California Dreaming or Nightmare..Alternative Lifestyle Ed,Communism,Bailout, Threats, and Votes Don’t Count?

California Dreaming (wasn’t that a song) may be over. Remember that old country song..Mama don’t let your babies grow up to be cowboys..The line now should read..or sing…Mama, don’t raise your babies in California.

My first trip to California was as a wide eyed 14 year old. I was going to see Hollywood, The Sunset Strip, Beverly Hills and Santa Monica. I could tell you lots of fun stories but I will just share that the people were great that I met. California was a place of dreams. Hope. Whatever happened to the great state of California?

A new plan by a California lawmaker would allow schools to be used to promote the overthrow of the U.S. government, and let teachers in public district classrooms “inculcate in the mind of any pupil a preference for communism,” according to a traditional values advocacy organization. “Just when we thought the indoctrination in California’s public schools couldn’t get any worse, state lawmakers introduce bills that will further brainwash innocent children,” said a statement from Capitol Resource Institute, a traditional values and family advocacy organization based in California. […] Her organization, along with several others, already has been battling over lawmakers’ orders, already placed in law, that public schools in the state teach nothing but positive messages about homosexuality, transsexuality, bisexuality and other alternative lifestyles. (source)

Continue reading

Advertisements

New 8th Grade English Textbooks Featuring Obama..Freaky!

This is getting really freaky.

The hard Left is already pumping out massive Obama indoctrination material in 8th grade textbooks. Maybe this was part of the Bill Ayers education plan? 8th grade students in Racine, Wisconsin are now using textbooks that contain a 15 page section on Barack Obama. Note: No Hillary, No McCain, No Palin, No Bush… Just Obama! This is beyond freaky. Real Debate Wisconsin reported:

My 8th grade son is in an advanced English class at a public middle school here in Racine, Wisconsin. I just found out that my son’s new (copyright 2008) Wisconsin – McDougal Littell Literature book has 15 pages covering Barack Obama.

I was shocked – No John McCain, no Hillary Clinton, no George Bush – Just Barack Obama. I’m wondering how it is that Obama’s story gets put into an 8th grade literature book? It would be one thing, if it was just the tidbit about his boyhood days, but 15 pages, and they talk about his “Life of Service”. Honestly, what has Obama really done to be included in this book? Not only that, but on page 847 there is a photo of Obama at the 2004 Democratic Convention with at least 8 Obama signs in the background! Front & center is an http://www.obama2004.com sign.

Now I understand that many teachers are liberals, but does the school have the right to shove Obama down our kid’s throats? All the kids grouped together and read the story. After that, they discussed it… I guess it appears that Obama is planning ahead. If he doesn’t get his coveted Presidency, Obama is going to make sure, that the younger generations know all about him, and his “life of service”.

If you would like to see the 15 page story on Obama, it appears that you can order this book online. There is a note in the book that says, For more on Barack Obama, visit the Literature Center at http://www.ClassZone.com The book is: Wisconsin – 8th grade – McDougal Littell Literature – copyright 2008. The Obama story starts on page 830. I hope you will take the time to look at this book. I’m really angry about this – In fact, I would love to rip the pages right out of this book.

More at Real Debate Wisconsin

Above post from Gateway Pundit

and Stop the ACLU

Court to reconsider California home school ruling

You can make a difference!

Hey, remember that California home-schooling case in which Justice H. Walter Croskey ruled that “Parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children?”Well, the ruling is going to be reconsidered by the 2nd District Court of Appeal. Via the SJMercNews:

A state appeals court will reconsider last month’s controversial decision that said parents who home-school their children must have a teaching credential.

The 2nd District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles granted a rehearing Tuesday, essentially voiding the 3-0 decision until it rules again. The decision will now allow home-schooling organizations that had blasted the decision to weigh in.

“Wow!” said Diane Flynn Keith of Redwood City, who edits Homefires, an online home-schooling journal. “I think the judge recognized that he hadn’t done his homework.”

The case centered on a Southern California couple, Phillip and Mary Long of Lynwood, who home-schooled their eight children through the Sunland Christian School in Sylmar. The family came to the attention of Los Angeles County social workers when one of the children claimed the father was physically abusive. The workers learned that all eight children in the family were home-schooled, and an attorney representing the two youngest children asked the juvenile dependency court to order that they be enrolled in public or private school as a way to protect their well-being.

Ruling that the parents had no right to home-school their children because they weren’t credentialed as teachers by the state, Justice H. Walter Croskey pointed to a similar 1953 appellate court decision.

The Longs are being represented by the Pacific Justice Institute, which released a statement saying that Tuesday’s decision was a hopeful sign.

Here’s PJI’s statement on its website:

Pacific Justice Institute has just received word that the court ruling which declared most forms of homeschooling unlawful in California has been vacated. This means the Rachel L. decision, which has sparked a nationwide uproar, will not go into effect as it is currently written. The Second District Court of Appeal has instead decided to re-hear the case, with a new round of briefings due in late April. It would likely take the court several additional months to schedule oral argument and issue another decision.

Today’s announcement by the court that it will re-hear the case reinforces PJI’s position that homeschooling families should continue their current programs without fear of governmental interference. PJI will be actively involved in the upcoming briefs and will continue to post updates and special bulletins on this vital issue.

Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, commented, “We are pleased that the Court of Appeal has decided to re-hear the Rachel L. case, and we are hopeful that the fundamental rights of these parents, our clients Sunland Christian School, and the tens of thousands of homeschooling families in California will be honored. Homeschooling parents should be treated as heroes – not hunted down or harassed by their own government.”

This is welcome news, but the war on homeschooling continues apace.

Linda Whitlock reports on homeschooling in jeopardy. Ken Blackwell notes the antagonism of teachers’ unions. And Juanell Garrett in the Kansas City Star reports on legislative efforts to undermine homeschooling parents.

Stay vigilant.

To train school children in … loyalty to the state’

To train school children in … loyalty to the state’ now we know the true agenda of the extreme  left wing Judges and Legislature

hattip:Word For It…

 VIN SUPRYNOWICZSource: ReviewJournal 

Don’t you love it when a member of the ruling class slips up and admits to the peasants what they’re really up to?

For years, I’ve called for the complete shutdown of America’s massive archipelago of mandatory government youth propaganda camps. The defenders of this Largest Jobs Program in History shriek and bellow that I must be “against education,” which is sort of like charging those who opposed slave galleys with being against ocean navigation.

Read de Tocqueville for his amazement at the high level of literacy — including an ability to discuss complex political issues — found among American workingmen of the 1830s — 20 years before Dewey and Mann launched today’s government-run youth camps on the Prussian model in Massachusetts in 1852.

The New York Times reported Feb. 27 that fewer than half of American teenagers know when the Civil War was fought, and one in four believe Columbus sailed to the New World some time after 1750. About a quarter of the teenagers were unable to correctly identify Hitler as Germany’s chancellor in World War II, instead identifying him in a multiple-choice test as a munitions maker or premier of Austria.

Why is anyone surprised? The academic curriculum is the “cover,” the “front.” The real goal is not to ensure, but rather to ensure against successive generations developing a cohesive philosophy of self-sufficiency, a code of ethics appropriate to a free people living under a government of limited powers. The goal is to make sure successive generations are powerless to muster the historical and economic context, logic and critical thinking skills necessary to see through the latest scheme to seize yet more of our wealth and use the loot to hire more bureaucrats to regulate yet another portion of our lives, our industry, our commerce.

California’s 2nd District Court of Appeal on Feb. 28 declared the parents of most of that state’s 166,000 home-schooled children to be outlaws, ruling the law requires parents to send their children to full-time state-certified public or private schools or else have them taught at home by “credentialed” tutors — which most home-school parents, presumably, aren’t.

“California courts have held that … parents do not have a constitutional right to homeschool their children,” Justice H. Walter Croskey said in the 3-0 ruling, which makes it clear those parents can be criminally prosecuted for failing to comply.

And did Judge Croskey and his black-robed ruling-class pals say this was because the home-schoolers weren’t doing as well at teaching reading, writing and ‘rithmetic?

Of course not. They couldn’t say that, because tests consistently shows home-school kids, taught by parents without state “certificates” or licenses, score 30 to 37 percentile points higher than their public school peers across all subjects.

So why ban home-schooling, if the academic results are far better?

Judge Croskey obligingly explained: “A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare.”

Imagine that. “Loyalty to the state.” Almost as if what they’re running are, I don’t know … mandatory government youth propaganda camps, or something

K.G. writes in: “Dear Mr Suprynowicz, I wasn’t always a homeschooler. I stumbled upon J.T. Gatto while researching school reform after dealing with my local school district and getting nowhere but Delphi’d and a SLAPP letter.

“I read ‘Underground History’ — in fact, I was unable to put it down. It explained HOW IT HAS BEEN DONE, how Americans have been turned into stupid, apathetic, self-absorbed, toadying sheep. … At this stage of the game the social engineers no longer even pretend to educate. They ’socialize’, they ‘mold minds’, they decide who will go to college and ‘lead’ and who will dig ditches for the local business-government or the national corporate state.

“After finishing that book I had to get my kids out, pronto. I regret that they spent their most formative years in the govschool gulag learning to take orders and stand in line, raising their hands to go to the toilet. In fact, when I told my youngest daughter, starting ‘3rd grade’, that we would be homeschooling, she asked me if she would be allowed to go to the toilet whenever she wanted. I almost cried. …”

A local attorney writes in: “Mr. Suprynowicz — Government schools are liberal indoctrination camps, nothing more. My son was shown ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ during 4th grade and now berates my wife for using plastic bags. He is a GATE student (gifted) but curiously received a ‘C’ after he disagreed with his teacher that global warming was caused by human activity. He said no humans were around when the last ice age melted and for that he was punished.

“His teacher went on to teach the class that President Bush used cocaine and that the moon landing was staged. She had white students apologize to black students for slavery and (said) that taxpayers should pay reparations because slavery destroyed the black family. He was also taught that a perfect electric car was made many years ago but the oil companies killed those responsible.

“My cousin home schools his children. His son who is 15 … is taking college level classes through independent study. He is showing an affinity for geometry and physics. … He is reading books about maritime history … non-stop even though his reading ‘level’ is below what some standardized test says it should be.

“When he attended a public school in Belmont, Calif., he was put in special classes for learning disabled children. No doubt his teachers had high hopes he would become a dishwasher. …”

J.B. writes in from upstate New York that John Taylor Gatto’s “book, ‘Dumbing Us Down’ was instrumental in helping me make my decision to homeschool my two children, and we are in our fourth year of doing so. …

“Anyway, just wanted to take a moment to thank you for helping to get the word out on the largest crime ever perpetrated on the human race: the locking away and dumbing down of our beautiful, vibrant, smart, loving children.

“I dream of a day when the parents rise up, en masse, and scream for their release!”

 

Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the Review-Journal and author of the novel “The Black Arrow.” See www.vinsuprynowicz.com/.

California’s Criminal Parents

Hattip to Gates of Vienna

Time says about 200,000 children are home-schooled in California, while The San Francisco Chronicle gives the figure as 166,000. Neither source mentions where they got their figures, but I can tell you from experience with other parents that at least three times that number are flying under the radar.

Parents are simply not reporting their children to their school district. Unlike others, these non-reporters do not trust the state authorities to protect their children in a public school environment and trust even less the arbitrary nature of the law when it comes to the treatment of children.
This past week a California appeals court ruling proved the distrust of the scofflaws to be correct:

A California appeals court ruling clamping down on homeschooling by parents without teaching credentials
sent shock waves across the state this week, leaving an estimated 166,000 children as possible truants and their parents at risk of prosecution.

Continue reading

‘Mom Dad’ Banned in California

Sorry folks, had to delete the orginal post and photos, due to losing my sidebar. You can click below for the story, I reposted it minus the photo’s. I thank you so much for your comments and insight on this subject. I fear they may have been lost in this process. I am so sorry as your comments are invaluable to me and our other readers. Continue reading

Which came first: The Intellectual or the Leader?

Hat tip to  Pamela Meister of The American Thinker

There’s been a lot of talk within the past, oh three election cycles, about how the “smartest” or most “intellectual” candidate would make the best president. Coincidentally, they are all Democrats:

  • In 2000, Al Gore was considered more “intellectual” than George W. Bush, despite the fact that his college transcript was rife with Cs and C-minuses. He also dropped out of the Vanderbilt Divinity School after receiving a number of Fs.
  • In 2004, John Kerry was touted as being “smarter” than George W. Bush, even though his undergrad GPA was one point lower than Bush’s – a fact that was conveniently unavailable until after the election.
  • Hillary Clinton has been anointed the best and brightest of the class of 2008, followed closely by the “clean and articulate” Barack Obama – although don’t expect to see Mrs. Clinton’s grades anytime soon; they likely have been sequestered like her papers from her days as First Lady.

But let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that the above politicians really are intellectually superior to their rivals. We can therefore ask not only why George Bush beat two “intellectuals” in their respective presidential races, but also, do intellectual types really make the best leaders?

If “conventional wisdom” is correct, Al Gore didn’t lose the election, it was stolen from him. Seriously, though, we must consider other factors such as personality and likability. In 2004, Bush beat Kerry in the “likability” category by large margins. Similarly, Al Gore was characterized as a “stiff campaigner,” less likely to inspire that all-important likability factor.
 

According to Richard Benedetto,
 

The vote for president, unlike balloting for mayor or governor, is as much a personal choice as it is an issue choice. Americans want to like their president as well as agree with him. They often will overlook differences on issues if they like or trust the person. Ronald Reagan, John F. Kennedy and Dwight Eisenhower are recent cases in point. Bill Clinton’s likability helped him survive the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

Think about it for a moment. Political ideology aside, who would you prefer to sit down and chew the fat with? George Bush, who spends his vacations wearing jeans and wielding a shovel at his ranch in Crawford, Texas? John Kerry, who enjoys skiing at expensive resorts and slaking his thirst with bottles of vitamin-enriched water? Or Al Gore, who vacations extensively in Europe and flies around in a private jet?
 

Many average Americans can’t afford to travel to Europe in coach, let alone private jet, nor can they enjoy pricey ski getaways. But they often can, and do, spend vacation time working around the house and yard. Yes, George Bush came from money and the size of his Texas ranch puts the modest homes of many Americans in the shade. But it’s oddly comforting to see a president who isn’t afraid to get his hands dirty. It gives the impression that he isn’t afraid of hard work, which is important for one who seeks the highest office in both America and the world.  
 

Now obviously George Bush is not running for office again, but I use him as an example because so much emphasis has been put on the “smart” vs. the “dumb” candidate — “dumb” being equivalent to President Bush. When you realize that an entire industry has sprung up around Bush’s “inferior” intellect, with numerous books, calendars, and other items for sale that impugn his IQ (and focusing largely on his propensity for mispronouncing words like “nuclear”), he’s an obvious choice for discussion. (What will these entrepreneurs do when President Bush leaves office on January 20, 2009?)
 

If being smart was the only qualification for being a leader, one would assume from his treatment in the media that George Bush should never have gotten near the Oval Office. But there are other qualities that people look for in a leader. Here’s a partial list, culled from various sources:
 

  • Vision
  • Integrity
  • Consistency
  • Decisiveness
  • Self-belief
  • Ability to delegate
  • Willing to take risks
  • Ability to communicate effectively
  • Capable of choosing competent team members

When making that all-important decision on who to vote for in both the primaries and the general election, think about the factors listed above. Does your candidate have a vision? Is he willing to take risks? Does he stick to his basic convictions, or does he have a habit of licking his finger and putting it up to the wind of public opinion? (Yes, I know there is a woman in the race this year, but I find the constant use of “he/she” when writing to be tedious.)

Eugene Robinson, writing for the Washington Post, believes we need an “egghead” in the Oval Office; specifically, Al Gore:
 

In [his] book, you see, Gore betrays familiarity with history, economics, even science. He uses big words, often several in the same sentence. And in public appearances he doesn’t even try to disguise his erudition. These supposedly are glaring shortcomings that should keep Gore on the sidelines, rereading Gibbon and exchanging ideas about the structure of the cosmos with Stephen Hawking.
[…]
We need a brainiac president, a regular Mister or Miss Smarty-Pants. We need to elect the kid you hated in high school, the teacher’s pet with perfect grades.

Robinson must not have received the memo about Gore’s grades in college. Nor does he take into account many of the leadership qualities I listed above. Book smarts, if I may use the colloquial term, does not necessarily translate into common sense. It’s one thing to theorize on paper and in forums. Putting one’s money where one’s mouth is…well, that’s something else entirely. According to USB Business Development, an organization that offers (among other services) leadership workshops and programs,

[C]lever people, who have no relationship skills, can be intimidating or seem arrogant to others, creating divisions and hierarchies. This causes friction and precludes open dialogue and can eventually dry up creativity. In any leadership role, academic and intellectual abilities must be balanced with high emotional awareness.

Interestingly, Thomas Sowell recently had this to say about Senator John McCain:

Maybe the reason Senator John McCain’s campaign has failed to get any traction is that the debates show him to be the kind of arrogant and condescending know-it-all who would be the most dangerous kind of president.

Think back to the know-it-alls in your experience, both in school and the workplace. Just because they may have more actual knowledge than you in a particular area, does that automatically mean they are the best choice for a leadership role?

Liberals were, remember, in high dudgeon both in 2000 and 2004. They felt, by rights, that the candidate they believed to be the smartest one should have won. Those who place a high premium on intellectualism automatically assume that, as the best and the brightest, they deserve all the accolades society has to offer. But in a capitalist society like ours, this is not always the case. Robert Nozick, writing for the Cato Institute, has a hypothesis that goes back to one’s schooldays (all emphasis mine):

The intellectual wants the whole society to be a school writ large, to be like the environment where he did so well and was so well appreciated. By incorporating standards of reward that are different from the wider society, the schools guarantee that some will experience downward mobility later. Those at the top of the school’s hierarchy will feel entitled to a top position, not only in that micro-society but in the wider one, a society whose system they will resent when it fails to treat them according to their self-prescribed wants and entitlements. The school system thereby produces anti-capitalist feeling among intellectuals. Rather, it produces anti-capitalist feeling among verbal intellectuals. Why do the numbersmiths not develop the same attitudes as these wordsmiths? I conjecture that these quantitatively bright children, although they get good grades on the relevant examinations, do not receive the same face-to-face attention and approval from the teachers as do the verbally bright children. It is the verbal skills that bring these personal rewards from the teacher, and apparently it is these rewards that especially shape the sense of entitlement.

Nozick is writing here about why intellectuals at large oppose capitalism, but his ideas about those who excelled in school expecting to excel in other areas of life (and feeling cheated when they don’t) is very telling.

This brings us to the role of schools in today’s leaders. I asked Dr. Candace de Russy, a nationally recognized writer and lecturer on education and cultural issues, for her thoughts on the subject:

For some decades our academic system has been indoctrinating rather than truly educating students, thus producing intellectuals whose minds are clouded with ideology and whose judgment is impaired. Given the usurpation of higher education and K-12 teacher hiring processes by the left, it is also now in the self-interest of many intellectuals to exercise poor judgment, in scholarly matters as well as in the political realm. Some of the great declinists connected weak and pusillanimous – decadent – leadership with societal affluence. Perhaps many of our intellectuals are too materialistic and self-centered to bother with the rigors of exercising leadership and wise judgment.

Rather than teaching students to think, many educators take it upon themselves to fill their students’ heads with propaganda and groupthink. This explains why conservative campus clubs such as the College Republicans have relatively small memberships, while you can count on large numbers of college students to turn up at anti-war rallies sponsored by International ANSWER and other Communist front groups. Ben Shapiro, author of the bestselling book Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America’s Youth, discusses the phenomenon of elitist liberal professors that seem to dominate higher education:

This [second] group [of liberals] feels that conservatism is simply dumb.  Professors tend to be intellectually arrogant anyway, and liberalism by its nature is an extremely elitist ideology.  Many professors feel that conservatism is too simplistic to waste time on in the classroom.  I cite numerous examples of this in Brainwashed.  Professors say that if you’re conservative, you’re unqualified to clean highways, much less teach a classroom of students.  Four professors even created a fully funded study designed to conclude that conservatives are less “integratively complex.”  Of course, they had to lump together Stalin, Castro, Hitler, and Reagan in order to do this, but the end justifies the means.

Being spoon-fed a particular ideology (one that espouses a worldview where entitlement plays a major role), coupled with the assumption that higher education automatically confers superiority, and you have people who wonder why a “dummy” like George W. Bush could ascend to the presidency not once, but twice. And rather than take a look at the qualities and convictions that played a major role in his electoral success, they whine and cry about “stolen” and “rigged” elections – because, as Dr. de Russy says, indoctrination – not education – is the name of the game.

Intellectuals will likely always feel as though they are more deserving of leadership roles in our society. But if we take a serious look at our educational system from the bottom up and revamp it to highlight problem solving and critical thinking skills over ideological brainwashing, perhaps that group will shrink to a more manageable size. For not only do we need independent thinkers in our political class, we also need independent thinkers in the electorate. Our future as a democratic republic depends on it.