Our Throw Away Society

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty.” —" Thomas Jefferson

Last night I attended a dinner in honor of the retirement of two of my former partners and colleagues from the Land Surveying and Civil Engineering firm where I was once one of the co-owners before I hung up my spikes five years ago. It was a great event and I was able to spend some time with many of former partners still doing battle with the dragon of today’s stagnant economy. I was shocked to hear of the staff reductions that had been made over the past four years in order to keep this sixty year old business alive. As Thomas Paine stated during the Revolutionary War; “These are the times that try men’s souls.”

During the dinner I sat next to a former partner and colleague who is still fighting the good fight in the Sacramento office. We talked of many things. We reminisced on past days and how business is going today. When I asked him if he was still as involved in supporting one of our state universities with their surveying program he informed me that the program was in danger dur to the soon to be departure of the professor who had run the program for the past twenty years and that the university was searching for an endowment to keep the program alive. They not only needed the money, they also needed students. It seems as though today high school students entering college are more interested in studying Italian Renaissance Arts, psychology or Women’s studies than the more demanding disciplines of engineering.

This dilemma is no doubt in part due to the lack of recruiting at the high school level and the dwindling number of students prepared in math and science to enter engineering and scientific courses of study. Conversely there is a lack of qualified instructors to teach such classes. Obviously if we have a dwindling cadre of students we will eventually have a deficiency in those who can recruit and teach the students.

On my drive home I began thinking about this two-fold problem facing the nation today. Since it was a drive of some 100 miles to my home I came up with several ideas that I believe would alleviate this condition.

First of all we need qualified instructors who can not only teach the fundamentals of the engineering disciplines, but who can make the learning exciting and fruitful. There are thousands of retired engineering professionals who have years of practical experience in managing and building projects of all types. They also have experience in running business, hiring and mentoring people, serving clients, and making a profit. These things also need to be taught to students in preparation for a career in engineering.

The problem is that these folks do not have the academic union card of a PhD. The academic community jealously protects its profession by requiring an instructor to have one of these union cards no matter how knowledge or experience a person with fifty years of experience he or she may have. This is known as academic elitism. In the Socratic Method of teaching the job of any instructor is to assist the student if learning and discovering on his own, not on indoctrination. It is a form of inquiry and debate between individuals with opposing viewpoints based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to illuminate ideas. It is a dialectical method, often involving an oppositional discussion in which the defense of one point of view is pitted against the defense of another; one participant may lead another to contradict himself in some way, thus strengthening the inquirer's own point.

You cannot convince me that a thirty-year old person with a PhD who has done all of his or hers required book learning, written papers and convinced a panel of academics that he or she is deserving of a PhD is more qualified to teach students in the engineering discipline than a person with a successful career of managing and building projects, running a business, serving clients and making money. This is how it was many years ago before the academic mafia of elites began to take over our schools.

This malady is also prevalent in other professions. My brother is a practicing attorney who owns a law firm. He tells me a similar tale about our law schools. They have professors of law who have never tried a case or entered a court room except as an observer. On the other hand there are many retired attorneys and judges with thousands of years of experience who could share this with the students, thus better preparing them for a career in the law.

Before I continue let me state that I am not advocating eliminating all professors and teachers in favor of retirees. What I am advocating, however, is the use of these retired professional as adjunct lecturers for the recruiting and teaching of students. They can make their professions come alive and exciting for the students and potential students. I also do not wish to impugn the hard work and study that goes into obtaining a PhD or its value. I do, however, believe that the purpose of a PhD is to allow the holder to go out into the world and do great things, not look for a place at the table of the elites in the ivory tower of academia where they can sit in the faculty lounge and exchange similar points of view with one another.

Let me tell a personal tale. When I want to high school many years ago I was not a good student at math. In fact I failed algebra in my freshman year. I no doubt did this due to my lack of interest and my inability to see any practical use of the subject. Obviously my parents did not take kindly to this. In my sophomore I eschewed any math courses for classes in science and industrial arts. In between my sophomore and junior years I got a summer job as a surveyor’s assistant. This opened my eyes to the potential of a great career where I would not have to work in the steel mills of my home town or in the building trades. I realized I would need the advanced math if I wanted to pursue a career in surveying or civil engineering. My eyes were opened because I was working in the field under the supervision of professionals who were showing me the possibilities.

In my junior year I once again challenged the algebra. This time I had a young teacher, just out of the army, who was no nonsense teacher who knew his subject. I excelled and finished with an A. In my senior year I took plane geometry and saw the relevance of this subject in my chosen career. Once again I did well finishing with another A. In the meantime I kept working as a surveyor’s assistant during summer vacation, other holiday periods, and Saturdays. Yes we worked Saturdays in those days. The mentorship of my supervisors was taking hold.

I realized that if I wished to continue down this path I would need more advanced math like trigonometry, the back bone of surveying, and spherical geometry. After graduation I went to work full time for the surveying and engineering firm that had given me the opportunity as a high school student. I also need to go to night school for the advanced math.

I enrolled in a class in trigonometry and was very fortunate to study under one of the most brilliant math teachers I have ever met. She was not an academic, but an instructor doing this because she needed a few extra dollars and het love of teaching math. She had a PhD in math, but more so she was a mathematician at the Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory — a contributor to the space program in Cleveland, Ohio. Like Jaime Escalante in the film Stand and Deliver who taught AP Calculus at Garfield High School in Los Angeles, she made math come alive. For every trigonometric function she would take us back to Pythagoras and bring us forward to how the function was developed. Boy did the lights go one for me. Once again I completed the class with an A and she told me I should pursue a career in mathematics —this for a fellow who failed algebra in freshman year in high school. I was flattered, but I still wanted a career in civil engineering and surveying. 55 years later after many night school classes, a ten-year stint as a highway engineer for the California Division of Highways (CALTRANS), ten years of owning my own civil engineering and surveying business, and 23 years of being a part owner of another civil engineering and surveying firm that employed 850 persons at the end of my career I retired after a long and successful career.

I share this tale not to boast, but to illustrate the value of mentorship (the Socratic Method of teaching), competent and inspiring teachers, and being motivated by practical examples of what could be achieved.

My tale in in no way is unique. Many other successful professionals in all careers have gone this route. They achieved great heights, not because they were smarter or more fortunate that others but because they had the advantage of the mentorship and instruction from experienced professionals who could motivate them and impart their practical knowledge upon them. Learning is achieved through motivation. Just think back on all of the teachers you have had in your life and identify the ones who motivated you the most.

In today’s society we are throwing away the knowledge and experience of our successful elders. In bygone days it was these elders who were looked to for their knowledge and understanding of the world. What better teacher could a business major have than a successful businessman who has spent years serving the public? Or an engineering major an engineer who has built bridges, highways and other civil structures or a student of the law a lawyer who has tried both criminal and civil cases or served as a judge.

This not only pertains to our universities, but it relates to our high schools where it may have even greater value. Wouldn’t an aerospace engineer add more value for the students than a math teacher who also coaches the basketball team? But we have a monopolistic government school system that is captive to the teachers unions that vigorously protects their turf. Yes, I understand that a measure of vetting would be needed to retain the services of these retired experts, but our current spate of teacher scandals points out that those union teachers have their problems with morality. Also there would be considerable savings by using these retired professionals. They would not need gold-plated pension or health care plans.

As a society where retired professionals are living longer, healthier lives we are missing a great opportunity to take advantage of their knowledge and experience. I once had a conversation with a very successful client who told me he looked upon gray hair as a positive, not a deterrent to procuring the services of a consultant. If this philosophy works in the real world why can’t it work in the halls of academia?

Obama’s Propaganda Truth Squad

"A general State education is a mere contrivance for moulding people to be exactly like one another, and as the mould in which it casts them is that which pleases the dominant power in the government." — John Stuart Mill

Last night I watched several films on the Turner Classic Movies channel. All the films I viewed focused on the Soviet Union and dated from 1940 to 1965. The first film I watched was Doctor Zhivago, the classic directed by David Lean. The film, based on the book of the same name by Boris Pasternak, depicts Russia from the time prior to the 1917 revolution through the period of the civil war between the forces loyal to the Czar (Whites) and the Communists (Reds).

The film shot in stunning color still captivated me with its wonderful shots of the Russian winter and spring (shot in Canada), its elaborate costuming, and its haunting musical score by Maurice Jarre. Who can forget those magnificent scenes of the fields of daffodils and birch trees and those scenes of the Russian winter where you can feel the bitter cold?

I first saw this film in 1967 in Hamilton, Ontario when my wife and I paid a visit to my Canadian relatives with my two-year old son. I always remember having to stand for “God Save the Queen” prior to the start of the film in the Canadian movie theater.

The next film I watched was the farcical comedy Comrade X staring Clark Gable and Hedy Lamarr. The story is about an American reporter smuggling news out of Soviet Moscow who blackmailed into helping a beautiful Communist leave the country. McKinley B. "Mac" Thompson (Clark Gable), American reporter in Moscow, smuggles out uncensored news under the alias "Comrade X," but hotel valet Vanya discovers his secret. Vanya fears for the safety of his daughter Golubka ("Theodore" – played by Hedy Lamarr) and blackmails Mac into helping her leave the country. Mac is happier about his task once he meets lovely Theodore, but can he convince her of his sincerity? The anti-communist humor becomes alternately grim and farcical.

While not a “classic” film it was fun with its satirical humor depicting the evils of Soviet Communism and life in the Soviet Union under the tyranny of Stalin. The film ends with Gable and Lamarr in the United States watching a ball game between the Brooklyn Dodgers and the Cincinnati Reds with Lamarr (once a dedicated Communist) jumping for joy when the Dodgers beat the “Reds.”

The third film was real humdinger of a 1943 Communist propaganda film called Mission to Moscow. The movie, starring Walter Huston, was made in response to a request by Franklin D. Roosevelt, and was one of the movies famously targeted by the House Committee on Un-American Activities. It chronicles the experiences of the second American ambassador to the Soviet Union, Joseph E. Davies.

Mission to Moscow is a book by the former U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union Joseph E. Davies published by Simon and Schuster in 1941. It was adapted into a film directed by Michael Curtiz in 1943.

The movie, starring Walter Huston, was made in response to a request by Franklin D. Roosevelt, and was one of the movies famously targeted by the House Committee on Un-American Activities. It chronicles the experiences of the second American ambassador to the Soviet Union, Joseph E. Davies. The movie covers the political machinations in Moscow just before the start of the war and presents Stalin's Russia in a very favorable light. So much so, that the movie was cited years later by the House Un-American Activities Commission (HUAC) and was largely responsible for the screenwriter, Howard Koch being blacklisted.

The movie chronicles Ambassador Davies' impressions of the Soviet Union, his meetings with Stalin, and his overall opinion of the Soviet Union and its ties with the United States. It is made in faux-documentary style, beginning with Davies meeting with President Franklin D. Roosevelt to discuss his new appointment as United States ambassador to the Soviet Union. It continues to show the Davies' family's trip by boat to Moscow, with stops in Europe

The movie chronicles Ambassador Davies' impressions of the Soviet Union, his meetings with Stalin, and his overall opinion of the Soviet Union and its ties with the United States. It is made in faux-documentary style, beginning with Davies meeting with President Franklin D. Roosevelt to discuss his new appointment as United States ambassador to the Soviet Union. It continues to show the Davies' family's trip by boat to Moscow, with stops in Europe.

Davies is shown witnessing the famous show trials conducted by Stalin in the 1930s (known as the Moscow Trials), which are portrayed as trials of Fifth Columnists working for Germany and Japan.

The voice-overs continue throughout the film, interspersing storyline with Davies' opinions. The basis of the film's narrative focuses on the journey of Davies and his family. First, their physical journey from the United States to the Soviet Union. And, second, their less tangible journey from skeptics of communism and the Soviet Union into converts and enthusiasts. The narrative of the movie and the book are almost identical.

Mission to Moscow was the first pro-Soviet Hollywood film of its time and was followed by others, including Samuel Goldwyn's The North Star (1943), MGM’s Song of Russia (1944), United Artists’ Three Russian Girls (1943), Columbia’s The Boy from Stalingrad (1943) and Counter-Attack (1945).

It was Roosevelt himself who approved the creation of the film version of Mission to Moscow, even meeting with Davies several times (July, October, and November of 1942 and March 1943) during the film's production and discussing its progress.

As part of his contract with Warner Brothers, Davies had absolute right of control over the script, and could veto any dialogue not to his liking.

During production, Office of War Information officials reviewed screenplay revisions and prints of the film and commented on them. By reviewing the scripts and prints, OWI officials exercised authority over Mission to Moscow, ensuring that it promoted the "United Nations" theme. An administration official advised the film's producers to offer explanations for the Nazi-Soviet Pact and the Red Army's invasion of Finland. After reading the final script, in November 1942 the OWI expressed its hope that Mission to Moscow would "make one of the most remarkable pictures of this war" and "a very great contribution to the war information program."

The OWI report on Mission to Moscow concluded that it would:

“..be a most convincing means of helping Americans to understand their Russian allies. Every effort has been made to show that Russians and Americans are not so very different after all. The Russians are shown to eat well and live comfortably, which will be a surprise to many Americans.^[6] The leaders of both countries desire peace and both possess a blunt honesty of address and purpose. One of the best services performed by this picture is the presentation of Russian leaders, not as wild-eyed madmen, but as far-seeing, earnest, responsible statesmen. They have proved very good neighbors, and this picture will help to explain why, as well as to encourage faith in the feasibility of post-war cooperation”

Government information specialists were equally enthusiastic about the completed print. Judging it "a magnificent contribution" to wartime propaganda, the OWI believed the picture would "do much to bring understanding of Soviet international policy in the past years and dispel the fears which many honest persons have felt with regard to our alliance with Russia." That was particularly so since "the possibility for the friendly alliance of the Capitalist United States and the Socialist Russia is shown to be firmly rooted in the mutual desire for peace of the two great countries."

The movie, made during World War II, showed the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin in an extremely positive light. Completed in late April 1943, the film was, in the words of Robert Buckner, the film's producer, "an expedient lie for political purposes, glossily covering up important facts with full or partial knowledge of their false presentation." It whitewashed the Moscow trials, rationalized Moscow's participation in the Nazi-Soviet Pact and its unprovoked invasion of Finland, and portrayed the Soviet Union as a non-totalitarian state that was moving towards the American democratic model, a Soviet Union committed to internationalism. There was no mention of the death by starvation of a million Ukrainians due to collectivization of their farms nor the partition of Poland under Stalin.

The book was vague on the guilt or innocence of defendants in the Moscow trials, but the final screenplay portrayed the defendants as undeniably guilty. It also showed the purges as an attempt by Stalin to rid his country of pro-German fifth columnists. The fifth columnists are described in the film as acting on behalf of Germany and Japan. The film even contains "a quarter-hour dedicated to arguing that Leon Trotsky was a Nazi agent."

In the film, Davies proclaims at the end of the trial scene: “Based on twenty years’ trial practice, I’d be inclined to believe these confessions.”

Also, there are many anachronisms. For example, the trial with Nikolai Bukharin and Mikhail Tukhachevsky are depicted as occurring at the same time, but in reality the trial with Bukharin was two years after the execution of Tukhachevsky. Tukhachevsky and Tymoshenko are marshals at the same time, but Tukhachevsky was executed in 1937 and Tymoshenko became marshal of the USSR in 1940.

Mission to Moscow has been "universally despised" by critics. However, there have been a few notable exceptions. The critic for the New York Times, future McCarthy opponent Bosley Crowther a useful idiot, found the film's attempts to rehabilitate Stalin believable:

“Based entirely on the personal observations reported by Mr. Davies in his book, it will obviously prove offensive to those elements which have challenged his views. Particularly will it anger the so-called Trotskyites with its visual re-enactment of the famous "Moscow trials". For it puts into the record for millions of moviegoers to grasp an admission that the many "purged" generals and other leaders were conspirators in a plot.”

Similarly, Leonard Maltin, another useful idiot, gave the film three and a half stars.

Mission to Moscow was not a commercial success. Although Warner Brothers spent $250,000 advertising the film before its release on April 30, 1943, the company lost around $600,000 overall at the final accounting. Mission to Moscow's numerous factual inaccuracies and outright false portrayals of Soviet leaders and events resulted in criticism from those on both the left and the right of the political spectrum. According to Jesse Walker of Reason Magazine, "it would be a terrible movie even if its politics weren't so repulsive: It's stiffly acted, poorly plotted, padded with stock footage, and just generally clumsy. But it's a must for fans of propaganda kitsch."

The House Committee on Un-American Activities would later cite Mission to Moscow as one of the three noted examples of pro-Soviet films made by Hollywood, the other two being The North Star and Song of Russia. It's been called "unquestionably the most blatant piece of pro-Stalinist propaganda ever offered by the American mass media."

In 1950, the film became an object of attention by members of Congress, who saw it as pro-Soviet propaganda. Davies was largely silent on his role in the film, though he did submit a letter to the House Committee on Un-American Activities Committee (HCUA) in 1947. Called to testify under oath before Congress, Jack Warner at first claimed that the film was made at the request of Davies, who with the approval of FDR had asked Warner Brothers to make the film (this version of the facts was confirmed by Davies' letter as well). Warner later recanted this version, stating that Harry Warner first read Mission to Moscow and then contacted Davies to discuss movie rights. [Source: Wikipedia]

While watching this film I wavered from anger to laughing. The anger was due to the ignorance and lies pushed on the audience by Davies and the filmmakers. By 1943 the American people had been given plenty of evidence as to the tyranny and cruelty of the Stalin regime. This film flew in the face of all historical facts known at the time. Only a useful idiot or fellow traveler could have possibly bought into the films message. Yet the American Communist Party thought it was great.

The laugh ability stemmed from the corny lines and Soviet archival propaganda films used throughout the film to show the wonderful, happy workers, the stores filled with consumer goods, the dams and hydroelectric plants, and the wheat fields with giant harvesting machines working in tandem to bring the crop while people were starving in Moscow and Leningrad. What a farce of propaganda this film was.

Of course at the time the western allies were building a case to support the Soviet Union in the war against Germany. I can understand that. But the heavy-handed manipulation of historical facts was a farce.

Now we get to the point of this blog — the Obama Truth Squads and their indoctrination of our school children. They are just like the tactics used by the Young Communist League and Hitler Youth.

The left loves to talk about how America has been historically guilty of it. Every time a kid stands up, puts his hand over his heart, and recites the Pledge of Allegiance, he is being manipulated to love this country of ours, overshadowing the past American imperialist and human rights crimes that kids should be focused on.

And the indoctrination doesn't end there, they claim. Once these apple pie-loving robots leave the secondary schools, they continue their right-wing education on the airwaves of talk radio, where independent instructors are hired by private companies to compensate for the learning that they fail to get in those state-sponsored universities. Poor Joe Six-pack, don'tcha know, didn't have the benefit of learning the truths of the world from a college professor whose "coming-of-age" years could best be described as a montage of group sex and psychedelic acid trips set to "Time of the Season" by The Zombies.

Yet when educational institutions are systematically teaching their young children to chant phrases supporting Barack Obama's political agenda — well, there's just no harm in that. Schoolchildren singing in support of the notion of "spreading the wealth around": "Hooray, Mr. President! We honor your great plans to make this country's economy number one again!" Children too young to know the meaning or implications of Obama's proposed "change" involving expansive government infrastructure, yet creepily singing: "Obama's gonna change it, Obama's gonna lead 'em, we're gonna change it, and rearrange it." And most recently, children innocently singing the “nonpartisan phrase” "Who do we know is the man? Barack Obama is our man! He's our man, yes he can!"

All this, though it's all innocent in the eyes of the left. After all, don't you remember the schoolchildren singing: "Who's the greatest in the land? Why, Bush, of course, he's our man!" You don't? It never happened? Oh well, that doesn't matter. Because now Barack Obama is president, and you're just supposed to support him.

Of course, Talk Radio U. teaches those conservative robots to be wary about schoolchildren being uniformly instructed to sing praises to the president. Sure, Barack Obama takes opportunities to pitch increased federal education spending to schoolchildren in hopes they might get their archaic old parents on the trolley with the whole "hope and change" thing. But that doesn't mean he's trying to charge their thoughts with his brand of politics. No big deal, right?

Wrong, wrong, wrong. It is manipulation of the highest order — indoctrination meant to support the politicians and positions of the radical left. And it's evolving. It's not just in the mainstream media anymore. It's not just in the public schools. It's soon to be on every social network — the greatest propaganda campaign ever tweeted. It is just described as "grassroots communication."

ABC News reports:

The Obama campaign is today beginning a new effort to enlist and educate at least 2 million supporters for a "grassroots communications team" they're calling the Truth Team.

"The goal is to ensure that when Republicans attack President Obama's record, grassroots supporters can take ownership of the campaign and share the facts with the undecided voters in their lives," the campaign said in a statement.

Of course, grassroots implies an initiative by the people, bottom-up, and free of top-down influence, which is a curious description considering that this is actually an Obama campaign initiative. But anyway, here's how this unapologetically works. A nonpartisan, independent reader comes across this article. He reads in this post something that doesn't exactly paint Obama in a good light. Better do some fact-checking, he thinks. He goes to an Obama Truth Team outlet, like Media Maters or Move On.Org, online, saying, "I heard that Barack Obama wants children to take the political ideology they're learning at school home to challenge their parents' ideas." The millions of Obama's trained Truth experts, fed its "truth" by the ruling political regime and eerily reminiscent of the Ministry of Truth in the dystopian novel 1984, reply, "Of course not. That's just a conservative lie meaning to dress our administration with the trappings of totalitarianism." This is similar to the way the American Communist Party whitewashed the tyranny of Stalin through the 40’s. 50’s, and 60’s and the education campaign of the Nazis.

The Nazi policies towards young people could be viewed as one of the most successful aspects of Nazi Germany. This is because of a variety of reasons. The Nazis took advantage of the need for German youth groups and used what teenagers wanted to slip in Nazi ideals, took over the education system to portray Nazi views, and used the school system to glorify war; they also often alienated children from their parents. However it did have its flaws as there were several groups of youths who opposed Hitler such as the "Swing Movement" and the "Edelweiss Pirates."

The Hitler Youth group played a major role in Nazi control of youths especially in 1939 when it became compulsory to attend. The Nazis took what the children wanted such as group activities, hiking, camping and singing and added in extra activities such as marching, learning about Nazi policies and practicing military exercises. Many of the members were merely drawn to the youth group due to the leisure opportunities it offered and some just did not have a choice as other organizations were shut down and made illegal.

As the Nazis wanted to control each aspect of a child's life they realized that education played a very important role. They altered textbooks to include Nazi history and also Nazi views of History. Students were taught about the injustice of German government and how the Jews were slowly taking over. The National Socialist party also managed to glorify the military in each school subject. They also made sure that the students had to study race and ideology every day.

As the Nazis needed to control each aspect of a child's life to have full hold on the child they realized that it was a necessity to control a child's home or family life, in many cases this meant isolating a child from his/her family. It became increasingly common in Germany for the children of the household to be much more pro-Nazi than their parents. This is because the children grew up being controlled by Nazi forces and therefore found such things as routine household checks normal, whereas older family members found it an invasion of privacy. This often resulted in family disputes and caused unsettledness. This was also caused by the fact that the Nazi party always expected to be put before everything, even before your family.

Of course, I link evidence above of Obama doing this very thing, and the horse's mouth should absolve me. But that doesn't matter. Why do any thinking for yourself when the Obama's Truth Team can do it for you?

There is a well-known maxim that goes: "A lie, told often enough, becomes truth." And with millions of government-sanctioned propaganda distributors charged with taking the government's message to various social media in today's world, it can spread millions upon millions of lies each day. It seems that technology has vastly improved the efficiency with which an ambitious and power-hungry government can disperse the lies it disguises as "truth."

Every day millions of parents trundle their children off to the public school system for 6 to 8 hours each day believing they are getting an education and not worrying about them as the schools take control of their lives. In fact study after study and test score after test score shows that they are not being education for all the money being spent. They are being indoctrinated with left-wing ideology that contradicts our founding fathers, history, and Constitution. They are learning about class warfare, global warming, green energy, how we raped the Native Americans, how we stole the Southwest from Mexico, and other left-wing clap-trap.

They are being force feed unhealthy food by government inspectors and incompetent and pervert teachers are protected by the union. They are taken to left-wing demonstration and taught how unfair capitalism and free enterprise is. They are indoctrinated in atheism, homosexuality, and transgenders. They are forbidden under penalty of expulsion from hugging, exchanging Christmas and Valentine’s cards and that our rights stem from government not from God. As Adolph Hitler said, “Give me a child until he is seven and he is mine.”

Obama, a skilled community organizer and follower of Saul Alinsky, knows this just as Hitler and Lenin did. His supporters will fall in step with his radical agenda of transformation and one day we will wake up to the fact that he has captured the minds and souls of our children. This is why he speaks at middle and high schools where he can draw on the emotions of these young uneducated minds.

Unless we take back our public education and begin to kick out the union teachers with their radical left-wing agenda and left-wing educated academics we will be falling off the cliff as we follow the Nazis and Communists into oblivion.

How The Teachers Unions Are Ruining Our Schools

"All the perplexities, confusion and distresses in America arise not from defects in the constitution or confederation, nor from want of honor or virtue, as much from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation." — John Adams

The Los Angeles Unified School District paid Mark Berndt, the teacher at the center of the Miramonte Elementary child-abuse scandal, $40,000 to drop a challenge to his dismissal last year. The Los Angeles Times reported:

“The payout consisted of four months of back salary plus reimbursement for the cost of health benefits. Berndt was fired by the Board of Education in February 2011 after officials learned that the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department was investigating him for alleged lewd acts against students.

He was arrested last week. The firing took Berndt off the district payroll, but he fought to keep his job through an appeal process that lasted until he settled with the school system and resigned in June.

The settlement with Berndt came in the face of a dilemma, said L.A. Unified general counsel David Holmquist. A hearing on the dismissal was pending and the district didn't have evidence to justify the firing because the Sheriff's Department investigation was ongoing.

"We were told we could not do any investigation," to avoid interfering with a law enforcement probe, Holmquist said. "We didn't have any evidence, and we couldn't put on any witnesses. We didn't have anything to successfully defend a challenge."

Berndt was charged last week with 23 counts of lewd conduct against children; another teacher, Martin Springer, was charged this week with three counts of lewd conduct. Berndt is alleged to have taken photographs of blindfolded children being spoon-fed his semen. Springer is accused of fondling a girl in his class.”

Berndt had been carrying on these despicable acts against children for years and the school and the Los Angeles Unified School District had numerous complaints from parents about is actions. It was not until a photo technician at a CVS pharmacy looked at the photos he had processed and notified the Los Angeles County Sheriff Department of what he had seen. Once sheriff department detectives viewed the photos they pulled Berndt in for questioning and ultimately charged him.

The school and LAUSD did nothing for years due to their fear of the teachers union. They knew that they could not act on parent’s complaints for fear of dealing with the union. The fact is that unless a teacher is caught in a lewd against children it is impossible to terminate him or her due to tenure and union rules. They cannot be terminated for unacceptable performance.

For years we have heard of New York City’s “Rubber Rooms” where teachers facing disciplinary actions go and do nothing while awaiting a hearing and collecting their full pay and accumulating pension and benefit points. Some of these teachers have spent as long as eleven years doing nothing while drawing their full pay. A recent example of this travesty involves a typing teacher at a New York City middle school.

After collecting his paycheck for a decade without ever setting foot in the classroom, former teacher Alan Rosenfeld retired last week, city officials said Friday.

According to a report in the Daily News:

“Rosenfeld, who earned $100,049 a year and gained notoriety for holding onto his do-nothing position since 2001, is now eligible for a pension, which could be worth more than $90,000 a year.

Though the city closed the so-called rubber rooms where teachers like Rosenfeld waited — sometimes for years — for the outcome of disciplinary action, there are still half a dozen the city can’t fire but has deemed a risk to kids.

Instead, the problem teachers are permanently assigned to the agency’s central or field offices to do administrative work, officials said.

Rosenfeld, 66, who taught typing at Intermediate School 347 in Queens, was originally brought up on charges of making inappropriate comments to female students in 2001.

An administrative judge made the decision not to fire Rosenfeld after much of the case was dismissed on procedural grounds.

Rosenfeld was found guilty of having told a student that she loved him.

The student testified Rosenfeld told her “that I love him. That’s why I talk to him so much,” according to records.

Rosenfeld was also accused oggling students rear ends and exhibiting a pattern of inappropriate behavior, but the judge did not rule on those matters.

Then-Schools Chancellor Joel Klein decided not to send Rosenfeld back to the classroom and to exile him to the rubber room.

In the midst of the political fight over the future of teacher evaluations, Rosenfeld’s case has been held up as a prime example of the difficulty of firing tenured public servants.

His case, though, does not focus on an issue of incompetence.

Rosenfeld was given satisfactory ratings by his last principal and even commendations, records show.

The case has also been used to point out bureaucratic incompetence, since city officials failed to make its case when it had the chance.

At one point, Rosenfeld, who is also a lawyer, was investigated for working on his real estate business on city time while he was in the rubber room.

No new charges were ever brought against him after that investigation, officials said Friday.”

For ten years Rosenfeld collected his pay and benefits and will now draw his pension for doing nothing. A six-year old can be expelled from school for sexual harassment by hugging a fellow student, but a teacher can look up the girl’s skirts or take pornographic photos and not be fired or disciplined. They have the union on their side, the kid only has taxpaying parents.

According to the pro-education reform documentary Waiting for ‘Superman,’ one out of every 57 doctors loses his or her license to practice medicine.

One out of every 97 lawyers loses their license to practice law.

In many major cities, only one out of 1000 teachers is fired for performance-related reasons. Why? Tenure.

Tenure is the practice of guaranteeing a teacher their job. Originally, this was a due process guarantee, something intended to work as a check against administrators capriciously firing teachers and replacing them with friends or family members. It was also designed to protect teachers who took political stands the community might disagree with. Tenure as we understand it today was first seen at the university level, where professors would work for years and publish many pieces of inspired academic work before being awarded what amounted to a job for life.

At the elementary and high school level, tenure has evolved from the original understanding of “due process” to the university-style “job for life.” In most states, teachers are awarded tenure after only a few years, at which time they become almost impossible to fire. The main function of these laws is to help bad teachers keep their jobs.

Consider New York City. The New York Daily News reports that “over the past three years [2007-2010], just 88 out of some 80,000 city schoolteachers have lost their jobs for poor performance.”

Things are no better in New York as a whole. The Albany Times Union looked at what was going on outside New York City and discovered some shocking data: Of 132,000 teachers, only 32 were fired for any reason between 2006 and 2011.

Or look at Chicago. In a school district that has by any measure failed its students — only 28.5 percent of 11th graders met or exceeded expectations on that state’s standardized tests — Newsweek reported that only 0.1 percent of teachers were dismissed for performance-related reasons between 2005 and 2008. When barely one in four students nearing graduation can read and do math, how is it possible that only one in one thousand teachers is worthy of dismissal?

In 2003, one Los Angeles union representative said: “If I’m representing them, it’s impossible to get them out. It’s impossible. Unless they commit a lewd act.” Unfortunately for the students who have to learn from these educators, virtually every teacher who works for the Los Angeles Unified School District receives tenure: In 2009, The Los Angeles Times reported that fewer than two percent of teachers are denied tenure during the two year probationary period after being hired. And once they have tenure, there’s no getting rid of them. Between 1995 and 2005, only 112 Los Angeles tenured teachers faced termination — eleven per year — out of 43,000. And that’s in a school district where the graduation rate in 2003 was just 51 percent.

One New Jersey union representative was even blunter about the work his organization does to keep bad teachers in the classroom, saying: “I’ve gone in and defended teachers who shouldn’t even be pumping gas.”

In ten years, only about 47 out of 100,000 teachers were actually terminated from New Jersey’s schools. Original research conducted by the Center for Union Facts (CUF) confirms that almost no one ever gets fired in Newark, New Jersey’s largest school district, no matter how bad. Over four recent years, CUF discovered, Newark’s school district successfully fired about one out of every 3,000 tenured teachers annually. Graduation statistics indicate that the district needs much stronger medicine: Between the 2001-2002 and the 2004-2005 school years, Newark’s graduation rate (not counting the diplomas “earned” through New Jersey’s laughable remedial exam) was a mere 30.6 percent.

The evidence that tenure laws keep bad teachers in schools is overwhelming. In New York State, outside of New York City, only about 17 tenured teachers are terminated annually. New York City’s Chancellor has revealed that in that city, only ten out of 55,000 tenured teachers were terminated in the 2006-2007 school year. In any given year in Florida, scholar Richard Kahlenberg wrote, the involuntary dismissal rate for teachers was an abysmally low 0.05 percent, “compared with 7.9 percent in the Florida workforce as a whole.” In Dallas, even when unofficial pressures to resign are factored in, only 0.78 percent of tenured teachers are terminated. Out of Tucson, Arizona’s 2,300 tenured teachers, only seven have been fired for classroom behavior in the past five years. Des Moines, Iowa a school district with almost 3,000 teachers, has fired just two for poor performance in five years.

So why don’t districts try to terminate more of their poor performers? The sad answer is that their chance of prevailing is very small. Teachers unions have ensured that even with a victory, the process is prohibitively expensive and time-consuming. In the 2006-2007 school year, for example, New York City fired only 10 of its 55,000 tenured teachers. The cost to eliminate those employees averages out to $163,142, according to Education Week. According to the Albany Times Union, the average process for firing a teacher in New York state outside of New York City proper lasts 502 days and costs more than $216,000. In Illinois, Scott Reeder of the Small Newspaper Group found it costs an average of $219,504 in legal fees alone to get a termination case past all the union-supported hurdles. Columbus, Ohio’s own teachers union president admitted to the Associated Press that firing a tenured teacher can cost as much as $50,000. A spokesman for Idaho school administrators told local press that districts have been known to spend “$100,000 or $200,000” in litigation costs just to get rid of a bad teacher.

It’s difficult even to entice the unions to give up tenure for more money. In Washington, D.C., school chancellor Michelle Rhee proposed a voluntary two-tier track for teachers. On one tier teachers could simply do nothing: Maintain regular raises and keep their tenure. On the other track, teachers could give up tenure and be paid according to how well they and their students performed with the potential to earn as much as $140,000 per year. The union wouldn’t even let that proposal come up for a vote, however, stubbornly blocking efforts to ratify a new contract for more than three years. When it finally did come up for ratification by the rank-and-file, the two-tier plan wasn’t even an option.

Most teachers absolutely deserve to keep their jobs and some have begun to speak out about the absurdity of teacher tenure, but it’s impossible to pretend that the number of firings actually reflects the number of bad teachers protected by tenure. As long as union leaders possess the legal ability to drag out termination proceedings for months or even years — during which time districts must continue paying teachers, substitute teachers to replace them, and lawyers to arbitrate the proceedings — the situation for students will not improve.

Even Al Shanker, the legendary former president of the American Federation of Teachers, admitted, “a lot of people who have been hired as teachers are basically not competent.”

No business or organization can survive with the rules and regulations the teachers unions impose on our local school districts. These unions are ripping off the taxpayers for the benefit of the union and its members. They don’t give a damn about the students they are supposed to teach. They collect dues from their members, dues that come from taxpayer money, and contribute to politicians (usually Democrats) that will increase their power.

The Dumbing Down Of America

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." — Benjamin Franklin

How many times have we seen those “man-on-the street” interviews when the interviewer will select people at random and ask them questions about history, civics or current events? Each time we see them we get a good belly laugh at the ignorance expressed by some of those interviewed. They can’t answer simple questions about our government or history. These interviews are always good for a laugh or two. I have written about this issue in my blogs several times as it this same phenomenon applies to college entrance and graduating students. Click here and here for those blogs.

The main reason these students entering college have such a poor base of knowledge of our history and government is the dumbing down of our government education system. Before continuing reading this blog please watch the video shown below.

This video was made at a middle-class Seattle high school and is no doubt a comprehensive report on the status of or high school student’s knowledge of history and government. However, it does reflect the claim of the 2008 study by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute.

I am sure had the interviewer asked these students questions about the latest pop song or entertainment idol they would have done much better. But when it comes to history, math, geography, civics or our Constitution they fail miserably. I am also sure that students in private schools or home schooled would do much better.

The educational philosophy, curriculum and testing is dumbed down to a point of realizing our children, who are bright and eager to learn, are being "numbed-down" intellectually. Why? I believe for two reasons. First, educators are required to teach to the level of the least prepared and least capable student in the classroom and, second, the curriculum has been rewritten to satisfy those who seek control and despise the history of this nation and what it truly stands for, i.e., the only true bastion of freedom in the world.

There are school districts where 50% of the girls are pregnant and have 1 to 3 children before they graduate (if they do). These same students come from mostly, one parent households and look for the welfare money to support their children and their habits. Most of them have less than a 4th grade reading level, as verified by counselors in that district. They have been "Socialized" to the point that they no longer have any desire or thought of urgency to make something of themselves; contributors to society. Their main goal is to get the welfare check from a governmental society corrupt with socialism for the past 50 to 100 years.

These same students are now 4th and 5th generation welfare recipients. It doesn't take more than the sense of a soda cracker to know which political philosophy engenders dependency on the Federal, State and Local Governments.

Counselors have broken down and weep because they have little if anything to turn to, to change the system. They spend most of their days disciplining, where allowed to, the students for whom they have stewardship. Teachers Have left school systems in New York, Detroit, Cleveland, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, and other metropolitan areas because they weren't allowed to discipline students and who feared for their lives.

Most of the teachers who remain are union dregs ridding out their tenure until their cushy retirement. They really don’t care about education or the future of the nation. They just care about their union protected job and their retirement. Oh yes, there are those few who try to swim upstream and do what they were trained to do – educate. But, they are thwarted at every turn by union rules, government regulations, non-supportive administrations and school boards, students and parents who cannot read, write or speak English and above all parents who don’t give a damn.

After all these government schools are free. The books are free, the breakfast and lunches are free and there is no accountability for results. Many of these students come from homes where they do not pay property taxes and therefor have no stake in the education system. I am sure if they had to pony up a few bucks their attitude would change when they realized they were getting ripped off.

I own a home and my children have grown and entered the workplace. When they did attend school they went to a private parochial school so I paid double. I paid for my children’s education and I also paid for the government schools, as did many other parents who chose the same course, because we were forced to. We were not even allowed to use the public school buses because of the ACLU, but we paid for them. We were really ripped off, but could do nothing about it.

Each morning I watch children in my neighborhood trundle off to middle and high school looking like street urchins. They dress like they are off to an Occupy Wall Street meeting or rock concert. Baggy pants hanging to the ground, girls in shorts and skirts that would embarrass a pole dancer. How can children learn if they do not have the discipline to be cognizant of their personal appearance and dignity? What are their parents thinking?

Study after study have found that students attending private schools (and some public schools) where there a strict dress codes do much better academically then their slovenly cousins in who come to school as they please.

Our schools are becoming a training ground for indolence, stupidity, and governmental dependency for daily sustenance and anti-intellectual breeding. I could write a book on what I've heard and experienced for the past 45 years while supporting government schools with tip of a government spear in my butt; but, most of it would be negative. My limited association with educators for the most part, has been positive. However, these same people feel absolutely helpless because they are not allowed to teach the truth about history, science, language arts or any other discipline.

They, to keep employed, teach the "numb-them-down" philosophy as dictated by the Feds and too many state and local governments and; above all the NEA and other such organizations. Teachers unions have had nothing but a corruptible almost contemptible affect both financially and morally upon those for whom they are supposed to serve. May God help us, but he won't unless we help ourselves first!

When Losing the Debate Invoke Godwin’s Law

“A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.” — Samuel Adams

Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies) is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990 that has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches In other words, Godwin observed that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably criticizes some point made in the discussion by comparing it to beliefs held by Hitler and the Nazis.

Godwin's law is often cited in online discussions as a deterrent against the use of arguments in the widespread Reductio ad Hitlerum form. The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that the likelihood of such a reference or comparison arising increases as the discussion progresses. In other words people of small minds and without facts to support their position will eventually call their opponents Nazis in hope of discrediting them and thus believing they will win the debate.

A perfect example of Godwin’s Law can be seen in the video shown below.

On Tuesday, the San Antonio Tea Party was part of a panel supported by a local public radio station – 89.1 KSTX. The topic of discussion – the DREAM Act and the problem of illegal immigration. Jonathon Bryant, a Government Studies teacher from John F. Kennedy High School attended the event along with some of his students (who, according to Bryant, may be illegals). Mr. Bryant asked a question of the panel about students that were illegal aliens and what should be done with them. After the president of the group affirmed his support for the laws governing illegal aliens in the schools, Mr. Bryant just couldn’t contain himself. He decided to invoke Godwin’s Law and levy a “Nazi” charge.

Note the smugness of this twenty something teacher as he walks away from the microphone to the cheering of his personal peanut gallery thinking he has won the debate. What a genius he is. This is a government studies teacher. What is this “cool” teacher teaching his class? What nonsense will they learn from this progressive left-wing teacher with an obvious agenda?

This is just one more example of the state of our government schools today. Not only do these union teachers have an agenda they are also mentally challenged.

In another example a 14-year-old honors student in Fort Worth, Texas, was sent to the principal’s office and punished for telling a classmate that he believes homosexuality is wrong. Fox News reported:

“Holly Pope said she was “absolutely stunned” when she received a telephone call from an assistant principal at Western Hills High School informing her that her son, Dakota Ary, had been sent to in-school suspension.

“Dakota is a very well-grounded 14-year-old,” she told Fox News Radio noting that her son is an honors student, plays on the football team and is active in his church youth group. “He’s been in church his whole life and he’s been taught to stand up for what he believes.”

And that’s what got him in trouble.

Dakota was in a German class at the high school when the conversation shifted to religion and homosexuality in Germany. At some point during the conversation, he turned to a friend and said that he was a Christian and “being a homosexual is wrong.”

“It wasn’t directed to anyone except my friend who was sitting behind me,” Dakota told Fox. “I guess [the teacher] heard me. He started yelling. He told me he was going to write me an infraction and send me to the office.”

Dakota was sentenced to one day in-school suspension – and two days of full suspension. His mother was flabbergasted, noting that her son had a spotless record, was an honor student, volunteered at his church and played on the school football team.

Officials at the high school did not return calls for comment. However, the Fort Worth Independent School District issued a statement that read:

“As a matter of course, Fort Worth ISD does not comment on specific employee or student-related issues. Suffice it to say that we are following district policy in our review of the circumstances and any resolution will likewise be in accordance with district policy.”

After a meeting with Pope and her attorney, the school rescinded the two-day suspension so Dakota would be allowed to play in an upcoming football game. Obviously they were fearful of a First Amendment lawsuit along with the adverse publicity it would bring.

“They’ve righted all the wrongs,” said Matt Krause, an attorney with the Liberty Counsel. “This should have no lasting effect on his academic or personal record going forward.”

Pope contacted the Liberty Counsel immediately after her son was punished.

“I told the school that he should never have been suspended for exercising his Constitutional rights,” Krause told Fox News Radio. “The principal is sincere in trying to do the right thing and hopefully they will tell the teacher, ‘Do not do that anymore.’ He won’t be pushing his agenda.”

Krause called the incident “mind blowing” and said the teacher had frequently brought homosexuality into ninth grade classroom discussions.

“There has been a history with this teacher in the class regarding homosexual topics,” Krause said. “The teacher had posted a picture of two men kissing on a wall that offended some of the students.”

Krause said the picture was posted on the teacher’s “world wall.”

“He told the students this is happening all over the world and you need to accept the fact that homosexuality is just part of our culture now,” Krause said.

The school district would not comment on why a teacher was discussing homosexuality in a ninth grade German class.

“In German class there should be no talk of being pro-Gay or homosexual topics,” Krause said.

Dakota’s mother said she believes the teacher should apologize.

“He should never have been punished,” Pope said. “He didn’t disrupt the class. He wasn’t threatening. He wasn’t hostile. He made a comment to his friend and the teacher overheard it.”

“My son knows people that are homosexual,” she said. “He’s not saying, ‘I don’t like you.’ He’s saying, ‘I’m a Christian and I believe that being that way is wrong.”

Students don’t lose their first amendment rights just because they go in the schoolhouse door,” Krause said.

Krause said school leaders told Dakota that in the future he should be careful when and where he talks about his opposition to homosexuality – suggesting that he talk about such matters in the hallway instead of the classroom.

He said Liberty Counsel will monitor the situation to make sure there is no future retaliation. Meantime, Pope said her son will return to the teacher’s classroom.

How much of this nonsense are we willing to accept? A union leader introducing the President of the United States at a political rally can call Tea Party members sons of bitches and the President did not blink an eye responding that he is not the “speech police.” Yet Christians and conservatives have to talk in whispers in dark places so as not to be overheard and sanctioned by the thought police. Where was the ACLU, that bastion of civil liberties, in this case? Without Christian-based legal organizations such as Liberty Counsel Dakota Ary would have been deprived of his First Amendment rights by vindictive, homosexual teacher and a weak school board.

Another Example of Tyranny from the Left

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. — First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

I have written ad nausea about the fact that tyranny has always began from the left, not the right. It has always been the progressive liberals that have wanted to impose their will on the people. Another example of this is illustrated by a recent example what has happened to school teacher in Florida.

Lake County Schools in Florida suspended Jerry Buell, a high-school teacher with a reportedly impeccable record for 22 years, for posting his opposition to New York’s new gay-marriage law, and will start termination proceedings against him. The case will test First Amendment rights and encroaching political correctness:

“Jerry Buell, a veteran American history teacher at Mount Dora High School, was removed from his teaching duties as school officials in Lake County investigate allegations that what he posted was biased towards homosexuals.

“We took the allegations seriously,” said Chris Patton, a communication officer with Lake County Schools. “All teachers are bound by a code of special ethics (and) this is a code ethics violation investigation.”

Patton said the school system received a complaint on Tuesday about something Buell had written last July when New York legalized same sex unions. On Wednesday, he was temporarily suspended from the classroom and reassigned.”

So what did Buell write on his Facebook page that was so offensive to the political correct tyranny of the left? His first comment was posted on July 25 at 5:43 p.m. as he was eating dinner and watching the evening news:

“I’m watching the news, eating dinner when the story about New York okaying same-sex unions came on and I almost threw up,” he wrote. “And now they showed two guys kissing after their announcement. If they want to call it a union, go ahead. But don’t insult a man and woman’s marriage by throwing it in the same cesspool of whatever. God will not be mocked. When did this sin become acceptable?”

Three minutes later, Buell posted another comment:

“By the way, if one doesn’t like the most recently posted opinion based on biblical principles and God’s laws, then go ahead and unfriend me. I’ll miss you like I miss my kidney stone from 1994. And I will never accept it because God will never accept it. Romans chapter one.”

The school district suspended Buell, who had been the school’s Teacher of the Year in 2010-11, because thelley are concerned that gay students might be “frightened or intimidated” in his class. That’s a pretty thin rationale for punishing someone over what appears to be more or less mainstream opposition to the gay-marriage law. Even saying the above in a classroom would be a thin rationale for disciplinary action, unless school districts will be taking action against all teachers who talk politics in the classroom, and a Facebook posting is not a classroom speech.

If school districts are worried about hate speech outside the classroom, wouldn’t we be demanding that these Wisconsin teachers get fired?

Wonder how many of these were talking about the Wisconsin PEU reform in their classrooms? A few of them brought their students out to protest, as I recall. Should they be suspended and fired, too? Isn’t this “intimidating and frightening” to conservative-minded students in Wisconsin?

A recurring theme here is how The Left redefines what they want when they want to advance their extremist agenda. How else can it sell policies in contravention to the commonsense, traditional, natural and foundational — a way of life counter to all that is intuitive and instinctive? More than that, it will take opponents’ statements or positions, as straightforward as they may be, and literally (ironically) repurpose the statement or position into something utterly not what it is. If a conservative says he’s for a balanced budget without raising taxes, leftists will excoriate him for saying he favors starving the poor, and no amount of facts will set the record straight in the Left’s collective mind. To the Left, its what it wants you to have said so it can demagogue you.

Teachers are American citizens with same rights as every other American citizen. They get to have opinions and express them publicly. The school can and should control classroom conduct, and should butt out of other speech entirely. And here’s a lesson about free speech and the Constitution that Lake County Schools apparently hasn’t grasped: there is no freedom from offense built into the First Amendment. We don’t curtail speech on the off chance it might hurt someone’s feelings. If we did, we wouldn’t have any free political speech at all. And I would make the same argument in support of a teacher suspended from a public school for offering Facebook support for New York’s gay-marriage bill.

In steps the school district’s communications officer, Chris Patton is way off base. Not only was what Mr. Buell wrote “disturbing” (his opinion is disturbing but two men kissing on television is not?), but none of what he wrote is “personal.” According to the Minister of Information Mr. Patton:

“He has (more than) 700 friends. How private is that — really? Social media can be troubling if you don’t respect it and know that just because you think you are in a private realm — it’s not private.”

First, it was his personal opinion. Of course, once he wrote it, it was no longer something he held to himself. All opinions are personal and we know each other’s’ personal opinions because we tell each other! If it was private he’d never have announced it. Facebook is a place where you choose your friends and share what you want. Is Mr. Buell’s time on the social media giant relegated to clicking “likes’ on sports contests and posting updates on the lines at the grocery store?

Second, one’s personal Facebook account is not a school district maintained site. That might be different given whatever rules it might establish. Third, do Lake County employees forsake their rights to have opinions? Especially given his occupation — academic freedom anyone? The same Left defends to the death professors who demagogue outrageous and preposterous assertions and promulgate the most offensive theories on faith and country.

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. Freedom of expression consists of the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the implied rights of association and belief. The Supreme Court interprets the extent of the protection afforded to these rights. The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. Furthermore, the Court has interpreted the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments.

The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right of freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicate a message. The level of protection speech receives also depends on the forum in which it takes place.

Despite popular misunderstanding the right to freedom of the press guaranteed by the first amendment is not very different from the right to freedom of speech. It allows an individual to express themselves through publication and dissemination. It is part of the constitutional protection of freedom of expression. It does not afford members of the media any special rights or privileges not afforded to citizens in general.

I wonder if Mr. Buell would have received a similar punishment had he posted comments expressing his disapproval of the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan or Governor Scott Walker’s actions in Wisconsin opposing collective bargaining for public school teachers. The answer is probably no. The left is selective when it comes to free speech, it always has been. Its mantra is free speech for me but not for thee.

Just look what public figures and politicians have had to say about the Tea Party with Senator John Kerry advocating censorship of Tea Party opinions in the media when he said:

“And I have to tell you, I say this to you politely, the media in America has a bigger responsibility than it’s exercising today. The media has got to begin to not give equal time or equal balance to an absolutely absurd notion just because somebody asserts it or simply because somebody says something which everybody knows is not factual.”

And:

“It doesn’t deserve the same credit as a legitimate idea about what you do. And the problem is everything is put into this tit-for-tat equal battle and America is losing any sense of what’s real, of who’s accountable, of who is not accountable, of who’s real, who isn’t, who’s serious, who isn’t.”

I wonder if that bastion of liberty, the ACLU, will take Mr. Buell’s case and bring a whopping suit against the Lake County School District. And what about that special code of ethics Mr. Patton is referring to? What are those ethics? Do the prohibit dragging middle school children out of class to protest an anti-collective bargaining bill or to a rally for liberal politician? Do they include union teachers openly protesting Arizona’s immigration bill? Do they include teachers going to a NEA convention and openly protesting conservatives and holding rallies in support of Gay marriage, illegal immigration, and other left-wing causes?

These are rhetorical questions and the answer to each one is probably no. Mr. Patton is espousing a very thin reason for the dismissal of Mr. Buell. I would imagine the attorneys for the Lake County School Board are not very pleased with the actions of who ever made the decision to suspend Mr. Buell over hos Facebook comments. They no doubt are trying to figure out how they will be paying Mr. Buell the compensation he will receive from his suit and how the will wipe the egg of the faces of the school board members.

La Raza’s Infiltration of the Tucson School District

“Mexican immigration poses challenges to our policies and to our identity in a way nothing else has in the past.” — Samuel P. Huntington

In my most recent Blog I discussed the history of the Statue of Liberty and the process and effects of legal immigration. In the closing segment I touched on the effects on our culture and laws legal and illegal Mexican and Central American immigrants are having in our schools and society in general. No case better illustrates that fact and is more egregious than what is happening in the Tucson Unified School District (TUSD). And this tearing down of our traditional values, mores and education is sponsored by the University of Arizona.

Organizations such as The National Council of La Raza (NCLR) and MEChA are pushing their Aztlán ideology down the throats of the people of Tucson, Arizona and the United States. They want the southwest returned to Mexico.

According to a report issued by the Tucsonans United for Sound School Districts (tu4sd.org):

“In 1978, TUSD was placed under an order to desegregate its schools because the district was found to be “perpetuating vestiges of discrimination.” While TUSD was not the only Arizona school district in such a circumstance, it was the largest and best known. Over the past 30 years, TUSD has received more than a billion dollars to help desegregate its schools. The district has been reluctant to give up this extra funding even though the Post Unitary Status Plan (PUSP) was adopted that removed the district from the original order.

On Dec. 18, 2009, the court approved the Post Unitary Status Plan as adopted by the Governing Board of TUSD on July 30, 2009. The court acknowledged that the district would operate for the advocacy and equal advantage of every child, much to the surprise of many community members dedicated to closing the vast achievement gaps that are ignored or swept under the proverbial rug by the district. Federal oversight of the operation of the Tucson Unified School District has ended.

One requirement of the PUSP was the inclusion of ethnic studies programs for four groups of students: African-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Native-Americans, and Asian Americans. Ethnic Studies is comprised of all four departments. Each group has a separate program and they are all different. The African American Studies, Native-Americans Studies, and Pan Asian Americans, offer comprehensive services to their target students, including mentoring, tutoring, and counseling services. Unlike the holistic services offered to other minority groups, the Mexican American/Raza Studies department only offers classes to their students. The classes in this program also have a specific social justice, critical race theory, focus that was not dictated by the PUSP. The fear of further legal action by ethnic advocacy groups has been a factor in the continuation of a program that has given rise to as many questions as the Raza Studies Program has.”

This program has been specifically designed for the Tucson Unified School District's Mexican-American Studies Problem by the University of Arizona's Mexican-American Studies Program:

Mike Shaw wrote for MikeShaw TV on May 2, 2011:

“America saw the results of teaching a racist curriculum to an impressionable group of kids and many may be wondering, "what is going on down there?" I spend nearly 8 minutes trying to answer that question, and honestly, it's not nearly enough time. Many thanx [sic] to the fine folks with Tucsonans United for Sound Districts (TU4SD.com) for all of the information. Loretta Hunnicutt (who appeared on the Fox News Channel’s Glenn Beck Show), her husband John and long-time educator Richard Kronberg have decided to stand for what is right even though they are paying a high personal price.

Watch the video and please excuse my voice. I've been coughing all week and it's fading. Still, I hope the story gives you a better idea of what La Raza Studies is all about at TUSD.”

“As for the University of Arizona Professor that is apparently very much involved in the alleged indoctrination of students. There is a much larger story there. From what I know at this time, it sounds like Professor Roberto Rodriguez, professor of Mexican-American Studies at the University of Arizona, is hoping to export Tucson's version of Mexican-American Studies to the rest of the country. Hopefully, if time allows, I can do a story of how Social Justice is being taught overtly and covertly to America's future teachers and administrators at the U of A and across the country.”

The Tucson Unified School District superintendent in the middle of a push to have a radical Mexican-American studies class changed to an elective, has now backed down from his position, even going as far as to issue an apology. The change follows two wild demonstrations at consecutive school board meetings, one in which students chained themselves to desks, and another in which the riot police were called in.

According to a May 19^th report on The Blaze.com:

“Superintendent John Pedicone told local station KOLD-TV that he sent a letter to UNIDOS — the radical student group opposing the change — and the Mexican American Studies Community Advisory Board saying he has now advised the TUSD governing board to “table and not consider the resolution to make Mexican American Studies an elective.” (Quote is not Pedicone’s, but rather KOLD’s.)

Also contained in at least one of the letters is a promise that he won’t recommend charges against those who were arrested during the rowdy protests.

“We simply have to kind of bring that level of anxiety down to where we can begin to talk reasonably about this program, which we, which I think the district has said from the very beginning it supports,” Pedicone told KOLD. He later added: “I can’t speak for individual board members or others, but from my perspective it’s more important to bring the tone to a level where we can have a conversation and begin to have levels of understanding for the sake of the district. That’s really my responsibility.”

This so called ethnic studies program is nothing but a racist piece of crap promoted by the NCLR and MEChA. In my opinion it borders on teaching treason against the United States of America in our public schools. Currently, a class that teaches history from a Mexican-American perspective is allowed to substitute for the required U.S. history class. But the school superintendent also wants to reevaluate the entire program (and possibly get rid of the class), “in part because it advocates the overthrow of the U.S. government.”

You can read the class curriculums by clicking here. If this is not advocating the overthrow of the United States Government I don’t know what is. Even the Communists of the 30s, 40s and 50s were not this brazen: In the findings of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction the Mexican-American ethnic studies program advocates:

1. Promote the overthrow of the United States Government
2. Promote resentment toward a race or class of people
3. Are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group
4. Advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.

As the Tucson Independent Daily reported just weeks after writing an op-ed for their paper decrying the ethnic studies program and its curriculum and goals he reversed himself by writing a letter to the Mexican American Studies Committee that he would table any recommended changes in the program:

“Just weeks ago John Pedicone, Superintendent of Tucson Unified School District addressed his concerns regarding the adult manipulation of the young people who stormed the TUSD Boardroom and chained themselves to Board members’ chairs. In an opinion piece for the Arizona Daily Star, he wrote, “Some would have you believe this action was taken by a group of students who just made a plan to express their dissent. That is not accurate. It is clear adults both helped to plan and influence the outcome of that night.”

In a sudden and unilateral move, Pedicone wrote letters of apology for his “role in the situation in which we find ourselves,” to those students and some of the adults who are believed to have manipulated the students. In separate letters to the self-appointed and unofficial Mexican American Advisory Board and the group calling themselves UNIDOS, made up of many non-TUSD students, Pedicone misrepresented the Board’s position and appeared to make promises he is not in the position to make.

His claim in these letters that, “The State Superintendent of Public Instruction will be making a decision about whether the program is considered illegal under ARS 15-112 and any action related to this program should wait for that decision. This has been the Governing Board’s position from the beginning and it is with regret that any subsequent action resulted in the current situation,” are contrary to all evidence. In fact, it was a resolution to make the MAS classes electives that led to the manipulation of the protesting students in the first place. They acted to prevent a vote by the Board for the change of status.

Pedicone writes, "Further, TUSD has no intention of pressing charges against any of the individuals cited at either the April 26 or May 3 meetings." However, the Board has not voted on the issue to press charges or not.”

In his letter to the student group UNIDOS, he praises the students’ input as “valuable” and requests a meeting to establish “open dialogue.”

But as the Tucson Independent Daily points out, Pedicone’s sudden change-of-heart is curious, considering that just over two weeks ago he wrote an op-ed in the Arizona Star outraged over the protests and saying the students were being “exploited” and used as “pawns:”

“My immediate concern focuses on the events that led up to the decision on the part of a number of adults and students who engaged in an action that interfered with the operation of government.

The manner in which it occurred was, to many people inside and outside of the organization, shocking and abhorrent.

Some would have you believe this action was taken by a group of students who just made a plan to express their dissent. That is not accurate.

It is clear adults both helped to plan and influence the outcome of that night.

If you take a moment to examine the resolution by the student group, Unidos, you will see the demands include issues involving the Mexican-American Ethnic Studies program, the repeal of state laws, school closures and turnaround schools, United Nations human rights and the removal of state governmental officials.

In my opinion, students have been led to believe their basic rights to an honest discussion of their heritage are at risk. Students have been convinced the school district is attempting to eliminate a program that simply tells the truth and this action is associated with concerns about immigration and a broad range of issues at the state and federal levels.

Students have been exploited and are being used as pawns to serve a political agenda that threatens this district and our community. Just as high school and university students led the charge to the Governing Board dais on Tuesday, they are being used to lead the charge for those who wish to make this a civil rights issue.”

This issue is ripping the Tucson community apart. In typical Saul Alinsky and Cloward & Piven strategy it is creating chaos and distrust of the public education system. Just imagine had we had a German-American ethnic studies program in our schools during WWII. What would it have taught? Perhaps the curriculum would have included the superiority of the Aryan Race or the reestablishment of great Germany including the Rhineland, Sudeten Land and Austria. Another class topic might have been how to identify the Jew by the shape of the skull. As factious as this may sound it is really no different than the critical race theory being taught in the TUSD’s Mexican Studies program.

The Critical Race Theory (CRT) is an intellectual and politically committed movement in American legal scholarship that studies race, racism and power. Originating in American law schools, critical race theory has made its way into ethnic studies, political science and education. Its premise is that everything is predicated on race and not the individual. As far as I am concerned, after reading the arguments put forth by the proponents CRT it is just another way of expressing the Nazis racial policies against the Jews and so called “untermensch” like the Poles, Slavs and Russians, which was based on the liberal, progressive theory of eugenics. In short it is crap!

Once you begin defining people by the racial or ethnic group they belong to you are leading them down to road to a victim mentality. Once this happens they are lost as they will always blame someone or something for their unhappy state of life. This is what is being taught in our government schools today.

The project mission statement for the TUSD Social Justice Education Project reads:

“What makes America great?. Is it education, culture, feeling of a home, suffering, struggling, fictitious manufactured plans by forefathers, immigrants, advantages to gringos, diversity, lying, wealth, activism, depression, disease, action, greed, is America great?” ~TUSD Social Justice Education Project, “Decolonize and Reclaim

The purpose of a nation allowing immigration is for those immigrants to become loyal, productive citizens of that nation. They should become part of the existing national culture not form separate enclaves retaining their ethnic culture while reaping the benefits of the society they have immigrated to. They should learn that nation’s history and language. How can a Mexican-American understand the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence if they cannot read, write or speak English?

If this Arizona ethnic studies program was a local issue we might not be as concerned. But it is sweeping across the nation as other school districts are kowtowing to the bone-headed academics that are promoting this junk. The motto that appears our coins, currency and the Great Seal of the United States is; E Pluribus Unum (out of many one), not E Unum Pluribus.