was easier to dress her myself then deal with the school complaining that she was improperly dressed or late. Now, if she takes too long to get dressed, she misses out on free play time.

12)   Be the master of your own schedule. Homeschooling provides a great deal of family flexibility, which is a tremendous asset for our busy family. For example, we save a lot of money on plane tickets because we have the flexibility to fly almost any day of the week. Zoos, children’s museums, libraries, parks, etc., are far less busy on weekdays as they are on weekends. Scheduling anything is eons easier—doctor’s appointments, piano lessons, vacations, etc.

13)   Younger children learn from older siblings. For larger families like ours, even toddlers are learning during school time. Our four year old sits at the same table during school time as our six and eight year old. He wants to do his worksheet, too. Some of that math and phonics work rubs off on him, and he’s learning how to read. When chore time comes, he asks, “What are my chores?” And our one-year-old recently tried to clean a toilet.

14)   Save money. Committing to homeschooling requires at least one parent at home for most of each day. Although you may lose an income with this commitment, you save (a lot) of money since younger children don’t need daycare and older children don’t need private school. We also save a lot of money on gas now that we drive less. Many homeschooling parents still work part-time. We pull off homeschooling because I work nights and my husband works part-time from home as an independent IT developer. I know many families homeschooling on family incomes of 40-60K.

Homeschoolers save tax payers money, too. According to The National Home Education Research Institute, homeschoolers saved the taxpayers $16 billion in 2006.

15)   Teach your kids practical life skills. Homeschooled kids learn parenting skills, cooking, budgeting, home maintenance, and time management every day. Time management skills are learned out of necessity. Our kids have to keep their own schedules and budget their own time. If they waste time, they have less time for play and their own special interests. We use old smart phones with alarms to help teach time management. Our kids help with younger siblings while under our direct supervision. What better way is there to learn parenting? I learned to write a fake grocery budget once as a home economics exercise. My kids write real grocery budgets and help me shop.

16)   Better socialization, less unhealthy peer pressure and bullying. Our kids no longer beg for video games we don’t want them to have or clothes we don’t like, or junky snacks they saw at school. One of our children struggled socially in school, and his schoolmates were ruthlessly mean. Despite a school anti-bullying policy and our best efforts to work with the teacher, nothing changed. Last year he played alone on the playground everyday. Now he’s organizing playground games at our homeschool co-op, and he’s smiling again. No one has ever said an unkind word to him at our co-op, because every child is there with his or her own parent. Our kids have plenty of time with friends, but without the unhealthy peer pressure and bullying.

Research continues to show that homeschooled kids do well socially. Our kids have no shortage of time with friends—each week they attend homeschool co-op, scouts, sports, dance, choir, piano, religious education and have plenty of time to play with neighborhood friends. Add in the birthday parties and homeschool field trips, and we find ourselves having to decline activities so that we can get our homeschooling done!

17)   Sleep! A research study by National Jewish Health released in March, 2013 showed that homeschooled students get more sleep than their peers who attend school. The result may be that homeschooled kids are better prepared to learn. Parents get more sleep, too! Now we don’t have to get up early to meet a bus schedule, prepare sack lunches, etc. Our mornings are great times together to snuggle with our children and talk about our plans for the day. No more “Hurry up and get your shoes on or you’ll be late for school!”

18)   Teach kids your own values. According to the national center for education statistics, 36% of homeschooling families were primarily motivated by a desire to provide religious or moral instruction. Our family is not part of this 36%– we never objected to any values taught in either our public or private schools. Nevertheless, we’ve really enjoyed building our own traditions and living out our family values in a way that wasn’t possible before homeschooling. For example we make Halloween a little holiday without too much decadence, but we spend an entire week celebrating Easter. When our kids were in school, the Halloween parties went on for 2 weeks and they had a Halloween vacation from school. In contrast, they didn’t get any time off for Easter, and there were no Easter celebrations or even decorations at school.

Homeschooling isn’t right for every family or every child. I can’t even predict what the future holds for our family—will we continue homeschooling through high school? I don’t know. But for now, we’ve found a way for our family to be very happy growing and learning together.

Update 27-March-13

Thank you to the more than 200,000 of you that have taken the time to read my thoughts on homeschooling.

Many people have asked me how we do it, how my husband and I both hold down jobs and homeschool our kids at the same time.

Every homeschooling family has their own unique time management plan to balance employment, schooling, household needs, and rest time. For our family, this has been a work in progress over several years.

Four years ago, after I had my third child, I started working all night shifts as a hospital-based pediatrician.   This schedule allowed me to be home with my babies and available for school pick-up for my older children. When we were expecting our fourth child, my husband resigned his full-time job a large company in St. Louis so that he could start his own business as an independent IT developer, and so that he could be more committed to our family life. Once we had the flexibility of my husband’s self-employment, homeschooling became a real option for our family.

We complete our core homeschool curriculum on Monday, Tuesdays and Thursdays. On Wednesdays our kids attend a home-school co-op, and on Fridays we take field trips, do special activities, and complete any catch-up work.

I sleep (with earplugs!) the mornings after my overnight shifts. My husband does the homeschooling on the mornings when I am sleeping. On the mornings when I am awake, I do the teaching. My husband and I split the teaching about 50/50. We try to make sure that at any given time one parent is employed and one is teaching/parenting/running the home. The baby usually takes a nap in the afternoon while my older kids do independent reading and online math, and so we can usually fit in 1-2 hours of personal time or work then. Any employment work or housework that is left we do after the kids go to bed.

Now that we homeschool, everything has become a team effort in our house. Both my husband and I teach, do housework, and make money. Everyone does chores. Walking in each other’s shoes each day has made us more compassionate towards each other. We are less likely to criticize each other when things don’t go right, and we’ve learned to be better communicators. This is, perhaps, my favorite part of homeschooling, that our family is happier together.

What the Pilgrims Can Teach Our Children About Free Market Economics
A Thanksgiving Day Commentary

from David McAlvany

Four hundred years ago, America’s spiritual founders made a big mistake—a nearly fatal experiment with communism. But the lessons they learned are something for which we can truly be thankful.

Long before Adam Smith penned The Wealth of Nations, his primer on the division of labor, productivity, and free markets, Pilgrim Governor William Bradford gave his own take on the relationship between private property, virtue, and the family.

In his book, Of Plymouth Plantation, Bradford describes a disastrous two-year experiment in communal living that resulted in slothful men, displaced women, and disrespect between the generations. The viability of the colony was threatened. The Pilgrims eventually abandoned the system in favor of a market-based economy rooted in private property ownership, but only after they made the conscious decision to switch economic platforms.

The story begins with the 1620 arrival of the Pilgrims in Massachusetts Bay Harbor: The conditions are brutal. The weather is relentless. Food is scarce. The danger from the natives is real. To survive, they need to build an economy that is sustainable. They adopt and implement a system of communal living, described in their July 1620 charter:

The practical reality meant that food would be held and distributed in common. There would be no division of labor. Private property ownership was forbidden. The first priority of family members was to serve the community rather than their own families. Even the women were required to wash clothing and prepare meals for the community.

For some, this might sound like the formula for a Marxist utopia—a Pilgrim kibbutz in which charity, goodwill, and prosperity abound.

But there is a resounding economic lesson from history—Communism is self-destructive. It is unsustainable. It is toxic to the human spirit. Efforts by the state to limit property ownership and to dictate the exchange of goods and services in the market inevitably result in both financial and moral decline.

Like all experiments in collectivism, this one failed miserably—so miserably that by 1623 the impoverished colony was on the verge of famine and extinction.

That might have been the end of the story. Arguably, there might not even be an America as we think of it today, or a Thanksgiving Day celebration, but for one thing—redirection. The Pilgrims identified their error and changed their economic policies.

Looking back on their economic disaster, Bradford could see that the root problem was arrogance. When governments restrict private property ownership, they are being “wiser than God.”

This flawed economic model had a direct impact on virtues that are vital to the success of the family, including self-government, hard work, and respect for elders.

Even the virtuous Pilgrims began to wonder why they as individuals should have to break their backs for somebody else’s benefit. Wives did not want to work for husbands other than their own. Men had little incentive to lead their individual families to economic success:

THE SOLUTION

The Pilgrim’s response to economic failure is a message to our generation:
* They did not quit.
* They identified the issues, made the self-conscious decision to reject wrong thinking, and they changed.
* Their answer to the problem was to implement private property ownership, simple principles of limited government, and economic freedom.

These new policies resulted in prosperity. Bradford explains that “this had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content.”

CONCLUSION

The rejection of communist practices by the Pilgrim fathers was one of the most dramatic shifts of economic policy by a local government in American history. William Bradford and the Separatist leaders made a bold decision that few politicians of our present generation would make—the self-conscious choice to change economic platforms.

The importance of private property is enshrined in two of the Ten Commandments (don’t steal and don’t covet others’ possessions), and is fundamental to the virtue and success of a well-ordered society. The God-given incentive for men to enjoy the “fruit of their own labors” is strong. The potential that hard work today can produce a stable family economy tomorrow motivates. These are economic principles for which we can be thankful.

This Thanksgiving, take a moment and thank God for the Pilgrims’ legacy of economic freedom. Remember that America had an experiment in communism. It failed. There is no need to repeat it. Remember also that economic failure can be reversed when men are willing to make courageous changes.

-David S. McAlvany

It's "BUSINESS" AS USUAL

Progressive/Liberal "Gang" deliver promised S. O. S. (Same Old S***)

After what they think was an election mandate, is it any wonder they believe a 59.8% win was a "Stamp of Approval" for their nefarious past actions? To borrow from the "Terminator," they'll; "Be Bach" with:

MORE WASTE!
MORE CRIME!
MORE RAISES!
MORE HIRING!
MORE Blame Shifting

And after another Beguiling Superintendent or two -- or three [since longevity for them here is tenuous], we will all "Be Bach!" . . . We'll "Be Bach" to address their greed again as they explain again how; this time will be different, if we will just pass another little tax increase.

MORE WASTE & MORE CRIME!

Even local "rags" are finding it increasingly difficult to run their typical "cover" for crimes committed by our "Gang". A January 24, 2007 article reported continued "resentment toward board accountability for expenditures of taxpayer funds." That's not surprising since a recent audit documented this administrations' continued cheating and favoritism. Not content they ran us over a million dollars in the hole, they continue. The audit determined that $80,000.00 was spent in "violation of the Texas Education Code," besides the fact that "purchase orders for 15 of the 26 disbursements examined did not comply with the district purchasing policy." But ... what's $80,000.00 among friends and relatives? Our latest "crusader" to join that Board of Sell-outs admitted; "...58 percent of the vouchers did not follow policy" and also said; "I have seen people lose their jobs over these things in the private sector." But he was quick to add; "he was not suggesting anyone involved in the current situation be fired." At least one citizen with a backbone showed up but was shouted down by the president of this Board of Simpletons. This BS "leader" was more concerned about "Robert" and his "Rules" than addressing the legitimate concerns of a taxpayer. SO WHAT ELSE IS NEW? We Have Become A LAUGHING STOCK In This Region!

MORE HIRING!

The electrons had barely stopped moving in the voting machines election night when one of the gang leaders for the Progressive/Liberals told the newspaper [published 10/1]; "While we don't feel that we're fully staffed ... we can at least hold on where we are ... At least, for now, we can preserve all of the extracurriculars that are so important to our district." The Beguiling Superintendent told us when she wanted to appear frugal while courting our vote, that her; "Reductions ... included reducing ... staff." and again on the same page, her "Reductions [bold emphasis hers] ... include 2 1/2 paraprofessional positions." But that's why she is just another Beguiling Superintendent! She wasted no time hiring again and didn't tell her gang leaders. Go to:
http://www.nisd.us/Employment [misspellings are the proud property of a government education and your tax dollars at work]

Junior High (7/8)	Full-Time Instructional Aide Learning Lab	2 Years College Preferred/Bilingual Required	Oct. 18, 2006	Oct. 26, 2006
Intermediate School (4-6)	Full-Time Instructional Aide Title 1 Math Lab	2 Years College Preferred Assignement will share time on Elem. Campus	Oct. 18, 2006	Oct. 26, 2006
Elementary (PK-3)	Part-Time Instructional Aide Computers/Music	2 Years College Preferred	Oct. 18, 2006	Oct. 26, 2006

Finally -- some truth about teacher's salaries!

Parents and Grandparents:

School today is NOT what you remember!

WAKE UP TO THE TRUTH! If you love your young people, start your search for the truth by simply reading the textbooks they are forced to study. Surely, this is not asking too much.

Brian Fisher, President and CEO of Coral Ridge Ministries writes;"Thanks to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and modern revisionists, the faith of the Pilgrims is disappearing from our textbooks . . . and being erased from our national consciousness."

Want proof? New York University professor Paul C. Vitz studied 90 of the most used public school history textbooks. He found up to 30 pages devoted to the Pilgrims, yet not a word about their devout faith in God. The Mayflower Compact ... began with these words— “In the name of God, Amen.” They wrote of making their voyage “for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith….” Vitz writes; “It is common in these books to treat Thanksgiving without explaining to whom the Pilgrims gave thanks,” One textbook even described Thanksgiving as a time “when the Pilgrims gave thanks to the Indians.”

Public government schools are NOT educating our young people, but are mis-educating them. They are propagandizing their young minds with "politically correct" half-truths, fairytale theories, censored history and hedonistic debauchery. The mention of "God", let alone "Jesus" is increasingly being treated as the most offensive words, yet vile profanity booms from cars in the parking lots, regularly escapes the headphones of IPods and even "screams" off the pages of their assigned reading! The Bible, itself being one of the oldest and best documented history books, is never seen, having been banned by these "book burners" decades ago.

It is of little wonder that one of our own, Dr. J. Randall Price, wrote; "... at one of our nation's largest secular universities ... I had students who had grown up in a public education system without access to the Bible, and they were amazed that during each class their instructor could stand before them with a Bible in one hand and an archaeology textbook in the other. In my opinion, their amazement came from their growing realization that the Bible was real history, attestable by hard facts that attend every other historical subject."

To those who already know these truths, I ask: "WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF?" Jesus often told us; "FEAR NOT." Do not be afraid to speak up, act up and LOOK UP, for your "help comes from the LORD, the Maker of heaven and earth." Psalm 121:2.

Government control of 90% of all schools should not be

“Big Brother’s ideas about what and how children should be taught are not always those of mom and dad. Americans differ on same-sex marriage and evolution, on the importance of sports and the value of phonics, on the right to bear arms and the reverence due the Confederate flag. Some parents are committed secularists; others are devout believers... Americans hold disparate opinions on everything from the truth of the Bible to the meaning of the First Amendment... With parents so often in boisterous disagreement, why should children be locked into a one-size-fits-all, government-knows-best model of education? Nobody would want the government to run 90 percent of the nation’s entertainment industry. Nobody thinks that 90 percent of all housing should be owned by the state... Yet the government’s control of 90 percent of the nation’s schools leaves most Americans strangely unconcerned... In a society founded on political and economic liberty, government schools should have no place... Education is too important to be left to the government.” —Jeff Jacoby

Indoctrinate U

We encourage our children to continue their education and go to college. All of their teachers and coaches continually do the same. Everyone is encouraging them that going to college will help them live a successful and happy life. But just like the B.S. going on here, most of us have no clue about what is going on there.

Award-winning filmmaker Evan Coyne Maloney's new documentary film, Indoctrinate U, reveals the ugly truths about academia that you won't see in glossy admissions brochures:

Speech codes.
Censorship.
Sensitivity training.
Enforced political conformity.
Intolerance.
Hostility to religion.
Violations of freedom of speech and conscience.
Kangaroo courts.

We usually associate such things with the repressive regimes of North Korea, China, Cuba, and the former Soviet Union. But instead, this assault on free thought is taking place all over America -- right now -- on our nation's campuses.

Hard-hitting and humorous, the film tells the story of how, in the name of education, schools from coast to coast ruthlessly compel conformity of thought. By exposing the dirty little secrets of higher education, this film has the potential to force the kind of change academics have long pretended they don't need to make.

You can help to bring about this change by watching the movie trailer and signing up for a screening in your area.

Watch the trailer and sign up to help bring a screening of Indoctrinate U to your home town now.

LEARNING

Remembering [or learning] what is Foundational:

“It is almost a miracle that modern teaching methods have not yet entirely strangled the holy curiosity of inquiry.” —Albert Einstein

If you teach a child to read, write and work with numbers, train him in character, and give him a love of learning, he could then educate himself. Reading, writing, and working with numbers are the tools of learning. Character is important because a lazy child will not put out the effort to educate himself; a proud child will not see the need to seek further learning. The love of learning is necessary for the young person to be motivated. - Lyndsay Lambert of Texas Home School Coalition Association

[Thirteen or fourteen years of daily influence over your children by the government school and they are not capable of teaching them how to study, let alone a love of learning. Not one class on "Studying" is offered!]

Dishonest Educators

by Walter E.Williams

Nearly two years ago, U.S. News & World Report came out with a story titled "Educators Implicated in Atlanta Cheating Scandal." It reported that "for 10 years, hundreds of Atlanta public school teachers and principals changed answers on state tests in one of the largest cheating scandals in U.S. history." More than three-quarters of the 56 Atlanta schools investigated had cheated on the National Assessment of Educational Progress test, sometimes called the national report card. Cheating orders came from school administrators and included brazen acts such as teachers reading answers aloud during the test and erasing incorrect answers. One teacher told a colleague, "I had to give your kids, or your students, the answers because they're dumb as hell." Atlanta's not alone. There have been investigations, reports and charges of teacher-assisted cheating in other cities, such as Philadelphia, Houston, New York, Detroit, Baltimore, Los Angeles and Washington.

Recently, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution's blog carried a story titled "A new cheating scandal: Aspiring teachers hiring ringers." According to the story, for at least 15 years, teachers in Arkansas, Mississippi and Tennessee paid Clarence Mumford, who's now under indictment, between $1,500 and $3,000 to send someone else to take their Praxis exam, which is used for K-12 teacher certification in 40 states. Sandra Stotsky, an education professor at the University of Arkansas, said, "(Praxis I) is an easy test for anyone who has completed high school but has nothing to do with college-level ability or scores." She added, "The test is far too undemanding for a prospective teacher. ... The fact that these people hired somebody to take an easy test of their skills suggests that these prospective teachers were probably so academically weak it is questionable whether they would have been suitable teachers."

Here's a practice Praxis I math question: Which of the following is equal to a quarter-million -- 40,000, 250,000, 2,500,000, 1/4,000,000 or 4/1,000,000? The test taker is asked to click on the correct answer. A practice writing skills question is to identify the error in the following sentence: "The club members agreed that each would contribute ten days of voluntary work annually each year at the local hospital." The test taker is supposed to point out that "annually each year" is redundant.

CNN broke this cheating story last July, but the story hasn't gotten much national press since then. In an article for NewsBusters, titled "Months-Old, Three-State Teacher Certification Test Cheating Scandal Gets Major AP Story -- on a Slow News Weekend" (11/25/12), Tom Blumer quotes speculation by the blog "educationrealist": "I will be extremely surprised if it does not turn out that most if not all of the teachers who bought themselves a test grade are black. (I am also betting that the actual testers are white, but am not as certain. It just seems that if black people were taking the test and guaranteeing passage, the fees would be higher.)"

There's some basis in fact for the speculation that it's mostly black teachers buying grades, and that includes former Steelers wide receiver Cedrick Wilson, who's been indicted for fraud. According to a study titled "Differences in Passing Rates on Praxis I Tests by Race/Ethnicity Group" (March 2011), the percentages of blacks who passed the Praxis I reading, writing and mathematics tests on their first try were 41, 44 and 37, respectively. For white test takers, the respective percentages were 82, 80 and 78.
This test-taking fraud is merely the tip of a much larger iceberg. It highlights the educational fraud being perpetrated on blacks during their K-12 education. Four or five years of college -- even majoring in education, an undemanding subject -- cannot make up for those 13 years of rotten education. Then they're given a college degree that is fraudulent, seeing as some have difficulty passing a test that shouldn't be challenging to even a 12th-grader. Here's my question: If they manage to get through the mockery of teacher certification, at what schools do you think they will teach?

The Role of 'Educators'

By Thomas Sowell

Like George Orwell’s ’1984′ New York City Schools Want to Ban More than 50 ‘Loaded-Words’ from Tests

Another student attacked by his own school

Flunking the Citizenship Test

Education: Free and Compulsory

Presidential Candidate Alan Keyes sues Obama

Constitutional Crisis Looms

Thank you very much. I thought what I would do this evening is just take a minute or two and explain in a very simple way what I have been involved with in the last couple of weeks. We have talked about it a little bit on the calls before. You’ll notice that I lent my name to a couple of the suits that are taking place to try to determine whether Barack Obama is in fact a natural born citizen. And just so that there would be no misunderstanding—and I did try to make this clear in the press release that we had issued about the case I got involved with in California—I guess I am not, myself, having looked over all of the facts and evidence and things that people have graciously sent to me and did in the course of the last several weeks, I am not sure I am able to reach a conclusion as to what the facts are.

But what has appalled me, I guess, even as I have read the transcript of court decisions and things like that that have been taken up to this point, is the notion that somehow or another, step number one, citizens don’t have standing to ask him, even though the Constitution is a document that speaks for “we the people.” When people go to the polls to vote, presumably they have both an obligation to respect the Constitution—I think in Florida, for instance, people actually have to take an oath to do so—and the expectation that it will be followed. Therefore, as a whole people, we have a critical interest in making sure that the supreme law of the land, as expressed in the Constitution—which gives proper basis and procedure to our sovereign will as the people of the United States —be followed. And yet, there has been an almost casual assumption, including, I think, the judge in the Berg case who was arguing things about the electorate having made a choice, and so forth and so on, as if any given instance of the majority overrides the Constitution. And I find it kind of incongruous that you would have this kind of an attitude coming from the bench, since the whole notion of judicial review, which they constantly are exercising, is based on the idea that an instance of majority will, whether it’s a legislature deciding on a law, or any other instance of a majority vote, that that instance of a majority will does not override the Constitution of the United States.

And this is something that has been clear: that you have a duty to follow the Constitution, that the judges, if they see in a law something that conflicts with the Constitution, have to therefore follow the Constitution, not the will of the majority as expressed through their representatives, or even as directly expressed in some electoral contest. No. Because, as Hamilton argued in Federalist 78—and I want to read this, because I think it is very important—“A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents. Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both.”

And of course, in the Constitution itself, by the authority of the people, a procedure is put down for amending the Constitution—that is, for changing its terms—and unless that procedure is followed, the sovereign will of the people as expressed in the Constitution is the supreme law and must be followed. That is so simple. It is so clear. So, in this particular case, the Constitution says that in order to be eligible for the presidency, you’ve got to be a natural born citizen. If, on account of the incompetence of the party system, or its corruption, or whatever may be the reasoning, an individual happens to win a presidential election who turns out not to be qualified, then the Constitution still has to be followed. The idea that it does not I think is a dangerous situation for the whole country, because it suggests that somehow or another, on the basis of this or that majority will, as expressed in this or that way, the Constitution becomes a dead letter. And then you ask yourself, what becomes of the fundamental rights, for instance, in the Bill of Rights if the Constitution becomes a dead letter when a given majority wants to run roughshod over the rights of a minority?

What if that attitude had been taken during the course of the argumentations and struggles in the Civil Rights movement, in the women’s rights movement, and in all kinds of things that have ultimately depended on the assumption that there is an understanding of justice—as articulated in the Constitution, as expressed in our understanding of basic, unalienable rights—that has to be followed, even by the majority?

In order to maintain the Union, which allows us to go through elections and sit back and say, “Well, we didn’t win this time, but we’ll wait for the next time,” what we are trusting in, what we are giving credence to, what we are lending authority to is not the will of the majority: it is the Constitution of the United States. You take away the authority of the Constitution, as expressed through that transcendent will of the people, and what have you got in any given instance of a majority vote? You’ve got a majority imposing its will on a minority that may or may not be willing to accept that will. For the sake of what do the folks who lose the vote accept the result? Well, for the sake of the Constitution, to which we all bear allegiance. Once you have destroyed the notion that that Constitution must be respected, you have introduced the country into a very dangerous state, in which individuals who are disgruntled with the way things are going and the way the majority decides, and the way “this and that—,” they no longer say to themselves, “Well, we are all part of a Union, based on our commitment to the Constitution and its basic respect for human rights that it represents,” no, that is no longer binding. They are left to say, “The only thing that binds us is force, and therefore, if you come to force me to accept your will, then I’ll oppose you by force, and we’ll see what happens.” Do we want that in this country? I think not.

I guess it’s my hope that regardless of how the facts fall out, the only interest in all of this ought to be to ascertain the fact. If that fact is in accordance with the Constitution, fine. We’ll do what we always do. We’ll accept the result, and we’ll go on trying to build, as we are building through this effort that Tom and others are making. You start to work in political life, you build an alternative so that people can, by the means provided for in the Constitution, continue to work for the things that they believe in. I think that is what we all believe.

On the other hand, if the facts are not in accordance with the Constitution, then I would presume that those in authority would understand it to be their obligation to follow the Constitution, so as not to undermine the sense of its authority, the allegiance to that authority, which I think at the end of the day has, in the course of this country’s history, preserved us from the kind of turmoil and difficulties that often arise in other societies on account of political competition.

I think that this is something that has been understood in America since the very earliest years of the republic: that our commitment to and allegiance to the Constitution is vitally important to the Union and the peaceful work that we do together as citizens in the same county. And I would sincerely hope that judges on the federal bench, or on the Supreme Court, or wherever it might be, will feel deeply their responsibility to this tradition, and will not only make a decision that is in accord with the facts, but will be seen to make it in accord with the Constitution, so that whatever comes out of this, it will affirm the fact that we are still a people sovereign through this constitutional instrument, and respecting that fact, rather than trying to move down a road that, at the end of the day, would begin as majority tyranny, but would end as some form of oligarchy, party dictatorship—call it what you will, it would be the end of democratic self-government.

And so, that is my thinking, as I have participated in this effort. And I think that the question has been raised, the facts are not clear, and that those officials who have sworn allegiance to the Constitution owe it to the Constitution and to the people of this country to deal with this issue with integrity and expeditiously, so that we can clear the air and get on with the great business of this country. So, that is what I had to say tonight. Thank you.

OBAMA MUST STAND UP NOW OR STEP DOWN

Global Warming; It is a SCAM!

by John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel

Compassion and the decline of America

by Dennis Pager

Posted: March 20, 2007 1:00 a.m. Eastern

"Don’t just hammer public schools. Go in there and take them back." - Finn Laursen, Christian Educators Association International, quoted in an AP article in The Boston Herald, 9/2/06

Take them back from whom? The government? Other parents? The taxpayers? The teachers' unions? The textbook publishers? The special interests? The school boards? The religious community?

You see the problem. State schools, financed by the public at large, cannot be taken "back" by any one group. They don't belong to you or anyone else. They're up for grabs. Hundreds, if not thousands, of interests, ranging from social to religious to business, vie daily for their share of the public school pie. The highest bidder wins and everyone else plays by his rules until someone topples him from his perch and the rules change yet again.

The real tragedy is that by turning education into a state function, we have shot ourselves in the foot big-time. By asking the state to educate our children and our neighbors to pay for it, we have offered up our progeny to the public to do with as it pleases. The results have taken some nasty turns over the years, and now it's getting downright scary.

Our mistake was in granting the state control of our children to begin with. The only way to rescind the grant is to take back our children. Taking back our children is something we can do today - quite literally. Taking over the public schools is a battle of world war proportions in which the main casualties would be the very children we purport to save.

Don't sacrifice your children on the altar of "free" education. Take them back and rise to the occasion. They're your children. Aren't they worth your money as much as your love?

Competition works

By John Stossel

The Real Evil of Evolutionary Humanism

Written by Linda Kimball
Friday, November 11, 2005

In 1920, Winston Churchill spoke of a group of Enlightenment conspirators who had produced a system of morals and philosophy “as malevolent as Christianity was benevolent, which, if not arrested would shatter irretrievably all that Christianity has rendered possible.” He observed that this malignant worldview “has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the 19th century. This worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality has been steadily growing” (Zionism versus Bolshevism).

This malevolent system of warped morals and anti-human philosophy entered into the world during the Enlightenment, where it seems as if another Garden of Eden seduction occurred. It appears as though certain Enlightenment thinkers—Darwin, Marx, Hegel, Saint-Simon, and Rousseau among others, ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and each man received certain ideas which, when combined with the others, produced a malignancy-filled system of philosophy comparable to a grimoire of goetia (black magic) which, like Sauron’s One Ring, holds out for the bearer a seductive illusion of power, wealth, and glory. The key to the power, according to the grimoire, is through the reversal of human norms, natural law, and the social institutions so necessary for the continuance of mankind. In his book, The Everlasting Man, G. K. Chesterton described the reversal process as the ''theology of demons'' and said it is sadistically anti-human and anti-childhood. It is intrinsically evil.

In its guise as communism, it unleashed a sadistic anti-human holocaust of planetary dimensions. From Hitler’s ovens to the killing fields of Lenin, Stalin, Mao Zedung, Pol Pot, Kim Il-Sung, Kim Jong-Il, and Fidel Castro, there runs interconnecting rivers of human blood. One hundred million lives were consumed in the demonic quest for the creation of a New Man.

Even as rivers of blood still flowed from the earthly Hells created by communists, communism itself began to shape-shift into something seemingly innocuous in order to slither into and infect Christendom and the very fortress of Christianity, the United States. It disguised itself as progressivism, liberalism, secular humanism, and then later as environmentalism, feminism, and a plethora of other social justice causes.

Soon, subversive stealth campaigns were launched. One was for the purpose of perverting our language and to insert the word ''social'' into every conceivable area. This was in order to plant the thought that ''social'' infuses everything with a positive content.

Another was for the purpose of instilling a sense of guilt within Americans. Americans found themselves being frequently reminded of both their individual failures and of the evil perpetrated by their culture and nation. A constantly expanding range of ''victims'' who had been ''unfairly'' treated and thus deserving of ''special'' treatment were paraded before Americans to ensure that the conscience of Americans remained troubled.

Civil rights and sexual liberation movements, which were social justice (communism) agendas in disguise, were launched. They served two purposes: they bulldozed our Rule of Law and individual rights in an effort to supplant them with ''group rights.'' This has worked as a kind of dynamite upon human norms and social institutions. These effort were also, not incidentally, insidiously disguised attacks against childhood and childhood innocence.

Marching in unison with the other campaigns was one whose purpose was the perversion of transcendent natural law and more specifically, the all-important ''first principle'' articulated in our Declaration of Independence: the inalienable right to life. By the use of what J. Budziszewski (What We Can’t Not Know) termed ''black magic spells of imposture and unraveling'' (a reversal process); shock troops of evil perverted the foundational principles of right and wrong. Because the new morals they created had an air of plausibility, Americans accepted them. Thus they’ve successfully supplanted the sanctity of life principle with an ever-expanding range of ''new morals'' such as the ''sanctity of choice'' (who wants a woman to die while giving birth?) and the ''sanctity of the environment'' (who doesn’t want clean air and water?)

Using the same process of reversal, they began to supplant human norms (traditional marriage, for instance) and man’s created condition (fixed gender as either male or female) with perverted ''new morals'' based in notions of sexual orientation, consent, choice, and privacy. These new morals, like the civil rights and sexual liberation movements, are also disguised attacks upon children and childhood innocence.

The infiltration and infestation was a success. The minds of Western Europeans and Americans had become sufficiently darkened and disordered. Mankind had been successfully conditioned to accept that his new place in the scheme of life was no longer transcendent to the creation as taught by Christianity, but below and in submission to it.

Mankind would henceforth be found guilty of existing, and through his existence, be found guilty of causing hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, global warming, and other natural phenomenon. The intrinsically evil worldview had finally stepped out of the shadows and revealed an appalling goggle-eyed face of neo-paganism.

The stage had been set for the next phase of their plan to redeem the world from the evil of humankind. The campaigns to debase humanity, to destroy social and human norms, and to eliminate the human plague organisms began apace.

Humans As Nonpersons and Plague Species

1. “Saying homo sapiens are a ‘plague species,’ the London Zoo opened a new exhibit featuring--eight humans. We have set up this exhibit to highlight the spread of man as a plague species and to communicate the importance of man’s place in the planet’s ecosystem.” (Human Beings: Plague Species; WorldNet Daily, 2005)

2. “Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.” (Earth First! Journal editor John Daily)

3. “To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem.” (Yale professor Lamont Cole)

4. “The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States.” (Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund)

5. “Until such time as homo sapiens decide to rejoin nature, (we) can only hope for the right virus to come along.” (David Graber, research biologist with the National Park Service)

6. “Nonpersons or potential persons cannot be wronged…because death does not deprive them of something they value.” (John Harris, Sir David Alliance professor of bioethics, University of Manchester, England)

On the Elimination of Human Weeds and Other Schemes

1. “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine, and the like would fill the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention…the real enemy…is humanity itself.” (The First Global Revolution, published by the Club of Rome)

Note: The Club of Rome bills itself as a global think tank. It’s comprised of scientists, economists, businessmen, international high civil servants, university presidents, members of parliament, heads of state, and former heads of state from all five continents. They describe themselves as people “who believe that the future of humankind is not determined once and for all.” This is code for evolutionary humanism.

2. “In Guyana, within 2 years, it (DDT) had almost eliminated malaria…my chief quarrel with DDT…is that it has greatly added to the population problem.” (Alexander King, former president of the Club of Rome)

Note: In the 60’s, a group of depopulation environmentalists conspired to have DDT banned from being used to control mosquitoes and malaria. The subsequent banning of DDT resulted in millions of deaths. One source estimated the death total as 500 million.

3. “I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing. There are others…If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation survivors could procreate…without making the world too full…the state of affairs might be unpleasant but what of it? Really high-minded people are indifferent to suffering, especially that of others.” (Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society)

Note: Although they’ve not managed to spread a Black Death, they have managed to ignite a worldwide conflagration of STDS and AIDS. Keep in mind that it’s progressives, liberals and their international cohorts who have been preaching their gospel of ''salvation and redemption by sex'' (safe sex). What they don’t want you to know is that it’s the environment (Gaia) that they are trying to save from the human plague. Causing human weeds to become diseased, sterile, psychologically damaged, or to die is part of their scheme to redeem the world.

Ask yourselves why there has been no logical response to this plague. Why, for instance, has there been no call to quarantine the infected? And in the face of mounting death totals (468,000 dead from AIDs since 1981), why do they continue to teach your children to engage in the very behaviors which they know to be the cause of death? The CDC (2002) reports that 16,000 deaths from AIDs occur annually. Another 40,000 new cases of infection occur within the same time frame. There are 1 million cases of HIV, 31-50 million of herpes simplex, 24 million of HPV, and 1 million cases of chronic hepatitis B.

Now connect the dots between the Aids and STDs devastations and the 486,000,000 surgically and chemically induced abortions between 1965-1996 (www.rockforlife.org). It would appear that America is on a slippery-slope to committing demographic suicide.

How Many Should We Allow to Exist?

1. “The total world population should be no more than 2 billion rather than the current 5.6 billion.” (Cornell University professor David Pimentel, speaking before the American Assoc. for the Advancement of Science)

2. “The damage people cause is a function of demographics…One American burdens the earth much more than 20 Bangladeshes…In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day.” (Jacques Cousteau, the UNESCO Courier, Nov. 1991)

3. “Cut the population by 90%” (Dr. Sam Keen, Gorbachev Conference in San Francisco)

In speaking before the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco on Sept. 15, 2003, Michael Crichton told his audience, “certain human social structures…can’t be eliminated from society. One of those…is religion. Today it is said we live in a secular society in which…the best people, the most enlightened…do not believe in any religion. But…you cannot eliminate religion from the psyche of mankind…suppress it in one form; it…re-emerges in another form. Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism.”

Environmentalism (worshipping the creation) in conjunction with social Darwinism (the scientism that validates this lethal brew) and Chesterton’s ''theology of the demons''—these are the elements that comprise the most intrinsically evil religion ever known to mankind. A religious worldview which Stephane Courtois (The Black Book of Communism) condemned as a criminal ideology that attracts narcissists, diabolical narcissists, and megalomaniac psychopaths such as Stalin. And unless we can arrest it, as Churchill declared, it will “shatter irretrievably all that Christianity has rendered possible.”

Sources the Population Control Agenda, Stanley K. Monteith, MD

Intellectual Morons, Daniel J. Flynn

America’s Thirty Years War, Balint Vazsonyi

What We Can’t Not Know, J. Budziszewski

The Everlasting Man, GK Chesterton

About the Writer: Linda Kimball is a writer and author of numerous articles and essays on culture, politics, and world view. Linda receives e-mail at LindyKimball@msn.com.

You be the judge. The following are just a few of the questions from two different tests out of the past. In her memoir, Small World Long Gone: A Family Record of an Era, Avis Carlson records questions as they appeared on a public school eighth grade diploma exam in Kansas in 1907. The second source is the Saline County, Kansas eighth-grade graduation exam of April 13, 1895. If a student wanted a Kansas eighth-grade sheepskin, he or she had to pass these or similar tests of over 50 questions, essay in style, intended to take several hours to complete.

Ms. Carlson points out that one of the opening sections began with words pronounced by the administrator which the students were expected to spell correctly. Among them were:abbreviated, obscene, elucidation, assassination, and animosity. No creative spelling here. In the same category students were told to divide certain words into syllables and mark them diacritically. The words were:profuse, retrieve, rigidity, defiance, priority, remittance, and propagate. Furthermore, test-takers were instructed to indicate the pronunciation and give the meaning of the following words:zenith, deviated, coliseum, misconception, panegyric, Spartan, talisman, eerie, triton and crypt. On the Saline, Kansas test candidates had to define prefixes—bi, dis, mis, pre, semi, post, non, inter, mono, super—and use them in connection with a word. It continued with the demand for definitions of: alphabet, phonetic orthography, etymology, and syllabication. How would typical modern eighth graders have handled these so far?

Ms. Carlson says that there were also questions about geography concerning the location of rivers in the U.S. and on other continents. There were questions about products produced abroad and about the meaning and duties of Boards of Health. The Saline test asked students to address essay questions like:What is climate?What are the functions of the liver and kidneys?

Ms. Carlson says that those sitting for the part of the test in American History were called upon to explain what they knew about the writings of Thomas Jefferson, give accounts about colleges, printing and religion in the colonies prior to the American Revolution, name the main campaigns and military leaders of the Civil War, and identify the principal political questions which had been advocated since the Civil War and the political party which advocated them. The Saline test asked similar wide-ranging historical questions. Students were required to: relate the causes and results of the American Revolution, give an account of the discovery of America by Columbus, and identify Whitney, Fulton, Bell, Lincoln, Penn and Howe. That was not the end. There were questions about geography, math and grammar besides, all demanding specific analysis and assessment in the form of essays. Keep in mind that these questions were only a small part of a larger test.

Today, most public school districts would be hesitant to administer this test to current eighth-graders and, perhaps, even their high-schoolers for fear of embarrassing results. Modern educators would likely complain that such tests were too “content-oriented” and relied too heavily on “rote memorization.”Excuses would abound.

The glaring fact is that twelve-year-old eighth graders in Kansas 100 years ago were expected to take and pass these tests. Public education then, costing much less per pupil than today, gave students a mind well-provisioned with knowledge, vocabulary and concepts. It provided the students with skills enabling them to compose conceptual essays.It offered grammatical tools to help the students analyze meaning. If such a K-8 education exists in the U.S. today, cases of it are sadly rare.

What Are We Teaching Our Kids?

Can America's schools teach history? The question ought to be ridiculous -- of course they can. What do we pay them for? History is as essential as reading and writing to a republic of free citizens. America's schools have always taught America's history.

Unfortunately, there's a lot of evidence that our schools are doing a poor job of it. Results of the 2001 National Assessment of Educational Progress showed that 57 percent of high school seniors scored below the "basic" level of history achievement. And "basic" isn't impressive. The test-makers believe that students should achieve the "proficient" level, but only 11 percent of seniors did.

For instance, the Washington Post recently surveyed 76 teenagers in Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. It found that only one-third could name a general from World War II, and only half could name at least one battle. But two-thirds could describe how the Japanese-Americans were sent to internment camps.

Tiffany Charles was typical. She got a B in history at her high school in Montgomery County, Maryland, one of the nation's highest-rated school systems. She wasn't able to name a single general or battle. Nor did she know who was president during World War II, nor what year the war ended. She did, however, remember many details about the camps. "We talked a lot about those concentration camps," she told Post reporter Jay Mathews.

The NAEP showed something similar. In its 1994 survey, it found that only 39 percent of fourth-graders knew who said, "This government cannot endure half slave and half free" (Abraham Lincoln). And only 41 percent knew that the Pilgrims and Puritans came to America for religious freedom. But 69 percent knew that Susan B. Anthony was famous for helping women win the right to vote.

Only 47 percent of high school seniors knew that containing communism was the most important goal of U.S. foreign policy between 1945 and 1990. But nearly 70 percent knew that infectious diseases brought by European settlers were the major cause of death among American Indians in the 1600s. One might suspect that our teachers are more determined to teach feminist history and the sins of America and its founders than the basic facts of American history and American achievements.

The 2001 report avoided anything quite that controversial. It did find, though, that only 36 percent of seniors could identify the Progressive movement (which revolutionized American law and government around 1900), while 68 percent could identify the Harlem Renaissance (an African-American artistic and literary movement during the 1920s).

A republican form of government requires citizens who understand their country's history and values. We can't decide where America is going unless we know where it has come from. American voters need to understand why people came to America and why they launched a revolution. We need to know the values that our Founders proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence and instituted in the Constitution. Individual liberty and limited, constitutional government are the fundamental values that have made our society prosperous and tolerant and welcoming to people from all over the world.

Our government has not always lived up to those values. The United States at its founding was marred by the cruel and tyrannical institution of slavery. Women were not treated as full human beings under the law. The government has fought unnecessary wars, kept blacks in a state of subjugation even after the abolition of slavery, and indeed put Japanese-Americans in internment camps after Pearl Harbor.

Students should learn about those things. But they need to learn them in the context of a free and successful society. Do the students who learn about the camps also study why millions of immigrants continue to flock to our shores? Do the teachers who make sure their students know how European diseases killed many Indians also teach them about the Bill of Rights and the threats that freedom has faced?

Students learn about the robber barons -- ask any high school graduate, and that's likely to be the only thing he or she remembers about the 50 years between the Civil War and World War I. But they should also learn about the dynamic American economy that has brought an unprecedented standard of living to almost 300 million people, and about how those "robber barons" drove down the prices of food, energy, and clothing to make them affordable to more people. The era of the robber barons was the era of the oil well, the railroad, the telephone, the phonograph, the copier, and the skyscraper.

Most Americans want their children to learn about American freedom and representative government. If the teachers in our public schools don't want to teach those lessons, then parents should be free to put their children into schools that reflect their values -- without having to pay twice.

DontBS.us / National

Watch Your Language

"There are only two means by which men can deal with one another: guns or logic. Force or persuasion. Those who know that they cannot win by means of logic, have always resorted to guns." —Ayn Rand

"The Gun Is Civilization"

18 Reasons Why Doctors and Lawyers Homeschool Their Children

by Kathleen Berchelmann, M.D. on March 25, 2013

What the Pilgrims Can Teach Our Children About Free Market Economics
A Thanksgiving Day Commentary

from David McAlvany

It's "BUSINESS" AS USUAL

Progressive/Liberal "Gang" deliver promised S. O. S. (Same Old S***)

MORE WASTE & MORE CRIME!

MORE HIRING!

Finally -- some truth about teacher's salaries!

Parents and Grandparents:

School today is NOT what you remember!

Government control of 90% of all schools should not be

Indoctrinate U

LEARNING

Remembering [or learning] what is Foundational:

Dishonest Educators

by Walter E.Williams

The Role of 'Educators'

By Thomas Sowell

Like George Orwell’s ’1984′ New York City Schools Want to Ban More than 50 ‘Loaded-Words’ from Tests

Another student attacked by his own school

Flunking the Citizenship Test

Education: Free and Compulsory

Presidential Candidate Alan Keyes sues Obama

Constitutional Crisis Looms

OBAMA MUST STAND UP NOW OR STEP DOWN

www.AlanKeyes.com

Global Warming; It is a SCAM!

by John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel

Compassion and the decline of America

by Dennis Pager

Posted: March 20, 2007 1:00 a.m. Eastern

Competition works

By John Stossel

The Real Evil of Evolutionary Humanism

What Are We Teaching Our Kids?

DontBS.us / National

Watch Your Language

"There are only two means by which men can deal with one another: guns or logic. Force or persuasion. Those who know that they cannot win by means of logic, have always resorted to guns." —Ayn Rand

"The Gun Is Civilization"

18 Reasons Why Doctors and Lawyers Homeschool Their Children

by Kathleen Berchelmann, M.D. on March 25, 2013

What the Pilgrims Can Teach Our Children About Free Market Economics A Thanksgiving Day Commentary

from David McAlvany

It's "BUSINESS" AS USUAL

Progressive/Liberal "Gang" deliver promised S. O. S. (Same Old S***)

MORE WASTE & MORE CRIME!

MORE HIRING!

Finally -- some truth about teacher's salaries!

Parents and Grandparents:

School today is NOT what you remember!

Government control of 90% of all schools should not be

Indoctrinate U

LEARNING

Remembering [or learning] what is Foundational:

Dishonest Educators

by Walter E.Williams

The Role of 'Educators'

By Thomas Sowell

Like George Orwell’s ’1984′ New York City Schools Want to Ban More than 50 ‘Loaded-Words’ from Tests

Another student attacked by his own school

Flunking the Citizenship Test

Education: Free and Compulsory

Presidential Candidate Alan Keyes sues Obama

Constitutional Crisis Looms

OBAMA MUST STAND UP NOW OR STEP DOWN

www.AlanKeyes.com

Global Warming; It is a SCAM!

by John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel

Compassion and the decline of America

by Dennis Pager

Posted: March 20, 2007 1:00 a.m. Eastern

Competition works

By John Stossel

The Real Evil of Evolutionary Humanism

What Are We Teaching Our Kids?

What the Pilgrims Can Teach Our Children About Free Market Economics
A Thanksgiving Day Commentary