Nebraska Education Department Committing Suicide
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus
Living in extremely liberal Massachusetts, this writer expects (hopes?) that fellow Americans in our nation’s midsection still possess enough good sense to reject leftist policies and trends. Looking over the region not close to either east or west coast lunacies, the perception is that traditional political, economic, and cultural standards haven’t been jettisoned. States like Nebraska, for one, seem far enough away from the coasts to resist joining the mob and plunging off a cliff into political correctness and its ideological offshoots.
But on September 8th by a vote of 6 to 1, Nebraska’s Board of Education approved new science standards that have conservatives outraged. In 2012, the education watchdog Thomas B. Fordham Foundation said of the Cornhusker state’s rules for primary and secondary schooling:
The Nebraska science standards are inadequate in nearly every way. They lack sufficient depth and breadth at every grade span, and critically important areas receive woefully inadequate attention – or are completely absent…. Taken as a whole, Nebraska’s science standards do not articulate nearly enough of what students need to know and be able to do.
Local civil engineer Henry W. Burke found that the 2017 Nebraska Science Standards standards are based on the failed Nebraska 2010 Science Standards. He fought unsuccessfully to alert DoE members about the deficiencies of these newly conceived standards. With bachelor and masters degrees and 45 years of experience in his field, he felt sufficiently qualified to register an opinion about the matter. He concluded that the state’s Department of Education was being asked to approve standards that are “more interested in promoting global warming and climate change than providing an academic understanding of science.”
After studying what was being considered by his state’s education board, Burke added a further opinion: “Global warming is presented as if it was proven science, rather than political narrative. This global warming agenda permeates the Science Standards from kindergarten through high school.” “These standards,” stated Burke, “do not present an objective, academically-based and scientifically-based approach to the topics.”
The veteran civil engineer recommended looking at his Internet posting as he addressed the matter of carbon dioxide being a significant culprit:
When it comes to global warming, raw subjectivity has replaced scientific method. Many scientists and researchers began with preconceived notions and theories and then proceeded to find ways to support them. Ideology is controlling the conclusions instead of true science. No authentic scientific data proves that there is a correlation between man-made carbon dioxide (CO2) and global warming.
Backed by numerous representatives of the state’s colleges and universities Omaha World-Herald reporter Joe Dejka wrote approvingly of the decision adopting the new standards. He correctly noted that, in addition to worries about global warming, students would also be exposed to insistence that evolution is a fact, rather than what many believe it to be a widely discredited theory.
The new standards for Nebraska schools will not be reviewed for another seven years. The conclusion: Nebraska has joined the left wing in the world of education. Watch for some parents to opt out and consider homeschooling.
A great home schooling alternative is our affiliate FreedomProject Academy. Learn more about the online school today!
Mr. McManus served in the U.S. Marine Corps in the late 1950s and joined the staff of The John Birch Society in August 1966. He has served various roles for the organization including Field Coordinator, Director of Public Affairs, and President. Mr. McManus has appeared on hundreds of radio and television programs and is also author of a number of educational DVDs and books. Now President Emeritus, he continues his involvement with the Society through public speaking and writing for this blog, the JBS Bulletin, and The New American.
Is Education Truly Dangerous?
by JBS President John F. McManus
It isn’t necessary to explain that Hitler’s Nazi regime amounted to extreme totalitarianism. The leaders of the so-called “Master Race” considered huge numbers of human beings unworthy, even unworthy of life itself. But not all were to be exterminated. Some were needed as workers to produce goods and some were forced to become servants for the Nazi leaders.
In 1959, journalist William Shirer authored “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,” a monumental 1,200-page study detailing much about Europe’s experience with the Third Reich. Shirer laid out the attitude of Hitler and his chiefs about virtually everything in his remarkable work. He, of course, pointed to several varieties of horror practiced by the regime, and what he reported about education is especially revealing.
Hitler’s right-hand man, Martin Bormann, explained the Nazi thinking with regard to the already conquered Slavs in a 1942 letter sent to a fellow Party member. In part, it stated: “Education is dangerous. It is enough if they can count up to 100 …. Every educated person is a future enemy.” Heinrich Himmler, the dreaded leader of the secret police wrote that half of the conquered Czechs would be forced to become “workers.” Those from the educated class were “intellectuals” and they were to be “eliminated.”
As for the conquered Poles, Hitler himself stated that they were “born for low labor…. There can be no question of improvement for them. It is necessary to keep the standard of life low in Poland and it must not be permitted to rise.” Addressing the potential problem of Polish priests, Hitler stated, “… they will preach what we want them to preach. If any priest reacts differently, we shall make short work of him. The task of the priest is to keep the Poles quiet, stupid and dull-witted.”
Why bring this up in 2015? Simply because the education being supplied to America’s youth parallels what was given to the people conquered by Nazi Germany, even what many living in Germany were provided.
In December 2013, statistics compiled by the 34 member nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) ranked America’s teenagers as follows: 31st in math; 24th in science; and 21st in reading. Each of these rankings was worse than it had been over the preceding three years. Each continues to sink.
So what have the nation’s educrats done to address the continuing slide? They gave America’s students Race to the Top, Outcome Based Education, Goals 2000, and No Child Left Behind. None of those programs helped to reverse the downward trend. Now they have produced Common Core, which is being resisted by many because it, too, will not bring improvement. It will lead even more surely to the kind of uneducated worker bees sought in years past by the Nazi regime.
To learn more about how America’s education system became such a failure, we recommend reading “Crimes of The Educators: How Utopians are Using Government Schools to Destroy America’s Children.” Veteran educator Samuel Blumenfeld teamed up with journalist Alex Newman to warn all Americans, especially American parents, about the need for radical change in teaching the young. Without radical change, including removing federal involvement from education (where it has no constitutional authorization), the ratings will sink further and the students coming out of the system will be ill-prepared to revitalize what was once the finest educational system in the entire world.
Education actually is dangerous for utopians or tyrants. An educated individual is a “future enemy” to a would-be totalitarian. On the other hand, he or she poses no threat to free people living in a free country.
If you want your children or grandchildren to receive a classical education similar to our Founding Fathers, we highly recommend FreedomProject Education (FPE). An affiliate of The John Birch Society, FPE provides a full Kindergarten to 12th Grade curriculum from top teachers via the Internet. The best part? It’s 100% free of Common Core!
Mr. McManus served in the U.S. Marine Corps in the late 1950s and joined the staff of The John Birch Society in August 1966. He has served various roles for the organization including Field Coordinator, Director of Public Affairs, and now President. He remains the Society’s chief media representative throughout the nation and has appeared on hundreds of radio and television programs. Mr. McManus is also Publisher of The New American magazine and author of a number of educational DVDs and books.
When bickering as to whether The United States of America is a republic or a democracy, we are discussing nothing more than liberty versus tyranny. However, stressing the difference between a republic and a democracy does not portray the motivations behind the conversion of our republic into a democracy. It is no coincidence that our system of government, initially founded as a republic, is now transforming into the depths of a democratic abyss.
Essentially, our republic is able to maintain itself as a rule of law and not of men by means of a system of checks and balances. Separated into three branches, Legislative, Executive, and Judicial, our government is arranged according to the U.S. Constitution so that each branch has its own assigned powers. Examples of these powers are: to make laws (Legislative); to carry out the laws (Executive); and to interpret the laws (Judicial). The Constitution also provides each branch of the government with several checks over the other two. For example, the president can veto a law passed by Congress; however, Congress can override a veto with a two-thirds vote. As another example, the president is given the power to appoint Supreme Court and other federal judges; however, the Supreme Court can judge presidential actions to be unconstitutional. While our republic has built-in checks on government power, a democracy is based on majority rule with no such built-in checks. This defect of democracies is often referred to as “the tyranny of the majority,” because the rights of minorities and individual citizens are not protected in a democracy.
Democracy, as the average citizen believes it to be, is a form of government by which all eligible citizens may have an equal say by vote to elect those who pass the laws that affect them. This is a reassuring definition from which a person could wrongfully believe that their individual rights will be protected in a democracy. However, democracy is far more than as defined above.
“…democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they are violent in their deaths.”-James Madison, father of the Constitution.
Furthermore, Karl Marx stated in The Communist Manifesto:
“We have seen … that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.”
While democracy may seem to give people more say in their individual lives, it actually gives the government more control over the people. When a government may confer rights at any time, they can also take those rights away at any time. It is extraordinarily difficult to decipher exactly which rights we take for granted in our everyday lives that have an alternative intention. In alliance with the greater agenda of the elites as well as the shift towards a democracy, many beneficial laws and ideologies are being abandoned. The destruction of morality, banishment of private property, and abolishment of family are just a few of the major alterations.
The destruction of morality should be viewed as being a great threat to our republic. Whether discussing homosexuality, abortion, or marriage, each and every campaign for equality rights, gay rights, and even women’s rights is cleverly disguised. The true intention of these campaigns is not to grant personal freedom or rights, it is to completely destroy man’s consciousness.
Again, as Karl Marx wrote in The Communist Manifesto:
“But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.”
Furthering our destruction of society, the banishment of private property is another mandatory aspect of doing away with freedom.
As Karl Marx says in The Communist Manifesto:
“In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend to do. From the moment when labor can no longer be converted into capital, money, or rent, into a social power capable of being monopolized i.e., from the moment when individual property can no longer be transformed into bourgeois property, into capital, from that moment, you say, individuality vanishes. You must, therefore, confess that by ‘individual’ you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed be swept out of the way, and made impossible.”
Finally, the abolishment of family is along the same lines as destruction of morality. It is of the utmost importance to those who intend to rule us to control the household and the education of children in today’s society. By restricting homeschooling or allowing a child to have two mothers or fathers rather than a mother and father respectively, the traditional family is being deemphasized. Rather than our educational system teaching kids how to think critically, our children are now attending school and being taught what to think. Programming our children in inappropriate ways, our educational system has gone astray.
It may appear that we have gone astray from the given subject; however, in a republic like our nation was founded to be, the government cannot take rights away from the people that only God can give. In other words, if our nation is converted to a democracy, then all rights will be subject to the whims of the government, and the people will have no basis for preserving their rights. That is to say, if our rights are something the government is able to grant, then they can be taken away at any point in time. So when the argument of a republic versus a democracy is in play, it would be in your best interests to realize what the fundamental principles are of each form of government as well as their consequences. In Robert Welch’s “Republics and Democracies” he quoted a speech Benjamin Disraeli made to the British House of Commons in 1859 in which he said:
If you establish a democracy, you must in due time reap the fruits of a democracy. You will in due season have great impatience of public burdens, combined in due season with great increase of public expenditure. You will in due season have wars entered into from passion and not from reason; and you will in due season submit to peace ignominiously sought and ignominiously obtained, which will diminish your authority and perhaps endanger your independence. You will in due season find your property is less valuable, and your freedom less complete.
One of the greatest assets of The John Birch Society is the archive housed at headquarters in Appleton, Wisconsin. Rows and rows of file cabinets and shelves filled with books, magazines, literature, and much more span many hundreds of square feet in the lower level of both buildings. JBS Founder Robert Welch was a prolific writer, and much of his work can be found in the archives.
In October 1961, he wrote what is arguably the best description ever of the fundamental differences between a government based upon law and one based upon men. Published in American Opinion, his classic ‘Republics and Democracies,’ was first delivered as a speech on September 17 (Constitution Day), 1961.” The next month he published it in American Opinion.
His conclusion was that “America was founded as a Republic, not a democracy. Let’s keep it that way.”