Parents Opt Out of Common Core State Standards *Printable*

Every parent concerned with their state implementing Common Core standards as it relates to federal dollars match to them should download this form, print, sign and forward to everyone you know. It is from Truth in American Education. Locally, FoundersIntent signed onto several press releases (click HERE to view letter to Luther Olsen, and HERE to view letter to members of the Republican Governors Assoc) to stone-walling state legislators that refuse to hold public hearings on the issue.

Since they won’t let us speak to them, we must try other measures. You may share any of the letters provided here by links with anyone you like.


Please make this go viral, as the video of THIS MAN has since last night. A father in Maryland stood up in a public education meeting designed to silence debate (you had to write your questions down, no discussion), and for doing so he was assaulted by a security officer, arrested and charged with assaulting the GUARD! Please stand up at every turn.

Sign the form. Share the video. Stand up. Speak out. Without you, liberty stands still.


FI staff.


EDITOR’S NOTE: If you still cannot see the file above by left or right-clicking on the link, then please try this shockwave preview window below

The Presumption of Government is Empowered by Ignorance

By Ed Willing


In today’s social media-endowed news machine, new Executive Orders or legislative drafts come out into the open and set off a flurry of viral screaming and bloodletting, without much vetting. True, the current administration has a clear disregard for the Constitutional traditions we’ve held for so long, but it’s hard to blame them outside of simply being wrong – they aren’t the first in our nation’s history to attempt or succeed at doing this. From John Adams, to Franklin Roosevelt, there were countless moves to subvert the Constitution as it were for various “emergencies” but were more often stopped, or limited because of that hallowed document that God himself seemed to ordain for passage. Imagine any such document being passed now, even in a very Conservative state on a local scale. Surely, the event of the Constitution’s ratification is perhaps as historically significant as the contents of the document itself.

Currently, Vice President Joe Biden’s son, Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden has ordered the three counties of the state to forego their Sheriff’s arrest powers, in contradiction with their state’s Constitution. Earlier in 2012, a bill was passed to approve stripping the Sheriffs of their arrest powers, signed by the governor on June 19th. Of course, this means state statute is in violation of the state Constitution, and courts will have to challenge any potential challenges. What this shows is how relatively quick the traditions we know and take for granted can be stripped away. Now, of course, if this is truly the will of the vast majority of the people, no one has the moral right to question their change. But that is why Constitutions exist, both state and federal – to slow down the process of changing foundational law from being altered by a mere, temporary wave of emotional group-think. The state should be amending the Constitution to clarify this position, but perhaps Atty Gen Biden is not confident it would pass. Time will tell if this is important to Delaware residents.


Meanwhile, in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, elected Sheriff David Clarke continues to show that not all officials move leftward once in office. In fact, they can evolve forward, or at least reveal more liberty-minded instincts over time. First assuming office in 2002, when Wisconsin was one of only two states that did not allow concealed carry, the Sheriff has witnessed the state of Wisconsin move rightward, and has embraced the recent changes in law that allowed over 150,000 residents to carry a firearm for protection. In a recent PSA on local radio, you can hear the Sheriff take the lead and make a case to the public that we are in fact “partners in this” until they “get there” to help the residents protect themselves. That is the essence of self-government. It is in direct contrast to the nannyism that has overtaken so many in office, and that so many in the public assume is the capability of their government. Until it fails them.

(Above: Sheriff David Clarke (Milwaukee County, WI) PSA on protecting your family. “We’re Partners now, can I count on you?”)

But, the reality is that laws only have an effect when people actually observe them. Violations in preserving liberties, or traditional forms of government (like the Sheriff’s office) only hold their strength in the ignorance, and acceptance of the public. So, cries about usurpations often fall on deaf ears, often to the great dismay of defenders and oathkeepers nationwide. The way these travesties have been beaten back before is not a mere war of rhetoric, but systematic, patient argument for the principles behind the policies, not just the policies themselves. If the people do not change, the government certainly will not. And no one should be surprised when government moves leftward from the line of liberty. No matter what good men or women may be in charge, the Founders learned from history that government inherently moves the opposite direction of freedom. It is not entirely the fault of the leaders that the very nature of government is to subvert the autonomy of the individual.

And as long as the public accepts these changes, nothing can be restored. Ironically, government, even in its abuse of liberties, still wields its power to execute in the will of the people, either by their demand for it, or by their acceptance of it.


Therefore, each of us must do what we can to teach generations at a time what it means to self-govern. For when this ethic is lost, the vacuum will, and MUST be filled with something. Since those who cannot govern themselves naturally become dependent, that vacuum is always filled with government intervention. History has repeated this over and over again.

During the 19th century, the Progressives looked at a nation constantly rejecting their policies locally and nationally and realized that to change government, they had to change the people. Public schools were already in place in many communities, but they were not ubiquitous and they were not standardized. There was no common standard in every school district, and therefore, no ability to move the masses toward collectivist thought. Indeed, the greatest extent of “collective benefit” ever considered usually ended at the city borderline. In order to achieve their great change, Progressives everywhere understood and agreed in writings that the change must happen at the local level. Each school must become standardized, removing local cultural uniqueness, religious instruction or philosophical differences. The change was motivated by legitimate desires to reform education, but they went further by imposing these changes whenever possible by convincing the public that higher governments should bequeath these changes from on high, rather than among each of the thousands of individual schools. Once this autonomy was surrendered, it was only a matter of gaining a few seats of influence to wield the power to institute the Progressive agenda in the next generation.

By the late 19th century, the tide began to turn. Republican institutions of local government, such as primaries, municipal government and state representation in the US Government began to change. On the back of a populist movement, Teddy Roosevelt, William Jennings Bryan and Robert Lafollette reformed the very foundation of government, and the people supported it. After a generation of being taught a new respect for the term “democracy,” the majority of the public despised what they perceived as the autocratic monopoly of the Founders’ intent.

Here we sit, over 100 years later with a nation altogether different than we had then. Prosperous on the backs of greater generations, but squandering it for the assurance that we do not have to govern ourselves, or be responsible for our own actions. We got to this point slowly, progressively by design. And to reverse it, we must come to agreement that it can only change the same way the progressives achieved theirs: education, and asserting independence on a local level.

Too many conservatives dismiss the notion, saying the public education system is too flawed to fix, and that it is beyond hope, and we should retreat to our own families and sew our seeds there. Yet, how can we abandon a campaign we never engaged to begin with? From the very beginning, constitutional lovers of the republican methods of government have no made a concerted effort to hold back the almost unchallenged conquest of the left in education. And since our children play in the back yards of the children still in the system, it is hardly responsible to declare it is not our responsibility.

The state of Delaware has been a progressive state for a very long time, and their people willingly accept these changes without much of a fight. But why would other states wait until the policy becomes a target, rather than take the fight to the mind itself? As Conservatives who love the Constitution and the system the Founders intended, we do not war against policy and elections; but against the minds and impulses of a people conditioned by a machine we have chosen to neglect for far too long. The presumption of strength in Government by the forces behind this centralization is empowered by a lack of knowledge among the people.

We have a nation of ignorance that does not understand God, Natural Law or the simple process of deducing ethics and morals because ironically, they have been taught that moral absolutes and personal standards are archaic and oppressive – while learning these new philosophies in an absolute and standardized environment.

Local politics (read: municipal, school, church government) is the new Third Party of the modern age. Instead of focusing our anger solely on the bahavior of two self-perpetuating Parties that exchange power in peaceful transition, negate their ability to wield that monopoly. Local politics are where it begins. If you truly want to restore the Founders’ vision and preserve the power of the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution, get involved and don’t let go. It’s no longer our children’s future that depends on, but our own is at stake.



Pursue Conservative Health Care Reform: Fighting Predatory Federalism

By Ed Willing

Since the Supreme Court’s infamous 4-1-4 ruling on the Affordable Care Act in June, nearly two dozen states have grappled with whether or not to comply with the first of many forthcoming deadlines found in the rules written (and still being written) by the functionally unconstitutional entity known as the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).

November 16th is the deadline, and a flurry of letters are finding their way to Kathleen Sebelius’ desk this afternoon telling her they will not comply with the requirement to set up an exchange. The great debate has been over the enticement written into the law:

  • Either states create the exchanges, and the Feds will not only pay for the administrative costs but also the cost increases of expanding Medicare and Medicaid, or…
  • The Federal government will set one up for them and not give states the authority to direct their exchanges. Continue reading

Federalism Isn’t Dead, and it’s Progressives Who Are Defending it

By Ed Willing

Constitutionalists were far from confident that either result of the recent Presidential election would help restore the Founders’ intentions, but many were hoping that an Obama loss would at least slow the extinction. Especially in regard to Obamacare, Conservatives have put a lot of weight on winning federal elections to save what is left of our waning Republic. After a frustrating, suspect and humiliating loss, few noticed the victories for Federalism made across the country – by Progressives.

While Obamacare looks to be intact, and in light of the Supreme Court ruling in June, the battles of Tuesday seemed to be the primary battlefield for Conservative reform. But consider something else, for a moment. The states of Colorado and Washington each approved the recreational use of marijuana, as a product to be regulated and taxed. This is in direct opposition to Federal statute (the Controlled Substances Act) – and a 2005 Supreme Court decision – stating that marijuana has a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the U.S., and lacks accepted safety for use under medical supervision. But, many states have said otherwise. And this is the balance the Founders presumed the Constitution would protect. But under countless laws, conservatives and progressives alike have mistakenly sought the Federal government to solve local concerns, even if they are unconstitutional actions. And, the Supreme Court has repeatedly supported this presumption, as recently as the Raich decision in 2005, under the bastardization of the Commerce Clause. Coincidentally, this ruling was in regard to marijuana regulation by the Federal government. Nonetheless, today, nine states have approved either conditional or recreational use of marijuana, with many others considering it. All but one are traditionally “blue states.” Whether you approve of the legalization or not, it is an interesting observation in contradiction. Continue reading

Follow the [European] Leader?

By Monica Frede


Last week, many pundits commented on the New York Times op-ed that vindicated Sarah Palin’s infamous “death panels” that drew scrutiny from Democrats and moderate Republicans during the ObamaCare debates of 2009.

See, Republicans boasted, she was right all along! Even the New York Times admits that there will be rationing. Yes, Steven Rattner did write in his op-ed that “unless we start allocating health care resources more prudently—rationing, by its proper name—the exploding cost of Medicare will swamp the federal budget.” Yes, Rattner did write that “elderly Americans are not entitled to every conceivable medical procedure or pharmaceutical.” And yes, he also stated that families that try every available treatment option to extend or improve the life of their elderly relatives are “an enormous societal cost that few other nations have been willing to bear.” Continue reading

Beyond the Surface: Spending and Deficits, Congressional Year Breakdown

By Kim Lewandowski

In 2007, the Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.

For those who are listening to the fallacy that everything is “Bush’s Fault”, think about this: On January 3, 2007, the day the Democrats took control of Congress, the DOW Jones Industrial Average value was, at closing January 5, 2007: 12,398.01. Since then, from June 20, 2008 to January 28, 2011 it went well below 12,000 (as far down as 6,626.94 on March 6, 2009).  It is finally showing some signs of recovery, but even the current Dow is inflated by virtually free money and the cash-printing of the Fed.

The GDP: For the last quarter of 2006 was 3.5%. And for the first quarter of 2012 is 2.2%.

The Unemployment rate:  Was 4.6% in January of 2007, and at 8.1% currently.  Please note that an undetermined number of unemployed people that have used up all unemployment benefits and continue to be unemployed IS NOT counted in this percentage as it only counts those on the unemployment compensation rolls.

Debt:  Is shown in the table below for each President and who controls Congress.  And ahead of predictions, total national debt reached 100% of the GDP by the third quarter of 2011.  If counted using the total public debt outstanding over the annual GDP in chained 2005 dollars, the ratio reached 115% on Feb. 2012.

People complain about exploding deficits under George W. Bush, and some of this consternation is well-founded with his increased spending every year, often at a greater pace than his predecessor. However, his economic policies led to even greater increases in tax revenue per economic dollar created. President Bush demonstrated that letting people keep more of their own money leads to economic growth.  In 2001, America was experiencing the unprecedented triple shock of a recession following the dot-com bust, economic disruption due to the terrorist attacks of September 11, and corporate accounting scandals.  Fortunately, the country was able to overcome these challenges, in part because President Bush’s tax relief put more money in families’ pockets and encouraged businesses to grow and invest.  Following the President’s 2003 tax relief, the United States had 52 months of uninterrupted job growth, the longest run on record” per the White archives site.

As another example:  Based on that historical record from the National Bureau of Economic Research, we should be in the third year of an economic recovery boom right now. That is what we experienced under Reagan, which was the last time we recovered from a recession of similar magnitude.  In September 1983, the Reagan recovery, less than a year after it began, created 1.1 million jobs in that one month alone compared to Obama’s 230,000. In the second year of the Reagan recovery, real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years.

But back to our current issues:  Clinton shares at least some of the blame for the current financial chaos. He beefed up the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act to force mortgage lenders to relax their rules to allow more socially disadvantaged borrowers to qualify for home loans. In 1999 Clinton repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, which ensured a complete separation between commercial banks, which accept deposits, and investment banks, which invest and take risks. The move prompted the era of the superbank and primed the sub-prime pump. The year before the repeal sub-prime loans were just 5% of all mortgage lending. By the time the credit crunch blew up it was approaching 30%.  In 2003, the Bush administration tried to stop the runaway train of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and Republicans controlled both chambers of Congress. Democrats alone didn’t stop this. No one filibustered the Bush administration’s bill in the Senate; it didn’t have the votes to pass. Likewise in 2006, when Chuck Hagel, John McCain, John Sununu, and Elizabeth Dole attempted to fix Fannie and Freddie, Republicans controlled Congress and did nothing to pass this bill. Democrats blocked it, but had there been some help from Republicans, both efforts would have passed easily.  This is not just a Democratic or a Republican party problem at this point.

January 3rd, 2007 was the day Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.  The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in those same areas of the economy…BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES which were weakened by Clinton’s actions mentioned above and mismanaged.

THANK YOU for dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!  BTW: Bush attempted to control and reign in Fannie & because it was financially risky for the US economy. Barney blocked it and called it a “Chicken Little Philosophy” (but…the sky did fall!) and the Republicans in congress followed his lead.  Why?  Because both parties were getting money from Freddie and Fannie.  You can look at this table at this site to see the total contributions made to each member….which, strangely enough, Obama had the second largest contributions (just under C. Dodd)….

The last balanced budget was in 2001 in the 106th congress controlled by Republicans. In that first year of Bush’s administration, Congress had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending when he, somewhat belatedly, got tough on spending increases. Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009, as well as 2010 & 2011. Obama has now gone 1,000 days without a budget, and is still blaming it on the minority Party for most of the last 6 years.

For FY 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed Lame Duck President George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budget.

And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of those massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009. Let’s remember what the deficits looked like during that period:

If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.

If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself and a Democratic Congress.

In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is: “I inherited a deficit that I voted for, and then I expanded that deficit four-fold since January 20th 2009.”

“The problems we face today exist because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.”

To remind you:  All financial matters are initiated by the House.  Here is the breakdown of who controlled which areas of Congress and for what years for each President.

A BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT is the most sensical, most accountable method of reining in runaway spending. While the Founders never included such a provision, they didn’t think it was necessary with the limitations on revenue channels and the foundation of Federalism. Since the 16th and 17th Amendments, the Constitutional system we had has been perverted enough to create an almost insurmountable imbalance that can only be corrected with Constitutional limitations on borrowing and spending on the federal level. The first attempt at a BBA was in 1936, in the midst of a massive socialistic transformation in our Federal Government. On May 4, 1936, Representative Harold Knutson (R-Minnesota) introduced House Joint Resolution 579, resolution in support of a Constitutional Amendment that would have placed a per capita ceiling on the federal debt in peacetime. Clearly, it never saw the light of day. Two Democrats, Thomas Perriello (D-WV) and Sen. Udall (D-CO) have both proposed their own versions, along with a more recent initiative by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT). We need grassroots help to make this a major initiative in the coming years, or our children may literally not have an American Dream of which to pursue, let alone achieve.

Peruse the Americans For A Balanced Budget Amendment site, and join our contact list here, to become part of the movement to restore fiscal sanity to the American Federal Government.

How Can A Citizen Change Education?

By Kristi Lacroix 

I was talking with a friend last night about education and he said that many people want to know how they can get involved in education to help affect positive change. Strangely, I was at a loss for words; as a teacher I had never been asked how the community can get involved with schools to help them perform better, nor has anyone ever asked me how they can help me better teach my students to prepare them for the future. Needless to say, I was intrigued and decided to conduct a bit of an unofficial survey of those in education to see what they think. Here are the 5 most popular suggestions they came up with:


It seems to those in education that the school board is the “front line” in education as far as deciding the direction of a district. School boards decide on programming, curriculum, staffing and contracts with the teachers’ unions. Often, the unions will spend a lot of money to back a candidate that supports the union’s agenda; the union even goes as far as to recruit candidates and groom them for the position. Furthermore, school boards are often made up of one or two retired teachers that cannot even vote on a contract, but will use their voice to sway other members to vote in favor of the union. Average citizens do not know how to run for school boards and will shy away at the thought, thinking that it is a political position. The truth is school board candidates do not claim political parties and should ONLY run because they are interested in having a voice in education. So, we need to empower everyday citizens to run for our school boards.


Even if you cannot run for school board, show up at the meetings. There are a lot of major decisions that are being made at school board meetings, and if you are not there to question the integrity of the decisions, who will? Meetings are often announced in the local papers and even on the district’s website. You pay the taxes to keep the school district running and your opinion is not only appropriate, it is invaluable.


What is going on in education? What are the best practices taking place in other districts? How is money being spent in your district? What happens to ineffective teachers where you live? These are all great questions and ones that you will need to do some research on. Far too often we are not given this information and it is our job to search out the answers. When you attend a school board meeting, it is important to arm yourself with facts. It is one thing to complain about something that is happening in our schools, it is another to show up with solutions. Take the time to read about education reform and what is happening in successful schools around this state. How are they effectively educating kids? How can your district implement similar practices to make your schools successful, too? Trust me, we educators will take all the help we can get.



Parents need to ask questions. They need to ask their student what they are learning in class; find out if the curriculum is appropriate, rigorous and if the teacher is factual in their lessons. Parents can no longer assume that what is going on in the classroom is on the “up and up.” Talk with your children everyday about what they are learning and, if you feel that something is not right, ask the teacher! As a teacher, I have no issue with a parent asking me what is happening in my classroom and I welcome the conversation. I think it is too often that parents become intimidated by school staff and feel like they are not allowed to find out what is going on. This is FALSE! You have every right to know what is happening in your child’s school…heck, it is your responsibility! If you do not get the answers you are looking for, follow the chain of command: teacher, principal, superintendent, and finally, the school board. Demand excellence in your schools!


There are many citizens who do not have children in schools and think that what is happening does not really pertain to them. This is crazy thinking and could not be further from the truth! The children who fill our schools today will fill our state and federal buildings one day. They will become renters, homeowners and parents in the very towns that we live in. If we do not take a serious interest in what they are learning today, how can we ensure that they will become the law abiding, moral driven, responsible citizens of tomorrow? Even if you do not have children yourself, you must take an active role in education and our schools. You pay the taxes for teachers like me to educate the youth in your state; don’t you want to make sure I am doing my job? You should expect excellence from our schools and integrity from educators like me!


Since last week, I have been bombarded with questions concerning The Association of American Educators. Now that so many teachers in Wisconsin have left WEAC, they are curious about this non-union option. Here is the skinny straight from their website:

The Association of American Educators (AAE) is the largest national, non-union, professional educators’ organization, advancing the profession by offering a modern approach to teacher representation and educational advocacy, as well as promoting professionalism, collaboration and excellence without a partisan agenda.

Even though I am still forced to belong to WEAC and the NEA, I joined the AAE this week because I believe so strongly in their mission. I am excited to be a part of a professional association that values teachers and does not use them as a funneling system for political donations. I am excited to learn how to be better at my craft and to know that I am a part of a group of professionals that truly are ABOUT THE CHILDREN!




Kristi Lacroix received her degree from Carthage College and her Master’s Degree from National-Louis University. She currently teaches at Lakeview Technology Academy and has been an English teacher for the past 14 years.  She was actively involved in the teacher’s union for four years to see for herself what was going on and to see how tax-payer’s money was being spent. Now, while still continuing to hold her teaching position, she is an activist to remove the teachers’ unions from our school system and help in any way possible with education reform in her state. She currently resides in Kenosha, WI with her husband Steve and two daughters, Madelyn and Georgia.

A Woman’s War – Bring it On!

By Monica Frede

I’ve heard that there is a “war on women” sweeping across the plains, and the Republican Party is to blame. Conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker have taken it upon themselves to attack women, but in this election year, the liberals have conveniently brought this to the nation’s attention. President Obama loves women. He’s on our side. He understands us.

I do agree that there is a war on women—but with an opaque enemy.

The Paycheck Fairness Act, legislation reintroduced to both houses in April, addresses male-female income disparity in hopes of correcting erroneous discrimination against women in the workplace. The bill would provide easier options for women who are targets of wage discrimination, such as disclosing salary information with co-workers. The bill also requires employers to prove that any wage discrepancies are due to business requirements and job duties of those affected employees.

The bill quantifies a common statistic that for every dollar earned by a man, women earn just 77 cents. President Obama called the Paycheck Fairness Act a “common sense bill.” As common sense as operating the federal government on a budget?

Christina Hof Sommers wrote an article in the New York Times on September 21, 2010 making the argument that this bill contains many holes. She explained that women make different career choices than men, and many women chose careers that provide more flex time and work-lifestyle balances, and also chose work locations closer to home, schools and day care. Working women balance the priority of their family and their work, and oftentimes family trumps career.

She goes on to write:

The problem is that while the debate proceeds, the bill assumes the answer: it would hold employers liable for the “lingering effects of past discrimination” — “pay disparities” that have been “spread and perpetuated through commerce.” Under the bill, it’s not enough for an employer to guard against intentional discrimination; it also has to police potentially discriminatory assumptions behind market-driven wage disparities that have nothing to do with sexism.

I would not want to work for a company that monitors my biological clock. I would not want to have a conversation with my manager during a yearly salary review in which he must justify his choices despite (or because of) my sex. I’d like my work to speak for itself. Just like men, I should be paid for my worth, not the writing on the wall.

You want to close the pay gap? Teach women to be indispensable. Any good employer will chase a woman down the hall if she turns down the offer at the conference table because she knows she can get a better offer somewhere else. Employers are funny like that— they want the best talent working for them. How’s that for empowerment?

But while President Obama touts that the Paycheck Fairness Act can quell gender justice, he ignores the single largest wage disparity against women: unemployment. In April, the unemployment rate hovered at 8.1%. The economy added 115,000 net new jobs, while the labor force shrank by 342,000 people in the workforce.


The Wall Street Journal printed a disturbing chart last week, charting the U.S. civilian labor force participation rate, which has been on a sharp decline in the last 3 years. Currently the civilian labor participation rate is at 63.6%, the lowest it has been since December 1981. The Wall Street Journal explains that some of those 342,000 workers are older workers, struggling to find opportunities that match their experiences and skill set, or second household earners, altering the structure of their household due to a lower income.

How many of those 342,000 workers are women? I don’t know, but I can guess. Let’s say 40% of those workers are women. This means that approximately 137,000 women have given up looking for a job, and they don’t intend to search again until economic conditions improve. Some of those women have master’s degrees. Some of those women are second-income earners for their families. Some of those women make up the twenty-something population that is desperate for independence and thirsty for a successful career.

I’m confident the Huffington Post will report on the tragic story of a single mother who survives off her weekly unemployment check because she has given up looking for a job, or the young female professional who cannot afford to pay for her contraception now that she must compete against hundreds of other graduate students for the one open position at the local law firm.

After all, no greater battle exists for a woman then to be turned down post-interview, and no greater pay gap exists than between the employed and unemployed.

On a recent episode of This Week, George Stephanopoulos painfully agreed with Mitt Romney’s statistic that 92.3 percent of all job losses since President Obama took office have occurred to women. Stephanopoulos spoke to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner who called the statistic “a ridiculous way to look at the problem,” but then went on to explain that the statistic is “technically accurate.”

Geithner’s uncomfortableness during that interview would be a slap in the face to females. The political party that has produced Code Pink and the National Organization for Women have remained silent on the unemployed female population. It’s as if the liberals don’t support all women.

I read Sarah Palin’s biography, Going Rogue, after her Vice Presidential run in 2009. She wrote honestly and transparently, leaving no details of her high school and early political career out. She played basketball in high school, hunted, raised five children, and took on the Republican establishment that had controlled Alaska’s government for generations—and she won. She changed diapers in the governor’s mansion between meetings. As a candidate in her first political race, she drove across the state, going door-to-door and introducing herself to voters, all the while her youngest children slept in the back seat of the family car. This is a strong woman. Mama grizzly never sounded so cool, and hockey moms were never so boss.

But shortly after Sarah hit the national scene, the liberal media went apoplectic. She’s incompetent, she’s stupid, she has an illegitimate child, she buys expensive clothes, she wrote a few sentences on her hand prior to taking the stage at a 2008 Tea Party convention. The media collectively gasped at what she wrote: “Energy…tax cuts…lift American spirit.”

Liberal women everywhere were outraged at the thought of Mrs. Palin as President of the United States. Helen Thomas, former Whitehouse Correspondent, wrote that it would be a “tragedy” if Palin ran for President. Noeme Emery wrote a Weekly Standard article in 2008 detailing some of the feminist’s outrage against Palin:

“Can someone please tell me what the hell happened?” pled Michelle Cottle of the New Republic, as Sarah made landfall…”A slap in the face to all women,” Cottle called it, especially to “any woman who seriously supported Hillary in this race.” Much more was coming, in much the same tone. “I find it insulting to women, to the Republican Party, and to the country,” said Sally Quinn in a Newsweek/Washington Post blog. In the Baltimore Sun, Susan Reimer found Palin’s selection “insulting on so many levels” that she barely could name them. Ruth Marcus, reading from the same cue cards, sputtered in the Washington Post: “I found Palin’s selection…insulting.” Google the phrase “Palin’s pick is insulting to women,” and you come up with 943,000 entries.

Yes, the horror of it all: witnessing a woman, lacking blue blood, political connections or Sandra Fluke-like organizational sponsorships, rising to the heights of American politics on assiduousness and gusto. Thank goodness feminists fight diligently against such females. We wouldn’t want young girls receiving mixed messages—you can grow up to be anything you want, except a conservative woman.

Instead, our young girls are told they should emulate Sandra Fluke. Ms. Fluke spoke before the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee on February 23, 2012. Her testimony lamented on the egregious economic burden placed on female law students at Georgetown Law who must pay for their own contraception. Here are a few of her comments:

“Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary. 40% of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggle financially as a result of this policy.

“One told us about how embarrassed and just powerless she felt when she was standing at the pharmacy counter and learned for the first time that contraception was not covered on her insurance and she had to turn and walk away because she couldn’t afford that prescription. Women like her have no choice but to go without contraception.”

A woman has no choice? She is forced to “go” without contraception? I’m sorry, I think I just stepped into 1851.

Sojourner Truth, a woman born into slavery in 1797 but gained her freedom in 1827, became a well-known anti-slavery speaker. She gave a speech at the 1851 Women’s Convention in Akron, Ohio, later titled “Aint I a Woman?” The attendees at the convention did not want her to speak. Rumblings erupted in the crowd as she took the stage. “Don’t let her speak…it will ruin us. Every newspaper in the land will have our cause mixed up with abolition…and we shall be utterly denounced.”

Despite her critics, Truth’s speech proved powerful— leaving the female audience stunned and speechless. Here is an excerpt from her speech:

“Why children, if you have woman’s rights, give it to her and you will feel better. You will have your own rights, and they won’t be so much trouble. I can’t read, but I can hear. I have heard the bible and have learned that Eve caused man to sin. Well, if woman upset the world, do give her a chance to set it right side up again….And how came Jesus into the world? Through God who created him and the woman who bore him. Man, where was your part? But the women are coming up blessed be God and a few of the men are coming up with them. But the man is in a tight place, the poor slave is on him, woman is coming on him, he is surely between a hawk and a buzzard.”

At a time in our country when women’s suffrage began to gain traction, Sojourner Truth looked beyond the disparateness of society to the core of every woman—she has the potential to fix the world. Whether in the board room, in the governor’s mansion, or at home with her children, women succeed on the merits of their ability, not on the accommodation or patronage of her government or her employer.

We don’t need acts of congress to create our futures. We don’t need biased media telling us what women we should support and which we should despise. We don’t need handouts in order to avoid responsibility. Women are smart, and we will fight for our liberties.

Liberty produces all kinds of women — especially the kind that win the war.

An Anniversary and A Funeral: ObamaCare

By Monica Frede

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) gave a celebratory speech to Congress on Wednesday, the same week as the two-year anniversary of the Affordable Health Care Act, evoking the core principles of the Declaration of Independence— life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. She could hardly contain her glee:


Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is exactly what the Affordable Health Care Act helps to guarantee. A healthier life, the liberty to pursue happiness, free of the constraints that a lack of health care might provide to a family. If you want to be a photographer, a writer, an artist, a musician, you can do so. If you want to start a business, if you want to change jobs, under the Affordable Care Act, you have that liberty to pursue your happiness. And that is why I am so pleased that this week we can celebrate the two year anniversary of the Affordable Care Act.

Time to start the party.

If you want to pursue your dream career, change your job, or start your own business, the government is here to say you can do so! (Imagine the commemoratory events planned in offices around the country this week: colorful streamers falling from drop ceiling tiles, balloons strung from fire sprinkler heads and Obama’s glowing smile supplanted on “Happy Birthday” sheet cakes.)

I have another idea of what could help those Americans trapped in dead-end jobs, shackled with their inevitable pursuit of depression: capital. Anyone who wants to start their own business needs capital. Why not create a law that anyone who writes a persuasive letter to the federal government, expressing their heartfelt plea for the funds needed to cover start-up costs such as three years of salary, equipment costs and legal fees, will receive a check in the mail? Mrs. Pelosi certainly would support that idea. After all, having sufficient capital to start your own business is the very definition of pursuing happiness.

Although we have many Americans who do not want to be small business owners, their letter would look slightly different. “I have not been on a family vacation in two years, and my kids really want to meet Goofy at Disney World. Can you send a check for $3,000?”

Critics quickly poke holes in my suggestions: but we’re not talking about free vacations; we are talking about providing health care. Health care saves lives. And that provides all Americans life, liberty and the ability to pursue happiness.

Is that so? To what end?

Daniel Webster (1782-1852), a leading American statesman and senator from Massachusetts, as well as a U.S. Congressman and U.S. Secretary of State, presented a testimony before the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention in 1840, persuasively arguing for the people’s rights to establish qualifications for their elected officials. Early in his testimony Webster said, “No man can be said to have a right to that which others may withhold from him at pleasure.”

That statement, another harbinger for our times, like so many of our Founding Fathers’ words, rebukes our modern-day governmental philosophy that more is better and much more is best. The temptation of holding office coincides with the temptation to trade handouts for reelection. Webster continued:

There may be among legislators strong passions and bad passions. There may be party heats and personal bitterness. But legislation is in its nature general: laws usually affect the whole society; and if mischievous or unjust, the whole society is alarmed and seeks their repeal. The judiciary power, on the other hand, acts directly on individuals. The injured may suffer without sympathy or the hope of redress.

Nancy Pelosi and her counterparts grossly augment their realm of legislative authority by extending “the pursuit of happiness” to include health care coverage. Again, no citizen is denied health care when needed. But that same citizen is required, by law, to pay for services rendered. But the damaging ramifications of the Affordable Health Care Act “benefit” only a portion of the public, rather than protect the general welfare of the whole.

(What better protects the general welfare of the whole than removing government from health insurance? Just look to the housing market as our “lesson learned.”)

Additionally, handing out checks to entrepreneurs does not benefit the whole. The same can be said for food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, unemployment insurance, child tax credits, Earned Income Tax Credit, student loans and government-subsidized housing.

No limits exist on the government’s ability to grant a benefit, cloaked in the right to pursue happiness, so long as the government denies the spirit of the Constitution and their limited legislative powers. And no elected official can pervert their legislative ability amongst a society that seeks their repeal.

Like Webster asserted to his Convention, “If he dislikes the condition, he may decline the office in like manner as if he dislikes the salary, the rank, or any thing else which the law attaches to it.” And if he chooses not to decline, we the people can remove. Because we are the government.

Happy Anniversary.


HOMESCHOOLING: An Alternative to the Progressive Indoctrination Machine

By: Caitlin Nicholas


“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.”
John Dewey, 19th Century Philosopher, Education Reformer

“The philosophy of the schoolroom in one generation will be the philosophy of Government in the next.”
– Abraham Lincoln, Self-Educated, Lawyer, U.S. President


In the past couple of years, our public school system has become more and more inefficient. Schools also continue to cross the line, when it comes to what is being taught— or what is no longer taught— to our youth.

Sex education is one of the most controversial –subjects taught to middle and high school students. Schools are no longer -emphasizing abstinence in health class. Schools are -educating students about birth control, safe sex, abortion, –including the best methods to use in order to prevent pregnancy. Can you believe that this is actually happening?

Planned Parenthood is influencing the sex education curriculum used in public schools by offering their own curriculum for teachers to use. Your kids are being taught that it’s okay to have sex. They are being told that if they do happen to get pregnant, it is also okay, because there are “options.”  Planned Parenthood will help. In fact, parents don’t have to know about it!

Why is this happening? Because of the progressive left. They are trampling our traditional values. . But here is an important question: should sex-ed be taught in schools at all? I don’t think so! Sex education should be taught at home, by the parents, according to their own beliefs.

Our education system is teaching our children that their parents are stupid. The progressives say, “Don’t listen to them. You know things that they don’t know. You have rights!” The parents are not “educated” enough or “qualified” instructors. Progressive government leaders say, “Listen to us, we are your parents!” In fact, government officials have already coined the term “co-parenting.” Move over, mom and dad. The government is the new “parent” of your children. This indoctrination leads many youth away from traditional American values and faith doctrines taught by their families. It leads them to question what they have always known to be true and it encourages them to think more like their peers. They learn to think like a progressive. “Religion isn’t the most important thing in the world.”   These are the results of the progressive left infiltrating schools, and it will only get worse if we don’t do something about it.


Very recently the Occupy Wall Street movement called for homeschooling to be outlawed because it’s “religious indoctrination and propaganda.” They also said they wish to reduce the adult age to 16. Why? So they can control the youth who are so easily manipulated and so easy to indoctrinate. It would give parents even less authority over their kids. Our government and schools leaders, television and media, as well as Hollywood, are all teaching our kids that their parents do not know what’s best for them, but the government does.

In one particular high school textbook, Glenn Beck is an evil figure in modern America. The progressive left, no doubt behind the editing of the textbook, eagerly casts him in a negative light, as well as his Restoring Honor rally that took place on August 28, 2010.

Like Glenn Beck, great Americans throughout history are misrepresented in school books in order to fit the progressive agenda. The American Sunday School Union published a book in 1923 called “The Life of George Washington,” a book that gave examples of faith in American history. At the time, the book was used as church curriculum. Would it be acceptable curriculum today? Certainly not. Teaching youth about George Washington, a “deist” in their words, as an example of a man who lived by faith, would be an outrage. Progressives will not teach the truth about American figures like George Washington or Martin Luther King Jr. because it does not fit with the progressive agenda.

If you need more proof that those controlling the public education system actually are indoctrinating your children, read on. In 1952, the National Educator’s Association said, “By moral and spiritual values, we mean those values which, when applied to human behavior, exalt and refine life and bring it into accord with the standards of conduct that are approved in our democratic culture.” The NEA also stated that “[t]he public schools of the United States stand firmly for freedom of religious belief. A common education must be given based on a respect for all religious opinions. Furthermore, such as education should be derived, not from some synthetic patchwork of many religious views, but rather from the moral and spiritual values which are shared by the members of all religious faiths.” According to these statements, written only sixty years ago, the NEA’s goal was to transform the religious education system into a secular system that better suits the “collective.”

A statement found in R.J. Rushdoony’s “Intellectual Schizophrenia”  better reinforces my thought. “They (teachers) have no part in securing acceptance of any one of the numerous systems of belief regarding a super-natural power and the relation of man thereto.” Robert Owen, a man who was very influential in the transformation of public education, remarked that a generation of young people must be indoctrinated with religion free education in order to create a socialist society. Was his goal to create a religion free society or just brainwash the youth into accepting the religion of Secular Fundamentalism? According to the statements above, the secularists’ plan was to teach all faiths. But in reality, it’s a plan to erase the Judeo-Christian principles from our schools and our children’s minds.



Horace Mann, a U.S. Senator (1833-1837), said that the state was to be the “true parent” of the child. Sound familiar? “Society in its collective capacity is a real, not simply nominal sponsor, and a god father for all the children.” Owen and Mann were only two leaders out of many that are actively seeking to destroy our society through our educational system. Flipping the education upside down is only one small step in a much bigger plan to fundamentally transform the United States of America.

In Germany in the 1940s, Mein Kampf was sold to the German public. Obviously it was a very popular book because over 200,000 copies were sold. Mein Kampf was Hitler’s propaganda book. It was his blueprint for communism and totalitarianism.

Under Hitler’s regime, school children were forced to go to Socialist Nazi Youth camps where they were taught that all Catholics lied and all Jews ate little children. These children were indoctrinated to hate whole groups of people. They were also taught the only superior race is themselves. The children who were forced into those “education” camps later became soldiers in Hitler’s Nazi Army. This is happening now in a more subtle sense.

The idea is to brainwash today’s youth and use them later for their progressive gain.  The German “collective” taught the innocence and superiority of man over the basic teachings of the Bible. Though many were traditionally “religious,” their consciences had been desensitized by the idea that man was not born into sin with a sinful nature, as Scripture teaches, but that society is responsible for the outcome for every individual. Barack Obama also believes that society as a whole is responsible for the redemption of everyone. Scary, wouldn’t you say?

“The non-Christian is hopelessly moralistic by nature, and in his insistence on viewing life as a battle between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ gives the Christian church a ‘common ground’ with the world. As long as a non-believer desires something that is good, are we to automatically determine that his/her agenda is the best for us to follow?” So what does society consider “good?” What does the government consider “good?” What about the government taking over farms? Is that good because this is the “collective?” The government can deem anything good if it suits their purposes. It could be the most evil idea on the planet and still be considered “good.”



America’s problem is that we’ve turned away from God and the Christian principles this country was founded upon.   It is quite a challenge to find a Christian Conservative teenager. Those that I do know are homeschooled. I’m 16 years old, a sophomore in high school, and I’m also a Christian Conservative. Crazy, right? Don’t hear that very often do you? I am one of the few teenagers that have not bought into the indoctrination taking place in our schools because I’ve been reared by parents who know the Truth.

I was reared with the shield of God and reared in knowing what is really true. God is guiding my life and I know without Him, I would be a progressive rooting for Occupy Wall Street. I’m not home schooled in the traditional sense. I go to a virtual school where I read the same textbooks and curriculum as public schools but I am not exposed to the teachers and a school’s propaganda. My schooling is at home, therefore, I have a wall between me and the education. I don’t mindlessly soak information in. I “question with boldness even the very existence of God.” When I study, I question everything. I research, “is this really the truth?” That way I know what is true and what is propaganda.

When it came to my faith, I didn’t just accept that God is there, and I didn’t simply accept the Scriptures as true because my parents told me so. I questioned His existence and today, I know with everything in me that He lives and He is my savior.

Our youth will be the generation to save America. If our youth buy into the progressive agenda and lose the Christian faith that founded this country, what will happen to America?  Right now, everything the left is teaching in schools the children are accepting. As President Reagan said, “What one generation accepts, the next embraces.”

How do we right our society without God in the mix, when our society and nation was FOUNDED on Divine Providence and the Holy Word? You can’t. God is the answer. We’ve turned away from God, and in order to right our society, we must turn back to God. We must put God back into our education, our society, and our personal lives.

Statistics show that four-fifths of our youth leave their faith when they leave home, especially if they go off to college. They get sucked into the secular college lifestyle. If parents do not instill their most cherished beliefs and values into their children before they leave home, children are very likely to adopt the beliefs, or agendas you might call it, taught by the “educational elite” that rule the universities. Your children are becoming slaves to the university system and their progressive agendas.



Today, 23.8% of our youth are unemployed in America. Among black youth the statistic is even worse: 48% unemployment. Why is this?  Are these numbers just consequences of the economy? Or is this because our youth are less educated? Or maybe it’s the entitlement mindset many teenagers and twenty-something’s have adopted?

Between 1980 and 1992, the number of high school graduates decreased by 20%. Today it’s much worse. Only seven-tenths of ninth graders will receive their high school diplomas. As of this year, 26% of state spending goes towards education. That’s $260 billion annually. Where is that money going? If our youth are doing so poorly, how are all those tax payer dollars helping? They aren’t! Your money is being wasted! Obviously the current system is not working.

Who is better suited to teach your children? Teachers who have been indoctrinated by the very educational institutions they serve?  Or you — a loving and caring parent who seeks the truth and actually cares about what your children learn? Those who have bought into the secular agenda should not be the ones in charge of your child’s education.

If you’re not very familiar with homeschooling, it is a home-based, parent-led education. Twenty years ago, homeschooling was considered a very uncommon form of education. It was even considered “strange.” Even though homeschooling is still not accepted by all, it is gaining in popularity. Homeschooling tends to grow the fastest amongst mainstream Christians and conservatives, although atheists, Mormons, libertarians, liberals and families of every race and economic background are also becoming interested. Homeschooling is not only growing in America, but all over the world. In 2012, there was an estimated 2.04 million American homeschoolers in K-12 grades. That number is growing faster every year.

Why are so many choosing to school at home? There are many reasons parents choose to switch, such as individualized curriculum and learning environments that might better suit their child. It gives children a chance to accomplish more academically without the distractions or a “one size fits all” public school curriculum. Choosing to school at home also gives parents more supervision over their child’s social interactions and gives them a safer social environment. Homeschooled children are less likely to experiment with drugs, alcohol, violence, and unhealthy sexual activity commonly associated with the behaviors of youth who attend public, and sometimes even private, schools. Homeschooling provides a lot more one-on-one time with a child, giving parents more opportunities to instill the values and beliefs into their child. Also, given all this time spent with their child, parents are able to create stronger family bonds.

An abundance of information exists showing the intellectual advancements in home school children. According to the National Home Education Research Institute, homeschoolers score 15-30% higher than public school students on standardized tests. It also shows that children who school at home score above average on achievement tests, SATs and ACTs regardless of parent’s level of education or income level. In the past few years more and more colleges are recruiting home school students, because home schooled children develop in self-motivation, a highly valued skill that is hard for many kids to learn in public schools.

Studies by the National Home Education Research Institute show that children who have been schooled at home also develop better socially, emotionally, and psychologically. This research includes peer interaction, self-concept, leadership skills, family cohesion, self-esteem, and community participation. The NHERI states that “home educated girls develop the strengths and the resistance abilities that give them an unusually strong sense of self.” It also states that “some think that boys’ energetic natures and tendency to physical expression can be more easily accommodated at home.”

When a home schooled child gets out into the real world, they tend to succeed at a higher rate and are more involved than the public schooled population. They participate in local community service, vote, and attend public meetings more frequently than does the general population. They succeed in college at an equal or higher rate than the general population and also internalize the values and beliefs of parents at a much higher rate.

If parents are unable to home school their child, they can consider virtual schooling.  Virtual schooling provides a home-based public education that is self-paced. But as I mentioned earlier, it still provides a healthy distance between a child and the indoctrination that occurs in brick and mortar public schools. It also allows a child to grow spiritually without the negative influence of the culture that is so prevalent in regular schools. Even though virtual schooling is still “public,” it does separate child from the secularist agenda in the school system today. It allows you time to teach children about faith and Constitutional principles.

As scary as the infiltration in the public school system is, be thankful that there are still options in which to teach a child based on a parent’s preference, allowing for spiritual and emotional nourishment. Both types of schooling provide the time and environment to teach a child the very principles erased from public school curriculum, such as the Christian aspect of our American founding and the principles upon which our Constitution was created.


One amazing group that is fighting for your children’s right to learn about their faith, and their religious and Constitutional history is As A Mom, a 9/12 Project group started by Yvonne Donnely. As A Mom’s mission is to teach children about the Christian and Constitutional history of America. They have started a Constitutional Chat Club where high school teens can meet and talk about topics most important to them, such as Constitutional rights. The Constitutional is a non-for-profit that provides elementary school students the resources to learn about the “history of our great country’s founding”. There are individuals and conservative groups out there that are standing up for your religious freedom and are fighting the Secular Fundamentalism that is taking over every aspect of society. We have a lot of work ahead of us, but with the guidance of Divine Providence, we shall overcome.



Ed Willing contributed to this article with research notes, published material and references.