Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Why Do Our Schools Teach Socialism?

31 views
Skip to first unread message

Sound of Trumpet

unread,
Jun 27, 2010, 4:55:30 AM6/27/10
to

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=286489


Why do Our Schools Teach Socialism? Why did Obama win?


Why Our Schools Teach Socialism

By Joe Larson

Marxism and Humanism are the predominant philosophies of America's
education establishment, yet every day we send the public

schools our most precious gift, our children, to be "educated."

Our schools are filled with sex education, political correctness,
environmental extremism, global unity, diversity training

(pro-gay indoctrination), and "higher-order thinking skills" boldly
claiming that, in order to become a higher order thinker,

one must first believe absolutely that there are no absolutes!

Our schools are filled with violence, murder, extortion, rape,
unwanted pregnancy, drug use, disrespect, and foul language.

Test scores have been declining for decades as the numbers of children
who cannot read continue to increase.

While the pontificators wonder why this is so, many parents and
citizens have figured it out. Although earth worship,

paganism and the occult flourish in public schools, the Greatest Story
Ever Told, based on the greatest book ever written,

the Holy Bible, which tells of the greatest teacher who ever lived,
Jesus Christ, is not used or even allowed. The Bible was

America's first textbook, but today it is referred to as a collection
of fables.

America's educational system began to decline with the introduction of
socialism, given impetus by the increasing involvement

of the federal government. Lenin said: "Communism is socialism in a
hurry." Socialism, therefore, is Communism by gradualism

rather than by revolution. The socialist "Fabian Society," forerunner
of most socialist groups in America, had as its motto

"Make Haste Slowly."

"Democratic socialism" became the battle cry for socializing the
United States. The goal was to "permeate and penetrate,"

then control from within. The socialists' first target was education,
and they attacked with deceitful language. There were

no badges or socialist labels; followers described themselves as
"liberal," "progressive," and even "moderate." Words were

the weapon of choice in this new war. By changing the meanings of
words, socialists concealed their true purpose.

This massive social engineering was carried out under the banners of
"reform" and "social justice." These innovations are in

the public interest, Americans were told. They promote true democracy,
humanitarianism, and, of course are "for the

children." The buzzwords of socialism were and still are "social" and
"democracy" (i.e. social science, social studies and

socialization of the child).

In the early 1900s, unrest in Europe brought thousands of socialists
to America. Many held degrees in psychology, sociology

and psychiatry (the behavioral sciences) and a number of them became
university professors.

Norman Thomas, a socialist and member of the American Civil Liberties
Union, boldly told the world: "The American people will

never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism,
they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program

until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing
how it happened."

John Dewey, known as "the father of modern education," was an avowed
socialist and the co-author of the "Humanist Manifesto."

The U.S. House Committee on Un-American Activities discovered that he
belonged to 15 Marxist front organizations. Dewey

taught the professors who trained America's teachers. Obsessed with
"the group," he said, "You can't make socialists out of

individualists. Children who know how to think for themselves spoil
the harmony of the collective society, which is coming,

where everyone is interdependent."

Author Rosalie Gordon, writing about Dewey's progressive (socialist)
education in her book What's Happened To Our Schools,

said: "The progressive system has reached all the way down to the
lowest grades to prepare the children of America for their

role as the collectivists of the future. The group - not the
individual child - is the quintessence of progressivism. The

child must always be made to feel part of the group. He must indulge
in group thinking and group activity."

After visiting the Soviet Union, Dewey wrote six articles on the
"wonders" of Soviet education. The School-To-Work program,

now in our public schools in all 50 states, is modeled after the
Soviet poly-technical system.

In 1936, the National Education Association stated the position from
which it has never wavered: "We stand for socializing

the individual." The NEA, in its Policy For American Education,
opined: "The major problem of education in our times arises

out of the fact that we live in a period of fundamental social change.
In the new democracy [what happened to our republic?],

education must share in the responsibility of giving purpose and
direction to social change. The major function of the school

is the social orientation of the individual . . . Education must
operate according to a well-formulated social policy."

NEA specialist Paul Haubner, tells us, "The schools cannot allow
parents to influence the kind of values-education their

children receive in school; . that is what is wrong with those who say
there is a universal system of values. Our goals are

incompatible with theirs. We must change their values."

Chester M. Pierce, M.D., Professor of Education and Psychiatry at
Harvard, had this to say: "Every child in America entering

school at the age of five is mentally ill because he comes to school
with certain allegiances to our Founding Fathers, toward

our elected officials, toward his parents, toward a belief in a
supernatural being, and toward the sovereignty of this nation

as a separate entity. It's up to you as teachers to make all these
sick children well - by creating the international child

of the future."

Some politicians agree. Former Nebraska state senator Peter Hoagland
said: "Fundamentalist parents have no right to

indoctrinate their children in their beliefs. We are preparing their
children for the year 2000 and life in a global

one-world society and those children will not fit in."

In the Humanist Magazine, Jan./Feb 1983, John Dunphy wrote: "The
battle for mankind's future must be waged and won in the

public school classroom . The classroom must and will become the arena
of conflict between the old and the new . the rotting

corpse of Christianity and the new faith of humanism."

Bureaucrats, politicians and educators regularly appear on television
blaming either parents or lack of funds for the failure

of our schools. Their prescription is always the same: more money and
more government control. For well over 50 years,

American voters have fallen for these fallacies. Victor Gollancz, a
famous socialist publisher, explained why he believed

that socialism would take over America: "Christians are not exactly
bright, so it will be easy for socialism to lead them

down the garden path through their ideals of brotherly love and
'social justice.'"

It's time for Christians to stand up for their families and their
faith and put God in charge of this nation and its schools.

Restoring America is that simple.

Syd M.

unread,
Jun 27, 2010, 5:07:34 AM6/27/10
to
On Jun 27, 4:55 am, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@dcemail.com>
wrote:


Why do you (And the original writer) have to lie so much?

PDW

Greg Goss

unread,
Jun 27, 2010, 5:19:39 AM6/27/10
to
"Syd M." <pdwri...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Why do you (And the original writer) have to lie so much?

Why do you have to quote 195 lines of trash to add one line of
commentary?

Why not just ask him why schools in "red states" are so much worse for
drug use and teen sexuality than those in the godless socialist
states?
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27

Dakota

unread,
Jun 27, 2010, 5:33:40 AM6/27/10
to
On Sun 6-27 3:55, Sound of Trumpet wrote:
>
> http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=286489
>
<snip nonsense>

The Catholic church must be going broke from paying off the families of
abused children to be posting such nonsense on their site. They're
clearly shopping for unconstitutional voucher support once again.


W.T.S.

unread,
Jun 27, 2010, 9:19:14 AM6/27/10
to
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundof...@dcemail.com> wrote in message
news:947ab4b3-c6ec-4fc4...@s9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> http://forums.catholic.degenerate.com/
>
If it says "Catholic", it's lying degeneracy.

>
> Why do Our Schools Teach Socialism? Why did Obama win?
>
One, they don't.
Two, because Obama was the better candidate, and the Republican party
totally fucked up the nation over the last five years.

>
> Why Our Schools Teach Socialism
>
> By Joe Larson
>
<snip> Long spew of lying, Catholic bull shit, no need to repost, snipped in
the interest of decency. </snip>

> It's time for Christians to stand up for their families and their
> faith and put God in charge of this nation and its schools.
>

Translation: We Catholic perverts and rapists demand you let us tell you
how to think and act, we demand you turn your schools and children over to a
bunch of sick priests and nuns, we demand a theocracy, just like in the
middle east! If you don't give in to our sick demands, our non-existent
"God" will punish you!


>
> Restoring America is that simple.
>

No, it's not that simple. To restore America requires that the RCC be run
out of America, and told never to return!
Church, filth. Atheism, purity!
----------------------------------------
http://folding.stanford.edu
Save lives, visit today!


raven1

unread,
Jun 27, 2010, 10:19:06 AM6/27/10
to
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 01:55:30 -0700 (PDT), Sound of Trumpet
<soundof...@dcemail.com> wrote:

>Why do Our Schools Teach Socialism?

Why is the sky yellow?

>Why did Obama win?

Because the Republican ticket was unelectable?

Chris

unread,
Jun 27, 2010, 11:39:37 AM6/27/10
to
On Jun 27, 4:55 am, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@dcemail.com>
wrote:
> http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=286489
>
> Why do Our Schools Teach Socialism? Why did Obama win?
>
> Why Our Schools Teach Socialism
>
> By Joe Larson
>
> Marxism and Humanism are the predominant philosophies of America's

Marxism? You blathering idiot. There aren't many Marxists around any
more, and damned few of them are in the US.

> education establishment, yet every day we send the public
>
> schools our most precious gift, our children, to be "educated."
>
> Our schools are filled with sex education,

Places that have comprehensive sexuality education have the lowest
teen pregnancy rates, and the lowest abortion rates. I take it you
support both teen pregnancy and abortion.

> political correctness,

Yes. It's called simple manners.

> environmental extremism,

Oh yeah. Drill baby drill! Ask the shrimpers in the Gulf how they feel
about "environmental extremism" now, asswipe.

> global unity, diversity training

As opposed to unprovoked war. Idiot.
>
> (pro-gay indoctrination),

"anti-discrimination" is not the same as "pro-gay". Gay men and
lesbians happen to be citizens of this country, and are entitled to a
life free from fear and harassment. If you want to keep marginalizing
segments of the population, be prepared to be marginalized yourself.


> and "higher-order thinking skills" boldly
> claiming that, in order to become a higher order thinker,
>
> one must first believe absolutely that there are no absolutes!

Here's one absolute: you are an evil, racist, theocratic tyrant-
wannabe, and before you take over my country and turn it into an evil,
racist, bigoted theocracy, there's a lot of people who will fight you
to the end. Including me.

Chris
snip rest of evil, theocratic, racist, bigoted lies.

Ray Fischer

unread,
Jun 27, 2010, 1:23:07 PM6/27/10
to
Sound of Trumpet <soundof...@dcemail.com> wrote:
>http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=286489
>Why do Our Schools Teach Socialism?

1) They don't.
2) Generosity is taught by Christianity

> Why did Obama win?

Sanity.

--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net

Quadibloc

unread,
Jun 27, 2010, 1:26:50 PM6/27/10
to
On Jun 27, 11:23 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> Sound of Trumpet  <soundoftrum...@dcemail.com> wrote:

> > Why did Obama win?
>
> Sanity.

Given that the stock market crashed right before the election, and
McCain did his best to do a Herbert Hoover imitation, I agree with you
there.

However, I fear he is only going to be president for one term. Unless
the Republicans do something really stupid, like running Mike Huckabee
or Sarah Palin as their candidate.

But then, the ancient prophecies have foretold that 2012 is the year
in which Nehemiah Scudder shall become President.

John Savard

Apostate

unread,
Jun 27, 2010, 3:01:38 PM6/27/10
to

Huckabee could only possibly be drafted as VP nominee, but Palin could have 'legs'
(any apparent reference to her history as a beauty contestant is purely incidental,
and only intended after-the-fact) in Repug primaries.

--
Apostate alt.atheist #1931 I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer
EAC Deputy Director in Charge of Being Paid,
Department of Redundancy Department

"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure
and the intelligent are full of doubt." -- Bertrand Russell

"Mr. Worf, set phasers on "Fuck You" and fire at will."
. -- Doc Smartass

Syd M.

unread,
Jun 27, 2010, 3:42:54 PM6/27/10
to
On Jun 27, 5:19 am, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

> "Syd M." <pdwrigh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Why do you (And the original writer) have to lie so much?
>
> Why do you have to quote 195 lines of trash to add one line of
> commentary?
>
> Why not just ask him why schools in "red states" are so much worse for
> drug use and teen sexuality than those in the godless socialist
> states?

Well, for one thing, Sound Of Failure will just ignore it for another
ignorant rant.

PDW

Ray Fischer

unread,
Jun 27, 2010, 4:59:15 PM6/27/10
to
Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

>> > Why did Obama win?
>>
>> Sanity.
>
>Given that the stock market crashed right before the election, and
>McCain did his best to do a Herbert Hoover imitation, I agree with you
>there.
>
>However, I fear he is only going to be president for one term. Unless
>the Republicans do something really stupid, like running Mike Huckabee
>or Sarah Palin as their candidate.

Which is not at all unlikely given the rabid lunacy that has taken
over the party.

--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net

default

unread,
Jun 27, 2010, 5:58:15 PM6/27/10
to
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 01:55:30 -0700 (PDT), Sound of Trumpet
<soundof...@dcemail.com> wrote:

>Why Our Schools Teach Socialism

Because Christ was a communist hippy?

This is the morally bankrupt Catholics, preaching their brand of
"right thinking."
--

raven1

unread,
Jun 27, 2010, 6:14:17 PM6/27/10
to
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 10:26:50 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Jun 27, 11:23 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> Sound of Trumpet  <soundoftrum...@dcemail.com> wrote:
>
>> > Why did Obama win?
>>
>> Sanity.
>
>Given that the stock market crashed right before the election, and
>McCain did his best to do a Herbert Hoover imitation, I agree with you
>there.
>
>However, I fear he is only going to be president for one term. Unless
>the Republicans do something really stupid, like running Mike Huckabee
>or Sarah Palin as their candidate.

I find it likely that the teabaggers will force the GOP so far to the
right during the primaries that whoever they wind up nominating will
be unelectable.

Mitchell Holman

unread,
Jun 27, 2010, 7:36:01 PM6/27/10
to
Apostate <Apos...@yeehaw.org.invalid> wrote in
news:1s7f26dbmnllqsd66...@4ax.com:

> On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 10:26:50 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>>On Jun 27, 11:23 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>> Sound of Trumpet  <soundoftrum...@dcemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> > Why did Obama win?
>>>
>>> Sanity.
>>
>>Given that the stock market crashed right before the election, and
>>McCain did his best to do a Herbert Hoover imitation, I agree with you
>>there.
>>
>>However, I fear he is only going to be president for one term. Unless
>>the Republicans do something really stupid, like running Mike Huckabee
>>or Sarah Palin as their candidate.
>>
>>But then, the ancient prophecies have foretold that 2012 is the year
>>in which Nehemiah Scudder shall become President.
>>
>>John Savard
>
> Huckabee could only possibly be drafted as VP nominee, but Palin could
> have 'legs' (any apparent reference to her history as a beauty
> contestant is purely incidental, and only intended after-the-fact) in
> Repug primaries.


Given that Palin quit the last elected post she held
to go make money why would anyone trust her with another?

Apostate

unread,
Jun 27, 2010, 7:48:34 PM6/27/10
to

Yeah, that's the main reason why she shouldn't be elected prezidink.

--
Apostate alt.atheist #1931 I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer
EAC Deputy Director in Charge of Being Paid,
Department of Redundancy Department

"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure
and the intelligent are full of doubt." -- Bertrand Russell

"Mr. Worf, set phasers on "Fuck You" and fire at will."
. -- Doc Smartass

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

ScienceWins

unread,
Jun 27, 2010, 10:32:50 PM6/27/10
to
Sound of Trumpet <soundof...@dcemail.com> wrote:

>http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=286489
>Why do Our Schools Teach Socialism?

ROFL. Why do Christanics rape little boys up their tight little asses
and then hide each other from the law when the cops come?

>Why did Obama win?

Because Americans had enough of you Christianic rightards committing
war crime atrocities against humanity and treason against America and
wanted to put an adult in charge.

Yeah, okay, it didn't work but at least we tried.

You child-raping Republicans lost, America won. Gert over it.

---
Does belief in astrology cause insanity? http://www.skeptictank.org/edm.htm

SkyEyes

unread,
Jun 28, 2010, 1:31:11 AM6/28/10
to
On Jun 27, 1:55 am, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@dcemail.com>
wrote:

> http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=286489
>
> Why do Our Schools Teach Socialism? Why did Obama win?

If you're speaking of the U.S., our schools *don't* teach socialism,
numbnuts.

And Obama won because more people voted for him than for McCain. We
did that because we wanted something different.

Unfortunately, it looks like Obama is turning into just another right-
leaning politician, so I doubt that he'll get my vote a second time.
I hope they run a true progressive in the Democratic primary.

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net

W.T.S.

unread,
Jun 28, 2010, 4:01:29 AM6/28/10
to
"SkyEyes" <skye...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:16bd46f6-118b-4e56...@x20g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 27, 1:55?am, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@dcemail.com>

> wrote:
>> http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=286489
>>
>> Why do Our Schools Teach Socialism? Why did Obama win?
>
> If you're speaking of the U.S., our schools *don't* teach socialism,
> numbnuts.
>
> And Obama won because more people voted for him than for McCain. We
> did that because we wanted something different.
>
> Unfortunately, it looks like Obama is turning into just another right-
> leaning politician, so I doubt that he'll get my vote a second time.
> I hope they run a true progressive in the Democratic primary.
>
Compared to _anything_ the Republicans will run next time, or the time
after, Obama is still light years ahead. Sitting out an election, voting
third party and so on, is how the Bushes and Nixons of the world get
elected. There's never, ever going to be a perfect candidate. Even in
politics, everything is relative, not to mention the circumstances that
occur during a term. I recall someone who sat out the election between
Humphrey and Nixon saying, "What possible difference can Hubert Humphrey
make?" He found out. If nothing else, Obama lifted the "gag" rule on
abortions overseas, advanced stem cell research, made a start of public
health care (although it'll require years of amendments to refine and get
right). Would you like to guess where we'd be if the Republicans were in
power?

Quadibloc

unread,
Jun 28, 2010, 5:27:24 AM6/28/10
to
On Jun 27, 4:14 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:

> I find it likely that the teabaggers will force the GOP so far to the
> right during the primaries that whoever they wind up nominating will
> be unelectable.

One possible hope, though, is that since the Democrats are certain to
nominate Obama, more people will register as Republicans so that they
will have something to do at primary time.

John Savard

Walter Bushell

unread,
Jun 28, 2010, 7:26:02 AM6/28/10
to
In article <Xns9DA4BD42BB4A5...@216.196.97.130>,
Mitchell Holman <nom...@comcast.net> wrote:

"Don't ask why drink Bud dry."

IOW, you expect the voters to be rational?

--
All BP's money, and all the President's men,
Cannot put the Gulf of Mexico together again.

Mitchell Holman

unread,
Jun 28, 2010, 8:31:26 AM6/28/10
to
Apostate <Apos...@yeehaw.org.invalid> wrote in
news:snof26l7fvjvfrh58...@4ax.com:


"That's the worthless, easy path; that's a quitter's way out."
Sarah Palin, July 3, 2009, while announcing she was quitting.

randy

unread,
Jun 28, 2010, 9:41:48 AM6/28/10
to

"Sound of Trumpet"

> Why do Our Schools Teach Socialism? Why did Obama win?
> Why Our Schools Teach Socialism
> By Joe Larson
> Marxism and Humanism are the predominant philosophies of America's
> education establishment, yet every day we send the public
> schools our most precious gift, our children, to be "educated."

There's a lot of truth in this article. That's one reason I chose to
homeschool my child. There are certainly truths in the socialist philosophy.
However, I believe socialism has become a virtual competitor with the idea
of a Christian State. Instead of placing emphasis on the individual's
responsibility to be moral before God, the emphasis has shifted to diluting
moral distinctions to include everybody. But we should all be aware that "a
little leaven leavens the whole lump."
randy

Edward A. Falk

unread,
Jun 28, 2010, 10:24:45 AM6/28/10
to
In article <06if26hscg7dt5ugr...@4ax.com>,

default <def...@defaulter.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 01:55:30 -0700 (PDT), Sound of Trumpet
><soundof...@dcemail.com> wrote:
>
>>Why Our Schools Teach Socialism
>
>Because Christ was a communist hippy?

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to point this out.

--
-Ed Falk, fa...@despams.r.us.com
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/

default

unread,
Jun 28, 2010, 12:39:44 PM6/28/10
to
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 14:24:45 +0000 (UTC), fa...@green.rahul.net (Edward
A. Falk) wrote:

>In article <06if26hscg7dt5ugr...@4ax.com>,
>default <def...@defaulter.net> wrote:
>>On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 01:55:30 -0700 (PDT), Sound of Trumpet
>><soundof...@dcemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Why Our Schools Teach Socialism
>>
>>Because Christ was a communist hippy?
>
>I was wondering how long it would take for someone to point this out.

How is it that the religiously afflicted can't see it? or, pretend
outrage when one states what should be obvious to everyone?
--

Chris

unread,
Jun 28, 2010, 12:48:21 PM6/28/10
to

Anyone with the brains of a clawhammer would be terrified of a
"Christian state" and fight like hell to prevent it happening here.

We're too damned close to it already, and it sucks big time.

Chris

Quadibloc

unread,
Jun 28, 2010, 1:24:53 PM6/28/10
to
On Jun 27, 3:58 pm, default <defa...@defaulter.net> wrote:

> Because Christ was a communist hippy?

When did Christ ever send someone to a Siberian labor camp?

John Savard

David Johnston

unread,
Jun 28, 2010, 1:31:01 PM6/28/10
to

When did he get the chance?

Chris

unread,
Jun 28, 2010, 1:51:10 PM6/28/10
to

When did any hippy send someone to any labor camp?

Chris

SkyEyes

unread,
Jun 28, 2010, 4:15:59 PM6/28/10
to
On Jun 28, 1:01 am, "W.T.S." <m...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "SkyEyes" <skyey...@cox.net> wrote in message

>
> news:16bd46f6-118b-4e56...@x20g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jun 27, 1:55?am, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@dcemail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=286489
>
> >> Why do Our Schools Teach Socialism? Why did Obama win?
>
> > If you're speaking of the U.S., our schools *don't* teach socialism,
> > numbnuts.
>
> > And Obama won because more people voted for him than for McCain.  We
> > did that because we wanted something different.
>
> > Unfortunately, it looks like Obama is turning into just another right-
> > leaning politician, so I doubt that he'll get my vote a second time.
> > I hope they run a true progressive in the Democratic primary.
>
> Compared to _anything_ the Republicans will run next time, or the time
> after, Obama is still light years ahead.

No argument about *that*.

>  Sitting out an election, voting
> third party and so on, is how the Bushes and Nixons of the world get
> elected.

I *never* sit out an election, not even the local ones where you elect
the dog-catcher and vote on what day your garbage will be picked up.

>  There's never, ever going to be a perfect candidate.

<Pout>

>  Even in
> politics, everything is relative, not to mention the circumstances that
> occur during a term.  I recall someone who sat out the election between
> Humphrey and Nixon saying, "What possible difference can Hubert Humphrey
> make?"  He found out.

Lordy, lordy. Did he *ever*.

>  If nothing else, Obama lifted the "gag" rule on
> abortions overseas, advanced stem cell research, made a start of public
> health care (although it'll require years of amendments to refine and get
> right).  Would you like to guess where we'd be if the Republicans were in
> power?

I don't have to guess. I lived through both Nixon administrations,
and I'm from Arizona. "My" senator is John Kyl <spit>.

Brenda

SkyEyes

unread,
Jun 28, 2010, 4:21:46 PM6/28/10
to
On Jun 28, 6:41 am, "randy" <rkl...@wavecable.com> wrote:
> "Sound of Trumpet"
>
> > Why do Our Schools Teach Socialism? Why did Obama win?
> > Why Our Schools Teach Socialism
> > By Joe Larson
> > Marxism and Humanism are the predominant philosophies of America's
> > education establishment, yet every day we send the public
> > schools our most precious gift, our children, to be "educated."
>
> There's a lot of truth in this article. That's one reason I chose to
> homeschool my child.

I'm certainly glad you did that. Eventually I'll need someone to wipe
my ass in the nursing home, and I'd hate for there to be a shortage of
candidates.

Father Haskell

unread,
Jun 28, 2010, 7:59:53 PM6/28/10
to
On Jun 28, 4:01 am, "W.T.S." <m...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "SkyEyes" <skyey...@cox.net> wrote in message
> Save lives, visit today!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You mean after the BP spill?

James A. Donald

unread,
Jun 28, 2010, 8:18:13 PM6/28/10
to
Quadibloc

> However, I fear he is only going to be president for one
> term. Unless the Republicans do something really stupid,
> like running Mike Huckabee or Sarah Palin as their
> candidate.

Sarah Palin's positions are precisely calibrated to the dead
center of the electorate. She worships a Jesus who has
strong positions on the events of the day, and whose position
on the events of the day is regularly adjusted to match the
results of focus groups selected from swinging voters.

The reason she incites hysterical outrage among the elite is
that she is playing the role of someone who is not part of
the ruling class, and she has a background that makes this
much played role more plausible than usual - which,
considering how badly the ruling class has fucked up, is
obviously the high card to play.

Sarah Palin can and does give speeches that contain long
sentences, without stumbling over the long sentences the way
Obama does. Unlike Obama, she does not think the US has 57
states, nor think that there is such a language as Austrian,
nor pronounce corpsman "corpse man".
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlKIfzoC8D0> She can fluently
give a speech on complex topics such as the financial crisis
from brief notes, while Obama disintegrates without a
teleprompter - and if the speech on the teleprompter contains
long complex sentences, has been known to disintegrate even
*with* a teleprompter. Watch when Obama is speaking off the
cuff - he does OK *provided* he keeps the sentences short
and the concepts simple - but by so doing, he starts to sound
noticeably blacker than when he speaks from the teleprompter.

When people have orgasms over how smart and fluent and "well
spoken" Obama is, it is similar to the way had orgasms over
how scientifically accomplished Marie Curie was - just as
they meant that Marie Curie was remarkably scientific *for*
*a* *woman* they similarly mean that Obama is remarkably
fluent *for* *a* *black*.

raven1

unread,
Jun 28, 2010, 8:40:58 PM6/28/10
to
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 10:18:13 +1000, James A. Donald
<jam...@echeque.com> wrote:

>When people have orgasms over how smart and fluent and "well
>spoken" Obama is, it is similar to the way had orgasms over
>how scientifically accomplished Marie Curie was - just as
>they meant that Marie Curie was remarkably scientific *for*
>*a* *woman* they similarly mean that Obama is remarkably
>fluent *for* *a* *black*.

You're remarkably eloquent *for* *a* *jackass*.

default

unread,
Jun 28, 2010, 10:09:47 PM6/28/10
to
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 10:24:53 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

Or for that matter, execute someone by burning them at the stake...
the way the folks that claim to be following Christ have done.

Communists, like Christians, do bad things.


--

Stan-O

unread,
Jun 28, 2010, 10:28:59 PM6/28/10
to
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 06:41:48 -0700, "randy" <rkl...@wavecable.com>
wrote:

>There's a lot of truth in this article. That's one reason I chose to
>homeschool my child. There are certainly truths in the socialist philosophy.
>However, I believe socialism has become a virtual competitor with the idea
>of a Christian State. Instead of placing emphasis on the individual's
>responsibility to be moral before God, the emphasis has shifted to diluting
>moral distinctions to include everybody. But we should all be aware that "a
>little leaven leavens the whole lump."
>randy

This is what happens when you allow trailer parks to have internet
access...

W.T.S.

unread,
Jun 28, 2010, 10:57:57 PM6/28/10
to
"Father Haskell" <father...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2a13ed20-7a10-4d93...@q12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...

> On Jun 28, 4:01?am, "W.T.S." <m...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> "SkyEyes" <skyey...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:16bd46f6-118b-4e56...@x20g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Jun 27, 1:55?am, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@dcemail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=286489
>>
>> >> Why do Our Schools Teach Socialism? Why did Obama win?
>>
>> > If you're speaking of the U.S., our schools *don't* teach socialism,
>> > numbnuts.
>>
>> > And Obama won because more people voted for him than for McCain. ?We

>> > did that because we wanted something different.
>>
>> > Unfortunately, it looks like Obama is turning into just another right-
>> > leaning politician, so I doubt that he'll get my vote a second time.
>> > I hope they run a true progressive in the Democratic primary.
>>
>> Compared to _anything_ the Republicans will run next time, or the time
>> after, Obama is still light years ahead. ?Sitting out an election, voting

>> third party and so on, is how the Bushes and Nixons of the world get
>> elected. ?There's never, ever going to be a perfect candidate. ?Even in

>> politics, everything is relative, not to mention the circumstances that
>> occur during a term. ?I recall someone who sat out the election between

>> Humphrey and Nixon saying, "What possible difference can Hubert Humphrey
>> make?" ?He found out. ?If nothing else, Obama lifted the "gag" rule on

>> abortions overseas, advanced stem cell research, made a start of public
>> health care (although it'll require years of amendments to refine and get
>> right). ?Would you like to guess where we'd be if the Republicans were in

>> power?
>> ----------------------------------------http://folding.stanford.edu
>> Save lives, visit today!- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> You mean after the BP spill?
The BP spill didn't happen overnight, the Republicans spent years laying the
foundations of the disaster with it's "hands off" policy and by undoing of
safety regulations and oversight. No administration could've undone that
sort of damage overnight. To make matters worse, the Republican President
would be congratulating the MMA on a "great job".

Ray Fischer

unread,
Jun 29, 2010, 12:00:27 AM6/29/10
to
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>Quadibloc
>> However, I fear he is only going to be president for one
>> term. Unless the Republicans do something really stupid,
>> like running Mike Huckabee or Sarah Palin as their
>> candidate.
>
>Sarah Palin's positions are precisely calibrated to the dead
>center of the electorate.

Wrong. As usual.

> She worships a Jesus who has

No she doesn't.

--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net

James A. Donald

unread,
Jun 29, 2010, 12:29:01 AM6/29/10
to
--

> > > Because Christ was a communist hippy?

> > When did Christ ever send someone to a Siberian labor
> > camp?

> When did any hippy send someone to any labor camp?

They would have if they could have - Charles Manson was the
hippiest hippy of them all. The Weathermen were hippies and
terrorists.

Students for a Democratic society in the sixties purported to
be hippies, and they were completely run by conspiratorial
Soviet communists. You could argue, however, that SDS were
only faking being hippies. But the weathermen were not
faking, and Charles Manson was concentrated essence of hippy.

default

unread,
Jun 29, 2010, 6:44:22 AM6/29/10
to
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:29:01 +1000, James A. Donald
<jam...@echeque.com> wrote:

> --
>> > > Because Christ was a communist hippy?
>
>> > When did Christ ever send someone to a Siberian labor
>> > camp?
>
>> When did any hippy send someone to any labor camp?
>
>They would have if they could have - Charles Manson was the
>hippiest hippy of them all. The Weathermen were hippies and
>terrorists.

I think the examples you put forth missed the whole tolerance,
cooperation, love and understanding thing that typified what it meant
to be a hippy in the 60's.

Manson was not a hippy, he just adopted some of the dress code (or
lack of one).


>
>Students for a Democratic society in the sixties purported to
>be hippies, and they were completely run by conspiratorial
>Soviet communists. You could argue, however, that SDS were
>only faking being hippies. But the weathermen were not
>faking, and Charles Manson was concentrated essence of hippy.

Too much Jack Webb on TV? One cannot be a hippy and adopt a rigid
ideology simultaneously - they are mutually exclusive concepts,
Archie.
--

James A. Donald

unread,
Jun 29, 2010, 8:35:22 AM6/29/10
to
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 06:44:22 -0400, default <def...@defaulter.net>
wrote:

> I think the examples you put forth missed the whole tolerance,
> cooperation, love and understanding thing that typified what it meant
> to be a hippy in the 60's.

By and large, most of those communes fell apart when the coke ran out.
The whole peace and love thing did now work out. It was a rerun of
the Harmony experiment. At Harmony, they did not send anyone to the
gulag either, but they pretty quickly figured out that this loving and
sharing stuff was not going to work out without a gulag to send people
to who were insufficiently loving and sharing.

Approximately every two hundred years people try communism without
violence, which usually falls apart pretty rapidly. Next, they try
communism with violence, which turns out to be fairly unpleasant, and
if you are really lucky, it falls apart rapidly also. The hippies
begat the red brigades.

trag

unread,
Jun 29, 2010, 3:18:50 PM6/29/10
to
On Jun 29, 5:44 am, default <defa...@defaulter.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:29:01 +1000, James A. Donald
>
> <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
> >    --
> >> > > Because Christ was a communist hippy?
>
> >> > When did Christ ever send someone to a Siberian labor
> >> > camp?
>
> >> When did any hippy send someone to any labor camp?
>
> >They would have if they could have - Charles Manson was the
> >hippiest hippy of them all.  The Weathermen were hippies and
> >terrorists.
>
> I think the examples you put forth missed the whole tolerance,
> cooperation, love and understanding thing that typified what it meant
> to be a hippy in the 60's.

Unless you weren't a hippy, in which case they derided you for not
being one of them. :-)

The Chief Instigator

unread,
Jun 29, 2010, 5:42:33 PM6/29/10
to

Indeed, and Palin is nothing more than Governor Bimbo, deserving a permanent
residence on Little Diomede.

--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, TX
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2009-10 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: San Antonio 3, Houston 2 (April 11)
NEXT GAME: The 2010-11 opener vs. TBA, October 8

Jason

unread,
Jun 29, 2010, 11:18:42 PM6/29/10
to
In article
<99bcab8f-5c7b-4e1c...@j4g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, trag
<tr...@io.com> wrote:

> On Jun 29, 5:44=A0am, default <defa...@defaulter.net> wrote:
> > On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:29:01 +1000, James A. Donald
> >
> > <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:

> > > =A0 =A0--


> > >> > > Because Christ was a communist hippy?
> >
> > >> > When did Christ ever send someone to a Siberian labor
> > >> > camp?
> >
> > >> When did any hippy send someone to any labor camp?
> >
> > >They would have if they could have - Charles Manson was the

> > >hippiest hippy of them all. =A0The Weathermen were hippies and


> > >terrorists.
> >
> > I think the examples you put forth missed the whole tolerance,
> > cooperation, love and understanding thing that typified what it meant
> > to be a hippy in the 60's.
>
> Unless you weren't a hippy, in which case they derided you for not
> being one of them. :-)

Tho answer the question:
WHY DO OUR SCHOOLS TEACH SOLIALISM?
The answer is because of a famous man named John Dewey. He was a
philosopher and educationer reformer in the late nineteeth and early
twentiety centuries. His ideas related to education became the basis of
progressive eduction. If you want to learn more about this subject--google
"progressive education" and "progressive movement".


default

unread,
Jun 29, 2010, 11:14:30 PM6/29/10
to

That is too sweeping a generalization. The only "communes" I was
aware of used grass 24/7 - LSD, peyote, mushrooms were the only harder
drugs. Basically if they couldn't grow it, it was too exotic to fool
with. Communes weren't for me, but there were enough of them, and it
was very interesting to me. Only knew of two that you might call a
commune - in that they had land and an organization. In the style of
the Israeli "kibbutz" a formalized structured arrangement with clearly
defined rules. There were many cooperating groups though, that I would
also call communes, living working and sharing.

I think the reason they did work, was the sense of belonging. Similar
to what clubs, gangs, religions, nations, and military organizations
have. The pride is in the group one belongs to - they measured their
own self worth in conjunction with the group.

Unfortunately they tend to fall apart because they aren't big on
structure and problem solving and prefer to rebel against outside
authority, rather than compromise - not that staying stoned is any
advantage in that respect.

The problem with any social structure or civilization is the people
and human greed (and other human "vices"). IMO vices are just
survival traits suited for a tribe but not a civilization. Kinda like
calling some plant a weed - simply because to you it is undesirable.

Seems to me that capitalism has also failed, in the sense that it is
not compatible with democracy. The Greeks also discovered that
democracy "doesn't work" the way it is intended - but over the course
of time is supplanted with an oligarchy. We have that now in the US,
a corporate oligarchy, for all intents and purposes, or perhaps that
should be: almost a global corporate oligarchy.

I was reading Roman history and came away with the same idea. The
Roman Republic was decidedly oligarchic in nature.

"Hippies begat red brigades," hardly. Hippies were better at
rebelling then revolution, and not likely to form governments much
beyond tiny cooperative individual democracies. Not to say that a
sufficiently appealing leader can't come along and rope a lot of them
in to supporting someone else's agenda.

Manson was not what I'd call a hippy - nor is anyone bent on pushing
any ideology. The thing I heard most often "if that's your thing man,
then its OK." Or interpreted "do what you will, but don't count on me
to be a part of it."

Manson was and is "broken." Pat Robertson on steroids . . .
--

Chris

unread,
Jun 29, 2010, 11:23:33 PM6/29/10
to
On Jun 29, 11:14 pm, default <defa...@defaulter.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 22:35:22 +1000, James A. Donald
>
>
>
> <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:

snip

>
> Manson was not what I'd call a hippy - nor is anyone bent on pushing
> any ideology.  The thing I heard most often "if that's your thing man,
> then its OK."  Or interpreted "do what you will, but don't count on me
> to be a part of it."
>
> Manson was and is "broken."  Pat Robertson on steroids . . .
> --

No hippy ever endorsed race wars. That person to whom you responded is
living proof that evil and stupidity are intimate bed-partners.

Chris

James A. Donald

unread,
Jun 30, 2010, 12:45:09 AM6/30/10
to
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 20:23:33 -0700 (PDT), Chris
> No hippy ever endorsed race wars.

No true scotsman.

The left then was about as fascist then as it is now - recall how the
entire left unanimously endorsed the Sandinistas, who were pretty keen
on race wars.

Similarly, no one on the left had, or has any trouble with the fact
that in Castro's Cuba you will see all white cops pushing around
mostly dark skinned proles.


Ray Fischer

unread,
Jun 30, 2010, 2:30:48 AM6/30/10
to
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 20:23:33 -0700 (PDT), Chris
>> No hippy ever endorsed race wars.
>
>No true scotsman.

Doesn't apply.

>The left then was about as fascist then as it is now -

Fascism is a right-wing ideology.

--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net

James A. Donald

unread,
Jun 30, 2010, 4:37:50 AM6/30/10
to
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
> > The left then was about as fascist then as it is now -

> Fascism is a right-wing ideology.

Franco was violently unpopular with the left, but the Sandinistas, and
the guys who made the 1974 portuguese coup, were mighty popular.

Walter Bushell

unread,
Jun 30, 2010, 10:54:02 AM6/30/10
to
In article <Xns9DA54C97748A1...@216.196.97.130>,
Mitchell Holman <nom...@comcast.net> wrote:

> "That's the worthless, easy path; that's a quitter's way out."
> Sarah Palin, July 3, 2009, while announcing she was quitting.

You have to hand it to her, because she is absolutely consistent.

--
All BP's money, and all the President's men,
Cannot put the Gulf of Mexico together again.

Walter Bushell

unread,
Jun 30, 2010, 10:57:38 AM6/30/10
to
In article
<0364b76d-76dc-4c23...@x27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Chris <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:

Especially the Christians.

Walter Bushell

unread,
Jun 30, 2010, 11:00:35 AM6/30/10
to
In article
<b593e2ed-93ea-428a...@g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
Chris <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:

I remember back in the day when the quotation, "If you don't like the
police, next time somebody robs your apartment, call a hippie." I
thought about it and came to the conclusion the hippy might care and
actually do something about it.

The police would take a report and file it. <yawn>

Walter Bushell

unread,
Jun 30, 2010, 11:04:09 AM6/30/10
to
In article <l1bl26dt4a0uh20kv...@4ax.com>,
default <def...@defaulter.net> wrote:

> Manson was and is "broken." Pat Robertson on steroids . . .

More like Jimmy Jones on heroin. But remember there are to be no jokes
about Jonestown, the punch lines were too long.

Olrik

unread,
Jun 30, 2010, 11:46:20 AM6/30/10
to
Le 2010-06-30 11:04, Walter Bushell a écrit :
> In article<l1bl26dt4a0uh20kv...@4ax.com>,
> default<def...@defaulter.net> wrote:
>
>> Manson was and is "broken." Pat Robertson on steroids . . .
>
> More like Jimmy Jones on heroin. But remember there are to be no jokes
> about Jonestown, the punch lines were too long.

That's one sick joke, sir.

I like it!

default

unread,
Jun 30, 2010, 8:09:39 PM6/30/10
to

The educational system was never the purview of a single person. It
has evolved politically. The good of the children may be the rallying
cry - but politics ultimately rules. I'm sure educational theories -
are just packaged politics from people with other agendas most of the
time.

It is no mistake that governments and religions vie for control of
education. "get them while they are young" and not overly critical
or cynical and a little stupid and malleable.

If you can package your own propaganda in a way that makes sense to
dumb adults, that's what you do. Use words like revolutionary, and
progressive, promise miracles, and you're in like Flynn.
--

William December Starr

unread,
Jun 30, 2010, 8:38:04 PM6/30/10
to
In article <nati265ajvu8rru3s...@4ax.com>,

James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> said:

>> When did any hippy send someone to any labor camp?
>
> They would have if they could have - Charles Manson was
> the hippiest hippy of them all.

Gad, the man's a positive *fountain* of sig-quote material!

-- wds

William December Starr

unread,
Jun 30, 2010, 8:43:20 PM6/30/10
to
In article <uJKdnSOk3uwTyrXR...@earthlink.com>,
"W.T.S." <m1...@earthlink.net> said:

> Compared to _anything_ the Republicans will run next time, or the

> time after, Obama is still light years ahead. Sitting out an


> election, voting third party and so on, is how the Bushes and

> Nixons of the world get elected. There's never, ever going to be
> a perfect candidate. Even in politics, everything is relative,
> not to mention the circumstances that occur during a term. I


> recall someone who sat out the election between Humphrey and Nixon

> saying, "What possible difference can Hubert Humphrey make?" He
> found out. If nothing else, Obama lifted the "gag" rule on


> abortions overseas, advanced stem cell research, made a start of
> public health care (although it'll require years of amendments to

> refine and get right). Would you like to guess where we'd be if


> the Republicans were in power?

On the verge of throwing them out again, and this time maybe getting
lucky and replacing them in the the White House with somebody who
isn't a Nixon Republican like Obama?

Whereas if we _reward_ Obama with a second term, neither he nor
anyone else will *ever* learn to not just be crap with a "D" after
their name.

-- wds

William December Starr

unread,
Jun 30, 2010, 8:45:28 PM6/30/10
to
In article <LOidnTwDitchO7XR...@wavecable.com>,
"randy" <rkl...@wavecable.com> said:

> However, I believe socialism has become a virtual competitor with
> the idea of a Christian State. Instead of placing emphasis on the
> individual's responsibility to be moral before God,

No human being has any such responsibility.

-- wds

Bill Snyder

unread,
Jun 30, 2010, 10:56:46 PM6/30/10
to
On 30 Jun 2010 20:38:04 -0400, wds...@panix.com (William December
Starr) wrote:

That is indeed a strange way to spell "overflowing toilet."

--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

Ray Fischer

unread,
Jul 1, 2010, 12:05:27 AM7/1/10
to

Non sequitur. Fascism is a right-wing ideology.

--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net

Ray Fischer

unread,
Jul 1, 2010, 12:06:16 AM7/1/10
to
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <uJKdnSOk3uwTyrXR...@earthlink.com>,
>"W.T.S." <m1...@earthlink.net> said:
>
>> Compared to _anything_ the Republicans will run next time, or the
>> time after, Obama is still light years ahead. Sitting out an
>> election, voting third party and so on, is how the Bushes and
>> Nixons of the world get elected. There's never, ever going to be
>> a perfect candidate. Even in politics, everything is relative,
>> not to mention the circumstances that occur during a term. I
>> recall someone who sat out the election between Humphrey and Nixon
>> saying, "What possible difference can Hubert Humphrey make?" He
>> found out. If nothing else, Obama lifted the "gag" rule on
>> abortions overseas, advanced stem cell research, made a start of
>> public health care (although it'll require years of amendments to
>> refine and get right). Would you like to guess where we'd be if
>> the Republicans were in power?
>
>On the verge of throwing them out again, and this time maybe getting
>lucky and replacing them in the the White House with somebody who
>isn't a Nixon Republican like Obama?

Idiot.

--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net

James A. Donald

unread,
Jul 1, 2010, 4:37:42 PM7/1/10
to
> >> > The left then was about as fascist then as it is now -

> >> Fascism is a right-wing ideology.

> >Franco was violently unpopular with the left, but the Sandinistas, and
> >the guys who made the 1974 portuguese coup, were mighty popular.

> Non sequitur. Fascism is a right-wing ideology.

Sandinistas were fascist, and left wing. The Brownshirts were nazi
and left wing. The Carnation Revolution was fascist, and left wing.

David Johnston

unread,
Jul 1, 2010, 8:59:35 PM7/1/10
to
On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 06:37:42 +1000, James A. Donald
<jam...@echeque.com> wrote:

>> >> > The left then was about as fascist then as it is now -
>
>> >> Fascism is a right-wing ideology.
>
>> >Franco was violently unpopular with the left, but the Sandinistas, and
>> >the guys who made the 1974 portuguese coup, were mighty popular.
>
>> Non sequitur. Fascism is a right-wing ideology.
>
>Sandinistas were fascist,

In what way?

Ray Fischer

unread,
Jul 2, 2010, 1:50:56 AM7/2/10
to
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>> >> > The left then was about as fascist then as it is now -
>
>> >> Fascism is a right-wing ideology.
>
>> >Franco was violently unpopular with the left, but the Sandinistas, and
>> >the guys who made the 1974 portuguese coup, were mighty popular.
>
>> Non sequitur. Fascism is a right-wing ideology.
>
>Sandinistas were fascist, and left wing.

Rightard propaganda. Fascism is a right-wing ideology.

--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net

livvy

unread,
Jul 2, 2010, 2:23:59 AM7/2/10
to
On Jun 27, 4:55 am, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@dcemail.com>
wrote:
> http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=286489

>
> Why do Our Schools Teach Socialism? Why did Obama win?
>
> Why Our Schools Teach Socialism
>
> By Joe Larson
>
> Marxism and Humanism are the predominant philosophies of America's
> education establishment, yet every day we send the public
>
> schools our most precious gift, our children, to be "educated."
>
> Our schools are filled with sex education, political correctness,
> environmental extremism, global unity, diversity training
>
> (pro-gay indoctrination), and "higher-order thinking skills" boldly
> claiming that, in order to become a higher order thinker,
>
> one must first believe absolutely that there are no absolutes!
>
> Our schools are filled with violence, murder, extortion, rape,
> unwanted pregnancy, drug use, disrespect, and foul language.
>
> Test scores have been declining for decades as the numbers of children
> who cannot read continue to increase.
>
> While the pontificators wonder why this is so, many parents and
> citizens have figured it out. Although earth worship,
>
> paganism and the occult flourish in public schools, the Greatest Story
> Ever Told, based on the greatest book ever written,
>
> the Holy Bible, which tells of the greatest teacher who ever lived,
> Jesus Christ, is not used or even allowed. The Bible was
>
> America's first textbook, but today it is referred to as a collection
> of fables.
>
> America's educational system began to decline with the introduction of
> socialism, given impetus by the increasing involvement
>
> of the federal government. Lenin said: "Communism is socialism in a
> hurry." Socialism, therefore, is Communism by gradualism
>
> rather than by revolution. The socialist "Fabian Society," forerunner
> of most socialist groups in America, had as its motto
>
> "Make Haste Slowly."
>
> "Democratic socialism" became the battle cry for socializing the
> United States. The goal was to "permeate and penetrate,"
>
> then control from within. The socialists' first target was education,
> and they attacked with deceitful language. There were
>
> no badges or socialist labels; followers described themselves as
> "liberal," "progressive," and even "moderate." Words were
>
> the weapon of choice in this new war. By changing the meanings of
> words, socialists concealed their true purpose.
>
> This massive social engineering was carried out under the banners of
> "reform" and "social justice." These innovations are in
>
> the public interest, Americans were told. They promote true democracy,
> humanitarianism, and, of course are "for the
>
> children." The buzzwords of socialism were and still are "social" and
> "democracy" (i.e. social science, social studies and
>
> socialization of the child).
>
> In the early 1900s, unrest in Europe brought thousands of socialists
> to America. Many held degrees in psychology, sociology
>
> and psychiatry (the behavioral sciences) and a number of them became
> university professors.
>
> Norman Thomas, a socialist and member of the American Civil Liberties
> Union, boldly told the world: "The American people will
>
> never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism,
> they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program
>
> until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing
> how it happened."
>
> John Dewey, known as "the father of modern education," was an avowed
> socialist and the co-author of the "Humanist Manifesto."
>
> The U.S. House Committee on Un-American Activities discovered that he
> belonged to 15 Marxist front organizations. Dewey
>
> taught the professors who trained America's teachers. Obsessed with
> "the group," he said, "You can't make socialists out of
>
> individualists. Children who know how to think for themselves spoil
> the harmony of the collective society, which is coming,
>
> where everyone is interdependent."
>
> Author Rosalie Gordon, writing about Dewey's progressive (socialist)
> education in her book What's Happened To Our Schools,
>
> said: "The progressive system has reached all the way down to the
> lowest grades to prepare the children of America for their
>
> role as the collectivists of the future. The group - not the
> individual child - is the quintessence of progressivism. The
>
> child must always be made to feel part of the group. He must indulge
> in group thinking and group activity."
>
> After visiting the Soviet Union, Dewey wrote six articles on the
> "wonders" of Soviet education. The School-To-Work program,
>
> now in our public schools in all 50 states, is modeled after the
> Soviet poly-technical system.
>
> In 1936, the National Education Association stated the position from
> which it has never wavered: "We stand for socializing
>
> the individual." The NEA, in its Policy For American Education,
> opined: "The major problem of education in our times arises
>
> out of the fact that we live in a period of fundamental social change.
> In the new democracy [what happened to our republic?],
>
> education must share in the responsibility of giving purpose and
> direction to social change. The major function of the school
>
> is the social orientation of the individual . . . Education must
> operate according to a well-formulated social policy."
>
> NEA specialist Paul Haubner, tells us, "The schools cannot allow
> parents to influence the kind of values-education their
>
> children receive in school; . that is what is wrong with those who say
> there is a universal system of values. Our goals are
>
> incompatible with theirs. We must change their values."
>
> Chester M. Pierce, M.D., Professor of Education and Psychiatry at
> Harvard, had this to say: "Every child in America entering
>
> school at the age of five is mentally ill because he comes to school
> with certain allegiances to our Founding Fathers, toward
>
> our elected officials, toward his parents, toward a belief in a
> supernatural being, and toward the sovereignty of this nation
>
> as a separate entity. It's up to you as teachers to make all these
> sick children well - by creating the international child
>
> of the future."
>
> Some politicians agree. Former Nebraska state senator Peter Hoagland
> said: "Fundamentalist parents have no right to
>
> indoctrinate their children in their beliefs. We are preparing their
> children for the year 2000 and life in a global
>
> one-world society and those children will not fit in."
>
> In the Humanist Magazine, Jan./Feb 1983, John Dunphy wrote: "The
> battle for mankind's future must be waged and won in the
>
> public school classroom . The classroom must and will become the arena
> of conflict between the old and the new . the rotting
>
> corpse of Christianity and the new faith of humanism."
>
> Bureaucrats, politicians and educators regularly appear on television
> blaming either parents or lack of funds for the failure
>
> of our schools. Their prescription is always the same: more money and
> more government control. For well over 50 years,
>
> American voters have fallen for these fallacies. Victor Gollancz, a
> famous socialist publisher, explained why he believed
>
> that socialism would take over America: "Christians are not exactly
> bright, so it will be easy for socialism to lead them
>
> down the garden path through their ideals of brotherly love and
> 'social justice.'"
>
> It's time for Christians to stand up for their families and their
> faith and put God in charge of this nation and its schools.
>
> Restoring America is that simple.

go ask them. jeez. Why make it a thing? Do you have kids in public
school? It's public school, parents have a voice. And what's a Joe
Larson? Can't you think for yourself?

Terry Cross

unread,
Jul 2, 2010, 2:34:23 AM7/2/10
to
On Jun 30, 9:05 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> James A. Donald  <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>
> >James A. Donald  <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
> >> > The left then was about as fascist then as it is now -
>
> >> Fascism is a right-wing ideology.
>
> >Franco was violently unpopular with the left, but the Sandinistas, and
> >the guys who made the 1974 portuguese coup, were mighty popular.
>
> Non sequitur.  Fascism is a right-wing ideology.

Hoo boy. The lad must have learned this from his coloring books.

Fascism is an economic policy whereby government and big business are
allied to keep a strong economy. Both the US and Canada are heavily
fascist, much more so that Germany and Italy during WW II. In fact,
the main hall of the Interstate Commerce Commission of the United
States in Wash, DC is decorated all around the ceiling with the
Fasces.

"Numerous governments and other authorities have used the image of the
fasces for a symbol of power since the end of the Roman Empire. It has
also been used to hearken back to the Roman republic, particularly by
those who see themselves as modern-day successors to the old republic
and/or its ideals. Italian Fascism, which derives its name from the
fasces, arguably used this symbolism the most in the 20th century. The
British Union of Fascists also used it in the 1930s. However, unlike
(for example) the swastika, the fasces, as a widespread and long-
established symbol in the West, has avoided the stigma associated with
much of fascist symbolism, and many authorities continue to display
them, including the federal government of the United States." --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasces

But Ray don't learn good. He still thinks all the important elements
of government are summed up by "right wing" and "left wing," like
maybe it was a 2-sign form of an astrology chart.

TCross


Ray Fischer

unread,
Jul 2, 2010, 2:42:13 AM7/2/10
to
Terry Cross <tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Jun 30, 9:05 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> James A. Donald  <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>>
>> >James A. Donald  <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>> >> > The left then was about as fascist then as it is now -
>>
>> >> Fascism is a right-wing ideology.
>>
>> >Franco was violently unpopular with the left, but the Sandinistas, and
>> >the guys who made the 1974 portuguese coup, were mighty popular.
>>
>> Non sequitur.  Fascism is a right-wing ideology.
>
>Hoo boy. The lad must have learned this from his coloring books.
>
>Fascism is an economic policy whereby government and big business are
>allied to keep a strong economy. Both the US and Canada are heavily
>fascist, much more so that Germany and Italy during WW II.

Kook.

--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net

David Johnston

unread,
Jul 2, 2010, 3:15:23 AM7/2/10
to
On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 23:34:23 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Jun 30, 9:05�pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> James A. Donald �<jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>>
>> >James A. Donald �<jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>> >> > The left then was about as fascist then as it is now -
>>
>> >> Fascism is a right-wing ideology.
>>
>> >Franco was violently unpopular with the left, but the Sandinistas, and
>> >the guys who made the 1974 portuguese coup, were mighty popular.
>>
>> Non sequitur. �Fascism is a right-wing ideology.
>
>Hoo boy. The lad must have learned this from his coloring books.
>
>Fascism is an economic policy whereby government and big business are
>allied to keep a strong economy.

To keep a strong dictator. However, I see no way in which that
describes the Sandinistas.

Terry Cross

unread,
Jul 2, 2010, 3:51:42 AM7/2/10
to

Eh?

David Johnston

unread,
Jul 2, 2010, 10:46:05 AM7/2/10
to

You don't have fascism unless everything serves a nation supposedly
embodied in a single dictator. The reason to have a strong economy is
so the dictator can have a strong military at his command. The actual
name for a system in which government and big business are allied to
keep a strong economy but it isn't a dictatorship is "mercantilism".

>
>

Walter Bushell

unread,
Jul 2, 2010, 10:51:17 AM7/2/10
to
In article <mjmn26hgbljmgmm86...@4ax.com>,
default <def...@defaulter.net> wrote:

> It is no mistake that governments and religions vie for control of
> education. "get them while they are young" and not overly critical
> or cynical and a little stupid and malleable.

Same rubric for the military. Which is the reason they like 18 year
olds, when they are too young to drink or to vote, but can make like
changing decisions like putting themselves in harm's way.

Walter Bushell

unread,
Jul 2, 2010, 10:52:10 AM7/2/10
to
In article <ju0o26lobuh3ekjoe...@4ax.com>,
Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote:

> On 30 Jun 2010 20:38:04 -0400, wds...@panix.com (William December
> Starr) wrote:
>
> >In article <nati265ajvu8rru3s...@4ax.com>,
> >James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> said:
> >
> >>> When did any hippy send someone to any labor camp?
> >>
> >> They would have if they could have - Charles Manson was
> >> the hippiest hippy of them all.
> >
> >Gad, the man's a positive *fountain* of sig-quote material!
>
> That is indeed a strange way to spell "overflowing toilet."

Mine too.

W.T.S.

unread,
Jul 2, 2010, 12:33:36 PM7/2/10
to
"Walter Bushell" <pr...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:proto-46C657....@news.panix.com...

> In article <mjmn26hgbljmgmm86...@4ax.com>,
> default <def...@defaulter.net> wrote:
>
>> It is no mistake that governments and religions vie for control of
>> education. "get them while they are young" and not overly critical
>> or cynical and a little stupid and malleable.
>
> Same rubric for the military. Which is the reason they like 18 year
> olds, when they are too young to drink or to vote, but can make like
> changing decisions like putting themselves in harm's way.
>
18 Year olds can vote, at least in the United States. Oddly, the U.S.
military is very "hot" on as many of its members as possible casting a
ballot in person or by absentee. Analysis of military voting seems to
indicate the vote the same way their parents did, or do.
As for drinking at 18, it depends on the location, state or nation. When in
certain areas of the middle East, like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, our troops
stayed dry, all of them. This seemed to have a remarkable increase in
efficiency in that there were a lot fewer disciplinary problems at all
levels, and fewer accidents. Stateside, it depends on the states. Some
18-21 year olds seemed to handle alcohol Ok, while others found it was an
"irresistible compulsion early on, and resulted in "problems". With older
troops, it's just like everyone else. A lot of good people died shortly
after retirement from alcohol problems, others did Ok. All in all, I found
the military made people more of what they already were. "Good foundations
at school and home make for sturdy careers in life."
One factor I've noticed, education can't change reality. If you can't
spell, or read, it's a problem. If you're in College or the Military, it's
going to be a problem. If you don't know why George Washington was a great
General and Founding Father, the College professor is going to tighten his
jaws, and give you an "F".

> All BP's money, and all the President's men,
> Cannot put the Gulf of Mexico together again.
An ounce of prevention is worth all the cure there was, is, or ever will be.
----------------------------------------
http://folding.stanford.edu
Save lives, visit today!


default

unread,
Jul 2, 2010, 1:32:45 PM7/2/10
to
On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 10:51:17 -0400, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>
wrote:

>In article <mjmn26hgbljmgmm86...@4ax.com>,
> default <def...@defaulter.net> wrote:
>
>> It is no mistake that governments and religions vie for control of
>> education. "get them while they are young" and not overly critical
>> or cynical and a little stupid and malleable.
>
>Same rubric for the military. Which is the reason they like 18 year
>olds, when they are too young to drink or to vote, but can make like
>changing decisions like putting themselves in harm's way.

They can vote but the drinking? I was from NY where the drinking age
was 18, but everyplace I was stationed it was 20-21. The unspoken
rule was that you just don't drink on duty or get caught in such a way
as it can't be smoothed over. - with all the camaraderie there was
always someone sober enough to keep you from doing something truly
stupid.


--

default

unread,
Jul 2, 2010, 2:02:25 PM7/2/10
to
On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 11:33:36 -0500, "W.T.S." <m1...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>When in
>certain areas of the middle East, like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, our troops
>stayed dry, all of them.

Really? That's what I heard from a marine buddy, but I figured jar
heads were the exception. No one could figure out how to make some
raisin jack?

makes 4 Gallons
Ingredients

* 1 (1 gallon) can white grapes

* 1 (1 gallon) can fruit cocktail

* 1 (1 gallon) can raisins
* 1 gallon fresh water

Directions

1.
1
Place all of the ingredients in a Government issue 5-gallon
water can.
2.
2
Place on top of the canvas cover on a deuce and a half or 5 ton
truck.
3.
3
Lash down tightly to avoid losing.
4.
4
Allow 3 days in the hot ocean sunlight and the motion of the sea
waves to bring this recipe to a most delightful disaster.
(actually it may kill the yeast if the ambient temp is too high)
5.
5
Sip slowly when finished.
6.
6
This may be shared with swabbies.
(damn straight if he plans on getting supplies from the commissary
storekeepers - and they called us "squids" not swabbies)
7.
7
Semper Fi.

_ he left out the CO2 vent airlock and slice of bread or baker's
yeast, but it ought to work with wild yeast too. I wouldn't leave it
to chance if I were brewing some.
--

James A. Donald

unread,
Jul 2, 2010, 3:07:42 PM7/2/10
to
On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 00:59:35 GMT, <da...@block.net> wrote:

James A. Donald
> > Sandinistas were fascist,

David Johnston
> In what way?

General Sandino, the originator of the movement, had a program of
ethnic and racial supremacy. In accordance with that program
Sandinistas expropriated the Indians and expelled the Jews.

The biography of Rafaga depicts grossly racist mistreatment of
Indians. The book "Human Rights in Nicaragua under the Sandinistas,
from revolution to repression" page 43 reports that the Sandinistas
confiscated the property of jews and subjected individual jews to
random physical violence. They set fire to a synagogue full of jews,
though they allowed the worshippers to flee the flames. Their anti
semitic acts so terrified the jewish community that the entire jewish
community fled the country. The book cites "Testimony of Jews Exiled
from Nicaragua" given at the White House on March 14, 1985, and
"Nicaragu's Human rights record p32-33".

James A. Donald

unread,
Jul 2, 2010, 3:10:25 PM7/2/10
to
> >Fascism is an economic policy whereby government and big
> >business are allied to keep a strong economy.

David Johnston


> To keep a strong dictator. However, I see no way in which
> that describes the Sandinistas.

Nicaragua under the Sandinistas was a party dictatorship, a
police state, and had a gigantic secret police.

SkyEyes

unread,
Jul 2, 2010, 3:38:13 PM7/2/10
to
On Jul 2, 7:51 am, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> In article <mjmn26hgbljmgmm866kvem2ubdd8bpn...@4ax.com>,

>
>  default <defa...@defaulter.net> wrote:
> > It is no mistake that governments and religions vie for control of
> > education.  "get them while they are young"  and not overly critical
> > or cynical and a little stupid and malleable.
>
> Same rubric for the military. Which is the reason they like 18 year
> olds, when they are too young to drink or to vote, but can make like
> changing decisions like putting themselves in harm's way.

Gwynne Dyer, Canadian journalist, produced a great documentary series
for TV back in the 1980s called _War_.

In it, he pointed out that the reason there's an upper age limit on
military recruits is that after a certain age, a human cannot be
reprogrammed to kill. You have to get 'em young - late teens is best
- before cultural conditioning hardens and they have an aversion to
slaughtering other humans.

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net

Emma

unread,
Jul 2, 2010, 5:23:23 PM7/2/10
to
In article <42f0185f-2129-4be6...@7g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
SkyEyes says...

>
>On Jul 2, 7:51=A0am, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>> In article <mjmn26hgbljmgmm866kvem2ubdd8bpn...@4ax.com>,
>>
>> =A0default <defa...@defaulter.net> wrote:
>> > It is no mistake that governments and religions vie for control of
>> > education. "get them while they are young" and not overly critica=

>l
>> > or cynical and a little stupid and malleable.
>>
>> Same rubric for the military. Which is the reason they like 18 year
>> olds, when they are too young to drink or to vote, but can make like
>> changing decisions like putting themselves in harm's way.
>
>Gwynne Dyer, Canadian journalist, produced a great documentary series
>for TV back in the 1980s called _War_.
>
>In it, he pointed out that the reason there's an upper age limit on
>military recruits is that after a certain age, a human cannot be
>reprogrammed to kill. You have to get 'em young - late teens is best
>- before cultural conditioning hardens and they have an aversion to
>slaughtering other humans.
>

Nothing to do with a preference for recruits without
alzheimers, poor eyesight and dodgy hips then?
What about the difficulties of zimmer-frame access
to the battlefields?

Seriously though, of course governments use schools
for propaganda. Sometimes we don't even know it's
happening, or we're brainwashed into thinking it's
a good thing.
The **new** UK government is currently hosting a website
to encourage everyone to nominate a law that they
would like repealed. Then their will be a mass
binning of socialist laws. Brilliant!
You may need that in the USA before too long...


--
Emma
http://www.britsattheirbest.com/
http://www.royal.gov.uk/
http://www.findmadeleine.com/home.html

Ray Fischer

unread,
Jul 2, 2010, 10:44:28 PM7/2/10
to
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:

Now you should leanr what "fascism" means.

--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net

Michael A. Terrell

unread,
Jul 3, 2010, 9:36:16 AM7/3/10
to


They had pop machines loaded with cans of beer in the mess hall when
i was in the Army in the '70s. That was just about the time they were
starting to admit there was a large problem with alcoholism in the
military.


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

Michael A. Terrell

unread,
Jul 3, 2010, 9:38:42 AM7/3/10
to

Emma wrote:
>
> In article <42f0185f-2129-4be6...@7g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> SkyEyes says...
> >
> >On Jul 2, 7:51=A0am, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> >> In article <mjmn26hgbljmgmm866kvem2ubdd8bpn...@4ax.com>,
> >>
> >> =A0default <defa...@defaulter.net> wrote:
> >> > It is no mistake that governments and religions vie for control of
> >> > education. "get them while they are young" and not overly critica=
> >l
> >> > or cynical and a little stupid and malleable.
> >>
> >> Same rubric for the military. Which is the reason they like 18 year
> >> olds, when they are too young to drink or to vote, but can make like
> >> changing decisions like putting themselves in harm's way.
> >
> >Gwynne Dyer, Canadian journalist, produced a great documentary series
> >for TV back in the 1980s called _War_.
> >
> >In it, he pointed out that the reason there's an upper age limit on
> >military recruits is that after a certain age, a human cannot be
> >reprogrammed to kill. You have to get 'em young - late teens is best
> >- before cultural conditioning hardens and they have an aversion to
> >slaughtering other humans.
> >
>
> Nothing to do with a preference for recruits without
> alzheimers, poor eyesight and dodgy hips then?
> What about the difficulties of zimmer-frame access
> to the battlefields?


I was drafted at age 20, and my eyesight was below 20/200 & 20/400
with glasses. I had four additional medical 4F classifications, but I
had a skill set they wanted, so they ignored the other problems after
telling me I could never enlist.


> Seriously though, of course governments use schools
> for propaganda. Sometimes we don't even know it's
> happening, or we're brainwashed into thinking it's
> a good thing.
> The **new** UK government is currently hosting a website
> to encourage everyone to nominate a law that they
> would like repealed. Then their will be a mass
> binning of socialist laws. Brilliant!
> You may need that in the USA before too long...
>
> --
> Emma
> http://www.britsattheirbest.com/
> http://www.royal.gov.uk/
> http://www.findmadeleine.com/home.html

0 new messages