Common Core creates new wave of home schoolers!

A new out-break of freedom as GenX parents reject statist monopolized education!

The department of education is barely older than most of these parents, yet it continually speaks to them as if they were the children.

Children are people- not mechanical property of parents or the state. Children deserve to have choice in their educations, not statist-mandated   tests and programs.

Adults enjoy free choice. When you go to lunch , you have dozens choices- Asian, Mexican, home-style, Italian, smoking and non-smoking.

As an adult, you typically enjoy your lunch due to the CHOICES you have. No one forces you to eat the same lunch day after day, much less a lunch mandated by an-ever shifting cadre of statist nincompoops.

Homeschool is a great way to introduce freedom and enjoyment into the educational life of the children in our families. Let them develop curriculum that enhance their talents, and challenge them.

We love them, we want them to grow into thinking individuals and not robots.

Homeschool offers the best chance.

 


 

MORE PARENTS CHOOSE HOMESCHOOLING DUE TO COMMON CORE
by DR. SUSAN BERRY 27 Mar 2014 241 POST A COMMENT

As Common Core champions like Jeb Bush, Bill Gates, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce continue to attack parents, teachers, and taxpayers for what they claim are “myths” spread about the centralized standards initiative, many parents across the nation are not convinced.
They are refusing to subject their children to the stress, pressure, and confusion associated with the Common Core by opting out of the assessments aligned with the standards, or by withdrawing them from school and choosing homeschooling instead.
WHNT 19 News in Alabama reports a growing number of families making the decision to withdraw their children from school in order to homeschool because of “confusion,” “chaos,” and stress related to the Common Core standards.
“It [Common Core] has caused chaos in our house, and it’s not worth it,” said Lori Peden, who has withdrawn two of her children from McBride Elementary in Muscle Shoals, Alabama. “The teachers are not comfortable teaching it. They’re frustrated. Parents are upset, kids are not making good grades. That’s what I’ve seen.”
Peden said she never had plans to homeschool her children, but did so after she observed her son struggling with Common Core math assignments in which he was required to find and learn up to half a dozen different pathways to the same final answer, an endeavor that created confusion and constant stress.
“In math, they take a very long road to go a short distance,” said Peden. “You’re fighting over which method to use and how to figure out how he needs to do it. It’s a lot of time wasted, a lot of effort wasted.”

Megan King, a parent from Kansans Against Common Core, is also homeschooling two of her children because she is unhappy with the Common Core standards.
“My oldest is in middle school, and is on an advance track that I felt comfortable leaving him where he is at, but even with him I am seeing problems in the area of English,” King told Breitbart News.
King said she pulled her kids from public school as Common Core was being implemented.
“I noticed the dumb and confusing way math was beginning to be taught, and as I looked more and more into Common Core, I didn’t like what I was seeing on so many levels,” she explained. “My 4th grader had only read one literature book through the year. I asked his teacher about their reading and she said they had been reading small non fiction books (informational text).”
“I just felt my kids were not going to learn at a level I know they can and should be learning at,” King said.
Though homeschooling has been an adjustment for the entire family, King said the results have been worth it.
“I do recommend homeschooling,” she said. “It’s very rewarding, but I had to quit my job as a preschool teacher in order to homeschool, so we have had to really tighten our belt financially. But, even if a state finds its way out of Common Core, it will be years before things are what they were before No Child Left Behind and Common Core, so we, as parents, have to get creative and find new ways to educate our kids.”
Justin and Jennifer Dahlmann of Kansas also have decided to homeschool their children in response to the implementation of the Common Core standards.
KAKE.com reports that the Dahlmanns, who have four daughters from ages two to nine, said Common Core had been implemented at their children’s private school.
“Our own kids were taking these standards that are driving the curriculum and we didn’t know anything about it,” Justin said. “That’s when we started doing the research on it and realized how overbearing it was.”
The parents asserted that the Common Core standards are making education more confusing, as opposed to encouraging more rigorous critical thinking, as the standards’ supporters tout.
Homeschooling, for the Dahlmanns, is, in some ways, a form of protest of the “top down” Common Core standards.
“If this does nothing more than wake people up to becoming more involved with their children, that’s great,” Justin said. “But absolutely parents need to become more involved in this.”
William Estrada, Director of Federal Relations of the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) wrote in December of 2012, that he believes “children – whether homeschooled, private schooled, or public schooled – do best when parents are fully engaged.”
Estrada said that centralized education policies do not encourage parents to be engaged in what and how their children are being taught.
“The CCSS [Common Core State Standards] moves education standards from the purview of state and local control to being controlled by unaccountable education policy experts sitting in a board room far removed from the parents, students, and teachers who are most critical to a child’s educational success,” Estrada wrote.

 

Russian media responds to Alaskan petition to join Russia

Image

More on the bizarre petition for Alaska secede from the US to join The Russian Federation.

While there is a sizable Russian immigrant community here (and an equally sizable Ukrainian community) I doubt most secessionist Alaskans would consider membership in the Russian Federation to be any improvement from its current situation.

Its current situation might be described as heavily militarized oil plantation of the US. Most Alaskans wouldn’t wish to revise that role with yet another statist overlord.

In Alaska, our largest political third party (sorry, Libertarians etc) is the Alaska Independence Party.

Both the socialist right wingers (Republicans) and socialist progressives (democrats) have appointed AIP members to positions and offices in their administrations.

Even right winger Sarah Palin has acknowledged the prominence of the secessionist movement here by delivering (by video) the keynote speech of the AIP’s convention recently, and marrying AIP voter Todd Palin- our former “First Dude”.

Enjoy this strange Russian viewpoint of an Alaskan phenomenon you probably didn’t know existed!

Image


In Crimea’s footsteps: Alaska wants to unite with Russia, puts petition forward

A petition entitled “Alaska Back to Russia” has been placed on the US administration’s website and has gathered over 14 thousand signatures in three days. All that despite the fact that that document vanished from the open list of appeals – although the first 150 signatures made it available for voting.

http://voiceofrussia.com/2014_03_25/In-Crimeas-footsteps-Alaska-wants-to-unite-with-Russa-puts-petition-forward-3906/

Some experts point out that one should not talk about any tendency for separatism in the US, but one should not take such petitions as a joke either. The authors of the petition – similar to other petitions for the secession of some other US states – are trying to remind the White House about the basis of the state, and specifically about the Declaration of Independence.
A resident of Anchorage, the largest city in the state of Alaska, published his petition a couple of days after Crimea seceded from Ukraine and rejoined Russia. To support his petition he cites the following historic facts: the first Europeans that put their foot on the land of Alaska in 1732 were the crew of the Saint Gabriel vessel, captained by Makhail Gvozdev and Ivan Fedorov. In conclusion the author calls for “seceding Alaska from the US to rejoin Russia”.
The US acquired Alaska in 1867 in exchange for $7.2 million. Even if there has been any violation of that treaty on Washington’s part (which has been discussed in certain circles lately), the period of limitation has long expired. Thus, at first sight the petition looks like a joke, or as mockery of the American authorities. But that document does not appear so unserious considering the situation regarding other states’ appeals to secede from the US. The same website called We The People hosts similar petitions from citizens of 29 of the 50 US states. The White House needs to at least take such a trend into account, thinks Dmitry Abzalov, vice president at the Center for Strategic Communications.
“As practice shows, the majority of countries focused on the external issues missed separatist processes inside their states. Take Spain or Great Britain, or Southeast Asia for example. For Washington it is more important to deal with internal problems: they are quite serious and concern primarily the state budget and external debt. That is a lot more important than the situation in Kiev or Ukraine, which most US citizens generally know nothing of. Otherwise, the risk of repeating the situation in the Southeast of Ukraine or in the European countries will be quite large in the USA”.
If the petition to return Alaska to Russia gathers 100 thousand signatures before April 20, the US administration would have to react to that appeal. Although that reaction would be just answering the appeal. For example, over 125 thousand people signed the petition for Texas to secede from the US in 2012. And the authorities answered them that the covenants left by the Founding Fathers did not include the right to secede from the country. They did not even recall the Declaration of Independence adopted by the same Founding Fathers: it states that a situation could come up when one people would have to break the political ties that tie it to another people, in order to guarantee it “security and happiness”. But now 29 states recalled those words. Although it is clear from the beginning that those petitions will be “soft-pedaled” as well.
It is also clear that nobody will remember the declaration in relation to the situation in Crimea and Ukraine. It Jupiter is not allowed to do it (refering to the Latin phrase “What is legitimate for Jupiter, is not legitimate for the ox.”- VOR), all the rest aren’t either. One should not talk about the “Kosovo precedent”: the “rest of the world” that is so far from understanding democracy cannot understand that Kosovo is a “special case”. Scotland and the Falkland Islands can follow that example, while Crimea should not! Washington and its allies are trying to come to peace with themselves using all these mantras. In the last few years the Big Brother policy has convinced the sober part of humanity that one should stay as far as possible from such “democratic” ideals, points out Sergey Grinyayev, director of the Center for Strategic Evaluations.
“The situation with the referendum in Crimea is the trend of our time. The thing is that over the past years the leadership of many countries has conducted inefficient policy. The global economic crisis that resulted in countless countries going bankrupt testifies to that. Undoubtedly, the majority of the planet’s population cannot accept such a situation. And naturally, given that we observe and will observe that nations demand their right for self-determination.”

Libertarian Anarchy: Against the the State/ A Review by James O’Gallagher

A recent article for a book review from the excellent blog of Bill Buppert of zerogov.com. There’s a lot if information and great articles over at zerogov.com and you may also order Bill’s book there as well.

 


 

Image

Libertarian Anarchy: Against the the State/ A Review by James O’Gallagher
Posted on March 28, 2014 by Bill

from zerogov.com

Publisher’s Note: This is James’ first contribution to the blog and he does an excellent job talking about the book. I highly recommend James J. Martin’s book Men Against the State for an earlier compendium about 19th century individualist anarchists in America. -BB

Libertarian Anarchy: Against the State

Gerard Casey, an Associate Professor of Philosophy at University College in Dublin, Ireland, and an Adjunct Scholar at the Mises Institute, has written a concise, excellently sourced treatise promoting the political philosophy he labels “libertarian anarchy”.

Professor Casey writes in large part from a Rothbardian perspective, as one sees by his very first sentence: “States are criminal organizations”. He distinguishes libertarianism from libertinism, noting that libertarians may live by strict moral principles, yet “the law has no business enforcing purely moral considerations”.

Casey describes the “limited objectives” of his compact, well -written and well -argued brief for liberty as the following:

1) To show the anti-libertarian character of states and state action

2) To argue for the presumption of liberty

3) To make the case for libertarian anarchy

4) To show that law does not require state sponsorship

5) To demonstrate the illegitimacy of the modern state by means of an attack on the representative nature of democracy and the validity of state constitutions

He accomplishes these objectives, to this reader, without exception. He provides an apt metaphor of the state as “the Wizard of Oz, a small man with a megaphone pulling levers behind a curtain”.

Casey begins by addressing the overriding myth prevailing in contemporary society, “The belief in the legitimacy and necessity of the state”. He quotes James Scott: “Until shortly before the common era, the very last one percent of human history, the social landscape consisted of elementary, self- governing, kinship units that might, occasionally, cooperate in hunting, feasting, skirmishing, trading and peacemaking…..It did not contain anything one would call a state…Living in the absence of state structures has been the standard human condition”.

Casey shows how statism in inextricably linked to warfare, aggression, and theft. “The making of the modern state and the making of war go hand in hand, and money, other people’s money, lots of it, is required for both.”

Casey attacks the presumed moral legitimacy and ‘special status’ of the state and state actors. “If someone wants to make the case for the privileged moral status of state actors, the burden of proof resides with them”. Further, the “principal concern” of his book is to refute the claim that the “the creation, the administration and enforcement of law” …..”cannot be provided by any other body” than the state.

Casey delivers some knockout rhetorical blows against statism and statists. “The greatness of our historical leaders is built on the mangled bodies of the poor, the defenceless and the politically gullible”. He lists a sample of the “innumerable legion of petty tyrants that have plagued the world” consisting of the “Alexanders, Caesars, Napoleons, Hitlers, Stalins,Clintons, Blairs and Bushes”.

He paints a positive, life affirming portrait of libertarianism, explaining how it is premised upon the Non Aggression Principle (NAP), the Golden Rule (Reciprocity) and freedom, leading to human flourishing. “Freedom is essential to human flourishing…..’Coercing people’, writes Sartwell, ‘reduces them to the status of inanimate objects’ and serves….’to attack the status of human beings as moral agents’.”

While confirming that for libertarians, “liberty must be the default position for any ethical or political theory”, Casey stresses that liberty is not the be all and end all of human existence, but rather the most fundamental social value. In other words, quoting Lord Acton, “freedom is the highest political end, not the highest end of man per se”.

Casey cites the NAP in distinguishing libertarianism from classical liberalism and conservatism, as well as from modern, activist liberalism\leftism. ”Both the liberal and the conservative are selective in those spheres in which they will allow liberty to operate”. The conservative allowing liberty in many economic areas but not in morals or military and nationalistic concerns, while the modern liberal is more tolerant of private moral choices, yet is compelled to call for more and more central planning in the economic and industrial areas.

Regarding the always heated disputes as to whether anarcho-commmunism\socialism or anarcho-capitalism represents “true” anarchism, Cases explains:

“I believe we are free to bind ourselves by entering into informal and contractual relations with others, even relations in which we voluntarily subordinate ourselves to other. I do not accept the common claim of anarchists from the left side of the political spectrum that such relations are necessarily anti-anarchic. If we are not free to bind ourselves then we are not really free, our liberty is compromised. The form of anarchism that accepts this radical notion of freedom, our freedom to bind ourselves, I call libertarian anarchism.”

So the author prefers the term “libertarian anarchism”. What about that old rhetorical bugaboo, capitalism? Casey concedes: “The term ‘anarcho-capitalism’ is used by some to name the position I am defending here.”

He acknowledges that ‘capitalism’ “carries so much emotional and conceptually confusing baggage” that it is not likely to “be used in a neutral, descriptive way”. He notes that Rothbard, perhaps the father of anarcho-capitalism, or at least its most well known proponent, distinguished between ‘free market capitalism’ and ‘state capitalism’. The latter, of course, is what passes for free enterprise capitalism today in most people’s eyes, the corporatist, bailed out, propped up, subsidized, mercantilist, bastardized version of real freedom in economic pursuits. As Rothbard put it, the difference between these two versions of ‘capitalism’ is “precisely the difference between…peaceful, voluntary exchange” and ”violent expropriation”.

So, providing that no coercion is used, any set of economic arrangements is acceptable. Libertarian anarchists, according to Casey, believe that their role is not to endorse any particular economic system but, quoting Sneed, “to destroy the state in order to allow all economic systems to complete on a voluntary basis”. To that, Casey clarifies, “any set of voluntary arrangements that do not violate NAP”.

Casey goes on to discuss fundamental principles of property rights, and addresses common criticism of anarchy, and anarchists. He weaves into the discussion, succinct and pointed analysis of political theorists, philosophers and economists, from the ancient to the contemporary, including Aristotle, Aquinas, Hobbes, Locke, Bastiat, the great Lysander Spooner, Kirk, Hayek, Walter Block, Bruce Benson, Randy Barnett, and innumerable others.

He explains how law is not imposed from above by those in authority, but derives from the common experiences and reasoning of the people who subscribe to the law, community norms, usual and customary standards, judicial opinions and the like (otherwise known as common law). However, the judicial opinions, legal standards and rulings are not some mysterious gift handed down by above, but tried and true principles, rules and rational decision making used to resolve disputes. In other words, the laws of a society are created and rise from the bottom up, and are not properly viewed as hierarchical edicts imposed on a people, or a community. Legal change occurs by evolution, not (legislative) revolution.

Of course, as NAP is entirely consistent with the universally sacred concepts of respect of human dignity, individual autonomy, the golden rule\reciprocity, and natural rights, what hopefully evolves in any given society will be completely consistent with natural law. Those societies and communities that respect and honor natural law and natural rights will expect to grow, prosper and flourish, especially over time. Moreover, due to respect of universal human natural rights such as individual sovereignty, the right to travel, freedom of association and the abolishing of arbitrary, government imposed borders and barriers, communities (business, legal and otherwise) needn’t be tied to artificial and geographical restrictions.

Casey discusses anarchic societies, of varying sizes and times, to give examples of “anarchy in action”. He emphasizes the importance of kinfolk, restitution, and non- violent and non-coercive methods of keeping law and order, including such varied, voluntary approaches as disapproval, ostracism, boycott, blacklisting, blackballing, banishment and expulsion\exclusion, for those who refuse to obey societies norms, pay their debts, honor legal judgments, respect the rights of others, maintain a surety or insurance, or membership in a DRO.

Casey clarifies that he is not claiming these societies are examples of pure libertarian anarchism or any kind of imaginary utopia, but he brings them up “to show that there have been societies that functioned without a state apparatus”. As even (neo-conservative historian) Francis Fukuyama wrote, all over the world for most of human history people owed obligations “not to a state but to kinfolk, they settled disputes not through courts but through a system of retributive justice”. Casey then specifically discusses a few examples, including Eskimo society, Somalia, ‘medieval ’ Ireland (really, about 500 BC to 1600 AD), with an emphasis on the use of customary, kritarchic (rule by judges) as well as polycentric law for private dispute resolution, including use of surety’s, dispute resolution organizations (DRO’s), and what today would be called insurance. For more examples of anarchic societies throughout history, be sure to check the end notes and bibliography.

Casey’s fundamental thesis, as one would expect, is that the state is illegitimate, its “office holders” thieves, authoritarian control freaks, and frauds. He demolishes trite, grade school “social studies” propagandistic canards like the myths of political democracy, “representation” and the completely discredited notion that states can effectively “limit” and restrain themselves through Constitutions and “checks and balances”. The preposterous idea that statist Constitutions are “contracts” (‘social’ or otherwise) is fittingly and easily disposed of.

Casey concludes his work, stating: “What I have tried to do in this book is to make the case for libertarian anarchy and the illegitimacy of the modern state- two sides of the same coin.” He recaps how he accomplishes this, by citing to the ideas of other brilliant minds, and including many of his own.

The book is very well sourced and includes a bibliography that any “libertarian anarchist” (or classical liberal\minarchist) would enjoy perusing. For any of you interested in the topic, and indeed, whether one is anarchist, minarchist, or simply interested in competing political theories and analytical discussion, I highly recommend this extremely readable, engaging and instructive work.

 

 

 

 

Has America gone over to the collectivists completely?

What follows is a recent article by Nick Giambruno, one of the excellent writers over at internationalman.com. I suggest that you subscribe to their excellent updates and learn about internationalization, asset and privacy protection, and how to enjoy what freedom remains in the world. It’s time to start thinking here, people. Can you really stomach what is happening to the land of your birth? Is it time to ask yourself if staying in the US is the intelligent thing to do?

 


 

 

You’d Have Better Luck Converting Them to Become Jehovah’s Witnesses

By Nick Giambruno

internationalman.com

 

I’d bet that many of you have thought about or discussed the following question: “What are the chances that the political situation might improve in the US?”

I know I have.

Unfortunately, I have long concluded that the chances are slim to none… and slim is out of town.

The reason for this is simple: a growing majority of voters in the US has deeply ingrained collectivist impulses in some fashion or another. In other words, they’re addicted to the heroin of the failed policies of the welfare, warfare, and nanny state.

Speaking of the nanny state, New York City is perhaps one of the most infamous incarnations of it. The bureaucrats in the Big Apple have a particularly strong affinity for regulating every aspect of the personal lives and businesses of its residents. It’s all done “for your own good,” of course—the standard catch-all justification for big government.

The latest example of which is Mayor Bill de Blasio’s absolutely ridiculous “Vision Zero” plan. This plan seeks to reduce traffic deaths to zero by drastically increasing police enforcement.

It’s delusional to think that fatal accidents could ever be fully eliminated, no matter how many police officers or enforcement cameras there are on the streets. It’s not unlike trying to totally eliminate bathtub falls by putting a police officer or a camera in every bathroom.

Jaywalkers in particular have been singled out for extra attention by the police in “Vision Zero.”

Consider the story of Kang Wong, an 84-year-old man who was recently stopped for jaywalking near Broadway and 96th Street at around 5 in the evening. Wong, who apparently didn’t understand what was happening or why he was being stopped, tried to walk away from the police. The situation escalated, and the police ended up arresting and bloodying him.

Few New Yorkers question why the money extracted from them via taxation—to pay for the police—didn’t instead go towards dealing with real crimes (aggressions against people and property). Nor did many question the disturbing absurdity of the bloodying of an 84-year-old man spurred by the increased enforcement of jaywalking in the name of the “Vision Zero” fantasy.

This whole ordeal underscores why I’m not particularly optimistic that a significant number of Americans will change their views on collectivism and personal freedom anytime soon.

Many have been force-fed since a young age the notion that democracy is the most sublime form of government. I believe the reality, however, is quite different—especially once a society loses respect for the rights of individual. In other words, when the majority or the collective trumps all.

Then it only takes 51% of the people to agree to restrict the rights of the rest of the 49%—which amounts to nothing more than mob rule dressed up in a suit and tie.

If 51% of the people vote to elect a guy who wants to turn their city into a police state in pursuit of the delusion of totally eliminating traffic deaths, they can. (Note: NYC mayor Bill de Blasio won in a landslide, with 73% of the vote.)

If 51% of the people vote to elect a guy who wants, in the name of the greater good, to force you to buy health insurance you don’t need or want, they can.

If 51% of the people deem it “fair” that the top income tax bracket to be 75%, then so be it. It’s already happened in France.

Or suppose that gold explodes to the upside (another way of saying the currency crashes) and 51% of the people demand, in the name of fairness, a precious metals windfall profits tax.

These are the kinds of possibilities that can occur in a democratic society with collectivist leanings.

It brings to mind the words of H.L. Mencken: “Democracy, too, is a religion. It is the worship of jackals by jackasses.”

Granted, the US has not arrived at some of these destinations yet… though I believe we are on the path toward it—and there’s no turning back.

The reason is simple: a growing majority of Americans are financially dependent on the government.

It’s estimated that around 47% of Americans are already receiving government benefits in some way.

But I believe 47% is not an accurate reflection of the situation.

We also need to consider all government employees as well as those in the nominally private sector who make a living off of the warfare state—like defense and other government contractors who win huge no-bid contracts.

Those involved in the military industrial complex are living off slops at the government trough just as much, if not more than those who collect food stamps and other traditional forms of welfare. Yet they aren’t counted in the statistics. So we need to include them to get a more complete picture of who is financially dependent on the government.

Anyone who exists off of political dollars instead of free-market dollars should be counted.

When these people are included, we’re well north of 50% of the American population (a solid majority and growing) that’s financially dependent on the government in some form.

This means the US has crossed the Rubicon.

It’s not good news for those opposed to collectivism.

This built-in majority of welfare recipients and government employees guarantees that there will be a solid voting block to continue—and accelerate—these policies. It would be foolish to assume that a meaningful number of these people would vote to stop the government from giving them benefits or otherwise vote to break their own rice bowls.

The notion that a significant number of people living off of government largesse will be brought around to an individualist or libertarian way of thinking is a pipe dream.

You’d have better luck converting them to become Jehovah’s Witnesses.

In other words, there is no hope for positive change to come from the political system.

Therefore, I believe your time and energy are best spent preparing for and protecting yourself from the effects of a collectivist system that eventually collapses under its own weight… like all of them eventually do.

Once you’ve realized that it is futile to stop this collectivist tsunami, the next logical question becomes “How do I protect myself and my savings?”

The answer is: the same way you would with a regular tsunami… get out of the way!

The good news is that thanks to internationalization, you don’t have to be a passive victim.

Moving some of your savings abroad in the form of offshore bank and brokerage accounts, foreign real estate, and physical gold held in safe jurisdictions, will go a long way toward protecting yourself. Obtaining a second passport is an important part of the mix as well.

It’s not all doom and gloom; the world is your oyster, and there are very attractive jurisdictions that are cause for optimism. And that’s what International Man is all about—making the most of your personal freedom and financial opportunity around the world.

If you are not already a member, you can click here to join here for free to get all the latest news and information about internationalization. You’ll also get access to other stuff like our very popular free special reports. Be sure to pass this on to your friends and family so they have access to this crucial information too.