Archive for the ‘The Historical Muse’ Category

Baneful Effects of NEA-Led Education

Monday, September 6th, 2010

Since it’s Labor Day, what better day to talk about one of the largest and most influential unions in the country—the National Education Association [NEA]. This also allows me to continue my intermittent history of American education.

The NEA was founded in Philadelphia in 1857. The ostensible rationale for its creation was to provide a voice for all teachers in the nation to promote the interests of the profession. A statement from that initial meeting said it hoped to one day see a federal department of education. Well, that certainly has come to pass.

The biggest problem with the NEA is that it quickly came under the control of the progressive education movement, with John Dewey as its head. Dewey became a regular speaker at NEA conventions. Willard Givens, who served as president of the NEA from 1935-1952, called himself a socialist [as was Dewey]. It was Givens who gave the impetus to the policy of requiring all members of state and local education associations to become members of the NEA. He also endorsed world government, hoping thereby to eliminate America’s national sovereignty.

Givens said the following about the nature of the education he promoted:

The major function of the school is the social orientation of the individual. It must seek to give him understanding of the transition to a new social order.

The new order Givens sought was a socialist society.

The NEA began active political lobbying in 1961 and was instrumental in passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, the first time the federal government got involved in education at those levels.

The Constitution gives no authority to the federal government to legislate on education, but that didn’t stop the NEA.

In 1981, a reporter for the communist Daily World, after attending the NEA’s annual convention, filed this report:

Nowhere in the basic documents of NEA, in their resolutions or new business items, are there any anti-Soviet or anti-socialist positions. … It [the NEA] will increasingly be fighting shoulder-to-shoulder with fellow trade unionists as the class struggle intensifies.

In other words, the NEA was totally in sync with the aims of the Soviet Union when it existed. What are some of those resolutions the reporter identified? The basic ones have remained unchanged for years.

First, it must be understood that the NEA seeks to be the sole voice for American education. It wants to dictate standards for every school, including all private schools and home schoolers. No one should be allowed to teach, declares the NEA, unless licensed by the state and using a state-approved curriculum. If that resolution ever becomes law, all private education will be destroyed.

Many of the resolutions have little to do with education per se. As you meander through them, you discover that the NEA also takes a stand in favor of homosexuality and abortion, and in opposition to the teaching of any religious doctrines. Also on the agenda are national healthcare, radical environmentalism, gun control, and unilateral disarmament.

Sound like a wonderful organization? Keep in mind it’s the leading voice for the education profession in America, and that it’s very difficult for public school teachers to remain independent of it. In some states, they are required to join; in others, they are pressured to become a member; if they refuse, they are ostracized.

And all the while, our education gets worse. It is a union; it is a lobbying organization; it cares little for actual educational improvement. Education is merely the medium through which its leaders seek to impose their agenda on the nation.

The Citizenship Question

Saturday, August 7th, 2010

Sen. Lindsey Graham [of all people] has come forth to address the issue of the children of illegal immigrants becoming citizens. The way the law is currently understood—erroneously, I might add—any child born within the United States, to any immigrant, legal or illegal, is automatically a citizen of the United States. Some immigrants do come into the country as the due date approaches, give birth here, and then use the status of their child, a so-called “Anchor Baby,” to remain here.

We are told this is the result of the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. All amendments must be viewed in context and interpreted according to original intent. The Fourteenth Amendment was one of the post-Civil War amendments dealing with the ex-slaves. All that was intended by it was to ensure that no Southern state would take rights away from these ex-slaves. That’s why the wording was as follows:

All persons born … in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.

How do we know the original intent was to apply to ex-slaves only? We have the word of the very man who wrote this particular clause. He was Michigan Senator Jacob Howard. As author Thomas West writes,

It appears, however, that the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has long been misunderstood. Edward J. Erler points out that the author of the clause, Senator Jacob Howard, emphatically stated that those “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States “will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners” or “aliens.” In other words, the Fourteenth Amendment was never intended to grant automatic citizenship to American-born children of foreigners, and the Supreme Court erred in 1898 when it ruled otherwise. (The Court never ruled that American-born children of illegal aliens are citizens, although that too is current federal policy.)

I realize that original intent doesn’t mean a whole lot to many judges anymore, but if we are to be faithful to the amendment’s original purpose, we must cease the practice of making citizens of anyone born on American soil. No new amendment is necessary. The one we have will do nicely.

I do highly recommend West’s book. It’s called Vindicating the Founders, and it deals not only with what the Founding Fathers thought about immigration, but also race, women, property, voting, and welfare. I use it in my American Revolution course, and it proves to be quite enlightening for most students.

Meanwhile, back to the topic: so when you hear politicians claiming that children of immigrants, legal or illegal, are automatically citizens, realize they don’t understand the Constitution they are supposedly upholding. And when you hear that something else must be done to reverse this policy—well, that might be necessary, given the times, but it shouldn’t have to be. The original intent of the amendment is quite clear historically.

Forgotten Presidents with Good Advice

Wednesday, June 23rd, 2010

My latest posting on the Big Government site is now available. Most people know next to nothing about James Garfield and Grover Cleveland, but they understood the perspective we need to have on government. Check it out at

http://biggovernment.com/asnyder/2010/06/23/forgotten-but-honorable-presidents/#more-135814

Today’s Surprise: I Recommend My Own Books

Tuesday, June 22nd, 2010

In the nearly two years that I’ve written this daily blog, I’ve never, to the best of my recollection (how’s that for a lawyerly term that gets me off the hook if I’m wrong?), advertised for books I’ve authored. Today, though, I would beg your indulgence, since I’ve just had a new edition of one of my books come off the presses.

I first wrote If the Foundations Are Destroyed in 1994. This is now the fourth edition of it, complete with a new cover. Why might you want it? The subtitle, Biblical Principles and Civil Government, tells you what it’s all about. I go through what I consider to be Biblical principles and how they apply to government. These form the basis of all my analyses of current government policies. So if you are a regular reader of this blog, this book will provide a window into why I believe as I do.

I have excerpted some of these concepts on the blog already as an overview. If you are interested in a preview, just click on the “Biblical Principles” category in the right sidebar. To learn more about the book and to order it, go to:

 http://snyders.ws/alan/writing/itfad.htm.

While I’m at it, let me talk briefly about the other two books I’ve written.

I did my doctoral dissertation on Noah Webster. While writing it, I had in mind that I wanted to make it into a publishable book. That’s not always easy with a doctoral dissertation, but I made every effort to ensure the writing style was accessible to a general audience as well as scholars. I hope I succeeded.

Webster was the schoolmaster to early America. His speller and dictionary could be found in nearly all American homes. The subtitle, A Spiritual Biography, lets you know that my goal in this book was to chart the course of Webster’s thinking and worldview. At age 50, he experienced a conversion to orthodox Christian faith. How did that affect his scholarly work? The book compares the pre-conversion Webster with the post-conversion man, while offering along the way an accounting of his contributions to American life and culture. To find out more and order this book go to:

http://snyders.ws/alan/writing/webster.htm.

In 2001, I completed a study of the Clinton impeachment. My approach was different than any of the other books on the impeachment written at that time. I wrote it from the perspective of the thirteen congressmen—they were called House Managers—who went to the Senate to argue for Clinton’s removal from office. I personally interviewed all thirteen of the Managers in their Capitol Hill offices; this book provides their story on why they thought it was essential to go forward with these impeachment proceedings in spite of public opposition. It’s a study in character and the significance of the rule of law in society.

At the time of its publication, it was a main selection for the Conservative Book Club. Well-known author and editor of World magazine, Marvin Olasky, wrote the foreword for me. This is the only one of my books that is currently out of print (which I hope can be changed someday), but it is still available for those who are interested. For one of the limited number of new copies that still exist, you can order from this page:

http://snyders.ws/alan/writing/misimp.htm

If you don’t mind getting a used copy, check out Amazon.

I don’t offer these with any expectation of becoming fabulously wealthy. My primary concern is to disseminate valuable information. I’ve promoted books by a number of authors over the past two years. I just wanted to make sure you are aware of mine as well. I hope some of you decide to add one or more of these to your library.

Disrespect?

Tuesday, June 8th, 2010

I know a lot of American citizens were disturbed by President Obama’s absence on Memorial Day from the ceremony at the Tomb of the Unknown in Arlington Cemetery. I’ve been there on a number of occasions, and it is meaningful to observe the changing of the guard.

While I understand the dismay expressed by many, there are two reasons why I didn’t share it fully. First, Obama was going to another cemetery in Illinois, so he was marking the occasion; second, and perhaps more cynically, I felt it might be better if he weren’t there. In my opinion, he has little respect for America or the military, so I thought the ceremony might be better without him. I realize the symbolic importance of the president at least showing outward respect, but what’s in the heart is far more important—and the heart is revealed through actions.

However, when Sunday, June 6, passed, and the White House didn’t even acknowledge the significance of that day, I must admit that was an inexcusable omission. Ronald Reagan, for instance, never let the D-Day anniversary pass without highlighting it. His 1984 speeches in Normandy were a key event in his administration as they put the spotlight on the sacrifices of the men who began on that day to take Europe back from Hitler.

Personally, I look upon this snub by the White House as the height of disrespect for those who died to set other people free and to ensure the United States would never succumb to the Nazi evil.

Some commentators have taken the step of referring to Obama as the first post-American president. Sad to say, I believe there is evidence for that.

For Memorial Day

Monday, May 31st, 2010

Yes, war is bad. Sometimes, though, not going to war is even worse. Would we really want a Hitler controlling all of Europe? If not for the Cold War, and Reagan putting the pressure on the Soviet Union, more of the world might have come into the Soviet orbit. The lesson is clear:

It would be better if we could all agree on this. That agreement has been somewhat sporadic, however:

We talk a lot about the national debt, but there’s one type of national debt we don’t speak about often enough:

May we always remember.

A Chambers Dialogue

Friday, May 28th, 2010

Last weekend, I posted on the Big Government site about Whittaker Chambers and his view that the New Deal was indeed a revolution. I was surprised to receive a comment from Chambers’s grandson—disagreeing with that view. Our dialogue on the issue turned out to be good for another posting, so if you’re interested, go to

 http://biggovernment.com/asnyder/2010/05/27/a-whittaker-chambers-dialogue/#more-125358

As you will see, I don’t accept his perspective, but it was instructive and beneficial to think it through. Hope you find it to be the same.

Presidential Dictatorship

Friday, March 26th, 2010

There was a time in the 20th century when it appeared that a president was setting up a virtual one-man/one-party rule. That time was the 1930s; the president was Franklin Roosevelt.

He took office in the midst of the Great Depression and immediately began signing bill after bill to ostensibly take care of the disastrous economy. Many of the bills he signed had new agencies attached to them. They were called his Alphabet Agencies, and his New Deal marked a radical departure from traditional constitutional government.

Critics warned that this socialist direction would not pull the economy out of the doldrums but keep the nation entrenched in its financial pit. All these programs would simply tie up the resources of the nation and forestall recovery.

FDR alienated the business community with his actions, but he didn’t care. He was providing government money to those in need, thereby assuring his reelection. When he won an overwhelming victory in 1936, he determined to take total control of all three branches of the federal government.

The Supreme Court had been a thorn in his side, judging two of his programs unconstitutional. So now FDR had a plan to fill the Court with extra judges who would rule according to his vision of the future. Opponents called it the Court-Packing Plan. By it, he hoped to control all Supreme Court decisions and squash any attempt to declare his programs unconstitutional. One cartoonist at the time pictured it this way:

Roosevelt’s brash attempt to centralize all government power in himself backfired. Members of his own Democratic party couldn’t go along with it—it was just too brazen, too blatant. They balked.

As a result, the more conservative Democrats abandoned him on many of his proposals and joined the Republican opposition. The vaunted New Deal came to a halt. Although the country was saddled with what already had passed Congress, few new initiatives passed and we escaped presidential dictatorship.

FDR’s policies, by the way, never ended the Depression. In 1937, a new round of economic woes hit—a recession within an ongoing depression. Unemployment rates skyrocketed again. By 1939, even his own Treasury Secretary admitted that nothing they had done had made the economy better.

Perceptions, though, are sometimes different.

Since FDR was a good communicator, and since a lot of people received government aid, a significant portion of the population believed that his policies were successful, despite the actual numbers. Even today, we hear the mantra, repeated ad nauseum: Roosevelt brought us out of the Depression.

Perception and reality are often at odds.

Now we have a new New Deal. Barack Obama has consciously promoted himself as the new FDR. The underhanded manner in which he forced through government control of healthcare is indicative of his desire to create presidential dictatorship once again. Keep in mind not one Republican in Congress voted for this bill. It’s one-party rule.

Meanwhile, millions of adoring fans believe that Obama will grant their every wish.

They are in for a huge letdown—that is, if they can ever face reality. The wizard is impotent. He is a little man with no actual power. He succeeds by trickery and glibness alone.

FDR fell short of his ambition for presidential dictatorship. I pray that the new budding presidential dictator will run into a similar brick wall—for all our sakes.

Honoring the Government

Saturday, March 13th, 2010

Let me clarify something today. I can almost hear some readers of this blog thinking, “He criticizes the president and Congress so much that he can’t really have any respect for the government.”

The opposite is true.

I have the highest regard for the federal government. This comes from a reading of the Constitution, the debates over its ratification, and the character of many of those who helped bring it to pass. I believe the form of government set up by our Constitution is the best the world has seen, yet I also believe that it can work the way it’s supposed to work only if we maintain our Biblical principles.

Congress, in theory, is a wonderful institution. Initially, it allowed direct representation for the people and direct representation for all state governments. This provided balance and set up a federal system. When we changed how senators were elected, state governments lost all representation. That was a blow to the federalism essential for the Congress to function the way it was intended.

Further, as I stated in my last post, when individuals in Congress are allowed to set up their fiefdoms over which they rule imperiously, we have lost the character necessary for it to represent the people.

As for the presidency, the Constitution did not set up an all-powerful executive. It did give the president strong powers in certain areas, such as making him the commander in chief of the armed forces, but the president was not to be a monarch.

George Washington, I believe, had the proper attitude toward the office. He accepted it as a sacred trust, a responsibility thrust upon him by a people who had confidence in his leadership. Given a choice, he never would have taken the job; he would have preferred to stay at home and oversee his farms. Yet his country needed him to set the right precedents for the office.

As I tell my students, what we need today are people who don’t need to be president to have fulfilled lives. Far too many of those who aspire to the office see it as the apex of their existence. Many have been running for it [in their minds, at least] since they were teenagers. How many do so because they have the same attitude Washington had? How many do so because they simply want the authority that the office bestows? The latter are not the ones I want to entrust with that authority.

I know not everyone will agree with me that Abraham Lincoln also possessed Washington’s outlook. Yes, he was a politician who wanted the job. However, a closer look at his motives reveals a strong desire to use that office for good constitutionally. He had dropped out of politics until Congress passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854. That act, which opened a new area to slavery, incited Lincoln to reenter the fray.

As president, he bore a heavy burden. Those with Southern sympathies believe he was a tyrant. I must respectfully disagree. Although under tremendous pressure to change the nature of the country forever, he did no such thing. He merely took his job as commander in chief seriously as he tried to bring rebellious states under control. In the process, slavery disappeared. I used to be one of those who disliked Lincoln. Further study changed my mind.

We have had presidents since Lincoln who did their best to keep the nation operating constitutionally. Chief among those were Grover Cleveland, Calvin Coolidge, and Ronald Reagan. Others had strong impulses for changing the government in a way that would destroy the original intent of the Founders: Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama have been the most prominent.

Why do I critique the current Congress and President Obama so much? It’s because I have a deep respect for the original intent of this government. It’s because I have a heartfelt desire to see us maintain our Biblical principles and build upon them.

When one sees the foundations of a once-great nation crumbling, one has a responsibility to speak up. To do otherwise would be to share in the blame when it finally is destroyed.

The Kingdom of Congress

Friday, March 12th, 2010

Let’s pause briefly for a recalibration of our thinking.

We spend a lot of time contemplating what Congress is doing—new pieces of legislation, the strategies for passing them, etc.

An Old Document that No One Reads Anymore

Stop and remember something: Congress was originally set up with very limited powers. The United States Constitution did not erect a tribunal that could legislate on any matter it deemed fit.

In Article One, Section 4, we find the following wording: “The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year.” Why was that even inserted? The easy answer is this: Congress had such limited authority for legislation that it might not need to meet every year; this phrase was included to ensure that the people (in the House) and the state governments (in the Senate) would have input into the federal government, keeping it from becoming primarily an executive branch.

The concern was that Congress could be preempted.

During the ratification debates on the proposed Constitution, some opponents objected to what they perceived would be too powerful a federal government. James Madison, writing in what we now call Federalist #45, responded to those objections in these words:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

In other words, this Constitution did not set up a government that could legislate on all matters; it was limited in its scope.

Yet what do we see now? We don’t have to worry about making sure that Congress meets once every year. The struggle now is to make them go home once in a while. Congress has taken upon itself (with a generous nod from the federal judiciary) authority it doesn’t possess. It now tries to legislate on everything.

Healthcare is the most prominent issue at present. If you were to seek the place in the Constitution where it says Congress has power to legislate on this matter, you would come away empty.

Another problem that has arisen with our new imperial Congress is that individuals have become mini-dictators. Committee chairs set up kingdoms. The role of Speaker of the House carries with it virtually unlimited authority with respect to how that body functions.

The imperiousness has risen to unprecedented levels.

Those statements are not fabricated. Speaker Pelosi actually uttered those very words.

There is an old saying/joke that takes on greater meaning with each passing year: Congress has adjourned, the Republic is safe.

It’s time to once again be governed by the rule of law; it’s time to return to constitutional limitations.