Author Patrick Wood warned us that America’s schools were in danger back in 2005. In his article “Global Schooling: The Hijacking of American Education”, he equates the virtual takeover (or hijacking) of American education to that of seizing control of a moving vehicle by use of force, in order to reach an alternate destination. The time period for this hijacking coincides with the economic plundering of America. According to Patrick Wood, the takeover started roughly in 1973 and is still in progress today.
Author: Nancy Thorner and Bonnie O'Neil
In “Court and Democracy” Jeffry Rosen speaks of the Supreme Court as playing a paradoxical role in American democracy. He states: “Americans think of the Supreme Court as the least democratic branch of the federal government, designed by the framers of the U.S. Constitution to ‘protect vulnerable minorities’ against the tyranny of the majority.”
As noted in our collaborative article published Monday, Nov. 9, 2015 in Illinois Review, “Supreme Court to Adjudicate Mandatory Union Fees”, Rebecca Friedrichs is the lead plaintiff, an outspoken opponent of her teachers’ union who agreed to let her name become identified with the case. Friedrichs has taught elementary school for 28 years, mostly in the Savanna School District in Anaheim, Ca. You can listen to her discuss the case here, read a Q&A with her here, and a commentary by her in the Orange County Register here.
The Supreme Court put public-sector unions in its cross hairs Tuesday, June 30, 2015 by agreeing to hear a constitutional attack on the mandatory representation fees that nearly all California teachers pay in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association.
The United Nations Agenda 21 (“Earth Summit) and the more aggressive U.N. Agenda 2030 are designed to take away freedoms and liberties granted us from the inception of our country. If its founders and promoters succeed, America will look very different within a surprisingly short period of time.
If it were possible to have a time machine traveling back to 1992 to visit the United Nation’s “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, we would repeatedly hear the phrase “Sustainable Living” drilled into the minds of the 178 nations and state officials that attended, including President George H. Bush. The purpose of the “Earth Summit” was to warn World leaders that the Earth could no longer sustain the consumptive appetite of the United States of America. The solution was a plan for “Sustainable Development” that would be implemented throughout the World.
Our first major clues of the changes our president had in mind were evident in those he chose for his cabinet. Victor Davis Hanson mentioned some of Obama’s questionable liberal choices in an article that described the “worst of the worst.” However, he missed Arnie Duncan, Secretary of Education, who ushered in the controversial Common Core Standards.
By now most Americans are familiar with Common Core as a scheme by the federal government to rewrite education. This experimental program was sold to state governments, sight unseen; without a shred of proof it was better than the program it replaced. This maneuver was largely accomplished through taxpayer-funded bribes, deception, and federal bludgeoning. Common Core proponents used vague language about “excellence” in education, “raising the bar,” and “getting this nation’s children ready for the workforce”, as selling points that new standards were needed. Little or nothing was mentioned about the accompanying curriculum, rewritten textbooks, or the extensive, expensive new testing programs.
Common Core at the K -12 level in education is shifting and distorting education in many liberal ways, but what about the education being taught to our college age students? We should be even more concerned about that group, as they will soon be part of society and influencing it very soon. The obvious concern is whether they too are part of the Liberal’s attempt to insert their socialist agenda into the curriculum and thus minds of America’s youth.
The word “sustainability” is now being overused throughout our public education system. The claim is that teaching sustainable development to students will help them solve problems, such as climate change and poverty reduction, by teaching students how to change their behavior and thus help combat issues deemed as problems.
The once rarely used word, “sustainability”, has become rather common today, arguably overused by those who want to make changes in our World. Dictionary.com provides two meanings for the word: “1. The ability to be sustained, supported, upheld, or confirmed. 2. Environmental Science: the quality of not being harmful to the environment or depleting natural resources, and thereby supporting long-term ecological balance.”
David L. Goetsch in his book, “Liberal Tyranny in Higher Education”, sees multiculturalism as the leftist code for a worldview that seeks the destruction of Christianity and traditional American values. Although everyone and everything is supposed to be equal, universal equality is preached but not actually believed. Multicultural elitists not only reject the values of those who pay their salaries, they do everything in their power to subvert their values. Elitists in academia go beyond just advocating multiculturalism, they worship at the altar of this misguided, socially cancerous worldview.
Instead of focusing on the central issue which is addressing the cost effectiveness of the global warming issue, the main focus continues to be on the nearly irrelevant causation issue. Neither does Christiana Figueres seem to understand that a transformation of the “economic development model” is a repository of consequences unintended but predictable; foremost among them, the impoverishment of many millions of people.
Man-made climate change alarmists continue to be caught revising history. There is a simple concept that continues to be on display here: If present reality, facts and figures aren’t cooperating with your desired goal, just change them to fit your desired outcome. “Fiddling” with temperature data is the biggest science scandal to date, and one of the least reported by the main stream media.
Will man’s folly over CO2 end up banning cars, limiting living space, and stripping citizens of personal freedoms, all for the purpose of creating a world some politicians envision as necessary to control the population? Or will facts that dispute the global warming alarmists be given equal publicity and consideration by the media and responsible officials?
What should citizens do when confronted with an intrusive, all encompassing government agenda that will eventually affect every aspect of their lives? That is the question we need to be addressing, because United Nations Agenda 21 is a reality, and it already has many countries, including the United States, complying with its mandates.
How would you respond if told you could no longer drive your children to school in the morning, or use your car to rush them to the nearest hospital or health clinic if they suddenly were hurt or became ill? Not favorably I would imagine, because we all have become quite attached to the convenience and necessity of our cars, which is why you might want to know what former Vice President Al Gore, former Mexican President Felipe Calderon, and a small army of other influential people have been busy devising and deciding for our future.
Obviously, Liberals have a very different philosophy than Conservatives. That is why a growing number of people are concerned about the unusual and disproportionate inequality that exists between Liberal professors and Conservative professors within America’s colleges and universities today. When there is an inequality as great as nine liberal professors to one Conservative professor in a college, it is impossible to believe the students are receiving a fair and balanced education. Parents and the public are seeking answers as to why the imbalance exists and calling upon universities to examine how to create a more balanced environment and learning experience for their children.
What has happened to universities and colleges, school that once identified themselves as sanctuaries for free speech, tolerance, and diversity? Why did they abandon that excellent goal as an open market place for thought and ideas, to become instead institutions of indoctrination to a specific political viewpoint?
After every national election the losing party claims voter fraud influenced the outcome. We hear reports of voter suppression, voting machine irregularities, non-eligible people voting, tampering with ballots, intimidation at the polls, and the list goes on and on. Are these claims just the product of intense disappointment and frustration due to rigorous campaigns in which thousands of people spent many months of exhaustive work and intense passion to win? The disappointment of losing cannot be underestimated. However, as much as we might sympathize with those who lost, nobody can deny the fact that election laws are often bent and others blatantly broken in the election process. The quest to win causes those with a lack of principles to claim “the end justifies the means”. No! Nothing justifies breaking established election laws, because that can rob the rightful winner of victory and cheat citizens from securing the person they want to represent them.