By Seton Motley
There was once a long and fabulous tradition in American politics. A president, once no longer President, kept his trap shut about his successors. This is a very (small “r”) republican thing to do. Americans peaceably elected the next person – and Americans and the world need only hear from one president at a time.
(That we for the rest of their lives refer to ex-officials by their official titles is inordinately non-small-r-republican – but that is a discussion for another time.)
Cracks in the dam of Presidents not speaking ill of their successors began with Democrat Jimmy Carter. And the new tradition that has developed – is Democrat ex-presidents speaking ill of Republicans who follow.
Once out of office, Republican Ronald Reagan night totally held his tongue. So too, for the most part, have both George Bushes. Democrats – not so much. Democrat Bill Clinton had a built-in excuse to denigrate – his wife continued in government work after he left it. And now there is Democrat Barack Obama.
Obama’s successor – Republican Donald Trump – was sworn in on January 20th. Candidate Trump became President Trump – in large part because the American people had tired of Obama’s way-too-much-government approach to things.
Obama managed to hold his tongue about Trump – for all of nine days. And it’s not what he’s saying – it’s what he’s doing – that is a whole new level of anti-republicanism.
Obama has built an apparatus and an army – to attack the Trump Administration: “If you think you’re going crazy from nonstop news coverage of unruly behavior and disruptive protests across the country since Donald Trump was elected president, rest assured there are veiled reasons for the current madness. Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Michael Goodwin asserts the ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome,’ is no temporarily insane reaction, but rather ‘a calculated plan to wreck the presidency, whatever the cost to the country.’…The primary vehicle of this campaign is Organizing for Action (OFA), legally founded in January 2013 by First Lady Michelle Obama and her husband’s 2012 campaign manager Jim Messina, with input from David Axelrod.”
These are sore losers – light years beyond the scope of any sore losers who’ve lost before them. These are people willing if not eager to burn America to the ground – in order to “save” it from a restoration of its Constitutional, small “r” republican originalism.
A restoration – on which Trump incessantly campaigned. Against which Obama and his anointed, putative successor Hillary Clinton – incessantly campaigned. And We the People picked A – and not B. And B steadfastly refuses to take our “No” for an answer.
The OFA hordes aside, is Obama the only un-elected administration official engaged in undoing the election? Of course not – don’t be ridiculous.
Former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler Blasts His Replacement, Supports Net Neutrality: “It’s only been a month since Tom Wheeler stepped down from his post as chairman of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC)….Wheeler was instrumental in advancing the cause of net neutrality….In 2015, (Wheeler’s) FCC reclassified broadband providers as ‘Title II’ common carriers…’We put out a report…on a violation of [net neutrality] rules,’ Wheeler said. ‘Then [current FCC Chairman Ajit] Pai came in, and immediately repudiated that [and] took it down.’”
For your additional edification: Title II regulations – date back to 1887 railroad monopoly regulations. To apply them to the ultra-dynamic 21st Century Internet – is profoundly stupid, way-too-much-government policy. (And to do so without Congress – is nigh certainly illegal.) The Obama-Wheeler FCC imposed railroad regs on the Internet – to “grant” themselves “permission” to then impose Net Neutrality – which is also profoundly stupid, way-too-much-government policy. (And, really, to do so without Congress – is also nigh certainly illegal.)
So when you see “protests” against a rollback of Obama way-too-much-government policy – remember that it is almost certainly members of the OFA Sore Loser Clown Show. Who are purporting to represent We the People – but are in actuality standing in steadfast opposition to us.
Trump ran for the office – repudiating way-too-much-government policy all along the way. And he won – We the People chose him over the Clinton way-too-much-government status quo.
And Trump has begun implementing the less government vision. So too is Pai – Trump’s choice to Chair the FCC. As is their right – in fact, their electoral imperative – as We the People’s duly elected presidential administration.
Obama and Wheeler don’t have to like it. They used to have to lump it. No more. That small-r-republican tradition has been sadly, sorely diminished.
And Obama is now proactively working to obliterate it. Which is truly terrible for the nation he oh-so-recently led.
[Originally Published at RedState]Next Page »
By Rob Natelson
There is an adage—restated many times and by many authors—that you can tell more about a person’s character by how he treats his social “inferiors” than by how he treats those equal to or above him. A middle-manager who abuses the office janitor shows a character defect. The adage holds this abuse reveals more about the manager’s character than if the manager is “nice” to other managers and to his or her supervisors.
A direct political analogue is how groups conduct themselves in rallies and public demonstrations. Do they act peacefully and clean up after themselves, or do they riot and leave a mess for public-sanitation workers? Although there may be many individual differences within any group, the adage suggests far better character, on average, among the former cohort.
A few years ago, Tea Party groups protested widely against the federal government’s overspending and overregulation. These protests could be vigorous and overwrought, but almost invariably the participants acted peacefully and cleaned up after themselves. I asked Mark Meckler, one of the movement’s most prominent leaders, what he and other organizers did to ensure individuals did not leave a mess for others to deal with. Here is what he reported:
“The Tea Party movement was largely self-policing, which was the most amazing part,” said Meckler. “I’m sure that good, neighborly behavior was encouraged, but the reality is that this is just how folks on the right generally behave. We believe in the rule of law. We believe in the right to “peaceably” assemble. We believe in private property rights. And we believe in the Golden Rule. Were we ‘angry?’ Sure, we were—and frankly, we still are. But we were civil, non-destructive, and certainly never criminal. These are hallmarks of conservative protests and are the exact opposite of what one sees on the left.”
Meckler is certainly correct about “what one sees on the left.” The mess created by “progressive” rallies and demonstrations has become legendary. The “Occupy” movement left tons of litter for hapless sanitation workers to clean up after their 2011 protests. More recently, the did the same. The Black Lives Matter movement has been even worse, adding riots and looting to their mounds of trash.
It is fair to conclude the behavioral contrast tells us something about the character of the participants in these movements, but does the contrast also reflect on their arguments? Strictly speaking, to reject an argument because of the identity of the arguer is the classic ad hominem fallacy. The identity of the person making a claim does not, by itself, prove or disprove the correctness of the claim.
Yet everyone recognizes that the identity of the arguer can be one legitimate consideration for judging an argument. We recognize this officially in our campaign disclosure laws; a principal justification for those laws is the identity, interest, and character of those funding a campaign reflect on the campaign’s merits. The identity, interests, and character of a candidate’s supporters tell us something about the candidate.
You can carry this too far, of course, but all things being equal, would you rather have a person in a position of power who appeals to decent, conscientious people—or one who panders to rioters and metaphorical pigs?
Thus, the stark difference between the conduct of conservative and left-wing protests reflects on the merits of what they say. That difference is also a reason the facile equivalencies some draw between the Tea Party movement and protests on the left are highly offensive.
It is common to say, “Good people can differ.” This is absolutely true, but it does not follow that because they differ they are all good.
[Originally Published at the Daily Caller]Next Page »
By Teresa Mull
America just finished celebrating Presidents Day, but in this instance, “celebrating” means something entirely different than it usually does. Few people—other than the “Not My President Day” crowd—did anything more to acknowledge our past and present commanders-in-chief than get out of town for the long weekend and sleep in a little later than usual on Monday morning.
Some suggest we don’t celebrate the achievements and contributions of our forefathers with fireworks and parades in part because Presidents Day takes place during the dreariest time of year, but I think it has more to do with the fact Americans, especially children, are ignorant of the great hardships our predecessors endured, as well as the triumphs they earned to win us the freedoms we now exercise and often take for granted.
The more I learn about our public education system, the more I suspect it is intentionally designed to keep kids ignorant of our history, rights, and freedoms. The Education Commission of the States and the National Center for Learning and Civic Engagement recently issued an updated review of the status of civic education in the United States. The report found states are requiring students to study civics but most are not making the mastery of civics education a priority. And judging from student outcomes, schools that are teaching civics aren’t doing it very well.
“Even though all 50 states and the District of Columbia technically require some civic education, advocates say many districts don’t take those policies very seriously, and few states actually hold schools accountable for students’ civics’ outcomes,” The Atlantic reported in 2015. “Just about a fourth of high school seniors in 2014 scored ‘proficient’ on the federal-government’s civics exam. Proficiency levels were equally lousy for eighth-graders.”
Similarly, in 2009, the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI) released results from its “sixty-question multiple-choice exam on knowledge of American history, government, foreign affairs, and market economics.” ISI administered the survey “to over 14,000 college freshmen and seniors nationwide.” In ISI’s results for both 2006 and 2007, “The average freshman and average senior failed the exam.”
In 2008, ISI expanded the study to examine a “random, representative sample of 2,508 American adults.” ISI reported, “Respondents were asked thirty-three questions (click here to see the questions and take the quiz yourself), many drawn from U.S. naturalization exams and U.S. Department of Education high school progress tests (NAEP). Seventy-one percent of Americans failed this basic test. The overall average score was only 49 percent, with college graduates also failing at 57 percent.”
Are U.S. citizens’ dismal performances on civics-education exams a coincidence, or is the neglect of such education a deliberate maneuver by leftists who control our public education system?
“Self-government”—the foundation of everything taught in American civics—is opposed to modern liberal ideology, which seeks to tell everyone how to think and act so that the “collective” will supposedly end up better off. Knowing how our government works or should work according to our Constitution can’t possibly help the left succeed in accomplishing its mission to make as many people as possible dependent on an all-powerful government. It shouldn’t come as a surprise then that our public school systems, which are overrun with people who have accepted leftism, are disinterested in teaching children about their “inalienable” rights, checks and balances in government, and the clearly defined (and limited) enumerated powers in present in the Constitution.
Such a theory would also explain why civics education has been swept under the rug in favor of flashy trends such as “STEM” education and “career readiness training.”
Margaret E. Fisher, distinguished practitioner in residence at the Seattle University School of Law, is leading the Council on Public Legal Education’s Civic Learning Initiative “to bolster civic learning for Washington State students.” Fisher told me in an interview many educators she’s talked to say they simply don’t have time to teach civics, because the pressures imposed by higher authorities to prepare students for onerous standardized tests are overwhelming.
Patrick J. Deneen, who teaches political theory at the University of Notre Dame, asserts his students are “know-nothings,” and he sums up his theory why in an outstanding Free Porch Republic article: “Our students’ ignorance is not a failing of the educational system – it is its crowning achievement. Efforts by several generations of philosophers and reformers and public policy experts whom our students (and most of us) know nothing about have combined to produce a generation of know-nothings.
“We have fallen into the bad and unquestioned habit of thinking that our educational system is broken, but it is working on all cylinders,” Deneen wrote. “What our educational system aims to produce is cultural amnesia, a wholesale lack of curiosity, historyless free agents, and educational goals composed of contentless processes and unexamined buzz-words like ‘critical thinking,’ ‘diversity,’ ‘ways of knowing,’ ‘social justice,’ and ‘cultural competence.’”
Civics education has not simply fallen by the wayside; there is an ongoing, concerted effort to keep the masses ignorant of the rights and freedoms that are so dangerous to those who are working daily to grow an already massive government. How else can we explain the seemingly inexplicable decision made by the education establishment to refuse to teach our children the fundamental aspects and inner workings of our free society?
[Originally Published at Townhall]Next Page »
If you don’t yet subscribe to the Daily Jolt by National Review’s Jim Geraghty, you need to do that. It gives you great information on the “conventional wisdom” of DC from a guy who does not subscribe to all that stuff. Subscribe here.
Geraghty’s morning email pulls out a few stories buzzing at the moment, and provides priceless insight into them. I’m a long-time subscriber, and what I really love about Jim’s email newsletter is how he has his eye on things you might not have seen.
He did so Friday when he commented on the decision by 49ers QB Colin Kaepernick’s decision to no longer kneel down to make a leftist political statement. I’m sure it’s a conincidence he’s going to be a free agent in a week – meaning he’ll be looking for a job in the NFL from a general manager not keen to bring all his SJW baggage with him.
Jim excerpted a commentary on this by sports columnist Jason Whitlock, who happens to also be black, and has never been too keen about the ugly collision of leftist politics and sports.
“This hyper-progressive movement that has lurched into sports and changed the conversation about sports and in sports TV. … So much of the conversation is inconsistent with the values of sports culture. I’m gonna say it until I’m blue in the face: Sports culture is conservative and religious! And we’ve turned ‘conservative’ into a curse word in this country and it’s just not.
“We’re turning off our base, our base of support. The people that coach Pee Wee football, the people that participate in Pee Wee football all the way through, we’re making them uncomfortable by inviting in all these people that really don’t care about sports, don’t love sports — they have a political agenda — and they’re leading the conversation about sports? It’s turning people off.”
In that very same Daily Jolt, Geraghty throws a lot of cold water upon the idea that the dawn of the Trump presidency has ushered in an Orwellian dystopia.
Orwell’s 1984 is a brilliant, unforgettable warning about the dangers of an all-powerful state, cults of personality, mankind’s capacity for cognitive dissonance, and the willingness to believe what is obviously false in order to preserve a fatally flawed worldview. But the book’s memorable phrases and concepts are also now so chronically overused as a criticism of political leaders that they’re clichéd and, I suspect, easy to tune out if you don’t already agree that Leader X is a power-mad, ruthlessly manipulative tyrant-in-waiting.
The America of 2017 is the same as America has always been: a mix of good and bad, noble and selfish, exercised liberties and runaway politicians and bureaucrats. Of course we have problems, but overheated comparisons to dystopian novels obscure more than they illuminate and conveniently forget that we’ve seen much worse.
Maybe Fox News strikes you as a modern day Ministry of Truth, airbrushing away any criticism of the regime. But it’s worth remembering that there was a time when such criticism was criminalized in America by Woodrow Wilson’s Sedition Act.
If you believe Trump’s private security guards have the potential to become a force of unaccountable loyalist thugs, I’d like to introduce you to Mayor Richard Daley and the Chicago Police Department of 1968.
Perhaps you feel the new administration’s discussion of Muslims and terrorism is scaremongering, and like Representative Keith Ellison, you argue against it by quoting Franklin Roosevelt’s “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” Of course, Roosevelt later rounded up Japanese Americans and put them into internment camps.
It’s not hard to find people who insist Trump is authoritarian because of the things he says. But authoritarians are not defined by the things they say; they’re defined by the things they do. The judicial branch already struck down Trump’s executive order on refugees. Despite Trump’s hyperbolic denunciations of the media, America’s press remains as free and vibrant as ever. The first weeks of the new presidency have not been marked by a meek and obedient Congress but by one that can’t unify behind a single legislative agenda.
There’s more. Read it here.
And subscribe to Jim Geraghty’s great daily email.Next Page »
By Seton Motley
The joke is so old and repetitive – because the joke that is environmentalism and environmentalists is so old and repetitive. Time and again, nigh every time environmentalists gather to gripe about some fairy tale or other – or to simply listen to tunes,– they have left behind an environmental disaster.
Remember? The 1969 Peace, Love and Narcotics concert in New York state? These “ “ worshippers – left the concert field looking like a nuclear trash bomb had been dropped. Ironic – given the Hippies’ “ ” movement.
Flash forward forty years. Remember? That was the second iteration of the Left’s series of failed attempts to replicate the germane grassroots magic of the Tea Party (remember the ?). Occupy’s chief complaint was against corporations (about which they vigorously complained on Twitter, Inc. and Facebook, Inc. – via their Apple, Inc. iPhones and Samsung, Inc. Galaxies). Of course a component of their anti-corporation sentiment – was that corporations are destroying the planet. They’re evil, they’re giant – and they mass-pollute.
You know who definitely destroyed their little corners of the planet?. “They…were…the 99%” – of the massive mess makers in their anti-corporate equation. They defecated and urinated on police cars. Because – classy. They lived in filth – and left it behind when they vamoosed. Leaving the corporations and straight-job-having-taxpayers they loathe to pick up the tab for their noxious tantrums.
Has the Left finally learned its lesson? Have the planet’s alleged physicians finally healed themselves? Of course not. The joke then – is still the joke now. Behold the Dakota Access Pipeline protest.
The environmental-disaster environmentalists gathered along the North Dakota-South Dakota border to protest a certain section of the aforementioned pipeline. And that gathering – was a donation-cash-cow.
GoFundMe and FundRazr pages were established – and the coin rolled. Official Sacred Stone Camp –. Sacred Stone Camp Legal Defense Fund – . Veterans for Standing Rock – . Water Protector Legal Collective – . #BuildWithStandingRock Community – . Last Real Indians #NoDAPL Aid – . And on, and on, and….
In toto, nearly $14 million was raised in the name of stopping the pipeline (which they ultimately failed to do – as President Donald Trump). “Leftist Volunteer Protester” is, , a highly lucrative gig. (Except when the Leftist paymasters .)
Now it is understandable that rank-and-file Leftist protest gadflies aren’t used to earning money – and are thus unfamiliar with the concept of income taxes. So North Dakota Tax Commissioner Ryan Rauschenberger issued a : “‘[We’re] looking at the entities that have potential paid contractors here on their behalf doing work.’…Mr. Rauschenberger said red flags will be raised if he doesn’t start seeing W2 or 1099 tax forms from those affiliated with the protest arriving at his office.”
$14 million for volunteer protesters – is a lot of coin. But it is way less than thetaxpayers have already had to pay – to deal with the highly-compensated volunteer protesters. And along with the wasted money, thousands and thousands of civil servant man hours have been wasted babysitting them. If you live anywhere near this Leftist pipeline cabal and had to, while being robbed or assaulted, wait a whole lot longer for the cops to show – it is because they were diverted to dealing with this Leftist pipeline cabal.
And taxpayers aren’t yet finished paying for this Leftist mess. Because the Leftists – left yet another mess.
$6 million of the $14 million raised – went directly to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. The Indians protesting the pipeline. The coin was donated to allegedly address three things: legal fees for their lawsuits against the Army Corps of Engineers, waste management at the protest site – and to offset Indian casino gambling revenue losses incurred because of the protest they were leading.
Get that last bit? They led a protest they knew would cost them money – and they had the audacity to ask people to compensate them for their self-inflicted wounds. The other two reasons for the titanic coin – make even less sense.
Legal fees? EarthJustice – the environmentalist lawyer group representing the Tribe –. (And EarthJustice is undoubtedly raising money its own self on their ridiculous pipeline litigiousness.)
Waste management? The protesters appear to know less about this –: “Sanitation crews are working hard to dispose of six months’ worth of garbage from a community the size of Wahpeton or Valley City. The mountains of debris need to be moved before the spring thaw occurs….’Standing Rock Environmental Protection Agency and Dakota Sanitation are working together to try and advert an environmental tragedy,’ says Tom Doering, Morton County Emergency Manager. It’s estimated it will take 250 trucks filled with litter to clear the camp….Each load that’s dumped is inspected by the Morton County Sheriff’s Department.”
Get that? All of that cleanup work – is being done taxpayer-funded government entities. Not by anyone paid by the Tribe.: “The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has moved into the evacuated Dakota Access pipeline protest camp to finish the cleanup….”
Get that? The (again, taxpayer-funded) Army Corps of Engineers is being sued by the Tribe – and has to pay to clean up after the Tribe. While the Tribe sits on the millions it raised – putatively to pay for clean up.
Again, the anti-environment environmentalists joke – is a very old one. It wasn’t funny then – it isn’t funny now.
But it does make it nigh impossible to take environmentalism and environmentalists seriously.
[Originally Published at Red State]Next Page »
By Robert Holland
Over the past 15 years, numerous scholarly organizations have lamented the severe decline of civic education in U.S. colleges and secondary schools. Their reports cite reams of depressing evidence of students’ appalling ignorance of our heritage and system of government.
One example suggests a precipitous generational decline in civic knowledge: In an American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) study, less than one-third of college graduates ages 25–34 knew how to amend the Constitution, while 76.7 percent of college graduates over 65 grasped that basic information.
These studies criticize leaders of academe for letting the study of civics and American history lapse from required courses to elective to now virtually non-existent. However, these analyses have failed to pick up on something darker at work within higher education: the repurposing of civics to advance a radical progressive agenda camouflaged as civic engagement or service learning.
An otherwise strong report in January 2016 from ACTA hinted at the problem in noting some colleges would want to supplement required civics with “engaged citizenship programs.”
“Such outreach programs should be encouraged – but they must supplement requirements for coursework in U.S. government and history,” ACTA stated. “They cannot replace the academic study and understanding of the institutions of American government.”
Ah, but that is the rub: As a January 2017 analysis by the National Association of Scholars (NAS) documents in more than 500 pages of detail, the goal of academe’s architects of New Civics is to replace the study of the basics of representative government with political activism on behalf of left-wing causes. They have won over many colleges that now award degree credits for learning how to organize protests, which are frequently used to shut down conservative or libertarian speakers.
The study, authored by David Randall, NAS director of communications, found the New Civics agenda for societal transformation includes “de-carbonizing the economy, massively redistributing wealth, intensifying identity-group grievance, curtailing the free market, expanding government bureaucracy, elevating international ‘norms’ over American Constitutional law, and disparaging our common history and ideals.”
But surely, in great universities dedicated to a free exchange of ideas, fair-minded faculty and administrators would let students earn their “learning by doing” credits by working within the constitutional framework bequeathed to us by the Founders, right?
Unfortunately, Randall says that is not the case. He alleges, “so far as we can tell, not one of the millions of hours spent by students each year on community service, service-learning, and civic engagement has included service for organizations that forward (for example) Second Amendment rights, pro-life advocacy, or traditional marriage.”
The trend toward New Civics began in the 1970s when universities allowed increasingly larger chunks of service learning—social activism in the community—to take the place of genuine academic study of U.S. history and civic knowledge. But the movement really took off in 2012 with President Barack Obama’s endorsement of “A Crucible Moment,” a manifesto by the Association of American Colleges and Universities calling for the tenets of New Civics to be suffused throughout the entire curriculum. “Crucible” was a perfect match with Obama’s stated goal of creating a “radical transformation” of the United States. Funding came from the U.S. Department of Education and the epistle debuted at the White House to great fanfare.
Among the case studies in NAS’ analysis, the University of Colorado-Boulder exemplifies an institution where radicalized civics is now dominant. NAS counted at least 60 courses with New Civics components and only 11 with vestiges of traditional civics. Even more startling are some of the permanent bureaucracies at CU-Boulder that propagate radicalized civics. A prime example is the International and National Voluntary Service Training (INVST) program, which Randall describes as “the equivalent of a major in progressive activism.” According to its mission statement, INVST proudly engages in “anti-oppressive education” while assailing “the privileged.”
Americans who pay taxes and tuition and donate money as alumni or friends of higher education have a right to oppose citadels of learning being turned into bastions of radical indoctrination. NAS joins other scholarly organizations in urging public colleges to restore traditional civics as a graduation requirement, but it goes further in calling for a public oversight body to ensure that such a course truly teaches U.S. history and the tools of self-government.
Additionally, classroom instruction alone would suffice to meet the civics requirement. So-called “service learning” and the like could not be a “substitute, supplement, or alternative.” Indeed, the NAS report calls for an end to funding of service learning and civic engagement programs and bureaucracies.
Protests that such measures would violate “academic freedom” will ring hollow if emanating from those who seek to deny the blessings of liberty except to those who march in lockstep for their progressive causes.
[Originally Published at RealClearEducation]Next Page »
By Clifford Thies
At the CPAC conference, there was a dust-up concerning certain persons claiming to be the “alt-right.” One of the organizers of the conference said the people claiming to be the alt-right were not conservatives, but were “left-wing fascists.” He also said they had appropriated the term alt-right. The term “alt-right” emerged to represent a form of journalism in some ways evocative of the late Hunter S. Thompson, with right-of-center views and relying on non-traditional platforms. But, the term has come to mean extreme right-wing. My focus is on the term “left-wing fascism.”
In real time, Benito Mussolini and his movement – fascism or national socialism – was of the left. Mussolini was a great admirer of Karl Marx and Marx’s principle of revolutionary socialism. By “revolutionary socialism,” I mean to distinguish Marxist socialism from the democratic socialists and labor unions that were emerging in Europe.
Mussolini, like Marx and Lenin, saw the party as the vanguard of the working class, a force from without the system that would usher in change. Mussolini was in fact a member of the socialist party of Italy, although he broke with the party on the issue of neutrality during World War I. It was later that Mussolini thought to combine socialism with nationalism, and form a new party. He called the combination “fascism.” A fasces is a bundle of rods, each individually weak while the bundle is strong. Mussolini’s counterpart in Germany called the combination “national socialism.” In Germany, where they like long words, this became “Nationalsozialistische.” In America, where we like short words, this became “Nazi.”
Adolph Hitler was in many ways like Mussolini. Hitler, like Mussolini, was a great admirer of Marx, and was originally a member of the socialist party. Hitler, like Mussolini, served in the army of his country during World War I, and both rose to the rank of corporal. Hitler, like Mussolini, said that the members of the working class were not easily drawn to revolutionary socialism, but were responsive to a combination of socialism and nationalism.
The new national socialist parties of Italy and Germany clashed with the communist parties of those countries. This was a clash of rivals both of which were revolutionary socialist and had the will to power. Then, when the traditional conservative, liberal and democratic socialist parties were in decline, the national socialists rose to power with the support of certain industrialists (we would say “crony capitalists”).
The main difference between Hitler’s form of national socialism and Mussolini’s concerned the meaning of “nationalism.” Hitler thought of nationalism along genetic lines, while Mussolini thought of nationalism along cultural lines. American progressives were, at the time, sympathetic to both points of view. Woodrow Wilson was definitely in the racist camp. Theodore Roosevelt in the cultural camp. Family planning, abortion and forced sterilization were part of the agenda, along with establishing labor colonies for the undesirable elements of society and using public schools to indoctrinate the next generation. In Oregon, the KKK was successful in outlawing private or religious schools until the Supreme Court ruled that to be unconstitutional.
Then came, with the end of World War II, knowledge of the horrors that the Nazis had unleashed upon the world. Certainly, American progressives did not want to be associated with that. So, there was a whitewash of history.
The connections of American progressives with the KKK, forced sterilization, experimentation on prisoners, advocacy of labor colonies, internment of Americans of Japanese descent, and admiration of fascism had to disappear from history. Even more, fascism and racism were redefined as right-wing, instead of left-wing.
[First published at Freedom Pub.]Next Page »
By Teresa Mull
Last month, more than six million people across the nation rallied, danced, and wore colorful scarves at 21,000 events celebrating National School Choice Week.
President Donald Trump himself made a proclamation in recognition of the event, declaring, “Because the education of our young people is so important, the parents of every student in America should have a right to a meaningful choice about where their child goes to school.”
Meanwhile, teachers unions and their liberal allies had been voicing their opposition to Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos. In a letter sent to U.S. senators before her confirmation, some 300 state lawmakers, most of them Democrats, “argue that DeVos, who has no professional experience in education, is unqualified for the job and that the charter schools and voucher programs she has worked to create and expand have undermined public schools, which they see as critical civic institutions that serve the majority of students,” The Washington Post reported.
The Post’s choice to include the phrase “they see” in explaining the circumstance is telling. Judging from the record-breaking turnout during National School Choice Week and by the list of school choice legislation expanding at the state level each day, “they”—meaning the left-wing education establishment—are the only ones who do see government schools as “critical” and “[serving] the majority of students.”
At least that’s what they claim. Can the left possibly believe its own rhetoric at this point? Do liberals think government schools really are “critical”? Was no one educated before the Department of Education came along and told us what to do in schools? And do public schools actually serve the majority of students, or just the majority of union bosses, union members, and corrupt politicians, who together feed off the bloated education system like so many leeches?
Liberals know deep down their cherished government schools are no more “critical” than the U.S. Postal Service or so many other government agencies that, granted nearly unlimited budgets and sloppy oversight, slog along as inefficiently as they please, wasting the valuable time and money of the over-burdened taxpayer.
That’s why the left manufactures these elaborate narratives, painting anyone who dares to challenge the power of the teachers unions as a ruthless monster set on depriving old people of their hard-earned retirement money. It’s also why Betsy DeVos is depicted as a villain intent on making innocent children suffer.
It’s why they discount thousands of success stories of families who have benefited by school choice, like Sahara Aden, the daughter of poor immigrants who, thanks to a school choice program, was able to attend a private school her family couldn’t otherwise afford and is now studying electrical engineering at college. The left doesn’t care about thousands of people like Denisha Merriweather, who became the first person in her family to attend college, thanks to a tax-credit scholarship she credits with saving her from becoming a high-school dropout.
The left consistently disregards facts about how school choice helps desegregate communities, better satisfies parents and students, and saves taxpayers money. They purposefully ignore the pleas of millions of parents, students, teachers, lawmakers, and taxpayers who want something different, people who want some kind of say in how and where our country’s children are educated, because they know when they give everyone else a say, it’ll be something they don’t want to hear.
National School Choice Week proved there has been a dramatic shift in the mindset of the American people. We’re not buying what the left is selling on education. We are no longer content to sit back and let public schools mis-educate our children and send them off to college or the workforce ill-prepared, or to watch as the United States falls further and further behind other industrialized nations in academic achievement.
The discriminatory practice of forcing children to attend schools based on their address is coming to an end, and those who benefit most by public schools (hint: it’s not the kids!) are very, very afraid. That’s a good sign for the rest of us, who are ready to cut the cord and educate ourselves in a faster, better way: without the government training wheels.
[Originally Published at Red State]Next Page »