In my book, Is Public Education Necessary?, I pointed out how the public school movement was promoted in the 1830s and ‘40s by the Owenite communists, the Harvard Unitarians, and the Protestant evangelicals. The Owenites wanted to use the public schools as a means of turning young Americans into little communists who would as adults turn America into a communist or socialist society. The Harvard Unitarians wanted to use the government schools as the means of getting the Calvinist religion out of education. And the Protestant evangelicals, alarmed by heavy Catholic immigration, wanted to use the public schools as a means of turning Catholic children into Protestants and as a means of maintaining America’s basic Protestant culture.
The latest school shootings at Chardon High School in Chardon, Ohio, have reminded us that these school massacres did not end with the horrors of Columbine High School in Colorado on April 20, 1999, but have continued right up to the present. Some of these planned shootings have been nipped in the bud by students aware of what was about to happen. But the latest shooting simply indicates that as long as the public schools are the way they are, there will be no end to these killings.
“This is what you deserve. You get what you deserve, white boy.” So spewed the attackers of Melissa Coon’s 13-year-old son, as they doused him with gasoline and set him alight.
Police, they say, are “investigating” whether this is a hate crime.
Yes, and I’m investigating whether the media is biased and if hate-crime law is applied equally. I’ll get back to you on that — in about two paragraphs.
In my previous article on the vaccine controversy, which drew many comments, I made a very simple proposal. I proposed that the easiest way to find out if the vaccines were harming the children was to conduct a very straightforward survey: Ask the thousands of parents who have rejected inoculating their children if any of their children have become autistic; and ask those parents who have complied with the vaccination schedules if any of their children have become autistic or have suffered any other harmful effects.
The Washington politicians were in full self-congratulatory form recently when the Republicans and Democrats in Congress finally displayed a moment of bipartisanship and passed the payroll tax cut extension that keeps in place the two percentage point cut in the tax that funds Social Security.
One of the great ironies of the Progressive Education Movement is that its leaders were able to convince John D. Rockefeller, Jr. that he ought to give his sons a good progressive education and donate $3 million to the Lincoln School, a new experiment in social education in accordance with John Dewey’s radical new ideas. So he put Nelson, Laurence, Winthrop, and David in the school, which turned them all into dyslexics, proving that progressive reading programs can cause dyslexia.
The rigors of a presidential campaign leave a candidate little time for reading and less time for thought. But if Rick Santorum has a few spare moments in a hotel room in Michigan, Arizona, or somewhere in between, he might consider asking a senior campaign advisor (presidential campaigns apparently have no junior advisors) to find him a copy of Profiles in Courage, John F. Kennedy's book about U.S. Senators who risked their careers and reputations by standing with longstanding and firmly held principles against the demands of a short-sighted and frequently erroneous pragmatism. The former Senator from Pennsylvania might peruse, for example, the stand taken by Senator and future President John Quincy Adams when Adams became a political pariah by opposing the sentiments of his party and his region and defending President Jefferson's embargo on trade with Great Britain.
In a shocking case out of Pennsylvania, an American judge has thrown out an assault charge against a Muslim immigrant based on Sharia law.
Thankfully, the twentieth GOP presidential debate has come and gone.
If the American voter doesn’t know these candidates by now, he never will.
Of the four remaining candidates, three are virtually indistinguishable from one another. This much has been established time and time again throughout this election season. It is true, of course, that there exist some differences between Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich. But such differences are negligible, both in themselves and, especially, relative to the enormity of the similarities that they share.