By Bruce Deitrick Price –

Bill Gates is among the richest, most successful people on the planet. He enjoyed a lot of victories until he ventured into a dangerous part of town called Education.  He squandered a few billion dollars by becoming entangled with a shady character named Common Core.

Since 2010, Gates endured a long, slow defeat, as more people turned against Common Core, and he himself realized that it was not what he had dreamed of.

So how did Bill Gates lose his golden touch?

Gates, computer man and businessman, trusted data neatly arrayed on monitors.  Digital tools could give predictability, consistency, and control.  Add standards that everyone agreed on.  Not only would children learn more efficiently, and be tested and tracked more accurately, but his companies could market educational services by the cubic mile because every school would welcome the same products.  Gates could make a new and separate fortune.

So this digital leviathan abruptly became the law of the land.  Local control of schools, long an American tradition, was euthanized without mercy.  But victory was temporary.  Common Core seemed to have one objectionable feature after another.

Surely, we can stipulate that Gates is too smart to be a useful idiot, too patriotic to be a secret leftist trying to destroy the country.  So why did he align himself with what many consider blatant malpractice?  Was he blinded by predictions of a giant payoff?  Or was it a case of trusting the wrong people?

Perhaps Gates, a college dropout, assumed that the professors at the top of the Education Establishment (many of them at his alma mater, Harvard) were smart guys who knew their business.  However, these were the same people who had been mismanaging American K-12 for a long time — so much so that McKinsey and Company, the super-consultant, summed up the situation in 2007: “The longer American students remain in public schools, the dumber they get.”  This is not a track record that a shrewd person would invest in.

There were warning signs from the start.  Never mind all the blather about a state-led initiative.  Common Core is best understood as a coup d’état, or more exactly a coup d’ecole.  This vast, top-to-bottom takeover of American public education was achieved by the old-fashioned tactic of throwing grants (some would say “bribes”) at the politicians in charge, state by state, even as Obama lent some dignity to the shenanigans.  Obama had just swept into office and was in his honeymoon phase.  Common Core was effectively ObamaEd, and nobody wanted to say no to the first black president.

But Bill Gates should have felt some uneasiness.  Common Core was untested, unproven, and micromanaged by David Coleman, a man with limited credentials but reliably far to the left.  Nobody in the business world launches a big new product without years of research and refinement.  Instead, Common Core was wrapped in $1 billion’s worth of propaganda and dumped on the country as a fait accompli.

The late, great Siegfried Engelmann, a real educator, was asked what he thought of this approach: “A perfect example of technical nonsense.  A sensible organization would rely heavily on data about procedures used to achieve outstanding results; and they would certainly field test the results to assure that the standards resulted in fair, achievable goals.  How many of these things did they do?  None.”

Did Gates realize that Common Core, supposedly a new and higher instruction, incorporates all the dubious ideas from decades prior?  New Math and Reform Math were the basis for Common Core Math.  Similarly, Whole Language and Balanced Literacy were rolled into Common Core’s English Language Arts (jargon for reading).  Constructivism, which prevented teachers from teaching, has been undermining American schools for decades.  Nothing new and higher about these clunkers.

An earlier generation of Gates’s business partners had created so much illiteracy that Rudolf Flesch had to write a book to answer every American’s favorite question: “why can’t Johnny read?”

Did Bill Gates reflect empathically on the proposals in his billion-dollar baby?  Everyone should try to imagine he’s eight years old and has to struggle with Common Core every day.  The verbiage is convoluted and pompous; at every step, there are absurdly unnecessary steps.  Only one way to tie your shoes?  Don’t be silly.  Every student needs to learn at least four or five!  Finally, the kids are encumbered by a backpack full of bricks and not much else.  One has to suspect that this mumbo-jumbo was never intended to improve education, but to stupefy a generation.

There are hundreds of videos made to show how wonderful Common Core is.  Instead, they show the opposite. Here’s a single abominable video that can stand for all the others.  The title is “Strategies for Addition and Subtraction.”  Notice the new layer added there.  Instead of learning to add, children learn strategies for adding — five of them, no less.  Everything will now remain in first gear as children struggle with Regroup or Borrow, Decompose, Cross Number Puzzle, Use or Draw Base Ten Blocks, and Solve Using Money.  Think how many hours you can waste debating which strategy to use in each situation.

We have to wonder if Bill Gates performed due diligence, that being the care that a reasonable person exercises to avoid harm to other persons or property.  In other words, before putting your business funds to work on anything, you should make yourself an expert.  That’s what we need in this country: everybody becomes an expert.  For sure, nobody should trust the official experts.  If Bill Gates had observed that simple rule, he would still have a billion or two he doesn’t have now.  And the country would have tens of millions of better educated students it doesn’t have now.

It’s annoying to study Common Core because, it seems to me, it’s on the same intellectual level as the food fight in Animal House.  Did Gates fly to Hong Kong to buy a new operating system from the local bazaar?  Or did he fly to Russia to buy something sinister from the Pavlov Neuro-Disruption Institute?  Point is, the resulting curriculum is way overpriced and relentlessly dysfunctional — a pig in a poke that you never stop paying for.
The teacher in the video actually admits that you may find this or that strategy “confusing at first.”  But that’s all right, because Common Core recommends frustration and difficulty.  The premise is that students respond to doing things the hard way — exactly the opposite of what’s true.

For years, people have tried to sue school systems when their children don’t learn to read.  It would be helpful if such lawsuits went forward.  Next, parents could sue the system for introducing Common Core, which is arguably a fraud designed to lower academic standards.  If parents can’t succeed with those lawsuits, they can start demanding an IEP (Individual Education Plan) for their children, an IEP that emphatically excludes Common Core.

Trump said he would cancel this preposterous thing, and he should.

Bruce Deitrick Price’s new book is Saving K-12: What happened to our public schools? How do we fix them?  He deconstructs educational theories and methods at Improve-Education.org.

Source: K-12: What Happened to Bill Gates and Common Core?

By Allison Donahue –

Source: A new Michigan education model shows promising signs for students in struggling schools. But can it work long-term? ⋆ Michigan Advance

This blog summarizes five facts about student loans drawn from a public event, “Student loans: A look at the evidence” hosted by the Hutchins Center at Brookings on October 7, 2019.

Americans owe about $1.5 trillion on their student loans–more than they owe on their credit cards. The increase in total student debt, stories of families struggling with six-figure loans, and the response of politicians to anxiety about student debt among young voters have turned student debt into a high-profile issue. To inform that conversation, here are five facts about student loans drawn from an event – Student loans: A look at the evidence – hosted by the Hutchins Center on Fiscal and Monetary Policy at Brookings.

1. Six percent of borrowers owe a third of all the outstanding debt.

A very small fraction of all student loan borrowers have very large loans. Six percent of borrowers owe more than $100,000 in debt, with 2 percent owing more than $200,000. This 6 percent owes one-third of the outstanding $1.5 trillion of debt. At the other extreme, 18 percent of borrowers owe less than $5,000 in student loan debt. They collectively owe 1 percent of the debt outstanding.

2. About one quarter of student loan borrowers, who have about half the debt outstanding, borrowed for graduate school.

Out of all households with student debt, only 26 percent are headed by an individual with a graduate degree. While only a small share of households with student debt have a graduate degree, loans associated with graduate degrees account for 50 percent of the total outstanding student loan debt. In contrast, 42 percent of households with student debt are headed by someone without a bachelor’s degree; they only account for ¼ of the total outstanding debt.

3. Individuals who owe the most are not the individuals who default on debt.

Since parents are likely to have almost completely paid off the debt they are in a great position to complete a parent plus loan for their kids. This will ensure they are approved for enough to attend their schooling and offer lower interest rates than they would get on their own. This will greatly help them to not default on their loan later on, which is highly likely. Borrowers with graduate degrees have the lowest default rates despite accounting for about half of all student debt. Higher default rates are more common for students who went to for-profit institutions. Forty percent of borrowers from for-profit two-year programs default on their loans within five years of entering repayment, and 32 percent of those who went to for-profit four-year programs defaulted in this same time frame. Among students who went to public community colleges, about 25 percent default within five years of entering repayment. Defaults are much less frequent among those who borrowed to go to public or private non-profit four-year schools.

4. Most bachelor’s degree recipients graduate with little to no debt.

Thirty percent of all bachelor’s degree recipients graduate with no debt, and another 23 percent graduate with less than $20,000 in loans. Fewer than 20 percent of all borrowers owed more than $40,000.  Among for-profit schools, nearly half of all borrowers owed more than $40,000, but only 12 percent of those who attended four-year public colleges owed the same amount.

5. Even if financial aid covers the whole tuition bill, many students still borrow to cover living costs.

Many students borrow to not only cover their tuition and fees but also to get cash to finance the cost of living while they are in school. An Urban Institute analysis conducted using the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study finds that student borrowing patterns among those for whom all tuition is covered by scholarships and grants (no net tuition) are similar to those who have to pay tuition. For students at public universities and colleges with no net tuition, 22 percent borrow $30,000 or more; on average, they borrow $24,000. In comparison, 23 percent of those who pay average net tuition of more than $5,000 borrowed $30,000 or more; on average, they borrow $28,000.

Related Content

Source: Five facts about student loans

Online casino gambling is a new way to win huge money. It does not indicate that the traditional slots are not popular. Players enjoy traditional slots due to several reasons. Many players think that these games are quite enjoyable because players can place very small bets and can generate huge returns.

These games such as sbobet are perfect for those players who long for simple games in comparison to complex ones that have many features including animated sequences. Some of the reasons why classic slots are immensely popular include the following:

Accessibility and gameplay

The conventional slot machines have three wheels and have a single pay line that offers five pay lines. Though these slots may not offer cool features to the players, yet they are available at a few casino slots machines including bonus rounds and so, they have managed to become a top choice and a popular choice for many casino players. These machines have attracted many gamers and they are appreciated by many players all across the world.

Minimum bets and high payouts

One of the major reasons for the popularity of classic slots is their accessibility. Video slots carry many pay lines and therefore, many players cannot afford to play on multiple lines. This allows them to play the traditional slot machines. These slot machines may not offer lucrative bonuses but they offer plenty of fun.

Traditional slots provide a greater payout percentage compared to complicated slot machines. This is one of the reasons many players opt to play simple slot games, which can help them win real money minus any hassle.

Physical attraction

Players that play on physical slot machines love their physical dimension. Rolling reels offer them excitement and the beautiful monitors lure the players. The graphics on online slots as well as offline slots are appealing and amazing. The clients are drawn to the slots due to the physical appeals. You can experiment with its tilt arm and the turning methods improve your luck. Moreover, you can control the game. The intermediaries including dealers cannot damage your game. The factors such as physical attraction can make you play them more and more.

Emotional ties

A game that captures your physical, as well as emotional aspects is always enjoyable. If you are tied to a game emotionally, you can get more enjoyment. Due to this reason, many slot players jump and scream after they win. Playing this game is a matter of chance. There are no strategies and thus, people believe in things such as gambling and fate. Many players attribute their winning to some incident in their lives and this gives rise to emotional attachment.

Plenty of varieties

Many people love traditional slot machines because of their variety. Many software development companies specialize in slot machines production. The market has a lot of gaming slots and every machine is unique. Some have classic features while some have a modern look. Clients have a long list and they can make a choice from them.

The other day I asked my colleagues if they had ever heard of John Money. “No,” they replied, “who is he?”

They’re not the only clueless ones. I’ll wager that most millennials don’t know the man who invented the terms “gender identity,” “sexual orientation,” and “gender role.” Unfortunately, the story behind those terms is a dark one that should give us all pause.

As Nature Made Him: The Boy Who was Raised as A Girl, by John Calpatino, tells the story of John Money’s famous patient, David Reimer.

Following Reimer’s failed circumcision, psychologist John Money advised that their biological son be renamed “Brenda” and raised as a girl. Money’s ideas about nature and nurture were novel and offered justification to confused parents looking for help for their son.

As part of the therapy process, Money had David and his twin brother Brian assume sex positions with one another to more firmly encode “Brenda’s” sexual identity. When the twins refused, they were subjected to verbal abuse from Money, a BBC account explains. At times, other colleagues watched as the boys engaged in “sexual exploration.” Pictures were collected, and are presently being held as property of the Kinsey Institute.

Money’s experiment with David’s sexual preferences and sense of gendered self eventually collapsed. Calpatino recounts the schism between environment and biology:

“Virtually every page of As Nature made Him contains an environmental cue or clue that helped force what Brenda’s prenatally virilized brain and system were telling her. Among these environmental cues would include the presence of an identical twin brother who so closely resembled Brenda and yet was, mystifyingly the opposite sex; the scarred and unfinished state of her genitals which contributed to her conviction that something was unusual about her assigned gender; the teasing and ostracization of peers and classmates who jeered at her for her masculinity; the growing realization on the part of Ron and Janet, around the time of Brenda’s seventh birthday, that the experiment was a failure; the trips to John Hopkins, where her genitals and sexual identity were of such interest to Money and his students …”

David eventually decided to have surgery to remove his hormone-induced breasts and resume his masculine identity. At 14, as Colaptino explains, it took enormous courage for David to choose surgery that would fundamentally change his relationship to his friends. Colaptino recounts the peculiarity of David’s,

“[A]wakening sexual attraction to girls; her inchoate but adamant aversion to possessing breasts and a vagina. For how many children, at the exquisitely awkward age of fourteen, will insist, upon threat of suicide, that they undergo a sex change, in plain view of neighbors, family, and friends. This almost incomprehensible act of courage on Brenda’s part speaks more convincingly than any other piece of evidence to the emphatic demands of our biology….”

This story took happy and unhappy turns. David married a woman in 1990, and he adopter her three children. He later committed suicide in 2004. His brother, Brian, was diagnosed with schizophrenia and had killed himself two years before. In 1997, David’s story was published in Rolling Stone magazine, and both siblings made the decision to go public in 2000 with the Canadian Broadcasting Company, “and stop Dr. Money from doing what he’s doing, he’s ruined our lives we can’t let him ruin anymore.”

This tragic story raises many questions. Chief among them: Why do so many of us not know how John Money developed the ideas we’re taught and take for granted in gender studies classes?

Money’s ideas laid the intellectual foundations of transgenderism. But how can we reckon with a set of ideas whose consequences included false assurances to parents, verbal abuse of children, failed transitions, questionable ‘incestual’ experimental procedures, mental health disorders, and suicides? Is it possible that the anxiety we’re seeing in the de-transitioning movement, or the internal disagreements among the transgender community on legitimate transgenderism itself, stem from a bad intellectual foundation built on flawed science?

Perhaps the mental anguish many transitioned people feel, or the lack of success in transitions, are consequences of detaching masculinity and femininity from biology, and tethering them instead to a disembodied idea we call gender.

—

[Image Credit: Flickr-Ted Eytan, CC BY-SA 2.0, David Reimer, Fair Use]

This post John Money, David Reimer, and the Dark Origins of the Transgender Movement was originally published on Intellectual Takeout by George Luke.

By Steve Penfield
The Unz Review

Republican Hoover built the federal broadcasting shield in 1927. Roosevelt fashioned it into a weapon in 1934 and Democrats have never put it down since. One might consider the elaborate FCC speech barriers: A Poll Tax on Public Debate

One of the more enduring myths accepted as reality in our modern society is that America has a relatively free press. The ruling authorities and their entrenched accomplices promote that lie as diligently as they work to ensure that it never again becomes true.

America did have a mostly free and independent press until the rise of broadcasting in the 1920s. Within a few years, a small group of Republicans, progressives and corporate interests successfully nationalized the airwaves with restrictive licensing that blocked competition, rewarded insiders and squelched dissent.

Over the next few decades, the increasingly powerful medium of radio and then television drowned out the previously broad spectrum of information and ideas—with often three or more diverse choices of daily newspapers in many U.S. cities—and turned free speech into carefully rationed federal broadcasting privileges, their anointed urban newspaper monopolies and a few approved magazines.

One of the more ironic parts of this forgotten history is that a Republican, Herbert Hoover, led the initial charge to politicize the press. When the more authoritarian FDR took the reins in 1933—holding onto power until his death in 1945—he would ultimately purge the airwaves as well as the newspaper and magazine stands of the nation’s greatest commentators, publishers, editors and writers. In their absence, only pro-war / pro-welfare state neo-liberals and neo-conservatives would survive in mainstream media for generations to come.

During Roosevelt’s tenure in office, administration officials and prominent associates would wage a scorched-earth campaign against any independent voice of dissent while generously rewarding supporters. Popular radio talk-show hosts Father Charles Coughlin and Boake Carter were dramatically forced off the air. New Republic columnist and author John Flynn was successfully targeted for censorship by FDR himself. Independent newspaper publisher William Randolph Hearst, a lifelong Democrat who initially supported FDR but later soured to New Deal abuses, was vilified and marginalized. Robert “Colonel” McCormick of the Chicago Tribunegot roughed up by Roosevelt’s cronies in a similar fashion.

(Anti-New Deal publishers Hearst and McCormick were so popular with the general public that their newspaper “holdings comprised over 50 percent of the country’s Sunday circulation” according to pro-FDR media historian Betty Houchin Winfield. Once those independent newsmen’s reputations were destroyed, establishment papers in New York and Washington D.C. would come into prominence.)

The Hollywood studios of Walt Disney were occupied by federal troops one day after Pearl Harbor. The editor and lead columnist for the Saturday Evening Post—middle-America’s most admired weekly read—were run off the magazine. Libertarian writer, Albert Jay Nock, was blacklisted. Editor for the liberal Nation magazine, Oswald Garrison Villard, met the same fate. Famous aviator and anti-war spokesman, Charles Lindbergh, found himself viscously condemned by pro-war media for quietly speaking the truth. Popular syndicated columnist at the Baltimore Sun, H.L. Mencken, may have “voluntarily” went into oblivion under hostile conditions that still don’t make sense.

These are just some of the big names that went down with a fight. (All of the boldednames above will receive some overdue exoneration a bit later.) No one will ever know how many other smaller fish were scared off from honest reporting as a result of political pressure.

Today, this would be like President Trump having his underlings run coordinated smear campaigns and putting the Washington Post, Time magazine, and both MSNBC and CNN out of business or replacing their editorial staff with reliable pro-Trump lackies. To complete the parallel, a Trump campaign spokesman in Hollywood would have to direct a movie portraying a major publisher (say, Arthur Sulzberger of the NYT) as a hideous demagogue… all in good sport, of course.

(Mainstream media goes berserk when Trump merely defends himself from personal attacks during hostile press conferences or from wild conspiracy theories. Back in the 1930s, reporters were far more dignified in their principled disagreement with New Deal policies. And President Roosevelt was much more underhanded in dealing with the press than Trump’s frequent social-media salvos—many of which are so obvious as to be written in ALL CAPS.)

Hoover’s Enduring Legacy: A Poll Tax on Public Debate

Republican Herbert Hoover—who served as President from March 1929 to March 1933—is most known for being the unlucky occupant of the Oval Office during the New York City stock market crash of October 1929. (The Governor of New York at this time—Franklin Delano Roosevelt—usually gets left out of that narrative.)

“Wonder Boy” Hoover—as nicknamed by Republican predecessor Calvin Coolidge over his penchant for meddling—took major strides to increase spending, bailout failed banks, micro-manage the economy and “take action” during his single term in office. Unfortunately, his political mischief was not limited to economics.

Hoover’s most enduring and damaging legacy to overall freedom in America—rarely acknowledged in mainstream press—was his nationalizing of all formerly private and well-established common law broadcasting property rights, as documented by economist Thomas Hazlett and others. Hoover himself would later reminisce in his 1952 memoirs:

“One of our troubles in getting legislation [to nationalize the airwaves] was the very success of the voluntary system we had created. Members of the Congressional committees kept saying, ‘it is working well, so why bother?’” (as quoted by B.K. Marcus)

As Secretary of Commerce under Presidents Harding and then Coolidge, Hoover used his position to reward large corporations (that eventually became propaganda monoliths NBC and CBS and subsequent replicas) by severely restricting access to the airwaves, while empowering government to arbitrarily harass any independent voices, which gradually disappeared from mass-media over the next generation. The resulting Radio Act of 1927 created sweeping federal powers to award or deny initial membership privileges (with periodic renewals) to an exclusive broadcasting fraternity based on subjective standards of operating in the “public interest, convenience, and necessity.”

One of the few books available on the topic of federal broadcast rationing is Rebels on the Air: An Alternative History of Radio in America, by Jesse Walker of Reason magazine. Delving into the political atmosphere of the time, Walker notes: Reclaiming the America… Justin Raimondo Best Price: $6.95 Buy New $5.00 (as of 12:15 EDT – Details)

Every year from 1922 to 1925, Hoover hosted a national conference for the radio industry. The legal scholar Jonathan Emord, drawing on the conference records, has sketched a convincing theory of competition-fearing broadcasters [such as RCA-NBC and its parent companies General Electric and Westinghouse] and power-seeking government officials reaching a quid pro quo: “in exchange for regulatory controls on industry structure and programming content, industry leaders would be granted the restrictions on market entry that they wanted.”

Another good read on New Deal media history is Justin Raimondo’s Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement. This book, written in 1993 and updated in 2008, has entire chapters on Garet Garrett of the Saturday Evening Post, columnist and author John Flynn, and publisher Robert McCormick of the Chicago Tribune. These chapters cover about 100 pages and provide excellent insights to the time period. Strangely, the author couldn’t afford a single kind word for popular independent publisher Bill Hearst (barely mentioned) or any acknowledgement at all for radio sensation Charles Coughlin—both targets of FDR suppression.

Robert Murphy’s Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New Deal provides a refreshing history of 1920s to 1940s economic affairs, with lengthy excerpts from other good books on the subject. Unfortunately, the P.I. Guide falls for the myth of a “liberal” media and omits any reference to the landmark Radio Act of 1927 or the Communications Act of 1934.

A 2004 essay by B.K. Marcus published by the Mises Institute gives a concise account of federal broadcasting controls. This work excels on legal theory and general history, but is silent on Roosevelt. A 2017 article in Reason magazine titled “FDR’s War Against the Press” finally sheds some light on this dark chapter of American culture, but leaves most of the victims buried and forgotten. I hope to expand upon all of the above.

Outside of these few offerings (and some obscure books and articles footnoted therein) mainstream media shows virtually no interest in Roosevelt’s harsh treatment of the press, which was calculated and brutal. Wikipedia goes to great contortions to justify Roosevelt’s censoring, as we shall soon see. PBS’s 13-hour infomercial “The Roosevelts – An Intimate History” (available on Netflix) manages to be even worse. When it comes to New Deal narratives, Hollywood and major media offer only glib platitudes on FDR’s efforts for “saving” the nation and providing “relief” for the common man—both of which are highly debatable. (Mr. Murphy’s P.I. Guide and economist Robert Higgs give ample evidence to suggest that Hoover and especially FDR made the Depression worse.)

To date, nothing I can find in mainstream or alternative media does justice to the enormous harm to public welfare caused by FDR’s war on the press, or Hoover’s enduring legacy of federal broadcasting controls. These arbitrary restrictions on the most powerful medium of news publishing amount to a crushing poll tax on public debate—far more debilitating than the despised poll tax on voting had ever been.

The contrast in restricted speech rights and nearly unlimited voting privileges is dramatic. The traditional poll tax required prior to voting in some southern states—banned in federal elections by the 24^th Amendment in 1964 and outlawed in allelections by the Supreme Court in 1966—had only cost a few dollars. Yet poll taxes supposedly created insurmountable obstacles to poor people expressing their inalienable right to vote, which often means voting themselves more welfare. Federal speech restrictions effectively disenfranchise over 99.9% of Americans, rich or poor, from the powerful platforms of radio and TV broadcasting.Nonetheless, modern politicians and approved pundits unanimously support FCC speech rationing to keep out independent voices.

With a second (ostensibly “green”) New Deal in the works and internet freedom under constant threat, a more thorough history of the original New Deal in relation to independent reporting is long overdue.

“I can lead a nation with a microphone” (from Flobots’ song “Handlebars”)

When it comes to Franklin D. Roosevelt and the media, most mainstream accounts show a charming FDR comforting American families gathered round their home radios, in some cases, next to a fireplace. And that’s about as deep as the story goes.

During his three-plus terms in office, Roosevelt staged 30 such “fireside chats.” Some of them, like during the 1933 banking collapse and his 1941-42 maneuvering the U.S. into war, engaged over half the nation listening in to his well-rehearsed speeches.

Conventional accounts—in Wikipedia, the PBS-Roosevelt docudrama, multiple books and dozens of articles I’ve reviewed—never mention that these “chats” were advertising for partisan Democrat purposes. As such, the unilateral Roosevelt speeches were multi-billion-dollar political gifts in today’s currency. There was apparently no opportunity for a GOP response. And the radio press was largely neutered in its ability to put any of Roosevelt’s wild proposals into context.

What precipitated the climate of fear in broadcasting is another topic of embarrassment rarely mentioned in mainstream circles. Thanks to the efforts of Herbert Hoover and some liberal sponsors of corporate media control, the Radio Act of 1927 created the Federal Radio Commission (FRC) and gave it enormous latitude for enforcement. Giant corporations got the broadcasting cartel they longed for. Liberals got a tool for censorship they desired.

FDR’s handywork in the Communications Act of 1934 replaced the FRC with the Federal Communications Commission and gave government regulators even more arbitrary power. And Franklin Roosevelt frequently used these broad powers to his advantage. In the New Dealers’ opinions, criticizing FDR’s frenetic policies was never in the “public interest.”

University of Alabama history professor David Beito’s 2017 article “FDR’s War Against the Press” recounts some of the early fears of U.S. radio broadcasters. While Roosevelt complained bitterly about the “poisonous propaganda” of newspaper columnists:

Roosevelt’s relationship with radio was warmer. The key distinction was that broadcasters operated in an entirely different political context: Thanks to federal rules and administrators, they had to tread much more lightly than newspapers did. At its inception in 1934, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) reduced the license renewal period for stations from three years to only six months.

Mr. Beito explains how federal rules impacted radio broadcasters during the New Deal, at a time before television was commercially available:

It did not take long for broadcasters to get the message. NBC, for example, announced that it was limiting broadcasts “contrary to the policies of the United States government.” CBS Vice President Henry A. Bellows said that “no broadcast would be permitted over the Columbia Broadcasting System that in any way was critical of any policy of the Administration.” He elaborated “that the Columbia system was at the disposal of President Roosevelt and his administration and they would permit no broadcast that did not have his approval.” Local station owners and network executives alike took it for granted, as Editor and Publisher observed, that each station had “to dance to Government tunes because it is under Government license.” Some dissident radio commentators, such as Father Charles Coughlin and Boake Carter, gained wide audiences. But radio as a whole was firmly pro-Roosevelt—and both Coughlin and Carter were eventuallyforced off the air for pushing the envelope too far.

For this essay, I’ll only touch briefly on radio personality Boake Carter before moving on to more household names. Though long forgotten, he was once high on Roosevelt’s hit list.

Boake (pronounced “boke”) Carter was born in England, moved to America in 1921 and began radio commentary in 1930. Wikipedia states:

In 1936, he had more listeners than any other radio commentator. … But by 1937, the Roosevelt White House already had three federal agencies investigating him. In 1938, under pressure from Roosevelt’s allies, he lost his WCAU [Philadelphia] job, was barred from CBS, and lost his General Foods sponsorship that had replaced Philco [Radios]. With his removal, there was no longer any popular radio commentator who opposed Roosevelt’s foreign policy.

The last sentence in bold seems to forget another prominent radio opponent of FDR’s foreign policy—Father Charles Coughlin, who was banished in 1940—but we get the drift. Based on Wikipedia’s hostile description of Boake Carter, one academic article online (that engages in overt victim shaming) and a surviving radio broadcast I could find, Mr. Carter was confident and eloquent, a World War I vet who understood the foolishness of unnecessary conflict, a critic of the New Deal and opponent of union violence. Naturally, radical leftists hated him. Modern historians have no use for him either.

Of all the Roosevelt purge victims, Wikipedia’s treatment of Boake Carter is arguably the least biased. For those on Roosevelt’s enemies list, contemporary historiography gets considerably worse. Yet others in the news media during the New Deal managed to stay in FDR’s favor.

Rewards for Loyal Press Servants

A separate essay could be justified to cover the corresponding rewards that the Roosevelt administration made available to the increasingly dominant throngs of pliant pressmen. Media historian Betty Houchin Winfield’s 1990 book FDR and the News Media scratches the surface on this important topic, but leaves more questions than answers.
The Politically Incorr… Robert Murphy Best Price: $3.89 Buy New $10.53 (as of 06:40 EDT – Details)

Exclusive broadcast licensing rewarded primarily NBC and CBS with a near stranglehold on the airwaves throughout the Great Depression. Roosevelt also managed White House print media correspondents with strict access privileges that meant life or death to a journalist’s career.

While Ms. Winfield—a Missouri state professor and federal grant recipient—allows glimpses of pro-Roosevelt press gullibility, she remains harsh about all critics of the New Deal. For instance, Charles Coughlin was guilty of “demagoguery.” H.L. Mencken was “hostile” and “furious.” The “antagonistic” publishers Robert McCormick and William Randolph Hearst were waging a “frontal attack on those New Deal social and economic changes” out of their own “vested interests.” Professor Winfield provides almost no journalistic evidence in these men’s own words to corroborate her orthodox conclusions. Disagreeing with the New Deal simply means you are a bad person, according to this government scholar and many others in mass media.

Ms. Winfield—would could pass for a “moderate” by MSNBC standards—cites a few powerful but isolated anecdotes on gushing press adoration of Roosevelt’s antics, usually couched in the author’s own admiration for her subject. Franklin Roosevelt was so brash in his manipulation of the press:

Roosevelt would tell the correspondents exactly how to write stories. … “I suppose if I were writing your stories for you, I would say it is the most brutally frank Budget Message ever sent in.” … “In other words, if I were writing the story today I think it would be perfectly all right to say this, without putting in on me…” [about the “obligation” of his federal housing programs] The reporters became so used to his demands that by 1934 they began asking him for his news interpretations. (Winfield page 40, with more quotes like that)

One of many reporters who struggled to maintain his objectivity was Arthur Krock, Washington bureau chief of the New York Times. In Mr. Krock’s own memoirs, he described being questioned by FDR for not attending the jovial White House press performances. In response to Roosevelt’s query, Krock expressed his own difficulty in keeping his “objectivity when I’m close to you and watching you in action. You charm me so much that when I go back to write comment on the proceedings, I can’t keep it in balance.” (Winfield page 65)

Roosevelt would later reward Krock with an exclusive interview where FDR rationalized his failed court-packing plan of 1937. Historian Winfield “outs” Krock for violating press guidelines and allowing Roosevelt’s press secretary to review and edit his sensational “scoop” article published in the New York Times. Mr. Krock would be rewarded with a Pulitzer Prize for this adulterated reporting the following year.

The New Dealers’ arsenal also contained hundreds of federal employees in media relations who produced thousands of one-sided marketing handouts to frame a story to Roosevelt’s advantage, apparently a first in non-wartime American politics. Democrat publicity bureaus’ use of “press releases” to spin stories in Roosevelt’s favor was so great that:

In less than one year, the NRA [industrial cooperation agency] issued 5,200 handouts and the AAA [agricultural office] almost 5,000. … In the 1939 study Government Publicity, James L. McCamy found that during a seven-week period in 1937 the New York Timesprinted 1,281 items which appeared to have been released or influenced by administration publicity offices. (Winfield pages 90-91)

By 1940, newspaper publishers were so eager to gain favor with the powerful New Deal office of communications that 135 papers carried the musings of FDR’s wife, Eleanor, in her daily column. No president before or after Roosevelt has attempted such an overt spousal accommodation via the press.

The potentially larger problem of broadcast jingoism—simplicity and repetition of the New Deal’s favorite buzzwords—can only be assumed at this point based on a few surviving anecdotes and knowing the pattern of modern State media (fond of terms like “family farmers,” “climate change,” “social security” and other expensively misleading slogans). Until comprehensive transcripts of radio and television broadcast news become available, this segment of media history remains largely untold.

Roosevelt’s War on ‘The Colonel’

For our “feature length” members of FDR’s enemies list, a good place to start is in the American heartland. Pretty much from day one of the Roosevelt revolution, New Dealers set their targets on Robert “Colonel” McCormick and his Chicago Tribune.And they never took a break.

From the moment the Prince of Hyde Park, New York declared his candidacy for the highest office in 1932, Chicago’s leading paper had never bought into the Roosevelt charm. Actually, McCormick was familiar with Roosevelt from their time shared at the elite Groton prep school at the turn of the century, according to historian Ralph Raico. And he wasn’t impressed.

Now as an adult, McCormick—a trained lawyer and distinguished World War I veteran—diligently exposed the legal usurpations, agricultural ruin, union excesses and other economic chicanery throughout Roosevelt’s dreadful tenure. And he did it on a daily basis in America’s second biggest city, with the largest circulation among broadsheet newspapers. To get some idea of how seriously Roosevelt took criticism from his old schoolmate, Justin Raimondo’s chapter (page 151) on Colonel McCormick gives insight:

The Tribune featured a cartoon on the front page, and the New Dealers lived in terror of the deft pen strokes of [the paper’s two leading cartoonists]. Frank C. Waldrop, in The Colonel of Chicago, relates the fact that “[i]t was no idle rumor that men who knew their business took care to stay out of harm’s way, if possible, on days that Mr. Roosevelt… and other dignitaries of quick-firing temperament, had been depicted.”

When FDR tried to use his ill-conceived National Recovery Administration (NRA) to seize effective control of the newspaper business during his first term, McCormick spoke out for press freedom during the annual meeting of the American Newspaper Publishers Association held in Manhattan. Based on popular mythology of a “liberal” Roosevelt fighting for American freedoms, one might think that New Dealers would welcome such an event. But that was not the case.

As McCormick lashed out at FDR inside the hall, 250,000 true believers in the [NRA] Blue Eagle paraded down Fifth Avenue, banners flying and in an ugly mood. This was the first indication that Roosevelt and his NRA mobs were getting ready to move against their opponents in the press… That summer in Washington, the NRA staged a propaganda campaign of unprecedented proportions, with marches, rallies, threats of boycott—and worse—for those who failed to cooperate. (Raimondo page 153)

Roosevelt hated the Chicago Tribune to such an extent that he worked with a wealthy supporter, silver-spoon retail heir Marshall Field III, to open a competing newspaper—the Chicago Sun in 1941 to siphon off the Tribune’s readers. But the public paid little attention to this obvious stunt.

Once the insipid “Franklin Son” was up and running, Roosevelt used his Attorney General to interfere with the Tribune’s exclusive franchise with the Associated Press, launching a three-year court battle that ended in 1945 with a victory for the meddling president. (To get some feel for the disposition of Mr. Field, he would later finance and sit on the board of directors for Chicago’s professional community agitator Saul Alinsky.)

From the mid-1930s until the end of the war, the Chicago Tribune endured public burning of its newspapers, angry protests, boycotts, shrill pamphlets, vicious personal smears in the pro-FDR press, IRS harassment and even treats of prosecution for “treason.” The Tribune survived the affair, but was financially and politically damaged.

This was Franklin D. Roosevelt in action. And he had a few more scores to settle.

Citizen Roosevelt Goes after ‘The Chief’

Next up for the Roosevelt treatment was publisher William Randolph Hearst. Mr. Hearst—known as “the Chief” to his many staff writers—was a lifelong Democrat who initially supported FDR in 1932 but increasingly soured to the New Deal around the middle of Roosevelt’s first term.

With any mention of Big Bad Bill Hearst, some overdue words of correction are needed to address the festering myths circulated by his contemporary adversaries as well as their surviving heirs in corporate media. Both groups hold congenital disgust for independent publishing that cannot be squared with reality.

A good read for anyone interested in this great American icon is the 2000 biography The Chief: The Life of William Randolph Hearst by David Nasaw. The book’s author generally favors a state-run economy and supports U.S. involvement in Europe’s War of the 1940s. Other than those standard features to be expected in big league publishing, the 600-page book is exhaustively researched, well written, and provides a fairly balanced treatment of the tensions between Hearst, Roosevelt and the many factions within their orbits.

Throughout his life, Hearst and his impressive chain of newspapers in at least 18 major cities and other media outlets took on powerful businesses and politicians with what often seemed like reckless abandon. His estimated 20 million readersduring his mid-1930s peak loved him for it. The corporate oligarchs and their political serfs despised him. So did rabid New Dealers, as did the many partisan publishers that were either attached to one political party (like Joseph Pulitzer had been) or devoted to power (like the New York Times and Washington Post). And war enthusiasts of both Global Bloodbaths wanted Hearst to be hog-tied and thrown into a barbecue pit.

One example of Hearst’s fearless nature involves his papers’ reporting before and during World War I. The Republican pro-war New York Tribune ran hit pieces in six successive Sunday editions from April to June 1918 denouncing Hearst for his alleged disloyalty, relying on a tally of unpatriotic articles promoted by state and federal officials. According to The Chief’s author, Mr. Nasaw, each of the six anti-Hearst articles in the New York Tribune was preceded by a boxed scorecard:

Since the United States entered the war [in April 1917] the Hearst papers have printed:

74 – attacks on our allies
17 – instances of defense or praise of Germany
63 – pieces of antiwar propaganda
1 – deletion of a Presidential proclamation
Total 155

Hearst was among the few publishers resisting English and French propaganda stories of German atrocities in Belgium before U.S. entry to the war. During America’s intervention, his conservative press opponents went to Washington to work with the U.S. Attorney General in 1918 to put Hearst out of business on charges of “treason.” The bogus claims were eventually dropped for lack of evidence. (The Chief pages 243, 268-270)

Probably the best summation of Hearst’s character comes early in the book based on a private letter from Winston Churchill to his wife after a 1929 meeting with the Chief in Los Angeles. Mr. Churchill viewed Hearst as “simple” but remarked on his “complete indifference to public opinion, a strong liberal and democratic outlook, a 15 million daily circulation [at the time], oriental hospitalities, extreme personal courtesy” and other mostly amenable qualities. What’s surprising is that Churchill—a career war hawk—had every reason to dislike Hearst for his vigorous opposition towards U.S. coming to England’s rescue in WW I.

So what were Hearst’s politics? He was very much for international economic cooperation (including with Soviet Russia and Socialist Germany), but opposed open warfare with either. He was pro-labor when business had all the power and pro-business when federalized unions turned violent in the mid-1930s. Hearst believed strongly in law and order, initially favoring alcohol prohibition (as did FDR) then switching to the “wet” side when organized crime flourished in the late 1920s. He strongly opposed Roosevelt’s National Recovery Act industrial cartels but supported job-killing government make-work “relief” programs until at least 1935 when patronage abuses became rampant. Overall, Hearst was intense in his opinions but usually more practical than ideological.

If you happened to be a Marxist college professor radicalizing your students, a corrupt business tycoon seeking political favor, or a lying government official reneging on campaign promises—and Hearst’s reporters found out, as they often did—your life was going to be unpleasant for quite a while. Which is to say, Hearst made some powerful enemies.

In the case of Hearst’s wisely abandoning the disastrous New Deal, Roosevelt’s ranks of minions and collaborators would never forgive him. A common claim holds that after his endorsed candidate, FDR, took office in 1933 the Hearst newspapers suddenly “moved far to the right.” In this case, that oft-repeated “far right” comment was dropped into Wikipedia’s History of New York City (1898–1945), haphazardly footnoted to the book above. The possibility that Hearst (like many other proponents of individual liberty) was the steady hand and it was actually Roosevelt who had shifted the country far to the left escapes consideration in mainstream circles.

Perhaps the biggest ongoing farce regarding the villainous portrait of William Randolph Hearst is how his aggressive criticism of America’s entry into both World Wars gets brushed aside—totally ignored—with trite exaggerations about the publisher’s youthful exuberance during America’s brief 1898 war against Spain in Cuba. What’s most absurd about that whole affair—usually embellished with the legend of Hearst supposedly saying “I’ll furnish the war”—is the raw chutzpah of those leveling the charges. In most cases, the Latter-Day Peaceniks now wringing their hands over some century-old reporting before a brief war in Cuba are also the zombie-like death merchants who lied us into much bigger and permanently debilitating wars. And the Hearst critics are still proud of their own war-mongering!

Which brings us back to That Man in the White House. Roosevelt had been watching Hearst closely from around 1934 when his National Recovery Administration was broiling the country. In the Fall of 1934, FDR instructed his Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, to have the IRS dig through the tax returns of Hearst and his vast publishing enterprise as a weapon to hold in his back pocket. The author of The Chief says Roosevelt never used this sledge hammer, so I take that to be correct. But Roosevelt didn’t stop with attempted tax extortion.

Throughout 1935, Hearst had been exercising his First Amendment right to criticize the New Deal’s bureaucratic excesses and persistently high unemployment, which infuriated the sensitive aristocrat in the White House. By March 1936:

the president had signaled that it was “open season” on Hearst by ridiculing him, by name, during a press conference. Asked if he had clamped a censorship on his administration, the president, Newsweek reported, “snapped back his answer: Preposterous! The correspondent must have read that in a Hearst paper!” (The Chief page 520)

This crude effort to stir his base to action did not go unnoticed. Democrat Senator Hugo Black, “a zealous and effective New Deal loyalist” was already chairing a commission to go on a hunting expedition through private telegrams of Hearst and anyone else who might impede Roosevelt’s progress. The 2017 Reason article provides a good accounting of the Black Committee tactics:

Over a nearly three-month period at the end of 1935, FCC and Black Committee staffers searched great stacks of telegrams in Western Union’s D.C. office. Operating with virtually no restriction, they read the communications of sundry lobbyists, newspaper publishers, and conservative political activists as well as every member of Congress. Writing to Black, one investigator stated that they had gone through “35,000 to 50,000 per day.” Various newspapers and members of Congress later estimated that staffers had examined some five million telegrams over the course of the investigation.

Of course, this was an unethical and probably illegal invasion of privacy, not to mention an assault on the Constitution. The results of the dragnet were used by New Dealers to openly attack Bill Hearst and other anti-New Deal newspapers. Facing the threat of lawsuit from Hearst and criticism from ACLU and finally some pro-Roosevelt press, the Black Committee disbanded in mid-1936. Team Roosevelt got away with a public relations hand slap. Senator Black would be rewarded by FDR the next year with a Supreme Court appointment. The lengthy Wikipedia page for Hugo Black does not contain a single word of this disgraceful affair or mention Bill Hearst once. Ms. Winfield’s FDR media book entirely omits the Black Committee episode.

For the remainder of Roosevelt’s reign, William Randolph Hearst would be tarred as evil incarnate. And few dared to challenge that assessment. New Deal supporters would organize protests, write pamphlets and books, and even produce the 1941 smear film Citizen Kane to drive home their point. The sole intent of that “classic” movie was to demonize the most prominent surviving publisher who dared to criticize their Leader for Life and his ridiculous economic, social and military schemes.

Scores of partisans in media and academics still pretend that libelous movie—produced by a socialist and prominent FDR campaigner, Orson Welles—was innocent entertainment. The enormous Wikipedia page on Citizen Kane praises the work as “Considered by many… to be the greatest film ever made.” The Wiki writers make no mention of any political affiliation of the producer Welles or any possible motive for him disliking Hearst. At the time of its release, Kane was a cinematic flop despite ample free buzz from media admirers. Everyone knew Welles was a left-wing activist in contempt of Hearst and in support of Roosevelt. One of many books to confirm Welles’s political activism is Orson Welles Interviews, edited by Mark Estrin, which states:

Welles had been active in American political life for some time, speaking at anti-Fascist [sic] rallies as early as 1938 and campaigning intensively for Franklin Roosevelt’s re-election in 1944.

The political viewpoints and motivations of Mr. Welles seem to be much more intriguing than any mainstream journalist (and even The Chief) has been willing to admit. But these views are largely beyond the scope of this essay.

After decades of a hard-charging press baron making many powerful and unhinged enemies, Citizen Kane would be their underhanded way to slap back. Long after Hearst died in 1951, movie “experts” and academic malcontents would suddenly discover how “great” this piece of partisan artwork actually was. People who knew the real background were now retired or dead. And the story of a rotten man of “yellow journalism” made for a nice affirmation for the pliable scribes of modern stenography.

During his prolific life Bill Hearst enraged socialists, big business and war hawks alike during his more than 60-year news career. As a result of doing his job and being surrounded by too many lesser peers in the news business, very little positive material can be found in his defense. This is too bad, since Hearst was a fiercely independent defender of the little guy, even if his economic understanding was a bit rough at times, and his respect for authority was what one might expect from a college punk-rock band.

Between Hearst and Roosevelt, the Chief was usually the bigger man. And he paid a much bigger price.

Read the Whole Article

Source: The Forgotten Media Purges of the Great Depression – LewRockwell

In the UK, the idea of starting your own business appeals to many. Recent surveys have discovered that 70% of us have deliberated the idea and four out of five 16-21-years-olds have the ambition to one day become their own boss. In 2017, there were 5.7 million private sector businesses, which represented a representing a four per cent rise from the year before. However, it’s perhaps surprising to find that 80 per cent of new businesses fold within their first 18 months.

There are so many new businesses starting up, whether people take it on as a side hustle or full-time project. But as a huge number are ultimately failing, we’re here to look at the laws you must follow and how to give your business the best chance of success through advertising.

Firstly, you must register the business

You must firstly register your business at the beginning of its life. Most owners will register as a sole trader, limited company, or partnership. While it may be easier to set up as a sole trader, this deems you responsible for any debt the company may build up and leaves you in charge of certain accounting issues.

However, a limited company allows you and your finances to remain independent from your business assets and liabilities. This too is easy to set up yourself, but many prefer to seek the assistance of a professional figure such as an accountant as there are a lot more reporting and management responsibilities involved.

If you’re starting up a business with someone else, it’s advised you go down the partnership route. This is the simplest way to set up your new business if there are two a more people involved.

A license is important

When setting up a small business, licensing can sometimes be overlooked and not set as a priority. Certain small businesses may not require a licence, but you should always check at the earliest opportunity to avoid fines or being shut down before you’ve really began.

If you plan on selling food, playing music or selling in the street then you need a license to do so. Use this Gov.uk tool to find out which licences your concept may require.

Purchase Insurance

To ensure your business and your self are covered against any unexpected losses, it’s important you take out insurance. It doesn’t matter if you run a large multinational company, a small business, or are self-employed, it’s important to find the right insurance for you. For example, insurance for dog trainers will greatly differ from catering insurance or retail insurance, so be sure to properly research your options.

To protect yourself against any mistakes, legal costs and damage then make sure to take out liability insurance. Certain insurances are required by law, such as employers’ liability insurance. This will cover the cost of any injuries or illnesses any employees may suffer due to work. Elsewhere, if your company will be using vehicles, you must have commercial motor insurance, while some professions must also have professional indemnity insurance that has been provided by their professional bodies or regulators.

Depending on the nature of your business, commercial property and cyber insurance may be beneficial policies to take out, although they are not compulsory. If you are going to be working from home, while it’s not a requirement to have business insurance, you should consider updating your home insurance as you’ll need to have the appropriate commercial property insurance.

Switching from employee to employer

There are several points to consider when hiring staff members. Firstly, how much will you be paying? Remember, it has to be at least the National Minimum wage and you must set up their National Insurance payments. It is worth noting here that you’ll be able to claim an allowance to reduce your bill. You must also make sure that they are actually legally entitled to work in the UK, so don’t just presume — be sure to do thorough checks, including a possible DBS check if needed.

For anyone employed for longer than a month, you will need to write them a legally binding statement of employment, thus have employment insurance. HM Revenue and Customs must also be informed via registering as an employer.

Marketing and advertising

If you want to succeed, it’s important to focus on advertisement and promotion once all the legalities have been ironed out. A solid marketing plan is crucial in order to outline where you want your business to go and how you can progress. It will look at how much advertising will cost. A great cost-effective way for any local start-up to take advantage of is door to door leaflet distribution.

Research suggests that 9 out of 10 people remember receiving door-drop mail. Of this group, almost half confirmed that they keep ahold of these leaflets, making it an effective method of advertising if you utilise it correctly. It’s recommended that you keep your content simple, include your business name and logo, telephone number, email address and the service(s) you are offering.

After ensuring they have been properly written, newspaper advertisements are another cost-effective method of marketing. Make sure you don’t neglect your online presence, either. This is a significant area in advertising at present, and social accounts are a great way to promote your business to your intended audience.

If you’re planning to open a new office space, a pop-up banners are a great way to direct the public’s attention towards your business. These relatively cheap and durable displays can be used outside your workspace and research has found that the majority of a local business’s regular customers live within a five-mile radius of where you are based. This means that each potential customer could see your banner up to 60 times each week.

If you want your brand to be remembered for all the right reasons rather than wrong, you must ensure a realistically achievable plan is created first. By fully researching the above points, you will stand yourself in good stead from the offset.

Sources

https://www.gov.uk/set-up-business

https://www.abi.org.uk/products-and-issues/choosing-the-right-insurance/business-insurance

https://www.gov.uk/employing-staff

https://www.smallbusinesscomputing.com/slideshows/10-inexpensive-ways-to-advertise-your-small-business.html

Tom Watkins, Michigan’s State Superintendent of Schools (2001-05) and State Mental Health Director (1983-90” has been a leader in supporting public education and pushing the envelope on sensible school reforms that lift up our schools, teachers and most importantly our students. EdNews recently caught up with Tom to get his take on the state education today.

Tom, first on behalf of our schools, teachers and students, thanks for your steadfast leadership over the years. You have clearly added value and made a difference in a multitude of organizations you have lead at the local, state and national level. It is such leadership that earned you the 2010 Upton Sinclair Award.

https://www.michiganradio.org/post/michigans-tom-watkins-selected-upton-sinclair-award and so many other accolades. 

Thanks for agreeing to sit for this interview today.

EdNews: You have a strong reputation for being a stalwart when it comes to supporting public education, where does this passion come from? 

It comes from within and a strong belief that quality schools build quality communities. As a first generation college graduate, I understand the foundation on which my successful career and life has been built began with great teachers and schools. 

We need to do more to build up our schools and the great teachers if we wish to restore the glory of our forgotten communities and the strength of this nation. 

EdNews: You have a exceptional communication style and are able to tell the story of the value of public education so well. Tell our readers how the image of the “Statue of Liberty” and public education came together for you.

Thank you. It came literally in the middle of a speech to hundreds of teachers at a union meeting. They had suffered through 8 years of a Governor that every turn tore down our public schools and the exceptional teachers that pour out their hearts to help our kids learn. Teachers were dejected and angry. In the middle of the speech it came to me— our public schools are the true Statue of Liberty of this great nation of ours and our teachers are the torch, lighting the way for us all.

I have been proclaiming since that day: “Our public schools are the true Statue of Liberty in this great country of ours — taking the tired, hungry, poor, kids who speak English as a second language, and children with disabilities to give them hope and opportunity. Our great teachers are the torches lighting the way for us all.”

As Michigan’s state superintendent of schools from 2001 to 2005, I had a simple measuring stick against which ALL decisions made by the Department of Education and state Board of Education were judged: “Show me how this helps our teachers teach and our children learn.”

We need to engage teachers in the process of reform to attract and retain the very best in the classroom.

We need to be doing more to lift up our teachers, students and public education— the foundation on which this nation was built. We need to continually ask: “If the future oof our state/nation inextricably linked to quality of our teachers and schools— why do we continue to disinvest in both”?

https://www.mlive.com/opinion/grand-rapids/2012/12/tom_watkins_future_of_state_na.html

EdNews: You were at the forefront of encouraging schools to teach Chinese—Why? 

You can’t ignore 1.4 billion people, one fifth of all humanity. It is imperative that more and more of our people become educated about all things China. 

What has transpired in China over its 5,000 year history is amazing. The last forty years have been both remarkable and universally acknowledged. There once was a time when what happened in China had minimal impact on our lives. Those days are gone. What now happens in China no longer just stays in China. We not only feel the ripple effects; the tsunami wave of change will continue to wash upon our shores as the 21st century unfolds. How we adapt to and lead the changes that are coming will define our state and nation.

As large and powerful as is China, few in America know much about the country — its history, customs, geography, language, politics or people. This needs to change if American is to lead as the 21st unfolds.

As I lay out in this recent oped in the Detroit News. “Whining  and complaining about China’s rise is neither a strategy nor a plan. 

It should come as no surprise that China wants to rise. As a country, China was the world’s largest economy in 17 out of the past 21 centuries. The anomaly is just the past couple of centuries that they have been surpassed by other western countries economically. Since opening to the world four decades ago, China has been like an economic rocket on steroids. 

We ought to worry less about China’s rise, and focus instead on assuring that it does not come at the cost of America’s demise.

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/2019/09/14/opinion-whining-china-no-plan/2291968001

Michigan’s Chinese Pied Piper: Tom Watkins – CBS Detroit

Michigan’s Chinese Pied Piper: Tom Watkins

EdNews: While others were tinkering at the margins discussing the value of blended and e-learning as a new mode of teaching and learning you wrote a research paper while serving as the Assistant to the President of Wayne State University in Detroit that drew international attention and changed education policy across the nation. Is this report still available and where can our readers find a copy?

You can the report here: The New Education (R)evolution: Exploring E-Learning Reforms for Michigan

The New Education (R)evolution: Exploring E-Learning Reforms for Michigan

Yes, although I wrote this report nearly two decades ago, and I still have people contacting me from around the globe requesting a copy or for me to speak to these issues and there impact on schools today. 

EdNews: You have been recognized as a leader that looks to the future and does not shy away from addressing tough problems. It has been said repeatedly, that you, “speak truth to power.” As Michigan’s State Superintendent you wrote an analysis on the inadequate funding of the schools in your state that pointed out how the legislature and prior governors were underfunding public education— especially when it came to pensions and healthcare for public school employees. This report and what you foreshadowed is playing out in Michigan and across the nation to this day. Can our readers access this report today?

You can read the report I wrote in 2004 for the Michigan State Board is Education here:

Structural Funding Problems Facing Michigan Schools in the 21st Century

https://www.michigan.gov/documents/michiganschoolfunding_110803_7.pdf

Sadly, what I predicted continues to come true. Until we get serious about matching sensible student and teacher driven  reforms with adequate funding we will continue to do a disservice to our students, communities, state and nation. 

EdNews: Speaking of foreshadowing, you helped create the University Public School at Wayne State University back in the mid 90’s – right at the time that Charter Schools we’re breaking on the scene. You wrote an article at the time for Ed Week Magazine that predicted the problems ahead with what you called “entrepreneurial scoundrels” and   “Zealots” that would drown out those student and teacher focused reformers that has prove true once again. Is this foreshadowing article still available?

Yes, you can read it here: So You Want To Start A Charter School? Tom Watkins Sept 1995

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/1995/09/06/01watkin.h15.html

Sadly, what I predicted over a quarter a century ago is still playing out today. We need to get back to focusing on TLC-Teaching, Learning and Children, not power, control, politics and ideology. When we focus on teaching and learning good things happen for our children and our communities.

EdNews: You have been a strong believer that our schools are an integral part of every community across this great nation of ours and as an educational leader you need to be an active member of the community you serve. Can you talk about this belief?

One needs to look no further to the crisis to see the future of our leaders don’t get serious about the educational crisis in Michigan. Our schools are the heart and soul of our communities.  Benton Harbor school crisis is ground zero for a dysfunctional educational funding model and a state government that has been pretending to address the problem going back decades. If you have a hole in your roof, pretending to fix it does not keep the rain out. Our system of funding our schools is fundamentally, structurally unsound and follows economist Herbert Stein’s old adage: “If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.” 

Where you have strong and healthy schools you have strong and healthy communities. We need to partner with Mayors, City Councils, local health and behavioral health organizations, social service agencies, business, police and other first responders and yes, even the faith based community to enhance and improve educational outcomes for our children.

You can read additional thoughts I have expressed on this subject here: 

Advice for the new Michigan superintendent, from a former one 

https://www.bridgemi.com/guest-commentary/opinion-advice-new-michigan-superintendent-former-one

The future of work in Michigan 

https://www.bridgemi.com/guest-commentary/future-work-michigan

Gov Whitmer needs to prepare Michigan for the AI revolution

Tom Watkins: Whitmer needs to prepare Michigan for the AI revolution

Our Muslim Neighbors’ teaches us about humanity

Tom Watkins: ‘Our Muslim Neighbors’ teaches us about humanity

Benton Harbor’s school crisis needs more than a bandage fix 

https://www.bridgemi.com/guest-commentary/opinion-benton-harbors-school-crisis-needs-more-bandage-fix

EdNews: You have a unique and eclectic professional career, cutting across leadership positions in: juvenile justice, elected and appointed politics, government business, media, Pre-K-12, higher education, health and behavioral health. All of these entities intersect with public education today. One area that has historically has not gotten enough attention in our schools is mental health; particularly suicide. What are your thoughts regarding this?

Suicide is godawful. It snuffs out precious life and leaves a wake of agony for those left behind. I know the pain all too well, as both my older and younger brothers took their own lives.

There is even a tinge of shame and stigma associated with admitting this ugly family secret. This stigma, and yes, I have to admit it is there — hurts, as well. We know that stigma is as deadly as suicide. Stigma is a major barrier in getting people the mental health care and support they need. We need to defeat this stigma to help give people a chance at life.

I have spent years working in the behavioral health field, serving as Michigan’s state mental health director and president and CEO of the Detroit Wayne Mental Health Authority. We reached out to schools to help educate students and partner with other community asserts to address  this epidemic impacting far too many of our youth. There is still much work to be done.

Tom Watkins: We must end mental health stigma to stop suicide

EdNews: You have a lifelong interest in China, have traveled and worked extensively to build cultural, economic and educational bridges between our two countries for over 3 decades. Where can our readers learn more about your thinking on the US/China relationship, which you rightfully call the “most important bilateral relationship in the world today”?

This relationship is critical to us all, Going forward, all major world issues will intersect at the corner of Beijing and Washington, D.C. How our leaders address these issues will impact the people of China, America and all of humanity. I just wrote a lengthy piece on the importance of this relationship which can be found here: The People’s Republic of China Turns 70 -Tom Watkins Looks Back

The People’s Republic of China Turns 70

Also, I have written literally hundreds of articles on US/China relations. Some of the articles can be found here: Tom Watkins – CHINA US Focus

https://www.chinausfocus.com/author/84/tom-watkins.html

EdNews: You have been recognized throughout your career as seeing diversity as a strength and have always sought to have a strong a diverse leadership team. You grasped the near-universal understanding that diversity in the workplace is a competitive strength in itself that makes for a healthy flow of ideas and insights that simply isn’t as strong in a homogenous atmosphere where everyone tends to act, look and speak in the same way. What do you attribute this early belief to and why is it important to you?

My dad taught me through his words and deeds that “together we are truly better” and all people have value. I also have 4 sisters who reminded me throughout my life that I was not the smartest person in the room. I believe that surrounding yourself with people with different life experiences helps me make better decisions. I am proud that I have hired and mentored a diverse workforce throughout my career and our diverse teams have been recognized and awarded by Corp Magazine for our efforts to build a rich and diverse workforce. My dad is right— “Together, we are truly better.”

EdNews: This past year you virtually lived in China building educational bridges between our two counties and established American High Schools in China. Tell us about this effort.

Yes, as a young man, even before “Nixon Went to China” I envisioned myself living in China and I had the opportunity to do so after 30 years of extensive travel throughout the country. I have works for decades helping MICHIGAN and other states from K-12, community colleges and universities make connections with educational institutions in China. Last year  the co-founders of Centric Learning and WAY American School asked me to help them penetrate the Chinese market. We were able in short order to sign a contract to partner with the largest and oldest private school in China to offer a innovative project based learning environment that allows Chinese students to study the “American-Way,” with the potential to earn a US high school diploma.

WAY was founded in 2009 by Beth Baker and Glen Taylor two Wayne County educators to provide a personalized learning experience for all students. WAY is a personalized learning experience for all students, offering an innovative approach to education utilizing state of the art technology and project-based learning in alignment with state and national standards. Their mission is to change lives by creating engaging and encouraging educational opportunities for all young people and their vision is to make every young person a hero.

EdNews: Tom, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with our readers. If people wish to contact you for speaking events, consulting or leadership coaching- how do they reach you? 

Thanks EdNews for the opportunity. 

I remain optimistic about the future of our public schools and continue to be excited to work with great teachers, support staff, school board members and other community leaders to help prepare our young people for their future and not our past. 

I can be reached via email: tdwatkins88@gmail.com or Wechat: tdwatkins88 

Tom Watkins, Michigan’s State Superintendent of Schools (2001-05) and State Mental Health Director (1983-90” has been a leader in supporting public education and pushing the envelope on sensible school reforms that lift up our schools, teachers and most importantly our students. EdNews recently caught up with Tom to get his take on the state education today.

Tom, first on behalf of our schools, teachers and students, thanks for your steadfast leadership over the years. You have clearly added value and made a difference in a multitude of organizations you have lead at the local, state and national level. It is such leadership that earned you the 2010 Upton Sinclair Award.

https://www.michiganradio.org/post/michigans-tom-watkins-selected-upton-sinclair-award and so many other accolades. 

Thanks for agreeing to sit for this interview today.

EdNews: You have a strong reputation for being a stalwart when it comes to supporting public education, where does this passion come from? 

It comes from within and a strong belief that quality schools build quality communities. As a first generation college graduate, I understand the foundation on which my successful career and life has been built began with great teachers and schools. 

We need to do more to build up our schools and the great teachers if we wish to restore the glory of our forgotten communities and the strength of this nation. 

EdNews: You have a exceptional communication style and are able to tell the story of the value of public education so well. Tell our readers how the image of the “Statue of Liberty” and public education came together for you.

Thank you. It came literally in the middle of a speech to hundreds of teachers at a union meeting. They had suffered through 8 years of a Governor that every turn tore down our public schools and the exceptional teachers that pour out their hearts to help our kids learn. Teachers were dejected and angry. In the middle of the speech it came to me— our public schools are the true Statue of Liberty of this great nation of ours and our teachers are the torch, lighting the way for us all.

I have been proclaiming since that day: “Our public schools are the true Statue of Liberty in this great country of ours — taking the tired, hungry, poor, kids who speak English as a second language, and children with disabilities to give them hope and opportunity. Our great teachers are the torches lighting the way for us all.”

As Michigan’s state superintendent of schools from 2001 to 2005, I had a simple measuring stick against which ALL decisions made by the Department of Education and state Board of Education were judged: “Show me how this helps our teachers teach and our children learn.”

We need to engage teachers in the process of reform to attract and retain the very best in the classroom.

We need to be doing more to lift up our teachers, students and public education— the foundation on which this nation was built. We need to continually ask: “If the future oof our state/nation inextricably linked to quality of our teachers and schools— why do we continue to disinvest in both”?

https://www.mlive.com/opinion/grand-rapids/2012/12/tom_watkins_future_of_state_na.html

EdNews: You were at the forefront of encouraging schools to teach Chinese—Why? 

You can’t ignore 1.4 billion people, one fifth of all humanity. It is imperative that more and more of our people become educated about all things China. 

What has transpired in China over its 5,000 year history is amazing. The last forty years have been both remarkable and universally acknowledged. There once was a time when what happened in China had minimal impact on our lives. Those days are gone. What now happens in China no longer just stays in China. We not only feel the ripple effects; the tsunami wave of change will continue to wash upon our shores as the 21st century unfolds. How we adapt to and lead the changes that are coming will define our state and nation.

As large and powerful as is China, few in America know much about the country — its history, customs, geography, language, politics or people. This needs to change if American is to lead as the 21st unfolds.

As I lay out in this recent oped in the Detroit News. “Whining  and complaining about China’s rise is neither a strategy nor a plan. 

It should come as no surprise that China wants to rise. As a country, China was the world’s largest economy in 17 out of the past 21 centuries. The anomaly is just the past couple of centuries that they have been surpassed by other western countries economically. Since opening to the world four decades ago, China has been like an economic rocket on steroids. 

We ought to worry less about China’s rise, and focus instead on assuring that it does not come at the cost of America’s demise.

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/2019/09/14/opinion-whining-china-no-plan/2291968001

Michigan’s Chinese Pied Piper: Tom Watkins – CBS Detroit

Michigan’s Chinese Pied Piper: Tom Watkins

EdNews: While others were tinkering at the margins discussing the value of blended and e-learning as a new mode of teaching and learning you wrote a research paper while serving as the Assistant to the President of Wayne State University in Detroit that drew international attention and changed education policy across the nation. Is this report still available and where can our readers find a copy?

Yes, although I wrote this report nearly two decades ago, and I still have people contacting me from around the globe requesting a copy or for me to speak to these issues and there impact on schools today. 

EdNews: You have been recognized as a leader that looks to the future and does not shy away from addressing tough problems. It has been said repeatedly, that you, “speak truth to power.” As Michigan’s State Superintendent you wrote an analysis on the inadequate funding of the schools in your state that pointed out how the legislature and prior governors were underfunding public education— especially when it came to pensions and healthcare for public school employees. This report and what you foreshadowed is playing out in Michigan and across the nation to this day. Can our readers access this report today?

You can read the report I wrote in 2004 for the Michigan State Board is Education here:

Structural Funding Problems Facing Michigan Schools in the 21st Century

https://www.michigan.gov/documents/michiganschoolfunding_110803_7.pdf

Sadly, what I predicted continues to come true. Until we get serious about matching sensible student and teacher driven  reforms with adequate funding we will continue to do a disservice to our students, communities, state and nation. 

EdNews: Speaking of foreshadowing, you helped create the University Public School at Wayne State University back in the mid 90’s – right at the time that Charter Schools we’re breaking on the scene. You wrote an article at the time for Ed Week Magazine that predicted the problems ahead with what you called “entrepreneurial scoundrels” and   “Zealots” that would drown out those student and teacher focused reformers that has prove true once again. Is this foreshadowing article still available?

Yes, you can read it here: So You Want To Start A Charter School? Tom Watkins Sept 1995

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/1995/09/06/01watkin.h15.html

Sadly, what I predicted over a quarter a century ago is still playing out today. We need to get back to focusing on TLC-Teaching, Learning and Children, not power, control, politics and ideology. When we focus on teaching and learning good things happen for our children and our communities.

EdNews: You have been a strong believer that our schools are an integral part of every community across this great nation of ours and as an educational leader you need to be an active member of the community you serve. Can you talk about this belief?

One needs to look no further to the crisis to see the future of our leaders don’t get serious about the educational crisis in Michigan. Our schools are the heart and soul of our communities.  Benton Harbor school crisis is ground zero for a dysfunctional educational funding model and a state government that has been pretending to address the problem going back decades. If you have a hole in your roof, pretending to fix it does not keep the rain out. Our system of funding our schools is fundamentally, structurally unsound and follows economist Herbert Stein’s old adage: “If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.” 

Where you have strong and healthy schools you have strong and healthy communities. We need to partner with Mayors, City Councils, local health and behavioral health organizations, social service agencies, business, police and other first responders and yes, even the faith based community to enhance and improve educational outcomes for our children.

You can read additional thoughts I have expressed on this subject here: 

Advice for the new Michigan superintendent, from a former one 

https://www.bridgemi.com/guest-commentary/opinion-advice-new-michigan-superintendent-former-one

The future of work in Michigan 

https://www.bridgemi.com/guest-commentary/future-work-michigan

Gov Whitmer needs to prepare Michigan for the AI revolution

Tom Watkins: Whitmer needs to prepare Michigan for the AI revolution

Our Muslim Neighbors’ teaches us about humanity

Tom Watkins: ‘Our Muslim Neighbors’ teaches us about humanity

Benton Harbor’s school crisis needs more than a bandage fix 

https://www.bridgemi.com/guest-commentary/opinion-benton-harbors-school-crisis-needs-more-bandage-fix

EdNews: You have a unique and eclectic professional career, cutting across leadership positions in: juvenile justice, elected and appointed politics, government business, media, Pre-K-12, higher education, health and behavioral health. All of these entities intersect with public education today. One area that has historically has not gotten enough attention in our schools is mental health; particularly suicide. What are your thoughts regarding this?

Suicide is godawful. It snuffs out precious life and leaves a wake of agony for those left behind. I know the pain all too well, as both my older and younger brothers took their own lives.

There is even a tinge of shame and stigma associated with admitting this ugly family secret. This stigma, and yes, I have to admit it is there — hurts, as well. We know that stigma is as deadly as suicide. Stigma is a major barrier in getting people the mental health care and support they need. We need to defeat this stigma to help give people a chance at life.

I have spent years working in the behavioral health field, serving as Michigan’s state mental health director and president and CEO of the Detroit Wayne Mental Health Authority. We reached out to schools to help educate students and partner with other community asserts to address  this epidemic impacting far too many of our youth. There is still much work to be done.

Tom Watkins: We must end mental health stigma to stop suicide

EdNews: You have a lifelong interest in China, have traveled and worked extensively to build cultural, economic and educational bridges between our two countries for over 3 decades. Where can our readers learn more about your thinking on the US/China relationship, which you rightfully call the “most important bilateral relationship in the world today”?

This relationship is critical to us all, Going forward, all major world issues will intersect at the corner of Beijing and Washington, D.C. How our leaders address these issues will impact the people of China, America and all of humanity. I just wrote a lengthy piece on the importance of this relationship which can be found here: The People’s Republic of China Turns 70 -Tom Watkins Looks Back

Also, I have written literally hundreds of articles on US/China relations. Some of the articles can be found here: Tom Watkins – CHINA US Focus

https://www.chinausfocus.com/author/84/tom-watkins.html

EdNews: You have been recognized throughout your career as seeing diversity as a strength and have always sought to have a strong a diverse leadership team. You grasped the near-universal understanding that diversity in the workplace is a competitive strength in itself that makes for a healthy flow of ideas and insights that simply isn’t as strong in a homogenous atmosphere where everyone tends to act, look and speak in the same way. What do you attribute this early belief to and why is it important to you?

My dad taught me through his words and deeds that “together we are truly better” and all people have value. I also have 4 sisters who reminded me throughout my life that I was not the smartest person in the room. I believe that surrounding yourself with people with different life experiences helps me make better decisions. I am proud that I have hired and mentored a diverse workforce throughout my career and our diverse teams have been recognized and awarded by Corp Magazine for our efforts to build a rich and diverse workforce. My dad is right— “Together, we are truly better.”

EdNews: This past year you virtually lived in China building educational bridges between our two counties and established American High Schools in China. Tell us about this effort.

Yes, as a young man, even before “Nixon Went to China” I envisioned myself living in China and I had the opportunity to do so after 30 years of extensive travel throughout the country. I have works for decades helping MICHIGAN and other states from K-12, community colleges and universities make connections with educational institutions in China. Last year  the co-founders of Centric Learning and WAY American School asked me to help them penetrate the Chinese market. We were able in short order to sign a contract to partner with the largest and oldest private school in China to offer a innovative project based learning environment that allows Chinese students to study the “American-Way,” with the potential to earn a US high school diploma.

WAY was founded in 2009 by Beth Baker and Glen Taylor two Wayne County educators to provide a personalized learning experience for all students. WAY is a personalized learning experience for all students, offering an innovative approach to education utilizing state of the art technology and project-based learning in alignment with state and national standards. Their mission is to change lives by creating engaging and encouraging educational opportunities for all young people and their vision is to make every young person a hero.

EdNews: Tom, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with our readers. If people wish to contact you for speaking events, consulting or leadership coaching- how do they reach you? 

Thanks EdNews for the opportunity. 

I remain optimistic about the future of our public schools and continue to be excited to work with great teachers, support staff, school board members and other community leaders to help prepare our young people for their future and not our past. 

I can be reached via email: tdwatkins88@gmail.com or Wechat: tdwatkins88 

Oozing with obnoxious superiority and arrogance, Schiff insidiously deceived viewers to assume he was reciting Trump’s actual words from the phone call. Schiff was lying. Not a single word of what Schiff told the American people that Trump said was in the transcript.

Lloyd Marcus –

At the hospital for my annual physical exam, Adam Schiff was on TV in the waiting room. Schiff presented himself as alerting the American people to the “mafia boss” outrageous impeachable demands Trump made during his phone call with the president of Ukraine. Oozing with obnoxious superiority and arrogance, Schiff insidiously deceived viewers to assume he was reciting Trump’s actual words from the phone call. Schiff was lying. Not a single word of what Schiff told the American people that Trump said was in the transcript.

Proving his innocence, Trump released the transcript of the phone call. And yet, fake news media is elated that Democrats are outrageously moving forward with impeaching Trump based solely on Schiff’s lies about what Trump said. It was beyond infuriating watching Schiff boldly smear the president, carried live on all 3 major networks and cable outlets. Consequently, soccer moms and dads who are busy earning a living will erroneously conclude Trump did something wrong.

I wholeheartedly support Trump saying Schiff should be forced to resign. It is high time that we punish Schiff and his fellow traitorous scumbags. Why aren’t Republicans helping Trump fight the deep-state’s relentless silent coup to reverse the 2016 presidential election?

Trump is the head and we are the body of his unprecedented restore America’s greatness movement. Progressives believe if they can cut on off the head (Trump), they will render us powerless, fearfully scattering and running to the tall grass for cover. Impeaching Trump would be a major victory in progressives’ quest to criminalize and purge conservative thinking from America.

Disturbingly, progressives have concluded that they simply will not tolerate Christianity, patriotism or push-back against their transformation of America. Progressives’ behavior tells us that if it takes violence to purge conservatives from America, so be it.

A 60 something year old friend said a large young man ripped his red MAGA cap from his head at the beach. The deranged bully ripped up the cap and said he was taking it home to burn it. My friend said he replaced his MAGA cap with a variety of Trump caps which read “Trump 2020”, “Keep America Great”, “MAGA” and so on. Undeterred, he wears his Trump caps everywhere.

Progressives demand that we ignore thousands of years of wisdom, commonsense and scientific truths to surrender to their perverted definitions of male and female, while redefining right and wrong.

For example: I caught a glimpse of Bruce Jenner on TV dressed as a woman. I felt sorry for the guy. Clearly, he has mental issues. And yet, anyone daring to state this obvious truth risks totally financial and social destruction. Using public shaming and tyrannical new laws, progressives are purging speaking truth; bullying us into embracing biological lies and mental illness. We must refuse to allow them to do this to us.

Everywhere you turn, progressives are aggressively demanding the purge of truth and reality. A commercial for “House Hunters” on HGTV featured a lesbian couple. Recent stats say over decades, Americans who identify at LGBT has grown to 5%. If HGTV’s goal was to truly reflect statistical diversity, it would have been more honest to feature a dwarf couple. Because progressives have strategically and relentlessly lied about the percentage of the population that is homosexual, many millennials absurdly believe at least 23% of the population is homosexual.

Google, Facebook, Twitter, entertainment media, major corporations, public education, fake news media and the Democratic party have partnered to purge conservatism from America.

The purge of conservatism has infected families. I cannot stomach watching children in TV sitcoms and movies treating their parents like peers without authority; children speaking disrespectfully to parents. Fathers are routinely portrayed as idiots. This is a stealth tactic of progressives to instill their lie that government and progressive school teachers are superior providers of guidance rather than parents.

Progressive educators have usurped your God-ordained parental authority to raise your children. “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it.” (Proverbs 22:6)

Every attack on Trump is really an attack on us, the American people. This is why it is crucially important that we stand firm in our support of Trump against progressives’ no-holds-barred lie-filled campaign to impeach him.

Awhile ago, I wrote an article noting that Trump is only human. I questioned how much of the American left and deep state pounding away at his character 24/7 can one man take? I called upon Christians to please keep our president in their prayers and affirming their support of his America-first agenda. Rush Limbaugh recently expressed a similar concern. Rush said he believes progressives hope to make Trump physically ill. We must not allow that to happen folks.

My fellow Americans, president Trump needs your prayers and support more than ever. Please let Trump know that We the People remain rock-solidly entrenched in his corner. I would love to see y’all at the March for Trump rally October 17^th. We will not be purged from our country.

Source: The Purge of Conservatism from America – News With Views