One of the most troubling aspects of the “education reforms” currently being advanced by the Obama administration and its allies is the unprecedented monitoring and tracking of students — invasions of privacy so pervasive George Orwell might blush. Everything from biometric data to information on children’s beliefs and families is already being vacuumed up. Opponents of the “reform” agenda have highlighted the cradle-to-grave accumulation of private and intimate data as among the most compelling reasons to kill the whole process.
Aside from data produced by the looming Common Core-aligned national testing regime, most of the data-mining schemes are not technically direct components of the plot to nationalize education standards. However, the vast collection of personal information and the accompanying data-mining are intricately linked to the federally backed standards in multiple ways, not to mention myriad other federal schemes. Despite protestations to the contrary, the new standards and the data collection go together hand in hand.
Efforts to portray the data gathering via Common Core-aligned testing as a “state-led” plot notwithstanding, the Obama administration is reportedly considering raising phone taxes by executive decree to help subsidize the necessary technology. Why federal tax increases would be needed to pay for education and data-mining schemes that the federal government is supposedly not involved in has not been explained by officials, but experts and analysts say the reason is obvious.
Already, there are numerous systems being used and deployed across America aimed at compiling unprecedented amounts of data on students. Some are run by private organizations with government assistance; others are operated by authorities directly. All of them are extremely controversial, however, with parents and privacy advocates outraged.
Among the data schemes that have received a great deal of attention in recent months is “inBloom.” As with the new national education standards called Common Core, it is also funded by Bill Gates and the Carnegie Corporation. With at least nine states participating in the $100 million program already, the non-profit entity, which shares data with whomever authorities choose, is quickly gobbling up vast quantities of information.
Respected experts such as attorney Michael Farris, president of ParentalRights.org, pointed out that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child committee has repeatedly pressured governments to create similar national databases on children, albeit using different pretexts. Even liberals have expressed opposition. “Turning massive amounts of personal data about public school students to a private corporation without any public input is profoundly disturbing and irresponsible,” said New York Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Donna Lieberman, slamming authorities for failing to disclose the scheme or offer parents an opt-out.
In conjunction with inBloom, other systems are being funded and largely directed by the federal government itself. Using the same unconstitutional process as the one used to foist Common Core on state governments — a combination of federal bribes, waivers, and more — the Obama administration all but forced cash-strapped states to start monitoring and tracking student information, or to expand their existing systems.
Previous administrations and U.S. lawmakers also contributed to the problem, with the foundations having been laid decades ago. Before Obama, the Bush-era No Child Left Behind Act, for instance, among myriad other demands, called on states seeking federal funds to create “unique statewide identifiers” for each student. Under Obama, the process has accelerated at an unprecedented rate.
The stimulus-funded “Race to the Top,” a so-called school improvement scheme demanded by Obama, only distributed taxpayer funds to states that agreed to build and expand data systems, with the secretary of education specifically requesting interoperable databases to facilitate the collection and transfer of data. Massive bribes to states from the $50 billion “State Fiscal Stabilization Fund” conditioned on acceptance of Common Core and expanded data tracking, also part of the “stimulus” package, were critical in advancing the plot as well.
Boasting about the “stimulus”-funded coercion of state governments on data regimes during a speech to UNESCO, the deeply controversial UN “education” agency, Education Secretary Arne Duncan lauded the program.
“More robust data systems and a new generation of assessments can assist teachers and principals to improve their practices and tailor their instruction in ways that were largely unthinkable in the past,” Duncan continued. “We have advanced data systems that we are constantly improving.” Duncan wants other governments and the UN to follow the Obama administration’s lead on data gathering, he explained.
The administration helped pay for expanding “state” systems with an eye toward integrating them. Some $315 million in federal grants, for example, were used to bribe state governments and help them comply. However, the specific grant scheme, known as the Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems (SLDS) program, actually began handing out taxpayer money in 2005.
As of 2009, the latest year for which figures are available on the Department of Education’s website, 41 states and Washington, D.C. had been awarded federal SLDS grants to expand their data systems on students. Experts say all 50 states now maintain or are capable of maintaining huge databases on the vast majority of American kids.
According to the Department of Education, the goal of the SLDS grants is to have states “expand their data systems to track students’ achievement from preschool through college.” The Education Department’s National Center for Education Statistics offers slightly more detail about the SLDS scheme online: “Through grants and a growing range of services and resources, the program has helped propel the successful design, development, implementation, and expansion of K12 and P-20W (early learning through the workforce) longitudinal data systems,” it explains. “These systems are intended to enhance the ability of States to efficiently and accurately manage, analyze, and use education data, including individual student records.”
Cradle to Career Data Collection
Of course, all of the data collected must be shared with the U.S. Department of Education and other entities within and outside the federal government. Acting unilaterally, U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan even purported to overrule federal privacy laws by promulgating new “regulations” gutting the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). Some lawmakers expressed outrage, but the process continues.
“As part of what you described as a ‘cradle to career agenda,’ the Department of Education is aggressively moving to expand data systems that collect information on our nation’s students,” wrote Rep. John Kline (R-Minn.), now chairman of the House Education and Workforce Committee, in an early 2010 letter to Duncan. “The Department’s effort to shepherd states toward the creation of a de facto national student database raises serious legal and prudential questions.”
As Kline points out in the letter, there is good reason to believe that the administration is again flouting federal law. “Congress has never authorized the Department of Education to facilitate the creation of a national student database,” he explained. “To the contrary, Congress explicitly prohibited the ‘development of a nationwide database of personally identifiable information’ … and barred the ‘development, implementation, or maintenance of a Federal database.” Despite no mention of the Constitution, multiple federal statutes are cited in the correspondence.
Apparently, the administration does not take kindly to having its alleged violations of the law exposed. While it couldn’t fire Rep. Kline, the Education Department did reportedly dismiss its top privacy official, then-Family Policy Compliance Office chief Paul Gammill. According to a 2010 report in Inside Higher Ed, Gammill was fired after he “argued in internal meetings and documents that the department’s approach to prodding states to expand their longitudinal student data systems violated the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.” The Education Department refused to comment on the case, though it openly admits that one of the long-term goals of the SLDS program is to “make education data transparent through Federal and public reporting.”
According to the Department of Education, grants awarded to states under the program are aimed at supporting the creation and implementation of systems “that have the capacity to link individual student data across time and across databases” and “promote the linking of data collected or held by various institutions, agencies, and States.” Among the data to be included are the yearly test records of individual students mandated under the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act. “States are encouraged to include additional information in their longitudinal data systems,” the department continued.
In another Education Department document offering “guidance” on the SLDS schemes, further insight is offered into what sort of information authorities are seeking and collecting. Among the “Personally Identifiable Information” outlined in the report: name, parents’ names, address, Social Security number, date of birth, place of birth, mother’s maiden name, and more.
Other private and protected data that might be collected, the document suggests, include the “political affiliations or beliefs of the student or parent; mental and psychological problems of the student or the student’s family, sex behavior or attitudes; illegal, anti-social, self-incriminating, and demeaning behavior; critical appraisals of other individuals with whom respondents have close family relationships; legally recognized privileged or analogous relationships, such as those of lawyers, physicians, and ministers; religious practices, affiliations, or beliefs of the student or the student’s parent; or income.” While the collection of such data in surveys and questionnaires funded by federal tax dollars requires parental consent under federal law, state-level collection does not. Plus, experts say there are numerous other potential loopholes as well.
So Much for Student Privacy
Much of the information vacuumed up at all levels of government already makes its way into a national Department of Education scheme known as “EDFacts.” The department describes it online: “EDFacts is a U.S. Department of Education (ED) initiative to collect, analyze, report on and promote the use of high-quality, kindergarten through grade 12 (K-12) performance data…. EDFacts centralizes data provided by state education agencies, local education agencies and schools.” Under EDFacts, state education agencies submit some 180 data groups. The federal National Center for Education Statistics, meanwhile, describes over 400 data points to be collected.
The U.S. Department of Labor, separately, admits that it is working to “integrate workforce data and create linkages to education data.” According to the department’s “Workforce Data Quality Initiative,” the SLDS will “enable workforce data to be matched with education data to ultimately create longitudinal data systems with individual-level information beginning with pre-kindergarten through post-secondary schooling all the way through entry and sustained participation in the workforce and employment services system.” When combined with information from the IRS, ObamaCare, the NSA, and countless other federal data-collection schemes, the picture that emerges has critics very nervous.
As technology advances, the federal government’s Orwellian data gathering will — without action to stop it — almost certainly expand beyond most people’s wildest nightmares. In fact, it already has. Consider, for example, a February 2013 report by the Department of Education dubbed Promoting Grit, Tenacity, and Perseverance: Critical Factors for Success in the 21st Century. Included in the 100-page report is information about technology already being used in an Education Department-funded tutoring program.
“Researchers are exploring how to gather complex affective data and generate meaningful and usable information to feed back to learners, teachers, researchers, and the technology itself,” the report explains. “Connections to neuroscience are also beginning to emerge.” (Emphasis added.) The technological tools already being used by federally funded education schemes to probe students’ minds and “measure” the children include, as described in the report, “four parallel streams of affective sensors.”
Among the devices in use today through a federally funded tutoring scheme is a “facial expression camera” used to “detect emotion” and “capture facial expressions.” According to the report, the camera is linked to software that “extracts geometric properties on faces.” There is also a “posture analysis seat” and a “pressure mouse.” Finally, the report describes a “wireless skin conductance sensor” strapped to students’ wrists. The sensors collect “physiological response data from a biofeedback apparatus that measures blood volume, pulse, and galvanic skin response to examine student frustration.” Again, these systems are already being used in government-funded programs, and with technology racing ahead, developments are expected to become increasingly troubling.
Another Education Department report, entitled Enhancing, Teaching and Learning Through Educational Data Mining and Learning Analytics, acknowledges similarly alarming schemes. “A student learning database (or other big data repository) stores time-stamped student input and behaviors captured as students work within the system,” it notes. “A predictive model combines demographic data (from an external student information system) and learning/behavior data from the student learning database to track a student’s progress and make predictions about his or her future behaviors or performance.” (Emphasis added.)
All across the country today, Big Brother-like technological developments in biometrics are also making schools increasingly Orwellian. Earlier this year in Polk County, Florida, for example, students’ irises were scanned without parental consent. “It simply takes a picture of the iris, which is unique to every individual,” wrote the school board’s “senior director of support services” in a letter to parents. “With this program, we will be able to identify when and where a student gets on the bus, when they arrive at their school location, when and what bus the student boards and disembarks in the afternoon. This is an effort to further enhance the safety of our students. The EyeSwipe-Nano is an ideal replacement for the card based system since your child will not have to be responsible for carrying an identification card.”
In San Antonio, Texas, meanwhile, a female student made national news — and exposed what was going on — when she got in a legal battle with school officials over her refusal to wear a mandatory radio-frequency identification (RFID) device. The same devices are already being implanted under people’s skin in America and abroad — albeit voluntarily. Also in the biometric field, since at least 2007, children in states like Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and New Jersey have been fingerprinted at school under the guise of “school lunch” programs and other pretexts.
Despite fierce opposition, the trend toward using biometric data to identify and track students while collecting unimaginable amounts of information is accelerating. The federal government is helping lead the way toward abolishing any vestiges of privacy, and aside from NSA spying on virtually everyone, students appear to be among the primary targets. Without major resistance, experts predict that someday — perhaps even in the very near future — biometric identification will become ubiquitous. Combined with all of the other data being collected, the federal government may finally achieve what was sought by tyrants throughout history: detailed 24/7 information on everything, about everyone.
Our nineteenth-century legal theory (individual right, contract, ‘a man can do what he likes with his own,’ etc.) was based on the conception of the separate individual. Mary Parker Follett, The New State
What is more important to people than their children? If people aren’t willing to stand up and fight for their children, we cannot expect them to care enough to stand up for anything else. Anyone who is not homeschooling their children, or working with them daily to undo the brainwashing done at schools, is giving his or her children over to be, at best, useful idiots. You don’t believe this is being implemented now? UNESCO’s Education 2030, goal 4.7: By 2030, ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including, among others, through education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, . . and the promotion of global citizenship.
All those who are complaining about what is wrong need to stand up and do something about it. They don’t have to do it alone; there are organizations out there fighting to get schools back to teaching instead of indoctrinating, others that are working to stop Agenda 21/2030, and those protecting property rights. Every issue has organizations working against the globalism being inculcated on every level of society. But parents must be parents; they must protect their children. Parents need to grow up and man up now, or they must accept the responsibility when their children become snowflakes, because that is the only product coming out of our schools (other than those addicted to the drugs prescribed them for ADD, ADHD, etc., brought on by the ‘teaching’ methods).
Our schools are the breeding ground for anti-individualism.
Throughout the whole cycle of public education the child’s relationship with his family complements and guides his relationship with his peers and school.
When the child is in preschool, his contact with his parents will be fairly intensive. The parents will actively participate in his education and spent considerable time in the institution itself. For this reason the institution should be close to the parents’ residence.
During that time of the child’s education in the general ‘s school community, the relationship with his parents changes in character. Contact becomes less frequent (only a few times a week) and is related to holidays. Hands the interaction of children and their parents make take place either with in the educational institution or in the parents’ home. In either case, it requires a specific and yet to be defined spatial organization. To some up: the first foundations of Communist personality are established in nurseries through the relationship of children with their peers and preschool groups the personality further develop some primary groups during the earliest grades. These are excellently suited to foster the unfolding of all aspects of a child’s potential.
While millions of Americans now homeschool their children, too many more Americans have no idea why these parents are going to the trouble when there are ‘perfectly good schools in every neighborhood’. Twenty years ago Charlotte Iserbyt wrote The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America, in hopes of waking up all of America to the mind controlling, morally relativistic, and bringing about radical change to the our educational system.
The system is working exactly as planned; the problem is that the American public has been fooled into thinking the plan is to educate our children. Oh, no. The plan is, as Iserbyt says, “. . . the gradual transformation of our once academically successful education system into one devoted to training children to become compliant human resources to be used by government and industry for their own purposes.”
We are evolving now a systems of ethics which has three conceptions in regard to right, conscience and duty which are different from much of our former ethical teaching: (1) we do not follow right, we create right, (2) there is no private conscience, (3) my duty is never to ‘others’ but to the whole.
Man cannot live by taboos; that means stagnation. But as one taboo after another is disappearing, the call is upon us deliberately to build our own moral life. . . .. It is we by our acts who progressively construct the moral universe; to follow some preconceived body of law – that is not for responsible moral beings.
Teachers no long educate, they are now change agents teaching what the powers-that-be want our children to believe is reality when it is anything but. Again from Iserbyt, “The reason Americans do not understand this war is because it has been fought in secret—in the schools of our nation, targeting our children who are captive in classrooms. The wagers of this war are using very sophisticated and effective tools:
Hegelian Dialectic (common ground, consensus and compromise)
Gradualism (two steps forward; one step backward)
Semantic deception (redefining terms to get agreement without understanding).”
an interpretive method, originally used to relate specific entities or events to the absolute idea, in which an assertable proposition (thesis) is necessarily opposed by its apparent contradiction (antithesis), and both reconciled on a higher level of truth by a third proposition (synthesis). from the Free Dictionary. Basically, it is like our Congress now – there are two ‘opposing’ sides who pretend to be bitter enemies looking for the best mediated answer. But that answer is where those two sides had decided to end up, but knew that it was not good for the citizens, just themselves, so they did this little dance to distract us from reality.
This war has been going on for over 150 years – talk about ‘gradualism’! From John Dewey, “Upon the ethical side, the tragic weakness of the present school is that it endeavors to prepare future members of the social order in a medium in which the conditions of the social spirit are eminently wanting.”
And John D. Rockefeller, “I don’t want a nation of thinkers. I want a nation of workers.”
As to semantic deception, I’m sure every thinking person can identify it every day as we listen to MSM. It is the NewSpeak of today.
Barbarians at the School House Door –“The technocrats will argue that the World Wide Web contains vast knowledge for the taking with the right tools. They argue that printed books are limited.”
by Tom DeWeese
The barbarians have finally broken down the school doors and are now plundering knowledge. Books are their target. Banning them is the goal.
In New York City, administrators at the Life Sciences Secondary School have ordered all textbooks rounded up and removed. Books, they say, are antiquated. Instead, technology is to be the new god of learning.
Of course the excuse is that books are expensive. The schools complain that the kids lose the books or that they wear out and there is no budget to replace them. And more importantly, using iPads means they can be automatically updated with the latest information, scientific discovery and technology.
So the schools need to keep up with all the latest developments to keep the kids on top, they say. It’s a wide, wonderful brave new world! Aren’t our children lucky to live in these times? Everything in today’s school house is apparently designed for the comfort and ease of the children. No stress. No demands. No expectations.
And so the books were piled up in the hallway of the school. Next stop – the trash bin. Most were in good condition, including hundreds of math, algebra, geometry and various English literature text books. Also strewn around the floor were copies of Romeo and Juliet and A Street Car named Desire.
The technocrats will argue that the World Wide Web contains vast knowledge for the taking with the right tools. They argue that printed books are limited. That printed text books soon become antiquated. And so the future of learning is achieved by opening up this super highway of knowledge in the class rooms so every child has access. Thus, throw away the books and unchain their minds.
The incident at the middle school in New York is not isolated. It’s a growing trend. Cushing Academy, a private prep school in Massachusetts, just dumped its 20,000 library books. Instead, the library has been revamped into pseudo Internet café. Here the students can watch the three television flat screens or just sit and talk.
Say schools officials, “The library is trading its 20,000-volume collection for a database of millions of digital books. All of the students can read any of the books, either through the 68 Amazon Kindles cycling around the campus or in the laptop that each of the school’s 450 students is provided.”
Said Headmaster James Tracy, “If I look outside my window and I see my student reading Chaucer under a tree, it is utterly immaterial to me whether they’re doing so by way of a Kindler or by way of a paperback.”
Actually it does matter. First, traditional libraries were always ordered to be quiet areas because students were absorbing information, researching or writing papers. The atmosphere now is loud with lots of talking taking place.
That doesn’t provide a learning atmosphere. Second, printed books cannot be changed. The content in iPads can be changed and controlled by outside forces. In short, one can’t trust the content to be accurate. Third, those same outside forces can actually control what information is available. They can control knowledge.
Today we are a divided society. Freedom verses control. Can anyone deny that there are powerful forces that seek to change how we think in order to fulfill a revolution to literally change our entire society? We have observed massive changes in our culture over the past ten years. Free enterprise is racist and evil. Private property ownership is a social injustice. Individual thought is dangerous. Marriage and sexual orientation are in great turmoil. Free speech is a threat. The mere mention of a certain presidential candidate can send college students into turmoil requiring therapy and major thumb sucking.
Do you think these changes are just happenstance? No, they are the result of a carefully orchestrated takeover of the public education system with the specific purpose of creating a new kind of citizen for the future. One that doesn’t challenge authority and official dictates. How do you create such a product? Keep them ignorant of history, philosophy and contrary ideas. If you don’t know there is even a question then you will never ask it.
Printed books can be dangerous as they can’t be changed. If allowed to remain they can be discovered by future generations. In printed version, their message remains intact, ready to spark questions to a hungry mind.
The Founding Fathers studied all kinds of government styles and philosophies before deciding on our Republican form. They wanted one that would protect the freedom of thought, movement and our ability to benefit from the fruits of our own labor. Individuality, private property and free enterprise were the roots of the government they chose. To keep the freedom which these policies created, the Founders fully understood that knowledge was key. Thomas Jefferson said, “If we are to guard against ignorance and remain free, it is the responsibility of every American to be informed.”
Today, the revolution in our classrooms has robbed the children of the philosophy behind our founder’s actions. They have never been taught that private property ownership is the only true way to eradicate poverty. They have no idea that free enterprise is the true system that gives then freedom of choice and control over the quality and quantity of products and services we purchase.
And as they color their hair purple, dress in outrageous fashions, and take on the usual youthful defiance to claim their individuality, they slavishly cling to their public school teachings that individuality is selfish and must be controlled. They do so automatically because their ability to think and reason has been removed through lack of knowledge.
Behavior modification, social justice and an all out assault on attitudes, values and beliefs have replaced academics in the public education system as it churns out the perfect global village idiots. Leaving old books and their anti-revolutionary ideas lying around is a danger to their revolution. Soon, books with contrary ideas will not be available in your favorite E-book. Google will not provide the answers in a search. Facebook will censure contrary postings. Oh, wait, all of that is already happening.
I read the report on this trashing of books with great interest because such action was a major part of the plot of my recent political thriller ERASE. In my fictionalized world an evil force called LEAP was systematically taking over the publishing industry, slowly eliminating outlets for printed books and replacing them with their own E-book version. LEAP even made a massive gift to the schools across the nation by giving every school kid a LEAP iPad to replace their school books. The only problem was that now LEAP controlled the content and could change it at will.
I wrote ERASE to be fiction. I didn’t intend to provide the forces of evil with a “How To” manual! Yet, now my fiction has certainly become reality and it’s growing in schools across the country. In one scene of ERASE a teacher asks the question, “How do they think they can stop knowledge, it’s there, no matter what? The answer came back to him, “They stop knowledge by banning it.” In our modern age, controlled by technology, book burning is no longer a necessary tool for tyrants. All they need to do is press a button and knowledge, history, indeed entire societies disappear in an instant.
Destroying America from Inside the Classroom-“… the Republic and all of its marvels – be hanged.“
by Tom DeWeese
Below is an article I wrote in 2010 about the deletion of academics from our classrooms. Do you want to understand why we are experiencing such a violent reaction to the election of Donald Trump? Why do our children running to safe zones to protect them for opposing ideas? Here are a few of the answers.
I have reported many times in the pages of the DeWeese Report about how public school classrooms are being used, not for the teaching of academic knowledge, but for behavior modification to change the student’s attitudes, values and beliefs. Barack Obama is now driving to control classroom curriculum based on United Nation’s Globalism. Many parents want to deny this is happening. “Not in my child’s school,” they tell me. If you still don’t believe it’s happening in EVERY school that takes public money, then read below, open your eyes, and know the truth about what happens to your child in the schools you send them to every day.
“My 14- year-old Daughter Pearl is a freshman at Ft. Myers High School and my 11-year-old daughter Lily is in 5th grade at Three Oaks Elementary. Here are some of the things they have relayed to me concerning what they have been learning in our public schools:
1. Lily said, “I would rather just shoot myself in the head because it would be a less painful death that to suffer and die from global warming.”
2. Pearl has been studying the Watergate scandal for three weeks. She had to memorize the name of everyone involved (people I’ve never heard of) for a test.
3. Both girls have been taught to fear the extinction of the polar bears.
4. Both girls have had numerous lessons about various aspects of the Native Americans and the brutal treatment thereof.
5. Both girls have studied the Pueblo people and Mexican pottery.
6. Neither girl has spent much time studying our American forefathers.
—– Letter to the Editor from a parent in Fort Myers, Fl.
“This is not a church. It’s a school and it’s a public school. I have to do things that include every child. So what we do is celebrate winter.” — Principal Erik Brown, Walsh Elementary in Waterbury, Connecticut discussing the schools “Winter celebration” where even Santa Clause and Christmas trees are banned.
“By first grade I was sexually active with many friends. In fact, a small group of us regularly met in the grammar school lavatory to perform fellatio on one another.” — From a book entitled “Reflections of a Rock Lobster: A story about growing up Gay,” by Aaron Fricke. Just one of the books included on a list issued for school use to promote homosexuality. The organization behind the list is the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) founded by Kevin Jennings – now Obama’s Czar for the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools.
“How may citizenship change in the Nation’s Third Century?” — Question in the New Civics textbook entitled “We the People.” The book is published by the Center for Civics Education (CCE) and was funded by the federal government. CCE received over $110 million in federal grants to produce the textbook which is now widely used in classrooms across the nation.
The answer to the above question on citizenship, according to “We the People” appears on page 202:
• “The achievements of modern technology are turning the world into a global village.”
• “National corporations are becoming international.”
• “The culture we live in is becoming cosmopolitan, that is, belonging to the whole world.”
• “The issues confronting American citizens are increasingly international.”
• “Issue of economic competition, the environment, and the movement of peoples around the world require an awareness of political associations that are larger in scope than the nation-state.”
Do you see any room in that answer for learning about the strengths and virtues of national sovereignty? What conclusions will a child take from such indoctrination? As I said, the curriculum is about behavior modification to prepare the children to be global citizens – the Republic and all of its marvels – be hanged.
American education is all about excoriating the institution of slavery. If nothing else gets taught, this does. The sins of our forefathers owning black slaves is continuously kept before the eyes of students. This is one reason very little celebration occurs in public schools for our wonderful Constitution or the genius of its crafters. The Millennial Generation is programmed to ask only one thing: “Didn’t the Founders own slaves?”
I dare to ask: What’s wrong with slavery? Very few apparently ponder the definition of slavery. Cutting out the unjust physical oppression whereby one person “beats” another–for that is not in itself by definition slavery—what exactly is slavery?
Definitions include “bondage” or “servitude.” But these are merely synonyms. What is it to be “in bondage” or “servitude?” Closer to the real essence of slavery is “complete ownership or control” of one person by another. The “complete domination” of an individual by another in which the enslaved person “works without pay,” and does “not pursue his/her own life.”
Even more specific is this: “A civil relationship whereby one person has absolute power over another and controls his life, liberty, and property.” In other words, the production or toil of the worker is completely owned by another.
Now compare the definition of slavery to that of “socialism.” The latter being a broad category, but generally it is any theory of the government owning the means (labor, capital) of production.
Setting the two definitions beside one another one can see there is little, if any substantive difference. Socialism is slavery at a governmental level. Slavery institutionalized. When Bernie Sanders, therefore, touts socialism as his model, he is piping for slavery. Slavery to the state.
America began down the socialistic route with the administrations of Woodrow Wilson (inauguration of the Federal Reserve System) and FDR (beginnings of The New Deal). For example, FDR’s famous “additions” to the Founding Fathers’ “freedom of speech” and “freedom of worship” were “freedom from want” and “freedom from fear.” These are enshrined upon stone at the FDR memorial in Washington, D.C.
However, see FDR’s sleight of hand. As columnist Charles Scaliger commented, it is “impossible to guarantee freedom from want and freedom from fear without compelling others to provide these goods.” Exactly. The first two freedoms (of speech, of worship) demand government to keep their “hands off.” The latter two demand powerful hands-on to re-distribute the earnings or labor of others. What is this? Slavery. No different than living on a plantation.
Sadly, Republicans too frequently cannot see these clear realities. Promising to keep the welfare state (slavery) alive, one queried me pertaining to illegal immigrants: “What’s the difference in me (government) taking your earnings and giving it to Americans and giving it to illegal aliens?”
Well, aside from citizenship factors, the answer is NOTHING. Nothing, if slavery is to be endorsed. My objection to redistribution of my earnings is not based upon the nationality or identity of the recipients. It is rooted in the immoral conduct of an unchained government that believes it has the power to forcibly rob Peter to pay Paul. Citizen or not.
America is on the point of splitting itself into warring factions right now. But that is in part because our politically-correct American history preaches the debauchery of slavery while the likes of socialist Bernie Sanders and “milquetoast” establishment Republicans endorse slavery—to one degree or another. How long will we go limping between two opinions?
“The legs of the lame are not equal”(Prov. 26:7). A cripple may try to walk or run but his legs do not operate as a coordinated pair. Solomon compares this to “parables” in the mouth of fools—they should not try to be teachers. This is what our government has become. Fools effecting to give instruction.
The United States Army recently removed a sign outside the 8th Special Troops Battalion Warrior Training Center in Fort Shafter Flats, Hawaii, after it drew criticism for its religious imagery. It featured a medieval knight with crosses on his breastplate and shield. The cleansing of the sign occurred within hours after “the head of a religious-freedom advocacy group called for the image’s removal.” The government could not get the image down quickly enough.
Spokeswoman Sgt. 1st Class Mary Ferguson told Army Times that the image representing the “Fighting Knights” is not “an approved logo.” Putting as much distance as possible between the Army and any notion of “religion” Ferguson added, “Ultimately, this was human error and not representative of the unit or the Army.”
Mikey Weinstein, founder and president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, had earlier demanded the removal of the sign in an email to Maj. Gen. Edward Dorman. “Who’s asleep at the switch when it comes to these issues?” he queried.
According to Weinstein, a number of MRFF clients, including some Muslim soldiers, were offended and had asked the MRFF to intervene, which Weinstein was delighted to do. “We commend the Army for doing the right thing, but why did it happen in the first place?” Weinstein pressed. Weinstein’s email to Dorman additionally requests an investigation into the matter and the punishment of responsible parties. Such imagery “enrages our Islamic allies” and “emboldens our Islamic enemies,” he intones. Ocean View School District
At the same time, across the sea in sunny California, in the Ocean View School District, Spring View Middle School social studies class, the teacher incorporated lyrics to the melody of “Fight Song” by pop artist Rachel Platten into a history lesson. The altered words included Islamic teaching that “Allah is the one God.”
The modified lyrics read: “Like a sandstorm; On the desert, Sending camels, Into motion. Like how a single faith, Can make a heart open; They might only have one God, But they can make an explosion.” The chorus of the song goes like this: “Islam … Allah’s on the way; They will preach them loud tonight; Can you hear their voice this time?; This is their fight song; Spread Islam now song; Prove that they’re right song.”
One of the parents, Nichole Negron, objected, and posted pictures on Facebook showing drawings that her son brought home which included the song lyrics as well as a stick-figure man saying, “Believe in Allah! There is no other god!” In the stir that this created school Superintendent Carol Hansen, said, “It was unfortunate the lesson on Islam ended just prior to the tragic world events last week … I apologize on behalf of the district if the song used in the World History lesson may have offended anyone. It was not the intention of the teacher to incite, anger or offend.”
It is all just a matter of WORLD HISTORY! How can people object to World History lessons? The Superintendent seems irritated in this “apology” that we cannot, when it comes to Islam, teach history! It is not meant to “offend.” And she leaves the feeling that the “offense” came solely on the heels of the heightened nervousness due to the Paris attacks. What do we have? When it comes to remotely suggesting Christianity with a picture of a cross on a shield the government military is all about erasing it and punishing the offenders! How could this possibly occur in Mikey Weinstein’s world?!
But when it comes to teaching children in government schools about Islam, even going to the trouble of having them memorize “Believe in Allah! There is no other god!”—and teaching them songs of the jihadists–that is only history. How dare parents object to history! Maybe Mikey Weinstein ought to go back to Junior High where he can learn that the Crusaders with cross emblems were only a part of history. Certain it is that Superintendent Carol Hansen could teach him that World History should not “offend anyone.”