S.A.L.T. Law Enforcement Memorial Program

When a law enforcement officer dies in the line of duty, it impacts a family that will never recover and also changes an entire community.  And some people wonder why these men and women of Law Enforcement are our heroes!

In every community across the nation law enforcement families live with the fear that today may be the day they do not return home.  And some people wonder why these men and women of  Law Enforcement are our heroes!

h/t semissourian.com On the national average, a police officer loses their life in the line of duty every 2 1/2 days.  Every 2 1/2 days a husband or wife will answer the door and find the Chief of Police or Chaplain there, grim-faced, hat in hand.  Every 2/12 days a child will learn  Mom or Dad will never be coming home.  And yet, some people still wonder why these men and women of Law Enforcement are our heroes!

You are invited to be a part of S.A.L.T.’s annual Memorial to Fallen Officers program.  We have had 49 police officers from this area that gave their life that we might have ours.  We will remember them with respect and honor in a special ceremony at Cape Bible Chapel, 10 am, Friday, May 8th.

#StopCommonCore Twitter Rally

Right Reason

Common Core = Big Education

Concerned parents and educators are coming together to speak out against the Common Core program being introduced into our schools across the nation.  They are being mobilized on Face Book, with Parents and Educators Against Common Core Standards having compiled a list of groups across the country, representing 44 states.  Many states have more than one group fighting the Common Core agenda.

According to a press release:

On Tuesday, April 16, Parent-Led Reform (@ParentLedReform) will host, in partnership with Truth in American Education (@TruthinAmEd), a #StopCommonCore Twitter Rally from 12:00pm-2:00pm (EST). They will be joined by more than 100 groups and individuals for this first-time event. Parents, teachers and grassroots activists are concerned about the nationalization of education standards, data collecting, and subpar education expectations thrusted upon our children by education bureaucrats and special interest groups through the Common Core State Standards Initiative.

The #StopCommonCore…

View original post 616 more words

3 types of people you should have in your circle!!

Chicago, Los Angeles, New York Prosecuted Fewest Federal Gun Crimes

By Elizabeth Flock

March 28, 2013 RSS Feed Print

A new report finds the nation’s three largest cities are among the worst in the country at prosecuting federal gun crimes.

The districts that contain Chicago, Los Angeles and New York City ranked last in terms of federal gun law enforcement in 2012, according to a new report from Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, which tracks federal data.

Federal gun crimes include illegal possession of a firearm in a school zone, illegal sale of a firearm to a juvenile, felon, or drug addict, and illegal transport of a firearm across state lines. In Chicago, the majority of gun charges last year were for firearms violations.

The districts of Eastern New York, Central California, and Northern Illinois ranked 88th, 89th and 90th, respectively, out of 90 districts, in prosecutions of federal weapons crimes per capita last year, but it wasn’t always this way. All three districts fell lower on the list than they had been in years past. In 2010, for example, Chicago was 78th in federal weapons prosecutions.

These cities also have some of the nation’s most restrictive gun laws, as well as the most active mayors in championing gun control. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa are all members of the national Mayors Against Illegal Guns campaign.

D.C., which also has tough gun laws, was in the lower half of the list in 2012, coming in at 78th. In 2011, D.C. prosecuted a higher number of gun crimes, coming in at number 49.

National Rifle Association chief Wayne LaPierre first pointed to the report on Meet the Press Sunday, when he demanded to know why the national press corps wasn’t asking the White House or U.S. attorneys general to explain lax federal enforcement of gun laws.

His comment didn’t sit well with gun control activists, including the group Moms Demand Action For Gun Sense In America. “It’s like, ‘don’t look at us, look at gun enforcement’,” says the group’s founder Shannon Watts. “But the NRA works to block gun prosecutions all the time.”

Requests for comment from the U.S. Attorney’s offices in New York and California were not immediately returned. But the U.S. attorney’s office in the Northern District of Illinois maintains that federal weapons law enforcement is among the top priorities of their office. “We have a number of different methods of attacking gangs, guns, drugs and violent crime,” says spokesman Randall Sanborn, who notes that many gun arrests are reviewed to determine whether the arrest should stay with the county or be brought to the federal level. “We look at which court the defendant is likely to get a substantially greater sentence… More cases that used to be brought federally are now staying in state courts because [they are] now able to get a sentence equally great or greater,” he says.

The TRAC report notes that many more gun arrests happen at the state and local level than happen at the federal level, and that it’s difficult to assess how many prosecutions happen overall.

While the districts that ranked lowest last year for federal gun crime prosecutions all contained major cities, the districts at the top of the list for its enforcement were almost exclusively rural. The districts of Southern Alaska, Kansas and Western Tennessee ranked first, second and third in prosecutions of federal weapons laws per capita last year.

Susan Long, a statistician and co-director of TRAC, said the data revealed a stronger federal enforcement presence in rural areas than urban ones. “If taxpayers of [a certain area] don’t pass strong gun control measures … the feds pick up the ball,” she said. “But now we’ve got sequestration cutting back on all these resources.”

The U.S. court system has said that sequestration will have a major impact on the federal judiciary, including the furlough of some court employees, cuts to the federal defenders’ office and fewer probation officers for criminal offenders.

Poll: Americans Narrowly Trust Democrats on the Budget…But Widely Prefer GOP Proposals

March 20, 2013

By Guy Benson

3/19/2013

Such is the state of the Republican Party’s wheezing brand: Even when voters support their ideas by large margins, they still think they side with Democrats.  Via The Hill:

More voters trust the Democratic Party than the Republican Party on budgetary issues, according to the results of a new poll for The Hill — even though a strong majority actually prefer Republican fiscal policies. Respondents in The Hill Poll were asked to choose which of two approaches they would prefer on the budget, but the question’s phrasing included no cues as to which party advocated for which option. Presented in that way, 55 percent of likely voters opted for a plan that would slash $5 trillion in government spending, provide for no additional tax revenue and balance the budget within 10 years — in essence, the path recommended by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) last week. This was almost twice as many voters as opted for a proposal that would include $1 trillion in added tax revenue as well as $100 billion in infrastructure spending, and which would reduce the deficit without eradicating it. Only 28 percent of voters preferred this option, which reflects the proposal put forth by Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray (D-Wash.) last week. An even stronger majority of respondents, 65 percent, said U.S. budget deficits should be reduced mostly by cutting spending rather than by raising taxes. Just 24 percent said the budget should be balanced mostly by increasing revenue.

That’s a two-to-one advantage for the Ryan Budget over the Reid/Murray plan; garnering 55 and 28 percent support, respectively.  An even smaller percentage back Democrats’ tax-heavy emphasis.  The Senate proposal — which never balances — hikes taxes by $1.5 trillion, yet only achieves $700-$800 billion in deficit reduction over ten years, while accelerating spending beyond the unsustainable current baseline.  And yet…

As soon as respondents heard the words “Republican” and “Democrat,” the picture changed drastically. A plurality of voters, 35 percent, said they trust the Democrats more on budgetary issues, while 30 percent said they trust the Republicans more. A full 34 percent said they trust neither party.

Simply adding party identifiers results in major shift from strong backing for the conservative plan to a virtual three-way tie among the two parties and none of the above.  The good news for Republicans is that the public is ready to embrace a budget that dramatically reduces spending, doesn’t raise taxes, and achieves balance within a decade.  Better still, now that Democrats have finally been forced to abandon their cynical budget abdication strategy, the American people finally have the change to weigh two competing ideas.  It’s no longer just the endlessly-demagogued Republican plan versus nothing.  And surprise, surprise: A super majority of Americans rejects Democrats’ unbalanced, tax-and-spend binge.  When it comes to responsible, restrained, pro-growth economic policies, Republicans are the only game in town.  On a policy level, this is encouraging.  The bad news is entirely political.  The GOP’s tattered image remains a huge impediment to policy success, as many voters edge away from Republican policies they support in principle as soon as they hear it’s branded with a scarlet R.  Even if one is inclined to dissent from some of the remedies prescribed in the RNC’s post election self-assessment, it’s achingly clear that a messaging and perception face-lift is in order.  The House Republican budget is scheduled for debate and a floor vote tomorrow.  The Senate is tangled up in a CR and budget amendment vote-a-rama that may last all week.  I caught up with House Budget Committee Vice Chair Tom Price at CPAC for a discussion about the two parties’ clashing budgets.  The Georgia Congressman and medical doctor mounted a defense of Republican’s fiscal vision, and contrasted it with the Senate’s proposal:

House Democrats, incidentally, put forward their own budget yesterday.  It would raise taxes by $1.2 trillion, hikes revenues more than it would cut (rightly excluding the Budget Control Act savings passed in 2011), and doubles the Senate version’s new “stimulus” tab to $200 billion.  Though it increases spending even more than Senate’s version, both Democratic plans largely ignore entitlement reform, speeding the collapse of the safety net in the relatively near future.  The ranking House Budget Committee Democrat says using certain actuarial assumptions (which are dismissed by Republicans as unrealistic), his caucus’ budget would balance by…2045.

Guy Benson

Guy Benson is Townhall.com’s Political Editor. Follow him on Twitter @guypbenson.

The 17th Amendment and the Destruction of Federalism

View this article as a printable PDF

    One of the most heated topics in all of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 concerned the protection of the states from an overpowering national government. In the beginning, the large states wanted both houses of congress to be representative of the population of the different states. The small states, of course, saw this as a means by which they would be robbed of their voices and the large states would have total dominance in congress. This problem nearly split and destroyed the convention.
    It wasn’t until Roger Sherman of Connecticut proposed his Great Compromise that the influential leaders began to see the wisdom of this new system—the House would represent the states according to population and the Senate would represent the states equally. Each side of the issue would thus be represented. It was at this time that Washington admitted he was wrong at first and that this new idea truly had merit in forming a more perfect union. What some may not have realized fully was the protection this new idea gave to the people against an abusive national government.
    When the Founders had finished their work in Philadelphia , they had created a government that was limited, divided, and balanced. Graphically, it could be represented as follows:
Federalism before the 17th Amendment
Notice how:
  • Each level of government is separate and distinct and has its own duties which it does best.
  • The national government is in the balanced center of the political spectrum—not too little and not too much governmental power. It is divided into three heads or branches.
  • The lines coming from the national government stop at the states. The states deal directly with the national government. The states provide the great bulwark of protection for the people against any overpowering move by the national government.
  • The Senate is made up of senators who are sent by the states to see to it that the national government never intrudes into states’ rights and reaches down to the people. They are chosen by the state legislators who know better than the people when the national government is encroaching onto states’ rights.
    Even though Washington became a foremost proponent of the senators being chosen by the state legislatures, some of the others were slow to see the wisdom of that system. One of those was Thomas Jefferson.
    Thomas Jefferson was not at the convention and was not privy to the many heated debates prior to the Great Compromise. He was a great populist and always thought representation should be by population. Even though he had tutored Madison by sending him many books prior to the convention, still he had questions about this new procedure.
    When Jefferson finally returned from France , he asked Washington why the senators were not elected by the people. Washington asked him why he poured his hot drink in his saucer before drinking it. And Jefferson replied, “To cool it.” “And that,” Washington replied, “is what the Senate is for.” The Senate is to cool down any hotheaded or imprudent legislation coming out of the House.

The Temptation of Representatives in the House

    One might ask, “What is there about the House members that would engender hotheaded or imprudent legislation?” They are elected every two years, which means they have to campaign for re-election every two years. Since Representatives in the House have mostly to do with raising and spending money (all revenue bills must begin in the House) they just might be tempted to say to their constituents, “Look what I have done for you! I have brought you all of this federal money down into our district, down into our schools, our towns and cities, our hospitals, our county, our health care systems, etc. Re-elect me so I can keep these monies coming to us.” In other words, the House members would be the most likely ones to get the people hooked on federal money by building a “money bridge” from Washington , D.C. directly to the people. And, of course, they would fall prey to the age-old technique of taking from those who have in order to give more and more to those who have not.
    If this happens, what level of government would be completely left out of the process? The states! The very level of government meant to stand between the national government and the people!

The Eminent Danger of a Leveling Spirit

    James Madison felt this whole balanced system would be destroyed because of this weakness of human nature. He described it this way:
“These [the ‘have-nots’] may in time outnumber those [the ‘haves’] who are placed above the feelings of indigence. According to the equal laws of suffrage [each person has one vote], the power will slide into the hands of the former. No agrarian attempts have yet been made in this country; but symptoms of a leveling spirit, as we have understood, have sufficiently appeared in a certain quarter to give notice of the future danger.”
    He then explains that the Founders created the Senate to prevent leveling from occurring:
“How is this danger to be guarded against, on the republican principles? How is the danger, in all cases of interested coalitions to oppress the minority [the ‘haves’], to be guarded against? Among other means, by the establishment of a body, in the government, sufficiently respectable for its wisdom and virtue to aid, on such emergencies, the preponderance of justice, by throwing its weight into that scale. Such being the objects of the second branch in the proposed government [the Senate], he thought a considerable duration [six-year terms] ought to be given to it.”
    Madison words above explained why the Senate was to guard the property of those who “have” against those who “have-not” but the Senate also protected the people from the very wealthy “haves” who sought power over everybody else.

The original Senate also stands in the way of those who want centralized government

    The Founders’ formula for the Senate also prevented some of the super-wealthy ‘haves’ from gaining power by centralizing power in Washington. The Industrial Revolution produced some very wealthy capitalists, a few of which sought to control the machinery of the national government. In their attempts to do so, the states stood in their way. It was difficult to centralize power in Washington when those pesky states are always there to say “no” to proposals which would usurp power from the states and infringe on states’ rights. One of the things these wealthy people did, however, is get control of much of the media in order to influence public opinion. This set the stage for major changes in the structure of the national government. It was dubbed the “progressive” era.

The scheme to rip the states out of the machinery of the national government

    Because the state legislatures were the ones who elected U. S. Senators, there were a few charges of irregularities or corruption in the process in a couple of states. This is all the centralized power-schemers needed. When the charges of bribery began to surface in some states, the media picked up the stories and cried out to the people, “Do you really want those politicians in your state capitals electing your senators? Wouldn’t it be more ‘democratic’ (a new progressive era term) to let the people elect the senators?” This scenario was the perfect storm to destroy the states influence in the national government.
    When the proposal was made in congress to amend the Constitution to require election of senators by the people it was first resisted by the Senate. It knew what this would mean—a total destruction of the great states’ bulwark of protection of the people. But the media frenzy was too strong and enough senators finally caved in to the pressure and Congress approved what was to become the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution.
    Many of the states also at first refused to ratify the amendment, knowing they would be giving up their ability to hold a check on the national government. But once again, enough state legislatures eventually yielded to the pressure and the amendment eventually received the required three-fourths approval of the states to become the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution. The states had just given up their trump card to protect the people from powerful influences in Washington . They no longer had real power in the workings of national politics.
    The sad result of this destruction of the beautiful balanced, divided, and limited federal system the Founders gave us was to give way to those who so desperately wanted to centralize power in Washington so they could work their power schemes to begin to control nearly every aspect of American life. The very year the Seventeenth Amendment was passed, the Federal Reserve Act was passed which institutionalized control of our monetary system in the hands of very powerful private banking interests. Also in the same year, the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified, which allowed congress access to huge sums of money through income tax. With all this money and control, the national government began moving to the left on the political spectrum. Over the decades since, the so-called progressive movement has changed our federal system to look like this:
Federalism after the 17th Amendment
Notice how:
  • The national government has moved far to the left, usurping more and more power.
  • Because the state legislatures no longer send their representatives into the U. S. Senate, the states are powerless to protect the people from an overpowering national government.
  • The national government, with all its agencies, bureaucracies, regulations, and enforcement powers, comes right down into the pocketbooks, homes, schools, and communities of the people dictating nearly every aspect of life.
  • The states are left powerless, except to pass resolutions and beg Washington, D. C. for mercy.
    We, at NCCS, are convinced that this monstrous power combine will soon crumble from its own weight of unwieldy power. At that time, the millions of freedom loving Americans will be able to restore the beautiful system the Founders gave us. But, of course, Americans must first learn the Founders’ marvelous formula for freedom. That is the continuous mission of NCCS.
Sincerely,
Earl Taylor, Jr.
National Center for Constitutional Studies
37777 W Juniper Rd
Malta, Idaho 83342

Teachers Flock To Socialism Conference

Socialism Conference - 2013 - 01

The article below was liberated from an interesting Facebook Post and is presented “as is” for your enlightenment.  I’ve been unable to re-locate the Facebook page for reference and will add it to the post if found later:

Over the past year I have tried to inform America about the history of Socialism and Communism.
Our schools are failing this history or ignoring it completely.
All of my posts have been accurate and to the point.
The reason I did this and still continue to do this is to tell the real historical examples of this ideology. To warn Americans to be vigilant and to see the signs of this movement before it gets “out of control”.

We are in a fight.
I don’t believe American citizens realize how serious this really is.
From the White House, to Congress ,to our schools, the transformation continues.
There are alot of really disturbing things happening in this country.
This post will be about just one , of many.
I have , on occasion, talked about the need for us to get control of our public education system. I have told you about the slanted school books and the numerous Socialist teachers in our education system, from kindergarten thru college.

Here is a disturbing example:

Teachers Flock To Northwestern University For “Marxist Conference”
“The event was teeming with teachers who spoke about the new found bond between the radical socialists and their Teachers Union. The all-day event, which collected money to support Chicago Socialists and featured a communist bookstore, provided students on-campus along with the radical left community to plan the next phase in their activism.”

“After the opening plenary, breakout sessions addressed more specific topics like the history of the Democratic party, education, and case studies in Russia. In these sessions, speakers continued to celebrate the use of education as a mechanism to insert Marxism into public institutions. In one session, the idea of targeting their message to students, even over “the working class,” was debated.”
-by Rebel Pundit12 Nov 2012 / Breitbart

How do these peaceful, equality seeking people act?
Here’s a video link:

If you think, for one minute, this was a one time, isolated event, check out this schedule:

Boston | October 27
New England Marxism Conference
Harvard University, Emerson Hall, 9 a.m.-9 p.m.
Los Angeles | October 27

Southern California Marxism Conference
Los Angeles Valley College, 10 a.m.-8 p.m.
Rochester, N.Y. | October 27

Western New York Regional Marxism Conference
Rochester Institute of Technology, noon-7 p.m.
Portland, Ore. | November 3

Northwest Regional Marxism Conference
Portland State University, 11 a.m.-10 p.m.
Atlanta | November 10

Southeast Regional Marxism Conference
Georgia State University, 10:30 a.m.-8 p.m.
Austin, Texas | November 10

Southwest Marxism Conference
University of Texas-Austin, 10 a.m.-8:30 p.m.
Chicago | November 10

Chicago and Midwest Regional Conference
Northwestern University, Evanston, Ill., 10 a.m.-8 p.m.
New York City | November 10

New York City Regional Marxism Conference
Columbia University, Lerner Hall, 10:30 a.m.-9 p.m.
Berkeley, Calif. | November 17

Bay Area and Northern California Regional Marxism Conference
University of California-Berkeley, 10 a.m.-8 p.m.
Madison, Wis. | November 17

Madison and Midwest Regional Marxism Conference
University of Wisconsin-Madison, 10 a.m.-8 p.m.
Columbus, Ohio | December 1

Columbus and Midwest Regional Marxism Conference
Ohio State University, 10 a.m.-8 p.m.

– Organized by the International Socialist Organization, publisher of SocialistWorker.org

They’ve been busy !

Socialist intellectuals, spouting democratic slogans, attack successful business owners, individual entrepreneurs and the capitalist system in general , while using a leftist media to advance their utopian dreams of fairness, equality and entitlements for all. Knowing full well that the crazy idea of a “citizen” run system is nonsense because of the inherent chaos that would bring, not mentioning the obvious need for “redistributors” and leader to direct it . This results in a “Dictator of the Proletariat”, in a totalitarian society, that will prove, once again, the old adage that “total power corrupts totally” as this utopian dream turns into a nightmare leaving millions of murdered innocent citizens in is wake !
(see history for proof)

“Ours was the first revolution in the history of mankind that truly reversed the course of government, and with three little words: ‘We the people.’ ‘We the people’ tell the government what to do, it doesn’t tell us. ‘We the people’ are the driver, the government is the car. And we decide where it should go, and by what route, and how fast. Almost all the world’s constitutions are documents in which governments tell the people what their privileges are. Our Constitution is a document in which ‘We the people’ tell the government what it is allowed to do. ‘We the people’ are free…”
-Ronald Reagan

That says it all.
Teach that for a change!!
“Know the History”

Here’s the conference Facebook Page for 2013:  https://www.facebook.com/socialismconf

Chicago Socialists: https://www.facebook.com/chicagosocialists

Freedom in education: how it was lost

Dr. Joel McDurmon

June 17, 2012

http://americanvision.org/countyrights/?p=89

I have written how free, purely private education was the American way, and it worked. I mentioned how this was the norm up until at least the 1830s and really even beyond. I ended with the question, “Why did it change?” How was this high level of freedom and individual responsibility lost? How did a once-completely-free aspect of life come to be dominated by government mandates and taxation—that is, government confiscation of private property?

I mentioned how some claim that changes in society necessitated reform of education. For some reason or other, upswings in technology, mechanization, the industrial revolution, and a few other things allegedly changed the face of society so drastically that the only way to bring the masses of common people up to speed was for government to intervene, begin to confiscate and redistribute wealth with which to provide public schools. Does this argument have any basis in fact?

Only to a very limited extent. The truth involves much more than that.

The truth involves several factors that pertain mainly to elitist influences being imposed for the benefit of those who imposed them. Here we’ll cover the four most important social factors involved: First, a rival religious ideology; Second, reactions to mass immigration in the late 1840s and forward; Third, the forces of big corporate business; and Fourth, the allure of “free” education (in the sense of no financial cost) to the masses. Let’s look at what I mean:

First, the rival religion. This was the influence of Unitarianism, particularly through New England congregational churches, and mainly by the work of Unitarian activists. These individuals had abandoned many traditional Christian doctrines, and instead promoted the ideals that mankind could be perfected through proper education and training; they believed in the essential divinity of mankind; they believed that this divinity of man was most pronounced when mankind is considered collectively as a whole; so, therefore, they believed that the civil State was the highest expression of divinity on earth; and thus, they believed, that the State was the ultimate parent and benefactor of individuals.

Perhaps the most important of these types was the so-called father of public schools in America, Horace Mann. Mann, a Congregationalist minister, believed very strongly in the positions just stated, and more. Mann argued that human rights derive from Nature; and this Nature—with a capital “N”—he interpreted, “proves an *absolute right* to an education of every human being that comes into the world.” This is the classic “entitlement mentality” which has characterized leftism, communism, socialism, etc., before and since, which today is often applied to health care, employment, etc.—here Horace Mann applied it very early to education, by which he meant public education.

He argued two basic propositions about education: education should be secularized—geared toward civic virtue and efficiency rather than religious worldview—and education should be the function of the civil government, not families. In fact, he sought to replace the family with an explicitly paternal state. He called Society collectively a “godfather for all its children,” and said, “Massachusetts is *parental* in her government.”

Unitarian activists, such as Horace Mann, were ready and willing to employ government force in order to remake society according to their mandates and by their means—in fact, government force was the name of the game. Some of the guys in this movement were fiercely radical with this belief. In the mid-1850s, the radical revolutionary John Brown committed several acts of violence and murder in Kansas and in Virginia intending to start a slave rebellion that he thought would eventually bring about abolition. The underlying belief was that it is legitimate to use violent revolution to impose better social values. Shortly before his death by hanging, Brown himself made this point explicitly: he said he was “quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away but with blood,” and that this would never be done without “very much bloodshed.” He was a terrorist, born and bred on American soil, and carried out acts of terrorism on American soil, in the name of social and political change for the better. Now Brown himself had studied in Massachusetts to be a Congregationalist minister, but quit due to financial and health problems. But he established radical connections there that would help finance his later acts. The least publicized aspect of Brown is this: his six main financiers who propagandized his work for him back in New England were all six Unitarian Congregational ministers. And while not every one of these types believed in open revolutionary violence like Brown, nevertheless they all believed in using the force of government to bring about the social changes they thought desirable (which is really not much different if you consider it—it’s comparing one version of unwelcomed coercion for another, and in both cases, imposed by someone who thinks they know better than you, and who believes they have the right and authority to impose their view on you by force).

Mann certainly held such positions in regard to his agenda for imposing public education. He had three basic rules that summarize his view of education as a right, property as socialized, and individuals subservient to the will of the collective (as represented by the decisions of the civil government, of course). He wrote:

The successive generations of men, taken collectively, constitute one great commonwealth.

The property of this commonwealth is pledged for the education of all its youth, up to such a point as will save them from poverty and vice, and perhaps to prepare them for the adequate performance of their social and civil duties.

Note the language of salvation: public schooling required taking people’s property for the education of society’s youth, in order to “save them”; and save them from what: “poverty and vice.” So here you have not only a messianic state, but you have America’s first state-imposed war on poverty. (And it had no greater or more lasting effect on poverty then than it did in under Johnson in the ’60s.) Notice also that property would be taken toward this goal “up to such a point as will save them.” In other words, they would keep taxing and taking until they felt they fulfilled their mission—which is to say, there is no limit. Mann concluded by expressing what can only be called socialism:

The successful holders of this property are trustees, bound to the faithful execution of their trust by the most sacred obligations; and embezzlement and pillage from children and descendants have not less criminality . . . than the same offenses when perpetrated against contemporaries.

In the public schooling worldview, you do not own your property! You can never be a property *owner*; but only a trustee for the property of Society. It is society that determines who will get what and for what purpose; and any resistance to the government’s dictates in this area is considered a crime of embezzlement and pillaging (both crimes done by definition to other people’s property). Note again the religious language: payments in taxes for state-run education are “the most sacred obligations” which require “faithful execution.”

The alleged natural “right” which entitles every human being to an education is so sacred that it transcends that biblical command protecting private property. Mann said:

No one man, nor any one generation of men, has any such title to, or ownership in these ingredients and substantials of all wealth, that his right is invaded when a portion of them is taken for the benefit of posterity.

In other words, we’re going to tax you for education, and you’ll pay the tax and shut up, because you have no right to complain about it. It’s not really your property to begin with, and what we’re doing is for you own good and the good of posterity. Make this note: public schooling from day one was incapable of existing without socialism. It requires by definition the government to claim ownership over at least a portion of every individual’s property.

This was constantly sold to the public as something for their own good. Thaddeus Stevens used this very argument to defend Pennsylvania’s public schooling law of 1834 in the legislature the following year. To those who objected that it was morally wrong to tax some people to pay for other people’s education, he responded, “It is for their own benefit, inasmuch as it perpetuates the government and ensures the due administration of the laws under which they live, and by which their lives and property are protected.” See, the paternal state knows what is best for you, and what is the best use of your money, and besides, such measures “perpetuate the government” that knows all this! Who could be against that?

Mann made his views very explicit. Public schooling was the path to social salvation; all ills would be cured by its full implementation:

The common school is the greatest discovery ever made by man. . . . Other social organizations are curative and remedial; this is a preventative and an antidote; they come to heal diseases and wounds; this to make the physical and moral frame invulnerable to them. Let the common school be expanded to its capabilities, let it be worked with the efficiency with which it is susceptible, and nine-tenths of the crimes in the penal code would become obsolete; the long catalogue of human ills would be abridged; men would walk more safely by day; every pillow would be more inviolable by night; property, life and character held by a stronger tenure; all rational hopes respecting the future brightened.

This is language of healing and of hope. This is the language of religion, and Mann wanted it funded by the State. The scholar who studied the history of the state-takeover of education noted what action step Mann really had in mind here. It was the same thing public schools have said ever since: “give us the money and we can do it; our failure thus far is your fault in that we have received insufficient funds.” And of course, Mann like most public school advocates ever since believed that the school and its parent State had a right, an entitlement, to appropriate those funds from private people.

Overrun by such Unitarian thought, Massachusetts was the first state to create a State Board of Education in 1837. As its first chairman, they placed Horace Mann. Of interest was the timing of the creation of this secular board: up until 1832, the Congregational Church was an established church in that state—receiving funding from the state to pay her ministers, etc. That was abolished in 1832 (Massachusetts was the last state to do so), and the state-funded education program was in place in only five years. And in that same year 1837, Mann brokered a political deal that immediately doubled the budget for public education. Common schools were already being funded in Massachusetts by local taxes, but this was the first centralizing of it by the State. The astute observer will note what many public school critics to date have pointed out—the established churches were kicked out and the public schools were made the de facto state-church in their place, but were now officially a secularized state-church, and the tyranny was doubled in the amount of money appropriated for it.

This ideal of secular public school as a new established religion was expressed not only by the facts of the history, but openly in the statements and writings of the movers and shakers of the system. And the attitude lasted well into the twentieth century and exists still in the minds of many today, Christian or not. One representative figure who stated the truth explicitly was James Earl Russell who was Dean of Columbia Teachers College for thirty years, 1897–1927. The task of education, he wrote in 1922, was “making democracy safe for the world,” and this meant “teaching the proper appreciation of life-values.” Indeed, “The doctrine that all shall get what they deserve presupposes that the largest possible number shall be taught to want what it is right that they should have.” In other words, democracy will be great, as long was the public schoolmasters can first train the people what to want and how to vote. Put more succinctly, you can have whatever you want, as long as I have control over what you want! With his idea of democracy in place as an ideal, Russell made his replacement of the church explicit: he admired an era in which this type of trained democracy will “find it expedient to substitute for the established church of the old regime a state-supported and state-controlled school system.”

Of course, this state-controlled system was the antithesis of the free and private system which had existed and served America just fine for over two centuries to this point. Russell new this, and nevertheless saw the change as progress. Before as we mentioned previously, teachers had to compete with each other—and this bred greater choice, improved quality, lowered costs, etc. But socialists like Russell demeaned this system by saying “the teacher was a chattel sold on the open market”; instead he praised “The teacher as a civil servant whose foremost duty is the promotion of the welfare of the State.” He did get one thing right when he called this scheme “a new conception in American life.” It certainly was: not only was the civil State never meant to be a factor in education in the original American way, but the very conception and practice of civil coercion was a rejection of basic American freedoms: freedoms in traditional religion, property, business, and family—all of which had to be overturned and/or replaced in order to impose the grand scheme of State-supported and State-controlled education. Indeed, it was nothing less than a secularized replacement of the established church.

There was at least one religious group that saw what was going on, and they within just a few years began starting their own private schools as an alternative. This was the Roman Catholic Church, and the rise of Catholic parochial schools coincided with the rise of secularized Unitarian public schools from which they would become havens. More importantly, this became viable for them financially due to the second major factor, mass immigration.

Much of this immigration came from Irish Catholics who fled the Irish potato famine beginning in 1845. In 1825, there were only about 5,000 Irish in Boston. In 1845, the number had multiplied six times to 30,000, and they now made up about 30% of the population. These saw the imposition of government schooling as a secularized version of what was formerly Protestantism, so they started their own schools. This was true of most of the other early immigrant groups, most of whom came from Northern Europe, and were either Lutheran or Dutch Reformed. All of these groups started private schools so as to avoid the secularized indoctrination of the public school system, and these denominations still have these traditions today.

But many of the Americans, particularly the Unitarian minded-civil religion types, hated Catholicism, and saw immigrants as a threat, so they tried to use the force of government to impose their version of American culture on these people. To them, public school was not only a means to perfect mankind and cure society of all ills, it was a means of turning immigrants into “good Americans.” And over time, the secularized religious motive fell further into the background, and the promotion of Americanism became the thrust of public schooling. Of course, the America these establishments promoted was already a long way from the America that had once been free. Throughout this whole process, many orthodox Protestants accepted the façade of Christianity in the Unitarian-driven school system, and thus the idea was always accepted that “our” public schools are Christian. But they were so only on the surface—and that for deceptive purposes only.

Immigration not only caused cultural and religious tensions, but also created economic tensions as the labor market was flooded with hundreds of thousands of new people. Of course, with the industrial revolution gathering steam in the 1830s and forward, the waves of immigrants provided a source of very cheap labor. But factories and large business owners quickly learned what type of temperament and mentality was best suited for the tasks of factory labor—someone who was accustomed to repetition, schedules, monotony, quiet obedience, single file lines, etc. And these wealthy influences in society quickly learned they could steer public education to produce such workers.

So the third factor in the loss of liberty in education was the rise of big business, corporations, and particularly the influence of industrialization and factory mechanization. Not only does this pertain to the loss of liberty, but more importantly to the normalization of a life in which that liberty was gone. The mass production of public education became the tool by which America grew adapted to life without freedom in education, in which the question was never even raised.

Now here is where the issue of modernization and industrial revolution come in; and like I said, there is some truth (albeit very limited) to this phenomenon requiring changes in society. But here is the important qualification: the phenomenon itself did not require political changes for education, but rather big business found it profitable to ally with big government and leverage government power—just as the Unitarian ideologues had done for their agenda—in order to start mass-producing workers to meet the demand for factory labor. Soon, the schools mass-produced workers in the same way the factories mass-produced widgets.

And the atmosphere of public schooling was—or could be made—the perfect place for this training to occur. Looking back on the scenario, one education reformer, Charles Francis Adams, Jr., described that atmosphere in 1880:

Most of you, indeed, cannot but have been part and parcel of one of those huge, mechanical, educational machines, or mills, as they might more properly be called. They are, I believe, peculiar to our own time and country, and are so organized as to combine as nearly as possible the principal characteristics of the cotton-mill and the railroad with those of the model state’s prison. The school committee is the board of directors; while the superintendent — the chief executive officer — sits in his central office with the timetable, which he calls a programme, before him, by which one hour twice a week is allotted to this study, and half an hour three times a week to that, and twenty hours a term to a third; and at such a time one class will be at this point and the other class at that, the whole moving with military precision to a given destination at a specified date. He can at any given moment tell you exactly where any squad, or class as he would term it, is, and what it ought, at least, to be then doing. Mechanical methods could not be carried further. The organization is perfect. The machine works almost with the precision of clock-work. It is, however, company front all the time. From one point of view children are regarded as automatons; from another, as india-rubber bags; from a third, as so much raw material. They must move in step and exactly alike; they must receive the same mental nutriment in equal quantities and at fixed times: — assimilation is wholly immaterial, but the motions must be gone through with. Finally, as raw material, they are emptied in at the primaries and marched out at the grammar grades; — and it is well!

And he should have added, after graduation, corralled directly into the industrialized workforce; because, he had been trained for the past several years, to live a lifestyle of boring tasks, from one whistle blowing to the next. Horace man had been interested in education for the perfectibility of man. The industrialists couldn’t care less about perfectibility, they only cared about the trainability of man. And that legacy of public schooling has been with us ever since.

There is, by the way, much truth in Adams’ comparison of the public schools to not only mills and railroads, but the state prison. The same Unitarian reforming spirit that gave us the institution of public schools also produced, in the same era, the penitentiary, the insane asylum, and the poorhouse. All of these were built on the same theory that society was the bed of corruption, and the proper way to train people was to put them into a controlled atmosphere in which the allegedly corrupt external influences could not affect them; and this very popular theory was applied to the reform of criminals, the insane, the mentally ill, the poor, and to the education of children. So in the same decades of the 1820s–30s, this nation witnessed the explosion of official institutions for all of these issues, and the growing prevalence of using taxation and government control for these institutions.

And yet, as decades went on, and it became clear that the theory was bogus, that no genuine reform was made in criminals or the insane, and that corporate interests came to dominate the schools—in short, that the whole system was a failure—the officials merely continued to blame failure on the lack of funds and/or greater control. This was true so much so that one of the few historians of the Asylum phenomenon concluded of its legacy, “Failure and persistence went hand in hand.” Yet at the same time, when correctional institutions failed, advocates shifted their emphasis from “cure” to “prevention”—and thus, education instead of penal or remedial institutions. This was used, then, as an argument for greater government involvement and support of education.

Yet finally, as sort of a capstone upon these three major factors, Americans began to abandon home and private education due to the illusion that government schools were free. This creates different levels of motivation. Some buy the illusion completely: the school costs them nothing while it educates their children and simultaneously provides free child care during the day. This illusion is swallowed most readily by people who don’t own property, and thus never directly see a property tax appropriated from them personally. And since property tax is usually escrowed automatically, even most property owners don’t really feel the true weight of it anyway. Other people merely live content with the illusion, knowing it actually costs money, knowing they actually pay taxes to support it even if indirectly through increased rents, yet accepting this as moral or at least practical enough to live with. These people, too, once receiving the benefits, will defend the system which taxes other people to benefit them. Even among public officials who know better, the phrase is simply modified to remain deceptive: public education is free, “at the point of delivery” (which is, of course, an admission that it’s not free).

This all works together to make the perceived benefit of “free” education a powerful motivation among those who are dependent upon the system; they remain self-interested in perpetuating a system that confiscates property from some people and gives it to others. In short, once dependent, they become advocates. Yet the system, used and defended by so many conservatives and Christians, is based on an anti-Christian, socialistic system of values at its very core. It has more in common with Nazism than with anything that can be called a Christian society.

So how was liberty lost in the area of education? It was through anti-Christian ideology leveraging state power to impose a state-funded, state-controlled utopia. They established a whole new secular state church in the name of getting rid of state churches. It was through mass immigration that among other things sparked misguided Protestants to use government power to oppose Catholicism and turn Europeans into Americans. It was through the rise of industrialization and mechanization that used mass-production in education to create dutiful, reliable masses of workers for mass-production in factories. And it was through the vastly accepted myth that public schools are free, and the fact that we have now grown vastly dependent upon the benefit.

These things, all combined together, created a very powerful culture in which freedom in education is gone economically (we’re all forced to pay for public schools even if we don’t use them), and was almost lost practically, except in small enclaves, until the past few decades. But the one aspect in which it is still largely free is legally: you still can exercise the freedom if you choose.

Many Christians and others are realizing the need to reclaim our freedom in education; many are already practicing it as much as they can; and the tools and resources to make it viable, effective, and easy are today so vast and easy to find that there is no good excuse for anyone who loves liberty not to pursue it.

As I have already said repeatedly, this is the one area you can change drastically toward the cause of freedom right now. Nothing toward that cause will be easier, more effective, and more life-transforming for all involved, than restoring freedom for yourself and family in the area of education. And in the next article, I’ll tell you what to do, how to do it, and talk about the sacrifices it will take.