The Eco-Radicals’ REAL Motives
“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” –– H.L. Mencken
The driving force behind the eco-radicals’ fierce efforts to strangle the free market with environmental regulations is their virulent hatred for a free, prosperous economy. Yet behind this hatred is an even deeper one. To understand why they try to wreck our economy, you have to grasp the shocking fact that many eco-radicals hate the human race and Western civilization. They hate the fact that you, your family, your friends, and millions of other human beings live and prosper on this planet.
Most of us are naive about the environmental movement. We believe that when eco-radicals say we should “protect the environment,” they mean we should protect it for people. What they really mean is that we should protect the environment against people. People are the enemy. Rats, swamps, and old-growth forests must be protected against you, your family, and the rest of the human race.
To confirm this, just watch nature programs on public television. In every program I’ve seen, human beings are depicted as the enemy. These programs portray humans as vicious, violent destroyers of birds, wildlife, forests, rivers, and oceans. Nature is seen as “pure,” “fragile,” and “innocent” (including child-eating hyenas and alligators). Environmentalists or their sympathizers create these programs, so the programs reflect the environmental movement’s deepest attitudes toward the human race.
If environmental groups valued human life, they wouldn’t try to cut our oil supplies by banning drilling in arctic wastelands or off the coast of Florida and California. They wouldn’t ban the hunting of alligators that kill children. They wouldn’t file lawsuits against housing developments that give people shelter, to protect kangaroo rats.
They wouldn’t have lobbied Congress to ban DDT, the pesticide that saved the lives of millions of people worldwide from malaria. They wouldn’t ban logging in northwest forests to protect spotted owls, a ban that destroyed over 30,000 logging and sawmill workers’ jobs.
Here’s what one environmentalist had to say about loggers losing their jobs:
“Loggers losing their jobs because of Spotted Owl legislation is, in my eyes, no different than people being out of work after the furnaces of Dachau shut down.”
In other words, forcing owls to move to another forest because you cut down trees they nest in is just as evil as murdering six million people in gas chambers. Owls are as important as six million human lives. If loggers unintentionally kill a few owls, they’re as evil as the murderers who ran the Nazi gas chambers. Therefore, we should have no sympathy for loggers who lost their jobs. Here’s another quote:
“Somewhere along the line . . . we quit the contract and became a cancer. We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth . . . Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along[emphasis added].”
In other words, this eco-radical wishes the human race to die out—for your family, your children, your friends to die, so that the “sacred” Earth will be free of the “plague” of human beings.
These are quotes by radical environmentalists. These quotes eloquently reveal the eco-radicals’ utter hatred and contempt for the human race, and for human life and progress on this Earth. Are these the kind of sick people that we, and State and Congressional legislators should be listening to?
I knew that the environmental movement values swamps and kangaroo rats over human life, but I didn’t realize how sick this movement really is until I read a shocking article in the New York Times. It seems that in Brazil, “endangered-species” regulations forbid hunting “protected” wildlife. This ban includes the dreaded jacaré and caiman, two Brazilian alligator species.
The jacaré is a vicious, prehistoric, man and child-eating monster who inhabits the Amazon River Basin. In the high-water season, alligators infest the riverbanks near where Mrs. Ramos lives. One evening in August, an eighteen-foot jacaré emerged from the lagoon to forage for food in waters flowing around the stilts of her house. The New York Times article described what happened to Mrs. Ramos’s son:
“Gilson (Mrs. Ramos’s 17-year-old son) went down to tie up his canoe,” said Sidecley Conceicão Andrade, a barefoot, 12-year-old neighbor. “In the dark, he thought he grabbed the canoe, but it was the jacaré’s tail. It took him away and ate him up.”
Can you imagine the horror of being eaten alive by an alligator? Can you imagine the nightmares and searing pain Mrs. Ramos must feel when she thinks of her son? Well, Brazil’s environmental regulations killed her son and hundreds of other innocent victims of alligator attacks.
Imagine that you lived in Florida and were the parents of a beautiful little girl. How would you feel if an alligator protected by the Endangered Species Act snatched your daughter and ate her alive? How would you like hearing your little girl crying for her mommy or daddy while the alligator ripped her to pieces? I apologize for describing such a horror in detail, but I want to bring home the real meaning of environmental laws like the Endangered Species Act. If you want to picture the essence of many eco-radicals’ contempt for human life, just remember what the jacaré did to Mrs. Ramos’s son.
Radical environmentalism and its strangling regulations threatens our health and our lives. But environmentalists can hurt us only because most of us have fallen for their propaganda. The problem is that we’re a good-natured, but sometimes naive people. We give everyone the benefit of the doubt, including environmentalists. We think eco-radicals are normal human beings like we are, and couldn’t possibly mean what they say. That’s what the world thought about Hitler—people didn’t believe what he said in his book, “Mein Kampf.” But we can’t be naive any longer.
We have to judge eco-radicals by their words, values, and actions, and recognize that the agenda of too many environmentalists is evil. The only way to stop them is to de-fang them, to take away their power, to repeal most environmental regulations and abolish the Environmental Protection Agency.
THE “FAIR SHARE” CANNIBALS
The idea of forcing someone to pay his “fair share” of taxes through progressive income taxes applies only to a society of cannibals. It applies to a society where the majority has the right to devour those people who earn more than others. Paying your “fair share” in taxes implies that all of us have a responsibility to support the rapacious Welfare/Entitlement State, but some of us have more responsibility than others. It implies that the more money you earn, the larger your “fair share” should be, simply because you have more to give.
In other words, the “fair share” principal embedded in our progressive income-tax code brings to America, the “land of the free,” Karl Marx’s dictum from his Communist Manifesto, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”
This dictum is the philosophy of socialist looters who are consumed by envy. This policy simply justifies stealing from those people who earn more than others. And since there’s always someone richer or poorer than you, the progressive income tax leads to universal looting, on a massive scale. Through the progressive income-tax system, everyone steals from the next victim above him on the economic ladder. Paying your “fair share” of taxes appeals to looters or parasites who have no idea how wealth is created or why it’s wrong to steal.
To see what fair share really means, imagine the following. You have $10,000 saved in your local bank. You worked for ten years to save this money. The bank then gets a new “progressive” manager. The manager finds that most of the bank’s customers have less than $500 in deposits, which he thinks is grossly unfair. So he makes new rules for the bank. He sends you a letter telling you that he is going to “redistribute” your $10,000 to all his poorer depositors so that everyone has their “fair share.”
Do you think the bank manager should be arrested or sent to the loony bin? What if the government passes a law that lets him get away with this theft? You know that the bank manager has no right to “redistribute” your money. Does the government? Yet progressive income taxes do exactly the same thing the bank manager did.
In 2005, if you earned $80,000, you now pay a 28 percent income-tax rate, or $22,400 in Federal income taxes. A person who earns $28,000 a year now pays a 15 percent income-tax rate, or $4200 in Federal income taxes. If you pay $22,400 in income taxes, do you get five times more in services from the Federal government than the person who paid only $4200 in taxes? No you do not — you get the same “services.” In effect, those who earn higher incomes are looted far more than low-income earners to pay for Welfare/Entitlement programs that are now devouring our country. By what right?
What is the excuse that liberals make to justify this legalized looting of people who earn more than others? Simply this, that low-income earners need more money for all the goods and services they are “entitled” to. Since higher-income earners have more money, they claim, these higher-income earners have a moral “duty” to hand over their “excess” money to the “less fortunate.” In other words, they say “you have the money, we want it, so we’ll take it from you, and we’ll use the progressive income tax to do this. In effect, the federal government becomes a fence for stolen property.
Well, any mugger does the same thing when he puts a gun to your head and says, “your money or your life.” The mugger sees that you have money, he wants it, so he has decided to take your money at the point of a gun. Our government income-tax collectors are simply legalized muggers who loot our money through the progressive income tax.
In a free society, the taxes a person pays should depend on the services he gets from government, his agent. We should only pay for services that we personally use or benefit from. We could devise a system where each of us paid taxes for government services we bought – a voluntary trade between a citizen and his agent. But this system would be possible only if America had a small, limited government.
This goal is entirely possible. In 1914, the entire federal government’s budget was only $725 million. The 2005 fiscal-year budget was over $2 trillion, a 2000-percent increase from 1914. Why the incredible difference? The income-tax revolutionized the role of government from limited agent to safety-net builder. It gave government the income-raising tool it needed to create our devouring Welfare/Entitlement State.
We could have a contractual tax system if we reduced government to its size in 1914. A contractual system would be easy then, because the budget would be so small. Imagine that the annual federal budget is $750 million because we phased out regulations and entitlement programs. To be more realistic, let’s increase the budget to $75 billion (one hundred times the amount in 1914) to account for inflation, defense costs, and the general increase in population.
The United States today has a population of about 250 million people. If we had a simple flat tax calculated by dividing the total budget of $75 billion by the population of 250 million, the tax per person would be $300 a year. Do you think you could afford $300 for taxes? This figure also excludes money the federal government collects from other taxes, such as excise, tariffs, and user fees, which were its primary taxes before 1913. These extra taxes would further reduce the income taxes needed and give government more funds to work with.
Most of us would be so happy about our low tax bill that we wouldn’t want to bother with a complicated contractual tax system. We would be happy to pay the $300 and be done with it. Except for this small tax, you could keep everything you earned. Add up all the taxes you now pay and then subtract $300. Everything else would be yours.
But low taxes are possible only if we totally reject the philosophy behind the Welfare/Entitlement State. We pay heavy taxes only because we have thousands of regulations and entitlement programs and millions of government bureaucrats. The Welfare/Entitlement State and out-of-control government can be swept away only when we reject the idea that helping others is a moral and political duty instead of a personal choice.
Until then, the Welfare/Entitlement State forces us to help others at the point of a legislative gun. Our paychecks and savings accounts are no longer private property to be scrupulously protected and used for our own benefit. Instead, liberals assume that your salary, profits, and property are collectively owned. They assume that your income is a national resource they can give away to anyone who “needs” it. They assume that the only person who has no right to your money is you, the person who earned it.
Are they right? Should you let them get away with that? Does your hard-earned money belong to you, or to any looting moocher who wants to steal it from you? The next time you go into a voting booth, ask yourself these questions. Every liberal, most Democrats, and too many Republicans believe in the welfare-state philosophy. Vote only for those who don’t believe this.
“WE” – THE DEMOCRATS’ MOST VICIOUS WORD
Filed under: Obama -- Radical Socialist, Obama's Welfare State
Here are some typical policies the Obama/Democrat/Liberal-looters now suggest to “solve” America’s problems:
“We” need to give health care to all people with a “non-profit” socialized-medicine system (the same system that wrecked medical care in England and Canada?, and paid for by whom?).
“We” need to give all kids tuition money for a college education (a socialist, anti-American-values education presided over by Marxist professors?, and paid for by whom?).
“We” need pre-school for all children from age two years old, especially minority kids (with or without the consent of parents?, and paid for by whom?).
“We” need “parent education” programs to teach parents how to raise their kids (the parent-police in Hillary Clinton’s “village” that “raises” children).
“We” need more federal programs to cure AIDS, for AIDS education, and to pay for drug addicts’ needles (why should we pay for other people’s drug habits and unprotected sex that cause most of the AIDS?).
“We” have to raise taxes on the “rich” to pay for all these multi-billion dollar programs (which kills the goose that lays the golden egg—it’s the productive “rich” who create the jobs the poor depend on).
“We” need to spend more billions of dollars on government (public) schools (that’s like throwing money down a toilet).
“We” need to spend billions of dollars to solve global warming (human-caused global warming is a deliberate hoax designed to destroy our liberty and free economy).
“We” have to take money from the oil companies to fund alternative energy programs (yes, “take” is what Hillary Clinton said in a previous speech. “Take,” as in “loot”).
“We” have to end the imbecile Iraq war that is bankrupting us. But, God forbid, we will NOT give the billions of dollars we spend on the war back to you, the taxpayers. We’ll keep your money and give it away to every petty looter and special-interest group who’ll vote us into office.
“We” have to stop companies from moving overseas and not paying heavy corporate taxes (companies want to run from strangling US taxes and regulations — why shouldn’t they?).
“We” have to tax the rich (who earned their money) to pay for welfare, farm subsidies, employment programs for minorities, and dozens of other giveaway programs (why should these people get unearned handouts they didn’t work for?).
“We” have to make sure the “rich” pay their “fair share” of taxes (“fair share” means to loot money from brilliant, productive businessmen who earn more than others with their superior ambition and hard work, and give this stolen loot to less productive people who do not produce jobs for others).
And on and on it goes. “We” have to help this group. “We” have to help that group. “We” have to raise taxes or take money from the “rich” to pay for all this looting.
“We” is the Democrats’ and liberals’ killer word. They mean that “we” are our brothers’ keeper, whether we like it or not. “We” must sacrifice our lives, our work, our hard-earned money to pay for any looters who want to take our money, courtesy of government-elected thieves.
“We” is an attempt to make you forget the word “I,” as in “I” earned my money and “you” don’t have a right to take it from me.
The Democrat-looter Presidential candidates all claimed the right to tax us to death to pay for uninsured people’s health care (including Mexican illegal aliens), unemployed peoples’ training, tenured-teachers unearned pay raises, congenitally-incompetent public schools’ unending failure, government workers who get rich on these programs, and every other whining special-interest group who demands government hand-outs at your expense.
Let’s be clear on one thing. You are NOT your brother’s keeper, and no government you elect has the right to force you to be. “Compassion” enforced at the end of a government gun (taxes) is naked compulsion. Every program that looting liberals promote with their “we” forces you to be your brother’s keeper, whether you like it or not. In effect, Democrats tell you, “your money or your life.”
There is only one way to fight the Democrats’ vicious moral notion that “we” are our brother’s keeper. Like a prayer, keep repeating the words that you have the God-given right to keep every cent you earn. Your property is not someone else’s “resource” to spend as they please. Liberal looters who spout their “we” think your hard-earned money is theirs for the taking. They think of you as an expendable sacrificial animal. They think that your duty is to work for the money, but they have the right to spend it.
To fight the liberal looters, keep repeating like a prayer, “My money and property are mine—I earned it. No politician I elect has the right to steal my money to give away to others.” It’s as simple as that.
If you accept the Democrats’ deadly “we,” you fall into their trap. You accept the vicious socialist and fascist moral notion that you are your brother’s keeper. You accept the notion that the people you elect to office have the right to loot your hard-earned money to enforce that notion. You accept the fact that those you elect to office have the right to make you into a slave—to work your whole life for the benefit of others.
Homeschooling Takes Children Out of Public School — A Unique Benefit
Home-schooling removes children from public school. That alone makes home-schooling worthwhile. Unlike public-school children, home-schooled kids are not prisoners of a system that can wreck their self-esteem, ability to read, and love of learning.
Home-schooled kids don’t have to read dumb-downed text-books, study subjects they hate, or endure meaningless classes six to eight hours a day. Home-schooled kids won’t be subject to drugs, bullies, violence, or peer pressure, as they are in public schools. Home-schooled children who are “different” in any way won’t have to endure cruel jokes and taunts from other children in their classes.
Slow-learning or “special-needs” children won’t be humiliated by their peers if they are put in regular classes, or further humiliated if the teacher puts them in so-called special-education classes. Faster-learning home-schooled kids won’t have to sit through mind-numbing classes that are geared to the slowest-learning students in a class. They won’t have to “learn” in cooperative groups where other kids in the group do nothing and are not cooperative. Home-schooled children do not have to waste their time memorizing meaningless facts about subjects that bore them, just so they can pass the next dumbed-down test to obey and please school authorities.
Home-schooled kids don’t have to endure twelve years of a third-rate, public-school education that leaves many students barely able to read their own diplomas. The notion that tests tell teachers and parents what children have learned turns out to false. John Holt, teacher and author of “How Children Fail,” pointed out that most children soon forget what they memorized for a test as soon as the test is over, so the entire test-taking process is usually worthless. Facts or ideas that are not useful or relevant to children pass through them like a sieve and are soon forgotten. Home-schooled kids don’t have to study an arbitrary, meaningless curriculum of subjects imposed on them by foolish public-school authorities.
They don’t have to be treated like little mindless, spiritless ro-bots that have to learn the same subjects at the same time and in the same sequence as their classmates. Home-schooled children don’t have to sit quietly in a class of twenty-five other students and pretend they like being in this mini-prison called public school, just to avoid being punished by a teacher for “acting-out” or fidgeting in their seats. Any adult’s mind would wander if they were forced to sit through a boring lecture for just one hour. Yet public schools expect children to sit still for boring lectures on subjects that are meaningless to them, for six to eight hours a day.
Home-schooled children do not have to be fearful of displeasing a teacher because they get the wrong answers on meaningless tests. They therefore do not have to be fearful of learning and have their natural joy in learning crippled as a result of this fear. Infants and very young children embrace life and learning with a passion, which is why they learn so fast. Yet, as John Holt found out, by the time these same children have progressed to the fifth grade in school, most are listless, bored, apathetic, and often fearful in class.
Home-schooled children won’t be terrorized by test grades and comparisons to their classmates, and associate learning with this terror. They won’t associate learning with always having to get the right answer that schools authorities insist on. They won’t be made to feel that learning means passing an arbitrary test, and that failing a test is a shame or disgrace.
Home-schooling also gives parents control over the values their kids learn. It prevents school authorities from indoctrinating their children with warped values, pagan religions, or politically-correct ideas. Unlike public-school students, home-schooled children are not forced to sit through explicit or shocking sex-education classes. School authorities can’t pressure home-schooling parents or children to take mind-altering drugs like Ritalin.
So keeping a child out of public school is an enormous benefit in itself. Other positive benefits of home-schooling are:
Home-schooling lets parents give children a custom-made curriculum that makes learning a joy. Parents can expose their children to many different subjects and ultimately focus on subjects that their children enjoy and benefit from. Children can also learn about subjects that are not taught in any school, and have time for non-academic subjects like art and music. Parents can choose from a wide range of teaching materials that not only engage and delight their kids, but bring real results.
Home-schooled children can learn at their own pace. Slower-learning kids will benefit by their parent’s love and attention. Bright children will progress as fast as they want to. Children will learn to read or learn any other subject when they are ready, not according to a prescribed time-table. Unlike public schools, home-schooling parents treat each child as a unique individual with his or her own special in-terests, talents, strengths and weaknesses. Parents can also tailor-make the instruction to each child’s personality and learning style.
Home-schooling parents can give their kids a one-to-one teacher-student ratio. This insures that children get individualized attention from a loving, attentive parent-teacher.
Home-schooled kids get instant feedback. Children don’t have to compete with twenty other chil-dren in a class for their teacher’s attention. A parent-teacher can instantly answer her child’s questions, or research the answer together with her child.
Parents — For your children’s sake, you might want to consider taking your children out of public school before it’s too late. You only get one chance to give your kids the great education they need and deserve.
Why Public Schools Hate Home-schooling Parents
“Free education for all children in government schools.”
- Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto
Home-schooling is a great success. That’s why many public-school authorities hate home-schooling parents.
Home-schoolers are a direct challenge to the public-school monopoly. This monopoly makes it almost impossible to fire tenured public-school teachers or principals. As a result, tenure gives most teachers life-time guaranteed jobs. They get this incredible benefit only because public schools have a lock on our children’s education.
If public-school employees had to work for private schools and compete for their jobs in the real world, they would lose their security-blanket tenure. That’s why school authorities view home-schooling parents who challenge their monopoly as a serious threat.
Many school officials also can’t stand the fact that average parents who never went to college give their kids a better education than so-called public-school experts. Successful home-schooling parents therefore humiliate the failed public schools by comparison.
Home-schooling parents also humiliate school authorities who claim that only certified or licensed teachers are qualified to teach children. Most home-schooling parents thankfully never stepped foot inside a so-called teacher college or university department of education. Yet these parents give their children a superior education compared to public-school educated kids.
Also, many public-school officials resent home-schoolers because the typical public school loses about $7500 a year in tax money for each child that leaves the system. Tax money is the life blood of the public-school system. Tax money pays for public-school employees’ generous salaries, benefits, and pensions. Is it any wonder why school authorities don’t want to lose their gravy train?
For these reasons, until fairly recently, most state legislatures either outlawed homeschooling or tried to strangle it to death with regulations. In 1980, only Utah, Ohio, and Nevada officially recognized parents’ rights to homeschool their children. In most other states, legislators continually harassed or prosecuted home-schoolers under criminal truancy laws and educational neglect charges.
By 2004, however, pressure from parents, Christian home-schooling organizations, and recent court rulings pushed all fifty states to enact statutes that allow home-schooling, as long as certain requirements are met. These requirements vary for each state.
In spite of these statutes, many states and school authorities still harass home-schooling parents. That is because the Supreme Court slapped parents in the face when they gave local governments the right to regulate home-schooling. As a result, many home-schooling parents are still harassed by local school officials.
If you are a homeschooling parent, you must know how to protect your legal rights. To do this, you should seriously consider joining the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA). Founded in 1983, HSDLA provides its members with legal representation against local school officials who might harass you, demand to supervise your home-schooling, or demand to periodically test your home-schooled children. You can join at their web site, http://www.hslda.org.
The Rutherford Institute is another well-known organization dedicated to protecting parents’ rights and providing legal help to home-schooling parents. Their website is http://www.rutherford.org.
Read more information about “Public Schools, Public Menace.”
Wow! — 54 Unique Benefits of Homeschooling
Parents, is homeschooling the right choice for you and your children? Maybe you think you don’t have the time to homeschool because you work. Perhaps you don’t have confidence in your ability to teach your kids because you never took “teaching” courses.
But consider the alternative. Public schools can destroy your children’s self-esteem, destroy their ability to read, strangle their love of learning, put them in physical and moral danger, and wreck their future.
In contrast, here’s 54 unique benefits homeschooling can give you and your kids, as written and explained by Laura B., a smart, wonderful wife, mother of three, homeschooler, and business owner who works from home and still focuses on her family!:
1. Be with Your Family
2. Set Your Own Schedule
3. Vacation When You Want
4. Choose curriculum that best suits the needs of your child
5. Be totally aware of the state and progress of your child’s education
6. Keep your child away from un-necessary peer pressure
7. Keep your child away from the bad influence of other children
8. Love, nurture, and teach your child the character and morals you value most
9. Make learning fun
10. Make learning as “experiential” as you want
11. Don’t have to get up at the crack of dawn to get your child dressed and fed and off to school where they’re so tired they don’t learn well anyway.
12. Break up the day however you want to fit your child’s learning attention span
13. Teach your child without any “assumed limitations.” Teach multiple languages, develop one skill or subject–the sky’s the limit
14. What you teach an older child naturally filters down to the younger child(ren) making learning must easier and faster for siblings
15. Teach at the pace and developmental stage appropriate for your child
16. Avoid educational “labeling”
17. Keep your child as far away from drugs as possible
18. Never have to worry about bomb scares or mass shootings
19. Allow your child to do think, discuss, and explore in ways not possible in a classroom setting
20. Constant positive reinforcement and gentle correction. No abusive words or actions that scar your child’s psyche
21. Don’t use the school system as a babysitter. You only need a few hours a day for learning–the rest of the day is filled with unnecessary “busy work”
22. Develop life skills such as cooking, cleaning, and organizing that are easily learned with the additional time spent at home
23. Spend as much time outdoors as you want to enjoy nature and the world around us
24. Teach the value of responsibility by providing daily jobs
25. To make money management as natural as breathing by allowing even small children to do tasks, earn money, save it, and spend it in an appropriate manner.
26. Never have your child beat up by a bully. Teach self-defense skills that will enable him to deal with any situation but not until he is mature enough to handle the emotional aspects of confrontation
27. No pressure or set “expectations” from teachers on a younger sibling that follows an older sibling in the same school
28. Be around when your child needs to talk
29. Take a break when your child needs a break
30. Bond as a family through family group activities
31. Pass on your religious beliefs and morals to your children and stay away from the “indoctrination” of other school systems
32. Teach sex education when and how you want
33. Develop your child’s imagination and teach diverse problem-solving skills instead of one institutionalized method of thinking
34. Unlimited possibilities for extra curricular activities that interest your child having to live up to the expectations or skills of others.
35. Develop the individualism of your child
36. Avoid traditional school “group activities” that may leave one student doing all the work or ruining it for everyone else.
37. Never have your child feel the failure, embarrassment, or teasing from “failing” a grade
38. To keep your children out of the care, custody, and control of people you don’t know and who naturally teach their philosophy of life to your kids, whether they realize it or not
39. No opportunity for your child to “sluff off”, “snow-blow”, or “just get by” with academics
40. To have your child learn initiative naturally, as there’s no peer pressure or fear of embarrassing himself
41. Allow your child to have input and say in subject matter and style
42. Allow your child to focus on growth and development–not following the latest fad or being in a certain group
43. So your child will only be surrounded by people who love him, encourage him, and want the best for him.
44. Make sure your child doesn’t end up graduating without knowing how to read or knowing other basic skills due to educational failings of your local schools.
45. Keep your child out of private schools that have peer pressure, teacher criticism, drugs, sex, and alcohol that your child never needs to be around
46. Avoid grading scales and testing that gives no positive benefit to your child
47. Not to give the state or federal government control of your child that they assume is theirs
48. To easily pass on your unique heritage or language to your child
49. So your child is not limited by “age” or “grade” to advance or explore academics in which they are interested or gifted
50. To teach your children to enjoy life
51. To allow your children to go to work with Mom or Dad when you all want–not just on the one “go to work with a parent holiday”
52. As many field trips as you want, to places that interest your child
53. To just take a day off when everyone feels like it
54. Flexibility to switch or experiment with different curriculum
Parents, if you are disgusted with public schools and want your children to have the great education they deserve, why not consider homeschooling? Millions of parents now homeschool their kids, and many of these parents are only high-school graduates.
In the last three chapters of my book, “Public Schools, Public Menace,” you’ll find many ways to homeschool your kids or use internet private schools, even if you work. Homeschooling can be a lot easier, and take a lot less time than you think. It can also bring you great joy in teaching your children.
Private School Costs — Low-cost Online High Schools and Middle Schools
The reasons to send your children to private schools are obvious–what stops you are private school tuition costs that are (or seem to be) beyond your means. Over 60 percent of parents would choose to send their children to private schools if they could afford to. The unique benefits of private schools include quality of education, values, effective discipline, a better or more appropriately tailored academic curriculum, and safety.
The fact is, if you don’t like the drugs, violence, anti-Christian values, and overall poor quality of education available in most public schools, you can now afford private schooling. The rise in popularity and viability of internet private schools means that a private school can cost a small fraction of what you think. If you’re assuming that private school tuition is in the neighborhood of $4,000 annually for a Catholic school–or $8,000 and upward for a private boarding school–you’ll be delighted by the information you’ll find in Public Schools, Public Menace.
A New Perspective on Private School Cost
A good internet private school can cost less than $950 per year. Break that down monthly and then weekly. It’s $85 per month for the ten months of the school year, or $25 per week. A small adjustment in your grocery bill or eating out budget, and your children can get a top quality education.
In Public Schools, Public Menace you’ll find out more about the best internet private schools in the world. You’ll have the option to be involved in every aspect of your child’s education, which means that your child will have every advantage. If you have the information you need, the cost of private schooling will never again keep your child from having the education he needs and deserves.
Success In K-12 School For Your Child
Odds are sharply against the average student achieving success in school in a public school compared with a private school. The most successful form of schooling is one-on-one home schooling. If you don’t have the time to home school your child yourself, internet private schooling with supplemental efforts from parents is the next best option. Public Schools, Public Menace will help you make successful schooling a reality for your child.
What Is Real Success in School?
Success in school is not simply measured in knowing the answers to test questions. Public schools require students to memorize and regurgitate information in a variety of essentially useless subjects. A smart parent asks, “What is the point?” This is especially true when two weeks later, your child doesn’t remember any of her test material because she was bored and realized she was never going to use any of this information.
Real success in school is loving learning and becoming a lifelong independent learner. It’s learning to read proficiently–not settling for the pathetic state of sub-literacy with which public schools leave so many students. Success in school is predicated on a less regimented environment in which a child is nurtured and not sucked down to the level of the lowest common denominator.
Additionally, children will not really learn, love school, or achieve success in school if they are afraid and uncomfortable. With the violence in schools, the drug deals taking place in the bathrooms, the bullies that teachers can’t control, and the aggressive presence of unwanted sexual education, children don’t feel safe. Read Public Schools, Public Menace and find the right internet private school for your child for as little as $850 per year. You’ll learn more about the benefits of home schooling and internet private schools and watch your child live up to his potential and achieve success in school!
Public-School Exremists with a Mission
One reason public schools get away with educational failure, year after year, is because they are run by school officials who passionately believe in what they are doing. As the great English writer C. S. Lewis wrote, “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. Those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
Public-school true believers often fall into this category – for over a hundred years, education “experts” have been tormenting our children with public schools, allegedly for the children’s benefit. Like all true believers, these people believe that they know what is best for our children and society, and seek to enforce their beliefs on parents.
From the 1850s to the 1920s, public-school activists such as Horace Mann and John Dewey worked to create a public-school system like the one they admired in Prussia (Germany). Mann and Dewey considered public education a religion, with a holy mission to mold children and society. Simply teaching children to read, write, and do math was too commonplace a goal for them. Mann and Dewey wanted the schools to have total control over children’s lives. This meant removing parents’ influence over their children. Mann put it this way: “We who are engaged in the sacred cause of education are entitled to look upon all parents as having given hostages to our cause.”
Dewey also had a utopian vision for America and he wanted the common schools to achieve his vision. To create a socialist America, public schools had to mold generations of children into the habit of obedience. In his Pedagogic Creed of 1897, Dewey wrote, “Every teacher should realize he is a social servant set apart for the maintenance of the proper social order and the securing of the right social growth. . .”
Public Schools Expand Their Control Over Our Children
By the early twentieth century, public schools had expanded their functions into areas undreamed of in the 1850s. Schools took on the role of social agencies, with nurses, social centers, playgrounds, school showers, kindergartens, and “Americanization” programs for immigrants. Public schools became a major agency for social control.
Unfortunately, today’s public schools are fulfilling Mann’s and Dewey’s socialist vision with a vengeance. There is hardly any area of children’s lives that school authorities don’t push to control or manipulate. Politicians and public-school apologists in many states are now pushing programs that would make kindergarten compulsory. Public schools also now spend billions of dollars for psychological counseling, school-lunch programs, parent welfare-outreach programs, special-education classes, bilingual classes, early-childhood programs, drug and sex education classes, as well as programs for millions of “at-risk” or “special-needs” children.
This government-knows-best philosophy is the deepest reason why public schools get away with educational murder and can never be fixed. Many public-school apologists believe that your children’s education must be dictated by local governments and school authorities. By implication, they believe that parents are an annoyance at best, and at worst a danger to their children’s proper education. That is why public-school true believers will never voluntarily give up control over our children. They see themselves as noble idealists who know what is best for our children. That is why these “idealists” have contempt for parent’s rights.
Teacher Licensing Benefits Teachers, Not Our Children
If teacher licensing produced competent teachers, why would public-school authorities fight so hard against merit pay? The answer seems obvious-is it possible that the public-school system produces teachers, principals, or administrators who might not “merit” their pay, and might lose their jobs under merit-pay rules?
If licensing doesn’t work, what is the alternative? The answer is, no licensing. If anyone could teach without a license, like home-schooling parents or private-school teachers, then millions of new, competent, creative teachers would flood the market. These new, unlicensed teachers would compete with one another and drive the price of education down, much as competition drives down the price of computers. They would, thankfully, also put public schools out of business, since millions of parents and free-market schools would now hire these new competent, low-cost teachers.
Without licensing laws, anyone with a special skill or knowledge could simply put an ad in the Yellow Pages or their local newspaper and advertise themselves as a tutor in English, math, biology, history, or computer skills. Retired cooks, engineers, authors, plumbers, musicians, biologists, or businessmen who love teaching could easily open a small school in their homes. If there were no license laws, these talented new teachers would not have to worry about school authorities stopping them from teaching because they didn’t have a license.
How would parents be sure they were not hiring a charlatan if there were no licensing laws? The same way they judge their doctor, accountant, or car-mechanic-by results, reputation, and by being careful consumers. Naturally, parents would make occasional mistakes in judgment because they are human. However, they would quickly become careful consumers because they would now be spending their hard-earned money for teachers. It is amazing how fast we learn to judge the work of others when we have to pay for their services. Also, if a parent does make mistakes in judging an unlicensed teacher, by watching her child’s progress she will soon catch her error. At that point, she can quickly fire the teacher or school and find a better one. Can a parent do that with her children’s public-school teacher or school?
The worst nightmare for public-school authorities is a true free market of teachers with no licensing requirements. Fierce competition by millions of new, unlicensed, competent, highly-skilled people, might put public schools out of business and threaten teachers’ tenured jobs. That is one unspoken reason why school authorities fiercely defend licensing laws — real competition terrifies them. That is also one of the best reasons to eliminate teacher licensing.
The only way to insure good teachers is to let parents decide who will teach their children, not bureaucrats. Millions of parents making individual decisions about who should teach their children, will bring forth the best teachers. Fierce competition and an education free market would raise all boats in the teaching profession. Teachers who want to succeed in their profession would have to prove to parent-customers or private-school owners that they have what it takes. They would have to prove by results that they know how to teach and motivate children to read, write, and learn.
Top News Stories- Imports slow Q2 growth as business spending surges 30/07/2010
- Floods kill more than 400 in Pakistan's northwest 30/07/2010
- House vote seen close on oil spill bill 30/07/2010
- BP to try well kill Tuesday 30/07/2010
- Canadian serial killer Pickton denied new trial 30/07/2010
- With one day to go, town braces for Clinton wedding 30/07/2010
- Afghan police fire shots to quell protest after accident 30/07/2010
- Fire prompts evacuation of 2,000 homes north of L.A 30/07/2010
- U.N. rights body tells Israel to end Gaza blockade 30/07/2010
- China overtakes Japan as No.2 economy: FX chief 30/07/2010
- Most Popular Videos — Reuters
- Breaking News
- J-Lo likely to replace Ellen as 'Idol' judge 30/07/2010
- Wildfire explodes in rural hills near Los Angeles 30/07/2010
- Economic growth likely slowed in 2nd quarter 30/07/2010
- July is deadliest month of Afghan war for U.S. 30/07/2010
- Dudley to outline BP plans to help Gulf recover 30/07/2010
- Russian Press Posts 'Spy' Mug Shots 30/07/2010
- Mothers Say U.S. Hikers' Yearlong Detention 'Outrageous' 30/07/2010
- Afghan Villagers Accuse NATO Troops Of Damaging Koran 30/07/2010
- Taliban Allegedly Threatens Tribal Elders In Southern Afghanistan 30/07/2010
- Iran's Wishful Thinking As Sanctions Take Hold 30/07/2010