Category: Education & Schools

It wasn’t for the benefit of the children, but the state

Why Government Schooling Came to America.

In the first two essays in this series on the relationship between government and the education of children (“How the Redneck Intellectual Discovered Educational Freedom—and How You Can, Too” and “The New Abolitionism: A Manifesto for a Movement”), I established, first, how and why the principle of “Separation of School and State” is both a logical and moral necessity grounded in the rights of nature, and then I demonstrated how and why America’s government schools should be abolished as logical and moral necessities.

In this essay, I’d like to drill down more deeply into the nature and purposes of government schooling in order to further demonstrate how and why a system of government-run education is anathema to the tradition of American freedom and therefore immoral. Let me be clear (if I haven’t been so already): I regard the government school system to be the single worst and most destructive institution in America. It cannot be “reformed,” and it cannot be tolerated. Period. It must, therefore, be abolished.

To that end, it is important to understand how and why government schooling came to the United States in the first place. Most Americans today assume that the “public” school system is as American as apple pie, that it has been around since the first foundings of Britain’s North American colonies in the seventeenth century or at least since the founding of the United States of American in 1788. But this is not true.

In the longue durée of American history from the early seventeenth century to the present, the government school system is actually a relatively recent phenomenon. A system of nation-wide government schools was not fully implemented in this country until about 100 years ago.

Let’s begin with a brief journey through the early history of American education to see when, why, and how the American people gave up their unalienable right to educate their children and turned it over to government officials.

Early America’s System of Education

For almost 250 years, the education of children, first in England’s North American colonies and then in the United States of America up until the Civil War, was almost an entirely private affair. Parents had the freedom to choose the education, ideas, and values that they wanted for their children. The government was not involved in educating children. This is the great forgotten story of American history.

During this quarter millennium, children were typically educated in one of four ways. They were either homeschooled or they attended one of three different kinds of schools: 1) tuition-charging private schools; 2) charitable or “free” private schools established by philanthropists and religious societies; or 3) semi-public “district” schools (later known in the nineteenth century as “common schools”).

The so-called “district” schools of the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries are held up today by proponents of government schooling to suggest that government-run education has existed in America since the seventeenth century. But this is not true.

Existing mostly in New England, these “district” schools were what we might call “neighborhood” schools that were built and monitored by the parents of the children who attended them, and they were financed by a combination of tuition charges, local taxes, and mutual-aid societies. These neighborhood schools were controlled entirely by parents, who chose and supplied the textbooks and who hired and fired teachers. Though partially funded by local taxes, these neighborhood schools were not government schools in any meaningful way. The government did not determine who was hired, nor did it determine what was taught.

In all instances, schooling in America until the twentieth century was highly decentralized. Many if not most of the tuition-charging or “free” schools, particularly those in more populous areas, were run by individual men or women who simply hung out a shingle, advertised for students, and ran a school out of their home. Some of these schools taught only the Three R’s, while others offered classical curricula where students were taught classical Greek and Latin. It was in one of these “home” schools that John Adams first learned the ancient languages.

This decentralized, parent-driven form of schooling was how the generation of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, and Madison was educated. Not a single one of America’s founding fathers attended a government school. The very idea is and was anathema to a free society.

It is therefore imperative that we understand why government schools were ever established in the United States.

One thing is certain: America’s system of government schooling was not established because the extant system of private schooling was failing to educate America’s children. Quite the opposite.

American schooling in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries was highly democratic, in the sense that virtually all children received some kind or degree of education. They did so because that’s what their parents wanted for them, thereby dispelling the calumny that parents won’t do whatever it takes to make sure their children are educated in a free-market system of education or schooling. In economic terms, the supply met the demand.

Not surprisingly, Americans educated their children to a very high degree—indeed, to such a high degree that America had the highest literacy rates of any country in the world!  European visitors to the United States were astonished by the levels of education achieved in the United States. In his National Education in the United States (1812) published forty years before the introduction of government schooling, Pierre Samuel Du Pont de Nemours expressed his astonishment at the extraordinary literacy rate he saw amongst ordinary Americans.

Likewise, Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in Democracy in America that the Americans were “the most enlightened people on earth.” Even on the frontier where schools and libraries were in short supply, Tocqueville noted that one-room cabins hidden deep in the woods typically contained a copy of the Bible and multiple newspapers.

All of this was achieved without government schools.

And then, everything changed.

Government Schooling Comes to America

America’s experiment with universal compulsory education (i.e., government schooling), which began in earnest in the years immediately before the Civil War and picked up steam in the postbellum period, was created with different purposes in mind than just teaching children the Three R’s and a body of historical, moral, and literary knowledge to help them live productive, self-governing lives.

The early proponents of government schooling in nineteenth-century America imagined new and different goals for educating children. The advocates for forced schooling took the highly authoritarian, nineteenth-century Prussian model as their beau idéal.

The leading proponent of government schooling in Prussia and the man from whom the Americans learned the most was the philosopher Johann Fichte (1762-1814), who, in his Addresses to the German Nation (1807), called for “a total change of the existing system of education” in order to preserve “the existence of the German nation.” The goal of this new education system was to “mould the Germans into a corporate body, which shall be stimulated and animated in all its individual members by the same interest.” This new national system of education, Fichte argued, must apply “to every German without exception” and every child must be taken from parents and “separated altogether from the community.” Fichte recommended that the German schools “must fashion [the student], and fashion him in such a way that he simply cannot will otherwise than you wish him to will,” so that the pupil might go “forth at the proper time as a fixed and unchangeable machine.” Children should therefore be taught “a love of order” and the “system of government must be arranged in such a way that the individual must . . . work and act, for the sake of the community.”

The highest purpose of Prussian education was summed up by one of its later proponents, Franz de Hovre:

The prime fundamental of German education is that it is based on a national principle. Kulture is the great capital of the German nation. . . . A fundamental feature of German education; Education to the State, Education for the State, Education by the State. The Volkschule is a direct result of a national principle aimed at the national unity. The State is the supreme end in view.

This kind of education was virtually unknown to Americans until the nineteenth century, and it was anathema to everything that the founders’ liberalism stood for.

We know America’s earliest proponents of government schooling were enamored with the Prussian model because they were explicit in saying so. Some of them went to Germany to see exactly what the Germans were doing, and they became advocates of Prussian schooling when they returned to America.

Continue reading “”

The law requires school districts to adopt procedures that “reinforce the fundamental right of parents to make decisions regarding the upbringing and control of their children.” It prohibits classroom instruction – not casual discussion – on “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” with children in third grade or younger, “or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.”

It prohibits classroom instruction – not casual discussion – on “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” with children in third grade or younger (that’s 5 to 8 year old kids) 

You know what that means, right? Florida parents found out that schools proggie indoctrination centers had teachers pedophile groomers teaching kindergarten through third grade students about ‘transgenderism’, homosexuality, pornography, and sexual degeneracy in the classroom, and telling the kids not to tell their parents.

and what does Peppermint Psaki have to say about it?

Florida’s parental rights bill is not a ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill. It is a full-throated defense of moms and dads against the state-sponsored progressive brainwashing of their kids.

On March 8, Florida’s Republican-controlled state legislature passed the Parental Rights in Education bill.

But you may know it better by the media’s smear name, ‘The Don’t Say Gay Bill.’

It’s a measure that gives parents more control over what their children are taught in public schools.

But that’s not how the White House, Democrats, Hollywood and the media portrayed it.

In fact, they completely mischaracterized it.

President Joe Biden called an early version of the bill ‘hateful.’

Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg claimed it will increase suicides among LGBTQ+ youth.

On Tuesday’s episode of ‘Watch What Happens Live’ Bravo host Andy Cohen called the bill’s passage ‘personally disturbing,’ and told Florida Republicans that they’re pretending to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.

‘This is one big dog whistle. You’re scaring people into spewing hate and discrimination at the LGBTQ community,’ he said.

On Wednesday, the White House doubled down again.  Press Secretary Jen Psaki called the bill ‘discriminatory,’ ‘horrific,’ and ‘a form of bullying’ against LGBTQ children and families.

On the eve of the bill’s passage, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (who is now expected to sign the bill into law) confronted a local reporter, who framed the legislation as anti-gay.

‘I want to ask about the Parental Rights in Education, what critics call the ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill,’ said Evan Donovan.

DeSantis was having none of it, and snapped, ‘Does it say that in the bill? You are pushing false narratives…’

So does the bill prohibit teachers’ from saying the word ‘gay’?

In a word – no!

Continue reading “”

Again, it’s nice when pictures are available for positive ID

BLUF:
Dr. Leonardo wants to solve the “problem of whiteness” or pose it as a problem. The real problem is that people have begun to see others as impediments to their ability to move forward in life. It actually foments racism, division, and anger. It teaches victimhood by always having someone to blame because of the color of their skin.

UC Berkeley Prof. Zeus Leonardo: Abolish Whiteness, Abolish White People

Zeus Leonardo

UC Berkeley Professor Zeus Leonardo believes in Critical Race Theory. In so doing, he made the statement to a class that “to abolish whiteness is to abolish white people.” Is he advocating genocide?

“To abolish whiteness is to abolish white people. That’s very uncomfortable perhaps, but it asks about our definitions of what race is and what racial justice might mean.”

UC Berkeley education professor Zeus Leonardo:

Continue reading “”

Promoting BS like this is exactly part and parcel of the continued push to ‘dumb down’ the populace, since ignorant people are so much easier to control.

2+2=5? Bill Gates funnels $1 MILLION to push ‘math is racist’ narrative
With $1 million of support from the Gates Foundation, universities and local governments are bringing “anti-racism” to mathematics.
The group says that a “focus on getting the ‘right’ answer” and state standards directing classroom instruction represent “white supremacy culture.”
The group suggests implementing “ethnomathematics” as an antidote.

With a $1 million check from the Gates Foundation, leading universities and local governments are building an effort to bring “anti-racism” efforts to mathematics.

A Pathway to Equitable Instruction exists to address “barriers to math equity” by offering “guidance and resources for educators to use now as they plan their curriculum, while also offering opportunities for ongoing self-reflection as they seek to develop an anti-racist math practice.”

Among the group’s content developers are Ruth Basket, Mirna Maranda-Welsh, and Malane Morales-Van Hecke from the Los Angeles County Office of Education’s Multilingual Academic Support Unit; David Chun, the Director of K-12 Mathematics at the Sacramento County Office of Education; and Mindy Shacklett, a Coordinator of Mathematics at the San Diego County Office of Education. Multiple professors from the University of California system and Loyola Marymount University also worked on the project.

In its acknowledgments section — which lists the aforementioned universities and governments as “dedicated partners” — the project thanks the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for its “generous financial support.”

Gates Foundation senior communications officer Josie Duckett McSpadden confirmed to Campus Reform that the nonprofit gave $1,000,000 to the group.

One of the group’s guides — entitled “Dismantling Racism in Mathematics Instruction” — lists the “focus on getting the ‘right’ answer,” the emphasis on “real-world math,” state standards directing classroom instruction, and the sequential teaching of skills as “white supremacy culture.”

Accordingly, the guide endeavors to debunk several alleged signs of white supremacy in mathematics. For instance, the notion that “‘good’ math teaching is considered an antidote for mathematical inequity” among minority students is decried on the grounds that “either/or thinking” “allows the defensiveness of Western mathematics to prevail.”

In addressing the belief that state standards ought to direct classroom instruction, the guide suggests that teachers “unpack how the standards uphold white supremacy culture.”

As an antidote to white supremacy culture, the guide suggests centering the classroom upon “ethnomathematics.”

Students may, for example, “recognize the ways that communities of color engage in mathematics and problem solving in their everyday lives” or “challenge the ways that math is used to uphold capitalist, imperialist, and racist views.”

Teachers are likewise encouraged to “intentionally include mathematicians of color” in their instruction and “acknowledge the mathematical knowledge of students of color, even if it shows up unconventionally.”

Another guide — “Sustaining Equitable Practice” — asserts that “the relationship between instructional coach and teacher can be complicated and nuanced given the intersectionality of both participants’ identities.”

CDC quietly lowers the bar for early childhood speech development.

This is a story that first surfaced earlier in the week but hasn’t gained a lot of traction yet. (This is perhaps understandable given the situation in Ukraine, but also likely by intention.) For the first time in decades, the CDC has changed many of the recognized milestones for childhood development in terms of speech and cognitive functions.

These markers are considered important in terms of recognizing when children aren’t progressing quickly enough, suggesting the potential need to determine if some sort of impairment is being observed and if the child may require greater medical attention. The curious thing about the changes instituted by the CDC is that in a majority of the cases, they have lowered the standards rather than raising them. I first noticed this news on Twitter, as so often happens these days.

You can read the new guidelines here. One of the big changes that many critics are focusing on is the former guideline saying that children should normally know approximately fifty words by 24 months or two years of age. That benchmark has now been stealthily raised to 30 months. That’s not insignificant at all. It’s a 25% increase from the previous standard.

The Postmillennial examines the context in which these changes are taking place. It’s hard to ignore the growing body of reports showing that childhood development has been suffering as a result of various COVID protocols, raging from “virtual learning” environments to forcing children to wear face masks.

Continue reading “”

On Monday, a North Carolina dad spoke at a local school board meeting urging parents to “take the wheel back” in their children education, and commended the school board for passing a resolution last summer that banned critical race theory teachings in the district.
Brian Echevarria is running for District 73 in the North Carolina House of Representatives, and one of the main tenets of his campaign is to stop critical race theory indoctrination in schools and the reinstitution of parental rights as regards the “upbringing and education of their children.”

Arizona House Approves Measure That Would Amend [State] Constitution to Ban Critical Race Theory

PHOENIX (AP) — Republicans in the Arizona House approved a measure Thursday that would ask voters to amend the state constitution to ban the teaching of so-called “critical race theory” in schools and bar any preferential treatment based on race.

A ban on teaching critical race theory has become a major political talking point for Republicans nationwide. It is not taught in Arizona’s schools, but that did not stop lawmakers from enacting a ban last year. The state Supreme Court struck that law down because it was unconstitutionally included in the budget………….

Texas Now Requires New Charter Schools to Ensure They Won’t Teach Critical Race Theory

The Texas Education Agency confirmed this week it now requires new charter schools to submit a “statement of assurance” that the school will follow so-called “critical race theory” laws before opening its doors to the public.

Last year, Texas lawmakers passed two laws designed to limit how teachers could discuss issues of race in the classroom. The state’s current law, Senate Bill 3, replaced an earlier measure, House Bill 3979. Both have been labeled by conservatives as anti-critical race theory laws although the term is not included in either law.

Continue reading “”

San Francisco recalls 3 members of city’s school board.

Three members of San Francisco’s school board were ousted Tuesday in the wake of widespread backlash over the slow reopening of schools shut down by COVID-19 and a controversial plan to rename dozens of school sites.

School board president Gabriela López, vice president Faauuga Moliga and commissioner Alison Collins were all stripped of their positions during a special election, according to tallies by the San Francisco Department of Elections.

Furious parents launched the recall effort in January 2021 after arguing the school board was pushing progressive politics instead of acting in the best interests of children amid the pandemic.

“The city of San Francisco has risen up and said this is not acceptable to put our kids last,” said Siva Raj, a father of two who helped launch the recall effort.

“Talk is not going to educate our children, it’s action. It’s not about symbolic action, it’s not about changing the name on a school, it is about helping kids inside the school building read and learn math.”

Continue reading “”

5th-graders learn to shoot guns by using school gym as target range

A school district in Wyoming posted pictures of 5th and 6th grade students shooting targets with air rifles in a school gym.

A school district in Wyoming recently used a gymnasium as a shooting range, training fifth and sixth grade students in marksmanship during PE. Hot Springs County School District #1, in the small town of Thermopolis, shared photos of the sharpshooting session in a Feb. 2 Facebook post, and it quickly caught the attention of thousands.

McClatchy News has obtained a screengrab of the Facebook post, which is no longer publicly available. In the pictures, the children are seen aiming air rifles across the gym at a set of targets propped up against the bleachers with what appears to be plywood.

Often a child’s introduction to the world of firearms, air rifles generally use gas stored in a small canister to propel a BB or pellet out of the barrel at relatively high speed. While far less lethal than true firearms, they can cause serious harm in some circumstances. “All students passed their safety test and have been sharpening their skills,” the post said.

As of the morning of Feb. 8, the post had garnered 13,000 reactions and 5,700 comments and had been shared over 60,000 times. For perspective, the population of Thermopolis is around 2,700.

“This is what America needs more of,” one comment read.
“Education and responsible firearm ownership.”
“This is so awesome! Probably one of the safest schools in the country too,” a commenter wrote.
“I need to find a school like this for my son once he’s old enough!”
“CA masks their kids, Wyoming teaches marksmanship,” said another.

Of the nearly 6,000 comments, most are in support of the district.

‘Perfectionism,’ having a ‘sense of urgency’ are examples of White supremacy, academics argue.

The Brown School at Washington University in St. Louis hosted an event that made headlines before it even began, called “Is Professionalism a Racist Construct?”

In the event, the presenters characterized various qualities of workplace environments such as “perfectionism,” “a sense of urgency,” “defensiveness,” “worship of the written word,” and “quantity over quality” as characteristics of White supremacy culture.

One presenter, Assistant Dean for Field Education Jewel Stafford connected these alleged characteristics of White supremacy culture to the idea that “even though we’re working really hard, there’s a narrative that we’re not enough, that somehow who we are, what we do, it’s just not enough.”

The host, Associate Dean for External Affairs Gary Parker, noted that “there were some media outlets that portrayed this talk in a less than flattering light.”

Another presenter, Assistant Dean of the Office of Community Partnerships Cynthia Williams, addressed this controversy in her speech, noting multiple times that she was “getting into good trouble” with her colleagues, and specifically addressed the “provocative” nature of the question, “Is professionalism racist?”

She said that depending on the marginalized group being recognized at the time, they might have changed the question.

For example, she noted that if the talk was given on Disability Awareness Day, the talk may have been called “Is it an Ableist Construct?” If it was given during Women’s History Month, it may have been called “Is it a Misogynistic or Sexist Construct?”

If the talk was given during Gay Pride Month, they might have called it “Is it a Heterosexist (Homophobic) Construct?” And if the talk was given during National Native American Heritage Month, it may have been called “Professionalism: Confronting Anti-Indigenous and Systemic Racism.”

The presenters began their presentation with a land acknowledgment, noting that the Brown School “is within the ancestral homelands” of various “tribes that have resided, occupied, and called this region home.”

Williams then said, “We acknowledge the 1,252 black American men and women who since January 1, 2015, unjustifiably died due to police brutality and anti-black violence.”

The speakers also urged the audience to support the Crown Act, which has already been passed in a number of states, aiming to eliminate workplace discrimination on the basis of hairstyle.

Campus Reform reached out to Williams, Stafford, Parker, and Washington University for comment. This article will be updated accordingly.

This ‘trans’ thing is a bunch of mentally ill people, the ‘athletes’ of which couldn’t make the cut with whatever sport they want to compete in on the male side, and found a way to cover up their lack of ability.

South Dakota governor signs 2022’s first trans athlete ban into law
Gov. Kristi Noem had previously issued executive orders banning trans girls and women from competing on female sports teams in the state.

South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem signed a bill Thursday that bans transgender girls and women from playing on female sports teams, making the state the first this year — and the 10th nationwide — to enact such a bill into law.

“This bill has been an important priority for a lot of the people behind me,” Noem said as she signed the bill at a news conference, “and I appreciate all of their hard work in making sure that girls will always have the opportunity to play in girls sports in South Dakota and have an opportunity for a level playing field, for fairness, that gives them the chance to experience success.”

Noem vetoed a similar bill in March because she said the legislation wouldn’t survive legal challenges. Later that month, she issued two executive orders that restricted participation on female sports teams to those assigned female at birth.

Continue reading “”

Tiger shooters take state title

The Ozark High School JROTC battalion rifle team earned a clean sweep of the championship trophies at the Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP) State Championship on Jan. 15.

The Tigers came in first place in both the precision and sporter rifle divisions of the team competition that was held in Washington, Missouri.

“We continue to work hard day in and day out and I’m very proud to see this team rewarded for all of their hard work,” said 1st Sgt. William Crawford, Ozark High School JROTC instructor and rifle team coach. “There were roughly 15 schools with over 25 teams, which made for a highly-competitive field. Consistency is accuracy and accuracy is consistency.”

Ozark’s triumphs also extended to the individual competition, as the Tigers claimed the top three spots in both the precision and sporter divisions.

“As a team, we have worked very diligently and put in many long hours to better ourselves as shooters, competitors and fellow teammates,” said Ozark rifle team captain Elijah Glenn. “Our performance at the state championship was a reflection of our dedication to each other and our commitment to representing Ozark JROTC to the best of our abilities.”

The state meet marked the first competition of the new calendar year for the Ozark rifle team. The shooting Tigers are headed into the home stretch of their 2021-22 season, and will compete next at the CMP Army Service National Championship in Anniston, Alabama, Feb. 2-6.

Continue reading “”

Comment O’ The Day
As taxpayers tire of funding things like this, we’re told it’s because of “anti-intellectualism.”

University assignment has students record themselves accusing someone of racism or homophobia.

An assignment shows an instructor directing students to locate someone that they can accuse of ‘racism,’ ‘ableist racist or homophobic use of language,’ or ‘micro-aggressions.’

The Twitter account Libs of TikTok tweeted a screenshot of a similar assignment Wednesday, likely from another iteration of the course.

Article image
Addison Smith | Reporter
Wednesday, January 26, 2022 3:11 PM

An assignment obtained by Campus Reform from a University of New Hampshire course shows an instructor directing students to locate someone that they can accuse of “racism,” “ableist racist or homophobic use of language,” or “micro-aggressions.”

Students in the “Introduction to Language and Social Interaction” course were told to “Call in someone on their ableist racist or homophobic use of language, for micro aggressions (or an act of racism) towards a person of color, homophobia against LGBTQI+ or ableism against a disabled person.”

The assignment for the course, specifies that students must also record the interaction “in order to get credit,” while clarifying to get permission before doing so.

“Remember to say you know they mean well and are a good person,” reads the assignment.

Students are instructed to give their target “an alternate way of expressing themselves that doesn’t marginalise [sic] or oppress,” and warned to “Research your proposed alternative to make certain its [sic] not oppressive itself!!” because “You will fail if you tell someone to say something racist or sexist or homophobic.”

Continue reading “”

But, of course, demoncraps want to for more access to your children……….. to indoctrinate them into being good little serfs.

reQuote O’ The Day
If a foreign nation forced this kind of education system on us,
it would considered an act of war.

Shovel More Dirt on Pre-K

I would ordinarily shy away from doing an old-school blog post that simply links to something else, but this feels like a study that calls out for an exception. I’ve just been reading a paper in the journal Developmental Psychology1, thanks to a friend’s library access. It’s a pre-K study that has many virtues, including

  1. Large n (2990 kids)
  2. Genuine random assignment
  3. Longitudinal design
  4. Confirms my priors

… and it says kids who were assigned to the pre-K condition actually did worse than kids who were not.

VPK = Tennessee Voluntary Pre-K

Pre-K advocates tend to fixate on non-academic indicators as a way to justify pre-K programs. But attendance was mildly worse for the pre-K group:

Attendance rates in sixth grade (proportion of instructional days without a recorded absence) were high for both TN-VPK participants and nonparticipants. Nonetheless, the difference between groups was statistically significant with a slightly higher rate for nonparticipants (97.5% vs. 97.1%, p = .013 for the ITT analysis with observed values). Supplemental Table S11 provides model details for each year (see also Supplemental Figure S3). Sixth grade was the first academic year with a significant attendance difference between conditions, although there were marginally significant effects in kindergarten and first grade.

Continue reading “”

‘Free Speech Advocates’ Panic Over Parents’ Push for More Curriculum Transparency

Teachers, unions and “free speech advocates” argue that more school curriculum transparency would be equivalent to “educational gag orders,” experts told NBC News.

State lawmakers in at least 12 states across the U.S. have introduced legislation to promote more school transparency by requiring teachers to post educational materials online, NBC News reported. Conservatives see more transparency as a way to prevent controversial curricula such as race-based education, Critical Race Theory (CRT) and sexually graphic books.

Continue reading “”

Glenn Youngkin Defends Ban on ‘Racially Divisive’ Critical Race Theory in Virginia

Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin defended his decision to outlaw critical race theory in public schools — slamming the controversial philosophy as “racially divisive.”

Youngkin made the remarks following a decision to issue an executive order banning school lessons that define racism as an institutional problem deeply embedded in American society.

“There’s not a course called critical race theory,” Youngkin said on “Fox News Sunday.”………………….

The Great Liquidation

America is hanging by a thread.  A great liquidation is underway, with many of the structures that support American society..or, in some cases, any viable society…being kicked away, sold off piecemeal, or just wantonly destroyed.  I’m talking about physical structures, legal structures, and social structures.

I do not think it is too late to turn this trend around, but the situation is very serious, and I’m going to ask you to gaze into the abyss with me before I discuss some reasons for hope.

Consider:

–Significant parts of America’s energy infrastructure are being destroyed or targeted for destruction.  For example, the Indian Point nuclear plant, serving NYC, was closed in April, despite the fact that this closure will likely create grid instability–and will certainly result in the zero-emissions power it had previously produced being generated instead by sources which do generate emissions. (Yet at the same time, NYC is banning the use of natural gas in new buildings–which will further increase the demand for electricity!) The Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, the largest source of electricity in California, is also scheduled for closure in 2025.  The cost of Diablo Canyon was $14.5B in present-day dollars, and I estimate that this represents at least 50,000 person-years of labor.  Something like 1200 working lifetimes, being wantonly trashed. Only a society which is very rich (for now)–disrespectful of its past accomplishments–and uncaring about the future would act in this way.

And these examples represent only a small portion of the assaults being conducted on America’s energy infrastructure. Peaker plants which ensure continued output under tough conditions, are being closed, with much hand-waving about how ‘demand management’ will solve any problems.  Oil and gas production are being squeezed. Pipeline construction is being suppressed, at the same time Putin is given the US green light for a Russia-Germany pipeline.  Energy is being transformed from an American asset into an American vulnerability.

–Billions of dollars of America military equipment were abandoned in Afghanistan and are now in the hands of the Taliban.  If we use a conservative estimate of $40 billion, that represents at least 400,000 person-years of human labor, thrown away. But that’s not the worst of it, of course: much of that equipment will now be used against us or our allies.  There are already reports of formerly-American weapons on their way to Iran.

The effect of the horribly-executed Afghanistan withdrawal on our credibility as an alliance partner will be devastating.  While many foreign policy types expressed worry about what expecting Germany to pay a larger % of the NATO bill would do to our alliances, any imagined impact of that was trivial compared with the impact of the current debacle.  The negative effect on American military recruiting, also, will be considerable, as discussed by several commenters at this blog.  Overall, America’s actual and perceived power position in the world has been greatly reduced over the past few months.

–American manufacturing has been negatively impacted by numerous policy choices and social factors, and America is no longer the world’s facto ry: that role now falls to China.  We have become extremely dependent on China and other countries for many products and components of products–as we found out during last year’s Covid crisis when we were subject to threats that we would ‘burn in the fire of Covid’ if China should choose to deny us critical pharmaceuticals and ingredients thereof.  We have become highly dependent on other countries for electronics manufacturing, especially microchips: a single Taiwanese company, TSMC, acts as the ‘foundry’ for a whole range of chips produced to the designs of many different American companies.  A Chinese takeover of Taiwan could be devastating to our industry, and such takeover appears considerably more likely than it did a couple of months ago.

Manufacturing was, for a couple of decades, considered by the approved-expert classes to be an increasingly-unimportant industry, populated only by those with inferior and uncreative minds. There is some recognition growing lately that this field may actually matter. But American politicians generally have so little comprehension of how the economy actually works that it is hard to believe that any remedies that they propose will be efficacious ones.  As example #1, I give you Joseph Biden: a man who asserted that anyone who can mine coal can ‘learn to code’, and who apparently believes that manually shoveling coal into furnaces is an actual substantial occupation in America today.  Biden also said, referring to China: “They’re not competition for us.”  This was in mid-2019!

America has given up much of its potential in manufacturing. and the consequences are severe for national security and for millions of people.  

Continue reading “”

In other words, SloJoe’s cabinet devised a fraudulent plan to invent an issue to give federal law enforcement a purported reason to come down on political enemies.
If that isn’t ‘Banana Republic’ style, IDK what is.

BLUF:
“Attorney General Merrick Garland unequivocally stated that he based his memo on the NSBA’s letter – which in turn, mobilized the FBI and US Attorneys,” Neily added. “If Secretary Cardona was truly involved in this ugly episode, it is a significant breach of public trust, and he should be held accountable.”

Education Secretary Cardona solicited NSBA letter comparing protesting parents to domestic terrorists: email

 Education Secretary Miguel Cardona solicited the much-criticized letter from the National School Boards Association that compared protesting parents to domestic terrorists, according to an email exchange reviewed by Fox News.

The email exchange indicates Cardona was more involved with the letter’s creation than previously known.

President Biden’s Department of Justice relied on the NSBA letter, which suggested using the Patriot Act against parents, in creating its own memo directing the FBI to mobilize in support of local education officials.

In the Oct. 5 email, NSBA Secretary-Treasurer Kristi Swett recounted that NSBA interim CEO Chip Slaven “told the officers he was writing a letter to provide information to the White House, from a request by Secretary Cardona.”

Continue reading “”