Archive for the ‘Civics’ Category
Rep. Mike Kennedy recently spoke with his county delegates about Medicaid expansion. I thought his comments were valuable to the discussion and asked him to put something in writing which I could share with others. These are his thoughts. Thank you Rep. Kennedy.
The State of Utah has been debating for years now about what to do with the Affordable Care Act/Obamacare (ACA) Medicaid expansion. An estimated sixty to one hundred thousand adults between the ages of 27 and 64 currently have no health insurance. These individuals are not disabled and do not make enough money to qualify for federal subsidies to buy their own insurance.
The problem is complex. There are many ways to analyze this issue in favor of and against the concept. I have boiled the issue down to what I consider to be the most important aspects of the debate.
Medicaid expansion is about control. It is not about health insurance, and it is not about health care. I have two reasons for believing this.
- If it were about health insurance and health care, the Federal government would take our estimated $800 million/year in Utah taxes, put it in a grand health savings account, and instruct the state of Utah to use this money in whatever way we saw fit to provide health insurance for our people. Instead, the Federal government has taken our money, and promised to give it back if we use it in their prescribed way to provide insurance for our people. At first, they will allow us to use this money to aid people in obtaining private health insurance. I believe, however, at some point in the near future, the private insurance option will be discontinued, and all of the individuals will be shunted into our traditional Medicaid system. Why do I believe that? Because that was how the original 2010 ACA was written. The Federal government wants our citizens in Medicaid because that is the system it controls.
- If it were about anything but control, we wouldn’t have to ask for permission from the Federal government to craft a plan to their approval. As noted earlier, it is our money being taken. Why do we need permission from the Federal government for any plan we create to provide health insurance for some of our most vulnerable citizens? The answer is control.
If we as a state choose to expand Medicaid, we give up state autonomy. We more deeply commit ourselves to Federal benefits and Federal obligations. Once these commitments are made, we can never turn back from them.
More disturbingly, we encourage more of our citizens to give up their own autonomy. Another Federal entitlement program expansion means more of our people will be dependent on the Federal government for their personal daily needs.
In order to maintain the independence of our state and our people, I say no to Medicaid expansion. In doing so, I understand that Utah is losing money to the Federal government. We should work to get the $800 million/year in taxes repealed rather than accept that money back with never-ending Federal obligations that will become more onerous as time progresses.
Freedom is costly. Together, we should be willing to pay the price of it by saying “no” to Medicaid expansion.
Rep. Mike Kennedy
Over the weekend someone sent me news that the Boy Scouts are adding two merit badges to the list of badges required for Eagle. One is the Cooking badge which I thought was already on the list. The second is the new Sustainability merit badge which scouts will have to earn, OR continue to earn the environmental science badge which is currently required for Eagle. It’s a choice between those two. The new Sustainability badge requirements aren’t public yet, but on the BSA blog (at least this looks like their official blog), “Bryan on Scouting” posts this:
Sustainability merit badge FAQs
Upon its release during the summer of 2013, Sustainability becomes available as an option with Environmental Science as an Eagle-required merit badge. At that time Scouts may choose to earn Sustainability in place of the currently required Environmental Science.
- If a Scout earns Sustainability and Environmental Science, do both count toward Eagle?
- Scouts who have already earned Environmental Science may also earn Sustainability, but only one of the two merit badges would count as “Eagle-required.” The other, however, may count as one of the electives necessary to reach the total of 21 required merit badges.
- Can you give me a general description of what Sustainability MB will cover?
- The Sustainability merit badge, in essence, takes conservation and environmental science to another level. The protection, preservation, and management of wildlife and natural resources involved in conservation provide a foundation for what we call environmental science. The latter integrates physical and biological sciences such as ecology, biology, soil science, atmospheric science, and others in order to generate solutions to environmental issues. Sustainability takes off from there by taking responsibility for balancing long-term environmental, social, health, and economic needs with progress and development. It further suggests that development, while meeting the needs of the present, cannot compromise the ability of future generations to meet their needs.
- What subject areas will Scouts be studying?
- Air pollution
- Water pollution
- Land pollution
- Endangered species
- Pollution prevention, resource recovery, and conservation
- Ecosystem—living and nonliving
- Environmental impact
- What are the requirements for the merit badge?
- The requirements for Sustainability have not yet been finalized, but initial discussions include the following topics:
- What is sustainability?
- Examining our current needs and our choices in meeting them, with attention to extraction, production, distribution, consumption, and disposal
- Impact on our natural resources
- Problems we must address, including plastic, electronic, and medical waste; species extinction, and climate change
- New habits to adopt, including green chemistry, recycling, zero waste, and sustainability-conscious citizens
- Careers related to sustainability
On another of Bryan’s blog posts he says this about the change in Eagle requirements:
“Why the change? The goal is to “reflect a better balance of the needs of youth and our nation today and in the future,” according to the BSA’s resolution. Personally, I like it. Keeping up with the ever-changing world means questioning the way things have always been done.
Sustainability becomes more important as our population increases while resources decrease. And a boy who reaches Eagle without skills in cooking and healthy eating habits hasn’t become fully “Prepared. For Life.” in my opinion. I think the BSA’s board got it right on here.”
I wonder if careers related to sustainability will include jobs at the U.N. and in government where you can force people to change their lifestyles. From the LDS Doctrine and Covenants, we read this verse in section 104 which is a contradiction of the sustainability movement.
“17 For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare; yea, I prepared all things, and have given unto the children of men to be agents unto themselves.”
I would rather have seen the merit badge called Stewardship and have it just discuss the role of individuals in taking care of our resources that we have a role in, rather than have requirements fitted to a known global agenda and how you can potentially impact other people’s lives. We are agents unto ourselves and there are enough resources to provide for everyone on this planet and more. Others need to learn to be agents and good stewards by being given freedom to learn, not the dictates of anothers conscience.
If you don’t know much about the sustainability movement, read this:
Here’s a few items that ought to concern everyone.
Canada invades the home and tells families they can’t teach their children anything that would be disrespectful of someone else’s differences such as the homosexual lifestyle. So much for homeschooling to avoid the tolerance indoctrination in the public education system. Government intolerance just weighed in.
A North Carolina elementary school forced a preschool student to eat cafeteria chicken nuggets for lunch on Jan. 30 after officials reportedly determined that her homemade meal wasn’t up to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s standards for healthfulness, according to a report from the Carolina Journal.
The newspaper reported that the four-year-old girl brought a turkey and cheese sandwich, a banana, potato chips and apple juice in her packed lunch from home. That meal didn’t meet with approval from the government agent who was on site inspecting kids’ lunches that day.
Someone sent me a link to this amazing set of predictions Ron Paul made in 2002 in a speech on the floor of the House. Check it out and then listen to Judge Napolitano tell it like only the Judge can. :)
Now I realize there’s a lot of Mitt fans on this site and in our state. Mitt has a ton of great qualities that I admire (including his success as a capitalist, Newt :)). However, the more I understand Ron Paul’s positions from his perspective, and not just what others say about him, the more I’ve come to agree that he is the right candidate to be president. Mitt Romney has said he would do nothing with the Federal Reserve and just let them be. The Federal Reserve is right at the top of the list for who to blame for the economic woes we’re having. Mitt doesn’t get that and that’s a major strike in my book. Mitt might know how to run a business but I have to question his commitment to sound economic policy. Mitt also chastised Rick Perry when he called social security a Ponzi scheme and I have to ask myself if I want a president who has been in business all his life that doesn’t understand what a Ponzi scheme is (or says this for political expediency)? It’s frustrating to want to feel like Mitt’s the man for the job, but can’t bring myself over the hurdles to do so.
Ron Paul isn’t perfect and there are a few issues I disagree with him on, but they are pretty minor when I contrast them with the positives and I remind myself that as president, he gets the bully-pulpit and veto power, but he doesn’t make the law or create executive orders to bypass congress (at least in Ron’s case). What some people call wacky ideas will probably never be initiated in the congress and so what we’d be left with in Ron Paul is a president who lives 100% by the Constitution. When something isn’t authorized in the Constitution, he wouldn’t allow it a straight passage and would defer it to the states where it belongs. Wouldn’t that be refreshing? Yet sadly, some people think that’s as destructive as Obama.
All that said, Mitt’s got a better chance of getting the nomination than Ron Paul and if he wanted to pull a few RP supporters over, he should announce that if he’s elected, he would make Ron Paul the Secretary of the Treasury.
If you missed my first post which helped me get over Ron Paul’s foreign policy by understanding it, here’s a link (Is Ron Paul the answer?). If you’ve heard Ron Paul wants to legalize drugs, this video debate on the Larry King show explains his position on it and I find myself completely agreeing with him especially on growing hemp (which isn’t the drug marijuana).
I have also posted a very important quote from J. Reuben Clark below the videos. He served in the highest positions of the LDS church as a member of the First Presidency, a counselor to the Prophet during WW2.
Someone posted this quote on my Facebook page and it’s simply a matter of principle. Do we believe the Founding Fathers were inspired and had lasting insights, or has the world changed so much that some of these beliefs are obsolete. Personally, I think these are timeless principles and J. Reuben Clark was an individual who knew first hand about the military industrial complex getting us into war. If you don’t know his history in business and how he was hired by the people who wanted to own war factory production, you can read something about it here (J. Reuben Clark talk by Cleon Skousen). Here is his quote.
“I am a political isolationist because:
I full believe in the wisdom of the course defined by Washington, Jefferson, and other ancient statesmen. The whole history of America before and since the Revolution proves the truthfulness of their assertions. All during our pre-Revolutionary history we were at war, we were robbed, plundered, and massacred because of European wars, in the issues and causes of which we had no concern. History is repeating itself.
I believe American manhood is too valuable to be sacrificed on foreign soil for foreign issues and causes.
I believe that permanent peace will never come into the world from the muzzle of a gun. Guns and bayonets will, in the future as in the past, bring truces, long or short, but never peace that endures.
I believe President Wilson had the true principle when he spoke of the strength and power of the moral force of the world. Moral force in a nation fructifies industry, thrift, good will, neighborliness, the friendly intercourse of nations, the peace that all men seek; whereas force is barren.
I believe America’s role in the world is not one of force, but is of that same peaceful intent and act that has characterized the history of the country from its birth till the last third of a century.
I believe that moral force is far more potent than physical force in international relations.
I believe that America should again turn to the promotion of the peaceful adjustment of international disputes, which will help us regain the measureless moral force we once possessed, to the regeneration and salvation of the world. We now speak with the strong arm of physical force only; we have no moral force left.
I believe we should once more turn our brains and our resources to the problem, not of killing men, women, and children, combatant and noncombatant, but of bringing to them more of good living and high thinking.
I believe political isolation will bring to us the greatest happiness and prosperity, the greatest temporal achievement not only, but the highest intellectual and spiritual achievement also, the greatest power for good, the strongest force for peace, the greatest blessing to the world. ”
President J. Reuben Clark — Church News 11/22/1947
Last, if you want to see a sad clip about the media completely dismissing Ron Paul, watch the first few minutes of Jon Stewart’s Daily Show here from the episode after the New Hampshire Primary. Stewart roasts Laurence O’Donnell for trying to say John Huntsman was the real 2nd place winner “if we remove Ron Paul from the equation.” Stunning bias against Ron Paul. The media does not want him in the White House.
I don’t think there has been a bigger election in my lifetime than the upcoming 2012 election which will decide the fate of our nation at a tremendously dangerous time. Over the years I’ve been a big fan of Ron Paul’s for his principled positions in congress in always voting from a constitutional position. However, having him run for president has given me pause in reconciling things I thought about his foreign policy stances. Domestic policy? Super. Foreign? Ehhh…
I’ve been trying to understand his positions better and asking questions of my Ron Paul friends, specifically on the topic of foreign policy and his Israel stance since he seems to take a beating from all the other Republican candidates on those points. The other day I received and then sent out a video, the first one below, and it helped a couple people decide to support Ron Paul. I’ve since received a couple more videos which better explain his positions on Israel, and to me, he makes a lot of sense. As one who for a long time thought some of his statements about 9/11 and Israel were whacky, I actually feel comfortable with him now and feel like I can fully support him (which I did today with a financial contribution). Our Founding Fathers wanted to avoid all “entangling alliances” and that is essentially Ron Paul’s position, which is the constitutionally sound position. There is nobody I trust more on domestic issues (audit and end the Fed and IRS) to reduce all government involvement in the market, and his foreign policy would save us trillions of dollars.
I summarized what I thought was Ron Paul’s position on foreign policy and had a friend (Connor Boyack) help expand these a little:
-Stop foreign aid to everyone including Israel so we don’t treat them as a puppet (right now, we give more money to Israel’s enemies than we do to Israel)
-Become free from entangling alliances as Washington and other founders counseled us
-Israel is free to defend itself and take whatever action is in its national interest. They have plenty of money and weaponry and should act on the basis of their own sovereignty, not with permission, clearance, or subsidization from other countries like the USA.
-Israel is free to ask us for assistance and we can choose to help in appropriate ways, provided those ways are constitutional.
Do I agree with every position of Ron Paul’s? No, but where I do have a difference of opinion, it’s dwarfed by the things I agree on with him and when compared to the other candidates, he comes way ahead of most of them, and where it’s close such as with Michelle Bachmann, I’d much rather have Ron Paul’s commitment to closing unconstitutional federal agencies, especially the Department of Education and return that entire function to the states. He also favors a strong defense at home.
This first video is what finally let me understand “blowback” which he’s been ridiculed for in several debates. If there is only one video you watch, make it this one.
If you want an explanation from Ron Paul on his foreign policy and clear position on Israel, watch this one.
This last one is fact checking by someone on Ron Paul’s statements that he has been criticized for.
In the summer of 2010, BYU’s education department told the Provo Daily Herald they were leaving John Goodlad’s National Network for Educational Renewal for “financial reasons” and said they were leaving other organizations as well. This might be true. They might have been losing donors who had become aware that John Goodlad’s organization was pressuring BYU and they might have told BYU no more money unless they dropped that association. Unfortunately, it looks like that was only one of several questionable memberships for BYU’s Education department.
This past week, I received an email from someone alerting me to BYU’s Education department’s current involvement with NAME, the National Organization for Multicultural Education, which is for “Advancing and Advocating for Social Justice & Equity.” On Nameorg.org’s home page, we find a writeup with this headline, “NAME Statement of Solidarity with Occupy Chicago and the Global Occupy Movement”. You can read their statement of support for the revolution here: http://nameorg.org/ or click the image to enlarge it.
The 2008 NAME conference was titled “Beyond Celebrating Diversity: ReACTivating the Equity and Social Justice Roots of Multicultural Education.” This pretty much sums up the organization but to be totally clear, NAME’s mission statement includes these goals and objective:
Multicultural education is a philosophical concept built on the ideals of freedom, justice, equality, equity, and human dignity as acknowledged in various documents, such as the U.S. Declaration of Independence, constitutions of South Africa and the United States, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations…
…It [a multicultural education] prepares all students to work actively toward structural equality in organizations and institutions by providing the knowledge, dispositions, and skills for the redistribution of power and income among diverse groups. Thus, school curriculum must directly address issues of racism, sexism, classism, linguicism, ablism, ageism, heterosexism, religious intolerance, and xenophobia…
…In addition, teachers and students must critically analyze oppression and power relations in their communities, society and the world…
…Multicultural education requires comprehensive school reform as multicultural education must pervade all aspects of the school community and organization.
Recognizing that equality and equity are not the same thing, multicultural education attempts to offer all students an equitable educational opportunity, while at the same time, encouraging students to critique society in the interest of social justice.
I strongly agree that equality and equity is clearly defined in the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution. All [people] are created equal and endowed by their creator with unalienable rights. That should be what we teach all children. No one is better or worse than another because of the color of their skin. Everyone has the opportunity to rise to greatness. But that’s it. End of story. No legislating the playing field to give the advantage to anyone including minorities. Just level the playing field and give everyone the opportunity to become what they will.
On the Institutional Memberships page of NAME’s website, we find BYU listed.
Membership in this organization is a small annual fee but one can’t help but wonder why BYU didn’t drop this association when they dropped the NNER membership last year since they said they were dropping “others” at that time.
On the Utah Chapter of NAME’s website, I discovered more BYU involvement on the board and in other supportive roles.
The email I received pointed out:
Alta High’s new principal was hired by Canyon’s District because he is a multicultural educator. He is out of the David O. McKay School, and received NAME’S 2011 Educator of the year award. He cowrote a book “Holistic Multicultural Education: Pedagogy for the 21st Century” with three others at BYU, one being Ramona Cutri—a current professor at the McKay school and 2009 President of NAME’s Utah Chapter.
Like John Goodlad’s NNER conference last year where Bill Ayers was the keynote speaker, Bill Ayers was the keynote speaker for NAME’s national conference last month (November 2011), and just like the good old days of BYU’s Education department involvement in Goodlad’s NNER, two BYU education professors were presenters at the conference (link to a review of the conference, Ayers on page 1 & BYU on page 6).
One presentation I found on the Utah NAME chapter website from March 2010, entitled “Making the Case for Multicultural Education in Utah” was from BYU Professor Ramona Maile Cutri. Among the slides I found this representative of what this organization is about.
BYU Education Department has a webpage (maybe more) devoted to diversity activities including how to incorporate multiculturalism into your classroom.
Membership in an organization promoting the downfall of America: CHECK
Membership in an organization with ties to Bill Ayers: CHECK
Membership in an organization promoting the gay agenda: CHECK
Membership in an organization promoting social justice: CHECK
Membership in an organization promoting redistribution of wealth: CHECK
Can we get a complete audit of BYU’s Education Department memberships and associations?
Also sent to me was a 2007 working document where BYU’s education department was performing a John Goodlad NNER “Equity Self-Study” evaluation related to the Public School Partnership. The PSP is how BYU relates everything they are doing and pushes it into the PSP school districts. This first page of the document shows Steven Baugh, director of CITES (the teacher and administrator training/indoctrination facility for the PSP); Richard Young, from BYU’s Education Department; and other representatives such as Alpine School District’s Superintendent Vern Henshaw, were major players in creating this document. The document shows political ideology in a phase called “sustaining progress.”
Further down this chart is a line item called “Sexual Orientation” which is in the “Beginning to Implement” column. The two sets with footnotes in this column are written up as follows.
Xa) Language, Locality, Race, and Socioeconomic Status—We are beginning to implement a number of
programs/initiatives in these areas. Specifics are listed below entitled “Programs/initiatives to promote equity.” As
a general statement, we are sustaining progress in these areas.
Xb) Sexual Orientation—The School of Education has identified the knowledge, skills, and dispositions that every
teacher candidate should possess to assist all students in the schools to access a quality education regardless of
sexual orientation, disability, gender, etc. The primary place for teaching this is designated for the multicultural
classes required of all teacher candidates. In addition, all teacher candidate course work and field experience is
undergirded by the moral dimensions of teaching.
NAME is evidently the organization BYU choose to partner with to better indoctrinate teacher candidates in multicultural classes. The “moral dimensions of teaching” is the buzz-phrase from John Goodlad which includes the “Enculturating the Young into a Social and Political Democracy.” Both the NNER and NAME organization are in favor of overturning our system of government and moving toward a socialist state.
MAKE NO MISTAKE, if your child is in one of the PSP school districts which include Provo, Nebo, Alpine, Wasatch, Jordan, and probably Canyon now, your teachers are receiving this garbage as part of their training. Your administrators are being indoctrinated in it. It may take time to trickle down and some teachers will wisely filter out the garbage from their own mind, but at some point they will be held accountable to new standards which call for implementing these things in the classroom.
The dangers of BYU professors associating with Bill Ayers and other revolutionary minded people is most disturbing when parents think they are sending their children to a university with a belief that the U.S. Constitution was divinely inspired and their children are going to learn a love and respect for our country. Instead, children are being indoctrinated through these programs to promote people based on characteristics other than individual skill and effort, and to tear down our country and replace it with a direct democracy and moral relativism. If your child has an interest in becoming a teacher, I would strongly suggest avoiding BYU and urge everyone to not donate to BYU unless it’s to a specific department other than a teacher preparation department such as the Education and Math Education departments.
Dealing with Korihor
ASD’s Democracy Explained (Helping people understand progressives’ definition of Democracy)
For several years I have heard people speak about Eldridge Cleaver’s awesome speech at a BYU Freedom Festival from years ago. I’ve searched for the text or audio of his speech or anything about it that could allow me to see it but always came up short. Recently, I was copied on an email from Fred Willoughby who mentioned having the speech on DVD. Fred is the president of the Proper Role of Government seminars. I contacted Fred and was excited to learn that he did indeed have Eldridge’s speech on DVD, but not only that, he was able to obtain permission from the distributor of the DVD to allow me to post it online and share with you.
Fred was with the LAPD in the 60’s and nobody was more surprised than Fred that Eldridge made the incredible change that he did. After converting to Christianity, Eldridge joined the LDS church and Fred used to shuttle him around California acting as his bodyguard while Eldridge spoke at firesides. Here is a short introduction by Fred.
Eldridge Cleaver’s Speech
In 1981, Eldridge Cleaver spoke at the BYU Freedom Festival about his conversion from being the Marxist, atheist, spokesman for the Black Panther’s party, to being a Christian, freedom loving, Founding Father appreciating, patriotic American. It’s an amazing journey Eldridge took and an important one for us to learn from. Eldridge was involved in criminal activity and through an odd opportunity to escape justice on one particular occasion, he traveled the world from one Communist country to another, being celebrated in those countries as one of America’s communist heroes. What he saw changed him. This video should be seen by everyone to understand what we’ve really got here in America.
One warning, the intro by Elwood Peterson lasts to about the 7:30 mark. It’s fairly interesting, but just don’t give up hope that you’re not going to hear from Eldridge. Total running time is 1 hour 24 minutes.
I recently posted a question on a Facebook group page asking people to consider why Karl Marx included free public education in his 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto. Someone soon came along and posted this:
“Please attempt to have a discussion about education that does not use comparisons to communism and/or Karl Marx. Attempting to demonize opposing views just shows a complete lack of desire to have civil dialog.”
“Who is demonizing…? Are you saying people who discuss education must stick their head in the sand and avoid some of the elephants in the room? Why can’t a person bring up an obvious point and have it considered rationally without being accused of demonizing?”
I thought the purpose of critical thinking skills that educators always talk about is being able to dissect and understand a topic by honest questioning. So why did Karl Marx include free public education as one of his 10 planks?
To understand this, one has to understand the foundation of the Manifesto’s goal. Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto to lay out a plan for the destruction of private property. Only with the destruction of private property can you have a communist way of life. From H. Verlan Anderson’s book, “Many are Called, but Few are Chosen,” we read this explanation:
“Not only does the Manifesto declare its main purpose to be the destruction of private property, but it contains a detailed plan by which this is to be accomplished in a nation such as the United States whose laws and constitutions were designed to protect this right.
The method proposed is not violent and bloody revolution (at least at the outset) but the peaceful and legal process of inducing the citizens of the United States and other nations to destroy the right themselves with their own legislatures, courts, and executives. We are to adopt a series of laws which will inevitably have this result. Listen to the Manifesto as it unfolds its plan:
‘We have seen above that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to establish democracy. The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest by degrees all capital from the bourgeoisie (property owners), to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state.’
This naked appeal to the selfishness of the voter to use the government as an instrument of plunder is nothing but a proposal for legalized theft.”
The reason the communists promote Democracy is because once you establish class warfare to the point that the majority vote themselves property from the minority, the destruction of private property is ensured. The people will continue to vote socialist minded people into office to pass laws guaranteeing for themselves anything they desire. This is where we find the quote often attributed to Alexander Tytler so applicable.
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.”
Can anyone argue we don’t have loose fiscal policy and we’re not headed for a dictatorship? If you don’t believe it, you’re not watching the mandates and sidestepping of the legislative process the President is engaged in.
So now why did Karl Marx declare free public education in government schools as one of his 10 main objectives to destroy private property? Here are three reasons I can think of.
1) Getting people without children to pay for the education of people with children, via compulsory taxation, takes the personal property of those who may not want to or be able to give, in order to pay for a good or service for someone else. This is a tremendous injustice to those without children. Parents, never having to write a check or make a payment for the service, cease to concern themselves with what their child is being taught or if waste is occurring in the system. There is no competition, just apathy. Some will say that paying for the education of other children is for the benefit of society, however, one could say that about almost anything. It never used to be this way till Marx and Horace Mann came along and got us into this model.
2) In a state school funded with public tax dollars, the lowest common denominator prevails meaning those who believe least (atheism) trump those who believe most (in God). Free government education is a way to destroy public morality and a belief in God, which was one of Marx’s goals to establish atheism. Our Christian founders wanted to have strong morals taught in schools from the Bible. Not sectarian beliefs, but morals grounded in God’s commandments which ultimately lead to the happiness of the people.
3) It removes from parents the authority and responsibility of being the primary educator of their children. The state takes an interest and with government money paying for the education, the government can create mandates on everything in the system including curriculum, testing, standards, teachers, administrators, etc… Parents lose the ability to control their child’s education.
Until parents directly pay for at least a portion of their child’s education, they will never take an interest in how funds are being spent and what their children are being taught.
From the Latter-Day Conservative website I got this excellent quote.
“God finds His glory, as Joseph Smith said, in providing laws by which other beings can come to enjoy the same perfections and glory He possesses. Our view and motivations should be the same. Rather than seeing law as an instrument of domination, it is our mission to use it as an enabling power to help men and women achieve greater independence and ultimate potential. We do so by acting to have our earthly governmental and legal systems mirror as closely as possible the divine order. – ”
(“Law and Becoming”, Elder D. Todd Christoffersons. Fireside presented to the J. Reuben Clark Law Society, February 4, 2011. Published in the Clark Memorandum, Spring 2011.)
What is the divine order? It is founded upon the principle of agency, or choice. One must choose to become educated. One must choose to be charitable. One should be able to choose the educational environment for their children. Government run public schools funded by tax dollars, forcing children to learn what the state tells them and in the manner in which they tell them, is a factory conveyor belt model for things that are to be acted upon like a raw material, not a place for sentient beings that need to learn to act and use choice or agency to put themselves into motion to accomplish great things. When responsibility is removed from people, even in education, apathy sets in and we become nothing more than drones. Parents and children should be active participants in the education process. When they are not, they relinquish their right to agency and personal growth.
What the “Occupy Wall Street” Democracy-lovers would do to us today is destroy private property in the name of immoral corporations. However, the problem isn’t with capitalism, it’s with morality. Our Founders said only a moral and religious people could maintain a free republic. With each action of government in removing God and religion in our daily lives, individuals have lost their moral anchor and believe they can take advantage of their neighbors to get ahead without any consequences. The problems in Wall Street, Washington, and everywhere else won’t be solved by more laws that force people into good behavior. New laws are the result of lost morals because everyone wants to clamp down on bad behavior. The solution to society’s ills can only be found in a return to God-centered morals. Only then will people treat each other with honesty and charity and cease taking advantage of each other through dishonest business practices, or plunder made legal through our process of lawmaking.
Perhaps the best statement I’ve read explaining this is from Howard W. Hunter, a past president of the LDS church, who said:
“What is the real cause of this trend toward the welfare state, toward more socialism? In the last analysis, in my judgment, it is personal unrighteousness. When people do not use their freedoms responsibly and righteously, they will gradually lose these freedoms . . ..
If man will not recognize the inequalities around him and voluntarily, through the gospel plan, come to the aid of his brother, he will find that through “a democratic process” he will be forced to come to the aid of his brother. The government will take from the “haves” and give to the “have nots.” Both have lost their freedom. Those who “have,” lost their freedom to give voluntarily of their own free will and in the way they desire. Those who “have not,” lost their freedom because they did not earn what they received. They got “something for nothing,” and they will neither appreciate the gift nor the giver of the gift.
Under this climate, people gradually become blind to what has happened and to the vital freedoms, which they have lost. (Speeches of the Year 1965-1966, pp. 1-11, “The Law of the Harvest.” Devotional Address, Brigham Young University, 8 March 1966.)”
Every violation of the constitution that provides a socialistic program to the public (yes, including public education), encourages the slide into the destruction of private property. The rallying cry of socialists is “Democracy” because it is through majority votes of the “have nots” that they take from the “haves” and the ongoing, systematic destruction of our economy creates more “have nots.” We must understand, respect, and defend the Constitution of the United States and honor the laws that protect our life, liberty, and property, or Democracy will be the downfall of this nation.
Hopefully this gives new perspective to why there is such a danger in our schools adopting slogans like “Enculturating the Young into a Social and Political Democracy.” This is simply a restatement of the communist goal to establish a democratic welfare state which serves to destroy morality and private property through the votes of a growing immoral majority.
A few years ago when Alpine School District floated it’s last bond, there were a number of election law violations which were filed with the appropriate authorities. These included passing out yard signs during taxpayer funded work days, and staff putting up yard signs during work days while on the public dime. Nothing ever came of it.
During the voucher fight, a Powerpoint presentation was circulating that was against the voucher issue. It had file properties showing it was produced on Cache School District computers and was up to 11 hours of editing time. When that was given to the State Attorney General’s office, I followed up with one of the attorneys to see how they were moving on this and was told, “it’s not popular to go after educators.”
This election, Alpine School District personnel again violated the law as can be seen in this picture of Lone Peak High School’s website clearly showing they told voters how to vote. As of this moment it is up on Lone Peak’s website.
Here are the relevant Utah laws someone sent me.
(1) Unless specifically required by law, a public entity may not make an expenditure from public funds for political purposes or to influence a ballot proposition.
Each public official who violates this part is guilty of a class B misdemeanor.
Are educators above the law? Should educators be held to a higher or lesser standard when they are modeling behavior for impressionable children? Will anyone in the justice system enforce these laws?
Sadly, probably not. Bad behavior continues and is emboldened when the law isn’t enforced. One charge would reverberate through the education community and warn them not to engage in politicking on the public dime.
(This is not intended to implicate all educators. Most are just fine and respect the law. It’s just a few that need to have more than a hand slap)
Glenn Beck gets in an argument with Pat Gray and calls in David Barton to settle the issue. This is a great clip to understand this issue for when people say we’re not a Christian nation.