Obama and Marx’s Ten-Point Platform (Part II)

Obama-Karl-MarxHaving gone over, in Part One, how far President Obama has gone to implement the first five of Marx’s ten points for how to convert a society to socialism, let’s pick up the narrative by reviewing the other five points.

#6. State control of means of communication and transportation.

Team Obama has attempted to cow conservative media outlets like Fox News into submission through denunciation, has suggested reviving the so-called “fairness doctrine,” and has expressed hostility toward free speech, seeking to use regulations to shape and limit the public. In the area of transportation, Obama insinuated government into the auto industry, has favored the high-speed rail boondoggle, and wishes he could compel us all to convert to “green transportation,” such as electric cars and biofuels.

#7. Increase state control over means of production.

Besides increasing government control of financial institutions (including having virtually nationalized the mortgage industry by taking over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) Obama has moved to centralize control of health care and insurance; has dictated policies, and even hand-picked a CEO, of American automobile companies; and has done his best to increase government power over the energy industry through his green energy subsidies, his failed cap-and-trade scheme, and via EPA regulation.

#8 Establishment of workers’ armies.

Obama has ramped up the number of Americans working for Uncle Sam by securing a large expansion of Americorps and winning passage of his Serve America Act. He also has done everything he could to strengthen labor unions.

#9. Control over where people live.

Under Obama, The Department of Housing and Urban Development has launched a plan to change where some people live to achieve an indefinite goal of a more even racial distribution of the population.[1]

One of the implications of cap & trade or other attempts by Obama to regulate how much carbon dioxide Americans emit via fossil fuel consumption is the prospect of government limiting human mobility by raising the cost (even to the extent of imposing financial penalties) for exceeding government-determined limits on how far a person may travel.

In Brian Sussman’s book, Eco-Tyranny, you can read an executive order that Obama signed on October 5, 2009 that would “divide the country into sectors where all humans would be herded into urban hubs” while most of the land would be “returned to a natural state upon which humans would only be allowed to tread lightly.” (Marx wanted more equal distribution of the human population between town and country, whereas Obama favors urban concentration, but both want to control where people live.)

#10. Education for all children in public (i.e, governmentally controlled) schools.

Marx’s tenth point is the most far-reaching and potentially dangerous of all. It’s target—control over how and what people think—is the ultimate tyranny. That is why every communist state uses schools as institutions of indoctrination, just as they use media outlets as instruments of propaganda. That is why George Orwell featured “Newspeak”—the mutilation of truth and reason by distorting the meanings of concepts. Every illiberal regime seeks to impose mental programming that produces “the new Soviet man.”

Obama has done more than any previous president to centralize control over education in Washington. He has essentially nationalized the student loan market.[2] He has repeatedly tried to limit school choice, instead siding with would-be teachers’ union monopolists.

In his 2012 State of the Union address, which I attended, he called for additional funds for new federal education programs, including mandatory nationwide schooling for everyone up to age eighteen, regardless of aptitude, interest, or willingness.

Obama has sought to extend the tentacles of federal control over how state education policies by arbitrarily granting waivers exempting some states from George W. Bush’s misguided No Child Left Behind Act. In doing so, Obama has trampled on the principle of federalism and most assuredly granted waivers with strings attached, thereby reducing states’ independence.

Most recently, Team Obama has been pushing the Common Core State Standards—a follow-up to his “Race to the Top” program that spent over $4 billion to induce states to switch to federal standards for curricular guidelines. While Race to the Top and Common Core may sound innocuous or even reasonable, the actual effects are deleterious. Both programs essentially bribe states to replace their existing standards with federal standards, even though, as California has found out, states have had to “dumb down” their standards to conform to federal standards that are lower. [3]

More ominously, the Obama administration is using the Common Core program to invade privacy (think NSA, IRS, and the CFPB — see Part One of this article). In 2011, the Department of Education unilaterally, without congressional approval, altered the regulations based on the Federal Education Rights and Privacy Act of 1974—loosening them so that mounds of personal data about students may be collected. The personal data include not just academic records, such as grades and whether students complete homework assignments, but also disciplinary records, Social Security numbers, records of discussions with school counselors, as well as information about families’ voting status, religious affiliations, medical history, and income.

As the obnoxious cable TV commercials say, “But wait, there’s more!” If that isn’t invasive enough, the intrepid Michelle Malkin has reported that Team Obama’s Department of Education is preparing to use the most advanced technologies (e.g., cameras to judge facial expressions, electronic seats that report posture, a pressure-sensitive computer mouse, biometric wraps on wrists, etc.) to assess a wide variety of student attitudes—“appreciation for diversity,” “empathy,” “bias,” “cultural awareness,” etc.[4]

You can imagine the mischief to which such data-mining could be put—a “brave new world” in which the government uses the data collected in schools to single out “right thinkers” for the fast track to the best schools and key government positions, and putting dissidents from the desired orthodoxy on black lists. You can see the totalitarian potential of such data mining performed under the pretext of “education.” Surely Comrade Marx would commend Barack Obama for his diligent efforts in the field of education.

The bottom line in all of this is that if Barack Obama is not an economic Marxist at heart, he is doing a superb imitation of one. The fact that he enjoys such unflagging support for his agenda from a significant part of the population shows just how far our country has gone in forsaking our founding principles for the siren song of socialism.


[1] “HUD Launches Scheme To Racially Diversify Suburbs,” IBD Editorials, posted 07/22/2013 06:55 PM ET.

[2] Andrew Clark, “”Obama’s Risky Plan: Government Takeover of the Student Loan Business,” Politics Daily, January 26, 2010; www.politicsdaily.com/2010/01/26/obamas-risky-plan-takeover-of-the-student-loan-busi/

[3] Mytheos Holt, “New Whiteboard Video Attacks ‘Obama’s Education Takeover,’” theblaze, Feb. 17, 2012; www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/02/17/new-whiteboard-video-attacks-obamas-education-takeover/

[4] Michelle Malkin, “Time To Opt Out of Creepy Fed Ed Data-Mining Racket,” Accuracy In Media guest column, posted March 18, 2013 @ 2:50 am; http://www.aim.org/guest-column/time-to-opt-out-of-creepy-fed-ed-data-mining-racket/

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Paul-Marks/1266358046 Paul Marks


  • John_Sellers

    Marx and Obama? You’ve got to be kidding me! What kind of idiots are running Frontpage Mag? These days it seems that even the Fringe has a fringe.

    Say! I’ve got an idea! Why doesn’t Frontpage hire Rove and Limbaugh? That will pull Frontpage toward the Center, and it will remove Rove and Limbaugh from main stream politics.

    That way everybody will benefit!

    • gray_man

      Marx and Obama? Of course.
      What kind of idiot can’t see that.
      Obama has echoed Marx and other commies / muslims
      since he has been in the oval office.
      Rush and millions of others saw this when he first started
      running for president his first term.
      Good article FPM.
      We should impeach the scumbag,
      that way everyone will benefit!

      • afanaglenn

        There is a reason why the communist party didn’t have a candidate in the 2012 presidential election. They already had one…. Obama.

        • Steve Dietrich

          This is correct. The Communist party admitted Obama was good enought. Even Pravda, the leading Communist newspaper was quoted saying that Obama was more of a Communist than Putin. (I don’t know how Putin took that?).

    • Tabitha Bliss

      And just what rock have you been living under that you wouldn’t understand what everyone else has known about Obama 5 years now? Seriously, I hope you’re joking because nobody could be that checked out..

    • CowboyUp

      I’d say more along the lines of mao or lenin, but c’mon, you’re not really dumb enough to miss it. Marshall, Ayers, Obama’s own verbal slips, and how many mao quoting Supreme Court justices does he have to appoint before it becomes obvious? Even al Sharpton admits it. Do you think they’re kidding?
      I notice you failed to dispute, much less refute anything in the article. That’s because you can’t.

      • manderso

        Obama is still to the right of Richard Nixon.

        • afanaglenn

          I listen to people like you and John Sellers and realize that our country really is doomed. You wonder if people like you two really do believe everything they say. Then I realize you all are really either Marxist/communists, muslims, gays, illiterate as opposed to stupid.

        • CowboyUp

          Yea, your best bet is to try and change the subject.

        • CowboyUp

          Not that he was very conservative, but no, Obama’s not to the right of Nixon.

        • MLCBLOG


    • Steve Dietrich

      Compare Marx’s plan with Obama’s speeches each day. Obama follows it point by point.

      • Cold_Drake_80

        Now try comparing Marx’s plans to Obama’s PLANS. Deeds are far more illustrative than words. Granted you can’t distinguish between the two and will rant and rave about some pet conspiracy or another.

    • Jsjk

      You can easily look up the Communist Party USA and read their platform. It is “far left” and (on more than a superficial level) emulates Obama’s “talking points.” Why do you think the Communist Party USA gave its endorsement to Obama in 2008 and 2012? The CP and Obama harbor a “shared vision.” (Remember also that Obama’s childhood heroes and mentors were Communists.)

    • John_Sellers

      Thanks everyone! You provided me with many LOLs. I really enjoyed your strange views.

      It is nice to know that even the freinge’s freinge have a place to vent.


      You would probably be in disbelief to learn that Hitler was a worshiper of Satan, too. It is well known that he was involved in evil rituals and strange worship.

      Stay naive if you prefer.

  • Ammianus

    There are so many fronts on which to be alarmed. However, in particular I suggest everyone pay close attention to their children’s curriculum and fight teacher union dominated school boards. Run for office as a school board member.

    • Moto

      Definitely pull the kids out of these schools and teach them traditional American history. That’s step 1.

    • Steve Dietrich

      Watch out for “Common Core” in your schools. Google it, and find out what the grand plan is.

      • Steve Dietrich

        “There is no such thing as the New Math”. I fell for it.

  • CurmudJohn

    “[I]f Barack Obama is not an economic Marxist at heart, he is doing a superb imitation of one.”
    Or as I replied when my daughter asked if Obama could be the anti-Christ, “No, but he’s one hell of a working prototype. Satan must be drooling, ‘I can do this!'”
    Or as Khrushchev proclaimed. “We will Barry you!”

  • manderso

    Actually, Jefferson was all for state supported schools, it was one of his favorite accomplishments.

    • pupsncats

      Since Jefferson was actually an educated man, he would never have meant public schools should be established as indoctrination and propaganda vehicles for a rabid, anti-Constitution, anti-liberty, anti-human, anti-America curriculum as is the case today.

    • CowboyUp

      Jefferson also recognized the difference between the federal government and that of the states under our Constitution. There were many things the state or local government could do, that the federal government could not and should not, like education and farm bureaus or county agriculture extensions. You’ve confused, or are trying to confuse what Jefferson meant by state and what marx meant by state.
      That’s trick is similar to the one the left uses with “well regulated” in the 2nd Amendment. It only works with people who haven’t read for themselves what the Founding Fathers’ wrote and said, and their explanations for it.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      You’re not a very good troll.

  • Cold_Drake_80

    What a let down. I was expecting to see some real hand wringing and brow sweat by Hendrickson. Instead he did the FPM shuffle. When cornered lie. Sad but no surprise at all. His little trick is to not produce the actual 10 points but self serving redacted versions. Here are some examples of what Marx actually wrote:

    7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the
    state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement
    of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

    Well, Obama didn’t do this stuff so obviously Hendrickson had to “fix” it. Also increasing domestic food production would lower prices and be unpopular with a lot of environmentalists. We can’t have such an admission by a good FPMer agiprop mill so it was dropped.

    8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

    Again a big one about domestic food production. Then their is that equal obligation to work part that just doesn’t fit the Obama hatefest. Hence dropping it.

    9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual
    abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more
    equable distribution of the populace over the country.

    Doesn’t sound very eco-friendly, eh? No matter it got chopped to prevent any confusion among good FPMers. Oh, it also alters the text for obviously self serving reasons? Even good FPMers should be able to see the pattern by now.

    And the big one I was waiting for:

    10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of
    children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education
    with industrial production, etc.

    I really wanted to see the official FPM defence of child labour. What I was yet more yammering about how terrible education is. This was just pathetic. Even an FPM bilge pump like Hendrickson doesn’t have the guts to actually express his true beliefs. Instead he dodges by setting up a false statement then knocking it down.

    Even by FPM standards this is a terrible article. Now I’ll sit back and let the hate begin.

    • reader

      You’re so incoherent that it’s not particularly clear what exactly your grievance is: is it that Obama is not marxist enough, or is it that marx is not environmentally friendly enough, or is it that marx is mis-uderstood by the author?

      • Cold_Drake_80

        I wasn’t passing judgement on Marx in this simply showing the GLARING factual errors in Hendrickson’s article. These errors do create a strong case that the facts were changed to match what Hendrickson was setting out to do. Namely toss red meat to the grinning peasants of FPM.

        • reader

          You did not answer the questions, and hence it’s not even clear what the alleged errors are. The only thing is by and large clear that you are a marxist, and that explains the incoherentness. Marxists like to call it dialectics.

          • Cold_Drake_80

            Your question wasn’t legitimate to start with. It bowls down to you couldn’t comprehend what I wrote so tried to change the subject. In response I explained to you my goal was to expose the authors self serving alternations to what Marx wrote. That makes his findings wrong on their face. If you can’t comprehend that then I have no time for you. Insect.

          • reader

            Oh. The usual. Apparently, only marxists comprehend what marx wrote, even though they still can’t figure out what to do with it, quite apparently. At least, that’s what the empirical evidence accumulated over many many decades suggests. Well, I beg to differ. I contend that anti-marxists have much better record interpreting marx, the record fully and unequivocal supported by the said empirical evidence. Hence, a modern marxist is a moron. And this is a scientific fact.

          • Cold_Drake_80

            Stormfront and FPM have turned your brain into puss. I pointed out how this hack misquoted Marx. Then you claim that someone who can’t even be bothered to copy/paste has a better handle on Marxism. That’s a good one.

          • reader

            Yeah, the stormfront bit came a bit late in the game here, I must admit. Usually, stuff like “fascists” and alike pop up immediately – as an indication of intellectual prowess, of course. The proven winner.

    • Jsjk

      You no speaka da Anglais, eh? English is a second (ok, third? fourth?) language you’ve somehow picked up? (“Hand wringing and brow sweat” — ?? You don’t know what those cliches mean, do you. Or the incomprehensible “What I was yet more yammering…” Huh?)

      • Cold_Drake_80

        You’re clearly retarded. It is to bad how FPM sinks its claws into the weakest minds and twists them with a message of evil.

        • Buck Roeser

          You’re clearly retarded. It is to (sic) bad how huffpo sinks its claws into the weakest minds and twists them with a message of evil.

        • Jsjk

          Quote: “It is to bad…” Yet another grammatical error! And then people who point out your Grade school errors, you label “retarded”? You need to go look in mirror.

          • Cold_Drake_80

            You’re such a coward that all you can do is nitpick typos? Really? That’s what you’ve been reduced to? This is sad but typical of FPM.
            Okay, little boy I’ll explain this one more time. Hendricks holds you in such contempt that he lied about made up the list in order to make his job easier. Worse still you are so feeble minded that you can’t even be offended by what he did to you.
            Go back and actually read what I posted then talk about that. The change might do you some good but I doubt it.

          • Jsjk

            I once had a “world history” prof who was a devout Communist. I found it fascinating yet horrifying to listen to his multiple excuses exonerating Stalin. About midway through the course, there was the assignment (you were to pick out a topic, then creatively explore it in any manner you chose, and do a presentation for the class. Everyone knew that to pass this course you had better heap on the praise for dear old Marx, Engels, and Lenin. Anyhoo, the presentations were nearly all mind numbingly dreary and as per propagandistic expectations. But then, there was a Chinese student. She gave a slide show. Her family had been persecuted during Chairman Mao’s Cultural Revolution and she had the slides from her village. There was the irrefutable, historic evidence of what took place under Chairman Mao. (She broke down during the presentation — weeping inconsolably). The prof’s response? As to be expected — a yawning indifference. (I believe she dropped the course). Anyway, when you speak about liars and being impervious to facts, history, evidence I’m reminded of that Commie. He wore his ideological blinkers — just like Obama — and like a religious devotee, cannot and will not be persuaded differently. At the end of the course, the prof had us singing that commie song Internationale, falsely convinced that he had brain washed yet another group of gullible students.

          • Cold_Drake_80

            Of course you had such a teacher. So what University did you go to, what year and what professor was it exactly. I get sick of right extremists constantly whining about all these evil commie teachers they supposedly had yet NEVER providing any support.
            Now, try to focus (I know it’s hard) and actually respond to my post. Explain to us all why Hendrickson lied about his source material and also explain to us all why you have no problems with that.

          • reader

            Please spare us from the usual marxist schizophrenia about nobody understanding marx but the drones like yourself, and the reason marxism is an utter failure everywhere it’s tried being that it’s not the true marxism that is being tried everywhere. Marx was a loser by any measure, and that’s part of the reason that he attracts losers like you. As for the content of what he wrote, I can go head to head with any of you, drones, because back in the day I was force-fed this crap more than you ever hope to do in your pitiful life time.

          • Jsjk

            To begin with, you have not made it clear as to *why* you believe the author is “lying.” Let us look at Karl Marx’s point number 7 in his Manifesto. What Marx is advocating is for greater state control (ownership) of the means of production. What are the “means of production”? In Marxist lingo it refers to factories, machines, infrastructure, raw materials, etc. Furthermore, Marx is advocating for a decline in private property ownership, to be replaced by state ownership. What has Obama said with respect to coal mines? He has said that someone can go ahead and buy one, but Obama will see to it that the coal mine owner will go bankrupt. Obama dictates to the private energy sector what business meet his approval and which do not. He is not a neutral bystander, but someone interfering and tipping the scales for his pet projects (tyrannical, dictatorial). Ditto for Health care — it will reduce one’s options, limiting access to private plans, and enlarging the federal sector. (The Communists are also, btw, routinely advocating for stringent environmental laws which would limit enjoyment of private property, along with denying industrial “development”. Obama opposes the Keystone Pipeline (that private enterprise might provide jobs to Americans is too much to bear for an Obama.) The upshot is this — yes, Obama honors point 7 of Marx’s Manifesto.

          • Cold_Drake_80

            Okay, now we have something to work with. You have proven that you at least glanced at point number seven. So here is the actual point:

            7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

            Here is what Hendrickson wrote:

            #7. Increase state control over means of production.

            Gee, that is very different don’t you think. Even if you can’t read it properly – almost certain based on your poor interpretations so far – you can clearly see it is different.

            The part that was dropped by Hendrickson was the increase of land cultivation by eliminating “waste” land. That’s going to be wilderness you know. Environmentalists get a bit spiky when removing wilderness gets brought up which is why Hendrickson chopped it. The facts didn’t match his ranting so the facts had to change.

            His most glaring omission, as well as the one you are too big a coward to deal with is:

            10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

            Instead what we get is:

            #10. Education for all children in public (i.e, governmentally controlled) schools.

            Hendrickson not only cut out the parts of the point that he could address but actually added to it. Presumably he added the comment about gov control because he assumes FPMers are too stupid to know what “public” means. What makes his cowardice and dishonesty most offensive is he ignores the salient point found in #10. Abolition of child labour! This is very obvious but it would seem Hendrickson has no problem with child factory labour since he doesn’t bother to even mention it. This speaks very poorly of his character. It would take a special kind of monster to wish to see the return of sweat shop labour for children.

            So now I have tried to make this as simple and clear for you. If you can’t understand it by now you are either an idiot or a beast.

          • reader

            Let’s take #7: name one marxist regime that bothered to preserve “wilderness.”
            Now on to #10: name one marxist regime that abolished child labor, not actually expanded it,like, say, USSR, China, Cambodia and North Korea did.

          • Cold_Drake_80

            *sigh* Try to focus and actually read what I posted. I didn’t say these things were actually implemented. I am comparing the lies Hendrickson told vs the actual facts about what Marx wrote. You don’t have to agree with anything Marx wrote to realize Hendrickson has not been honest enough to correctly copy/paste from Marx’s actual 10 points.
            Now to smack down you pathetic argument: Gee, maybe it’s because those regimes weren’t actually communist! Wow, that was easy sport.
            Look, I know some right wing blow hole has been standing in front of you pointing and screaming COMMIE at every other person that’s walked by. You don’t have to belief it. Look at the list as a start point and compare it to what these various governments have done, not what they’ve said, and see if it matches. If it something doesn’t match the definition of a thing then it is not that thing. This is grade-school stuff

  • Frank

    It doesn’t matter what he does as he is an ILLEGAL PRESIDENT. Go to:




    Sheriff Arpaio and Detective Zullo have investigated him and found his records including the so called Birth Certificate to be a FRAUD! Who is in the White House?



      I mean, I totally agree with you, but what now? He is in power. What can we do for real to oppose him and his cronies who did indeed manage to get him illegally into the WH and fool many American people??

      We need a better point to rally around, I think.

  • Leland64

    Emperor Obama – Mugabe with a teleprompter.

    • Buck Roeser

      He’s closer to Idi Amin, methinks.

  • edgineer

    If only Americans would wake up. We are now fighting the Communist Party in our own country. Until everyone realizes that fact our way of life is at risk. Communism cannot be accomodated. Either our democratic system or Communism will have to be exterminated. They are mutually exclusive.

  • John_Sellers

    Here is a news flash to all you people who are worried about Communism. Today, Communism is the fringe’s fringe’s fringe.

    That is to say, Communism today is about as relevant as the vast number of crank opinions that dominate these dialog.

    In other words, you have nothing to worry about. For the most part, Communism is in the dust bin of history, and so are your pervasive crank opinions…with the exception that history will not even notice your crank opinions.

    • g..man

      so wrong

    • Buck Roeser

      Wow–since you have told me that Communism is no longer anything to worry about, I won’t worry about it any longer. BTW–radical Islam is not a threat to the US, it has been relegated to the dustbin of history. No need to worry about it, it is about as relevant as the vast number of crank leftists who troll this site.

    • Richard Orlick

      If not Communism then what other historical parallels are there. Anton Drexler at a workers union meeting said, “I am a socialist like yourselves, and want manual workers to gain equality…” and with this, the Union members bought in to the populist rhetoric ignoring what direction this was going to take them. Former locksmith Anton Drexler and Karl Harrer founded the German Workers Party (DAF). Adolf Hitler joined The German Workers Party making a note of his similar ideology to gain power and with Hitler being a distinguished speaker who drew large crowds. Anton Drexler and Adolf Hitler went on to write the 25 points of the Program of the NSDAP – The National Socialist Workers’ Party from a Labour Union. They created the German Labor Front and on that day the Nazis seized the Free Trade Unions, they publicly announced a “united front of German workers” with Hitler as honorary patron. Then an “Aryan paragraph” was installed, and all Jews and any others were expelled as Citizens and were labeled dissident. The most notable organizations that had to follow this procedure were the unions. The vanguard program of The National Socialist Workers’ Party was “national interest before self interest” (anti individualism) and the same words spoken by Andrew Stern at a workers union meeting, former president of SEIU, close friend of distinguished speaker President Barack Obama and most frequent visitor to The White House. Andrew Stern, a socialist that wanted “workers to gain equality” or as many other democrats would say, “Level the playing field.” This s not to say anyone is a Nazi or Hitler but establishes how good intentions can and will be corrupted when they have too much power as does Obama, leader is now a Dictator. Communism is only a name that means concentration of power within a particular doctrine and this concentration of power covers most of the political spectrum, it is not a fringe element.

  • labman57

    Oh boy, where to begin …

    It’s a curious position being taken by representatives of the social conservative movement — the idea that a college education is a waste of time and that intellectuals are elitists and should be shunned. Reality-challenged politicians and pundits — especially those affiliated with the tea party movement — have embraced ignorance of the modern world, and they regard a distrust of the well-educated as an attribute to be used in their desire to be perceived as “just one of the common folk”.

    Lord knows we don’t want our children to go to college and have their heads filled with all kinds of IDEAS. Before you know it, they’ll be thinking for themselves, challenging the status quo, and developing new points of view.

    And we certainly don’t want our national leaders to be eloquent, scientifically literate, and generally well-informed about the world in which we live. Much better to derive scientific theories based on the teachings of the Bible, and to form national public policy based on the rumors, gossip, urban myths, and unverified anecdotal accounts described in supermarket rags and online blogs.

    Furthermore, these same conservatives who are so fond of labeling progressives as “elitists”have suggested that students who must obtain low-interest federal loans are unworthy of a college education.

    With respect to the silly fear-mongering and nonsensical Marxist association over the belief thatALL children in the United States are entitled to a public school education:

    Many Republicans would love to see the public education system be financially gutted and instead have the private education system be government-subsidized. One reason: they regardany form of public education (k-12 or college) as part of a subversive left-wing plot to corrupt and brainwash our youth.

    Unlike the public school system, private schools would not be restricted from propagating right wing revisionist history in their social studies classes, nor proselytizing religious ideology andpromoting corporate-funded anti-environmental propaganda in the science classroom.

    Vouchers are intended to allow students from (once again) highly motivated families attend costly private schools which they would otherwise not be able to attend. The funding for the vouchers comes from the state or federal government, i.e., the government is essentially subsidizing the private school industry. Since private schools can select student admittance based on the family’s financial status and academic ability, this would create a further divide between the “haves” and “have nots” in our society.

    Since vouchers only account for a portion of the cost of tuition at a private school, families in the lower third of the economic range would still be excluded from attending, resulting in the public school system being further saturated with the poorest students, the lowest achieving students (including ELD and learning disabled), and those that are least motivated to attain academic success.

    Furthermore, comparing performance data between public and private schools is not scientifically valid — the latter can select students for admission based on entrance qualifications, and they can remove students from their programs based on poor conduct or academic performance. Therefore, the performance data becomes extremely skewed compared with public schools which legally must accept anyone who resides within its residency boundaries.

  • RLJR1