Here are ten reasons why parents should keep their kids in public schools:

1 – Public schools can cripple your child’s ability to read. The schools use a special reading-instruction method to do this called whole-language (or balanced literacy). But that’s a good thing. Why do kids need to read anyhow? It only gives them ambitions to go to college. Parents have to shell out tens of thousands of dollars for college tuition these days, so if your child can’t read, you end up saving a lot of money.

2 – Public schools can wreck your child’s ability to do math, with “fuzzy” math curriculums. But that’s a good thing. That way, your child will not strive to be a scientist or engineer and make a lot of money. Having a lot of money causes stress, and you don’t want your kids to be stressed in life, do you? Also, if your child grows up to be a supermarket check-out clerk, you don’t have to worry. The machine scans in all the prices and will tell your child how much change to give back to the customer.

3 – Public schools violate your God-given parental rights to choose who teaches your child and what he is taught. But hell, aren’t we swamped today with too many choices anyhow? It’s only reasonable to let education “experts” who have been trained in our finest “teacher” colleges tell us how to educate our children. After all, haven’t these education “experts” done a superb job educating our children up to now?

4 – Public schools give your child a “well-rounded” education. Your child’s day is filled with shocking sex-education classes, multiculturalism classes that spit on American values, save-the-earth environmental propaganda classes, drug-education classes that give your child all the dope about these drugs so he can choose wisely, and violence- prevention classes for those kids who get violent from being bored to death in public-school classrooms.

5 – Public schools give your children great socialization. Where else can your kids smoke a joint in the bathroom, meet roaming drug dealers in the schoolyards, be raped or assaulted by violent bullies on the prowl for victims, and join a racial clique that promotes harmony among the students? That’s a lot better than the “bad” socialization of homeschooling that “isolates” kids from this wonderful interaction with their peers.

6 – Public schools give your kids a great sex education. As parents, we don’t want to talk to our kids about embarrassing sex matters anyhow, so this takes us off the hook. Your child’s sex-education classes will teach her why homosexuality is a “normal” lifestyle and why sexual promiscuity is OK, as long as you remember to “protect” yourself. If your teenage daughter then decides to experiment and gets pregnant, that’s great also, because the welfare office will give your daughter monthly welfare checks, food stamps, rent subsidies, and free health care. What more can you ask for?

7 – Public schools will give your child free drugs. Yes, Ritalin is now the drug of choice for millions of school children. But isn’t that a good thing? Ritalin will help your son stop “fidgeting” and “pay attention” in class, even though he is bored to death. Ritalin also helps the teacher maintain discipline in the classroom. After all, if your son disrupts the class by “acting out,” the other kids can’t learn anything, right? So Ritalin is a wonderful way to mentally strap-down your child to his desk.

8 – Your child can “participate” in your school’s Teen-Screen program. These are “mental-health” screening programs that help determine if your teenager is mentally deranged. A health “expert” in your public school will ask your child questions such as, “have you been unhappy lately,” or “do you get along with your brothers and sisters?” From your bewildered child’s answers to these illuminating questions, the health “expert” will give his opinion as to whether your child might have a mental “disease.” He might then “recommend” that you take your child to a psychiatrist who might start your child on a cocktail of mind-altering drugs. But hell, having your child labeled with a mental “disease” isn’t that bad, is it? Your child will lose the confidence to go to college, and we’re back to advantage number one, where you’ll save a lot of money on college tuition.

9 — Your child can stay in school for twelve years. Well, maybe he won’t know how to read a bus schedule or his own diploma after twelve years, but twelve years go by fast, don’t they? Why teach your child to read at home with phonics so he becomes a great reader in only two years? My God, what will your child then do with all his free time once he can easily read War and Peace? He might actually come to love learning.

10 – Finally, public schools are cheap day-care centers. We all work hard these days because income, real estate, social security, and dozens of other taxes loot half our paychecks, and big-government-created inflation sharply increases the cost of everything we buy. So since we can’t save a penny, we can’t afford private day-care. That’s why we need public schools to house our kids while we make a living to pay the bills.

Parents, there are many other reasons NOT to keep your child in public school, but I hope you get the point by now.

Tweet This Post

“We” have to give the schools more money. “We” have to pay the teachers more. “We” have to get parents more involved in their children’s public schools. “We” have to get parents more involved in their children’s homework. “We” have to find a way to close the achievement gap between white children and black or Latino kids. “We” have to demand accountability from our public schools and teachers. “We” have to end the drugs and violence in our public schools. “We” have to improve our teaching methods so our children can read their own diplomas when they graduate high school. “We” have to teach our children environmental propaganda about saving the earth and global warming. “We” have to teach kids to “respect” other people’s lifestyles with classes about homosexuality in their sex-ed classes.

And on and on it goes. Every “we” pressure group is at each other’s throats about what “we” have to do to “improve” the congenitally-incompetent public schools and our children’s education.

Do you notice the one common factor in all these disastrous problems with our children’s education in public schools? Right you are — it’s the “we” part. Americans have been brainwashed into thinking education is a collective “we” enterprise that must be run by governments that “we” elect. Since “we” are all taxpayers, and our taxes pay for the public schools, all of us “we” have the right to input our demands, desires, complaints, and suggestions about how to “fix” the system. Hence the endless bickering, fighting, backstabbing, grab for “public” tax dollars, power plays, and government-induced incompetent education.

What’s the real solution to finally giving our kids a decent education? Get rid of the “we.” Education must be made a private concern of individual parents, NOT a collective “right” of education run by a government-education monopoly called public schools. Let each parent educate their own children in their own way, paying whatever they can afford, in a quality, low-cost, fiercely competitive, private/independent school system. Each parent should be responsible for their own children’s education in this free-market, private-school system, just as each parent is responsible for feeding their children with food they buy from private grocery stores and supermarkets.

The problem with public schools is that they are “public” and run by government. The problem is that these government-run public schools exist in the first place. Government is the PROBLEM, not the solution to our children’s education. Get government out of the education business, and the problem is solved quickly and permanently.

No more “we” taxpayers demanding a say in the collective, government-run education system called public schools. Make it illegal for any local, state, or Federal government to own, operate, or collect taxes for any school system.

Put an end to the ridiculous notion that “we” all have a “right” to an education, so “we” need tax-supported government schools to enforce that “right.” There is no such thing as a “right” to an education. Education doesn’t grow free on apple trees. Schools, books, and teacher salaries all have to be paid for by someone. That’s what tuition is all about in a private school — to pay for these expenses. To claim that your child has a “right” to an education, is to claim that you have the right to steal from your neighbor to pay for your child’s education, through school taxes imposed by your local government.

Ask yourself this. Do you have the right to put a gun to your neighbor’s head and demand money from him to pay for your child’s sneakers or Wheaties cereal? Do you have the right to steal money from your neighbor to pay for ANYTHING your child needs? If you have some moral sense and answered no, then you also don’t have the right to steal from your neighbor for your child’s education either, no matter how much you love your child, because it’s wrong to steal, and two wrongs don’t make a right.

Yet a public “we” school system requires that “we” all steal from each other to pay for our children’s education, courtesy of compulsory school taxes. But what about single people, married couples with no children, parents with children in private schools, homeschooling parents, and older-retired people with no children in school? All these people, your neighbors, have no need for public schools because they have no school-age children in public schools. Why do your neighbors with no school-age children have to pay school taxes so that your children go to public school?  What if they passed a law saying you have to pay taxes for public golf courses, yet you hate golf and would never set foot on a golf course?

Public schools need compulsory taxes to stay alive. These taxes let some parents with school-age children steal money from their neighbors who might not have school-age children. The “we” of the public-school system therefore requires massive collective looting on a grand scale, turning us into a nation of education thieves.

So how do we end this moral nightmare that creates congenitally incompetent government (public) schools? Put an end to the “we.” Get government out of the education business. Turn education over to parents and the life-giving fresh breath of a fiercely competitive free-market education system, where each parent has complete control ONLY over their own child’s education. Then this free-market of education will sharply raise the quality of our children’s education, and sharply lower the cost of this education for average parents. The best of both education worlds without having to pay a single dollar in school taxes. Wouldn’t that be great?

Tweet This Post

President Bush pushed us into the Iraq war on seemingly poor, false, or skewed intelligence information. It seems there were no weapons of mass destruction aimed at America, except a few empty aluminum pipes laying around in the desert. Nor was there any plausible evidence that Al Qaeda was using Iraq as a base of operation. As a result, telling us that Iraq was a “grave threat” to America was just a scare story. Therefore, there was no justification for invading Iraq.

One excuse for the war was that Saddam was a brutal, vicious dictator who tortured and murdered his own people, which he did. Is this something new in the Middle East, or have I been missing something? Are we to believe that political torture or murder do not occur daily in Iran, Syria, and other Middle East countries?

If the purpose of the Iraq invasion and the Afghanistan war is to bring democracy to the Iraq and Afghanistan people, then why are we limiting this global mission to spread democracy to these two countries? By my calculations, three-quarters of the people in the world live under brutal dictatorships.

What about Africa? It is riddled with warlords and dictators. Let us invade and bring democracy to the entire continent of Africa while we’re at it. What about Cuba, China, Russia, and North Korea? I think we should invade them also. Shouldn’t a billion Chinese and North Korean peasants also enjoy the fruits of democracy?

George Washington, in his 1796 Farewell Address, said that America should “avoid entangling alliances” and foreign wars. Where did President Bush get the odd, notmentioned- in-the-Constitution notion that America is morally and financially responsible for bringing democracy to every nation on Earth? Why are we now our global-brother’s keeper? Are we now expanding our own welfare-state to the rest of the world to bankrupt us ahead of schedule?

When we elected President Bush, did we or Congress give him permission to start a war in Iraq that has already cost 3000 American lives and over $300 billion? Did Congress declare war, as the Constitution requires? Did Iraq invade us? Did Iraq send the 9/11 terrorists to America, or did most of the terrorists come from Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan?

I feel nothing but pity and sorrow for the millions of people now living under brutal dictatorships around the world, like the Iraqis who lived under Saddam. But are their problems our responsibility, at the cost and sacrifice of American lives and bankrupting our nation?

If the purpose of the war was to protect America from future terrorist attacks on our shores, then Al Qaeda, not Iraq, should have been our primary and continuing target. For a fraction of $300 billion and no loss of American lives, we could build twenty fences between us and Mexico and Canada to keep terrorists out. For a fraction of $300 billion, we could pay for machines to scan every package coming into every airport, and every container coming into our ports, ten times over. For a fraction of $300 billion, we could pay for thousands more immigration agents to find and expel every illegal alien from the Middle-East in this country, and for thousands more CIA operatives to hunt down Al Qaeda terrorists around the world.

As for bringing democracy to the Iraqi people, like most Moslems in the Middle East, the Iraqis have lived under Islamic law for over a thousand years (except under Saddam Hussein). What President Bush doesn’t seem to understand is that Islam and democracy are like oil and water—they don’t mix. As I understand it, Islam means total “submission” to the will of God (as interpreted by ruling mullahs). Islamic law seeks total control over it’s subject’s lives. Islamic political regimes have contempt for the American ideals of inalienable individual rights and limited government.

If Moslems want to bind themselves to Islamic law, let them. Should we lose precious American lives and spend $300 billion and counting to bring Moslems a “democracy” their religion has nothing but contempt for?

As for President Bush taking full “responsibility” for his actions, did he? What does it mean when someone takes full responsibility for his actions? In the real world, not the Alice-In-Wonderland world of politicians, if you deliberately or negligently harm someone, you’re in real trouble. The law will punish you severely if a jury finds you guilty.

Are millions of American taxpayers allowed to file a class-action lawsuit against President Bush for tax refunds for the $300 billion and counting of our hard-earned money already spent for this war? In what way is President Bush held legally responsible other than giving us empty words that he is “taking responsibility?”

Most Americans disapproved of the Iraq war and how Bush handled the war. What we had was a President who thought he had the arbitrary right and moral duty to “spread democracy” to people who don’t have the word “democracy” in their dictionaries. Even worse, he insisted on “doing good” with other Americans’ lives and hard-earned money. The only real “responsibility” Bush took for pushing us into the Iraq war and spending $400 billion is that he helped get Obama el-Socialist elected, God help us.

Now Obama el-Socialist says we must be in Afganistan for another 10 years to finish the job. Mr. Obama will now gleefully spread his socialist agenda to the rest of the world, paid for not with his personal savings, but with our hard-earned tax dollars.

One final suggestion—I think no President or Congress should be allowed to declare war without Americans directly voting yes or no for war in a national referendum. Hell, Americans now elect the winner of American Idol every year. Isn’t going to war almost as important?

Tweet This Post

If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all.

– Jacob Hornberger (1995)

“I’m sorry, Michael, I’m through, I’m finished. I can’t stand it anymore. I’m leaving you. I want a divorce. I love you. I always will. But I’m leaving you,” said Patricia Wellington to her husband of thirty years, Michael Wellington.

Patricia Wellington stood in the middle of their living room in their lovely home in Westchester, New York, a beautiful place of rolling green hills topped with expensive homes. Theirs was one of the beautiful homes, full of memories of their children and their lives together. Patricia was 51 years old, auburn hair, brown eyes, still lovely, wearing a summer print dress. She stood looking at Michael Wellington, seeing in her mind’s eye the tall, handsome young lawyer she had married thirty years ago, then seeing the man who had become a distinguished federal judge. She had been proud of him for so long, until he became a judge in the drug enforcement division of the federal court system, ten years ago.

The trouble started when the Reagan administration passed the mandatory drug-sentencing laws and escalated the mad War on Drugs. Michael Wellington, the man she had loved so long, was destroying lives, destroying families, causing children to be put in foster homes. He was doing this when he sentenced hundreds of men and women of all ages to mandatory prison terms of ten years, twenty years, sometimes life-terms for smoking marijuana or growing it in their basements, in their cornfields, on their rooftops. It was this that had been eating away at her — Patricia Wellington did not think that drug users were criminals, but rather that her husband had become the criminal.

“But you can’t mean that Patty, you can’t, not over this, not over this marijuana evil,” pleaded Michael. “You know I have a job to do. You know smoking or growing marijuana is against the law. It’s my job to uphold the law, Patty. That’s my job. Even if I wanted to be lenient with marijuana users, which I don’t, my hands are tied. I didn’t make the laws. The laws force me to give these people mandatory sentences. Don’t you see that, Patty, don’t you? Please don’t leave me over this.”

Patrician Wellington’s head dropped and shook from side to side in pain and sadness. This was the same argument they had for the last five years.

“Michael, if there was a law that put people in prison for smoking cigarettes or drinking beer, would you be sending those people to jail too? I smoke, Michael. Your son and daughter drink wine or vodka sometimes. Would you put them in jail if that were the law, Michael?”

Michael Wellington looked into his wife’s eyes, and said with great sadness but firmness, “Yes, Patti, I would have to. It’s the law. Without law, Patti, there is no civilization. It is only the law that stands between us and anarchy. If I, a judge, don’t uphold the law, who will? Don’t you see how important that is?”

“Michael,” said his wife, “there is a vast difference between law and justice. Law is supposed to uphold justice. Justice is far more important than law. Michael, every monstrous totalitarian regime in history has had laws, thousands of laws. Every tyranny on the face of the Earth has enslaved their people through their laws. The Nazis had such laws. The Soviet communists had their laws. And all those laws were used to enforce the State’s tyranny, to enslave their people. Michael, there is something far more important than the law. Have you ever asked yourself if the laws you defend are just? Have you ever asked if our government has the right to imprison someone for smoking a marijuana cigarette or taking drugs?

“Have you ever asked yourself whether your government has the right to tell someone what he can or cannot smoke, especially if he harms no one but himself? Isn’t the law supposed to protect people from violence or fraud by others? Isn’t the law only supposed to punish people who physically hurt others, and this hurt has to be proved to a jury in court?

Who does a person hurt who smokes marijuana, Michael? Where is the victim the law requires for a crime? If he hurts himself, so what? Doesn’t a person have the right to hurt himself? Don’t we own our bodies, Michael? Don’t I have the right to eat what I want, smoke what I want, drink what I want? Who are these self-righteous politicians to tell someone what they can or cannot put in their own body? These are the same slimy, hypocritical politicians who used drugs when they were young, who tax and regulate us to death. How dare they presume to dictate my personal behavior or the behavior of anyone else. How dare they?”

“But you, Michael, you refuse to see the difference between law and justice, between a law passed by a stupid, power-hungry politician and what is right. The law is supposed to protect our inalienable rights, not some politician’s twisted opinions he wants to shove down everyone’s throat. These politicians we elect are supposed to be our agents, not our masters.”

“Michael, the Nazi judges who they hung at Nuremberg, they said the same things you say. The same things, Michael. They said they were judges, that they were only “following orders.” They said they had a “duty” to follow the laws, the Nazi’s laws, Hitler’s laws, to sentence innocent Germans to prison, shot by a firing squad, or gassed in the chambers by the millions. The judges said the same thing, Michael. They gave the same excuse, may they rot in hell. They were cowards, Michael. They valued their job and their power more than the lives of the innocent people they destroyed in their courtrooms. It was these judges, Michael, these supposed defenders of the law, Nazi law, who should have known better.”

“You think things are that different in American today? Michael, I have contempt for drug-court judges and prosecutors. They are government employees who can’t see beyond their noses. They see a law passed and, like robots, automatically enforce the law in their courtrooms. They don’t judge the law with their conscience. They don’t see the monstrous injustice of the laws, the lives they destroy with their actions. A judge’s duty is to follow the law, but if the law is monstrous, they should quit their jobs. In effect, drug-court judges are not much different than the monster-Nazi judges who sentenced thousands of innocent people in their courtrooms. Their crimes against humanity are only of a lesser degree.”

Michael Harrington turned white, his eyes had a look of total shock. He had heard his wife’s arguments before. But never had she accused him of being like Nazi judges. It rocked him, and something inside him believed her. But something else, something stronger, shut down in him, drawing in, pulling him into a dark cave in his mind. He became furious, murderously furious with his wife for the first time in thirty years.

“Are you saying I’m a murderer, Patricia, that I’m no better than the Nazi judges they tried and executed in the Nuremberg trials? Do you think I should be executed, Patricia? Is that what you are saying? If that is the way you feel, then I think you are right. We should be divorced.”

“Michael,” said his wife, just as furious, “I am saying that what you are doing is evil. You hide behind the law, just like the Nazi judges did. You say it is your duty to uphold these evil laws. So, until you stop doing this, to me you are evil. I’m so sorry to say this, because I don’t want to. But yes, to me you are no different than the Nazi judges. And I cannot live with you any more.”

“I cannot live with a man who sentences people to twenty years in prison for smoking a marijuana cigarette, people who might need that cigarette to treat their nausea from cancer chemotherapy. There are thousands of cancer patients in excruciating pain because chemotherapy makes them violently nauseous, and marijuana is the only thing that can stop the nausea. Yet the law stops them from using marijuana. I cannot live with a man who’s decisions condemn cancer victims to excruciating pain, or to die drowning from their own vomit. I cannot live with a man who destroys families by sending mothers and fathers to prison for twenty years for smoking a lousy joint of marijuana. I cannot live with a man who thinks more of politician’s laws than of justice. I cannot live with you anymore. That is all I have to say, Michael.”

With that, she turned stiffly and walked out the door of the house she had lived in for thirty years, away from the man she had once loved.

Tweet This Post

“Today, when a concerted effort is made to obliterate this point, it cannot be repeated too often that the Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals – that it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government – that it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizens’ protection against the government.”

Ayn Rand

Maybe three percent of the adult population become addicted gamblers. Yet private gambling is illegal in most cities and states, except for government gambling schemes called lotteries. Less than ten percent of the adult population has a drug-addiction problem they can’t control. Yet all drugs are illegal for all adults in this country. Only a small number of men are sex addicts who can’t stop themselves from going to prostitutes. Yet prostitution, the combination of sex and free enterprise between consenting adults, is illegal in most parts of the country. The vast majority of adults who own guns use them responsibly and keep them away from children, yet gun-control laws are proliferating like weeds. Soon the 2nd Amendment will be shredded, and the right to possess guns, the right of self defense, will be taken from us.

This is government by and for the stupid. This is a tyrannical government punishing 95 percent of the American people for the actions of the other 5 percent who can’t control their addictions. What corruption of justice allows the rights of the vast majority of decent, law-abiding citizens to be violated because a small number of people can’t handle their sex, drugs, or gambling addictions? Why do politicians we elect presume they can destroy our rights because some people are idiots who can’t control themselves? What right do they have to punish you and violate your rights because of the stupidity or illegal acts of others? They have no such right.

Mankind fought for over a thousand years in England, starting with Magna Carta, to create and defend fundamental legal principles that protect liberty against government tyranny. The English achieved two crucial legal principles that were enshrined in English common law, and later American law. These principles are “mens rea” — no crime without intent, and “actus rea” — no crime without evidence of a criminal act.

Law-abiding gun owners are just that, law-abiding. They use their guns for sport and self-defense. When anti-gun laws control and restrict our right to bear arms, such laws are unlawful punishment against law-abiding citizens who have no intent to commit any crime, and where there is no evidence of any crime committed.

Also, gun-control laws violate another fundamental legal principle fought for over the centuries — no one should be punished for the actions of another. A man should be held responsible only for his own actions. Yet gun-control laws directly violate this self-evident rule of justice. They punish and violate the rights of the vast majority of law-abiding gun owners for the acts of gun-owning criminals or a few mentally unbalanced teen-agers who shoot their fellow students in school cafeterias.

Extend this outrageous principle and see where it leads. Suppose ten percent of us are hamburger, fatty-food addicts. We can’t allow that, of course. Therefore, all Burger King restaurants must be shut down. Because some people are too “weak-willed” to eat the “right” foods, government must “protect” all of us from our own stupidity. These hamburgers addicts must be protected from fatty foods that could lead to heart attacks. We should not have the right to decide for ourselves what food we want to eat. The ninety percent of us who eat hamburgers without getting heart attacks must be punished for the acts of the ten percent who do get heart attacks. Having a heart attack becomes a crime by this principle.

Suppose fifteen percent of young males are irresponsible and get their teenage girlfriends pregnant, which government prosecutors consider an outrage not to be tolerated. We must therefore pass a law that forbids all teenagers under the age of 21 from having sex. We will have sex-police SWAT teams roaming college campuses and breaking down dormitory doors. We must also forbid sex before marriage. The vast majority of teenagers who practice safe-sex will be punished for the actions of the irresponsible minority, and punished without any evidence of any crime committed.

Thousands of people are killed by drunk drivers each year. To prevent this, we must bring back alcohol Prohibition. More than 100 million adults in this country should be prohibited from drinking wine or beer from this day forth because a few thousand people are stupid enough to drink and drive. The vast majority of Americans who drink responsibly and moderately must be punished for the small minority who can’t hold their liquor and drink while driving.

A small minority of parents beat and abuse their children. To prevent this, all parents should be forced to go through a parent-training course before being allowed to continue being parents. If they don’t, their children will be taken from them and put under the “benevolent” care of government social-service workers, who will, of course, care for your children better than you do. The vast majority of parents who love and care for their children will have their rights violated and children ripped from their homes because of the irresponsible actions of a few parents.

If there were no compulsory education laws and no public schools, a small minority of parents might not “educate” their children, either because of stupidity, indifference, lack of money, or other reasons. Because of this, the vast majority of parents who would educate their children must be punished by being forced to send their children to government public-schools that waste twelve years of their children’s life and turn them into illiterates.

These examples show the moral obscenity and consequences of laws that violate the precious legal principles of “mens rea” and “actus rea.” Today we are awash with such laws, written by politicians who have not the foggiest notion they even exist, or who have utter contempt for fundamental legal principles that protect our liberty against their power-lusting agendas.

We are awash because, to their utter shame, the Supreme Court has repeatedly let Congress get away with violating these fundamental legal principles of common law and legal decency. The Supreme Court, over the last 70 years, has become a chief villain in this matter because they should have been protecting us against government tyranny. Yet, many of their decisions have ripped-away the sanctity of “mens rea” and “actus rea”, along with other fundamental legal principles that protect our liberty.

It is understandable, and common throughout history, for a powerful majority to become tyrants who punish minorities for “aberrant” behavior. History is full of horror stories of majorities stealing from, murdering, and torturing minorities they don’t like or agree with. It is the story of human nature at it’s worst.

But what are we to make of a society where a small minority, backed by Big Brother’s guns, now has the right to rip away the rights of the vast majority? What kind of society allows the small number of stupid or careless people that have existed in every society, to destroy the sacred legal rights of the vast majority? It is a society based on the vicious moral notion that “man is his brother’s keeper.” It is a society where this principle has been elevated to the overriding rule of government and the controlling mechanism over our lives. How so?

Every social program, every entitlement program, including Medicare and Social Security, is justified today by this evil notion that men are their brother’s keepers. The swarms of vulture-lobbyists descending on Washington asking for new programs, new handouts, new subsidies for their constituents, all tell their Senator or Congressmen that their constituents “need” the help, “deserve” the help, that they have a “right” to this help.

What are their demands based on? Group whining. If some group is suffering from some temporary economic problem, “it is not their fault,” spout the power-hungry liberals. The group’s problems are not caused by their apathy, laziness, incompetence, poor decisions, lack of foresight, or lack of perseverance. No, it is bad luck, Nature’s fault, or past injustices by other groups. It is everyone and everything else’s fault but their own. Whining is in, personal self-responsibility is out.

If a man didn’t have the common sense to save for his retirement, we need heavy taxes for a Social Security system to “support” him in old age. If farmers had bad weather this year, we need food price supports. If young teenage girls can’t control themselves and get pregnant, we need aid-to-dependant-family programs. If government regulations strangle the health care industry so health insurance is too expensive for millions, then we need Medicaid to pay for poor people’s health care.

If anyone is having a problem in life, why, it is everyone else’s moral responsibility to fix the problem. Our lives, our precious time, our hard-earned money is now mortgaged to any special-interest group who whines loud enough that everyone else owes them a living. That is what our liberal-fascists in government say — “we’re all our brother’s keeper, and brother, if you don’t want to “contribute” voluntarily, why, government will make you.” How? Through strangling taxes and regulations.

Our politicians say if most Americans are not moral enough to help their fellow man voluntarily, then government must step in and see that this alleged “moral law” is obeyed. Government is the highest judge of what is right or wrong, the highest judge of how we should behave, isn’t it? If we leave these decisions to weak or selfish men and women, why, the poor suffering special-interest groups would never get help. So government has to impose the “moral law” on all of us.

To do so, they violate our must fundamental legal rights. They strip away our property rights and our right to resist government orders. Through “creative” lawmaking and “creative” Supreme Court decisions that uphold the “public interest,” government has stripped us of fundamental legal principles mankind fought for over a thousand years to protect us against government tyranny.

Hence, we have the cannibal “entitlement-state” America has turned into. Compassion turned into compulsion. Government agents point legal guns at our heads and say, “be compassionate or go to prison for tax evasion.” Compassion at the point of a government gun. “Man is his brother’s keeper,” enforced by prisons, SWAT teams, taxes that loot forty percent of our paychecks, bureaucrats who strangle us with regulations — by America turning into a police state.

When the immoral notion that “man is his brother’s keeper” is forced on us by a tyrannical government, a country and its people lose their most precious possession — liberty. When we exchange our liberty for a mess of potage from government handouts, when we expect government and our “brothers” to protect us from every ill-wind life throws at us, we end up degenerating as human beings.

We also end up hating our “brothers” who presume the right to steal the bread from our mouths. We end up punishing law-abiding men for so-called “crimes” they did not commit, did not intend to commit, and for which there is no evidence of a crime. We end up punishing law-abiding men for the actions of others. We end up destroying a once free country.

© 2009 Joel Turtel – All Rights Reserved

Tweet This Post

SCENE:  Melbourne, Australia:

“Sir, what are we to do about all this crime?,” asked Captain John Downey, Melbourne’s Chief of Police, to the Australian Minister of Security, Percy Sumner.

Captain Downey, tall, forty years old, square shoulders, close-cropped hair, and brown eyes, was speaking to the Minister in his huge office overlooking Melbourne Harbor in Australia. Minister Sumner was fifty years old, a short, heavy-set man, with a red, round face, brown hair, round eyes, and a small mouth.

One wall of the office had a huge map of Melbourne, with yellow, red, and blue pins stuck on the locations of recent crimes. The yellow was for burglary, red for rape, blue for murder. Alongside this map was a chart showing crime rates for each of the three crime categories. The chart showed a definite pattern — crime rates had been increasing in Melbourne over the last five years.

Downey said, “I don’t know what to do anymore, sir. No matter how many police we put on the streets, no matter how much we increase prison sentences, the crime rates keep going up. I don’t understand it, sir. I don’t know how to stop it.”

Minister Sumner tightened his little mouth. He said, “It’s all those guns out there on the streets, Captain Downey, that’s the problem. We’ve forced every gun owner in Melbourne to register every gun and rifle they own. We’ve planted our agents at gun shows. We’ve started suing the gun manufacturers. It’s those damn guns. If so many Aussies didn’t own guns, the crime rate would fall. I’ve been discussing this issue seriously with the Prime Minister, Captain. We have agreed that the only solution is gun confiscation. Confiscate every gun in Melbourne and the crime will stop. No guns, no crime, right Downey? That sounds like common sense, doesn’t it?”

“Yes sir,” Captain Downey said eagerly, “that’s what I’ve been suggesting to you for the last year. Another reason we want to confiscate the guns is because when we make drug raids without warrants, sometimes our men get shot as intruders. Some home owners actually have the gall to try to defend their homes against our boys, who are just doing their duty. I don’t want any home owner with a gun in his house. We should also make it a crime for a home owner to use a gun to defend himself in his home against a burglar. If we let him have that right, you never know when he might use that same gun against one of our men who break down his door on a drug raid.”

“The same goes for the women. We can’t allow them to carry a gun, either in their home or on the streets. If they think a mugger is threatening them or might rape them, they should contact the police. We’ll be there within an hour. What if the woman owned a gun and didn’t know how to use it? You know how stupid women are with guns, Minister. We can’t trust them with a gun. And women are so careless, they’ll leave the gun lying around the house where children can find them. It’s worth confiscating everyone’s guns, just so one child doesn’t die from a gun accident.”

Minister Sumner nodded his round head vigorously in agreement. He said, “Good ideas, Downey, I’ll suggest them to the Prime Minister. I think we’ll be able to get the confiscation laws passed in about a month. Thank you for your time, sir. I’ll talk to you again in about four months. By that time, our wall charts should start showing a big decrease in crime. Good day, sir.”

“Good day, Minister. Thank you for your help in this matter. We’ll put a dent in the crime, wait and see.” With that, Captain Downey confidently walked out of the Minister’s office.

FOUR MONTHS LATER:

In the same office. Outside the window, the late afternoon sky was dark and cloudy, and the two men were having another heated conversation.

“Look at the charts, Captain Downey. By God, look at them!,” said Minister Sumner. “The graphs are going straight up, there going off the wall! What in blazes is going on? Our crime rate is triple what it was four months ago. Didn’t you confiscate all the guns in Melbourne, Captain? What the hell is going on?”

“Yes, sir, we did confiscate all the guns,” replied Captain Downey, pacing nervously in front of the Minister’s desk. “I just don’t understand it. We put out the confiscation order the day after we spoke at our last meeting. It was in all the newspapers. We think most law-abiding Melbourne citizens complied. Our local police stations report that over thirty thousand registered guns were handed in.”

“Thirty thousand, did you say?,” asked the Minister. “I thought our gun-registration rolls showed ninety thousand register guns in Melbourne. Why only thirty thousand handed in? What is going on? Didn’t you indicate on your confiscation orders and newspapers ads that anyone not handing in their guns would be subject to prosecution and five years in prison?”

“Yes we did, sir,” stammered Captain Downey. “But all of a sudden, every owner we contacted said they had lost their gun, so couldn’t hand it in. What are we going to do sir, get search warrants to search the homes of sixty thousand gun owners? If they’re hiding their guns, we probably won’t even find them.”

“Not only that, sir, as usual the criminals are not paying attention to our confiscation laws. They get their guns illegally, like they always have. We’ve caught a few house burglars and interrogated them, sir. They have been going on a rampage. They used to hit a few houses a week. Now they are hitting a dozen a week, sir. We were puzzled.

We asked them why? They just looked at our interrogators with contempt, like our men were idiots. What do you think they said, sir?”

“What?,” asked Minister Sumner?

“They thanked me, sir.”

“Thanked you, Captain? What the devil do you mean? Why did they thank you?”

“Because, sir, they thanked me for the new gun confiscation laws, and the laws forbidding home-owners from owning or using a gun for self-defense. They thanked me for making their job so much easier and safer. They said they now just knock on the mark’s door, pretend to be the gas man, barge into the house with their guns drawn, and loot the house. They said they’re not afraid of getting shot anymore by the home owner. Some of them had the effrontery to tell me to thank you personally, sir,” Captain Downey said with outrage.

“They did, did they?,” Minister Sumner said, getting red in the face. “We’ll see about that. I’m going to suggest to the Prime Minister some new gun-control laws. I want him to give us the power to make random searches without warrants in every house and apartment in Melbourne. I want him to increase the prison terms for gun possession to thirty years without chance of parole. I want him to forbid all gun clubs and guns shows — that’s probably where the burglars and murderers get their guns.

I’ll also ask him for the power to confiscate anyone’s car, home, or bank account who is caught with a gun. That will solve the problem, by God.”

“But sir,” Captain Downey protested meekly, “we’re already getting hundreds of complaints about the increasing, heavy-handed tactics of our gun squads. There’s been some nasty newspaper articles mentioning our Constitution, ‘rights of the people,’ and all that crap.”

“The hell with that,” Captain. “What do we care about so-called ‘rights?’ We have a crime spree. It’s an emergency. Our efforts must not be thwarted by silly notions about rights and Constitutions. Guns are killing people every day. That’s all that matters.”

Captain Downey said, “Yes, sir. I hope you’re right. I surely do. I am just a little afraid of civil unrest, sir, that’s all.”

“To hell with civil unrest, Captain, said Minister Sumner. “That’s what our riot police and prisons are for. We know best how to solve this problem, and we won’t let a bunch of agitators stop us. I will ask the Prime Minister to put my new suggestions into place immediately. You’ll see quick results.”

“Yes, sir. I hope you’re right, sir. Please let me know when the new laws are in place, sir, so my men can start enforcing them.”

“Very good, Captain. I will do so. I will then meet with you in another four months. Good day, Captain.”

“Good day, Minister.”

Of course, four months later, in that same office, the charts where now going ballistic. Crime rates were soaring. Australia had gained the international distinction of having the second highest crime rate in the world (after England, who also has strict gun control and confiscation laws).

Tweet This Post

In our daily lives, most of us believe we are free Americans. The average person can still go about his business, travel where he wants to go, and freely choose his goals, friends, and career. We still have freedom of speech, the press, trial by jury, and many other liberties our Founding Fathers wrote into the Bill of Rights and Constitution. We are still freer than any other people on Earth.

Yet, consider the following:

We may still have fundamental freedoms of speech and the press, but America is in a transition from liberty to despotism, a halfway house on the road to tyranny. We already have economic tyranny in America. If you add up all the taxes you pay, including income taxes, Social Security, sales, real estate, gasoline, telephone, and dozens of other hidden taxes, government loots over forty percent of your hard-earned income in taxes.

Yet, only a hundred years ago, the average worker paid no more than five percent of his income in taxes. In 1901, there was no income tax, Social Security tax, or most of the other taxes you pay today. In the Middle Ages, medieval rulers took about 20 percent of their serfs’ produce. Our government now taxes us worse than serfs. If government claims the right to forty percent of your income, it claims the right to forty percent of your labor, and forty percent of your life. In effect, the people we “elect” have put us on a chain gang until May 10th of every year, working for the bureaucrats.

Most parents may not see it this way, but local governments, in effect, kidnap your children through public-school compulsory-attendance laws. They force you to send your children to government (public) schools that waste twelve years of your children’s lives and turn them into illiterates. They then tax you to support these so-called “schools.”

“War on Drugs” government SWAT teams can break down your door in the middle of the night without a warrant, based on the drug tip of a malicious, anonymous informant, then threaten you in your own living room. Drug laws dictate what we can or cannot put in our own bodies. These laws tell us we do not have the right to smoke marijuana, even if we have cancer and the marijuana alleviates the nausea from chemotherapy drugs.

Government tells us we cannot commit suicide if we have terminal cancer with excruciating pain, nor can a doctor assist us to commit suicide. By these laws, government tells us it now owns our bodies. These laws deny our right of free choice for important personal decisions in our lives.

Try building a new home for yourself, and you will run into a hornet’s nest of building department inspectors, zoning commissions, environment impact statements, and local agencies who will tie you up in knots. Try starting a small business and you will need government licenses and approvals. Local, State and Federal tax authorities, like vultures, will then devour your profits with their ever-increasing taxes.

Taxes loot your hard-earned money to pay for dozens of “entitlement programs” such as Medicare, Medicaid, farm subsidies, corporate subsidies, welfare programs, health care for illegal immigrants, and now a “welfare” program for the entire population of Iraq called the Iraq war. Your voluntary consent is not required for these programs. Government forces you to pay for them.

Federal, State, and local police agencies use asset-forfeiture laws to steal the cars, homes, businesses, and bank accounts of innocent people under the pretext of a War on Drugs. Victims of drug raids then have to prove their innocence and sue the agency to get their property back. Asset-forfeiture laws have turned too many local police departments into agencies for legalized looting.

Anti-gun politicians make thousands of gun laws that restrict a woman’s right to protect herself from a rapist, a homeowner’s right to protect himself from a robber in the middle of the night, or American citizens’ right to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution that guarantees our right to bear arms is under massive assault. It may be only a matter of time until we lose this right altogether.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regulations can control who an employer hires, fires, or promotes, how much he has to pay his employees (minimum wage), and what their “conditions of employment” must be. This same agency can sue an employer into bankruptcy for “discrimination” or other “infractions” of its regulations.

Because of the recent Supreme Court “Kelo” decision, your property rights have become null and void. Now any developer who wants to put up a new shopping center can get your local government to condemn your home, and your neighbors’ homes, through their power of “eminent domain.” Local government bureaucrats can now demolish your home, not for public use like a highway, but to let a private developer profit from your land and pay more taxes.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can stop a home builder from building homes, a farmer from farming his land, a rancher from grazing his cattle, an oil company from drilling for desperately needed oil, or a logging company from cutting down trees to give us lumber for new homes. EPA regulations sharply jack up the price of oil and destroy property rights in America for a great and noble cause — to protect “endangered” species like the Alabama mud rat, mosquito-infested swamps called “wetlands,” and “delicate” frozen Arctic wastelands that look like the surface of the moon.

The Food and Drug Administration forces drug companies to spend over $500 million and seven years to get approval for a new drug. It puts pharmaceutical companies through a regulatory torture chamber that strangles the development of thousands of new, life-saving drugs. It has made SWAT-team raids on vitamin stores to “protect” us from Vitamin C and other dangers.

Federal agents can persecute a religious sect they don’t like, as the Feds did in Waco, Texas. They persecuted these people partly because the sect owned allegedly “illegal” firearms, firearms the 2nd Amendment says they had the right to own. After slaughtering innocent women and children in a ball of fire, none of the Federal agents were ever prosecuted or sent to prison for their actions.

Finally, in response to the Sept. 11th terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, the Federal government passed an “anti-terror” bill that created secret military tribunals. These tribunals will be like medieval star-chambers, where defendants’ legal rights will be ripped to pieces, and trial by jury will be denied.

These tribunals have set a terrible precedent. It is only a matter of time before government prosecutors expand the vague definition of “terrorism” to an ever-widening list of “crimes” that can be used against American citizens. Government judges and prosecutors will then be able to try and convict Americans without the “messy” need for juries, proof, evidence, or the presumption of innocence.

Does all this sound like “the land of the free?” Government in America is a growing tyranny. It is a government that would shock our Founding Fathers, a government they would consider a greater tyranny than the British monarchy they fought a revolutionary war against. Worse, whatever freedoms we have left are being taken from us at an ever-accelerating rate.

If you, my reader, do not see this, it is not your fault. Your liberty has been taken from you gradually, one new tax and regulation at a time. You have become accustomed to the taxes and regulations. You think they are “normal” and therefore nothing to complain about. You mistakenly believe that because you elect your representatives, and because they enact laws based on majority rule, that their laws, taxes, and regulations are moral and legitimate. It is like your wife or husband not noticing you have gained thirty pounds over the past five years because they see you every day, and the weight gain was gradual.

So it is with gradual tyranny. But if Americans living 150 years ago suddenly came back to life today, they would be shocked, for they would see the stark difference in their freedom.

President Obama continues to waste hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of American lives to protect the “freedom” of the Iraqi people. Well, how about first giving Americans back the freedom that is their birthright, the constitutional freedoms our Founding Fathers fought and died for?

Still think you’re living in the land of the free?

Tweet This Post

“Look, Mr. Straun, John, can I call you John? We’ve been at this for 25 days. We’re all sick of this. We all want to go home. You’re the only one left. You’re the one keeping us here. I got things to do at home. I got to go to work and make a living. All of us do. The judge is mad as hell at us. You’re going to hang this jury. You’re going to make this trial into a farce and waste of time. You have no right to vote acquittal. You heard the judge’s instructions. The jury is not allowed to judge the law, only the facts.”

“The fact are clear as day, aren’t they?” Dillard ranted. “You even admitted that to us. The guy was found with marijuana in his car. That’s against the law. And the guy admitted the marijuana was his. What more do you need?” said Raymond Dillard, the jury foreman. Raymond Dillard was tall, beefy, in his 30’s, and he was getting mad, so mad he wanted to beat John Straun’s head in.

Straun was a small, slim man in his 30’s, with a straight back, dark brown hair, large, steady eyes, and a firm mouth. He seemed not to care at all about all the trouble he was causing. And he seemed to be fearless.

John Straun said, “I don’t care what the judge said. I happen to know for a fact that a jury has the right to judge the law. Jury nullification has a long history in this country. A jury has the right to judge the law, not just the facts.”

Raymond Dillard and a few other jurors sneered. Dillard said, “Oh, are you a lawyer, Mr. Straun? You think you know more than the judge? What history are you talking about?”

John Straun said calmly, “No, I’m not a lawyer. I’m an engineer. But in this particular case, I do know more than the judge. When I found out I was going to be on this jury, I did a little research about the history of juries, just for the hell of it. Most people don’t know this, but jury nullification has been upheld as a sacred legal principal in English common law for 1000 years. Alfred the Great, a great English king a thousand years ago, hung several of his own judges because they removed jurors who refused to convict and replaced these courageous jurors with other jurors they could intimidate into convicting the defendant on trial.”

“Jury nullification also goes back to the very beginning of our country, as one of the crucial rights our Founding Fathers wanted to protect. Our Founding Fathers wanted juries to be the final bulwark against tyrannical government laws. That’s why they emphasized the right to a jury trial in three of the first ten amendments to the Constitution. John Adams, second President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson, third President and author of the Declaration of Independence, John Jay, First Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, and Alexander Hamilton, First Secretary of the Treasury all flatly stated that juries have the right and duty to judge not only the facts in a case, but also the law, according to their conscience.”

“Not only that, more recent court decisions have reaffirmed this right. In 1969, in “US. vs. Moylan,” the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the right of juries to judge the law in a case. In 1972, the Washington, D.C. Court of Appeals upheld the same principal.”

Raymond Dillard said, “Yeah, if that’s the case, how come the judge didn’t tell us this?”

“That’s because of the despicable Supreme Court decision in “Sparf and Hansen vs. The United States in 1895.” John Straun said. “That decision said juries have the right to judge the law, but that a judge doesn’t have to inform juries of this right. Cute, huh? And guess what happened after this decision? Judges stopped telling juries about their rights.”

“The judge knows about jury nullification. All judges do. But they hate letting juries decide the law. They hate juries taking power away from them. That’s why judges never mention a jury’s right to judge the law, and most judges squash defense attorneys from saying anything about it in court. Remember when Jimmy Saunders’ defense lawyer started talking about it? The judge threatened him with contempt if he didn’t shut up about jury nullification.”

“And since you asked me,” Straun continued, “I’ll tell you a little more about jury nullification. Did you ever hear of the Fugitive Slave Act? Did you ever hear of Prohibition? Do you know why those despicable laws were repealed? Because juries were so outraged over those laws that they consistently refused to convict people who violated them. They refused to convict because they knew that these laws were unjust and tyrannical, that Congress had no right making these laws in the first place. So, because juries wouldn’t convict, the government couldn’t make these laws stick. They tried for many years, but finally gave up.”

“What do you think this mad War on Drugs is that we’ve been fighting the last sixty years? It’s the same as Prohibition in the 20’s. It’s the same principle. A tyrannical government is telling people that they can’t take drugs, just like in the 20’s they said people couldn’t drink liquor. What’s the difference? A tyrannical law is telling people what they can or can’t put in their own bodies. Who owns our bodies, us or the self-righteous politicians? Does the government own your body, Mr. Dillard? Do you smoke, Mr. Dillard? Do you drink beer?”

Dillard nodded his head, “Yeah, I do.”

“Well, how would you like it if they passed laws telling you that can’t smoke or drink a beer anymore. Would you like that, Mr. Dillard?”

Dillard looked at John Straun, thought about the question, then admitted, “No, I wouldn’t, Straun.”

John Straun turned to the others around the table. “You, Jack, you said you’re sixty-five years old. You like to play golf, right? What if they passed a law saying anyone over sixty-five can’t play golf because the exercise might give him a heart attack? You, Frank, you said you eat hamburgers at McDougals all the time. What if they passed a law saying fatty hamburgers give people heart attacks, so we’re closing down all the McDougal restaurants in the country, and they make eating a hamburger a criminal offence? You, Mrs. Pelchat, I see you like to smoke. Everyone knows that smoking can give you lung cancer. How would you like it if they passed a law banning all cigarettes? What if they could crash in the door of your house without a warrant to search for cigarettes in your house, like the SWAT teams do now, looking for drugs? Mrs. Pelchat, how would you like to be on trial like Jimmy Saunders because they found a pack of cigarettes you hid under your mattress?”

“Do you all see what I mean? If they can make it a crime for Jimmy Saunders to smoke marijuana, why can’t they make golf, hamburgers, and cigarettes a crime? If you think they wouldn’t try, think again. They had Prohibition in the 20’s for almost ten years, till they finally gave up. The only reason they haven’t banned cigarettes is because there are thirty million cigarette smokers in this country who would scream bloody murder. They get away with making marijuana and other drugs illegal only because drug-users are a small minority in this country. Drug users don’t have any political clout.”

Raymond Dillard sat down in his chair. The others started talking among themselves. John Straun started seeing heads nodding in agreement, thinking about what he had said.

“OK, Straun,” Dillard said. “Maybe you’re right. Maybe Jimmy Saunders shouldn’t go to jail for smoking marijuana. Hell, probably most of us tried the stuff when we were young. Clinton said he smoked marijuana in college. Bush said he tried drugs in college. Probably half of Congress and their kids took drugs one time or another. O.K. we agree with you. But what about the judge. He said we can’t judge the law.”

John Straun stood up. He was not a tall man, but he stood very straight, and he looked very sure of himself. He looked from one to another of them.

He said, “If you agree with me, then I ask you all to vote for acquittal. You are not only defending Jimmy Saunders’ liberty, but your own. You are fighting a tyrannical law that is enforced by a judge who wants the power to control you. I told you that many juries like us in the past have disregarded the judge’s instructions. They stood up for liberty against a tyrannical law. Are you Americans here? What do you va!ue more, your liberty, your pride as free men, or the instructions of a judge who doesn’t want you to judge the law precisely because he knows you’ll find the law unjust? Will you stand with those juries who defended our liberty in the past, or will you give in to this judge?”

“Here’s another thing to think about,” John Straun said with passion. ”What if it was your sister or brother on trial here? Do you know that if we say Saunders is guilty, the judge has to send him to prison for twenty years? I understand this is Saunders third possession charge. You know the “three strikes and you’re out” rule, don’t you? The politicians passed a law that if a guy gets convicted three times on possession, the judge now has no leeway in sentencing. He has to give the poor guy twenty years in prison. What if it were your sister or brother on trial? Should they go to jail for smoking marijuana, for doing something that should not be a crime in the first place? Do we want to send Jimmy Saunders to prison for twenty years because he smoked a joint, hurting no one? Can you have that on your conscience?”

“Do you know that there are almost a million guys like Jimmy Saunders in federal prisons right now, as we speak, for this same so-called “crime” of smoking marijuana or taking other drugs? These men were sent to prison for mere possession. They harmed no one but themselves when they took drugs. How can you have a crime without a victim? When does this horror stop? It has got to stop. I’m asking you all now to stop it right here, at least for Jimmy Saunders. The only thing that can stop tyrannical laws and politicians is you and me, juries like us. If we do nothing, we’re lost, the country is lost.”

“I’m asking you all to bring in a not-guilty verdict, because the drug laws are unjust and a moral obscenity. I’m asking you all be the kind of Americans our Founding Fathers would have been proud of, these same men who fought for your liberty. That’s what I’m asking of all of you.”

John Straun sat down and looked quietly at Dillard and all the others around the table. They looked back at him, and it seemed that their backs began to straighten up, and they no longer complained about going home. They were quiet. Then they talked passionately amongst each other.

Fifteen minutes later, they walked into the courtroom and sat down in the jury box. When the judge asked Raymond Dillard what the verdict was, he was stunned when Dillard, standing tall, looking straight at the judge, said “Not guilty.” Over the angry rantings of the red-faced judge, all in the jury box looked calmly at John Straun, and felt proud to be an American.

Tweet This Post

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.

Tweet This Post

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.

Tweet This Post

Tweet This Post

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.

Tweet This Post

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!

Tweet This Post

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.

Tweet This Post

Put twenty teenagers in the same room, or hundreds of teenagers in the same school, and you have a breeding ground for violence. Young boys and girls have raging hormones and budding sexuality, and male teenage testosterone levels are high. Teenagers are in the half-child, half-adult stage of life and often lack judgment and are emotionally immature. Pack these teenagers together into cramped little classrooms, six to eight hours a day, and you have a mixture that can lead to trouble. It’s inevitable that violence will break out-it’s built into the system.

Also, even the most conscientious teacher is usually too busy and overworked to give children the individual attention they need. Critics of home-schooling often say that home-schoolers don’t get proper socialization, an argument I will answer in a later chapter. But so-called socialization in public schools is often cruel and violent. Bullying, peer pressure, racial cliques, sexual tensions, and competition for the teacher’s approval all create a stressful, sometimes violent environment.

Compulsory attendance laws also contribute to violence in the schools. In most states, these laws force children to stay in school until they are sixteen years old or graduate high school. Teenagers who hate school, or are aggressive or potentially violent sociopaths, can’t leave. As a result, they often take out their hatred and aggression on other students. Those children want to learn are forced to endure bullying and violence by these troubled teens.

Also, the law is on the side of violent or disruptive students who are classified as “disabled.” In 1975, Congress passed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Based on this legislation, in 1988 the Supreme Court ruled that schools could not remove disruptive disabled children from classrooms without a parent’s consent. If parents don’t consent, teachers are out of luck. Those ‘disabled’ children who are socially impaired, can’t get along with other kids, or sometimes turn violent, therefore fall under this category. Of course, this adds yet another layer of potentially violent children who teachers can’t remove from class.

Violence in public schools can literally kill your child. In the 2000-2001 school year, students were victims of about 1.9 million nonfatal violent crimes such as rape, assault, and robbery. This figure equals about 9,000 violent incidents every school day throughout America, or about one every three seconds.

Public schools are also a drug pusher’s heaven. Thousands of teenagers, pushed by intense peer-pressure, smoke, drink beer, and try marijuana or hard drugs. Schools put hundreds of children together in one big building or courtyard. Mix in overworked or indifferent teachers who have little time or desire to supervise extracurricular activities. That’s why drug pushers circle schoolyards like vultures. Where else can they find groups of vulnerable victims all herded together for their convenience? Is it any wonder that drug and alcohol use is a major problem in public schools?

In the 2001-2002 school year, 34.9 percent of tenth-grade students surveyed said they had smoked cigarettes within the past year. Fifty-one and two tenths percent said they had drunk beer, and 33.4 percent said they got bombed on that beer. Also, 29.8 percent of the same tenth-grade students said they had smoked marijuana within the past year, and 78.7 percent of these marijuana users said they got “bombed or very high” on it.

When children are home-schooled, parents can advise and watch over their kids. At home, there is no peer pressure to try drugs, as there is in public schools. Drug pushers don’t hover around private residences. Parents should therefore ask themselves: Do my children belong in violent, drug-infested public schools? Are there other education options for my children? In “Public Schools, Public Menace,” I discuss many quality, low-cost education options parents can use right now if they decide to take their children out of public school.

Tweet This Post