Comments on: So you don’t think Socialist Revolutionaries exist in Utah County? Think again.

By: Oak Norton

Oak Norton — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 05:10:56 +0000

The states are the sovereign entities. The federal constitution restricts what the feds can do. Then the states have their constitutions and define what the state will handle versus passing on to more local government. I agree that education should be local, but it is a state issue to define how that state's education system works.

On the 1700's folks, I wasn't saying they knew more than we know today. Certainly there have been huge advances. For their time, they were better educated relative to the general population than today's youth.

Here is something that may interest you. From an article John Taylor Gatto wrote:
"Senator Ted Kennedy's office released a paper not too long ago claiming that prior to compulsory education the state literacy rate was 98% and after it the figure never again reached above 91% where it stands in 1990."
https://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/gatto3.1.1.html

Gatto is not a fan of compulsory public education.

By: Lewis B

Lewis B — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 03:58:37 +0000

I don't believe education is a state issue either. Education was not a power enumerated to the states in the U.S. Constitution, but the states took it incumbent upon themselves after local urban communities became ineffective at educating large numbers of children. The problem is that most states, including our own, behave similarly to the federal government in dealing with education. Education decisions should belong solely to the local governments and school boards like it used to be. With that said, it just isn't practical. I don't think we would have ever put a man on the moon if local communities were completely in control of what is taught and what isn't. We may have never come out ahead in the World War II or the Cold War.

I have no doubt that some of our 1700's farmers were more literate than youth today, but the key word here is "some." I highly doubt that most people in the 1700's could do the mathematics or science that youth can today either. Also, around the time when education became truly public (Dept of Education was created in 1867) illiteracy rates have dropped from 20% in the 1870 to .6 percent in 1979. That sounds like a success to me. Also, do you even know why the Dept. of Education was created in the first place?

By: Oak Norton

Oak Norton — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 01:48:07 +0000

Jefferson and others thought there would be periodic revolutions perhaps within 20 years I think. Those farmers of the 1700's were better educated than some of our youth today. :) I think there are a number of issues surrounding education that are very complex and difficult to figure out what is best, but the root of our education problems exists in a federal body interfering when it has no constitutional duty to do it. Education is a state issue. States should choose how they will individually respond to anything reserved for them per the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution. Since education isn't mentioned in article 1, section 8, it is reserved to the states.

P.S. Just to make it more clear, Susie Schnell's name appears at the end of the above article because she wrote it, not me.

By: Lewis B

Lewis B — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 01:25:43 +0000

Oak, this isn't the 1700's where most of society was engaged in unskilled, agrarian labor. The government has increasingly inserted itself into education as a matter of national security. This became quite noticeable during the 1960's with the space race and the need to promote higher science and mathematical standards. If our population becomes uneducated due to the inability of working folks to pay for a private education, then we will all lose our "Republic." Even Jefferson suggested many times that times will change and that our government will no longer adequately serve us. I think going to a system where there is no government support in ensuring we have a high rate of literacy will be disastrous.

I know people hate public education because it is "public," but nobody has yet explained how to go about divorcing government from education without creating a system where only the elite few can have access to education. The government needs to play some kind of role or else we would quickly degenerate into an illiterate 3rd world nation.

By: Oak Norton

Oak Norton — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 05:03:16 +0000

This is a big question. First, there is nothing in a "republican form" of government that says the government should run the school system. A form of government doesn't necessarily imply anything about education, though totalitarian states always make it a big point to do it as Karl Marx put forth in the Communist Manifesto. In the U.S. the Constitution governs the scope of the authority of the federal government in article 1 section 8. The 10th amendment then says anything not covered in the constitution is specifically reserved to the states. So then it is up to the states to have public schools, socialist programs, a state religion, etc... The Constitution sets us up as a republic and then says anything not covered there is reserved to states.

As to why public education benefits Americans, that's a can of worms. :) Watch for a post in a few days I'm working on that will open up a debate on the form of education. Jefferson's public education is far different than what we have today and had nothing to do with the federal government.

By: Aarond61

Aarond61 — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 04:45:14 +0000

Thank you for answering my question. I have another question. Is there anything in a republican form of government that says that the government should run and fund the school system. I have been reading Adam Smiths book the wealth of nations and it seems to me that public schools run by the government doesn't fall under a free market society. Could you explain why we have public schools and why it is a benefit to us as Americans?

By: Oak Norton

Oak Norton — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 07:57:03 +0000

Aaron, article 4 section 4 of the U.S. Constitution guarantees every state a republican form of government. We are not a democracy. There are some legislators who have also noticed what you have and I am hoping they will take steps to correct it.

By: Aarond61

Aarond61 — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 07:39:55 +0000

I have a question and i know it is off topic but are we a Utah Republic or a Representative Democracy of Utah as the Utah legislative web site states. Are these two forms of government the same or are they different? and if they are different what are we?https://www.le.utah.gov/lrgc/citizenguide.htm

By: Lewis B

Lewis B — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 00:29:20 +0000

So now the members of the ASD school board are revolutionaries?

By: Landersonmj

Landersonmj — Sun, 15 Aug 2010 21:08:26 +0000

I really appreciate those that have taken time to research and inform parents of this very serious issue right here in Utah County. I became involved by being concerned about the curriculum used here in ASD two years ago; what was being taught.
We love our teachers here in Utah, but there are those among us that have different ideas about America. I think many parents still don't get the message that progressives hate America and the freedoms we have, the founding fathers, and our Constitution. They will fight to destroy it, and where most damage can be done is with our youth. Progressives have been in our midst for years, they are now becoming more forceful. Parents please read these articles with an open mind. I do believe as time goes forward, many more will see the truth of how the progressives are taking over in our schools. It is sad to see the division of parents. As parents, we all love our children and want the very best for them. Please read and do your homework about the people and subject listed above. Please ask yourself the questions above and then search for an answer. Truth will guide us. Thank you again to those who have spent many hours in gathering this information and bringing it to us.