One of the reasons why the United States of America got off to such a great start is
because we had total educational freedom. When the Constitution was written, there was
already by then a great variety of teaching institutions. The Dames Schools were colonial
preschools in which children were taught the three R’s in preparation for going on to an
academy. The academy was a private school run by an educational entrepreneur. It
prepared students for higher learning or a trade or profession. They were considered the
most appropriate educational institution for a free people. Their responsibility was to the
parents who put their children in the academy.

Home tutoring was also very common in those days. There was no such thing as
“compulsory school attendance.” Parents were free to provide their children with any
fonn of education which met their needs. Children were taught to read and write in the
Dames Schools, which were keenly aware that Biblical literacy was an absolute necessity
in a society based on the teachings of the Bible.

In New England, laws had been passed requiring parents to educate their children. This
spurred the creation of Common Schools throughout the region. Towns hired teachers to
run such schools. Their main function was to prepare the students for future studies in
the colleges. They were owned and operated by the local folks who usually paid the
schoolmasters with commodities rather than money.

The beauty of this high degree of freedom was that education was practical, its
foundation based on reality. Whatever was taught was intended to improve the
knowledge, skills, and aptitUdes of the students. The community’s basic purpose in
education was to pass on to the future generation the knowledge, wisdom, religion and
morals of the previous generation. There was no such thing as religious neutrality. The
United States was a Christian nation and all agreed that children should be inculcated in
the tenets of Christianity. And anyone who went into the education profession knew its
spiritual purposes.

But then the question arises: why did Americans give up educational freedom so early in
their history when its benefits were so obvious? Believe it or not, it had nothing to do
with economics or poor teaching. Literacy was very high and education was available to
everyone. There were even excellent charity schools that provided education for the
children of the poor. There was no need for the government to get involved in education.
.

But in Boston, the government did get involved in establishing the Boston Latin School,
an elite school to prepare students for Harvard. It was funded by the city even though the
parents of the students could easily have paid its costs. But the liberals in Boston were
already looking to government to establish an elite institution separated from the church.
What happened to create this state of mind? It was the rise of the Unitarian heresy at
Harvard among the descendants of the Puritans. Intellectual pride became the spearhead
of religious Liberalism.

The Unitarians no longer believed in the Trinity or in the divinity of Christ. If Christ was
divine it was in the sense that we are all divine. But while Christ was considered a great
teacher, he was not considered to be the source of salvation. The Unitarians also rejected
Calvin’s view of man as being innately depraved who needed to be saved by Jesus Christ.
The Unitarians believed that man was basically good, and that all he needed was a good
secular education to achieve moral perfectibility.

And so the Boston Unitarians launched a strong campaign to create government primary
schools in which Calvinist teachings would be eliminated. They were successful because
they learned how to influence the press, control the legislature, and get what they wanted.
As the public school movement grew, the orthodox were in a dilenuna as to whether or
not to support it. In 1849, the orthodox General Association of Massachusetts decided in
favor of support with this very important stipulation. They wrote:

“If after a full and faithful experiment, it should at last be seen that fidelity to the
religious interests of our children forbids a further patronage of the system, we
can unite with the Evangelical Christians in the establishment of private schools,
in which more full doctrinal religious instruction may be possible.”

There is no question that the “full and faithful experiment” has been a colossal failure,
and that millions of Christian children have been spiritually harmed. While many parents
have taken their children out of the public schools, and hundreds if not thousands of
church schools have been founded, the vast majority of Christian parents still put their
children in these anti-Christian public schools. In other words, we have still to learn the
lessons of history.

(The above article came from the Sam Blumenfeld Archive. http://blumenfeld.campconstitution.net/main.htm

The Blumenfeld Archives

In the past it seemed that the best way to become President was through several
well-established routes: by climbing the power ladder in either of the two political
parties, by having gone to Harvard or Yale, by having had a Rhodes Scholarship to
Oxford, or by belonging to the secret Skull & Bones Society at Yale.

Nixon clawed his way up the ladder of the Republican Party. Born in California in
1913, he got his law degree from Duke University School of Law in 1937. In 1946 he
was elected to the House of Representatives as a Republican. He gained fame among
Republicans by putting Soviet agent Alger Hiss in jail. After many ups and downs he
finally became the 37th President in 1968.

Jimmy Carter, our 39th President, was born in Plains, Georgia in 1924. He graduated from
Plains High School and then attended Georgia Southwestern College. He served as a
Georgia State Senator and then Governor. As a liberal statist he created two new
departments when he became President, the Department of Education and the Department
of Energy. He seems to have been chosen by the powers that be in the Democrat Party
to run for President. In 1976 he won the race against Gerald Ford. His Presidency is
considered a disaster by conservatives. Yet, he remains something of a fluke in the
annals of American presidential politics.

John F. Kennedy was born in Massachusetts in 1917, attended private prep schools,
studied at the Fabian Society’s London School of Economics in 1935, then entered
Harvard in 1936. He graduated cum laude in 1940. After the war, he got into politics and
was elected to the House of Representatives as a Democrat in 1946. In 1952 he became a
Senator. His father had always wanted one of his sons to become President. The eldest
was killed in the war, but John, No. 2, was available. With the help of the family
fortune, Jack finally became the 35th President in 1960 in a very close race against
Richard Nixon.

After Kennedy, came Lyndon Johnson, who also clawed his way up the
political ladder of the Democrat Party, and became President after JFK’s assassination.

George H. W. Bush, born in Massachusetts in 1924, came from a family of Wall Street
investment bankers. His father was not only a Yale Bonesman, but also became a U.S.
Senator. George followed his father’s footsteps to Yale and the Skull and Bones Society.
After graduation he got into the oil business in Texas. There, as a “moderate” Republican
he was urged to run against a candidate in the primary who also happened to be a
member of the “extremist” John Birch Society. He won the primary, but lost the election
to a Democrat.

In 1966 he won a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. Although generally
considered a Rockefeller Republican, he tended to vote conservative. In an effort to
become a Senator, he ran against a conservative in the primary. He won that battle but
in 1970 lost the election to a Democrat. When Gerald Ford became President after
Nixon’s resignation, he appointed Bush to be Liaison Officer with Communist China
where he spent 14 months. In 1976, Ford appointed Bush head of the CIA.

In 1979, Bush decided to run for the Presidency. He vied with Ronald Reagan for the
nomination but lost. Reagan then asked Bush to become his running mate. In 1989, after
serving two terms as Vice President, Bush finally made it to the White House. He was
expected to continue Reagan’s conservative policies, especially on taxes. But when he
reneged on his pledge not to raise taxes, he went down to defeat in1992 against Bill
Clinton.

Ronald Reagan, our 40th President, was born in Illinois in 1911. He graduated from
Eureka College in 1932. He became a famous movie star and then a spokesman for the
free enterprise system. He entered elective politics in the 1960s, becoming Governor of
California in 1967. A conservative Republican, he turned out to be one of the most
popular Presidents in our history. He combined charisma and a vision of America that
thrilled the hearts of most conservatives. To Reagan, America was “the city on the hill.“
His strong anti-communism also endeared him to conservatives.

Clinton, born in 1946 of lower middle class folk in Arkansas, decided as a teenager to get
into elective politics. He graduated from Hot Springs High School. Then, with the aid of
scholarships, was able to attend the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University
in Washington. His professor, Carroll Quigley, who had access to the private papers of
the Council on Foreign Relations and the Rhodes Round Table, helped him get a Rhodes
Scholarship at Oxford. After Oxford, he entered Yale Law School, got his degree in
1973, met Hillary, a fellow student and Saul Alinsky disciple, whom he later married.
From there Clinton returned to Arkansas where he worked his way up the Democratic
Party, became Governor in 1978, and finally made it to the White House in 1992. As a
Rhodie, he met many other ambitious politicos at Oxford, who later became members of
his team during his Presidency.

George W. Bush, 43rd President of the United States, was born in Connecticut in1946. He
followed his father and grandfather’s footsteps to Yale, where he became a member of
the Skull and Bones Society. After graduation in 1968, he attended Harvard Business
School and got his MBA degree in 1975. He then worked in the Texas oil business, and
finally entered elective politics in 1977. He ran for the House of Representatives, but lost.
In 1994 he became Governor of Texas. He was elected President in 2000 after a hotly
contested race against Al Gore.

So far we have seen how individuals can rise to the Presidency via traditional channels of
Republican and Democratic political activity. But now we have a new source of potential
candidates for the White House: Saul Alinsky’s Chicago school for Marxist
Revolutionaries. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are Alinsky disciples, and
they have tried to impose Marxism over the American people. Hillary first tried to do it
when her husband was elected President, giving her the opportunity to organize an effort
to impose socialized medicine on the nation. Thanks to Republican opposition, that
effort failed.

But it was Barack Obama, on being elected President, who went to work immediately to
impose socialism on the American people. Of course, he had the help of Nancy Pelosi,
the most leftist Speaker of the House to hold that position, and Senator Harry Reid of
Nevada, whose leftism seems to have been adopted as a means of gaining support of the
leftist unions.

Pelosi is a San Francisco liberal who really doesn’t know the difference between
socialism and capitalism. She is not a thinker. She came from an Italian Catholic
family that was very active in Baltimore Democrat politics. She attended Catholic
schools and probably absorbed enough Liberation Theology to solidify her liberal beliefs,
which became the basis of her left-wing politics. She is the least philosophical woman
ever to be elected to Congress. When she was asked if the National Healthcare Bill was
constitutional, her answer was: “Are you serious?” Which means that she has no
conception of what a Constitutional Republic is and probably doesn’t want to know.

Harry Reid was born to a very poor family in Searchlight, Nevada. After graduating
high school he attended Southern Utah University and graduated from Utah State
University. From there he went to George Washington University Law School.
He returned to Nevada with a law degree and first served as Henderson city attorney. He
was then elected to the Nevada Assembly in 1968. He then ran for Lieutenant Governor
of Nevada, but lost. He also lost a bid to become mayor of Las Vegas. But due to his
very strong political connections he was able to become chairman of the Nevada Gaming
Commission in 1977.

When a gambling entrepreneur tried to bribe Reid, he turned the
individual in to the FBI. That helped improve his political qualifications. The result is
that he was elected to Congress in 1982. In 1986 he ran for the Senate and won.
In reviewing Reid’s political career, which consisted of party loyalty above all else, one
can see why he was able to beat his opponent in the last election. His connections in
Nevada guaranteed his reelection. He is clearly not a Marxist. He’s a Democrat, and
the Democratic Party has become the chosen vehicle for the Marxists’ to gain political
power in Washington. He is a party loyalist above all else. For him the political game
has nothing to do with the Constitution or the principles of the Founding Fathers. So he
can loyally serve a Marxist President without any qualms.

And so neither Nancy Pelosi nor Harry Reid are conscious Marxists. They probably
know very little if anything about Saul Alinsky. And since many of the precepts of Karl
Marx’s Communist Manifesto have already been adopted by the United States under the
guise of liberalism, how can anyone call it socialism?

One good thing the Tea Party movement has done is bring to the new Congress men and
women who actually believe in the Constitution and the principles of the Founding
Fathers. They are not Marxists. They are not socialists. They are Constitutionalists or
Americanists. And they know that Marxists and Socialists move about Washington under
the label of liberalism. So the Tea Partiers are more aware of the semantic trickery of
the left and will not be fooled by it any longer. They are also the harbingers of the
conservative counter-revolution that is so badly needed in Washington. That is why
2011 will prove to be one of the most decisive years in American history.

(The above comes from the Samuel L. Blumenfeld Archives:  http://blumenfeld.campconstitution.net/main.htm )

The Blumenfeld Archives