Battling the School Board

Battling the School Board

A few nights ago, my wife and I attended a public School Board meeting with the hopes of encouraging them to approve a facility for the use of a Charter School that is preparing to open their doors this fall. Unfortunately, the School District is dragging their feet and making it impossible for the Academy to find the necessary facilities, which the District has an obligation to provide. So, many of us proponents of the charter school, went to the Board meeting to publicly voice our concerns and call for the Boards’ support in working with the new school.

Initially, the School District was very supportive of the Charter School coming to our area as it was being wooed by interested parents within our community. The Charter School has a fabulous curriculum, which results in their students scoring in the 88 percentile or better on standardized tests. That is a far cry better than the Public School in which only 50 percent can read and write at their own grade level. Even though the children of actively involved parents in the public school system most likely have similar success rates as compared with the children in the Academy, I still believe that children in the Charter School have a much greater advantage due to the fact that the Academy is filled with a more competent student body.

The problem is that the Public School is dragging their feet in locating facilities for the Charter School. It should be pointed out that the Charter School is a public school. It will be run off of public funds that come from the State and are independent of the Public School’s fiscal budget. In fact, the School District gets a sizeable kickback from the State for each Charter School attendee and they don’t even have to do anything to get it. It’s free money. Moreover, the Charter School must pay rent on the buildings that it leases, which brings in more money. Lastly, the Charter School would alleviate some of the overcrowding that currently exists in the local elementary school. These are all strong incentives for the School District to bring in the Academy.

Unfortunately, the School District is placing these benefits aside as they are now actively hindering the establishment of the Charter School. The District has known for almost 3 years that the Academy was hoping to open their doors in the fall of 2007. They made a very interesting move by leasing their only unutilized building to a small private school. That is a quandary. Let’s get this straight, tax payers are paying steep property taxes to support the public school system; a public school organization is trying to get access to a public school facility; and our local Public School Board turns around and approves a lease to a private school, which does not benefit any kids in the public school system. Why are my tax dollars going to assist a private school? It turns out that the Academy also sent the District a lease proposal for the school facility and the District completely ignored it. Further, the district can’t sell the facility because there is a reversionary clause in the deed to the property. If the property ceases to function as an educational facility, the property reverts back to the original owner or his heirs. So, if the property must be used as a school, why would they choose a private school over a publicly funded school? The fact that they ignored the Academy’s lease proposal definitely indicates that the District doesn’t really want the Charter School to come to our area.

Last year, we had hopes of testing our child to see if it was possible to move up a grade since she was born after the deadline. She was very competent with the material and her kindergarten teacher assured us that she was ready for 1st grade material. Upon inquiry, the school told us that our child would have to score in the 98% at the 2nd grade level if we wanted to enroll her in the 1st grade. Are you kidding me? That is one of the most asinine things I have ever heard. If our daughter aced the 2nd grader test, wouldn’t that indicate that she was really ready for the 3rd grade? But according to the School District, her strong academic skills would only merit a move into the 1st grade (which is theoretically two grades below her ability). It’s no wonder why there are so many bored kids in the school system these days. They bend the kids to the system when they should be bending the system to the kids.

Then my wife learned a juicy tidbit of information. The old saying, “follow the money” always seems to hold true. It turns out that the School District gets “bonus” funds for each Talented-And-Gifted (TAG) student who enters their accelerated program. By pushing accelerated students ahead, the school essentially loses those bonus funds because the students who were moved up in grade level are no longer labeled “talented-and-gifted”. In a sense, placing students in grades where they are challenged is counter-productive to the fund raising efforts of the school. We can see why the School System really enforces the status quo.

These are the many reasons we have been fighting for the Charter School. I suppose that one can conclude that the District resents the presence of the Charter School because it makes them look really incompetent. Clearly, this must be the case or why would parents be pulling their kids out in droves if there wasn’t a strong academic benefit in doing so? The School District also knows that it is likely that students desiring to enroll in the Academy are talented and gifted students. Isn’t that why there parents are pulling them out; the School District is failing their kids? Couldn’t we infer then, that if the Charter School opens its doors that the School District is going to lose a good chunk of their better students and a good chunk of their funds?

The Charter School parents know that their children will be infinitely better off than the kids attending the public school. They know that their kids will learn better reading and math skills and will receive more personalized attention from their teachers. What is truly sad is that the Charter School will be a massive benefit to our local community. Our kids will be better off, the public school statistics will improve as more kids ace standardized tests, and the improved success of the school district will attract more quality people to our community. The truth is that the School Board made a brilliant decision by initially supporting the Charter School to come to our neighborhood. Unfortunately, politics has taken over and the net result is that all of us concerned parents will be forced to look outside our community to obtain a decent education for our kids.

We hope that politics will not thwart a really good thing!

Dave Smith

Hurray, for the Supreme Court!

Hurray, for the Supreme Court!

I am amazed that partial-birth abortions ever became a controversial issue. The law still allows women the ability to get abortions earlier in their pregnancies, but the Court only upheld the ban on partial-birth abortions. The fact that partial-birth abortions were ever legal is a horrific travesty. The moment the infant is fully removed from the birth canal, the baby immediately receives the full protection of law and possesses the right to live. However, pro-abortionists (I'm no longer calling them by their own label - pro-choice) use the vagaries of the legal system to validate the murder of their children, who are inches from delivery. There is no way anyone can argue that the baby is not a living human being at that point. They just believe a lie. Doctors and nurses who witness these atrocities say that the babies flinch with obvious pain when their skulls are pierced and their brains are literally sucked out. I am horrified that it has taken this long to get this awful practice banned.

I think that it is interesting that pro-abortionists have cleverly created a politically correct label for the practice of murdering innocent children. They call themselves "pro-choice." What a great label. We live in a country of freedoms. We can control and make decisions about nearly every aspect of our lives. We call these freedoms rights. Why then do we not have the right to abort our children? A friend once told me that just because we have the power to do something, does not necessarily mean that we the right to do it. I may have the power to take a gun into a crowded mall and start shooting innocent children (after-birth abortion --- sarcasm intended), but I do not have the right to do so. As a society, we declare that some human activities are criminal in nature and we pass laws with punishments affixed to them as a means of deterrence. The power to do something does not always beget the right to do it.

What is completely ironic is that pro-abortionists do have a choice. That choice came much earlier when they were copulating without thought of the consequences. They made a choice and knowing that even with birth control, there is always a chance of becoming pregnant. Cause and Effect! The slogan, pro-choice, is being misused here. A liberal would truly have to be a complete dolt to not know that pregnancy is a possible outcome of sexual activity. The truth is that pro-abortionists are really about avoiding the consequences of their actions. Their argument is just as ridiculous as a person jumping off a tall building in an attempt to kill himself. Once he has leapt from the building, gravity quickly accelerates him to his death. On the way down, the person committing suicide decides that he has changed his mind and asks a doctor to abort his fall. This is classic liberal stupidity. They want the freedom but not the responsibility. Every women on this planet has the freedom of choice, they are just misusing their freedom to avoid the consequences of their actions.

Unfortunately, women bear an unfair percentage of the responsibility, since the consequences of pregnancy rests entirely with them. After all, it takes two to tangle, but it is the woman who has to carry the child to term. Even though that's the natural order, it is unjust because men also carry part of the responsibility. In the process of banning abortion, we should also hold men financially liable for the support of their women during the pregnancy process. If the law requires women to carry the babies to term and the men to financially support the women while they do so, we might see more thought going into making babies.

Many liberals believe that we conservatives are laughable because we will argue against abortion, but support the 2nd Amendment at the same time. This argument shows liberal contempt for logic and reality. Abortion is about avoiding an inconvenience and the 2nd Amendment is about the right to defend your life. The right to own guns does not equal criminal shootings any more than automobile ownership equals drunk driving. Guns do not make people shoot other people anymore than cars make people drink too much alcohol and drive on public streets. People choose to use guns or drive their cars to kill other people. The guns nor the cars are responsible. When was the last time you heard of a gun or car standing trial for murder? It's just a piece of metal. The people who use them are responsible. In the same sense, women who murder their unborn children and the men who encourage them to do so are responsible. They are the ones who made the choice to end the life of another human being. In the councils of God, people who abort their children are no different from Cho, the Virginia Tech terrorist. They are the same creatures; soulless and evil.

It is surprising to me that it has taken this long to get this very small victory. Abortion should be completely criminalized. There should be life sentences attached to any woman who is convicted of murdering her undelivered child. (my politically incorrect term as opposed to unviable uterine tissue) Similarly, men who assist and encourage women to have an abortion should also be convicted of conspiracy to commit murder and they should receive life sentences as well. On the other hand, there should be room in the law for therapeutic abortion as it has a legitimate medical purpose; to save the life of the expectant mother. In my opinion, abortion should also be available for rape and incest victims. But none of these cases involve convenience. Abortion is not being used as a form of birth control in these instances. All other abortions must be banned with the full punishment of the law.

What is truly sad is that the inconvenience is such a short period of time. There are so many families that cannot have children and would love to have a baby. After only nine months, the baby could be adopted to a loving family, and then the selfish mother can return to her selfish life. At least, her selfishness will have blessed a family eager for the pitter patter of little feet.

Kudos to the Supreme Court for upholding a law that protects the lives of all Americans; delivered and undelivered.

Republicanism Versus Democracy

I have really enjoyed writing these posts thus far and I have put a lot of energy, research, and thought into their creation. I have been thinking that for a while I wanted to write a post about the difference between a democracy and the republic form of democracy that we have. On this matter, my knowledge is very limited but I understand some of the key concepts and a bit of the history that was addressed at the Constitutional Convention on this matter. I bring this up because I really enjoyed Todd's comments and the inclusion of an article by Neil A. Maxwell on the virtues and handicaps of democracy. Neil A. Maxwell wrote a fantastic article and I agree that we as a democratic society need to be remember that this nation responds to the voices of 300 million people. It is impossible to think that all of those voices will agree or that they will always get along. We conservatives are by nature entrenched in the traditions and the institutions of our fore-fathers. We are the preservers and defenders of the successes that have combined to make this Nation the greatest in the world. It is the greatest in might, in freedom, and in economic living standards. Mr. Maxwell argued that sometimes we have to accept the fact that sometimes democracy will go counter to our beliefs, but that is the nature of democracy. I mostly agree with that statement. However, I felt that he missed one point that needs careful consideration. We must accept the voice of the people so long as that voice does not infringe upon the unalienable rights of the people. It is in this effort that I felt that we should have a discussion on the differences between a Democracy and a democratic Republic.

The fact that the United States of America is a republic is perhaps more significant than most might realize. Greek democracy was one of the first generally accepted examples of the rise of a government system controlled by the voice of its citizens. The people implemented laws and selected leaders by popular vote. As long as the voice of the people affirms good laws and good leaders, it works marvelously. However, if the people begin to implement terrible laws and elect corrupt leaders, the system decays very rapidly. When analyzing these systems, James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, became very nervous about democracy because it could lead just as easily to tyranny as a monarchy or oligarchy could. This term is often referred to as a Tyranny of the Majority. Madison knew that direct democracy lead to the eventual decay of the Greek democratic state. Madison, therefore, brilliantly blended a democratic system within a republican form of government to allow for both self-rule as well as protections against a tyranny of the majority.

James Madison was the most significant voice in the creation of the U.S. Constitution and through his efforts, he helped to construct the greatest form of government that has ever existed. He was also the principle author of the 1st 10 Amendments to the Constitution, which thankfully, the other delegates had the sense to include. Madison initially opposed the idea of a Bill of Rights because he believed that the Constitution was in itself a Bill of Rights. Had they not included the 10 Amendments, we would have most likely lost all of our individual freedoms by now. James Madison knew that the greatest strength of democracy was also its greatest weakness. If the people chose corruption or aristocracy over value and moral, the system would self destruct. So he devised a way to prevent this by creating checks against democracy.

The system by which democracy is checked is called republicanism. (Not the political party) By definition, "It stresses the liberty and rights as central values, makes the people as a whole sovereign, rejects aristocracy and inherited power, expects citizens to be independent and calls on them to perform civic duties, and is strongly opposed to corruption." (Wikipedia - Republicanism in the United States) Furthermore, "It is not the same as democracy, for republicanism asserts that people have unalienable rights that cannot be voted away by a majority of voters..."(same) What this means is that in a republic, the majority vote of the people can never override the law or rights of the minority.

Let's analyze the precepts of republicanism for a bit and see how they fit into the growing dilemma that pits conservatives against liberals. First, republicanism stresses liberty and rights as central values. This infers that before laws can be formed to govern human activity, there must be an understanding and definition of human freedom. The Founders wisely placed these definitions in the Bill of Rights. They are the conceptualization of Jefferson's poignant phrase from the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truth's to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR, with certain UNALIENABLE Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." (emphasis added) This is text book republicanism. Before we form laws to govern human activity, we must first acknowledge the existence that certain fundamental rights belong to the people. The government does not grant us those rights. They exist on their own merits. They were given to us by God and Government cannot rightfully take them away.

A thorough understanding of the Bill of Rights asserts very clearly, that those tenants belong to us. Regardless of any vote of the population, the government cannot lawfully take away my right to assemble or to worship. They cannot take away my God given right to arm myself in order to defend my life and the lives of my family and community. I cannot be forced to testify against myself nor be held in prison for years on end without a trial by jury. I have the right to enter into legally binding contracts. Most importantly, I have the right to live and the right to determine my own destiny. Any law that violates these tenants even if it was enacted by the voice of the majority, should be overturned by nature of our republican form of government.

Next, republicanism requires that the citizens be sovereign individuals. In this case, it means that we are the supreme law making body. As a whole, we are not subject to the authority of another as laws can and should only be created by the populace. This is where conflict arises because it is completely impractical for laws to be enacted that are beneficial to the whole. In any government system there will always be winners and losers that arise from any political incorporation or change. However, those laws can never supersede our unalienable freedoms and rights. The courts have charge to protect us from these incursions on our freedoms by the legislatures and executive branches. But now they too are caving to tyranny.

Lastly, republicanism requires that the citizens be independent. This empowerment comes from our ability to own and use private property. We cannot be independent nor free without the ability to acquire and utilize this God given right. We must be able to own property so that we can create a means, independent of the government to provide the necessities of life. Those include the ability to buy food, clothing, housing, transportation, and non-necessity consumables. If the citizens become dependent on the government for the factors of life, republicanism is instantly destroyed. They become subject to the government. Simply put, their necessities are provided by the government and they must, therefore, do what the government wishes or they will lose their ability to survive. Dependent citizens are slaves to this system. When this occurs in large enough numbers, political corruption explodes astronomically.

This comes about because political leaders use the destruction of personal independence as a means of gathering political strength. Their dependent constituents will support them because their re-election is necessary for their survival. If their representative loses, they may lose their entitlements. We see this over and over again in political elections. Politicians use scare tactics aimed at getting re-elected. This works because their constituents are dependent on them for the necessities of life. They look to them for their jobs, housing, food, and clothing. If those things are at stake because you can't provide them for yourself, you will fight hard to preserve them. You will sacrifice all your freedom to have them. For most, remaining alive is way more important than having freedom.

The point of this discussion is to illustrate why it is so important that conservatives win the political fight that is before us. Universally, every tenant of liberalism is aimed at destroying republicanism. Their campaign to liberate the populace sexually will enable them to influence many children in the rising generation towards their beliefs. Kids born in weak family environments will be easy prey for indoctrination in the educational institutions of our country. This is obvious since many of these kids will not have been properly educated by caring parents. Since these kids will be born in weak families, there will be a greater propensity to rely on government handouts for survival. Sexual perversion and promiscuity will lead to more and more kids learning and believing in liberal ideology.

Next, the liberal campaign for the environment is aimed at one unalienable right; the right to own, control, and utilize private property. Most conservatives would agree that negligent and irresponsible destruction of our environment is a bad thing. It's a bad thing when a company dumps toxic waste into a water system to save costs on disposal. This is a good use for the EPA and criminals such as this deserve stiff penalties. However, we draw the line at preserving the environment to point of destroying normal human behavior. (e.g. we can't build houses because it's deemed anti-environment to cut down trees) More recently, it's bad for the environment to breathe. (CO2 is a pollutant ---- Extreme sarcasm intended) A free people, must always be allowed to own property and they must be allowed to utilize that property in most manners that they deem necessary for their benefit. We cannot be a free people otherwise.

Lastly, the liberal campaign for social welfare is perhaps the most devastating of all. This campaign is built on a huge lie. It is the lie that society has treated them unfairly. It is unfair that some are born into poverty and others are born into riches. Some are born into minority families and others are born into (evil, dastardly) white families (e.g., the evil majority). This is a lie because, America is foremost a meritocracy. This is the vision that James Madison had of this nation. If you weren't born into wealth, go out there and literally make it yourself. However, this message is being lost on great hosts of people these days. Therefore, they seek to right these inequalities by redistributing wealth. In a sense, they steal it with their votes. Robin Hood is the ultimate liberal in this sense. Steal from the rich and give to the poor. Isn't that the modern day phrase?

However, there are significant consequences that arise from this approach. First, it breeds a great deal of envy. People become unsatisfied with their own possessions and turn their hearts towards their neighbors' possessions. Next, the recipients become indebted to a system for their survival as we discussed earlier. Lastly, the victims (the haves) lose any economic incentive to produce. The fruits of their labors are forcibly taken from them and given to someone else. The natural result will be a weakening of society as a whole. The recipients become slaves and the victims will eventually sell themselves into slavery in order to stop the plunder. Eventually, socialism will always lead to the same eventuality - SLAVERY!

However, this can all be corrected if conservatives can realize the power of their message. That power lies in the heart of republicanism (not the party). If we can muster significant political pressure (i.e. the silent majority stops being silent) to legally force the government reembody the ideals of unalienable rights, limited government, and individual sovereignty, we will see a significant decline in the decay of this nation and a rebirth of morality and economic progress. These will flow as natural consequences of getting government off the backs of Americans and letting them thrive. There is so much potential for success if the sound of our good laws can stifle the sounds of some many corrupt voices. Let freedom Ring!

-Dave Smith

Tragedy in Virginia

Dr. Laura was talking today about how this tragic act of violence at Virginia Tech is nothing compared with the violence that people endure on a daily basis in the middle east and elsewhere. That is absolutely true. On the whole, we Americans are generally free from horrific acts of barbarism and violence. When I heard about this cowardly act this afternoon, I called my wife to tell her to turn on the news. She had already been watching the ongoing coverage as reporters were scrambling to gather information. (Albeit – the more horrific the better – but, hey, drama sells)

Doesn’t that say something special about this place we call the United States of America? Horrific violence is not the norm, in fact, it’s the exception. I’ve never been shot at, nearly blown up by a car bomb, nor had crazy people try to hi-jack my airplane and crash it into a building. I am so thankful to be living in a place where people are outraged and shocked by such gross examples of pure evil. Thank goodness that we live in a place where most people like following the law and are generally concerned about the welfare of their neighbors. My heart goes out to the families who lost loved ones today.

While I was listening to the press conference with the President and the campus police chief, something almost elusive crept into my mind and really started to bother me. The President and Police Chief were answering questions from the media and the kinds of questions and responses seemed terribly inappropriate.

The first thing that got my attention was the criminalization of this event. There was nothing criminal about it. All criminal behavior can be summed up by people breaking the law for personal gain. This evil man did not murder these 32 people for some sort of personal gain. He was terrorizing the school to satisfy something else; like revenge or hate. We’ll probably never know for sure but his acts were not those of a criminal but those of a terrorist. He was no different than a suicide bomber. I wonder why, no one in the mainstream media made this obvious connection? Most likely, the media does not want us to be sympathizing with innocent Iraqi’s or middle easterners for that matter when troop withdrawal is a major political issue right now.

Then the media interrogation took a new form. It was like a pool of hungry crocodiles lurking in the water, eying a lone wildebeest. What was the ethnicity of the shooter? What kind of weapons did he have? There have been reports that he used a semi-automatic handgun, can you confirm that? What did the crime scene look like? Were the students shot randomly or execution style? These questions are not word for word but the gist of the questions have stuck with me all day. Don’t these questions seem outrageous to you? These questions reveal a lot more about the character of the reporters than they might have realized.

A tragedy had just occurred. Innocent blood had been spilt. But, they were not as concerned about the innocent blood as they were about the ramifications this incident has on their social agendas. First off, the ethnicity of the shooter has a great deal of bearing on the liberal mind. If the shooter is from a minority ethnic group, the portrayal of the shooter will be much more sympathetic to his “misguided” actions. His acts must be out of some sort of desperation because he belongs to a group of Americans who are continually disparaged by the mainstream. The more of a minority that the shooters happens to be, the more sympathetic the media will be to his plight. However, if the shooter turned out to be a white guy, then yeah, let the pit bulls loose. This shows real liberal racism. What that shooter did was wrong regardless of race and if he happened to be white then I would expect the same punishment.

“What kind of weapons did he use and there have been reports that he used a semi-automatic handgun,” illustrates a different liberal agenda. This is the issue of gun control. I told my wife that every time a crime such as this occurs, the anti-gunners start salivating. This is good stuff, the kind of stuff that can get people riled up enough to give away their freedoms. Does it matter what kind of weapons he used? Had he bludgeoned 32 people to death, would it get the same kind of coverage? Just this evening, one news agency suggested that the shooter allegedly used a 9mm, which could hold 19 rounds. I laughed at that because most hi capacity magazines for a 9mm can only hold 15. 19 round magazines are specialty purchases and they are definitely not the norm nor generally easy to come across. They then went on to explain that these magazines would have been banned under the Brady Bill but since it didn’t get renewed, this happened. Had the shooter had 10, 10 round magazines he would have been able to shoot 100 people just as easily if he only had 7, 15 round magazines. The building was locked and he, therefore, wasn’t under any kind of pressure from law enforcement. Even if he only had 10 round magazines, he would have been able to easily kill the same number of people. Even if he had a revolver, he would have been able to do kill just as many people. This is just another example of media misrepresentation to sway ignorant public opinion. The Brady Bill would not have reduced the casualty list one bit. This man was bent on hurting as many people as he could and magazine capacity would not have slowed him down in carrying out his evil plan.

Then they moved onto the grotesqueries of the carnage. Their motivation to do this is obviously rooted in selling airtime. The more gruesome picture that they can paint for us, the more entertaining it will be for the people watching the ongoing coverage. I still can’t believe that one reporter wanted to know if this was an execution style of shooting like occurred earlier in the Amish community. An execution style of murder brings to mind pictures of Nazi death camps. It really conjures up some horrific thoughts and they eagerly wanted to know if this happened. The authorities kept repeating that they could not answer those kinds of questions. Obviously, if they revealed too much, it might taint their investigation. Regardless, the media was desperate to know the gory details and asked this question in a variety of ways, hoping to get the scoop for which they were looking. Very little was asked about the families or where families could meet up with their children. The President brought that up and gave a number where parents could call to get information about the status of their kids.

What does this tell me? It tells me that the people America trust to give them the facts are clearly motivated by ideologies that generally override the truth. If they were interested in the truth, they would have been asking entirely different sorts of questions. If they were interested in the innocent blood that had been spilt, they would have been asking different sorts of questions. The information that they gleaned to uncover, was whether or not this incident would forward their political and financial agendas. I read once that a reporter said that Rush Limbaugh is not a credible source for news because he is in the entertainment business. It seems that ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN are also in the entertainment business. Does that mean that they aren't credible? (How dare I?)

What should have been asked was what can American’s do to help? Where can cards of condolences be sent? Is there a relief fund to help with any medical expenses that will be incurred by those recovering from their wounds? Does the University need any help with counseling services or other trauma treatments? These questions were quickly glossed over with little or no sincerity. This is because, their most pressing questions really told us who these media people really are. When real tragedy strikes, they swoop in like BUZZARDS, hungry for ratings and delighted when it promotes their political agendas. They are a people who COULD CARE LESS about the real tragedy of the day!

By the way, I've been looking all over the web for any details about how assistance or funds might be given to aid in this tragedy. Sadly, there is nothing that I can find. If anybody finds anything like this, please forward it to me and I'll post it on this blog. In the meantime, pray for all that is involved in this terrible mess. Check out Michelle Malkin's blog. She has some interesting details about today's tragedy. You can link to it on my sidebar.

-Dave Smith

No Good School Options

Friends,

Lately, we have been struggling with where to send our kids to school. I have had numerous conversations with friends and other parents only to find that nearly universally; most parents are seriously concerned about the lack of quality of education that exists today. The problem is this. A really good education costs a lot of money at a private school and a really bad education is free at a public school.

Private education has been and will always continue to provide our kids with the highest level of discipline within the classroom as well as the best academic skills when they leave for the workplace or higher education. But for that service, it costs a lot. In my area, private schooling starts at $9,000 a year and goes up from there. Then there is the home schooling route. This route provides the greatest possibility for academic success. The curriculum will be completely catered to the individual. However, kids who are home schooled have trouble interacting with their peers. This consequence is obvious. Students in public and private schools are interacting with their peers all day long. They learn to deal with other kids through their own experiences. Sometimes this is good and other times this is bad. But on the whole, this is life. Kids who graduate home schools tend to perform very well academically but they possess very poor social skills. Unfortunately, poor social performance may have a significantly greater consequence in the real world of business than a poor academic performance.

The last and worst option is public education. In this arena, teachers cater their curriculums to a lower caliber of student because it is the government mandate that no child be left behind. That means that if a few students begin falling behind, the teacher will have to slow down so as not to leave them behind. At a private school, these stragglers would be given an ultimatum. Perform or get out! Furthermore, since it is the law that every child be educated, there will be a group of students at a public school whose parents could care less about their academic performance. These parents view school as a form of free day care. Since most studies connect academic success with parental involvement, its safe to say that in any cohort of public students there is going to be a sizable percentage of students who don’t care about learning and will consequently drag the rest of the class down.

Moreover, what is being taught at public schools is controlled by the government and it is not necessarily what the parents of those kids would wish to be taught. In private schooling, parents ultimately control the curriculum because if the schools fail to provide a product worth purchasing, parents will withdraw their students and the business will go bankrupt. In public schooling, parents have little choice as to what is being taught. Even if those teaching contradict our values and our traditions, we must cope with the consequences that government education brings.

There is an obvious solution to the problem of “free” public education. The answer lies at the word “free.” See, a public education is not really free. We are still paying exorbitant prices for a lousy return on our most precious investments. How are we doing this? You are paying through your property taxes or other local and state taxes to repay various bond measures and public fiscal expenditures. The result is that you are paying a great deal for a very bad product. Since it’s our money, the voters have the right to determine how those funds are best used.

The best solution to solve this public school problem is to return to free market economics. Privatize! Schools would then, like any other private firm, be forced to compete for business. In this sense, the product that they would be competing to sell would be a good education. This would be accomplished by simply allotting each taxpayer with school aged children a voucher. This would be like a government reimbursement for taxes already paid, to subsidize our personal payment to a private school. Parents could then use this voucher to send their kids to any school into which their kids were accepted. Remember that under this plan, all schools would be private and students would have to apply for admittance.

What would the consequences of a voucher system be? Since schools would be forced to compete, many of the systemic failures would naturally be eliminated. Kids could be expelled for bad behavior or for academic failure. Kids would have to produce if they wish to go on in school and if they don’t, the state could provide trade schools to give kids working skills in lieu of an education. They do this in socialist Europe – I lived in France for 2 years and I had a chance to talk with lots of kids and college students. In order to go to college you have to pass the Bac – like the SAT in America. If you don’t pass the Bac then you can’t go on. The Bac is also designed to only pass approximately 30% of those who take it. Your option at that point is to go to trade school and enter the work force. The point is that kids would learn a totally different message than they are learning now. You have to produce if you want to go to the next level. Right now, kids are moved ahead even if they fail to learn the material. After all, we don’t want them to have bad self esteem! (Extreme sarcasm added) Most importantly, kids who excel could be moved ahead according to their competence with the material. There would be no incentive for schools to keep kids locked in “peer groups” as is currently the case. For the students, there are no downsides to privatization.

Furthermore, if parents did not like the curriculum, they could pull their kids out and send them to another school that was more in line with their wishes. After all, public education belongs to the people and not the bureaucrats. With fierce competition, schools failing to provide a good product would go out of business. Vouchers would also be ideal for good teachers by naturally creating a market for quality teachers. Really good teachers would command a higher salary than poor ones because they would be more valuable to the school as a means of selling their product, better education. Simply put, schools would be able to brag about their “teaching talent” as a means of attracting more students and more money. This would also instantly break the “Union” which is now holding the education of our kids’ hostage.

On the other hand, opponents of Vouchers argue that this system would create an unfair system that would perpetuate the usual societal injustices. The response to that simpleton argument is this. Do not schools in “richer” geographical areas provide a better education than schools in the inner city or “poorer” geographical areas? The problem is that your geographical location determines a lot about the kind of education that you can get. In the Voucher system, performance will be the underlying factor. Kids from any demographic or social situation could get into the best schools if they work hard. What a positive message! In stead of teaching kids that they don’t have to work to succeed, they would learn the rewards of hard work early in the school years. In stead of kids getting chided by their peers for academic success, they will be praised. With a more academically inclined student body, teachers would be able to teach to a much higher caliber of student than in our current system. I see no downsides. We would be replacing a lumbering, static system with a dynamic, merit based system.

There is only one danger. Since the government would, in a sense, be paying for nearly every education in America, they could interfere with the curriculum that is taught. For instance, what if a voucher school opened as a religious school with a Christian or Muslim philosophy? In the voucher system, they should be able to set their own rules and curriculum requirements independent of government interference. We must be careful that we prevent the government from controlling what the market will naturally control. If there was an economic demand for this school, they would stay in business. What I’m saying is that the market will determine these things freely and naturally. However, there must be safeguards that would prevent ridiculous lawsuits or unreasonable government interference. The government should only be able to oversee that kids are learning in a safe environment from any sort of criminal mischief. (Not politically correct mischief—that’s left up to the parents to determine what curriculum is appropriate and inappropriate)

I stand in favor of this system, because it would open up a lot of good possibilities for our kids. If the government was unwilling to work with taxpayers on this issue, we should all get refunds for the taxes we pay for public education if we have to send our kids to private schools. After all, we are giving the government our money to provide a product that fails in every sense of the word.

-Dave

Why Are We Throwing Away Our Freedom?

Friends,

Today at Church, I was setting up some appointments when I noticed an older gentleman wearing a tie with a U.S. Constitution theme. He was the father of one of our members who was visiting his family today and I have talked with him briefly before. Since I sort of knew him, I approached him and commented that I really liked his tie. Figuring him to be pro-freedom, I told him that the U.S. Constitution is our modern Title of Liberty and I was glad to see a member support our freedoms and liberties. He smiled and was really thankful. He then made a comment that our freedoms are being trampled all over these days. In strong agreement, I said, “I know! My days of being a staunch Republican are coming to an end because I vote for people campaigning as conservatives but then they enlist themselves with the left once they get to Washington.”

This is where the conversation became very awkward. His expression dropped and he stated very strongly. “But, I’m A DEMOCRAT!”

“Oh” I said and my thought was, “What in the World?”

This is my question.

How can any Christian be a democrat? How can they live with this decision? This is a man who cares enough for his country to wear and honor the symbol of freedom and good government. However, a vote for Kerry/Edwards was a vote for abortion, gay marriage, and environmentalism (which I believe is the name for the global effort to rob people of their freedom and rights to own and use private property). A yes vote for that ticket is the same thing as telling the Lord that you do not care about freedom and you support gross iniquity. You are saying that these things are okay and you don’t mind them in our society.

I can see how people could be mad about the war, even though there was more justification for this war than any other military action since WWII. (For my friends who are more conservative than me, I said “More Justification” ---after all, Saddam Hussein, kicked out the inspectors and violated most of the provisions of the 1st Gulf War Treaty, which he signed) Further, I can conceptualize why liberals don’t like Bush. But, on the whole, they should be praising the Bush Administration for the 100’s of billions that he unconstitutionally spent on numerous social programs. Most likely, Bush’s main fault lies in the fact that he believes in God and he is not pro environment. Truly, that’s sac religious these days. But even Bush’s stance on the environment is realigning with the left as evidenced by his most recent address to the nation in which he indicated that something is going on and we should address it. It sounds like he’s beginning to cave to the environmentalists.

I can see why members of the church could be anti-republican as I am leaning more and more with the Constitutional Party (Libertarians are crazy and they don’t believe in any form of reasonable government – not right with the Lord). But I can not fathom how people can gear up in support of pro-life and pro-heterosexual marriage measures and then turn from that and vote for politicians who are openly opposed to them.

So, I return to my question. Are they ignorant or willfully attempting to destroy the free agency of men and women? For those of you who are not members of my Church, free agency is a term that we attribute to the freedom that Heavenly Father has granted each of his children. It is the divine heritage to make our own choices and shape our own destinies. I believe similarly with many of my fellow Christians, that this divine freedom should exist and be protected from governmental encroachments. This is why I believe that the U.S. Constitution is divinely inspired. It nearly perfectly grants all men and women the reasonable freedoms to shape our destinies and control private property. These freedoms give people the greatest chances to find happiness and success in this life. The Constitution does this by making the U.S. government very inefficient with numerous checks and balances, which simultaneously work to frustrate any ambitions that some may have to destroy individual sovereignty. However, if those people could convince great numbers of Americans to surrender their freedoms by indoctrinating them or creating a scenario worth the sacrifice of individual freedoms (environmentalism, safety from crime, or multi-culturalism), then they could easily destroy our freedom. They could do this without having to destroy the many safeguards that the Constitution provides against such abuses. I would hate to live in such times when people cherish their "pet" government programs over their own freedom, but it looks to be an inevitability.

I believe very strongly that through the execution of good government, people can operate independently towards their own goals, but also rely on the government to protect them from harm. Is this not what perfect government is? Why, then, are people lining up to destroy those sacred functions? Why do they want a Supreme Court to legislate from the bench, which would eliminate democracy with the installation of an oligarchy? I suppose the answer is scarier than we should suppose. The simple answer is that they hate freedom.

I’m not talking about the freedom to engage in a filthy and irresponsible lifestyle because they endorse that with great applause. They hate real freedom, the kind that I’m talking about – the kind that comes with responsibility and sacrifice. The kind that lets men and women become their best selves. This freedom makes people independent from government and agents unto themselves. This is the type of freedom that the Lord endorses and wishes that we had the courage to protect. This is the freedom that the Founding Fathers had the sense and determination to create, which they protected with numerous checks and balances.

Why do so many “good” thinking people line up to throw all of this away? Should I have asked this man, who loves the U.S. Constitution but votes to destroy it, why he isn't happily living in North Korea?

-Dave Smith

No Longer Conservative?

Friends,

Today, an official of the Republican Party called me today looking for a donation. In the past, I have been more than happy to put my money where my political views have held especially when I felt that my money was going to support conservative values. He started this conversation about Hillary Clinton. “How do you feel about Hillary Clinton announcing her candidacy to run for President?” he demands. I replied, “I think it’s great!” There was a long moment of silence then a quiet and rhetorical, “okay?” I then told him that I thought it was great because if she wins the nomination, the democrats will surely go down to defeat. She can’t even win major victories within her own party. I continued by telling him that I thought that Obama was a much bigger threat because of how he is portrayed by the media. So, he gets back to business. “Can you make a 100, 75 or 50 dollar donation?" he asks. I told him that I would no longer give money to the Republican Party. I continued, “I’m tired of electing Republicans who run on family values and conservative issues only to see them vote like a democrat when they get to Washington.” I then chided him so more to let him know that not only am I becoming increasingly frustrated with republicans but that so are many of my conservative acquaintances. Republicans need to know now that they’ll never win their base if they keep selling us out to get in good with the media. The media will never like conservatives because they are all liberals. Look at Bush. Bush has been the best democrat president since Lyndon Johnson. He’s caved on nearly every constitutional issue and except for the war in Iraq, he has given the Left, everything that they want. I no longer want to be part of a system that is selling out my rights and freedoms that the constitution protects. I cannot in good conscience vote for the lesser of two evils as it is still an evil and in doing so; I have assisted and condoned those people who are destroying my freedom. I finished by saying that if Republicans want my vote, they stick to conservative issues whether the media likes them or not. He says, “Okay” and hangs up on me.

Was it a waste of time? No, the more people that stand up within the Republican Party to wrangle in the Politicians, the more likely we’ll see changes in their voting policies. Isn’t it about fighting for a better America or just about winning elections?

-Dave