![\"\"](\"https:\/\/deliberatedumbingdown.com\/ddd\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/03\/school_choice_bumper400.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nHere is a copy for posterity, when we are all living under a corporate fascist\/socialist\/globalist dictatorship, unless issue goes before U.S. Supreme Court and is struck down as “unconstitutional”. Having ordered 2000 bumper stickers and only getting orders for 200 of them, I figure people didn’t understand the simple bumper sticker message, so here I go, in detail, for the umpteenth time.<\/p>\n
Before I get started, let me tell you a little, seemingly unimportant story. Read it and tell me you still don’t understand the dangers of tax-funded private education and school choice charters with unelected boards: the reason behind keeping a wall between private and public funding:<\/p>\n
While serving as an elected school board member in the mid-nineteen seventies we were all required to understand the regulations related to school funding which basically forbade the co-mingling of public and private monies. For example, a family in town very graciously wanted to donate the Encyclopedia Britannica to our public school district. The school board voted not to accept the very generous offer, using text in School Board Operations Manual regarding acceptance of private funding, or “in kind” contributions. We thanked the potential donor, but had to refuse the kind offer due to fact public and private monies cannot “constitutionally” be co-mingled. Basically the prohibition relates mostly to possibility of private funding influencing operation of public enterprises, taking away the constitutional right of the people to be represented by persons they have voted for at the polls; in this particular case: school board members.<\/p>\n
Also read the following for the history of how plans were made to take our representative government away from us. You may be surprised at exactly who the major players in this unconstitutional scheme were. Actually, included at end of 3D entry below “National Education Association’s Seven Cardinal Principles<\/a>“, 1976, you, and certainly members of the NEA (teachers) , will find two very important names they would never associate with the NEA: McGeorge Bundy, The Order of Skull and Bones, Yale; and the late David Rockefeller.<\/p>\n 3D, page 141: Today’s Education, the journal of the National Education Association, carried an article in the September\u2013October 1976 edition entitled \u201cThe Seven Cardinal Principles Revisited.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n In 1972, the NEA established a Bicentennial Committee charged with developing a \u201cliving commemoration of the principles of the American Revolution.\u201d This 200th anniversary celebration of the Declaration of Independence was to focus on the next 100 years of education in an interdependent global community. The initial work of the Committee culminated in the NEA Bicentennial Idea Book. Among its ideas was that of developing a definitive volume to \u201ccontain a reframing of the Cardinal Principles of Education and recommendations for a global curriculum.\u201d After recognizing the importance of the original Cardinal Principles, which were published in 1918, the Committee made the point that \u201ctoday, those policy statements about education are obsolete, education taken as a whole is not adequate to the times and too seldom anticipates the future.\u201d A report to be issued by the NEA, proposing cardinal premises for the twenty-first century is the direct and immediate outgrowth of the Bicentennial Committee\u2019s belief that \u201ceducators around the world are in a unique position to bring about a harmoniously interdependent global community based on the principles of peace and justice\u2026.\u201d Early in September 1975, a 19-member Preplanning Committee began the task of recasting the Cardinal Principles of Education by developing 25 guidelines for the project.<\/em><\/p>\n [Ed. Note: Members of the Preplanning Committee read like a \u201cWho\u2019s Who of Leading Globalists.\u201d It included: former Secretary of Education T.H. Bell, \u201cMr. Management-by-Objectives,\u201dwho was responsible for the grant to William Spady of the Far West Laboratory to pilot OBE (Outcomes Based Education) in Utah, with plans to \u201cput [Skinnerian\/Pavlovian, ed] OBE in all schools of the nation\u201d; Professor Luvern Cunningham, Ohio State University, who subsequently served as advisor to the Kentucky Department of Education during its education restructuring in the 1990s; Willis Harman, Stanford Research Institute; Robert Havighurst, University of Chicago; Theodore Hesburgh, University of Notre Dame; Ralph Tyler, Center for Advanced Study in Behavioral Science; Professor Theodore Sizer, Coalition for Essential Schools, which calls for a \u201cless is more\u201d curriculum and removal of graduation standards (the Carnegie Unit); David Rockefeller; Professor Benjamin Bloom,father of Mastery Learning (OBE\/PBE: the international learning method); the late McGeorge Bundy of the Ford Foundation; and others.]<\/p>\n However, the final nail in the coffin of representative government, the successful implementation of the tax-funded school choice\/charters without elected boards, using the Hegelian dialectic (create problem, people scream, impose solution) can be attributed to the neoconservative Trotskyite support for passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act (2015) and to Trump Administration’s support for tax-funded school choice and charters with unelected boards.<\/em><\/p>\n Some recent history: Trotskyites came on board, once Reagan elected, after the Democratic Party’s successful agenda to use the schools, through passage of ESEA in 1965, to destroy our children’s values. In other words, Trotskyites, some coming out of the Democratic Party, were called in to finalize the sinking of representative government through creation of support for long-planned, since 1945, tax-funded school choice\/charter schools, with unelected boards.<\/em><\/p>\n President Reagan’s Dept. of Education took on the job of final restructuring, using the phony Nation at Risk report to convince Americans that U.S. education was “in the tank”… not so, even though test scores were beginning to plummet.<\/em><\/p>\n 3D, page 174-175: Reagan’s White House Private Sector Initiative, 1981, was instrumental in acceptance of corporate fascist model, allowing for merger of the public and private sector, necessary for totalitarian workforce training (school to work agenda being implemented in all states as I write). This system is also known as Soviet polytechnical education and is found in communist\/socialist\/fascist countries, and denies your children any freedom to choose their careers (futures).<\/em><\/p>\n Early in 1981 the President’s Task Force on Private Sector Initiatives was installed at 734 Jackson Place, N.W., Washington, D.C. Membership listed on The White House letterhead read like a \u201cWho\u2019s Who\u201d of individuals in government agencies, universities, tax-exempt foundations,non-governmental organizations, business, media, labor unions, and religion. The names of some individuals on the task force follow: William Aramony, president, United Way; William J. Baroody, Jr., president, American Enterprise Institute; Helen G. Boosalis, mayor, City of Lincoln, Nebraska; Terence Cardinal Cooke, archbishop of New York; Governor Pierre S. Dupont, Delaware; Senator David Durenberger; Luis A. Ferre, former governor of Puerto Rico; John Gardner, chairman, Independent Sector; Edward Hill, pastor, Mt. Zion Baptist Church; Michael S. Joyce, executive director, John M. Olin Foundation; Edward H. Kiernan, president, International Association of Police; Arthur Levitt, Jr., chairman, American Stock Exchange; Richard W. Lyman, president, Rockefeller Foundation; Elder Thomas S. Monson, The Mormon Church; William C. Norris, chairman and CEO, Control Data Corporation; George Romney, chairman, National Center for Citizen Involvement; C. William Verity, Jr., chairman, Armco Steel, Inc.; Jeri J. Winger, first vice president, General Federation of Women\u2019s Clubs; Thomas H. Wyman, president, CBS, Inc.; and William S. White, president, C.S. Mott Foundation. This totally new and un-American concept of partnerships between public and private sector has been readily accepted by our elected officials who ignore its roots in socialism and its implications for the discontinuation of our representative form of government and accountability to the taxpayers. Under the \u201cpartnership\u201d process, determining responsibility when something goes wrong is like pinning jello to the wall.<\/em><\/p>\n Such a change in government, if presented in clear language to citizens at the polls, would be rejected. However, when implemented gradually, using the Marxist-Hegelian Dialectic, citizens don\u2019t even notice what is happening. The shift is away from elected representatives. In time, after voters have become even more disenchanted with the candidates and election results, fewer and fewer citizens will vote. At that point a highly-respected member of the public will enter the picture to propose a solution to the problem: some sort of compromise toward parliamentary form of government found in socialist democracies which will be acceptable to Americans unfamiliar with the protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.<\/em><\/p>\n One says to oneself, confidently, \u201cThis will never happen.\u201d Look around you. What do you see? Site-based management in your local schools, transferring decision-making, traditionally exercised by elected school boards, to politically correct appointees and the creation of unelected task forces at all government levels; proposals to \u201cseparate school and state\u201d which make no mention of governmental and social structure consequences\u2014efforts to have government money (taxes) pay for services delivered by private religious or home schools, etc.,with no public representation. There can be no accountability to the taxpayers under a system so alien to the United States\u2019 form of representative government.<\/em><\/p>\n How clean, neat and tidy. Wholesale destruction of an entire, wonderful system of government without firing a shot.<\/p>\n As a U.S. Department of Education liaison with The White House during the early days of this initiative this writer inquired of one of President Reagan\u2019s political appointees whether this initiative, was not corporate fascism; a politically incorrect question that resulted in someone else replacing me as Liaison with The White House.<\/p>\n 3D, page 204: An article entitled “Industrial Policy Urged for GOP was published in the Washington Post on May 14, 1984.<\/p>\n Excerpts follow: SAN FRANCISCO (UPI) \u2014 A conservative study group founded by supporters of President Reagan is about to issue a report that advocates Republicans shed some of their deep-rooted antipathy to a planned economy.<\/em><\/p>\n An industrial policy accepted by both political parties and by business and labor is essential to revitalize America\u2019s dwindling clout in the world economy, according to the study\u2019s editor, Professor Chalmers Johnson of the University of California.<\/em><\/p>\n \u201cThe Industrial Policy Debate\u201d is to be issued today by the Institute for Contemporary Studies, a think-tank founded by presidential counselor Edwin Meese, Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger and other Reagan supporters.<\/em><\/p>\n \u201cWhat we are really trying to pose is a serious debate that has become stupidly politicized by both parties,\u201d Johnson said. \u201cWe are trying to get the question of an industrial policy for the United States to be taken seriously by people who don\u2019t really believe in it\u2014above all Republicans.<\/em><\/p>\n \u201cAmericans must come to grips with economic policy or go the way of England. We have probably got a decade before it becomes irreversible.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n In the United States, he said, \u201cThe whole topic we are trying to address is so caught up with politics and the particular positions of industries that it is very hard to disentangle what we mean by economic policy.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n While the Democrats are \u201cplanning to throw money at the northern Midwest \u2018rust\u2019 belt\u201d to get votes, Johnson said many Republicans \u201care painting themselves into a corner by attacking the very concept of industrial policy\u2014arguing that it violates the sacred principles of private enterprise and free trade.\u201d<\/em> He cited as a valid and successful national economic policy \u201cthe kind of government business relationship\u201d that has made Japan a leading economic force in the world. \u201cA government- business relationship is needed in a competitive capitalist economy,\u201d he said.<\/em><\/p>\n \u201cReaganomics without an accompanying industrial policy to guide it, has been costly,\u201d Johnson said.<\/em><\/p>\n These traitors, ultimately lead by President Trump and his Education Secretary DeVos<\/strong>, finalized the Democrat and Republican parties, and tax-exempt foundations’ agenda: restructuring of education from academics (upward mobility for your children) to workforce training , by using the innocuous-sounding “school choice” agenda. Note: We always had school choice. Real school choice means you pay out of your wallet! They fooled the American people by using the innocent-sounding “tax-funded school choice\/charter agenda without elected boards” agenda, which removes taxpayer (YOUR) representation (known as “citizen voting: oversight of government agencies). (A lack of teaching of history, especially the Constitution, in public schools, since 1965, at least, created the necessary climate for American acceptance of such an unconstitutional agenda).<\/p>\n