There is a Big Difference Between R’s and D’s thumbnail

There is a Big Difference Between R’s and D’s

By Bruce Bialosky

Many people will jump in and say that there is no distinct difference between this country’s two political parties. If you take out the extremes of each party, you cannot slip a sheet of paper between the two. Yet there is a big difference in philosophy that divides the two parties that define what each believes and is at the heart of almost all respective actions. That was exemplified by an interaction I had on a matter that you would never guess would be so defining.

Over the past 50 years, I have participated in planning our class reunions. It is an interesting position for me because I came to Los Angeles as a high school sophomore and was not that involved in my high school’s activities. I was more involved in an outside religiously based organization. Over the years I became closer to many of my high school classmates and worked with the principal person who stayed in touch with the class and helped organize the reunions.

Some of my friends were afraid we would not have a real reunion for our 50th and contacted me to make sure it was at a nice place and properly planned. I stayed in touch with the person organizing the event. That person had asked me to take over after our 45th reunion but then decided to take it back a couple of years later.

When I called to make sure the 50th had a proper location, I was told a proper location was being narrowed down. Then I received a call. “You will not be happy to hear this, but we are not going to have a reunion next year (2022 is our 50th year). We will have to postpone it until 2023 because of COVID.” I responded that was nuts because first, that event is fourteen months from now; and second, that is not your decision to make. The class can decide.

Then the battle began between the two of us. The other person asserting the decision was made for everyone and myself asserting that these people are grownups; they can vote for themselves. I stated we have an email tree so let’s get the class’s input.

Finally, the other person acquiesced and offered a version of what we could send to the class. The suggestion: “Hi everyone… Yes, I know it’s been quite a while. Hope everyone is doing as well as possible considering what’s going on in the world these days. We all know that our 50th reunion is upon us…but due to that naughty Covid we will need to rethink things. We certainly can’t have an indoor reunion, and I’m not even sure that an outside event is a good thing either. Do you really want to chat with old friends while wearing a mask?”

“Anyhow… please send me your thoughts and ideas… on anything and everything that’s been on your mind.”

Does anything say your thoughts and ideas are not needed or wanted more than the above statement? When asking for their input this person had no interest in hearing what their thoughts were other than what is “predetermined.”

My reply: “That is so leading why don’t you just tell them what to think. These people are grownups. They don’t need your guidance.” I was asked what I would state. My reply:

As you know, next year will be our 50th reunion time. Please let us know whether you are intending to attend the event.

That is all one needs to say or should say. They will give you their thoughts. If they are concerned about attending because of COVID, they will say so.

Democrats believe they are better at making decisions for people and that the people need to have these decisions made for them. Republicans believe that people are perfectly capable of making decisions for themselves. If they need to seek counsel for deciding, they will do such through trusted advisors whether they be family, friends or professionals.

Over the years in areas where Democrats have been in charge, their strong-arm tactics of top-down decision-making have crippled the ability of many people to make decisions for themselves thus making them wards of the state which appears to be exactly what the Democrats want to accomplish.

Democrats consider themselves smarter than everyone else. They consider themselves enlightened intellectuals. As Thomas Sowell stated, “Intellectuals stay relevant to the decision-making process by convincing nonintellectuals that their own knowledge is inadequate.”

People are better off making their own decisions and taking responsibility for their own lives. There is a major difference between Republicans and Democrats that runs through almost every aspect of government.

*****

This article was published on November 28, 2021, in FlashReport, and is reprinted with permission from the author.

Whose Land Did Native Americans Steal Before Europeans Stole It From Them? thumbnail

Whose Land Did Native Americans Steal Before Europeans Stole It From Them?

By Rick Moran

We all know that history is not the left’s favorite subject. Many times, it’s just too inconvenient for their political narratives. Often, history has to be erased or submerged in order to achieve the “greater good” of creating a just and moral society.

In truth, it’s not much better on the right, although generally, the conservative take on American history is more nuanced. Christopher Columbus was an ass — a greedy, cruel, ambitious man who didn’t let anyone stand in his way to achieving riches and power, especially native people. But he was courageous enough to cross an unknown ocean in a rickety ship and with a mutinous crew.

Do his sins outweigh the good he’s done? Not our call. And certainly not the call of biased, cretinous leftists who don’t want to understand Columbus and only use his sins as illustrations in their little morality plays to condemn the entire “Age of Exploration.”

American history did not begin in 1492. There have been human beings residing in North America for at least 20,000 years and probably longer. But the people who crossed the Bering Sea land bridge from Asia to North America during the last Ice Age may not have been the first humans to arrive here. Recent DNA evidence shows that there have been several different migrations to North America with Native American tribes only being the most recent.

And that leads to the inescapable conclusion: the Native Americans who were present on the North American continent when Europeans arrived were not the same Native Americans who arrived 20,000 years ago. DNA evidence tracks the migration of one early American civilization — the Clovis people, so-called because the first tools and weapons were found in Clovis, New Mexico — and reveals that they thrived in both North and South America until about 8500 years ago…..

*****

Continue reading this article, published November 26, 2021 at PJ Media.

School CANCELS Event with Islamic Sex Slave Survivor Nadia Murad Saying It Would Offend Muslims thumbnail

School CANCELS Event with Islamic Sex Slave Survivor Nadia Murad Saying It Would Offend Muslims

By Pamela Geller

This is what we have been up against for well over a decade.

This is no different from what the Islamic State did to millions of girls and women.

  • The Toronto District School Board (TDSB) is not allowing its students to attend a book club meeting featuring author Nadia Murad
  • Murad’s book details how she escaped the Islamic State, where she was ripped from her home and sold into sexual slavery aged just 14 years old
  • The superintendent Helen Fisher said Muslim students would be offended and the book ‘promotes Islamophobia’
  • Book club founder and TDSB parent Tanya Lee said the book ‘has nothing to do with ordinary Muslims. (TDSB) should be aware of the difference’
  • The Board later issued an apology but still won’t let the students attend the event

By Shannon Thaler For Dailymail.Com, 26 November 2021:

A Canadian school has cancelled an event with ISIS survivor Nadia Murad, saying her visit would be offensive to Muslims and foster ‘Islamophobia’.

Murad was scheduled to sit down with students from the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) – the largest school Board in Canada with nearly 600 schools – to discuss her book The Last Girl: My Story Of Captivity in February 2022.

Murad’s graphic exposé detailed how she escaped the Islamic State, where she was ripped from her home and sold into sexual slavery aged just 14 years old, according to The Telegraph.

She uses the book to talk about how she was raped and tortured before finding her way to a refugee camp in Durhok, in northern Iraq, and then to Germany where she now lives.

The event was cancelled because Superintendent Helen Fisher (pictured) said said it would offend Muslim students and ‘promote Islamophobia’

Nadia Murad (pictured) wrote an exposé detailing how she escaped the Islamic State and was slated to discuss it at a book club event for the Toronto District School Board (TDSB). However, the event was cancelled because Superintendent Helen Fisher (right) said said it would offend Muslim students and ‘promote Islamophobia’

In her book (pictured), Murad talks about how she was raped and tortured before finding her way to a refugee camp in Durhok, in northern Iraq, and then to Germany where she now lives

In her book (pictured), Murad talks about how she was raped and tortured before finding her way to a refugee camp in Durhok, in northern Iraq, and then to Germany where she now lives

But before the event could happen the superintendent of the Board Helen Fisher said that her students would not participate.

She has since issued an apology but refused to allow her students to attend.

Fisher expressed that she believed the book would ‘promote Islamophobia’ and cited how offensive the book was to her Muslim students as her reason for cancelling the event.

The decision enraged TDSB parent Tanya Lee, who wrote an email to the superintendent about the decision.

Lee also founded the book club – called A Room Of Your Own Book Club – which allows teen girls aged 13 to 18 from secondary schools around the country to hear from female authors, and was hosting the event set to feature Murad.

‘This is what the Islamic State means. It is a terrorist organization. It has nothing to do with ordinary Muslims. The Toronto school board should be aware of the difference,’ she wrote, as reported by The Telegraph.

The next day Lee told the news site that Fisher sent her a copy of the school board’s policy on selecting fair, culturally-relevant reading materials, which a TDSB spokesperson said was ‘a misunderstanding’.

‘The equity department does not review and approve books for book clubs,’ they added.

The Board later issued a statement stating they ‘wanted to provide some clarification’.

‘An opinion that did not reflect the position of the Toronto District School Board was shared with the organizer of the book club prior to staff having an opportunity to read the books – something that is routinely done before giving them to students,’ it read.

The statement added that ‘staff are currently reading’ the book and the Board ‘sincerely apologizes to Ms Murad (who) has powerful stories to tell,’ adding that they ‘believe students would learn a great deal (from)’.

Murad was captured by the Islamic State aged 14 and went on to become a leading advocate for survivors of genocide and sexual violence, a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate and a UN Goodwill Ambassador (Murad pictured visiting her village for the first time after being captured by the Islamic State in 2017)

Murad was captured by the Islamic State aged 14 and went on to become a leading advocate for survivors of genocide and sexual violence, a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate and a UN Goodwill Ambassador (Murad pictured visiting her village for the first time after being captured by the Islamic State in 2017)

Murad became the first woman from Iraq to win the Nobel Peace Prize for her activism in speaking out against abuse and sexual violence (pictured during the award ceremony in 2018)

Murad is a leading advocate for survivors of genocide and sexual violence also became a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate and UN Goodwill Ambassador.

Lee, who opened the book club up to young girls from the UK, told The Telegraph: ‘The book club event for A Room Of Your Own Book Club with Nadia Murad will go ahead across Canada in February.

‘The TDSB has not committed to letting their students attend. This is unfortunate for all involved. A great loss to the students, community, and educators at the TDSB.’

However, this isn’t the first time Fisher banned a book from a book club event.

Back in October, A Room Of Your Own Book Club featured author and lawyer Marie Henein, who defended Canadian radio host Jian Ghomeshi while he was being faced with sexual assault charges.

Although Ghomeshi was acquitted on all charges in 2016, the TDSB sill refused to let its students attend the event.

In response, dozens of users took to Twitter to express their fiery discontent towards TDSB’s decision.

One user referred to when Holocaust survivors spoke to TDSB schools and sarcastically said: ‘I guess all the Holocaust survivors who have spoken at schools were promoting hatred of Germans – any response to your idiotic position on Nadia Murad???’

Meanwhile, another user said the school’s choice to cancel Murad’s event is ‘sad (because) she is being de-platformed’.

Yet another response said the decision is the ‘opposite’ of cancel culture, ‘where incompetent professionals face no consequences for bungling their jobs, because their errors are seen as being committed in the (nominal) service of social justice’.

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Quick note: Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

Parents Upset As Schools Force Kids Nationwide To Undergo Mandatory Quarantines After Nearly Two Years Of COVID Precautions thumbnail

Parents Upset As Schools Force Kids Nationwide To Undergo Mandatory Quarantines After Nearly Two Years Of COVID Precautions

By The Daily Caller

Some parents from Michigan, Arizona, and Pennsylvania told the Daily Caller that their children are forced to undergo mandatory quarantines with no virtual learning options, despite evidence that schools pose few transmission risks. Many parents expressed fatigue over the nearly two years of COVID-19 precautions in schools.

Brighton Area Schools, a district in suburban Detroit, is requiring students under the age of 12 to quarantine for 14 days if they are exposed to a COVID-positive student, according to a letter from the district’s superintendent obtained by the Daily Caller. Jennifer Smith, a mother with three children in the district, told the Daily Caller that there are no virtual learning options for children placed in mandatory quarantine.

On Nov. 1, Brighton Area Schools announced that they waived mandatory quarantines for most middle and high school students, though not for students in sixth grade or below. According to the district’s correspondence, deciding whether to waive quarantines for younger students will be contingent on “the availability of vaccines for the 5-11 year old population.”

Brighton Area Schools allow parents to choose whether their child wears a face mask or not, according to district policy, though mandatory quarantines for healthy children are still in place.

Smith told the Daily Caller that her nine-year-old child began a 28-day “healthy child quarantine” on Oct. 19. She received an email on Nov. 9 from Hornung Elementary School informing parents that all classes would go virtual on Nov. 10 due to “an unexplained rise in COVID-19 cases among students” following Halloween. The closure was suggested by the Livingston County Health Department.

CLICK HERE FOR: Screenshot/Email from Brighton Area Schools

According to a testimony from a Livingston County Health Department official, school districts make their own rules regarding quarantine, testing, and masking policies, though the county health department offers data and advice.

The Michigan mother said that her son went from Oct. 19 to Nov. 10 with no virtual school option, and was only offered virtual classes when the entire elementary school shut down. Smith said that she is “extremely upset” as she had “no choice” but to take off work and “go without pay.”

Brighton Area School District did not respond to the Daily Caller’s request for comment.

Parents nationwide told the Daily Caller that they are concerned about learning losses, and some are concerned about the effects learning loss will have on students of color or lower socio-economic status.

Data from 2020 bear out the points that schools are not driving infections and school closures or learning losses are disproportionately hurting minority students. A study of 4.4 million students found that test scores of black, Hispanic, and poor children took the biggest hit when students were not in school. A large study from Oct. 2020 found that schools aren’t large vectors of infection.

Mandatory quarantines — and their effects — are not specific to Michigan. Mother Nicole Eidson told the Daily Caller that quarantines are also taking place in the Chandler Unified School District (CUSD) in Arizona.

According to CUSD’s COVID policy, quarantining students is “required by the Maricopa County Department of Public Health” when a student comes in “close contact” with a student who is COVID-positive. The district’s website states that quarantined students receive “Google classroom assignments and/or activities,” though Eidson noted that children do not receive any teacher instruction during quarantine.

“There may be schools or teachers that are still teaching the quarantined kids, but there are some that are not as well,” Eidson said.

Chandler Unified School District did not respond to the Daily Caller’s request for comment.

Guidelines for K-12 quarantines in some states specifically target those who are unvaccinated. Washington State’s Department of Health guidelines for K-12 schools states that quarantines are only for those who are unvaccinated. This includes 5-11 year olds who are now eligible for a vaccine under the FDA’s emergency use authorization.

Florida, under guidance from Gov. Ron DeSantis, took a different approach. Students are no longer required to quarantine if they’re exposed to COVID-19 and are asymptomatic, according to NPR.

Some school districts are moving towards “Test to Stay” programs, wherein students who come in close contact with a COVID-positive peer can get consecutively tested to remain in school. Souderton Area School District in Pennsylvania is set to implement the program on Nov. 29, according to a local news outlet.

Superintendent Frank Gallagher said he is hopeful that the “Test to Stay” program will allow “exposed students to stay in school instead of quarantining at home.”

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is considering promoting similar “Test to Stay” programs, according to U.S. News.

COLUMN BY

CHRISSY CLARK

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLE: Arizona School Board, Police Coordinated To Spy On, Arrest Concerned Parents

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Arizona Legislation Would Require Schools Teach ‘anti-communist’ Civics Curriculum thumbnail

Arizona Legislation Would Require Schools Teach ‘anti-communist’ Civics Curriculum

By Cole Lauterbach

Editors’ Note: The exchange between two Arizona legislators at the end of the following article encapsulates the major divide in America today. The (Democrat) left’s Marxist socialist ideology currently being forced without a mandate through Congress and the Executive branch, trumpeted by a corrupted and state-acting media and enabled by public school and higher education indoctrination throughout the land is diametrically opposed to our liberty, our natural rights and our history as a Judeo-Christian nation with a Constitution that established the individual citizen as the sovereign and a country governed by consent of the people for the first time in world history. We are now seeing restrictions of liberty everywhere, growth of a police state and an explosion of crime and chaos on American streets. The ingredients for a radical departure toward a statist model of governance with inordinate police power enabled by the pandemic and the highly questionable 2020 election results should concern every informed citizen who values the liberty we have and the America we love. On this Thanksgiving in 2021 let us recommit to the great gift we have been granted over two centuries ago and which must be defended against tyranny and loss by every generation and every American patriot.

Two Arizona Republicans whose families fled communist countries want schools in the state to teach about the evils of the political philosophy.

State Rep. Quang Nguyen, R-Prescott, announced Tuesday his plan to file legislation he said would strengthen civics instruction and civics literacy education for Arizona’s K-12 students.

Nguyen’s family fled communist Vietnam.

“This is very personal to me, as someone who has survived a communist war,” Nguyen said. “I have lost very close family members to the evil ideology of communism. I know what it feels to lose a nation to communism and that’s why I do not want my fellow Arizonans to ever go through what I have.”

“It is up to us to ensure that future generations have an honest understanding of what communism truly is and the horrors it has produced for mankind. Otherwise, it is likely to be repeated. The victims and survivors of communism deserve to have their voice heard.”

House Majority Leader Ben Toma’s family fled communist-run Romania. Toma, a Peoria Republican, is co-sponsoring the legislation with Nguyen.

“I believe in America and its cornerstone principles of liberty, freedom, and democracy,” he said. “I also believe that we have a solemn obligation to prepare today’s students to be tomorrow’s leaders.”

Toma said the legislation strengthens a student’s foundation in civic literacy and understanding of what makes America exceptional, and how it stands in stark contrast to communism and totalitarianism.

Nguyen’s bill would require the state academic standards in social studies to be retooled to include discussion of “political ideologies that conflict with the principles of freedom and democracy essential to the founding principles of the United States.”

Similar legislation was debated as the previous legislative session came to a close in June but failed to make it to Gov. Doug Ducey’s desk.

Rep. Daniel Hernandez, D-Tucson, said during previous debate white nationalism is more dangerous of an ideology than communism. Nguyen had a candid response.

“White nationalism didn’t drown 250,000 Vietnamese in the South China Sea,” he said.

*****

This article was published on November 23, 2021, and is reproduced with permission from The Center Square.

An Unstoppable Wildfire’ Of ‘Pi**ed-Off Moms in Florida thumbnail

An Unstoppable Wildfire’ Of ‘Pi**ed-Off Moms in Florida

By Christian Ziegler

Frustrated by the overreach of government and attack on parental rights, moms and dads are stepping up and taking back their country one School Board at a time.

The Orlando Sentinel ran an article covering the importance of education issues in 2022 and highlighting Moms for Liberty, which is an organization based in Florida that launched just this past January and in less than a year has already grown to 142 chapters in 32 states with over 60,000 members.

The lesson at the ballot box in 2022 will be crystal clear – Don’t mess with our kids or the rights of our parents!

Jessica Tillman, a Seminole County mother of four, developed some new interests during the COVID-19 pandemic: Fighting against school board mask mandates and organizing with like-minded parents.

For Tillman, the government response to COVID-19 served as an “awakening” that spurred her to organize the Seminole County chapter of Moms for Liberty, a polarizing group that started in Florida and rapidly expanded across the country.

It really brought on the need for parents to really be involved in our children’s education,” she said.

The fight over face masks made Moms for Liberty a presence at Central Florida school board meetings, turning once staid policy discussions into sometimes

Now, the group’s members are shifting their attention to other priorities. Among them: urging schools to remove “pornographic” library books and criticizing instructional materials they think teach critical race theory or praise communism.

Launched on Jan. 1 by a trio of current and former conservative Florida school board members, Moms for Liberty quickly grew into a national network of parents aiming to become a lasting political force.

It puts its membership ranks at 60,000 with 152 chapters in 33 states, but many of its local groups are still small, with 40 or so dues-paying members who meet in their homes or local libraries, parks, churches and community centers.

An unstoppable wildfire’ of ‘pissed-off moms,’ GOP strategist says

Some of the gatherings are “Madison meet ups” where they read aloud from the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. The meetings start with the Pledge of Allegiance and a prayer and include a review of the local school board’s agendas. The group’s philosophy is proudly proclaimed on signature navy Moms for Liberty t-shirts that have become a fixture at school board meetings — “We do not co-parent with the government.”

The group’s rapid rise has been likened to the Tea Party movement that swept the country during the Great Recession. Bridget Ziegler, one of the founders, said parents who have long felt they have been sidelined from their children’s education are fueling the growth.

“These are their children,” said Ziegler, a Sarasota County School Board member married to a top Florida GOP official. “There is nothing people get more passionate about than their children and rightfully so.”

The group, “on a mission to stoke the fires of liberty,” views parental rights as its overarching goal. It hopes to influence Florida school board elections next year. Moms for Liberty has also become the darling of some GOP leaders, with one Jacksonville mother appearing on stage with Gov. Ron DeSantis at a press conference last month.

Christian Ziegler, Bridget’s husband and the vice-chairman of the Florida Republican Party, said he expects education issues will mobilize voters for “liberty-minded” candidates up-and-down the ballot in next year’s elections.

“It is a lot more difficult to show up to school board meetings than to vote, and these parents are showing up in droves at these school board meetings,” he said. “It is like an unstoppable wildfire out there.”

Politicians who dismiss the concerns of “pissed off moms” do so at their own peril, Ziegler said, noting such views helped propel Republican Glenn Youngkin’s to victory in the Virginia governor’s race earlier this month.

But Wes Hodge, chair of Orange County’s Democratic Party, sees Moms for Liberty as less grassroots and more part of a “coordinated effort” to influence 2022 elections by firing up supporters of former President Donald Trump through culture war issues.

The group’s views do not represent mainstream thought in Orange County, he said. A Quinnipiac University poll from August found 60% of Floridians supported mask requirements for students, teachers and staff.

“This is a way to keep the Trump Train engaged,” he said. “If you want to show up in a clown suit and spew nonsense about how masks cause UTIs, more power to you. That’s Democracy. Does that mean they have a right to have policy enacted after their viewpoints? No.”

Hodge was upset when a Moms for Liberty member got Orange County Public Schools to remove the book “Gender Queer” from three high schools, using Jacob Engels, the blogger and political operative who is an associate of the Proud Boys, a far-right nationalists group.

Read more.

VIDEO: FBI Raids Home of Conservative School Board Activist Sherronna Bishop thumbnail

VIDEO: FBI Raids Home of Conservative School Board Activist Sherronna Bishop

By John Eidson

I recently finished “Forty Autumns,” a book that describes the ruthless tactics of East Germany’s communist  regime prior to the reunification of East Germany and West Germany. Known as the Stasi, East Germany’s secret police intimidated opponents of the regime with terrifying raids that busted through the doors of homes occupied by dissidents targeted for retribution.

In western Colorado, the FBI recently carried out a similar heavy-handed raid against Sherronna Bishop, a school board activist who was instrumental in flipping nine school boards in the state from Democrat control to Republican control.

In early October, Attorney General Merrick Garland ordered the FBI to expand its political witch hunt for “domestic terrorists” by targeting parents protesting school board decisions. Dressed in full riot gear, Biden’s FBI agents terrified Bishop’s home-schooled children by hand-cuffing their mother in front of them and using a battering ram to smash down the door of her home. If Bishop broke some serious law, the violent raid may have been justified. If not, it was an act of tyranny no different than the kind conducted by the East German Stasi.

In the Rumble video below, Bishop describes what happened to Steve Bannon.

Earlier this month, Attorney General Merrick Garland ordered the FBI to expand its political witch hunt for “domestic terrorists” by targeting parents protesting the promotion of critical race theory (CRT) and transgenderism in public schools. Garland’s dirty decision was based on what he referred to as “a disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence against school administrators, board members, teachers and staff.”

To the extent educators are the object of illegal acts, the perpetrators should be prosecuted to the fullest extent allowed by law, a task local law enforcement officials are fully capable of carrying out without help from the FBI. The Biden Administration’s brazen insertion of one of the federal government’s most feared agencies into local school board disputes smacks of a Soviet-style attempt to frighten and intimidate parents exercising their Constitutional right to petition government for a redress of grievances.

In response to the nationwide race riots during the Summer of 2020, high profile Democrats at all levels of government gave a wink and a nod as Black Lives Matter broke federal, state and local laws for months on end, destroying $2 billion of public and private property and killing or seriously injuring hundreds of law enforcement officers. While those of us who strongly object to political brainwashing of the nation’s school children must never condone violence, we also must not back down in the face of government tyranny. If we do, every freedom we have will be methodically stripped away as the tyrants laugh in our face.

STRENGTH IN NUMBERS

Thus far, parents have taken the lead in confronting arrogant Democrat-dominated school boards that are teaching impressionable young children to hate their country. It’s time for the rest of us to join those parents, whether or not we have school-age children. To drive back the radical indoctrination being pushed in K-12 classrooms, the number of school board protesters must swell from the modest levels at present to thousands of parents and other patriotic Americans whose presence would make it clear they will not stand by in silence as the minds of our nation’s children are poisoned by progressive propaganda. Strength in numbers.

PARENTS HAVE RIGHTS

Parents have every right to expect that political and religious values taught at home should never be supplanted by those of their child’s teacher, and to therefore object in the strongest terms to their child being brainwashed with CRT, white privilege, The 1619 Project, Black Lives Matter, wokeness, multiculturalism, intersectionality, toxic masculinity, political correctness, cancel culture, identity politics and other victim vs. oppressor political themes that are used to induce white children to hate themselves, black children to hate white people, and children of all races to hate America. Those who sanction CRT in K-12 schools are tyrants who tolerate no dissent, aiming to destroy anyone who stands in their way. In Loudoun County, Virginia, parents who spoke out against CRT reportedly were targeted for revenge by Democrat members of the school board.

Parents have a right to be concerned that CRT indoctrination may cause lasting psychological damage to their child, just as they have a right to make it known they will not tolerate their child being made to feel unworthy due to inherited traits, such as skin color, over which no human being has control.

Parents have a right to have their child report to them what goes on in the classroom, and to put school officials on notice that if retaliation of any kind is taken against their child, they will aggressively pursue damages to the fullest extent allowed by law.

Parents have a right to partner with No Left Turn in EducationParents Defending EducationSpeak Up For Education and other parent groups committed to reclaiming our public schools from radicalized teachers and administrators who indoctrinate impressionable young children to hate western civilization, capitalism, Christianity, the Constitution and every white person who doesn’t vote Democrat.

Parents also have a right to object to public schools being used as transmission belts for anything-goes progressive sexual mores, such as transgenderism, pedophilia, pornography, and men having sex with little boys. On Sept. 23, an outraged mother in Fairfax County, Virginia confronted school board officials with passages from two school library books that vividly describe grown men having sex with pre-teen boys—watch video.

Elsewhere in Virginia, a biologically male student at a high school in Loudoun County was arrested last July on one count of forcible anal sodomy and one count of forcible fellatio allegedly committed in a school bathroom against a ninth grade female student. The “gender fluid” defendant, who was allegedly wearing a skirt on the day the alleged attack occurred, entered the girl’s bathroom in accordance with a school board policy that allows boys who claim to be a girl to use bathrooms once reserved for biologically female students. In an exclusive update, The Daily Wire reported last week that Loudoun Country Schools tried to conceal the alleged sexual assault to avoid a new round of controversy over its highly unpopular transgender bathroom policy.

PARENTS WILL NOT BACK DOWN!

In a recent article, Mollie Hemingway, senior editor at The Federalist, wrote that conservatives must be bold and defiant even if it costs them. In the 1960s, courageous civil rights marchers were bold and defiant, and it cost them: many were arrested by police doing the dirty bidding of high level Democrats, such as segregationist governors George Wallace (AL), Lester Maddox (GA) and Ross Barnett (MS). By not backing down, civil rights marchers eventually prevailed over the high level Democrat evil-doers that targeted them.

Recently, another high level Democrat—the current Attorney General of the United States—announced plans to intimidate protesters engaged in another just cause: the right of parents to address their grievances to hyper-politicized school boards. That high level Democrat has tasked the Federal Bureau of Investigation with looking for a pretext to prosecute protesting parents as “domestic terrorists.” Like civil rights marchers did, those parents will not back down even if it costs them.

On Nov. 2, Virginia voters will elect the state’s next governor, an election that will likely turn on CRT and other radical policies being forced on public schools by Democrat-dominated school boards. On the campaign trail, Democrat candidate Terry McAuliffe made two shocking statements about the state’s education of school children: (1) that parents should have no say in what their children are taught, and (2) that critical race theory is not being taught in Virginia public schools, which is a flat-out lie. If you have friends or family in Virginia, please consider forwarding this email to them.

©John Edison. All rights reserved.

A Home-Schooled High Schooler Debates the Woke Children. thumbnail

A Home-Schooled High Schooler Debates the Woke Children.

By Ellie Fromm

Editors’ Note: The following is an essay by a 16-year-old home schooled young lady. The essay speaks for itself but we feel it important to emphasize that when young Americans are taught the foundational principles of our Republic without the leftist, ‘woke’ indoctrination so pervasive in our public school system, a responsible and educated young adult enters society ready to defend truth and reality. The Prickly Pear recently published a study from Harvard University examining the profiles of home schooled students. Ms. Fromm clearly reflects the findings in this study and we hope that many more like her follow into the dialogue of this nation and the battle to combat the woke assault on American society aided by the media, the educational system, our government, and our corporate leaders.

I attend a local university in Phoenix, Arizona as a homeschooled, dual enrollment high school student. Two weeks ago, my professor initiated a fiery discussion in Government class. My professor is conservative but encourages debate in the class and does not push his beliefs upon others. My class consists of 90 students if everyone is there, but usually there are only about 60. On that day we were discussing how certain demographics of people tend to vote. I say ‘tend’ because not every person in a certain demographic votes the same way.

I was the first person called upon. I was asked to explain why I thought Black/Latino Americans tend to vote liberal. However, I mostly focused on black Americans, explaining “I think black Americans tend to vote liberal because, statistically, over 70% of black children grow up in homes without a father present and as we just discussed, you tend to vote as your father does. Because fathers are frequently not present in the black home, mothers are working extremely long hours and are often out of the home. Therefore, many of these children are mostly raised by the education system and their programs. Because the education system is liberal, they tend to grow up and then vote liberal”. Nothing radical, just a 16-year old’s ideas expressed for discussion.

Apparently, many of the students thought what I said was radical. Two young black women and a young white woman disagreed with me and became extremely frustrated because I was not going along with their ideologies. One of the young black women claimed that I had a better chance of getting into college and getting a job solely because I am white. However, when I brought up Affirmative Action, she had nothing to say about it. Also, keep in mind she says I have a better chance of getting into college while we are sitting in the same class at the same university. Another claim she made was that “they” were oppressing black people and the black community needs “something”. When I asked her who “they” were or what the “something” is, she had no idea and could not answer my questions. With each question I asked she became more frustrated. I was calm and respectful throughout this heated exchange.

After my questions, which received no adequate responses, the young white woman said that until recently black people had been discriminated against through redlining and such. My professor then stopped her, asking her if, by saying recently, she meant about 60 years ago. She said “of course” – as if she hadn’t been trying to trick me. The word recently implies within 2-3 years ago, not 60! To her point, I said I understood and acknowledged that there was racism. I was about to go on when about 20-25 of the students in the class yelled at me, saying “THERE STILL IS!”.

This is the same type of thinking currently happening in university administrations country-wide. Over 75% of universities have already implemented black-only dorms and over 75 universities offer black-only graduation ceremonies. Excuse me? This is segregation! Yet, students at these schools think this is perfectly normal. They think this is good. These social justice warriors are missing the racism and segregation in front of their own eyes! In fact, they’re embracing it! Also, on many streaming services they have black power sections filled with movies featuring black actors. For some reason, promoting certain movies based upon the color of the leading actor’s skin, instead of the content of the movie itself, is great. This is racism, but it must be okay because it is for black people, not against them. Remember, racism can go both for and against white people. Sesame Street explicitly announced in one of their episodes that your skin tone defines you and makes you who you are. This is completely and utterly wrong. As an eloquent African-American father stated in August at a Colorado Springs school board meeting rejecting the teaching of Critical Race Theory, “Let racism die the death it deserves.”

White people and the American nation are not inherently racist. I do not care what color your skin is, I care whether you are a good person. The amount of melanin someone has in their skin means absolutely nothing to the vast majority of Americans. Yet, today’s media is purposely trying to paint white Americans as evil. The issues of race and racism are centerstage in the media, but look around. America is a melting pot of people from all corners of the world looking past their differences to celebrate liberty and make better lives for themselves and their families. The media and elite want people to think white people are evil as a way to divide the nation. If they have us aiming at each other, we will never notice them taking over our God-given natural rights.

How does one 16-year-old make 25 liberals angry enough to yell at her? Destroy their ideologies. Logical questions to their statements made them angry enough to yell at me. When a simple question is asked the answer is obvious, but they do not want to acknowledge the answer because they do not agree with it. They had absolutely no examples of racist white people and the so-called oppressive system. Yet, examples such as Affirmative Action highlight a system that promotes minorities. Not knowing who “they” are or what “something” is challenges liberal ideologies. Remember, precise language is extremely important when writing and debating if you want to get your point across.

As I was leaving class one of my classmates, a young black woman, stopped to talk to me. She informed me she agreed with my statements and thanked me for standing up for her community. Although I had left class frustrated as to how the discussion had ended, this young woman encouraged me. She helped show me that, even though I was frustrated, these types of discussions are not a lost cause.

The moral of the story is that liberals cannot handle someone simply asking why they believe a certain way. White people are not inherently racist. Yes, I’m sure there are racist people, but they come from all different races and are a minority. And for those who say white people are racist, what race freed the slaves over 150 years ago, and what nation was one of the earliest in the world to abolish slavery? White American men fought, were drafted, and put their lives on the line to free men and women of another race because they knew slavery was inherently evil. They had never met the people they were fighting for, yet 360,000 union soldiers died to free them. These men and their families paid the ultimate price to free their brothers and sisters of another race. We are equal.

A Home Schooled High Schooler Debates the Woke Children thumbnail

A Home Schooled High Schooler Debates the Woke Children

By Ellie Fromm

Editors’ Note: The following is an essay by a 16-year-old home schooled young lady. The essay speaks for itself but we feel it important to emphasize that when young Americans are taught the foundational principles of our Republic without the leftist, ‘woke’ indoctrination so pervasive in our public school system, a responsible and educated young adult enters society ready to defend truth and reality. The Prickly Pear recently published a study from Harvard University examining the profiles of home schooled students. Ms. Fromm clearly reflects the findings in this study and we hope that many more like her follow into the dialogue of this nation and the battle to combat the woke assault on American society aided by the media, the educational system, our government, and our corporate leaders.

I attend a local university in Phoenix, Arizona as a homeschooled, dual enrollment high school student. Two weeks ago, my professor initiated a fiery discussion in Government class. My professor is conservative but encourages debate in the class and does not push his beliefs upon others. My class consists of 90 students if everyone is there, but usually there are only about 60. On that day we were discussing how certain demographics of people tend to vote. I say ‘tend’ because not every person in a certain demographic votes the same way.

I was the first person called upon. I was asked to explain why I thought Black/Latino Americans tend to vote liberal. However, I mostly focused on black Americans, explaining “I think black Americans tend to vote liberal because, statistically, over 70% of black children grow up in homes without a father present and as we just discussed, you tend to vote as your father does. Because fathers are frequently not present in the black home, mothers are working extremely long hours and are often out of the home. Therefore, many of these children are mostly raised by the education system and their programs. Because the education system is liberal, they tend to grow up and then vote liberal”. Nothing radical, just a 16-year old’s ideas expressed for discussion.

Apparently, many of the students thought what I said was radical. Two young black women and a young white woman disagreed with me and became extremely frustrated because I was not going along with their ideologies. One of the young black women claimed that I had a better chance of getting into college and getting a job solely because I am white. However, when I brought up Affirmative Action, she had nothing to say about it. Also, keep in mind she says I have a better chance of getting into college while we are sitting in the same class at the same university. Another claim she made was that “they” were oppressing black people and the black community needs “something”. When I asked her who “they” were or what the “something” is, she had no idea and could not answer my questions. With each question I asked she became more frustrated. I was calm and respectful throughout this heated exchange.

After my questions, which received no adequate responses, the young white woman said that until recently black people had been discriminated against through redlining and such. My professor then stopped her, asking her if, by saying recently, she meant about 60 years ago. She said “of course” – as if she hadn’t been trying to trick me. The word recently implies within 2-3 years ago, not 60! To her point, I said I understood and acknowledged that there was racism. I was about to go on when about 20-25 of the students in the class yelled at me, saying “THERE STILL IS!”.

This is the same type of thinking currently happening in university administrations country-wide. Over 75% of universities have already implemented black-only dorms and over 75 universities offer black-only graduation ceremonies. Excuse me? This is segregation! Yet, students at these schools think this is perfectly normal. They think this is good. These social justice warriors are missing the racism and segregation in front of their own eyes! In fact, they’re embracing it! Also, on many streaming services they have black power sections filled with movies featuring black actors. For some reason, promoting certain movies based upon the color of the leading actor’s skin, instead of the content of the movie itself, is great. This is racism, but it must be okay because it is for black people, not against them. Remember, racism can go both for and against white people. Sesame Street explicitly announced in one of their episodes that your skin tone defines you and makes you who you are. This is completely and utterly wrong. As an eloquent African-American father stated in August at a Colorado Springs school board meeting rejecting the teaching of Critical Race Theory, “Let racism die the death it deserves.”

White people and the American nation are not inherently racist. I do not care what color your skin is, I care whether you are a good person. The amount of melanin someone has in their skin means absolutely nothing to the vast majority of Americans. Yet, today’s media is purposely trying to paint white Americans as evil. The issues of race and racism are centerstage in the media, but look around. America is a melting pot of people from all corners of the world looking past their differences to celebrate liberty and make better lives for themselves and their families. The media and elite want people to think white people are evil as a way to divide the nation. If they have us aiming at each other, we will never notice them taking over our God-given natural rights.

How does one 16-year-old make 25 liberals angry enough to yell at her? Destroy their ideologies. Logical questions to their statements made them angry enough to yell at me. When a simple question is asked the answer is obvious, but they do not want to acknowledge the answer because they do not agree with it. They had absolutely no examples of racist white people and the so-called oppressive system. Yet, examples such as Affirmative Action highlight a system that promotes minorities. Not knowing who “they” are or what “something” is challenges liberal ideologies. Remember, precise language is extremely important when writing and debating if you want to get your point across.

As I was leaving class one of my classmates, a young black woman, stopped to talk to me. She informed me she agreed with my statements and thanked me for standing up for her community. Although I had left class frustrated as to how the discussion had ended, this young woman encouraged me. She helped show me that, even though I was frustrated, these types of discussions are not a lost cause.

The moral of the story is that liberals cannot handle someone simply asking why they believe a certain way. White people are not inherently racist. Yes, I’m sure there are racist people, but they come from all different races and are a minority. And for those who say white people are racist, what race freed the slaves over 150 years ago, and what nation was one of the earliest in the world to abolish slavery? White American men fought, were drafted, and put their lives on the line to free men and women of another race because they knew slavery was inherently evil. They had never met the people they were fighting for, yet 360,000 union soldiers died to free them. These men and their families paid the ultimate price to free their brothers and sisters of another race. We are equal.

How the Intercollegiate Socialist Society led to the Bolshevik takeover of Education in America thumbnail

How the Intercollegiate Socialist Society led to the Bolshevik takeover of Education in America

By Dr. Rich Swier

Today parents are considered by the FBI as “domestic terrorists” if they dare to question what their children are being taught in public schools. The same holds true for our colleges and universities. Opposition to colleges and universities teaching students to hate America is considered “white supremacism.”

When and where did this Marxist takeover of our educational institutions K-20 begin?

It began in the afternoon of September 12th, 1905 at Peck’s Restaurant in downtown New York. That is the date that our current “cultural war” began.

In an article titled “Antonio Gramsci: the Godfather of Cultural Marxism” Bradley Thomas wrote:

There’s little debate that modern-day American universities, public education, mainstream media, Hollywood, and political advocacy groups are dominated by leftists. This is no accident, but part of a deliberate strategy to pave the way for communist revolution developed more than eight decades ago by an Italian political theorist named Antonio Gramsci. [Emphasis added]

The Intercollegiate Socialist Society (ISS)

The ISS was established to,

“throw light [in America] on the world-wide movement of industrial democracy known as socialism.”

MarxistHistory.org reported:

The Intercollegiate Socialist Society (ISS) was a national non-party group dedicated to the organization of current and former collegians for the socialist cause and the spreading of socialist ideas on campus.

There were at least two isolated cases of socialist organization on campus prior to the establishment of the ISS in September 1905. From about 1901 there was a college socialist club organized at the University of Wisconsin in Madison. In its first year the club had 11 student members and one professor and was limited to confirmed socialists. The membership restriction was loosened in 1904, however, and the club grew, coming to hold weekly discussions on the exploitation of child labor, workplace safety, and other matters of general concern.

The second collegiate socialist club was organized at the University of California at Berkeley. Called the “Social Progress Club,” the group sprung into existence following a lecture by Jack London early in 1905. [fn. Max Horn, The Intercollegiate Socialist Society, 1905-1921: Origins of the Modern Student Movement. (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1979), pp. 18-19.] [Emphasis added]

The ISS proper was a product of the brain of Upton Sinclair. In December 1904, Sinclair drafted a call for the formation of a group which he called “the Intercollegiate Socialist Society,” which he circulated among leading socialist intellectuals for endorsement. The document was ultimately signed by nine others in addition to Sinclair, including Leonard Abbott, Clarence Darrow, Jack London, Graham Phelps Stokes, and William English Walling, among others. This call was published in various socialist publications in the spring of 1905 and a topic of discussion throughout that summer.

Organizational Meeting — New York, NY — September 12, 1905.

The ISS was formally launched at a meeting held in the afternoon of Sept. 12, 1905 at Peck’s Restaurant in downtown New York. More than 50 men and women were in attendance to give birth to the new organization, including such luminaries as Leonard Abbott, Mary Beard, Crystal Eastman, W.J. Ghent, and Gaylord Wilshire, in addition to a young Junior from Weslyan University named Harry Laidler. Upton Sinclair called the meeting to order.

The gathering decided to accept the name “Intercollegiate Socialist Society” and to open membership to college students, teachers, or graduates.

Students were to be organized into college chapters on each campus and the central organization was to be funded by these local groups remitting a percentage of the dues collected to the national society.

The first slate of officers elected at the Sept. 1905 organizational meeting included the following:

President: Jack London; First Vice President: Upton Sinclair; Second Vice President: Graham Phelps Stokes; Secretary: M.R. Holbrook; Treasurer: Rev. Owen Lovejoy; Executive Committee: Rev. George Willis Cooke, Morris Hillquit, Robert Hunter, Harry Laidler, Katherine M. Meserole, George H. Strobell. Of this group of socialist worthies, only Harry Laidler was actually a current college student. [fn. Max Horn, The Intercollegiate Socialist Society, 1905-1921, pp. 1, 9-10.]

Organization proceeded slowly, with the group banned from many campuses by conservative administrators, who generally held veto power over the formation of student organizations in this period. Chapters were often small and their names frequently did not emphasize their connection to the national society or even with the socialist cause, as was the case, for example, with the Wesleyan Social Study Club headed by Harry Laidler, one of the first organized and affiliated with the ISS. A second chapter was formed at Columbia University in New York City, with a student named Walter Lippmann playing the leading role. Over the course of the first three years, affiliated socialist clubs were organized at Harvard, Princeton, Barnard, New York University Law School, and the University of Pennsylvania. In addition to meeting to discuss problems of the day, these groups distributed socialist propaganda and arranged lectures on their respective campuses in an attempt to extend support for the socialist cause.

In May 1907, Jack London resigned as President of the ISS and Graham Phelps Stokes assumed the post.

In the fall of 1907, the ISS Executive Committee decided to hire an organizer on a temporary basis, and a young socialist named Fred H. Merrick went to work in January 1908. From 1907 through 1910, the ISS maintained its office at the Rand School of Social Science in New York City.

In May 1907, Jack London resigned as President of the ISS and Graham Phelps Stokes assumed the post.

Big government is now the “opiate of the people”

Marxists in our public schools, colleges, universities and even trade schools are pushing big government.

So how could socialists begin selling big government and its redistribution of wealth ideology?

First they had to gain unfettered control of production. 

On February 3, 1913 Congress passed and the states ratified the Sixteenth Amendment to our Constitution. Congress grabbed control of production via the federal income tax. America taxed its productivity by tapping every American’s wages. With the millions, then billions, and now trillions of dollars that Congress collected, they could entice or even force the strongest American to take the big government drug.

Then on April 8, 1913 Congress passed and the states ratified the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution which transferred U.S. Senator Selection from each state’s legislature to popular election by the people of each state. These two events made it much easier to collect and distribute big government as now Senators were no longer loyal to their state legislatures or primarily concerned with state sovereignty. Now U.S. Senators, along with U.S. Representatives, saw the value of spreading  the big government drug amongst the people in return for votes.

During the Great Depression Congress created the first “opiate for the masses” and named it Social Security. It was to be a social insurance program run by government, in other words guaranteed government largesse for life. The Social Security Act was signed into law in 1935 by President Franklin Roosevelt. He and Congress said this new drug would keep those unemployed, retirees and the poor financially secure. He called it the New Deal. All we needed to do was just pay in and all would be well.

In 1937 the United States Supreme Court in U.S. vs. Butler validated the Social Security Act and stated that, “Congress could, in its future discretion, spend that money [collected from the income tax] for whatever Congress then judged to be the general welfare of the country. The Court held that Congress has no constitutional power to earmark or segregate certain kinds of tax proceeds for certain purposes, whether the purposes be farm-price supports, foreign aid or social security payments.” All taxes went into the general fund.

Testifying before the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives in 1952, the chief actuary of the Social Security Administration said—“The present trust fund is not quite large enough to pay off the benefits of existing beneficiaries”—those already on the receiving end, in other words. In 1955 chief actuary believed that it would take $35 billion just to pay the people “now receiving benefits.”

Bottom Line

Cultural Marxism’s goal is “production for use, not for profit.” The Democratic Party’s goal is “production for use, not for profit.”

Below is a list of ten policies promoted by the Democratic Party that prove they are the party of cultural Marxism. The cultural Marxists in the Democratic Party support:

  1. Green New Deal – read about the Green New Deal
  2. Global Warming/Climate Change – read about the environmentalist movement.
  3. Censorship – read about censorship.
  4. Voter Fraud – read about voter fraud here.
  5. Illegal Aliens – read about illegal aliens.
  6. Sodomy – read about LGBT issues.
  7. The Followers of Mohammed – read about Islamic supremacy.
  8. Infanticide – read about abortion.
  9. Taxing the Rich – read about taxation.
  10. Government Free Stuff – read about government largess.

The Democrats want to buy votes by promising things that they know will, and are, bankrupting America. By bankrupting America the cultural Marxist can then, in the name of saving America, enslave Americans.

Who stood in the way of cultural Marxists? One man, President Donald J. Trump. Now we have Biden and his Build Back Better agenda that leads inextricably toward a Communist state.

On November 20th, 2021 The Daily Caller’s Chrissy Clark reported:

Fitchburg State University’s Diversity Center sent the email following the verdict in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial announcing that the school would offer race-based safe spaces for students and faculty. The email claimed that Rittenhouse “shot and killed two people protesting the wrongful death of Jacob Blake in 2020.”

“Kyle was acquitted of all charges in the case after driving to Wisconsin with an automatic rifle,” the email read. It went on to say that the verdict “will undoubtedly impact many in our community,” so the university created safe spaces for students to discuss their “thoughts, emotions, and reflections.”

Fitchburg State University is offering a space to “process the not guilty verdict”

In their announcement, they divide the students of color and white students: pic.twitter.com/oKYa5KCozS

— Libs of Tik Tok (@libsoftiktok) November 20, 2021

If this isn’t cultural Marxism then I don’t know what is.

Gird your loins. There’s more cultural Marxism to come, and it will come.

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

Why Should Academic Departments Have Foreign Policies? thumbnail

Why Should Academic Departments Have Foreign Policies?

By Robert Spencer

When did academic departments decide they had to declare themselves on the Palestinian-Israeli dispute but on no other foreign policy question? And why are they so eager to express their visceral hatred of the Jewish state? A report on this disturbing phenomenon is here: “Academic departments must steer clear of anti-Israel activism,” by Richard L. Cravatts, Israel Hayom, November 12, 2021:

The obsessive loathing of Israel by large swathes of academia was evident this past spring as Hamas showered Israeli population centers with more than 4,000 rockets and mortars. Instead of denouncing genocidal aggression on the part of Hamas, these woke, virtue-signaling moral narcissists took it upon themselves to condemn – in the loudest and most condemnatory terms — the Jewish state, not the homicidal psychopaths intent on murdering Jews….

There is a difference between an individual expressing an opinion on, say, social media. That opinion is his alone. No pressure has been placed on him to express it. But when academic departments put out what are presented as that department’s — presumably unanimous — opinion, those who may not agree with the majority seldom dare to express their minority opinion in the daggers-drawn atmosphere of current academic life, where dissent is only for the tenured, and even they must be very brave, to express solidarity with, or sympathy for, the embattled Jewish state that has been so demonized in the swamps of academe.

At the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Cary Nelson, former president of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and professor emeritus of English, challenged the propriety of departments authoring statements of support for the Palestinian cause while vilifying and denouncing Israel in the process. Four academic units at Illinois had issued anti-Israel statements in the spring – the Department of Gender and Women’s Studies, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Department of Asian American Studies, and the Department of History – prompting Nelson and 43 of his fellow faculty to write a letter to Chancellor Robert Jones and Provost Andreas Cangellaris.

In that letter, the faculty noted that “the statements in question were not issued by individual faculty or groups of faculty. They were subscribed to by departments … [and] have been placed on websites and disseminated through social media and email, which created the impression that the unit was speaking for all or most of the faculty within it. This represents a worrisome development. And it is worrisome irrespective of one’s views on the dispute between Israelis and Palestinians.”…

These “departmental opinions” are the result of an atmosphere of intellectual intimidation, with those not subscribing to the majority view nonetheless being “spoken for.” Did absolutely every faculty member, for example, in the Department of Urban and Regional Planning, agree that Israel is an arch-villain? Or was such an opinion presented by a handful of anti-Israel activists, without the agreement or even, possibly, the knowledge, of all of that department’s members? Did the Department of Gender and Women’s Studies decide, as in the Soviet Union, that “for the good of the Party” no dissent could be allowed and simply rode roughshod over those who dared to even mildly disagree with the kind of hysterical language that is used to blacken Israel’s image? And did the members of that same department not know, or not care, that it is the Palestinians who, as Muslims, allow husbands to “beat” their wives should they be even suspected of “disobedience”? It is the Palestinians who engage in “honor killings” of girls and women by their menfolk, who may then be let off with a short prison sentence, or too often receive no punishment at all. It is Israel that guarantees the legal equality of men and women, and it is the Palestinians who violate that equality at every turn, yet here is the Department of Gender and Women’s Studies standing foursquare with those who mistreat women, while it rages against those who defend their rights.

Academic life is supposed to be dedicated, among other things, to the pursuit of the truth. Far from the madding crowd’s ignoble strife, professors have the great privilege of time – time to investigate matters of interest to them, time to weigh competing claims, time to analyze, to praise and to blame. The May conflict was only a few days old when academic departments issued their summary judgments against Israel. There is a rush to judgment when it comes to Israel. What led these departments to think they had to express the “department’s” opinion, instead of letting individual faculty members have their say, or if they wished, choose to say nothing at all? Why this insensate urge to force a false consensus, through veiled threats of retribution if someone fails to toe the anti-Israel line – threats that too often are successful? Those who disagree with the consensus find it more prudent to simply remain silent, rather than make enemies of fellow members of the department. For non-tenured faculty, it’s obvious why such a choice is made. But even tenured faculty may want to keep their heads down, avoid trouble, concentrate on their own work, and hope that the madness passes.

For academic departments to pronounce with such authority, on things they know so little, or nothing, about, is intolerable. Academics who have no special knowledge of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict presume that their opinions deserve special respect. They should be heeded simply because they are professors, no matter how distant their field may be from what they pontificate about. As an example, let’s look at how four departments at the University of Illinois presented what we were to assume were the collective views of its members.

Let’s start with the Department of Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Illinois, which denounces Israel in hysterical terms, charging it with the “illegal occupation of Palestinian land”; a “siege, indiscriminate destruction and massacres in Gaza”; “state-sanctioned execution of Palestinian people”; and, echoing the venomous blood libel promoted by Rutgers professor Jasbir Puar, among others, the “deliberate maiming of Palestinian bodies.”

First, there is no “illegal occupation of Palestinian land.” Israel, in a war of self-defense started in May by Gamal Abdel Nasser, won by force of arms both Gaza and Judea and Samaria (a/k/a the West Bank). The victory in the Six-Day War did not create Israel’s claim to these territories, but allowed it to exercise its preexisting claim. Israel has a right, under the Mandate for Palestine, Article 6, to establish “close settlement by Jews on the land.” What land? All the land from the Golan in the north to the Red Sea in the south, and from the Jordan River in the east to the Mediterranean in the west – the land that the League of Nations intended to be part of the future Jewish National Home. Have these professors of urban planning read the Mandate for Palestine? The San Remo Treaty? Article 80 of the U.N. Charter? U.N. Security Council Resolution 242? Don’t be silly.

Israel gave up Gaza in 2005, pulling out all 8,500 Israelis who had been living the Strip. There is no “siege” of Gaza, as the Department of Urban Planning at the University of Illinois insists. Electricity, water, and natural gas are all supplied by Israel to the people of Gaza. There is no attempt to keep out any medicines or food. There is a blockade, but that is on goods that can be used by the terror group Hamas, which has run Gaza since 2007, in attacks on Israel. Thus, the supplies allowed into Gaza of some building materials, such as cement, are limited. For they are deemed to be “dual-use” materials, because they can be used innocuously to build apartments, but can also be used to build such things as emplacements for rocket launchers and terror tunnels.

There are no “indiscriminate destruction and massacres in Gaza.” Israeli pilots pinpoint their targets; there is no carpet bombing. Hamas places its weapons, its rocket launchers, its command-and-control centers, in or next to schools, hospitals, apartment buildings, even mosques. Israel tries very hard to minimize civilian casualties. When a target has been chosen, the Israelis warn inhabitants to leave the building, through various means – telephoning, leafletting, emailing, and use of the “knock-on-the-roof” technique. Ordinarily the Palestinians have between 15 minutes and two hours to leave. There have been no “massacres in Gaza.” In the 11-day conflict this past May, of the 260 Palestinians killed, 225 of them were determined, through the tracking of death notices, to have been Hamas fighters; 25 of them were senior commanders of the terror group. Only a few dozen of those killed could have been civilians. And there were no reports of any “massacres.” The professors in the Department of Urban Planning were simply throwing in Israel’s direction whatever grotesque charges they could fabricate against the Jewish state, counting on some of it to stick.

Similarly, there has been no “state-sanctioned execution of Palestinian people.” The IDF, as British Colonel Richard Kemp has noted, is the “most moral army in the world.” It makes heroic efforts to protect civilian lives through every possible method of warning inhabitants in or near buildings soon to be hit. Israeli pilots have been known to call off their mission if they spot children too near to the target; this happened several times during the May war.

Let’s look at the less extreme statement of the History Department at the same university.

The Executive Committee of the Department of History issued a briefer statement by email that condemned “the state violence that the Israeli government and its security forces have been carrying out in Gaza” and “standing in solidarity with Palestine and support for the struggle for Palestinian liberation” – “liberation” being a euphemism for the Middle East without Israel and free of Jewish sovereignty on Muslim land.

The statement was put out in an email, as if all members of the History Department agreed to its contents. By what right did the “Executive Committee” presume to speak for the whole department? And why does it describe as Israeli “state violence” a war that began on May 10, when Hamas launched hundreds of rockets at civilian areas of Israel, and Israel did what any nation-state would do – it fought back in defense of its people, hitting in response Hamas rockets, rocket launchers, command-and-control centers, fighters, and a network of terror tunnels? What should Israel have done? Simply let those 4,500 rockets that Hamas flung toward Israeli cities such as Ashdod and Ashkelon land without trying to hit back, in self-defense, at Hamas – its weapons depots, its rocket launchers, its fighters – so that it could no longer launch those rockets? Why is this self-defense described as “state violence”? Would America have done differently?

As for that claim of “standing in solidarity with Palestine , and support or the struggle for Palestinian liberation,” as Richard Cravatts, correctly notes, that is code for the replacement of Israel, “from the river to the sea,” by a Palestinian state. That’s what the History Department’s members – all of them – are made to seemingly endorse. How many of them are happy with that?

Immersed in the ideology of multiculturalism and the intersectionality of oppression, the Department of Asian American Studies condemned “the ongoing 73 years of settler-colonial violence against Palestine and the Palestinian people” and “the exploitation, theft and colonization of land and labor everywhere, including in Palestine. To this, we say no more.”

According to the Department of Asian-American Studies, then, since its very founding in 1948, Israel has been engaged in “settler-colonial violence against Palestine and the Palestinian people.” But there were no “settlers” in 1948, or 1958, or 1968. There was “violence” in 1948, but it was the violence started by five Arab armies that attacked the Jewish state on May 15, 1948, ignoring Israel’s offer of peace, as they tried to snuff out the young life of the nascent state of Israel. Israel was fighting for its survival, as it would have to again do so in the wars of 1967 and 1973. Those people denounced as “settler-colonials” in 1948 consisted of the following: Jews whose families had been living uninterruptedly in the Land of Israel for centuries; Zionist pioneers who had, beginning in about 1900, been making aliyah, buying land from Arab and Turkish landowners and settling on it; Jews who had fled Arab lands where they had lived for centuries, with many more of them –some 850,000 in all – fleeing in the late 1940s and early 1950s, with most of them choosing to settle in Israel; Jews who had managed to escape from Europe just before World War II; Jews who had survived the Nazis and arrived in Israel from DP camps after the war. These were the people, so many of them survivors of terrible ordeals in Europe and in Arab lands, who are now being denounced by this all-knowing “Department of Asian-American Studies” in Illinois as “settler-colonials,” for managing to find refuge in what would become, in 1948, the tiny Jewish state, and then for helping to rebuild that ancient Jewish commonwealth in the Land of Israel.

Another point to consider: the Asian-American Studies Department statement includes this: “the exploitation, theft, and colonization of land and labor everywhere, including in Palestine.” So, we are told, this “exploitation, theft, and colonization” by Jews goes on everywhere, including Palestine. Isn’t this a statement that would not be out of place in Mein Kampf?

The Department of Gender and Women’s Studies signed a statement, “Gender Studies Departments in Solidarity with Palestinian Feminist Collective,” along with some 100 other gender-studies departments. With the characteristic pseudo-intellectual babble that currently dilutes the scholarly relevance of the social sciences and humanities, the “solidarity statement” pretentiously announced that “as gender-studies departments in the United States, we are the proud benefactors of decades of feminist anti-racist, and anti-colonial activism that informs the foundation of our interdiscipline” [sic] and that “‘Palestine is a Feminist Issue.’”…

The Department of Gender and Women’s Studies asserts that “Palestine is a Feminist Issue.” And so it is, but not in the way the good professors in the department seem to think. To repeat what I wrote yesterday on the subject: It is the Palestinians who, as Muslims, allow husbands to “beat” their wives should they be even suspected of “disobedience,” it is the Palestinians who engage in “honor killings” of girls and women by their husbands, fathers, brothers, who may then be let off with a short prison sentence, or too often, receive no punishment at all. It Is the Palestinians who enforce dress codes on “their women,” who value the testimony of females as half that of males; who have girls and women inherit half what a male inherits. Israel, by contrast, guarantees the legal and social equality of men and women, while the Palestinians violate that equality at every turn, yet here is the Department of Gender and Women’s Studies standing foursquare with those who mistreat women, while it inveighs against those who defend their rights.

Three points suggest themselves:

First, let every man and woman speak for himself or herself. Don’t force people into letting their Department speak for them. Not even professors should be made to suffer that.

Second, academics, like cobblers, should stick to their last.

Third, “whereof we do not know, thereof we should not speak.”

Come to think of it, the third point is really just the second one, expressed less succinctly. But it bears repetition.

COLUMN BY

HUGH FITZGERALD

RELATED ARTICLES:

UK: Labour MP claims Muslims are ‘suffering racial hatred’ after Liverpool jihad suicide bombing

Austria: Muslima had hundreds of images of ‘executions of unbelievers,’ wanted to sacrifice her life for ISIS

Nigeria: Muslims have murdered over 137,000 people in Benue state

France: Muslim prisoner screaming ‘Allahu akbar’ stabs two guards

Austria: Public broadcaster deletes report on persecution of Christians and Jews in Europe, without explanation

UN envoy: Taliban ‘unable to stem’ Islamic State growth as it spreads to ‘nearly all’ Afghan provinces

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Study: Arizona School-Choice Measures Saved Taxpayers $1.2B thumbnail

Study: Arizona School-Choice Measures Saved Taxpayers $1.2B

By Cole Lauterbach

Arizona’s Empowerment Scholarship Account program has saved taxpayers more than $1 billion and as much as $3.2 billion, according to a national study on school-choice programs.

EdChoice, a nonprofit that advocates for parental choice in where they send their kids to be students, estimated in its new study that educational choice programs have generated between $12.4 billion and $27.7 billion in taxpayer savings from 2011 up to the fiscal year 2018. That averages to $7,500 for each student who participated in such a program.

Arizona is a pioneer of school-choice programs. It is home to the nation’s first educational savings account, a program allowing parents to redirect a portion of funding meant for a public school district and use it to send their child to a school of their preference. Originally passed in 2011, Arizona’s Empowerment Scholarship Account initially was directed toward students with special needs but was expanded to make nearly a quarter of the state’s K-12 students eligible.

“Arizona has one of the richest K-12 choice ecosystems in the country,” said Marty Lueken, director of the Fiscal Research and Education Center at EdChoice. “Funding for the state’s tax-credit scholarship programs represent just one-third the funds which districts would receive to educate the same students. These large funding gaps are indicative of benefits accruing to taxpayers.

“Arizona’s school choice programs have provided taxpayers with at least $1.2 billion in cumulative net fiscal benefits, likely more. These fiscal benefits are bonus, however. Bottom line is that they have helped countless families and children make their lives better by enabling them to find and access the best educational setting that works for them.”

Critics of Arizona’s ESA program and others like it say they siphon taxpayer funds from public school systems by not only removing parental contributions to the districts but state and federal disbursements that are often calculated by total enrollment.

Nationally, EdChoice estimates similar programs have saved taxpayers up to $7,500 for each student that participated. The report estimates school choice programs enroll 2% of the nation’s K-12 students but receive only 1% of public K-12 funding.

*****

This article was published on November 17, 2021, and is reproduced with permission from The Center Square.

New Harvard Study: Homeschoolers Turn Out Happy, Well-Adjusted, and Engaged thumbnail

New Harvard Study: Homeschoolers Turn Out Happy, Well-Adjusted, and Engaged

By Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

Homeschooled children fared better than children who attended public schools in many categories.

Researchers at Harvard University just released findings from their new study showing positive outcomes for homeschooled students. Writing in The Wall Street Journal last week, Brendan Case and Ying Chen of the Harvard Human Flourishing Program concluded that public school students “were less forgiving and less apt to volunteer or attend religious services than their home-schooled peers.”

The scholars analyzed data of over 12,000 children of nurses who participated in surveys between 1999 and 2010 and found that homeschooled children were about one-third more likely to engage in volunteerism and have higher levels of forgiveness in early adulthood than those children who attended public schools. Homeschooled children were also more likely to attend religious services in adulthood than children educated in public schools, which the researchers noted is correlated with “lower risks of alcohol and drug abuse, depression and suicide.”

The new findings offer a stark contrast to the portrayal of homeschoolers by Harvard Law School professor Elizabeth Bartholet, who notoriously called for a “presumptive ban” on homeschooling last year—just before the US homeschool population ballooned to more than 11 percent of the overall school-age population, or more than five million students, in the wake of the coronavirus response.

In their Journal Op-Ed, Case and Chen challenged their colleague.

“The picture of the home-schooled student that emerges from the data doesn’t resemble the socially awkward and ignorant stereotype to which Ms. Bartholet and others appeal. Rather, home-schooled children generally develop into well-adjusted, responsible and socially engaged young adults,” they wrote.

The Harvard researchers also discovered that homeschooled students were less likely to attend college than their public school peers. Some media outlets latched onto this finding in their headlines, while ignoring the Harvard scholars’ speculation that this could be due to a variety of factors. Homeschoolers could be choosing alternatives to college as a pathway to adulthood, and college admissions practices may create barriers for homeschooled students.

I reached out to Case and Chen for additional comments on their study’s findings, including how they think the homeschooling data and outcomes might have changed since 2010, when their data set ended.

“We are also glad to see that some colleges, including some top-tier colleges, have become more flexible in their admission policies for homeschoolers over the past years,” Chen responded.

Indeed, more colleges and universities have implemented clearer guidelines and policies for homeschooled students in recent years, and many are now eager to attract homeschooled applicants. In 2015, Business Insider noted that homeschooling is the “new path to Harvard,” and in 2018 the university profiled several of its homeschooled students.

The researchers also suspect that the well-being gap between homeschoolers and public school students has widened over the past decade, with homeschoolers faring even better.

“For instance, social media apps have come to smartphones over the past few years, leading to their widespread adoption by teenagers and even younger children,” Chen told me this week. “Some prior studies suggested that such increasing smartphone use may have contributed to the recent huge spikes in adolescent depression, anxiety, and school loneliness. Cyberbullying, sexting and ‘phubbing’ have also become more common in children’s daily lives, especially in school settings. We might expect that these issues may be less common among homeschoolers than their public school peers.”

As more families experimented with homeschooling last year, and many of them decided to continue this fall, the new Harvard data should help them to feel confident about their education choice. In terms of human flourishing, homeschoolers are doing well—perhaps even better than their schooled peers.

“Many parents opted to try homeschooling during the COVID pandemic,” said Chen. “Hopefully, the public awareness about homeschooling and the related practices and support for homeschoolers will be improved in the long run.”

COLUMN BY

Kerry McDonald

Kerry McDonald is a Senior Education Fellow at FEE and author of Unschooled: Raising Curious, Well-Educated Children Outside the Conventional Classroom (Chicago Review Press, 2019). She is also an adjunct scholar at The Cato Institute and a regular Forbes contributor. Kerry has a B.A. in economics from Bowdoin College and an M.Ed. in education policy from Harvard University. She lives in Cambridge, Massachusetts with her husband and four children. You can sign up for her weekly newsletter on parenting and education here.

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Why a Red Star Is Just as Offensive as a Swastika thumbnail

Why a Red Star Is Just as Offensive as a Swastika

By Craig J. Cantoni

The reasons can be found in the book Gulag and in the book Tunnel 29. 

Gulag, by Anne Applebaum, Anchor Books, New York, paperback edition, 2004, 677 pages

Tunnel 29, by Helena Merriman, Public Affairs, New York, hardback edition, 2021, 318 pages

Reviews by Craig J. Cantoni

Bernie Sanders is an avowed socialist and is alleged to have communist sympathies. Yet when he speaks on college campuses, he isn’t vilified, shunned, canceled, and called a dangerous extremist. No doubt, that would be true even if he were to wear a communist red star or a hammer and sickle. But if he were to wear a swastika, he’d be booed off the stage or worse.

The author of Gulag, a Pulitzer Prize-winning book, mentions in the Introduction about experiencing a similar double standard in the treatment of the evils of communism and the evils of Nazism. Hardly a fascist or supremacist, she is a graduate of Yale and, at the time of the book’s publication, was a columnist and member of the editorial board of the Washington Post.

She had walked along a bridge in Prague where vendors were selling Soviet and communist memorabilia. People were eagerly examining and buying the items, like faithful Catholics treasuring artifacts from the early Church. Fascist memorabilia were not on display, evidently because of a prevailing belief that Nazism was evil but communism was not.

The book continues from that point to explain the reasons for the double standard and to detail the atrocities committed in the name of communism in the Soviet Gulag.

I recently reread the book because of the madness occurring on American college campuses and throughout society in the name of social justice—a madness that has led to an affection for socialism among American youth and to leftist apologists once again rewriting history about communism. My review of the book follows in the next section.

A more recent book on the evils of communism is Tunnel 29. If you prefer a history that reads like a suspense novel, it doesn’t get more thrilling than the book’s harrowing non-fiction account of East Germans risking their lives to escape to West Germany by climbing over or tunneling under the Berlin Wall. The author lives in England and has been a producer and reporter for the BBC.

The Berlin Wall could be a metaphor for the growing ideological divide in America. On the east side of the wall was everything that today’s progressive left-wing wants: free medical care, free child care, free education, subsidized housing, economic security, no class distinctions, and no income inequality. On the west side of the wall was a classical liberal democracy and a free-market economy, where there was hard work, economic insecurity, and unequal outcomes.

The wall was built by East Germany to keep its citizens from fleeing their progressive paradise for West Germany. There’s a lesson in this for America, but it’s not a lesson that is taught in K-16 classrooms.

Let’s take a closer look at Gulag and then Tunnel 29.

Gulag

Surveys say that about 36% of millennials have favorable views of socialism. This is from a generation that can’t do without a Peloton, iPhone, Starbucks, Subaru, Grub Hub, Trader Joe’s, and Nike shoes.

The survey results show how easy it is to convince people, including college-educated ones—or especially college-educated ones—to embrace injustice if the injustice is framed as social justice, equality, and equity. The Introduction of Gulag says that such framing is one of the reasons why the repression, terror, mass murder, and mass starvation of communism are seen as lesser evils than the evils of fascism.

Another reason is the culpability of past and present leftist intellectuals, academics, and reporters in ignoring the evils of communism, due to being in sync with the underlying tenets of Marxism. Their feeble excuse for looking the other way was, and continues to be, that Stalinism was an aberration and not a reflection of the true nature of communism. Actually, from the very start of the Bolshevik Revolution, before Stalin came to power, Lenin was a proponent of concentration camps. Also, of course, Stalin was not the dictator of other communist countries where mass incarceration and murder also took place, such as China under Mao, Cambodia under Pol Pot, and North Korea under the Kim dynasty.

Still, another reason for communism being seen as less evil than the National Socialism of the Third Reich is the belief that communism’s travesties were committed for reasons of class and economics, not for reasons of race or ethnicity—as if being imprisoned, tortured, and killed for the former reasons is somehow better than being imprisoned, tortured and killed for the latter reasons. In any event, it’s a myth that disfavored races/ethnicities weren’t subjected to mass arrests in the Soviet Union. In fact, Poles, Balts, Chechens, Tartars, and eventually Jews were targeted for arrest.

It’s true that Soviet concentration camps were different from Nazi concentration camps because they were not established as death camps per se. But regardless, widespread and gruesome deaths were the outcome in the Soviet camps, as detailed in Gulag. You need a strong stomach to read about the ways in which inmates were tortured and killed.

Fascism deserves to be hated. But in their hatred of fascism, today’s socialists conveniently forget that National Socialism was a mix of nationalism and socialism, not a mix of nationalism and capitalism. The Third Reich didn’t own the means of production, but as Hitler explained, it didn’t need to, because he controlled the industrialists. A debate for another day is whether the United States has free-market capitalism, or crony capitalism, or mercantilism, or fascism, or some combination of these.

A common thread weaves through fascism, communism, slavery, colonialism, and other forms of subjugation throughout history and the world: The victims were dehumanized, categorized, stereotyped, and blamed for socioeconomic problems that weren’t their doing. Such rhetoric in the Soviet Union was a precursor to the evils that followed. To quote from Gulag:

From the late 1930s, as the wave of arrests began to expand, Stalin took this rhetoric to greater extremes, denouncing the “enemies of the people” as vermin, like pollution, as “poisonous weeds.” He also spoke of his opponents as “filth” which had to be “subjected to ongoing purification—just as Nazi propaganda would associate Jews with images of vermin, of parasites, of infectious disease.

The “woke” movement in the United States has shades of such demonization. Those placed in the ill-defined and elastic category of “white” are seen as the product of privilege and the beneficiaries of institutional racism. They’re also seen as stumbling blocks to the woke utopia of social justice, diversity, and inclusion—just as aristocrats, industrialists and the bourgeoisie were seen as stumbling blocks to the attainment of a proletariat paradise of Bolshevism. Likewise, wokes see themselves as morally superior to non-wokes.

Perceived enemies of wokes aren’t sent to concentration camps, as were enemies of the state under communism; but they can be canceled, vilified, ostracized, and have their careers ended for not adhering to the party line. Also, they and their children often have to endure reeducation in the form of critical race theory, which is taught in corporate and government seminars and in K-12 classrooms.

Such humiliation was common but much more severe in the Soviet Union. To quote again from the book:   “Before their actual arrest in Stalin’s Soviet Union, ‘enemies’ were also routinely humiliated in public meetings, fired from their jobs, expelled from the Communist Party, divorced by their disgusted spouses, and denounced by their angry children.”

China’s Cultural Revolution employed the same tactics.

Communists also “ate” their own, which should serve as a warning to today’s wokes. After the Bolshevik Revolution, the winning faction of Marxists proceeded to exile, imprison or shoot their former comrades in the losing faction for having a different interpretation of Marxism. A similar dogmatic mindset can be seen in the way that Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez attack their fellow progressives for not being radical enough.

Incidentally, speaking of AOC, she recently said that a woman of color like herself can’t depend on being protected by her peers in Congress. This was in reaction to Arizona Congressman Paul Gosar’s juvenile and unacceptable animation of himself as a cartoon character using a sword to attack a cartoon image of her.

Woman of color? AOC is whiter than this Italian writer and has immensely greater political power and privilege. She and others of her ilk want Americans to see themselves through their actual or imagined epidermis and then are surprised by the backlash.

As another warning to wokes, George Orwell experienced firsthand how communists turn on each other. His book, Homage to Catalonia, describes his disillusionment in fighting with the communists against fascist Franco in the Spanish Civil War. The communists had split into two opposing factions:  those dedicated to the Soviet Union’s worldwide communism movement and those just interested in defeating Franco. The Communist International undermined the locals. 

Gulag concludes with estimates of the number of prisoners and deaths in the Soviet Union. There were an estimated 28 million prisoners between 1930 and 1948, in a country that had a population of 170 million in 1939. Some historians have tried to calculate how many of them died, but archival data are not reliable. It’s also difficult to calculate how many Russians died in total as a result of the Red Terror, the Civil War, the famines stemming from collectivization, the mass deportations, the mass executions, the concentration camps and mass murders of Stalin’s reign, the camps of the 1920s, and the camps of the 1960s through the 1980s. The Black Book of Communism gives a figure of 20 million.

Whatever the number, communism, like fascism, is not something to be celebrated or endorsed, especially by those who espouse social justice.

Tunnel 91

This book is a much easier read than Gulag but is also an indictment of communism. It is largely based on interviews with an 80-year-old German who ended up East Berlin as a kid after his family became refugees at the end of World War II. He would go on to escape to West Berlin, where in 1961, he would watch the construction of the Berlin Wall, which would separate him from his family in East Berlin. Later, he would lead two efforts to dig a tunnel from West Berlin to East Berlin so that his family and friends, as well as the family and friends of the other diggers, could escape to the West.

It is a thrilling story of grit, determination, and courage.

Not only was it dangerous work, but if the diggers were discovered by the East German police, they could be imprisoned, tortured, or shot. The same for their families in East Germany. There was a high probability of being discovered, because the East German Stasi had thousands of spies in both East and West Berlin, including in government agencies in West Berlin.

In fact, hundreds of East Germans were caught trying to escape over the wall, under the wall, or, using forged papers, through checkpoints between the East and West. It speaks to their desire for freedom that they were willing to risk being shot or spending years in solitary confinement in a dreadful East German prison.

Stasi files, which were opened after the fall of the Soviet Union, document the surveillance, repression, and brutalities employed to keep East Germans from attempting to escape. There was a thick file on virtually every family. 

A takeaway from the book is the same as the takeaway from Gulag: Communism, like fascism, is not something to be celebrated or endorsed, especially by those who espouse social justice.

A Concluding Personal Note

Many decades ago, when I was in eighth grade, the nuns at my parochial school showed a film of the Nazi death camps being liberated, complete with footage of the stacks of bodies, the piles of hair and eyeglasses, the half-burned corpses in the ovens, and the emaciated prisoners with blank stares who had somehow stayed alive.

Wondering how humans could be so cruel to other humans, I bought the 900-page book, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, when it came out in paperwork. That led me to a lifetime of reading history, literature, and moral philosophy in trying to find the answer.

For the first two decades of my intellectual journey, I almost never ran across a book (or movie) that told the story of the evils of communism. That’s because popular books and movies on the Third Reich and the Final Solution far outnumbered those on communism’s mass murders and concentration camps. Among the first books that I read on the subject was Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago.

Books and movies on Joe McCarthy alone seemed to outnumber books like Solzhenitsyn’s. McCarthy has been so vilified by history for his witch hunts for communists in the State Department and Hollywood that “McCarthyism” has become a pejorative to denote right-wing extremism. But it took me a long time to realize that if the bullying drunkard had gone after Nazis instead of communists with the same zeal and unethical methods, he’d probably be lionized by history and Hollywood.

The double standard continues today, not only with the likes of Bernie Sanders being cheered on college campuses but in the difference in usage of the adjectives “right-wing” and “left-wing.” The former, which conjures images of jackboots and stiff-armed salutes, is used by reporters, commentators, academics, and authors as a pejorative about eight times more than the latter.

It’s no wonder that 36% of millennials have favorable views of socialism.

WATCH: Florida 2nd Grader Suspended 38 Times for Not Wearing Masks Tells School Board She ‘Hopes They Go to Jail’ thumbnail

WATCH: Florida 2nd Grader Suspended 38 Times for Not Wearing Masks Tells School Board She ‘Hopes They Go to Jail’

By Pamela Geller

Out of the mouths of babes. Watch:

Florida school board finally drops mask mandate after suspending 8-year-old 38 times for violations

For months, 8-year-old Fiona Lashells did not wear a mask to school, even though it had been mandated by her local school board.

The School District of Palm Beach County has dropped its mask mandate. The district had previously suspended a second grader 38 times for violating the mandate. She may have to repeat the grade.

Fiona Lashells is a student in Palm Beach County who just turned 8-years-old. She took a stand against a school board policy that she believed was wrong. For months she did not wear a mask to school, even though it had been mandated by her local school board. The litany of suspensions she has been handed is available at a website her mother created outlining the experience.

Click here to StandUpForFiona

At a school board event on September 22, 2021, Fiona told the board members that being suspended is “not going to change” her mind, that she still has “the right not to wear a mask,” and that it is “not fair” that she is “getting punished because … the school board is not following the law.” She told the school board that she hoped “they all go to jail for doing this” to her.

Her story was brought to light in a number of major news outlets, including The New York Post. She appeared alongside DeSantis on Fox News and explained to the hosts that she does not like to wear a mask “because you touch it and you have germs on your hands and then you put it on your face and breathe in all the germs.”

One of the Fox News hosts called her stance against the mandate “impressive” and asked Fiona how she felt about the prospect of repeating the second grade. She expressed that she did not want to do that, especially considering she had “done most of the work at home” that she was assigned.

Fiona was visibly shy during the interview, but DeSantis helped her through the question period when she was asked about “how her friends felt” about masking in school. She said that her friends wore them at school because they had to, but did not like them.

After national media pressure and pressure from the DeSantis administration, the School District of Palm Beach County released a letter to the public explaining its decision to drop their mandatory mask requirement. The board described the change as a “face covering opt-out” for parents.

The letter referenced a ruling by Division of Administrative Hearings Judge Newman which came down on Friday as the legal reason behind their change of heart. Judge Newman upheld the DeSantis administration’s block on masking children against their parents’ will.

“The COVID-19 protocols adopted pursuant to section 1003.22(3) should be no more restrictive than necessary to keep children safe and learning in school,” Newman wrote. “The fact that the Emergency Rule achieves this result — and at the same time involves parents in decisions involving their child’s health and education — does not run counter to the broad rule-making directive.”

The school board also referenced its COVID vaccine position in the letter and made it clear that “the COVID-19 vaccine is voluntary, and not required for students or staff.”

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has battled with various school boards in his state which have mandated masks for students. He signed an executive order in July that prohibited mask mandates in schools. After facing legal action from proponents of mandated masking, Florida’s ban on school mask mandates was upheld by a federal judge on September 15, with the court standing firm by rejecting an appeal to reconsider on September 30.

In an effort to allow parents to have the ultimate decision on whether their children will wear masks at school, DeSantis’ administration opted to withhold funds from boards that require students to mask in spite of the government order. At its October 7 meeting, the Florida Board of Education (BOE) unanimously agreed to impose financial penalties for school districts mandating students wear masks.

RELATED ARTICLES:

FBI Whistleblower Claims DOJ Used Counterterrorism Tools Against Parents

Florida second-grader suspended 36 times for mask mandate violation

Gov. DeSantis joins Florida second-grader suspended for refusing to wear mask: ‘Totally unacceptable’

Mask Opt-out available 11-8-21

Administrative judge rules Florida Health Department, not school districts, has call on quarantines, masking

Biden Administration warns Florida over financial sanctions against school boards with mask mandates

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Quick note: Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow me on Gettr. I am there, click here. It’s open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

Raised on Porn – ‘The New Sex Ed’ | Documentary Film thumbnail

Raised on Porn – ‘The New Sex Ed’ | Documentary Film

By Exodus Cry

Raised on Porn exposes the ways pornography has become the new sex education for children and unpacks the dangerous lifelong implications of this global phenomenon.

Through riveting firsthand accounts, cinematic re-enactments, 3D animation, and interviews with the world’s leading neurologists, sociologists, psychologists, and therapists, Raised on Porn is filled to the brim with raw, compelling insight on how pornography is poisoning us and our relationships. This film shatters cultural myths about the “harmless” nature of pornography and provides a sobering framework to understand how this graphic genre of media has shaped our world, eliciting a desperately-needed call for change.

CONTENT WARNING: While the film doesn’t contain any nudity, it

features discussions and images of a sexual nature that some viewers will find disturbing. Our editors have worked hard to create something that is watchable for most viewers while still conveying the essence of the problem. We recommend the film for mature teens and above.

CLICK HERE FOR THE DISCUSSION GUIDE

SIGN THE PETITION demanding age verification on porn sites: https://exoduscry.com/pcnp/

EDITORS NOTE: This Exodus Cry/Magic Lantern Pictures documentary is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

How Cultural Marxism Is Grinding Down Our Public Schools thumbnail

How Cultural Marxism Is Grinding Down Our Public Schools

By John Eidson

Cultural Marxism is the gradual process of grinding down western democracies by subverting the pillars of their culture, the structures and institutions of family, religion, education, politics, law, the arts and the media, as they provide the social cohesion necessary to a functioning society. Undermine the principles these structural institutions embody, and a capitalist society can be overthrown from within without firing a shot. Like termites eating away at the foundation of a house, cultural Marxists in our midst have plotted since the 1960s to radically transform every cultural institution in America, including its secondary education system.

Those who think the threat of communism ended when the Soviet Union collapsed would be shocked to know what’s being taught decades later in many of America’s schools. In “Bill Ayers, the Critical Pedagogy Movement and Cultural Marxism,” author Geoffrey Brittain wrote this:

“In many of our public schools, young, impressionable children are no longer being taught to feel good about being Americans. Their school teachers, who traditionally embody socially approved values, are teaching them to be ashamed of being Americans. Spreading out from the schools that teach our teachers, this ideology is being inculcated into our nation’s K-12 schools and is anti-American in the most profound meaning of the term. It is a movement that is teaching future generations that capitalism and traditional American values are intrinsically evil. Critical pedagogy and its advocates, in their vehement antipathy toward capitalism, private property and traditional American values, is a classic fifth subversive column, no less dangerous to freedom than communism. Its advocates are seeking to radically transform our society by covertly indoctrinating the young through an essentially clandestine and subversive transformation of its culture.” 

What follows are examples of how cultural Marxists in our schools are indoctrinating the young.

CAUGHT ON TAPE: UNION TEACHERS DISCUSS PUSHING MARXISM IN CLASSROOM

During a meeting of the Left Forum, two public school teachers were caught on video discussing how to slip communist dogma into classrooms. Wearing a “Tax the Rich” shirt, Sarah Knopp, a Los Angeles high school teacher and teachers union activist who contributes to “The Socialist Review,” and Megan Behrent, a New York City public school teacher affiliated with the International Socialist Organization, participated in a panel discussion about injecting Marxism into classroom instruction.

Across America, activist teachers, nearly all of whom vote Democrat, are pushing communist doctrine on captive young minds, often with the tacit approval of Democrat school administers, Democrat-controlled school boards, and the Democratic Party.

6th GRADE LESSON PLAN: DESIGN A FLAG FOR A NEW SOCIALIST NATION

A progressive-designed lesson plan for 6th graders in Texas public schools read as follows:

Note that socialist/communist nations use symbolism on their flags representing various aspects of their economic system.  Imagine a new socialist nation is creating a flag and you have been put in charge. Use symbolism to represent aspects of socialism/communism on your flag. What kind of symbolism/colors would you use?

If this type of thing is taught in a red state like Texas, the odds are off the charts that communist-themed lesson plans are also being used in other states.

6th GRADE TEACHER: REPUBLICANS DON’T CARE ABOUT ANYONE BUT THE RICH.

After telling her 6th grade class that Republicans are stupid, Virginia public school teacher Kristin Martin went on to say that Republicans “don’t care about anyone but wealthy people and businesses,” an absurd claim designed to infect her students with Marxist class resentment.  Martin made her comments on Mar. 6, 2012 as Republicans filed into Powell Elementary School in Fairfax County to vote on Super Tuesday.

VIRGINIA 3rd GRADERS REQUIRED TO PERFORM OCCUPY WALL STREET SONG

During an official event at an elementary school in Virginia, 3rd grade students were required to perform “Part of the 99%,’ a song with an unmistakable political overtone: support of the anti-capitalist Occupy Wall Street protests. In response to an outburst of criticism, school board officials defended the song, saying the district’s schools don’t censor songs children write or try to influence the subjects children write songs about. “It all came out of the kids’ own mouths and the kids’ own words,” said Albemarle County school board chair, Steve Koleszar. Does it appear the song was written by 3rd graders? You decide:

Part of the 99%

Some people have it all

But they still don’t think they have enough

They want more money, a faster ride

They’re not content, never satisfied

Yes, they’re the 1%

I used to be one of the 1%

I worked all the time, never saw my family

Couldn’t make life rhyme, then the bubble burst

It really, really hurt

I lost my money, lost my pride, lost my home

Now I’m one of the 99%

The song accomplished its decidedly anti-American purpose: planting the seeds of Marxist class hatred in the minds of 8-year-olds.

USING LEGOS TO TEACH SOCIALISM

Two teachers at a Seattle school banned Legos from the classroom to teach kindergarteners about the alleged evils of private property. Anxious to have the toys returned to the classroom, the children agreed to a new set of guidelines set by their teachers, including these: All structures must be public structures and all structures must be standard size. Later, the teachers proudly quoted their newly indoctrinated students:

“A house is good because it is a community house.”

“We should all have equal houses.”

“It’s important to have the same power over your building as other people.”

What the 5-year-olds were taught is explained in this Karl Marx quote: “The theory of Communism can be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property.”

COLLEGE STUDENTS SHOW SIGNS OF PRIOR MARXIST INDOCTRINATION

Valencia College economics professor Jack Chambliss asked his sophomore class two questions on an essay assignment: what does the American Dream look like to you, and how much do you expect the federal government to help you achieve that vision? Eighty percent of his students expect government to provide one or more of the following:

Free college education

Free health care

Guarantee of a good-paying job

Money for down-payment on a home

Money for retirement

Take money from rich people so more money can be given to them

One student wrote, “As human beings, we are really not responsible for our own acts, and we need government to control those who don’t care about others.”  The students’ expectations about government’s role in helping them achieve the American Dream made it clear that many had been indoctrinated with communist propaganda fed to them at K-12 schools they attended.

BOTTOM LINE

What children are taught in school today will determine what our country will be like in the future. In his best-selling book, “The Naked Communist,” former FBI Special Agent Cleon Skousen revealed 45 communist goals for destroying America from within. Goal 17 mandates this: “Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for Socialism and current Communist propaganda.” And that’s just what cultural Marxists in our schools have done. As a result, public-funded education is advancing communism in America one little Marxist at a time.

K-12 schools aren’t the only place communist dogma is being force-fed to impressionable young minds. A PragerU video titled “Dangerous People Are Teaching Your Kids” shows how cultural Marxists are also subverting higher education. Please consider watching and sharing.

©John Edison. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Sen. Hawley to Introduce ‘Parents’ Bill of Rights’ to Protect Role in Education

Taking Off the Mask

National School Board Association’s Contempt for Parents Divides Organization thumbnail

National School Board Association’s Contempt for Parents Divides Organization

By Bethany Blankley

26 state school board associations distance themselves from national group

More than half of state school board associations have distanced themselves from the national association after it sent a letter to President Joe Biden asking for federal intervention to investigate parents who protest at local meetings.

Of the 26 that have repudiated the letter, 11 have discontinued their membership with the National School Boards Association (NSBA) after Kentucky did so Wednesday.

In the Sept 29 letter, the NSBA likened parents protesting the teaching of critical race theory, mask mandates and other local school decisions to domestic terrorists and sought federal help.

The NSBA is a national association that state school board associations are members of and pay dues to.

In response to NSBA’s letter, the U.S. Justice Department and Merrick Garland instructed the FBI to monitor and investigate parents protesting at local school board meetings.

Parents Defending Education emailed 47 state school board associations for comment on the NSBA’s Sept. 29 letter. Hawaii and Washington, D.C. associations are not NSBA members and Virginia and Louisiana had already made public statements by the time PDE sent the letter.

PDE asked the associations to confirm or deny if they were in agreement with the NSBA’s position, to state how they define “intimidation,” “harassment,” and “threat,” and if they planned on reporting individuals in their states to the U.S. Department of Justice. It also published their responses online.

As of Wednesday, 26 states have distanced themselves from the NSBA’s letter: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

Among them, 11 states have taken action by withdrawing their membership, participation, or dues from NSBA: Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Wisconsin.

Several states did not respond to PDE’s letter at all: Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia. California replied by stating that it declined to respond to the questions.

“We believe the letter from NSBA leadership demonstrated how out of touch the national association is with the concerns of local school boards and the principle of local control,” Ohio’s association said. “Because of that, OSBA no longer sees the value of continued NSBA membership.”

Pennsylvania’s association said NSBA’s letter saying comparing upset parents to domestic terrorists “was the final straw” after the organization had already been questioning the value of keeping its NSBA membership. It added that NSBA had “fomented more disputes and cast partisanship on our work on behalf of school directors, when we seek to find common ground and support all school directors in their work, no matter their politics.”

The New Hampshire School Boards Association said it plans on withdrawing its membership but has not yet done so officially.

The Montana School Board Association will formally leave the NSBA in July 2022, as it already renewed its membership in July of this year.

Alabama withheld its dues to NSBA and plans to vote on whether to leave in December. Florida did not submit dues to NSBA and expressed its opposition to the NSBA’s position. Kentucky’s association leadership is currently evaluating the benefits of continued membership in NSBA. Mississippi says it doesn’t support NSBA’s action and will be meeting to address the situation.

Many of the associations that responded to Parents Defending Education said they had not been asked or informed by NSBA before it sent the letter. In fact, the letter was sent without their knowledge or input from the state associations it is supposed to represent, they added.

Delaware’s association said NSBA’s letter “was a clear overreach” and “violates the fundamental principle of local authority, upon which the Delaware public education system is founded and structured.”

Idaho’s association said, “Had we been asked, we would have readily pointed out the mischaracterization of parents and patrons in our communities as domestic terrorists who merited federal investigation. We want parents and patrons engaged in our public schools – we have sought that for years.

Illinois’ association said, “This is not the first disagreement that IASB has had with NSBA. Prior to this incident, the IASB Board of Directors was evaluating its relationship with NSBA. IASB previously expressed concerns to NSBA about problems related to governance, transparency, and financial oversight. IASB suspended payment of dues to NSBA for 2021-2022 and sought to address these concerns through changes to the governance structure of the national association.

“IASB disagrees with NSBA’s decision to request federal intervention, and the decision by NSBA leadership to tie the request to claims of domestic terrorism and hate crimes.”

New Jersey’s association said it doesn’t endorse the letter, and NSBA’s position doesn’t “reflect the beliefs and policies of NJSBA.” It said it has expressed its disapproval of the letter and “strongly supports the ability of parents and citizens to voice their opinions at board meetings, which is a fundamental principle of our democracy.”

*****

This article was published on November 11, 2021, and is reproduced with permission from The Center Square.

Time for a New University?

By Allen Mendenhall

Higher education in the United States is in dire condition. Priced Out, a report by Neetu Arnold of the National Association of Scholars released earlier this year, describes several problems afflicting colleges and universities: profligate spending, administrative bloat, exorbitant tuition costs, massive student loan debt, mission drift, student radicalism—the list goes on.

What can be done to fix these challenges? Is it time to build parallel schools to rival too-far-gone institutions? Is there room for new colleges and universities predicated on the serious, unbridled pursuit of truth and open inquiry, free from the rigid orthodoxies, anti-intellectualism, and close-mindedness of wokeism and identity politics?

We might find out. This week brings word of the University of Austin, or UATX, a residential, brick-and-mortar, startup liberal arts institution backed by some of the sharpest, most independent voices in the public discourse. Its board of advisors, for instance, includes Arthur Brooks, Ayaan Hirsi Ali (also a founding faculty fellow with Peter Boghossian), Leon Kass, Robert Zimmer, Steven Pinker, Jonathan Haidt, Nadine Strossen, Joshua Katz, John A. Nunes, Vickie Sullivan, Jonathan Rauch, Stacy Hock, E. Gordon Gee, David Mamet, Glenn Loury, Sohrab Ahmari, and Wilfred McClay.

The founding team consists of Pano Kanelos, formerly the president of St. John’s College who will serve as president; Niall Ferguson of The Hoover Institution and Stanford University; Bari Weiss, who made headlines in 2020 after resigning from The New York Times; Heather Heying, an evolutionary biologist; and Joe Lonsdale, a tech entrepreneur in the field of wealth management.

An impressive group. How will they ensure that UATX differs from the typical university, the kind that Arnold decries? For starters, they are steadfastly committed to free speech, robust debate, and unfettered questioning. “Our students,” Kanelos intones, “will be exposed to the deepest wisdom of civilization and learn to encounter works not as dead traditions but as fierce contests of timeless significance that help human beings distinguish between what is true and false, good and bad, beautiful and ugly.” He continues: “Students will come to see such open inquiry as a lifetime activity that demands of them a brave, sometimes discomforting, search for truths.”

Second, Kanelos et al. will distinguish UATX from legacy institutions by devoting their efforts to six principles (open inquiry, freedom of conscience, civil discourse, financial independence, intellectual independence, and political independence) and three pillars (open inquiry, a novel financial model, and an innovative curriculum). The repetition of “open inquiry” as both a principle and a pillar emphasizes the importance of that concept to UATX’s distinct mission. UATX is not about rigid orthodoxy or ideological conformity, but about curiosity, exploration, and self-examination.

Translating these lofty ideals into practice could prove difficult. Ralston College, which generated buzz for its similarly ambitious mission and curriculum, has never taken off. Back in 2010, Stanley Fish heralded Ralston College as “Back to the Future!” for its exciting, innovative approach to traditional learning and classical curriculum. Over a decade later, that prospective college hasn’t enrolled a single student. What will Kanelos and the team do to ensure that UATX does not suffer the same fate?

The foreseeable ranting and naysaying among journalists and scribblers isn’t an impediment to UATX. The chief challenge for UATX, in fact, will be recruiting students.

I learned a few possibilities last month at the fall meeting of the Philadelphia Society, where Kanelos publicly announced the creation of UATX, and then at a three-day “co-creation” summit in Austin hosted by the Universidad Francisco Marroquín and the American Institute for Economic Research. At the latter, I discussed UATX with Kanelos at length, and the whole point of the summit was for inventive leaders in higher education to “crowdsource” or “workshop” pioneering ideas for improving university costs, governance, administration, instructional models, tuition—in short, anything that our large group could come up with. Some measures are simple: outsource or streamline anything extracurricular like athletics or clubs. Others involve partnerships with wealthy investors and businesses keenly interested in UATX’s success. For example, the young and wealthy Joe Lonsdale, an entrepreneur and philanthropist, is helping to fund and develop UATX. The missional obligation to abide by principles of truth-seeking and constructive disagreement guards against undue influence that donors might have on academic freedom.

UATX is in the embryonic stage and, therefore, receptive to unique and imaginative suggestions, such as courses regarding sound money and cryptocurrency, yet it has a plan to ensure that its business model is viable and that its mission remains uncompromised. It aspires to launch a summer program in 2021, a graduate program in Entrepreneurship and Leadership in 2022, and graduate programs in Politics, Applied History, Education, and Public Service in 2023. By 2024, it will have established an undergraduate college with a rigorous liberal arts program that students must complete before choosing between different tracks, each organized under the aegis of a different center of academic excellence. My guess is that, although the ideas for these centers are mapped out, their design remains fluid, not fixed, and their rollout will require some practical flexibility.

Predictably, the media commentariat is apoplectic about UATX. Tom McKay intemperately refers to the university founders as “a sampling of the nation’s most intolerable contrarian columnists, right-wing pundits, and other stuffed shirts.” Without citing evidence for his opinion, Daniel W. Drezner emotes, “If its faculty even remotely resembles the board of advisers, the school would be assembling the most cantankerous, egotistical assortment of individuals since the Trump White House.” Claire Goforth claims that the announcement of UATX “comes from the minds of the nation’s most prominent reactionary bloggers and thinkers, who have become iconoclasts for their desires to break with the ‘woke’ movement they believe is brainwashing elite American academic universities and trickling down to the rest of the country.” Harsh words!

Writing for The Daily Beast, Noah Kirsch says, “Buried in the school’s FAQ section: it does not actually offer degrees, nor is it yet accredited.” Accreditors often require startups to operate for a period, even to grant degrees, as a prerequisite to accreditation. I do not know the policies of the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board or the Higher Learning Commission—from which UATX will seek accreditation—but the fact that UATX isn’t accredited yet should come as no surprise.

The foreseeable ranting and naysaying among journalists and scribblers isn’t an impediment to UATX. The chief challenge for UATX, in fact, will be recruiting students. How will a UATX admissions office convince high school seniors and their parents that attending there can yield measurable returns on investment, that UATX has the staying power and credibility to endure inevitable criticisms and to flourish amid a rambunctious culture increasingly fractured along political lines. To make recruitment more manageable, UATX is starting backwards: with summer programs and M.A. programs before operationalizing the undergraduate program.

UATX must also be wary of faculty and staff seeking to abandon their posts at legacy institutions to seize on this new opportunity. “Hundreds of college professors pleaded to join [UATX],” reports Fox News. These professors must be carefully vetted lest they attempt to bureaucratize UATX along the lines of other universities, or, worse, sabotage the whole project. Even well-meaning academics have been acculturated to working and business conditions that, by and large, aren’t subject to market pricing mechanisms. UATX should hire in the manner of Hillsdale College, requiring interviews not just with each department but with the provost and the president as well.

UATX is that odd combination of traditional and innovative, pouring old wine into new wineskins. Its success could usher in a new era in educational reform. The stakes, it seems, are high. But my hopes are even higher.

*****

This article was published on November 12, 2021, in Law&Liberty, a project of Liberty Fund.

Arizona School Boards Accused of Stalking Activist Parents thumbnail

Arizona School Boards Accused of Stalking Activist Parents

By Cole Lauterbach

Editors’ Note: As we see the spread of “tiny tyrants” and the abuse of liberty by local officials, it is worth exploring where this attitude originated. Besides coming from the universities that have become bastions of intolerance, the attitude of the Federal Government cannot be dismissed. The constant rhetoric coming from the Biden administration and from the Justice Department is that Americans who feel elections have not been fair, that Covid restrictions overreach without making logical sense, and those that oppose socialism are “white nationalists”, “domestic terrorists”, and “science deniers”, has been unrelenting. Once you dehumanize your political opponents, all sorts of awful things logically flow from that attitude. This constant fear-mongering from the Left that demonizes anyone who opposes them, is unlikely to stop. It has always been a part of Leftism. But it can be contained, and those that use such tactics can be removed from office.

Arizona school district officials are accused of taking some controversial steps to keep tabs, even intimidate, parents unhappy with COVID-19 mandates.

Scottsdale Unified School District, one of the state’s largest, sent a letter Wednesday to parents, assuring them private student data is not accessible by its school board members.

“We want to assure you in no uncertain terms that personal student information and educational records are private and protected in district-maintained, secure information systems to which neither Board members nor the public have access,” the letter read. “Any student information the Board may receive is in relation to discipline cases under its consideration, and that information is provided to the Board by the district’s legal counsel.”

The memo stems from an uproar over SUSD Board Chair Jann-Michael Greenburg’s father being implicated in compiling an extensive online database containing information on his son’s political enemies, namely parents who had been showing up at board meetings and protesting the district’s COVID-19 measures.

The story was originally reported in the Scottsdale Independent.

The database, which has been removed from the public eye, contained pictures of parents, some of their children, copies of parents’ professional certifications, mortgage information, and other private data.

State officials from the Scottsdale community have since joined parents in petitioning for Greenburg’s removal from the board, though it’s unclear he was involved with curating the information.

“As a Scottsdale parent and member of the community, I am calling for the resignation of Jann-Michael Greenburg,” said state Rep. Joseph Chaplik, R-Scottsdale. “The evidence of his cyberstalking and spreading of an enemies list should be the last straw for his fellow board members, and I expect them to join me in this call.”

State Sen. Michelle Ugenti-Rita, a Scottsdale Republican who is running for Arizona Secretary of State, said she signed onto a letter from SUSD parents demanding Greenburg step down.

“We stand together in requesting the immediate termination of Jann-Michael Greenburg as SUSD Governing Board President, and we further demand his resignation as an SUSD Governing Board Member,” the letter read.

In the letter to parents, SUSD said there was nothing the district could do to remove an elected board member.

SUSD isn’t the only district with board members accused of taking controversial steps to keep tabs on protesting parents.

Emails obtained by activist Peggy McClain show members of Chandler Unified School District’s board and district officials working with a school resource officer and sergeant with the Chandler Police Department to monitor social media posts from parents involved in groups that have protested district meetings. The emails were sent in May, according to copies McClain posted online.

*****

This article was published on November 12, 2021, and is reproduced with permission from The Center Square.