Tag Archives: Education

Alex Newman: Democrats Propose Keeping Kids at School Until 6pm

by Alex Newman

Parents should be able to hand the government even more responsibility for raising their children, Democrat U.S. Senator Kamala Harris of California believes. To help make that a reality, she introduced an unconstitutional bill that would keep school doors open until 6 PM or later, as well as during the summer months.

Dubbed the “Family Friendly Schools Act,” Harris’ bill would help further obliterate the family, replacing parents with government school officials for almost the entire life of a child. Under the plan, American taxpayers would be forced to provide even more tax money to government “education” so that parents could spend even less time with their children.

If approved, the legislation would start by bribing 500 government schools across America into creating “activities” for children from 8 AM or before until 6 PM or later. The schools, part of a pilot program, would be required to provide “high-quality, culturally relevant, linguistically accessible, developmentally appropriate academic, athletic, or enrichment opportunities” during that time.

That means millions of children would be eating three government-provided meals per day at their government schools, further cementing the government’s role as provider in the child’s mind. Next up: Bed-time stories and goodnight hugs for children from government bureaucrats, so that parents do not have to worry about those parental duties, either.

The Orwellian scheme would also plow over $1 billion — to start with — into creating “21st Century Community Learning Centers” at public schools across America. These institutions would subject some 2 million American children to what Harris’ press release described as “summer programming,” thereby eliminating summer vacation.

While parents typically spend an hour or two with their children on an average day, government has them captive for about eight hours per day, five days a week, for at least 14 years. In total, children who start school in Kindergarten will spend over 20,000 waking hours in government care, compared to around one fourth that much time with their parents.

Harris pointed to her mother working “long hours” as a reason why America needs children to be in government schools for more hours. Apparently “juggling” school schedules and work is a “common cause of stress and financial hardship,” said Harris, who is descended from slave owners and whose own father has lambasted her disgusting “identity politics.”

“But, this does not have to be the case,” Harris continued, because apparently Uncle Sam is going to make it all better by taking even more money from people to somehow help them deal with their “financial hardship.” Proving that she would destroy a proper understanding of justice if elected in her long-shot bid for the presidency, Harris added: “Justice for students and working families is on the ballot.”

Of course, totalitarians have long believed that government ought to play a much larger role in the raising of children. Indeed, Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Castro, and countless other socialist and communist tyrants throughout the 20th century sought to usurp the role of parents in raising the next generation, always with horrific results.

In America, Big Government mongers have similar dreams. Obama’s Education Secretary Arne Duncan, for instance, openly called for government boarding schools that would have some children 24 hours per day, seven days per week. Hillary Clinton argued two decades ago that it takes a (government) “village” to raise a child. And the Obama administration released a policy document seeking home visits that referred to parents as “equal partners” in the raising of children.

THE TAKEAWAY

As American children get dumber and dumber — not to mention more immoral — with each passing year in public school, it is incredible that somebody could seriously propose increasing  the amount of time spent there. What U.S. children need is more time with their parents and less time as inmates in the government’s indoctrination centers. Harris should be ashamed of herself.


Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, education, politics, and more. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU or on Facebook

Ryan T. Anderson: Transgender Ideology Is Riddled With Contradictions. Here Are the Big Ones.

by Ryan T. Anderson Ph.D.

People say that we live in a postmodern age that has rejected metaphysics. That’s not quite true.

We live in a postmodern age that promotes an alternative metaphysics. As I explain in “When Harry Became Sally,” at the heart of the transgender moment are radical ideas about the human person—in particular, that people are what they claim to be, regardless of contrary evidence. A transgender boy is a boy, not merely a girl who identifies as a boy.

It’s understandable why activists make these claims. An argument about transgender identities will be much more persuasive if it concerns who someone is, not merely how someone identifies. And so the rhetoric of the transgender moment drips with ontological assertions: People are the gender they prefer to be. That’s the claim.

Transgender activists don’t admit that this is a metaphysical claim. They don’t want to have the debate on the level of philosophy, so they dress it up as a scientific and medical claim. And they’ve co-opted many professional associations for their cause.

Thus the American Psychological Association, in a pamphlet titled “Answers to Your Questions about Transgender People, Gender Identity, and Gender Expression,” tells us, “Transgender is an umbrella term for persons whose gender identity, gender expression, or behavior does not conform to that typically associated with the sex to which they were assigned at birth.”

Notice the politicized language: A person’s sex is “assigned at birth.” Back in 2005, even the Human Rights Campaign referred instead to “birth sex” and “physical sex.”

The phrase “sex assigned at birth” is now favored because it makes room for “gender identity” as the real basis of a person’s sex.

In an expert declaration to a federal district court in North Carolina concerning H.B. 2, Dr. Deanna Adkins stated, “From a medical perspective, the appropriate determinant of sex is gender identity.” Adkins is a professor at Duke University School of Medicine and the director of the Duke Center for Child and Adolescent Gender Care (which opened in 2015).

Adkins argues that gender identity is not only the preferred basis for determining sex, but “the only medically supported determinant of sex.” Every other method is bad science, she claims: “It is counter to medical science to use chromosomes, hormones, internal reproductive organs, external genitalia, or secondary sex characteristics to override gender identity for purposes of classifying someone as male or female.”

This is a remarkable claim, not least because the argument recently was that gender is only a social construct, while sex is a biological reality. Now, activists claim that gender identity is destiny, while biological sex is the social construct.

Adkins doesn’t say if she would apply this rule to all mammalian species. But why should sex be determined differently in humans than in other mammals? And if medical science holds that gender identity determines sex in humans, what does this mean for the use of medicinal agents that have different effects on males and females? Does the proper dosage of medicine depend on the patient’s sex or gender identity?

But what exactly is this “gender identity” that is supposed to be the true medical determinant of sex? Adkins defines it as “a person’s inner sense of belonging to a particular gender, such as male or female.”

Note that little phrase “such as,” implying that the options are not necessarily limited to male or female. Other activists are more forthcoming in admitting that gender identity need not be restricted to the binary choice of male or female, but can include both or neither. The American Psychological Association, for example, defines “gender identity” as “a person’s internal sense of being male, female, or something else.”

Adkins asserts that being transgender is not a mental disorder, but simply “a normal developmental variation.” And she claims, further, that medical and mental health professionals who specialize in the treatment of gender dysphoria are in agreement with this view.

Transgender Catechism

These notions about sex and gender are now being taught to young children. Activists have created child-friendly graphics for this purpose, such as the “Genderbread Person Graph.” The Genderbread Person teaches that when it comes to sexuality and gender, people have five different characteristics, each of them falling along a spectrum.

There’s “gender identity,” which is “how you, in your head, define your gender, based on how much you align (or don’t align) with what you understand to be the options for gender.” The graphic lists “4 (of infinite)” possibilities for gender identity: “woman-ness,” “man-ness,” “two-spirit,” or “genderqueer.”

The second characteristic is “gender expression,” which is “the way you present gender, through your actions, dress, and demeanor.” In addition to “feminine” or “masculine,” the options are “butch,” “femme,” “androgynous,” or “gender neutral.”

Third is “biological sex,” defined as “the physical sex characteristics you’re born with and develop, including genitalia, body shape, voice pitch, body hair, hormones, chromosomes, etc.”

The final two characteristics concern sexual orientation: “sexually attracted to” and “romantically attracted to.” The options include “Women/Females/Femininity” and “Men/Males/Masculinity.” Which seems rather binary.

The Genderbread Person tries to localize these five characteristics on the body: gender identity in the brain, sexual and romantic attraction in the heart, biological sex in the pelvis, and gender expression everywhere.

The Genderbread Person presented here is version 3.3, incorporating adjustments made in response to criticism of earlier versions. But even this one violates current dogma. Some activists have complained that the Genderbread Person looks overly male.

A more serious fault in the eyes of many activists is the use of the term “biological sex.” Time magazine drew criticism for the same transgression in 2014 after publishing a profile of Laverne Cox, the “first out trans person” to be featured on the cover.

At least the folks at Time got credit for trying to be “good allies, explaining what many see as a complicated issue,” wrote Mey Rude in an article titled “It’s Time for People to Stop Using the Social Construct of ‘Biological Sex’ to Defend Their Transmisogyny.” (It’s hard to keep up with the transgender moment.)

But Time was judged guilty of using “a simplistic and outdated understanding of biology to perpetuate some very dangerous ideas about trans women,” and failing to acknowledge that biological sex “isn’t something we’re actually born with, it’s something that doctors or our parents assign us at birth.”

Today, transgender “allies” in good standing don’t use the Genderbread Person in their classrooms, but opt for the “Gender Unicorn Graph,” which was created by Trans Student Educational Resources. It has a body shape that doesn’t appear either male or female, and instead of a “biological sex” it has a “sex assigned at birth.”

Those are the significant changes to the Genderbread Person, and they were made so that the new graphic would “more accurately portray the distinction between gender, sex assigned at birth, and sexuality.”

According to Trans Student Education Resources, “Biological sex is an ambiguous word that has no scale and no meaning besides that it is related to some sex characteristics. It is also harmful to trans people. Instead, we prefer ‘sex assigned at birth’ which provides a more accurate description of what biological sex may be trying to communicate.”

The Gender Unicorn is the graphic that children are likely to encounter in school. These are the dogmas they are likely to be catechized to profess.

While activists claim that the possibilities for gender identity are rather expansive—man, woman, both, neither—they also insist that gender identity is innate, or established at a very young age, and thereafter immutable.

Dr. George Brown, a professor of psychiatry and a three-time board member of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, stated in his declaration to the federal court in North Carolina that gender identity “is usually established early in life, by the age of 2 to 3 years old.”

Addressing the same court, Adkins asserted that “evidence strongly suggests that gender identity is innate or fixed at a young age and that gender identity has a strong biological basis.” (At no point in her expert declaration did she cite any sources for any of her claims.)

Transgender Contradictions

If the claims presented in this essay strike you as confusing, you’re not alone. The thinking of transgender activists is inherently confused and filled with internal contradictions. Activists never acknowledge those contradictions. Instead, they opportunistically rely on whichever claim is useful at any given moment.

Here I’m talking about transgender activists. Most people who suffer from gender dysphoria are not activists, and many of them reject the activists’ claims. Many of them may be regarded as victims of the activists, as I show in my book.

Many of those who feel distress over their bodily sex know that they aren’t really the opposite sex, and do not wish to “transition.” They wish to receive help in coming to identify with and accept their bodily self. They don’t think their feelings of gender dysphoria define reality.

But transgender activists do. Regardless of whether they identify as “cisgender” or “transgender,” the activists promote a highly subjective and incoherent worldview.

On the one hand, they claim that the real self is something other than the physical body, in a new form of Gnostic dualism, yet at the same time they embrace a materialist philosophy in which only the material world exists. They say that gender is purely a social construct, while asserting that a person can be “trapped” in the wrong gender.

They say there are no meaningful differences between man and woman, yet they rely on rigid sex stereotypes to argue that “gender identity” is real, while human embodiment is not. They claim that truth is whatever a person says it is, yet they believe there’s a real self to be discovered inside that person.

They promote a radical expressive individualism in which people are free to do whatever they want and define the truth however they wish, yet they try ruthlessly to enforce acceptance of transgender ideology.

It’s hard to see how these contradictory positions can be combined. If you pull too hard on any one thread of transgender ideology, the whole tapestry comes unraveled. But here are some questions we can pose:

If gender is a social construct, how can gender identity be innate and immutable? How can one’s identity with respect to a social construct be determined by biology in the womb? How can one’s identity be unchangeable (immutable) with respect to an ever-changing social construct? And if gender identity is innate, how can it be “fluid”?

The challenge for activists is to offer a plausible definition of gender and gender identity that is independent of bodily sex.

Is there a gender binary or not? Somehow, it both does and does not exist, according to transgender activists. If the categories of “man” and “woman” are objective enough that people can identify as, and bemen and women, how can gender also be a spectrum, where people can identify as, and be, both, or neither, or somewhere in between?

What does it even mean to have an internal sense of gender? What does gender feel like? What meaning can we give to the concept of sex or gender—and thus what internal “sense” can we have of gender—apart from having a body of a particular sex?

Apart from having a male body, what does it “feel like” to be a man? Apart from having a female body, what does it “feel like” to be a woman? What does it feel like to be both a man and a woman, or to be neither?

The challenge for the transgender activist is to explain what these feelings are like, and how someone could know if he or she “feels like” the opposite sex, or neither, or both.

Even if trans activists could answer these questions about feelings, that still wouldn’t address the matter of reality. Why should feeling like a man—whatever that means—make someone a man? Why do our feelings determine reality on the question of sex, but on little else? Our feelings don’t determine our age or our height. And few people buy into Rachel Dolezal’s claim to identify as a black woman, since she is clearly not.

If those who identify as transgender are the sex with which they identify, why doesn’t that apply to other attributes or categories of being? What about people who identify as animals, or able-bodied people who identify as disabled? Do all of these self-professed identities determine reality? If not, why not?

And should these people receive medical treatment to transform their bodies to accord with their minds? Why accept transgender “reality,” but not trans-racial, trans-species, and trans-abled reality?

The challenge for activists is to explain why a person’s “real” sex is determined by an inner “gender identity,” but age and height and race and species are not determined by an inner sense of identity.

Of course, a transgender activist could reply that an “identity” is, by definition, just an inner sense of self. But if that’s the case, gender identity is merely a disclosure of how one feels. Saying that someone is transgender, then, says only that the person has feelings that he or she is the opposite sex.

Gender identity, so understood, has no bearing at all on the meaning of “sex” or anything else. But transgender activists claim that a person’s self-professed “gender identity” is that person’s “sex.”

The challenge for activists is to explain why the mere feeling of being male or female (or both or neither) makes someone male or female (or both or neither).

Gender identity can sound a lot like religious identity, which is determined by beliefs. But those beliefs don’t determine reality. Someone who identifies as a Christian believes that Jesus is the Christ. Someone who identifies as a Muslim believes that Muhammad is the final prophet. But Jesus either is or is not the Christ, and Muhammad either is or is not the final prophet, regardless of what anyone happens to believe.

So, too, a person either is or is not a man, regardless of what anyone—including that person—happens to believe. The challenge for transgender activists is to present an argument for why transgender beliefs determine reality.

Determining reality is the heart of the matter, and here too we find contradictions.

On the one hand, transgender activists want the authority of science as they make metaphysical claims, saying that science reveals gender identity to be innate and unchanging. On the other hand, they deny that biology is destiny, insisting that people are free to be who they want to be.

Which is it? Is our gender identity biologically determined and immutable, or self-created and changeable? If the former, how do we account for people whose gender identity changes over time? Do these people have the wrong sense of gender at some time or other?

And if gender identity is self-created, why must other people accept it as reality? If we should be free to choose our own gender reality, why can some people impose their idea of reality on others just because they identify as transgender?

The challenge for the transgender activist is to articulate some conception of truth as the basis for how we understand the common good and how society should be ordered.

As I document in depth in “When Harry Became Sally,” the claims of transgender activists are confusing because they are philosophically incoherent. Activists rely on contradictory claims as needed to advance their position, but their ideology keeps evolving, so that even allies and LGBT organizations can get left behind as “progress” marches on.

At the core of the ideology is the radical claim that feelings determine reality. From this idea come extreme demands for society to play along with subjective reality claims. Trans ideologues ignore contrary evidence and competing interests, they disparage alternative practices, and they aim to muffle skeptical voices and shut down any disagreement.

The movement has to keep patching and shoring up its beliefs, policing the faithful, coercing the heretics, and punishing apostates, because as soon as its furious efforts flag for a moment or someone successfully stands up to it, the whole charade is exposed. That’s what happens when your dogmas are so contrary to obvious, basic, everyday truths.

A transgender future is not the “right side of history,” yet activists have convinced the most powerful sectors of our society to acquiesce to their demands. While the claims they make are manifestly false, it will take real work to prevent the spread of these harmful ideas.

This piece originally appeared in The Daily Signal

THF: https://www.heritage.org/gender/commentary/transgender-ideology-riddled-contradictions-here-are-the-big-ones


Ryan T. Anderson, Ph.D., is the William E. Simon Senior Research Fellow in American Principles and Public Policy at The Heritage Foundation, where he researches and writes about marriage, bioethics, religious liberty and political philosophy. Anderson is the author of several books and his research has been cited by two U.S. Supreme Court justices in two separate cases. Read his Heritage research.

Alex Newman: Buddhist Indoctrination Invades Public Schools Across America  

by Alex Newman

Buddhist indoctrination and meditation techniques are being forced on government-school children across America under the harmless-sounding term “mindfulness,” sparking a growing wave of opposition and legal challenges. Critics said imposing it in public education is not just wrong, but illegal as well. Children as young as 5 are being ordered to participate.

While the controversial program claims to be a “secularized” version of Buddhist practices that have traditionally been viewed as occult and dangerous by Christians, critics are nevertheless sounding the alarm. And despite claims of being “secular,” it does not take much digging beneath the surface to detect the obvious anti-Christian nature of the “mindfulness education” schemes.

In America, the ideas were pioneered by Jon Kabat-Zinn, who established a “Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction” program at the University of Massachusetts Medical School in the late 1970s. Since then, “mindfulness” educators boast of reaching hundreds of thousands of American school children. Millions in taxpayer funding from local, state, and even federal governments have been spent on “mindfulness” education, too.

But the religious and spiritual overtones are hard to ignore. In a video on “Mindfulness in Education” by expert Amy Burke, the very first quote comes from an Indian guru and so-called “World Teacher” by the name of “Jiddu Krishnamurti,” from his book “Education and the Significance of Life.” The decision to quote this particular character guru offers significant insight into what this is all about.

This guru, who was adopted and trained by the head of a Luciferian cult known as the “Theosophical Society,” was blunt about his pagan agenda. “You want to have your own gods – new gods instead of the old, new religions instead of the old, new forms instead of the old – all equally valueless, all barriers, all limitations, all crutches,” Krishnamurti explained.

“Instead of old spiritual distinctions you have new spiritual distinctions; instead of the old worships you have new worships,” the guru said. “You are all depending for your spirituality on someone else, for your happiness on someone else, for enlightenment on someone else; … you must put them all away and look within yourselves for the enlightenment, for the glory, for the purification, and for the incorruptibility of the self.”

Burke, a “mindfulness” advocate and educator, also promoted the idea that children must be taught to listen to their “heart.” But for Christians, that is more than a little problematic. In Jeremiah 17:9, the Bible warns that the heart is “deceitful above all things” and “desperately wicked.” In the New Testament, Mark 7:21 warns that “out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders.”

But Burke insists it is needed. “The fact is that listening to our heart … is the key to living a fulfilled life,” she claimed, completely disregarding the biblical view on the issue. “It’s what helps, makes us, more authentically ourselves. And it’s hard to do. But mindfulness is a practical tool that can help students cultivate this inner understanding.”

Alarmed by all this occult indoctrination at odds with Christianity, a coalition of teachers and students is working with the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) to fight a legal battle against it. According to the group, government schools are not allowed to mandate participation in these “mindfulness” curricula without violating the law.

The ACLJ noted that Buddhist principles are “clearly” embedded in the mindfulness programs being imposed on school children — principles such as the “observance of all thoughts and feelings without judgment; the belief that life is cyclical and humans are inherently good; and the idea that we are magnificent and all happiness can be achieved through self-discovery and self-reliance.”

Critics lashed out. “Whatever happened to the separation of church and state that liberals scream about when the mere mention of God is made in schools?” wondered author and commentator Dr. Ileana Johnson. “Why are we allowing Far East mystical practices to come into our public schools under the guise of stress management? Why are our children being constantly experimented on by the latest fad pushed by liberals/progressives who view the classroom and our children’s minds and future as their laboratory?”

Another prominent critic, education researcher Debbie DeGroff, exposed the “mindfulness” program in 2014. “These practices are harmful to our children,” she warned. “What other programs, curriculums, and practices are you unaware of?… The time is now to get your children out of these government experimental laboratories.”

The Takeaway

As The Newman Report has documented for years, it seems every religion in the world is not only welcomed in American government schools, but encouraged with tax money — every religion, that is, except Christianity, the foundation upon which America and Western civilization were built. Unless Americans put an end to this tax-funded anti-Christian indoctrination of children, it will eventually put an end to America.


Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, education, politics, and more. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU or on Facebook

 

Alex Newman: Schools Busted Promoting Islam

by Alex Newman

Government schools in Michigan are under fire after an investigation by the Thomas More Law Center, a non-profit legal group, exposed a massive tax-payer funded propaganda program glorifying Islam and denigrating Christianity. Teachers were targeted in the controversial scheme, with the expectation that they would pass the lies on to their students.

The investigation began after TMLC discovered that teachers were being forced to take a two-day “training seminar” on Islam. The program, run by a Muslim “consultant” and self-proclaimed “social justice” advocate, bombarded hundreds of public-school teachers with anti-American and anti-Christian extremism masquerading as “culturally responsive teaching.”

Among other concerns, the training program was “riddled with falsehoods and errors of omission that were clearly meant to deceive,” the Law Center explained. For instance, there was no truthful information provided to teachers on either jihad (holy war) or Sharia (Islamic) law, which are two of the cornerstones of Islam.

Teachers were told that while the Bible had been changed, the Koran had come straight from Allah to Muhammad. “Her message was clear: The Koran is superior to the Bible,” the Thomas More Law Center explained in a statement about its findings, adding that the Muslim “consultant” was paid $2,500 per day to indoctrinate teachers.

The “consultant,” Huda Essa, also dismissed concerns about terrorism, saying it had nothing to do with Islam. Perhaps not surprisingly, the program also taught Michigan teachers that white Christian males were more dangerous to the public than Islamic extremists whose holy book commands them to wage never-ending war against infidels. Essa accused America of “genocide,” too, while ignoring Islam’s 1400 year history of exterminating non-Muslims across the Middle East and North Africa, TMLC said.

“We found that the teachers were subjected to two days of Islamic propaganda, where Islam was glorified, Christianity disparaged, and America bashed,” said Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Law Center, after the investigation was completed. “This type of infiltration amounts to an Islamic Trojan horse within our public-school systems. No other religion gets this kind of special treatment in our schools.”

As part of the investigation, the Law Center filed a Freedom of Information Act request for documents related to the workshop. Within the materials received, the conservative-leaning non-profit legal group obtained audio recordings of the “diversity” presentation forced upon Michigan teachers.

What Thompson found most disappointing about the ordeal was the fact that not a single one of the over 400 teachers subjected to this particular “training” session publicly challenged the bizarre teachings. It was not immediately clear whether this was due to fear of reprisals, agreement with the consultant’s extremism, or other causes.

Similar tax-funded “training” seminars for educators by the same Islamist have taken place in California, Georgia, Texas, Florida, and more. In fact, the consultant’s website openly brags about all the educators across America who have been subjected to the same propaganda, which has been filtering down into school classrooms for years.

It seems that, with one key exception, any and all religions are now being welcomed and promoted to gullible children in government schools in America today — Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Humanism, Atheism, and so on, are all celebrated. By contrast, only Christianity and the Bible, the foundations that America and the West were founded upon, is blacklisted, ridiculed, denigrated, and openly attacked.

The Takeaway

Especially in a Christian nation like America, this tax-funded anti-Christian indoctrination should be considered totally unacceptable. It represents an existential threat to liberty, peace, and prosperity. Parents and taxpayers need to stop these abuses now, before the ongoing “fundamental transformation” America becomes impossible to reverse. Protecting one’s own children is a great place to start.


Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, education, politics, and more. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU or on Facebook

John Anthony: HOW TO ANNIHILATE U.S. SOCIALISM AND FORCE WASHINGTON TO LISTEN

by John Anthony

Socialism’s barbs have sunk deep into the heart of America’s soul.  We see the Titanic struggle as Democrats and Republicans jointly hamper Trump’s attempts to return choices to the people. Washington will never willingly stop its progressive control, but we can make them.

As one who has studied the progressive/socialist movement from the Congressional halls to small communities across the country, I believe we have a rich opportunity to adopt an explosive method to defeat the anti-Constitutional forces in America.

For years, Constitutionalists have joined marches, attended meetings, written articles, and built networks.   Through speeches, seminars and videos we have exposed regionalists for grabbing local authority, sustainable development for driving up housing costs, and federal regulations for usurping local land use and zoning laws. Experts in education, climate science, and Constitutional law have bared how our federal agencies and court system are turning the land of the free into regions of the fettered.

Despite successes, every week reveals the incessant ‘tick-tock’ of the socialist advance.

In September 2016, the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority used taxpayers’ money to reduce the monthly rents to $75 for HUD residents who visit relatives overseas for up to 3 months.  The agency felt it was unfair that East Africans should have to face fiancial hardship to take an international trip most working Americans may never be able to afford.

In 2014, an affordable housing developer proposed building low-cost housing in a closed Whitehall Township, Pennsylvania warehouse.  When the voters and officials rejected the plan for zoning reasons, the developer contacted HUD who sued Whitehall.  By December 2016, Whitehall agreed to change their zoning laws, operate under a court-appointed monitor, and pay the developer $375,000 for costs including “out of pocket expenses.”

In a socialist society, the government defines ‘fair’ and votes become a minor nuisance.

The progressive movement in America has advanced so far that in 2016, the unelected Thrive Regional Partnership consisting of 16 counties in Tennessee, Georgia, and Alabama, urged their faked regional community to take “inspiration” from the works of Parag Khanna.  Khanna is a global strategist who preaches that nations must merge into connected regions overseen by direct technocracy.  He advocates that the American Democracy of our Founding Fathers, (he apparently does not realize the U.S. is a Constitutional Republic,) is “crumbling” and must be replaced by a technocratic intelligentsia.

Khanna’s technocracy model recommends we eliminate the U.S. Senate and replace the President with a 7-member panel of elite, ivy-league educated experts who are better equipped to make decisions than squabbling elected officials and uninformed citizens.  The nation would consist of regions managed by unelected councils. Local community members would merely have an opportunity to offer input. (Think of a regional planning session where all opinions are welcome, but only those that meet the pre-determined outcomes are accepted.)

This Communist nightmare is closer than you think. Regions like San Francisco’s Association of Bay Area Governments and Minneapolis’ Twin Cities Regional Council, routinely force through transit lines, toll roads, complete streets, and housing projects against voter’s wishes.

Along with dozens of other regions, these groups and hundreds of existing Councils of Governments are salivating to turn Khanna’s’ direct technocracy into your future.

President Trump has thrown a monkey wrench into the left’s relentless drive toward a centrally managed nation.  He has been immensely successful in re-working bad trade deals, opening industries for growth, and reducing costly federal regulations.  Perhaps his greatest accomplishment is the exposure of the vitriol and atrocities of the leftist establishment.

Still, Trump is not enough.

HUD’s 2015 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule, handed the progressive movement a legal tool to bludgeon communities into central planning and assault the poor while masquerading as their rescuers.  AFFH represents the clearest threat to independence, property rights, and local autonomy in our history.

Yet, HUD’s recent resolution of the AFFH-based Westchester case and the confirmation of Dr. Carson as HUD Secretary have left the rule fully intact.

We must disconnect local communities from federal dependence because it is the lifeblood of socialism. Big government does not help the poor, it feeds on them.  Since 1965 the U.S. poverty rate has not wavered from between 11% and 15%, ever!  This, despite spending over $20 trillion.

The left needs the poor to be poor.  It is the only way they can garner the votes to remain office.  Imagine entering an election cycle knowing that 11% – 15% of the people think they need you for they fear they will not eat.

It is not just poverty that propels socialism. The socialist movement eliminated Christianity in government and education because they know what our Founders knew. Only a moral society can be a free society.  Without a Christian moral foundation, America devolves into more offenses and violence, which leads to more elitists and tighter state control.

It is time to attack the heart of the progressive beast. The only way to kill the socialist movement is to free the poor, eliminate the demand for federal money and reinstate the church as the center of community life.

A growing society of independent, financially successful, Christian practicing, and capitalist African-Americans and Latinos is the equivalent of an Ebola outbreak inside the haughty progressive political community.

This much-abused base must be realigned with people who have no political axes and no concern other than to help them out of poverty and to share in freedom.

Community programs are already proving that low-income minorities will change their allegiances when they feel the benefits of new opportunities. That is why, in the Spring of 2017 I started the Miss Mary Project.  We are a church-based program that teaches working age members of low-income families in urban and suburban areas, not just how to get a job, but how to excel on the job and become indispensable, promotable employees. Rather than help people rise to just above poverty, we help propel them to a lifetimg of success, reducing the need for federal programs.

Our work is based on 30 years of corporate leadership training experience and builds on existing successful programs for the poor.  The Miss Mary Project has been so well-received that we are already opening publicly supported centers in Chattanooga, TN and Greenville, SC with plans to go nationwide.

We can defeat socialism, but not through reactionary and survivalist methods.  We must once again make the church the center of our community life and engage in and support positive local programs that truly help people become financially independent and free of government.


Read John Anthony’s Biography

Alex Newman: California Goes Full Orwell: “Cradle-to-Career” Data Scheme 

by Alex Newman

Blazing ahead on the highway to a full-blown Orwellian society, California just approved a new comprehensive “education” data regime that is being touted by Governor Gavin Newsom and lawmakers as a “Cradle-to-Career Data System.”

While details are still being worked out, it is clear that this massive data-gathering machine is intended to vacuum up every sort of information imaginable on California children. The intrusive surveillance and tracking will begin at birth and extends through work life. Health data will be included, too.

The scheme was strongly supported by Governor Newsom. In fact, on the very first page of his proposed budget for the year, the radical left-wing politician demanded $10 million to start building the enormous data regime.

The purpose of it all, Newsom said, is “to better track student outcomes and increase the alignment of our educational system to the state’s workforce needs.” In short, government central planning is the admitted goal — though certainly not the only one.

The “Cradle-to-Career Data System Act” was approved overwhelmingly as part of a broader “education” bill. In the Senate, SB 75 was approved by a massive landslide of 31 in favor versus 7 against. In the Assembly, the vote was 62 to 14 in favor.

A “workgroup” under the supervision of the executive branch will bring together “social justice” groups, unions, Big Tech bosses, Big Business, and other special interests to determine what data to collect and what exactly to do with it. More details on the scheme are expected by July of next year.

For now, the legislation calls for integrating K-12 data with higher education data. After that, the next phase will include workforce data, “early education” data, preschool data, health data, and much more. It will all be linked together in the databases, which will be shared with the feds and special interests. Even private institutions are expected to provide data for Big Brother’s new scheme.

Would-be profiteers and totalitarians of all varieties celebrated the legislation, disgorging platitudes on the supposed wonders it will do for “education” and the “children.” Critics, though, sounded the alarm.

“Big data and technological progress are enabling leftist government officials to take totalitarianism socialism to unforeseen heights,” explained popular liberty-minded commentator Shane Trejo in a piece about the new data-gathering scheme in California. “George Orwell must be spinning in his grave.”

Meanwhile, as The Newman Report has documented, more than half of California children cannot read, and over 25 percent are “gender non-conforming.” Obviously, education is not the goal here.

The Takeaway

As long as parents continue allowing the government to brainwash and data-rape their children in government schools, the abuse will continue to get more extreme. The government has no business gathering this private data from children and families. It is past time for parents to “just say no!”


   Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, education, politics, and more. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU or on Facebook