Were the 1848 Socialists the Real Backbone of the Union Army?

by Al Benson Jr.

This is one of those nagging little questions the “history” books will never bother to answer, not even address, if their authors can avoid it. Fully 95% of the information dealing with the “Forty-eighter” socialists involvement in the Union army and the early Republican Party has been carefully swept into a nice, neat little pile and quietly dumped down the memory hole. It is fervently hoped by most public educators that most students will continue on in their programmed ignorance, not even knowing in what century the War of Northern Aggression was fought in, nor what the real issues were.

That way none of the educrats parading as historians will ever have to answer any embarrassing questions. But, here and there, some little tidbit, like a dust bunny caught in the breeze, manages to avoid the memory hole and comes back to haunt the educrats.

Years ago, when researching for our book Lincoln’s Marxists I came across an interesting quote from Friedrich Engels that was noted in his biography, Friedrich Engels written by Gustav Mayer and published back in 1936 by Alfred A. Knopf, New York.

Whatever else he was, Engels was a keen observer and Mayer noted his comments regarding the two armies, Northern and Southern, at the beginning of the War. Engels had observed that: “…at first neither side had a real army, and their was an appalling lack of trained officers; and (as Engels pointed out) had it not been for the experienced soldiers who entered America after the European revolution–especially from Germany–the organization of the Union army would have taken still longer than it did.” Stop and analyze that statement.

Some have analyzed the number of men in the Union army at the start of the War to be around 15,000 men, coming from all over the country. When the Southern states legally seceded many of those men went south to fight for their states. Thus the size of the Union army, not large to begin with, was further reduced. It has been estimated that between 4-5000 Forty-eighter socialists fled to this country as their revolutionary activities in Europe started to wind down. Not all ended up being soldiers, but a lot did. What Engels was telling us is that, at the start of the War, the backbone of the Union army was the Forty-eighter socialists! Now that’s from an original source who was around at the time. Maybe Engels may have been prone to exaggerate a little, but there is still an element of truth in his statement. The Union army, at the beginning of the War, had lots of Forty-eighter socialists in it–some of whom became generals before too long. There was a real socialist faction in the Union army at the war’s start, which remained throughout. I don’t ever recall seeing this in any history book about the War I ever read. Did the “historians” just miss this aspect, or was it omitted intentionally. lest such a fact raise lots of questions as to what the War was really all about–and folks, it wasn’t slavery. Class struggle might just be closer to it.

One way you can note the socialist influence on the Union armies was by the amount of Southern private property destroyed, the number of Southern churches either burned or turned into stables for Yankee horses, and quite possibly the number of Southern women, both black and white, that were raped. The socialists abhorred the concept of private property. To them it was anathema. So, destroying it in the South was second nature to them–except for what the could steal, which was alright, because then it has been rescued in the name of “the people.”

If you depend on the miserable “history” texts in most public schools you will seldom learn any of this. There is a good chance that the Union army,  at   the beginning of the War, was about 30-40% socialist. That’s sure not what I was taught in school, but, then, the history books I was taught from mostly lied to me, and I don’t think all that much has changed regarding history books.

The socialist/communist influence over the War and the early Republican Party has only begun to be explored and more work needs to be done. Walter Kennedy and I have sought to make a start with Lincoln’s Marxists. It is our hope and prayer that this will make a difference and that others will carry on.

Are the Feds Finally Admitting That Lincoln Was a Leftist?

by Al Benson Jr.

There was a recent article on http://archieve.newsmax.com written by Marc Morano, the headline of which read “Feds’ Video Implies Lincoln Would Have Supported Leftist Causes.” That one caught my eye, given the amount of research I have done on Mr. Lincoln over the years. The article began with: “A video presented at the Lincoln Memorial appears to suggest that former President Abraham Lincoln would have supported modern-day left-of-center political causes such as homosexual rights, abortion and the modern feminist agenda.”

Some visitors who saw the video thought it was an attempt at political correctness, while others told CNSNews they felt: “…the video clearly implies that Lincoln would have supported left-wing political causes.”

The controversial video is only about eight minutes in length but shows scenes from various leftist marches and demonstrations. Given his racist tendencies it is questionable whether Lincoln would have supported “civil rights” marches, but given his leftist proclivities, which will show up if you take the trouble to do the homework, there is little doubt he would have supported the rest of the left-wing agenda. This kind of statement often shocks people, and mostly they don’t want to listen, so, rather than making the effort to do some research to find out where Lincoln really was on the political spectrum, they try to verbally shoot the messenger. Having dealt with verbal onslaughts such as this I can attest to that.

However, if you really want an overview of where Lincoln was coming from then read the book Walter Kennedy and I co-authored Lincoln’s Marxists published in July of 2011 by Pelican Publishing in Gretna, Louisiana. Lincoln and his socialist and Marxist cohorts are revealed in living liberal color and you will find out things about Mr. Lincoln you did not really want to know, but should.

Some of those viewing the video at the Lincoln Memorial had interesting reactions. A high school student from Louisiana said “I liked it…I think (Lincoln) would have supported homosexual and abortion rights because that’s how Lincoln was; he was very supportive of the people.” This student may well have gotten hew view of Lincoln from her public school “history” book (if they even bother to use those anymore). Another viewer agreed that Lincoln would have supported today’s leftist causes because “(Lincoln) seemed like a very progressive, forward-thinking man, ahead of his time.” Such comments show that many today view leftism as being the way to go, the “wave of the future” and so on. Socialists and Marxists have been spouting that line since the 1840s and the fruit of their efforts and propaganda has cost the world untold millions of lives as leftist dictators have sought to bring in “the will of the people” with guns and bloody revolution. No matter how much destruction and misery they cause and how many lives they ruin, it is always “for the people.” Trouble is they never really let you know which people, because it surely is not for ordinary folks. I suspect the “people” their revolutionary efforts are really for are the socialists and their fat-cat friends–at the expense of all of the rest of us.

So, was Lincoln a leftist and would he have supported leftist causes? Of course he would. If you take the trouble to research him you are forced to conclude this is where he was coming from. His friends and supporters in government had what I have termed a “Yankee/Marxist mindset.” For him and them, the end justified the means. His armies and the early Republican Party were loaded with socialist and communist revolutionaries from the 1848 socialist revolts in Europe who came to this country after those revolts failed over there with the desire to implement their leftist agenda here. Lincoln was supportive.

On January 12, 1848, Lincoln gave a speech in which he said “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right–a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.” Many think Lincoln was referring to something in this country having to do with the Mexican War when he said this. I am not so sure. They forget, or were never taught, that Lincoln gave this speech only a few short weeks before the socialist revolts in Europe commenced. What Lincoln was doing was showing his support for the socialists and communists in Europe for what they were about to undertake. The proof in the pudding came in 1861, when many of these same socialists and communists joined and supported Lincoln to enable him to quash legitimate secession in the South.

Writer Norman Black wrote an article on http://georgiaheritagecouncil.org dealing with the Union Army raid on Athens, Alabama in 1862 in which he noted that “Col. John Basil Turchin encouraged his regiment, the 19th Illinois Volunteer Infantry, along with the 24th Illinois (a regiment of German immigrants) to carry out atrocities against the citizens of Athens, Alabama, and their property. These included stealing non-combatant-civilians property, burning buildings, and rape.” The 24th Illinois regiment were Forty-eighter socialsts from Europe. Turchin was eventually court-martialed over this. And what was Lincoln’s gentle response? Lincoln annulled Turchin’s dishonorable discharge and had him promoted to a brigadier general–sending a signal that atrocities against Southern folks were permissible–indeed, were part of the Union war effort. So much for the “man of the people.”

So, would Lincoln have supported current leftist projects? Naturally he would–he did so in 1861 and thereafter. Actually what you have going on here, with this video at the Lincoln Memorial is the Feds finally getting to the point where they feel they can begin to admit Lincoln’s leftist tendencies to the public, and the “news” media will start gauging public reaction to it.

So the secular deity of America is slowly being revealed, and, as time passes and more of this seeps out, the public will eventually begin to see that Lincoln was, in many ways, the Barack Obama of his day and those that have staunchly defended him as some sort of patriotic conservative may well end up with a bit of egg on their faces.

Us Stupid Parents Don’t Know What’s Best For Our Kids

by Al Benson Jr.

Recently I read an article on http://mrctv.org/blog/ dealing with the public school system’s contention that they really know what’s best for our kids more so than we do.

The article noted the comments of one Debbie Squires, an “education official” for the Michigan Elementary and Middle School Principals Association. Ms. Squires, in her infinite wisdom, has observed that parents “may want what’s best for their child, but they may not know (what’s best for the child.”) The article continued: “During a Michigan House Committee meeting determining parents’ school choice, she claims that educators know better than parents when it comes to children.” Suffice it to say that I beg to differ.

Squires noted that “educators go through education for a reason.” Now there’s a profound statement! Most of us of somewhat normal intelligence have figured that much out. What many may not have figured out, however, is what the reason is. Squires contends that parents or “individual residents” simply lack the real vision of what’s best for the kids from an “education standpoint.” Makes you wonder just what poor, benighted parents did before the public school system burst upon the scene to show them the way, the truth, and whatever.

The implication here is that the school system and the teacher should have the right to tell the parents what’s best for their kids and then have the authority to enforce that ruling, regardless of parental disagreement or not. Squires did not come right out and state that, but knowing the way the minds of educrats work, that is undoubtedly where she was headed.

Unfortunately, most parents with kids in public schools fail to realize the true mindset of the educrats–power and control. This is not a new attitude with those people. It has been there from the beginning. Why else do you think they pushed for compulsory attendance so strongly?

Tammy Drennan, in an article on http://educationconversation.wordpress.com back in October, 2007, told us that “Horace Mann is often called the Father of Public Education. He was a tireless crusader who won the battle of compulsory state schooling in Massachusetts and set it on its path of devastating reproduction.” Drennan informed us that Mann wanted a student that was peaceful, hardworking, and “disinclined to make trouble–one who wouldn’t rock the boat, wouldn’t make trouble for the ruling class”–in other words, a mental zombie–keep your mouth shut, work hard, pay your taxes, exorbitant or not, and don’t dare to question anything any ruling authority tries to enforce on you.

Drennan noted that: “Mr. Mann and his cohorts were a determined lot, and they weren’t afraid to use the power of the state to force their ideas down the throats of the entire country. The people, they believed, were ill-equipped to produce the proper future for themselves or for the United States. Mr. Mann, et al, knew what the future should look like…Citizens would be compliant and would live to serve the state. Instead of freely educated citizens keeping the state in line the state works to keep its subjects in line.” Somehow, I don’t think the men who fought our War for Independence signed on for that agenda, yet we’ve had it for 160 years now and just didn’t realize it. Do you think we may have been dumbed down so we wouldn’t know?

So you can see from the start, those who pushed public education were first concerned with power and control and producing the proper mindset in students to ensure that control was gained and maintained. The parents couldn’t be trusted. They might have an alternative vision both for their kids and the country, and so control had to be removed from them as much as possible and awarded to a public education system that would produce–a mental zombie.

Parents have got to start realizing that this whole scenario is NOT about education, it is about control and the power to force your kids into a mindset you may not want them to have, in the interest of the state–the same mindset that was prevalent in the Soviet Union under Communism. It has been alive and well here in public schools for over 160 years now. Where do you think the Communists got the idea?

Don’t be naive enough to think you will “reform” this situation. That has not happened in 160 years. You need to remove your children from the authoritarian mindset and agenda of the public education system and either find a good private school, preferably a Christian one, or teach the kids at home.

We Have No Grasp of Real History Anymore

by Al Benson Jr.

It should come as no surprise to those who understand the rationale for government or public schooling that the teaching of real American history is not something that has a real high priority. In most cases, what passes for “history” today in public schools is little more than politically correct propaganda that reeks of multiculturalism, diversity, environmentalism and a host of other “isms” that have nothing to do with accurate history and everything to do with making sure students never come close to the real truth.

One of the most critical (if not the most critical) periods in our history is that period embracing the War of Northern Aggression, the real reasons for that War, and the shameful period after that War which was euphemistically labeled as “reconstruction”–a term advocated by Karl Marx when he talked about the “reconstruction of a social world” (the South).

For our young folks to correctly understand and interpret our history, what happened in that time period must be correctly understood by them. If they are not taught to grasp all that happened at that point then none of the rest of it will make any sense and we will end up with the skewed version of “Americanism” and patriotism that exists in our day, even among Christians.

Most public school history books teach fables for history. They teach that the “Civil War” was fought by the North to free the slaves in the South. Seldom, if ever, is it mentioned that up to a few years before the War slavery also existed in the North. Archaeologists have been unearthing evidence of slave-holding plantations in Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey that plainly give the lie to the myth that slavery in this country only existed in the Southern states. Cheryl LaRoche, a historical archaeologist from the University of Maryland noted: “America was a slaveholding country–North and South–Over the years that reality has been lost, stolen, or just strayed from the history books.” Stolen would be more like it–down the memory hole if you will.

Even some historians and journalists don’t seem to know or realize much of this truth today. Author Douglas Harper wrote: “I had written one book on Pennsylvania history and started a second before I learned that William Penn had been a slaveowner.” Why do you suppose that information was not in the “history” books Mr. Harper studied?

Historian Joanne Pope Mellish wrote a perceptive book on race relations in ante-bellum New England, and she recalls how it was possible to read American history textbooks at the high school level and never know there was such a thing as a slave North of the Mason-Dixon Line. Mr. Harper started a web site dealing with slavery in the Northern states, only to notice after awhile that one of the major search engines had, somehow, “lost” all his references to slavery in the Northern states. He contacted them, and soon his comments about Northern slavery were back up–only to disappear again in a few days. That memory hole again–great place for disposing of inconvenient truths.

If our children are only taught that this War was fought over slavery they will have no real grasp of the other, more important issues involved–tariffs, cultural differences between the two regions, even theological differences between the two regions.

They will never be taught to understand the concept of the rights of the individual states within the framework of a confederated Union. Hence they will never learn the limitations that were placed on the federal government. That being the case they will see no problem today when a runaway federal government does whatever it feels like doing, recognizing no restraints whatever. To them such will be normal if they do not know our real history and they will think it has always been like this, when, in fact, it has not.

“History” books today spend almost no time showing how the War of Northern Aggression actually changed the country we live in from a representative republic into a consolidated democracy where Washington runs the whole show. Most people, educated in public schools, don’t know the difference between a republic and a democracy, and neither our history books nor our politicians are about to enlighten them.

Here in Louisiana the last time students learn the history of the War of Northern Aggression is in the 7th grade. Nothing about it in high school at all. Honestly, how much of what you learned in the 7th grade do you remember. I can’t recall anything from 7th grade that has stuck with me. And most kids today can’t even tell you what century the War was fought in. They are not sure whether it came before or after World War 1.

The War of Northern Aggression was our French Revolution, from which we have never recovered–and until our children have been taught to understand that, we never will. If our view of the past is faulty, then our vision for the future will be also–and our children and grandchildren will be forced to live with the results.

Socialists Love Public Schools

by Al Benson Jr.

Ever since Karl Marx advocated “Free education for all children in public schools…” socialists of all stripes have literally tripped all over themselves trying to be first in line to support the institution of public education–government run education. Public schools are government schools. The socialists know this. They just hope it takes you generations to figure it out. By then they will have completely propagandized your children enough that you won’t even recognize them.

To grasp the socialist support for and promotion of public schools all you have to do is read their literature and statements posted on their web sites. The platform of the Socialist Party USA is very explicit. It is posted on http://socialistparty-usa.org and says, in part, “We support public child care starting from infancy, and public education starting at age three…” Public child care from infancy means they support the idea of some federal child care service taking care of your child until he or she is three and then shipping them off to the local government school. Total government involvement in the child’s upbringing from infancy. This program is designed to make sure the government educrats have your child in tow from when he or she is weaned right on through;. And this is supposed to be “good”???

Among other things opposed by socialists is merit pay for teachers. This would guarantee that the mediocre will get as much as the teacher who excels at his or her vocation and would eventually guarantee mediocrity because what teacher will want to take the trouble to excel if their lazy counterpart across the hall will always get just as much as they do for doing little or nothing?

The socialists also support “…vigorous affirmative action programs so that the faculty and student body reflect the community at large in terms of race/ethnicity, gender…We support multicultural, multilingual, experimental education at all levels.” Wonder what they mean by “experimental” education–possibly some of the “gender liberation” psychobabble now going on in public schools under the guise of education?

Another group, the New York Citiy socialists, http://www.nycsocialist.org takes pretty much the same tack. They tell us that “Public education is under unprecedented attack. The powerful people who want to privatize our schools are using many different means: charter schools, mayoral control, high stakes standardizing testing, school closures, merit pay and attacking teacher unions are all part of the assault.” As for charter schools, they are still basically public schools. They may operate on a little higher standard then most and the funding may operate a little differently, but they are still public schools, not private ones. And the socialist are very concerned about who is behind the effort to “privatize” education. These folks dread the concept of private education. It means that the kids enrolled in private schools or taught at home will not be subjected to the subtle brainwashing program that the public school kids are and so they will think differently. That bothers the socialists no end. Everyone has to think the same to satisfy them. Kids who learn to think differently will ask questions, they may question authority, they will want to know why the educational and political systems in this country operate so poorly, etc. These are questions the socialist mindset does not want asked–at any level. And their wish to control education from infancy on will guarantee that the youngsters under their care will never ask the wrong questions.

And the Socialist Labor Party http://slp.org has posted a statement titled “What’s Behind the Attack on Public Education?” These folks also support public schools and they believe the problems with those schools are caused by capitalism. They note the problems with public schools as well as growing parental disillusion with them and feel these problems are being exploited by “reactionary politicians and self-interested promoters who urge people to shun the public schools land opt for ‘home schooling’ or more often their own ‘private schools’ not infrequently ‘religious schools.'” I suppose that makes me a “reactionary.” Over the years I have advocated to many people that they home school their kids and I have not made a thin dime out of it but I suppose I’d still be a “self-interested” promoter because I dared to disagree with their agenda. Religious schools or home schools–horror of horrors–can’t have that kind of thing out there undermining the socialist dogma the public schools present, can we? Might upset the apple cart, or, worse yet, some people might begin to find out what really goes on in public schools and be more than willing to consider other options for their kids–and that would be the kiss of death for the Public School Movement.

Jacob Hornberger, writing on http://www.fff.org has observed of public schools that: “The public school system, like all coercive redistributive programs is founded on the Marxian concept of ‘from each according to his ability to each according to his need.’ The political system is used to plunder the wealth and savings of everyone, even those who don’t have children, to pay for the schooling of other people’s children.” Over the years, I, along with several others, have advocated the idea that only those who use the public schools should be forced to pay property taxes to support them. Maybe that is an idea whose time has come.

Although the socialists attempt to blame the capitalists for the “failure” of public schools, Mr. Hornberger correctly notes that: “The tragic failure of socialism in public schooling is as well known as the failure of socialism all over the world.” While I agree with Mr. Hornberger’s intent here, I have to disagree with his conclusion. Public schooling has not been a failure. It has been a resounding success at doing what it was intended to do from the beginning–indoctrinate instead of educate.

The NEA’s Socialist Worldview–Part Four

by Al Benson Jr.

The real name of the game is anti-Christianity.

Over the years, as I have written articles about the public schools I have taken pains to note that their foundation was Unitarian and socialist and not Christian. In an article on http://www.seekfind.net entitled “Horace Mann, John Dewey, and the NEA” the author tells his readers that Horace Mann was credited with starting government-run education in this country and that he learned his techniques from Prussia. The author stated “His motivation was to end education by Christians. Horace Mann was a Unitarian, did not believe in the inspiration of the Bible, or the Trinity. Horace Mann’s religion was secularism.” This author bears out my contentions, so it isn’t just me.

The author then told us about John Dewey who brought in the idea of “Humanistic education as a religion.” Dewey was the President of the American Humanist Association. He signed the first Humanist Manifesto. According to the author, Dewey “…saw Christianity as a huge problem that needed to be solved. Dewey’s religion was secularism.” The author also noted that “The President of the NEA contends that there is no such thing as a Humanist, yet there is a Humanist Association, a Humanist Manifesto, and Humanist Dogma.” The NEA President was probably trying to practice a little damage control.

The author of an article, “The Influence of the Frankfurt School on Modern Liberal Thought” which can be found at http://www.ukapologetics.net has observed: “Many factors have contributed to the liberal, permissive and anti-Christian philosophical approach which underpins much of modern life in Europe and North America. Some of these influences–without any doubt–go back even beyond the Enlightenment to the Renaissance…But typically–these influences have continued to be refined over many centuries…It may come as a surprise to some to learn that many of the philosophical/social/economic assumptions inherent throughout modern life became focused and refined in Germany within the last hundred years…One such influence…is the so-called Frankfurt School. The Frankfurt School had a huge influence in the 1920s through the 1930s, and even beyond that as its main theorists and philosophers fled Nazism and took their subversive teachings abroad–mainly to the United States.” Interesting that the country of Martin Luther had apostatized to such an extent.

The author continued: “These men believed that there was much good in Marxism and that it could be used to develop an advanced social theory. But, even beyond that, they were committed to developing and formulating an entire theory of life, human history, and social ethics which would eventually need no recourse to European Christian civilisation in any area of life. They were avid admirers of the Marxist principles of equality which they felt would eventually even replace the “Golden Rule” of the Sermon on the Mount, as delivered by Jesus (Matthew 5-7) as the highest and most noble expression of ethics.” So their aim was to be more “noble” than the Lord. Judging by the millions they butchered in the 20th century I don’t think they quite made it. Frederich Nietzsche is mentioned as having had some influence on these people. It was Nietzsche’s goal all the remnants of Christianity from the life of Europe. So you can understand where the Frankfurt School, Dewey, and the NEA were and are coming from.

On http://alettertothetimes.wordpress.com author Cassandra Goldman quoted columnist William Lind, who I have quoted on several occasions. And she noted that Lind said that Cultural Marxism did not begin in the 1960s as many assume, but in 1919, after World War 1. Lind noted that two Marxist theorists, Antonio Gramsci and Georg Lukacs came to this conclusion: “Western culture and the Christian religon had so blinded the working class to its true, Marxist class interest that Communism was impossible in the West until both could be destroyed.” So for Communism to succeed you must get rid of Christianity–or neutralize it to the point where it no longer poses a problem to your agenda.

No matter how you cut the mustard, as you analyze the people all the way from Horace Mann to John Dewey to the Frankfurt School to the National Education Association, you are forced to conclude that these people who have exerted so terribly much influence on education in this country were unapologetically  and energetically  anti-Christian.  Their agenda was, and still is, to eradicate the truth of the Christian faith from the world at large and especially from public schools.  These people hate the Lord Jesus and His Word and all that he stands for–and nowadays these are the people America is paying to educate the majority of our kids–and then we sit back, scratch our heads,  and wonder why we have problems. Folks, we should have figured it all out by now, except that this same crowd has worked at subverting education for generations now, and most of us have probably been subtly influenced by their agenda without even realizing it.  Therefore, if often becomes difficult to see the problem when we have mostly been educated to be part of the problem.

The only thing that will begin to reverse this process is an exodus of Christian people from the public school system and our being willing to learn the history of what has happened and what has been done to us, and making sure our children also learn it.  We need to begin to have a Christian worldview of education, each generation teaching their children of the absolute necessity of a Christian education so they can teach their children.

To begin the re-education process I would recommend some material which will give you a foundation.

Read Karl Priest’s book Protester Voices–the 1974 Textbook Tea Party. Karl gives you an in-depth look at what really happened in Kanawha County, West Virginia in the mid-1970s, when parents suddenly began to realize that the public school agenda there was the subversion of their children. They protested, and what a story it made. Karl’s book can be found on Amazon.com or you can get it directly from Karl by ordering it from him at 141 Karmel Lane, Poca, West Virginia 25159 for $19.05. Having been in West Virginia for part of that protest, I can tell you that Karl tells it like it was and it wasn’t always pretty. You need to read this book.

Also, check out the DVD IndoctriNation which is available from Exodus Mandate. You can find them by doing a Google search. This DVD is an excellent presentation of what goes on in public schools today as well as giving you some of the history of the public school system.  You will never view the public schools the same way after seeing this DVD.

Read Sam Blumenfeld’s two excellent books Is Public Education Necessary? and The NEA–Trojan Horse in American Education. Both should be available on Amazon.com

The NEA’s Socialist Worldview–part three

by Al Benson Jr.

Throughout this and many other articles over the years, I have sought to make the point that public schools do not exist to educate, but rather to indoctrinate and there are many working in those institutions that do not even realize that. I suppose some critics (and I have had them over the years) would say that is an extreme statement. Some of the folks in a church we attended several years ago would probably have kittens if they heard me make such a statement. However, you don’t have to take my word for it. New articles on the Internet and other places bear out what I have contended.

Recently I came across one written by a Beth Stebner that appeared on http://www.dailymail.co.uk
Part of the title of the article was “The vice president of the U.S. is…Bill Clinton!” According to the article “Students in U.S. high schools spend their days studying history, geography and mathematics.” Well, not quite, as the article goes on to show. It seems there was a student reporter that wanted to know just how much basic knowledge his peers in high school had so he interviewed several of them. According to Stebner’s article “Most of his classmates didn’t even know who the vice president of the country was. One student guessed Osama bin Laden, while another proudly stated that it was former president Bill Clinton.” The student interviewer asked fellow students to name the war that won the United States its independence. The article noted that “The majority of students responded with dead air.” They hadn’t a clue! Finally one of them piped up and mentioned the Korean War and another one thought it might be the Civil War. Stebner’s article wound down by stating “According to a recent study, the U.S. places behind 31 countries in math proficiency and behind 16 in reading.” Do you wonder why?

Has anyone ever even thought to ask why high school kids are almost totally ignorant of such basic facts? What are the teachers doing all day? How can a youngster get as far as high school and think the Civil War gave us our freedom when what it actually did was to begin to erode that freedom? The teachers that taught this batch of kids ought to be terminated, except they probably have tenure so you couldn’t get rid of them if you tried. And how reflective are these kids of other highschoolers  across the country? You don’t really want to know, do you?

However, these kids prove my contention that the public schools do not exist to educate. If they truly did, you would not have youngsters that thought we won our independence in the Korean War. This is the dumbed-down generation par excellence! And that is what public school is really all about. So, then, if the public schools don’t exist to educate, what do they exist for? To answer that I will refer to another article that appeared on http://www.sovereignindependent.com where the headline reads “‘Schools need to teach about orgasms’ says NEA to UN” This article is by Lauren Funk.

Funk started off “New York, March 3,…Graphic sex education for youth is the new battleground at the UN, as evidenced by side events during the past week at the Commission on the Status of Women. The theme of this year’s CSW the ‘access and participation of women and girls to education, training, science and technology.'” Sounds nice, warm and fuzzy doesn’t it, until you get to where the rubber meets the road. Seems they had a woman there from the National Education Association, one Diane Schneider. According to Funk’s article “Oral sex, masturbation, and orgasms need to be taught in education.’ Diane Schneider told the audience on a panel on combating homophobia and transphobia. Schneider, representing the National Education Association (NEA), the largest teachers union in the US, advocated more ‘inclusive’ sex education in US schools, with curricula bases on liberal hetero and homosexual expression. She claimed the idea of sex education remains an oxymoron if it is abstinence-based or if students are still able to opt out.” In plain English, she wants your kids to be forced to sit and listen to this swill, whether you want that or not. And, after all, what should your opinion matter anyway? You are only the parents. This is a perfect example of indoctrination. High schools can’t even manage to teach kids what war won America her freedom but they can labor to make sure your kids know all about oral sex.

Schneider eagerly proclaimed that comprehensive sex education is “the only way to combat heterosexism and gender conformity, and we must make these issues part of every middle and high school student’s agenda.” Read that line again. It tells you what they want for your kids in middle and high school in this country. This is what the teachers union is pushing. Notice her inclusion of “gender conformity” in this and refer back to an article on gender neutrality that I wrote for this blog recently. Schneider noted that those who are against homosexuality “are stuck in a binary box that religion and family create.” So it would appear that the NEA’s agenda regarding sexual perversion is to make darn sure all kids are forced through their indoctrination, are taught that homosexuality is normal and that gender conformity should be elastic.

This all fits right in with the aims of the Frankfurt School. Dr. Gerald Atkinson CDR USN (Ret.) wrote something called “What is the Frankfurt School?” And he observed that an attack on the traditional family unit was high on the Frankfurt School’s list of priorities, and the National Education Association seems to be going along with this. The question is–why are American parents willing to put up with it? Could it be that many of them have already succumbed to some form of this indoctrination already and so they don’t see any problem with it?

To be continued.