Tea Party Candidate: Abolish Public Schools

reply to post by getreadyalready
Great points.

In 1990, while traveling in Europe, I met a Russian that had just graduated from high school. He was working in a McDonalds restaurant in Germany. He was thrilled to meet an American to try his speaking "American" English with. Honestly, he could have passed for a born and bred California kid. He also spoke French and German, in addition to his native Russian language.

He learned it all in high school. I rarely meet an American with a high school education that can speak a second language fluently. In some places it is hard to find one that a firm grasp on the English language ( please, this is not a hit at Hispanics).

reply to post by Aeons


I certainly agree that we cannot entirely shirk the responsibility of education, and we have to be extremely careful that no segment of the population is left without an education. I think the problem has been consistently lowering the standards to include all those segments, and now we are at the point where the entire population is getting substandard education.

Maybe some religious entities have been undermining the public schools, but I don't think that is the main problem.

"No child left behind" seemed like a decent plan with good intentions, but the schools bastardized it to the point that it has entirely backfired and needs to be scrapped as soon as possible.

I think the problem is Federal Funding. Every school tailors their curriculum to skew their test results and up their enrollment to get more funding. What we need is the ability to fail students, demand higher performance, and reward teachers that have higher performing classrooms. We need more world education, world history, world geography, world literature.

It is a very sad, sad day when kids from Cuba come into Florida and know more about American history, American politics, American literature than American students, and on top of that they have also read Russian literature, and they know world geography, and their math skills are 2 or 3 years ahead of their classmates in America. I would rather have my kids go to Primary School in CUBA than the US!?!?!?! I want them back here for our good Universities though.

I don't think the current system can be fixed. I think it has to be entirely overhauled!

First, I'd like to say that I like the concept of free public education.

However, I think that the single most important thing that people are not discussing is the need for parents to be involved in the education of their children.

When you choose to have children, that decision comes with a lot of responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is education. We chose where to raise our children, and one of the factors in that decision was the school district.

People talk about public education like all schools are the same. That's not the case. I live in California and in the greater metropolitan area around me, there are a few outstanding school districts. If you live in or get your child enrolled in one of those schools they have a much better chance of academic success. The flip side of the coin is that there are a number of school districts where you child will have very limited opportunity for academic achievement. They may be able to get straight A's but they will not have received a quality education.

What makes up a great school district? Most of the time it is associated with family income. In general terms once the family income of an area reaches a certain point, the schools are better. Why? That's pretty easy. The parents, have a higher chance of being college grads, they take the time to read to their children, they have high standards and set goals for their children and most importantly, the families in these areas place a high value on education. The children attending the schools come prepared to learn. Parents make sure homework is completed and help kids to learn. Not every student in these schools is successful but many are.

I think that personal responsibility is the key to having an educational system that works for the community.

reply to post by butcherguy


It is more common in Europe for people to be multilingual. The countries are smaller and more people live near a country where a different language is spoken. I don't see this as a failing in the US, just not a priority.

reply to post by Wildbob77
I was pointing out that other countries teach their children other languages to a better degree than we teach ours English.
2nd.

reply to post by SeventhSeal


I don't know how to install an alternative to the public school system , but without a shadow of a doubt it is a disaster.

While I like the idea of more local school systems, it is not as feasible today as it would of been in historic times. They worked in historic times because communities were isolated and the population was a fraction of what it is. We live in a society where you can't even tell where one city ends and another begins. I can already see the disputes that would arise from the this. Not to mention that more affluent areas are then given a huge advantage over those who are not. It would further create a class distinction.I could see where then communities play keeping up with the joneses instead of focusing on deducation.
Last, the world is getting more global. While it would be good to focus on preparing children for local industries, many people do not stay local. Somehow a baseline education still needs to be established so a person can compete for a job in any community. I could see some bible belt communities only teaching from the bible.
The system certainly needs to be revamped, especially after the abomination call the no child left behind act. But I don't think total elimination is that answer either.

reply to post by Aeons

Getting rid of a public system doesn't fix those problems. All it does it shirk fixing those problems off into other systems, or abandonning part of the population to non-education or substandard education.

One would have to first presume that the current model of public schooling has not abandoned part of the population, and is offering an education above standard, or even standard as opposed to the clear substandard education it is providing. The fact of the matter is that the U.S. public school system is so riddled with substandard education that when compared to the rest of the industrialized world, the U.S. appears to be a nation of idiots.

Consider these findings from the Broad Foudation: 68% of eighth graders can't read at grade level, and most will never catch up. 1.2 million students drop out of high school every year. 44% of dropouts under the age of 24 are jobless. $300 billion in lost wages, lost taxes, and lost productivity due to dropouts from the class of 2007. (That is just from the class of 2007 alone!) $192 billion in lost wages, and taxes, due to each cohort of dropouts.

While most parents think their children are receiving a quality education, the majority of American students are falling behind their international counterparts. The consequences to our country are dramatic.

We have low expectations for American students.
* American students rank 25th in math and 21st in science compared to students in 30 industrialized countries.
* America’s top math students rank 25th out of 30 countries when compared with top students elsewhere in the world. [1]
* By the end of 8th grade, U.S. students are two years behind in the math being studied by peers in other countries. [2]
* Sixty eight percent of 8th graders can’t read at their grade level, and most will never catch up.

U.S. students are ranked 25th out of 30 industrialized nations in science, and the science these U.S. students are being taught certainly isn't creationism as some would like to have us believe.

The USA has a serious problem in many areas of education. This is true.

Where the U.S. doesn't have a problem in areas of education are private schools. Also known as "independent" schools because of their independence from national, state, and local government funding and intervention, private schools remain as successful today as they were 150 years ago, and continue to maintain high standards of curriculum and graduation success rates:

A U.S. Department of Education study shows that independent schools are on the right track by placing such a strong emphasis on small school and class size. The Condition of Education 2002 suggests that small and intermediate—sized schools and relatively small classes, like those commonly found in independent schools, have advantages, often leading to higher achievement for students.

Key findings of the report include:
-Teachers at independent schools report having significant influence on teaching practices and school policies.
-Teachers at independent schools report being satisfied with teaching at their school.
-A majority of teachers at independent schools express positive opinions about their school head and their school’s leadership.
-Independent school students generally perform higher than their public school counterparts on standardized achievement tests.
-Independent high schools typically have more demanding graduation requirements than do public high schools.

privateschool.about.com...

December 1999 - By a margin of nine to one, Americans believe parents should have the right to choose their child's school, according to a report released last month by Public Agenda, a research organization based in New York City. Moreover, if they were given a choice of schools-- along with the financial wherewithal to exercise it-- a full 55 percent of parents who currently send their children to public schools would want to send them to private schools.

www.capenet.org...

And in terms of Indicators of School Crime and Safety: when comparing private schools to public schools here are some statistics as made in a joint report by the Bureau of Justice and the National Center for Education Statistics:

Having experienced violent victimization at, or on the way to/from, school 4.3% in public schools compared to 2.6% in private schools.

Being threatened with harm at, or on the way to/from, school 5.1% in public schools compared to 0.9% in private schools.

Fearing being attacked or harmed at, or on the way to/from, school 6.5% in public schools compared to 3.8 in private schools.

Being targets of hate-related words at, or on the way to/from, school 11.5% in public schools compared to 6.9% in private schools.

That street gangs were present at, or on the way to/from, school a whopping 25.4% in public schools compared to 4.2% in private schools.

That they avoided certain places in school for fear of their own safety 4.8% in public schools compared to 1.4% in private schools.

You ever consider that you have a problem because a certain influential segment of the country WANTS to wreck the public system for their own purposes, and therefore encourages bureaucratic and state problems which will assure that the system will fail?

You ever consider that we have a problem because the federal government itself WANTS to wreck the public school system? You ever consider that there very well may be a link between the creation of The United States Department of Education and the steady decline of U.S. public schools? Consider that National Center for Education Statistics reports that drop out rates are actually down from those rates recorded in 1980. However, this claim flies in the face of other independent sources reporting a much different environment. Indeed, the White House issued this press release in March of this year:

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, President Barack Obama highlighted steps his Administration will take to combat the dropout crisis and invest in strategies to ensure students graduate prepared for college and careers.

President Obama challenged states to identify high schools with graduation rates below 60% and discussed the Administration’s investments to help them turn those schools around. The Obama Administration has committed $3.5 billion to fund transformational changes in America’s persistently low-performing schools. Additionally, the President’s FY 2011 budget includes $900 million to support School Turnaround Grants. President Obama also emphasized the importance of investing in dropout prevention and recovery strategies to help make learning more engaging and relevant for students, and announced new efforts to invest $100 million in a College Pathways program to promote a college readiness culture in high schools, through programs that allow students to earn a high school diploma and college credit at the same time.

Where the NCES is claiming victory and asserting that dropout rates are lower than they were at the time the ED was created, President Obama is calling the current dropout rates a "crises" and speaking of graduation rates below 60%. Of course, those rates below 60% are not a national average, but there is something disingenuous about the NCES report when looking at the obvious problems with the public school system today.

Nearly 6.2 million students in the United States between the ages of 16 and 24 in 2007 dropped out of high school, fueling what a report released Tuesday called "a persistent high school dropout crisis."

articles.cnn.com...:US

Gen. Colin Powell has led battles around the world, but now he's taking on a desperate fight on the homefront: what he calls the "moral catastrophe" of dropout rates for U.S. high school students.

abcnews.go.com...

While you suggest that a certain "influential segment" might be responsible for the decline of public schools in the U.S., you noticeably avoid naming this "influential segment". Did it ever occur to you that this "influential segment" might very well be The National Education Association, which is the largest labor union within the United States?

Everyone agrees on the need to reform our public schools—everyone, that is, except the teachers’ unions. Hoover fellow and former governor of California Pete Wilson argues that the teachers’ unions are putting their own interests above the interests of our children.

www.hoover.org...

In this article written for the Hoover Institution, Pete Wilson seems to recognize that the decline has been happening for as long as the ED has existed:

But beginning about thirty years ago, something happened to undermine the hope and expectation. The proud truism has been rendered invalid in schools all across the country. We’ve seen a marked decline in American public education not only in test scores but in most other measurements of educational performance. Something is seriously wrong when a delegation of Silicon Valley executives travels to Washington to plead with Congress to liberalize the quota for legal immigrants because they cannot find a sufficient number of American workers who possess the education and technical skills to manufacture the products of the twenty-first century. And it is not just high-technology employers who have reason to complain of our system of K–12 education.

Beginning about 30 years ago, Jimmy Carter and that Congress started the ED. Is this just a coincidence? Of course, correlation doesn't prove causation, but that there is indeed a correlation is not really in doubt.

Obviously many of the other public systems around the world are NOT having the same problems. Maybe you should ask yourselves WHY.

I think in a large part, this is precisely what is being asked, not just in this thread, but with parents across the U.S. who are very concerned with the prospect of education for their children. Homeschooling has increased dramatically in the past several years, precisely because parents are asking hard questions about the public school system and reaching the conclusion they can do better than government when it comes to educating their children:

The report shows that approximately 1.5 million children (2.9 percent of school-age children) were being homeschooled in the spring of 2007, representing a 36 percent relative increase since 2003 and a 74 percent relative increase since 1999.[1] One private researcher estimates that as many as 2.5 million school-age children were educated at home during the 2007-2008 school year.[2]

The homeschooling survey also reveals the most common reasons cited by families as the basis for their decision to educate their children at home. The most frequently referenced reasons included the ability to provide moral or religious instruction (36 percent), concern about the environment at other schools (21 percent), and dissatisfaction with the academic instruction provided at other schools (17 percent).[3] The number of parents reporting the ability to provide moral or religious instruction as a rationale for homeschooling their children increased by 11 percentage points (from 72 percent in 2003 to 83 percent in 2007)

www.heritage.org...

About 1.1 million students (1,096,000) were being homeschooled in the United States in the spring of 2003 (figure 1). This represents an increase from the estimated 850,000 students who were being homeschooled in the spring of 1999. In addition, the estimated homeschooling rate?the percentage of the school-age population that was being homeschooled?increased from 1.7 percent in 1999 to 2.2 percent in 2003 (not shown in tables or figures).

nces.ed.gov...

Perhaps the problem isn't the public system. It is the many layers of horse# and intentional sabotaging it is labouring under.

Perhaps the problem is the public system, and the many layers of horse# and intentional sabotaging is all part and parcel of a public system. You speak of other nations whose public school systems are not suffering, but the reality is that of the 30 industrialized nations used by the Broad Foundation for comparison, where the U.S. ranked 25th in science, this means that five other nations ranked below the U.S., and certainly of the 30, only five nations managed to rank in the top five. Ranking 15th out of 30 industrialized nations would hardly be an endorsement for a successful model in public education. Even more tellingly is that these comparisons were made of public school systems, and not of private schools, nor of the success rate of homeschooling.

Here is just one example of the tyranny of the state in regards to public schools. In this article and video featuring Michigan prosecutor Kym Worthy, she explains a legislative act she is proposing that would jail parents for three days if they miss parent teacher conferences. She goes out of her way to explain that there are numerous "exemptions" from the law, but any educated person knows full well what "exemption from the law" means. When one is legally exempted from legislation, the person being exempted must necessarily be subject to the legislation to begin with in order to gain exemption.

As the prosecutor Worthy pointed out in her interview, parents are all ready liable for jail time if they do not send their children to public schools. Here is the actual legislation:

380.1561 Compulsory attendance at public school; enrollment dates; exceptions.

Sec. 1561.
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, for a child who turned age 11 before December 1, 2009 or who entered grade 6 before 2009, the child's parent, guardian, or other person in this state having control and charge of the child shall send that child to a public school during the entire school year from the age of 6 to the child's sixteenth birthday. Except as otherwise provided in this section, for a child who turns age 11 on or after December 1, 2009 or a child who was age 11 before that date and enters grade 6 in 2009 or later, the child's parent, guardian, or other person in this state having control and charge of the child shall send the child to a public school during the entire school year from the age of 6 to the child's eighteenth birthday. The child's attendance shall be continuous and consecutive for the school year fixed by the school district in which the child is enrolled. In a school district that maintains school during the entire calendar year and in which the school year is divided into quarters, a child is not required to attend the public school more than 3 quarters in 1 calendar year, but a child shall not be absent for 2 or more consecutive quarters.

It is, of course, written in that arcane priest class lawyer set language known as "legalese". To make it easier to understand, and especially for those residents of the State of Michigan who would much prefer to home school their children, this site breaks down the "legalese" in an easy to understand English language, explaining how parents can home school their children in Michigan:

If a family chooses to home school under exemption (3)(a) as a non-public school, they will be under the authority of the MDE. The MDE has authority over all non-public schools and home educators operating under exemption (3)(a) because the Non-Public School Act of 1921 gives them that authority. All non-public schools must comply with the requirements of the Act which includes the following:

While parents are allowed to home school their children, the operative is on "allowed", and not just parents who home school, but all non public schools, (that would be private schools), are liable to MCL 380.1561 Compulsory attendance at public school, and can only apply for exemptions, or exception to the legislation under this act.

The curriculum that can be taught is dictated by the State. Of course, one of the concerns about this state mandated curriculum is how, when, and what is taught about both the federal Constitution and State Constitution, which are primary documents necessary for all people living in the United States to know and understand. While many "conservative" news sites reported of the Michigan Tea Parties efforts to ensure that the Constitution is taught in Michigan public schools, here is a report about this effort from a site decidedly not "conservative" called Think Progress

Tea Party volunteers are, of course, welcome to teach an accurate version of the Constitution to schoolchildren. Indeed, Michigan’s current social studies standards already require students to learn about the origins of the U.S. Constitution and “Core Democratic Values” — including liberty and patriotism — by third grade. Given the Tea Party’s close association with radical “tenther” views of the Constitution, however, it is unlikely that they wish to provide Michigan children with an accurate constitutional history. Similar attempts have already been made to inject right-wing ideology into public school curriculum. Earlier this year, the right-wing Texas State Board of Education successfully adopted new content for the state’s social studies curriculum, which included more conservatives, more Confederate glorification, and more distortion of progressive viewpoints.

While Think Progress points out that students are required by state mandated curriculum to learn about "the origins of the U.S. Constitution and 'Core Democratic Values'-including liberty and patriotism-by the third grade", this brings up a serious question of how much is taught about both State and Federal Constitutions after the third grade. Does a first, second, or third grader truly grasp the concept of unalienable or inalienable rights, or do they fully understand what it means that all political power is inherent in the people?

§ 1 Political power.
Sec. 1.
All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their equal benefit, security and protection.

Even though The Declaration of Rights for the State of Michigan recognize that all political power is inherent with the people and that government is instituted to serve the people, when it comes to compulsory education, the State of Michigan places the government above the people, and believes they have the authority to mandate to parents what is best for their children.

Let's make no mistakes about this; education is a necessity for all people, regardless of their age, race, religion, or political creed. The success of private schools is, in a large part, due to the active involvement of parents, and indeed, private schools insist on this active participation if they are to accept their children as students. Which brings up another point...a private school has the option of denying enrollment to a student, but due to the mandatory enrollment legislation of the State, public schools do not have this option.

Just how effective are Michigan public schools and their mandated curriculum? NPR reported in 2007 that:

A new study from Education Week shows that at least a third of teenagers in the nation are dropping out of school without earning their diplomas. Detroit has the worst rate: Fewer than 25 percent of freshmen go on to graduate.

Fewer than 25% of freshman go on to graduate in Detroit, and Kym Worthy's answer is to blame the parents.

Here is a site that ranks the worst 100 public schools in the nation, and while only two Michigan public schools, (A Detroit public school being one of them), made this list, and to be sure there are other states such as South Carolina, Wisconsin, Florida, and California that found several of their public schools on that list, when it comes to ranking the best highschools, Michigan is nowhere to be found on that list.

While Michigan is keen to tax the people to pay for their public school system, when it comes to school choice, and any form of voucher system that would allow parents to enroll their children in a better school:

Antipathy to education tax deductions and credits remains strong in some quarters where animus against nonpublic schools is backed up by law. In many states, legislatures are prohibited by their constitutions and their courts from issuing tax deductions and credits, even for voluntary charitable con­tributions. By all accounts, Michigan has one of the strictest bans on public funding of private schools anywhere in the country, and voters there failed to pass a referendum in the 2000 election that, among other things, would have eliminated it. Despite this failure, proponents of school choice hope that movements to lift this restriction on public aid might find success in five other states (Florida, New York, Georgia, Montana, and Oklahoma) that do not permit any aid, direct or indirect, to religious schools.

www.frinstitute.org...

And yet, Michigan government officials hope to place the blame squarely on the parents, and their answer is to create even more legislation threatening jail time for parents they deem to be scofflaws. It matters not that this legislation "comes with a whole comprehensive package" that "exempts" parents for a number of reasons, it is clear that the legislation is premised on the ideology that it is the parents are who to blame for the failures of Michigan's, and particularly Detroit's failures in public schools:

The Detroit Public Schools posted the worst scores on record in the most recent test of students in large central U.S. cities. The scores came on the Trial Urban District Assessment, a national test developed by the Governing Board, the National Center for Education Statistics of the U.S. Department of Education and the Council of the Great City Schools.

...

“There is no jurisdiction of any kind, at any level, at any time in the 30-year history of NAEP that has ever registered such low numbers,” said Michael Casserly, executive director of the Council on Great City Schools, a Washington, D.C.-based coalition of urban school districts.

www.crainsdetroit.com...

There should be no doubt about the parents responsibility to ensure their children receive the best possible education available, but given that Michigan mandates by legislation that all education, including private schools and home schooling adhere to the same standards mandated by that State, it is ludicrous to argue that the failures of that system are the parents alone.

The State of Michigan, as it is with virtually all state, has a monopoly on education, at least from grades K through 12, and this monopoly on the education system exhibits all the problems that come with monopolized markets, which means that those who hold the monopoly benefit, and everyone else suffers.

Originally posted by Wildbob77
reply to post by butcherguy

 

It is more common in Europe for people to be multilingual. The countries are smaller and more people live near a country where a different language is spoken. I don't see this as a failing in the US, just not a priority.

True, my grandmother spoke seven languages fluently.

reply to post by Stormdancer777
It would be interesting to find out how many people that live in New York State,Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine speak French fluently just because it borders another country(almost another country, Quebec) where they speak French predominately.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

You ever consider that we have a problem because the federal government itself WANTS to wreck the public school system?

Yes I have, would you tell me why, in your opinion, they are purposely trying to wreck the public school system,

I see many factors but it is also at the college level.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by Stormdancer777

 

It would be interesting to find out how many people that live in New York State,Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine speak French fluently just because it borders another country(almost another country, Quebec) where they speak French predominately.

Maybe we can google it?

reply to post by Stormdancer777
I know this question was for JPZ, but I want to answer it too.

I think it is because stupid serfs are better serfs!

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by Stormdancer777

 

I know this question was for JPZ, but I want to answer it too.

I think it is because stupid serfs are better serfs!

That's part of it, but there is also propaganda being spread in the school systems, I spent some time researching college professors and what they teach.

reply to post by Stormdancer777
You should start a thread on the subject. I think it would be very interesting!

A lot more interesting than a thread about a time traveler using a cell phone in a Charlie Chaplin movie, the hottest one now.

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by Alora

 

In the 19th century people volunteered to do lots of things such as police, firefighters, teachers, etc... So why today must it be a government job wasting tax payer dollars when it was more effective and less corrupt when left to the citizens to give over some of their time to invest in their future and/or their community?

edit on 10/17/2010 by Misoir because: (no reason given)

Because society grew and the need for these positions became greater while people still need to work and make a living.
Cops and Teachers need to be better educated, and people don't have all day to stand around waiting for a fire and/or medical emergency because their family won't be fed by the fact that they are doing good things because they are good people.

Just note, that try getting in a car accident just 40 years ago. The way you would have been extracted back then is much more dangerous than it is now. And methods have been improved because money was put into the system allowing them to extract you in a manner that doesn't further compromise injuries you recieve in a MVC. This was all because money was put into the system. things are not less effective than they were in the past.

It would solve many problems, but it's not PC to say education would be better if it were privatized and people would only go to school if they felt the need to.

reply to post by Stormdancer777

Yes I have, would you tell me why, in your opinion, they are purposely trying to wreck the public school system, I see many factors but it is also at the college level.

Ever since the Department of Education was founded, an emphasis has been placed on national standards, and for the most part that emphasis has been placed on testing scores. Testing emphasizes rote learning. Rote learning is an emphasis on memorization, which is an emphasis on repetition. Tireless repetition is a propaganda technique.

Memorization is not learning, it is memorization. A child can memorize the entire Gettysburg Address, but that doesn't mean the child understands the message of that address. They know the words by heart, but what do they understand of its message? Do they fully understand the context of which that address was given? Even more pressing of a question is, do they accept the Gettysburg Address as a valid message, or do they question its validity?

Is it just an accident that so many people believe that "separation of Church and State" is a Constitutional mandate? Is it just an accident that so many people refer to their rights as "Constitutional Rights" and even worse "civil rights"? Is it just an accident that so many people have no clue that "civil rights" are legal rights granted to people by government?

What's more disturbing is that with this emphasis on rote learning, is it just an accident that most people could not tell you what is contained within the Bill of Rights? Is it just an accident that so many people use terms like "tenther" as pejorative? Is it just an accident that so many people rarely, if ever, mention the 9th Amendment?

Is it just an accident that many of those willing to discuss the 9th Amendment dismiss it as a valid Amendment because it is "too vague in its meaning"? Is it an accident that so many people refer to the Constitution as a "living, breathing document", and insist that the Constitution is too vague? Is it at all possible that so many people believe that the Constitution is "too vague" because they have been conditioned to think what they have been taught to think, instead of thinking for themselves?

Is it just an accident that while most people can't even tell you what is contained within the Bill of Rights they will insist that America is a free country because they get to vote? Is it an accident that the so called "war on drugs" was primarily a propaganda campaign waged within the public school system, and while slogans such as "just say no" did little to deter people from actually saying no, when it came time to sit on a jury many of those same people who at some point had said yes, still convict a drug dealer for a "crime"? Is it just an accident that while the public school system is not only openly advocating prescribed psychoactive drugs, they are actually insisting parents comply with a teacher's diagnosis and prescription, while continuing the propaganda campaign of "just say no"?

Is it just an accident that when someone like you, or I, or others, show a deep concern for this emphasis on rote learning, and question why so many cannot tell us what is contained within the Bill of Rights, their knee jerk reaction is to engage in logical fallacies, and invariably there is at least one who will leap to "conservatives just want to teach Christianity in schools"? While most people are willing to agree that morality cannot be legislated, take note how when Kym Worthy of Detroit was questioned on her own legislation of morality, she answered by insisting that we as a country do legislate morality, and tragically, she is not wrong. However, do you for one single second believe that Kym Worthy is arguing for Christian morals to be taught in the public schools?

Is it just a coincidence that such insidious doublespeak is being employed by local, state, and federal government officials? Is it just an accident that the term "capitalism" which is a free market system, is used to describe our corporate system of a decidedly closed and heavily regulated market system? Is it just an accident that while there are many who rant and rave against capitalism because it creates monopolies, they turn around and defend the government monopoly of a public school system?

Have you ever caught yourself filling out government forms and simply just answering the questions in a "true or false" manner, or "multiple choice" manner, without ever questioning just what the hell you are filling out, and why, when all is said and done, you are expected to sign said document, often times under penalty of perjury? Is it at all possible that we were conditioned to fill out these forms without question, and to sign these documents without regard for the legal ramifications of such a contract?

Has it ever occurred to you that most of us were actually taught how to file an income tax return by teachers whose salaries are paid for by taxes? Has it ever occurred to anyone being taught how to fill out an income tax return by tax supported teachers that at no point ever was the question of who is liable for such a tax ever brought up? Is it just an accident that so many people believe that the 16th Amendment made them liable for this so called "income tax"? Can most people even tell you what the 16th Amendment actually say's? Is it just an accident that those who can tell you what it says argue that the 16th Amendment relieved Congress of the rule of apportionment, without ever considering the Constitutional ramifications of Congress just simply creating an Amendment to get out of a Constitutional rule?

Isn't it odd that when you, or other people, receive their tax return in the mail, the actual return is addressed to "Dear Taxpayer"? How many people, do you think, understand that the term "taxpayer" has been statutorily defined to mean any person liable for the income tax, and how many people, do you think, understand that when they sign, under penalty of perjury, their "valid" tax return, that they are signing an agreement that they are indeed a "taxpayer"? If people are truly liable for this so called "income tax" simply because they've earned an income, why is it necessary they sign an agreement disclosing their liability as a contract? Why do people believe that they must, "by law" fill out a Form W-4, which clearly states on this form that is a "withholding authorization certificate". If it is required by law, why then do employers need "authorization" from the employee before they can actually act as a fiat tax collector?

Is it just an accident that people have learned by rote that they need a good education so they can get a good job, and if and when they get this good job, they have to fill out government contracts admitting to liabilities before they can obtain the job? Is it just an accident that jobs has been prioritized over owning your own business, and has been done so because, as it is often pointed out, if you own your own business you become "liable" to a plethora of administrative agencies that will dictate what, when and where you can do your business? Is it just an accident that because of all these "liabilities", people are taught it is best to incorporate a business, or at the very least apply for a limited liability charter, but always they are taught it is better to have a "legal fiction" than to have a real honest to goodness business not in anyway subservient to the state, nor needing any permission to exist?

Is it just an accident that most people don't even bother to question the Constitutionality of administrative agencies, oftentimes called "the alphabet agencies", and just simply accept the intrusions of these agencies into their lives as part and parcel of living in a "free country"?

Is it just an accident that when students are taught about civic responsibility, they are often offered an out of context quote by John F. Kennedy; "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"? How many people know the sentences that preceded that quote, and the sentence that follows that quote?

In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility — I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it — and the glow from that fire can truly light the world. And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country. My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.

~John F. Kennedy; Address before the American Newspaper Publishers Association (27 April 1961)~

Is it just an accident that Kennedy's speech has been ceremoniously edited down to a single sentence, taken out of context to imply that we the people should serve our country, and not the other way around. Yet, when taken in its context, isn't it interesting that Kennedy was actually talking about the freedom of humanity, not its subservience to government.

It is no accident. The reality is that all people have unalienable rights, and amongst those rights are the right to throw off the chains of tyranny and to institute a government designed to protect the rights of individuals, not trample all over them. In order for we the people to have this right to throw off the chains of tyranny, and the surest and best way to keep ones own government in check is to ensure that the people are armed. Prior to the "contribution" of weapons of mass destruction, the notion of people being armed was not nearly as frightening as it is today. If the purpose of a well armed populace is to keep tyranny at bay, both foreign and domestic, and if that domestic government holds a nuclear arsenal capable of destroying the world several times over, then what good are guns, and isn't it conceivable that a well armed populace in this day and age translates into a populace with the same nuclear capabilities as their government?

Madness? Is it just an accident that the strategy of "mutually assured destruction" works out to be the acronym M.A.D.? How is it possible that a free nation would ever come to accept that, first that this nation needs a standing army, and secondly that this standing army needs a nuclear arsenal? Is it just a coincidence that the question of whether the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, or a "collective" right coincides with the establishment of standing armies in the United States?

It is no accident.

Is it just an accident that just four years before Woodrow Wilson asked Congress to declare war on Germany so that the U.S. could "make the world safe for democracy", that the 17th Amendment was passed, (the same year that the 16th Amendment was passed, and the same year the Federal Reserve was created), which made the choosing of Senators more democratic? Is it telling that no one has ever challenged the Constitutionality of the 17th Amendment? Can anyone offer up a valid reason as to why it was necessary to change the process by which Senators were chosen? Was it just to make the U..S. more democratic?

The argument, of course, for the passage of the 17th Amendment stemmed from a gridlock that was occurring with state legislature in choosing Senators, and the gridlock created the "problem" of facing terms where there were not enough sitting Senators to hold a session in Congress. Would it really be such a tragedy if Congress were unable to hold a session for a term because a state was in dispute over who would best serve as a Senator? Do we really need legislation passed at breakneck speed? I suppose it could be argued that if Congress were not in session, they would not be able to declare war if necessary, but how many people are aware of the fact that Congress hasn't declared war since WWII, in spite of the fact that American soldiers have died in several wars since that time?

Even before the creation of the ED, the public school system had been guilty of dumbing down Americans. The rush for states to pass legislation making education compulsory was not a benign act of government, it was an usurpation of power. It was a way to make parents subject to the state, and a way for the state to begin the process of dictating to parents what they can and cannot do as parents. The addition of federal intrusion was less about education, and more about the federal governments need to keep the states inline with the federal government. It has always been about power, never been an accident, and what has purposely been promulgated is that government holds the power, and that the inherent political power we the people hold, became a dirty little secret, that now is held as the talk of "political dissidents" who are increasingly being labeled "domestic terrorists".

This was no accident.