For those of you who need to be caught up to know what is going on in Alpine School District, here is my story. But first, this has never been about discrediting our good teachers or schools, but about the leaders in Alpine School District replacing traditional education (which focuses on academics) with Progressive Education (which focuses on social engineering). John Goodlad and his mentor John Dewey are both humanists and socialists who are leaders of this education movement to gradually change American society from capitalism to democratic socialism. They are doing this slowly and methodically by using double-meaning words such as democracy and words like morals and values which of course good people want to implement in the raising of children. Many of our fine teachers perhaps are not even aware of this part of Goodlad’s Agenda since they are usually only familiar with his more positive educational theories. However, woven into this educational philsophy is a strong anti-family message with teachings of social justice, feminism, redistribution of wealth, and other political issues pushed by the Progressive movement.
Alpine School District’s mentor, John Goodlad, believes that the child belongs to the state and that if we don’t stop the cycle of children following the belief systems of their parents, the political system he strives for will collapse.
I came across this huge sign “Enculturating the Young into a Social and Political Democracy” back in February 2010 when I took my 6th grade daughter out of school. It was hanging in the Professional Development Center of the Alpine School District. My daughter urged me to home school because the school was not challenging her academically after multiple discussions with them. Her Constitution teacher also argued with her that America was not a Republic, but a Democracy and that a book she was reading about the Founding Fathers (The 5000 Year Leap) was “pure science fiction”. The politically charged and incorrect sign was enough to shock us both, but then the district website was even worse, containing many progressive phrases and the word democracy 13 times on their Mission Statement Page, but academics 0. All teachers (even art, math, and music) were told that their #1 priority was to put Goodlad’s Democracy Agenda first in their classes before setting their curricula. Clearly, there was more of a political emphasis than an academic one.
The district linked their website to an article written by a California atheist and socialist Green Party candidate to explain why America was a Democracy, not a Republic. He stated that our Founding Fathers were ‘predatory elitists’ out for wealth, gain and power and that the Constitution was just a means to that selfish goal. The most disturbing things I found when I searched the links from that “America: Republic or Democracy” page were the other beliefs of this author. William P. Myers, whom the district deemed to be the expert about America, writes in his books that Christ is a real vampire who pretends he is a God to attract a cult. He believes this because, he says, Christ drank blood, ate flesh and rose from the dead. This same author also believes in late term abortion, limiting families to 2 children and anarchy. I’m sure the district does not profess that Christ is a vampire, but it is disturbing that they deemed this man as being their district expert on America and the Constitution. The link has obviously been taken off after much publicity, and the school district has continually scrubbed their website clean as more and more people become aware and concerned. This amazing story was only the beginning, or an early warning sign, to more disturbing facts about what has been going on in this school district over the years.
I discovered that:
ASD follows the complete Progressive philosophies of openly socialist/humanist/atheist John Goodlad, from his Enculturating motto, the Democracy Agenda, the 4 Moral Dimensions, to all of the other educational policies they set. Our high level district administrators receive many of Goodlad’s national awards by pushing this Agenda more than most districts in the entire nation.
ASD has a partnership with BYU’s McKay School of Education and Goodlad’s National Network of Education Renewal (NNER). The NNER puts on national conferences each year where Bill Ayers and other self-proclaimed socialists/feminists/atheists speak on such topics as social justice, environmentalism, moral relativism and social and political reform.
Bill Ayers, former Weather Underground socialist revolutionary terrorist is the keynote speaker at the October 2010 Conference. He finally decided that rather than blowing up federal buildings by revolution, that evolutionary change through the public school system is the way to change the country. Nel Noddings, feminist anti-Mormon, was last year’s keynote speaker who spoke on her book Women and Evil. She complains that the authors of the Bible were male chauvinists who portrayed women as being evil, so we need to redefine evil in a modern world. Goodlad’s emphasis has never been on academics at all. He is a social reformer working through the universities and public school system to further his political agenda. He wrote “Schooling is a practical political affair.” Goodlad’s emphasis is on morals when he is a moral relativist, social reform when he is a socialist, humanism because he’s an atheist, and he preaches many other popular Progressive philosophies. He is a follower of John Dewey, one of the original signers of the Humanist Manifesto, and is a Dewey Award recipient.
Both Superintendent Vern Henshaw and the district spokesperson, Rhonda Bromley, confirmed to me personally that they and others involved absolutely know that John Goodlad is an atheist and socialist, but they stand behind him 100%. They have been to these national NNER conferences for years with Bill Ayers in attendance and fully realize the Progressive agenda that the district is pushing onto our school children. Not innocent bystanders, Superintendent Henshaw and others in ASD have served on councils and executive committees as part of the leadership of the NNER. Henshaw and Bromley admitted to me that even if they change a word or two on the motto or the website, they absolutely will NOT change their core beliefs in Goodlad or change the direction of the district. Why then does the district pretend to listen to public input if they have no plans to use it? Could this be a clever tactic before an important election? Any parent going to the district meetings over the last few months can clearly see that they don’t want to hear opposing public input. They line up ASD employees to defend their controversial philosophies instead of aligning themselves with the beliefs of the parents who voted them into office. Since when is it the board’s duty to rubberstamp a Progressive district instead of being the elected voice of the people?
It is time parents wake up to the Progressive politics our district is following and demand that the board be accountable to the parents and children in this community. We need to insist that they stay in the business of teaching academics and stop pushing the Progressive agenda written by a socialist and humanist named John Goodlad. Since most of these board members have admitted that they stand firmly behind Goodlad and his Democracy Agenda, it is time to vote for new leadership in the district who will put the academic needs of our children first before political agendas.
~Susan Schnell
Very enlightening. I experienced a similar attitude a decade ago at Lakeridge Jr. High after my sons were shown a movie that portrayed an immoral relationship between two teens under the guise of teaching “decision making.” When I approached the principal I was told that they didn’t know what was in the movie and in fact, the movie was already on its way to another school.
What more effective and devious way to change a nation than to indoctrinate the children. When our scriptures warn us to “let no man be your teacher except he be a man of God” we should take note. We, as parents, are responsible for the education of our children. As Sister Wixom said, “if we don’t teach them the world will.” That is precisely the risk of sending our children into an environment such as our own ASD where it’s difficult to know what they are being taught for a large part of their waking hours. I do not suggest that the teachers are all at fault; on the contrary, there are many wonderful, selfless men and women who spend their lives trying to impact our children for good. The real danger is the insidious, subtle brainwashing clothed in politically correct wording that permeates the curriculum and seems harmless. Wolves in sheep clothing get very good at portraying dangerous philosophies as simply tolerant, benevolent and non-judgmental. We are “enculturating???” our unsuspecting children right into the lair of John Ayers. I’m old enough to remember his horrific crimes and know that his “fruits” are something I want my children protected from.
Are we so naive as to think that we are exempt from the influence of Satan here in “Happy Valley?” Let’s awaken the sleeping giant and put a stop to this blatant push for “social engineering” and put individuals in office that understand and have the courage to defend true principles over “moral relativism” before we find that it is everlasting too late.
I too used to work for the ASD and even with Vern Henshaw when he was principal at our school. He does have a pretty healthy ego and is a chauvinist and he can intimidate easily. I saw this many times as I worked. I remember one time his walking out of his office late in the day after speaking to a parent who was concerned about something at our school. He apparently did not satisfy this mother’s concern and she therefore let him know she would bring the issue to the district. When he walked out of his office he was chuckling to himself and told those in our office the story of the phone call and how this mother could go right ahead and call the district, but he was absolutely sure she would get nowhere and then he laughed again. This told me a lot about Henshaw and district personnel. I have worked for the ASD for many years and have seen, over and over, the unprofessional handling of many issues. And I’ve also seen the “Good Ole Boys Club” in action. It is alive and healthy in ASD. It is no wonder to me that things are the mess that they are. I applaud Susie Schnell for her courage to tell her story and wake us all up to the facts. I don’t have children in school in the district anymore, but I do have grandchildren attending and I don’t want them to be “enculturated” anymore. I agree, “it is time to vote for new leadership in the district who will put the academic needs of our children first before political agendas.”
Has anyone leaked this to KSL and the Deseret News or Glenn Beck. If not I will be glad to leak them to all three.
Chris,
Please do let them know. This needs to be stopped. It is hard to teach your children at home, for many reasons. Perhaps it would mean that we take a pay cut in our family income, or perhaps we do not feel adequate or as educated as we think we need to be to teach our children. But there are many sources available now for educating our children.
If we all pull our children out of public school not only will it send a clear, strong message to the school district, but 1) it will cut taxes, as we will no longer have to pay school board members who teach our children that evil is good, and good evil, and 2) most importantly WE will be those in control of what our children are learning and who they are becoming. Since we are to seek diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; to seek out of the best books words of wisdom; to seek learning, even by study and also by faith, let us do so. Let us be courageous in standing for truth and righteousness. Let us take back the right that is inherently ours – to teach our children true principles, to teach them the way of happiness. It is OUR RIGHT, it is OUR RESPONSIBILITY. If we don’t stand up against evil, we have no right to complain when evil reigns. Be courageous. Do what is right.
Where will students learn how to operate in society if they do not go to public school? Learning to handle relationships, communicate with people different than yourself and compromise to reach peace is experienced daily in public schools.
Public education is possibly the last place left to give children experience in how to conduct themselves in way to make a more productive, morally-valued future America filled with people who believe and act in different ways.
Wow! What a successful example you are of the Progressive indoctrination!Your family doesn’t have friends,you don’t go shopping,you have no connection whatsoever to your community?School is not the only place for your children to interact with others.You are unable to teach your children values and morals?Home is the place where these need to be taught.
It’s ironic that people are complaining about a socialist, progressive agenda being taught in the public school system, when that system is, by it’s very nature, socialist and progressive. Using the government to steal from others so that your kids can be educated is socialist, even if you pay taxes. There are many who do not have kids who are being stolen from in order to educate your kids. My wife and I have chosen to homeschool because we have realized that even if the public school system was, academically, the best possible education our children could receive, it is based on theft and we choose not to be a part of it. Will it be difficult? Sure. But living principled lives is not always easy.
I find these writings to be whacked-out and hard to believe. I believe that those in charge probably do abuse their power, but that is typical and not indicative of an atheist agenda, just very poor character.
@Robby – It is easy to dismiss something that you haven’t investigated. People have been doing that for years. Take an honest look at the facts (there is a link to the original sources) presented here and you will be shocked at just how progressive this ASD administration is. If they don’t espouse these progessive/liberal viewpoints, why else would the ASD superintendent attend the NNER conferences year after year if they did not agree with them?
I would add “at taxpayers money” Dale. Why were we PAYING for them to attend the NNER?
Sorry – meant taxpayers “expense”.
This article highlights a major problem with our public schools. We know that high expectations and sound academic curriculum along with a good teacher who can teach as much curriculum as possible in the shortest time frame creates well educated students. On the other hand, progressive education has low expectations and focuses on politically based social engineering, not academics. A failure formula.
Students in all Utah universities are now swamped with social constructivist pedagogy classes. This pedagogy was created to facilitate social engineering. Thus academics has taken a back seat to the progressive education social engineering movement in most Utah public schools.
If a parent would like to know more, here is a great documentary about education.
http://www.waitingforsuperman.com/
For this very reason we now homeschool our children. If this is an option for you, check out k-12. Its free, the material is mostly decent (some of the history lessons need “refinining” to be accurate) but overall its not bad. This is our first year on it. Next year we may attempt to “go it alone” and make our own courses! That could be fun.
Lets get out there on Nov 2, and get rid of the progressives in UT!
This whole thing is nothing but a straw man argument. The way a word is defined is completely subjective to the context and audience wherein it is used. The same word can have completely different meanings in different contexts. The whole reason we have a supreme court is to interpret or define what the constitution is REALY saying or how the constitution is to be defined in a particular circumstance. Furthermore, the root of the issue according to the author of this and other videos is the supposed fact that a social democracy leads to socialism. However, it must also be noted that there are many different types of democracies.
A social democracy seeks to reform capitalism to align it with the ethical ideals of social justice while maintaining the capitalist mode of production, as opposed to creating an alternative socialist economic system (from Wikipedia). It is, by definition opposed to socialism.
Another type of democracy is indirect or representative democracy, wherein governance by the people is carried out through elected representatives. This is by far the most common system found in today’s democratic states (including the United States) is the representative democracy (again from Wikipedia).
Okay Christopher Spencer… if “the way a word is defined is completely subjective to the context and audience wherein it is used” as you say, let’s define some words from your post so we can all be on the same page.
First what in your definition is a “straw man argument”? and please define for us exactly how this fits your claim that it is such. Then, define for us socialism, social democracy, social justice, and capitalism.
Now, let’s throw a few others into the mix that weren’t included in your post so we can have a real discussion- let’s start with relativist and more specifically moral relativist; and add republic, democratic republic, socialist, capitalist, fascism, communism, anarchy and we’ll start there. I look forward to your response.
Christopher Spencer is the son of ASD administrator John R. Spencer. Christopher’s use of Wikipedia as an authoritative source and his misuse of the term “straw man argument” tell you everything you need to know about what our ASD administrators are teaching our children.
With that said, Susan Schnell is also a nut job for suggesting on other pages of this and other websites that we shouldn’t call America a “democracy” because progressives have hijacked that word, while at the same time she argues that it’s OK to call America a “republic” despite the fact that communists have hijacked the word “republic.”
Comments on this website are moderated?? I didn’t realize this was a website where we only allow 1) pro-Susan Schnell comments, and 2) comments from the uneducated who oppose Susan because those comments can easily be rebutted, but no comments from the educated who oppose Susan are allowed because those make Susan look bad. Talk about hypocrisy.
Sarah, new comments on this site are checked first in case they are spam. If you browse the site, you will see that there are some who disagree and they are all included. The vast majority of comments are favorable. We are careful to check for those who rudely attack character instead of having a civil discussion using facts or opinions about facts. We have only had to delete one or two trolls since this website has been up. As a warning, I hope that in the future you can refrain from name calling and character assassination and instead stick to polite conversation. Within your two comments, you brought up only one valid point about the use of the word republic, while single-handedly attacking 4 groups of people for being “uneducated” or “nut jobs”.
I find it very amusing that you believe the only opposing comments on here are from the ‘uneducated’ and go on to accuse us of not submitting the “educated” comments. We allow ALL opposing comments and have even received many from BYU professors and ASD administrators/teachers. What does that prove about your point? You are basically saying that everyone who opposes us is uneducated and/or we have done a great job proving our points are correct. To their defense, I believe that many who oppose us are very ‘educated’ (in the worldly philosophies of men, mingled with scripture at times). But thank you for the compliment.
Sarah, the Founders established a Republic when they wrote the US Constitution. Article IV, Section 4 reads “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”, so of course I argue that “it’s OK to call America a “republic”. No mention of ‘democracy’ is mentioned in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence. Though other countries indeed use the word ‘republic’ in their names, they cannot be compared to the original, inspired compound Constitutional Republic, that which our Founding Fathers gave us.
In my pocket Constitution, George Washington admonishes, “A primary object…should be the education of our youth in the science of government. In a republic, what species of knowledge can be equally important? And what duty more pressing…than communicating it to those who are to be the future guardians of the liberties of the country?”
I have said over and over again that this is not about a ‘word’ (sorry Nancy Pelosi). In many countries around the world and in these united States, the word “Democracy” is being used as a clever front to a movement to destroy the basic freedoms that our inspired Constitution has promised us. This is very evident in recent news across Egypt and Wisconsin, to name just a couple examples.
So we shouldn’t use “democracy” because that word is “used as a clever front to a movement to destroy the basic freedoms that our inspired Constitution has promised us,” but “republic” is a perfectly acceptable word despite the fact that China, the Soviet Union, and North Korea all use the word “republic” in the official names of their countries? Don’t you see how what you’re saying is very very inconsistent?
Also, my “character assassination” of you is wrong, but your character assassination of ASD administrators and school board members is acceptable? Am I understanding correctly? I’m honestly trying to understand.
Sarah, the Founders didn’t give us China, the Soviet Union or North Korea. I don’t care which word they are using to describe their communistic governments. What I care about is preserving what the Founders gave to us, and it has no correlation to those communistic governments just because they all happen to have the same word in their names. Our job is to teach our children correct principles of freedom and liberty.
I didn’t call anyone a nut job or uneducated, and I don’t call people names. I truly try to educate and inform people and bring up facts with references and quotes. People can disagree with my opinion, but I’ve yet to hear anyone dispute the facts of ASD’s close relationship with Bill Ayers, that Goodlad is a socialist and atheist, that the NNER pushes the gay agenda, social justice and things counter to traditional principles found in homes across this area. I tried for months to discuss these concerns civilly with the school board members and administrators, as did hundreds of other parents. Don’t believe me? The school board meeting where parents brought up these concerns had over 200 well-spoken and polite parents trying to convey their concerns (it was taped on news video), but we were called an angry special interest group and wrongly labeled John Birchers. Oak and hundreds of parents have been trying to deal with this school board and district for years before I moved here. They haven’t listened. They side with the district everytime instead of realizing as elected officials they are supposed to represent the tax-paying citizens. They think of themselves as the ‘educated’ and feel that parents are uneducated and don’t know as well as they do. After being ignored and rudely treated, some of us decided to come up with a website for parents to inform each other on what is going on in this community. I’m not character assassinating when I simply state that we haven’t been listened to and state the facts about the NNER, Bill Ayers, define Social Democracy, and use their quotes. Please help me to understand where I have attacked character unjustly.
Susie, I have two questions.
1: How is Egyptians tossing out a dictator in favor of democracy a bad thing?
2: If you have a problem with people calling America a “democracy” because the founding fathers used the term “republic,” how do you then justify your support of using the term “compound constitutional republic” to describe America when our founders never–not once–used that term? After all, “No mention of ‘compound constitutional republic’ is mentioned in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence.”
Patriot,
1. Like in every other example recently in the news, “Democracy” is being used as a Trojan Horse in Egypt. They ended up replacing a bad dictator with an even worse Muslim Brotherhood. Tossing out bad is one thing, but what replaces it is of utmost importance. Democracy was being used as a train to get to the final destination.
2. I’ve already answered this question for you on Utah’s Republic so I’m surprised you feel you need another venue to bring up what has been discussed in detail already. For other readers, go to UtahsRepublic.org to get a thorough explanation. Our Founders set up the Constitution establishing a republic. Our government is set up as not just ONE powerful government with unlimited powers, but a compound government of individual sovereign states working together. The Federal level has only few and limited powers given to it by the Constitution. This is what is meant by compound, though it is not stated directly in the Constitution. James Madison explained the term ‘compound’ in his writings during that time. My take on this is that we have strayed so far from the kind of government our Founders set up, that we have to spell it out and define it for the purpose of educating our youth and citizens. If we don’t, they will keep on thinking that we live in a democracy, or as ASD and McKay School of Education like to say, “a social and political democracy”, which is in direct opposition to what our Founders set up.
Chris, you must have missed this statement by Goodlad on another article on this site.
“A whole new cycle is often put in motion wherein the name of the game is eliminating competition. The human motivation is commonly referred to as greed. What appears then to be a sound economic principle is corrupted by lack of moral principle and compassion for humankind. This abuse discredits capitalism as a potential companion of democracy.”
Goodlad’s agenda specifically states capitalism is incompatible with his social democracy…for the reason that he’s specifically all about socialism.
“Like in every other example recently in the news, “Democracy” is being used as a Trojan Horse in Egypt. They ended up replacing a bad dictator with an even worse Muslim Brotherhood.”
This isn’t true. Basic misstatements of fact like this further make me question the accuracy of things you post on this or other websites. The military is currently in charge of Egypt, not the Muslim Brotherhood (Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/egypts-military-keeping-repressive-practices-in-place/2011/04/02/AFFjgpPC_story.html). How would you react to your daughter’s teacher saying something like, “Newt Gingrich is currently our President” when he clearly is not? I think this is an honest question worth an honest response.
“Democracy was being used as a train to get to the final destination.”
Democracy hasn’t actually occurred in Egypt, so I don’t know how it was used as a “train” to get anywhere. What do you want, Egyptians to remain living under dictatorships forever? I don’t see the point of denigrating their attempts to implement democracy (err, I mean, compound constitutional republicanism) over there. If Egypt becomes a country where leaders are chosen by the people, we aren’t quite there yet, but “democracy” is hardly to blame for this because it doesn’t actually exist in Egypt yet. But don’t you think it’s at least conceivable that Egypt might develop into a thriving democratic nation?
“I’m surprised you feel you need another venue to bring up what has been discussed in detail already.”
I’m surprised you and Oak keep creating websites that perform basically the same functions and say essentially the same things! My last search has revealed *4* websites run by Oak Norton, and the information on them is by and large the same. Do more websites make what you’re saying more correct?
“go to UtahsRepublic.org to get a thorough explanation.”
I’ve done that. All I see is rationalization for using a term (“compound constitutional republic) to describe America that didn’t exist until a month ago, a term that is an invention of the Utah state legislature. Look, I would have supported a law requiring public schools to call America what it is according to our founding documents: a “republic.” But we are not a “compound constitutional republic” just because Madison one time used the term “compound republic.” If compound constitutional republic is acceptable, then so is democratic republic or even democracy, which means “a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system” according to dictionary.com. I don’t understand this quest of yours to try to change the meaning of the word democracy. You seem to rely solely on definitions of the word “democracy” as used 200+ years ago and reject all definitions outside of the 1776-1826 definitions of that word. How would you like it if I call you and Oak the “gayest people I’ve met”? After all, gay used to only mean happy, not homosexual. Shouldn’t we only use words according to their old meanings, not their newer ones?
As my kids would say, “You got owned Susie!” I love the_Patriot’s response! Articulate, factual, funny and to the point. A true patriot!
Patriot,
You said, “Democracy hasn’t actually occurred in Egypt”, so you wonder how it can be used as a train.
You are absolutely correct! And the ‘good’ kind of democracy in which you probably are speaking won’t occur because of the way the revolution happened and who was behind it. Not democracy itself, but the ‘WORD’ democracy was used as a train to get the greater populace to believe that the new changes would be positive. What is happening now is exactly what educated conservatives said would happen.
According to Egyptians interviewed in a NY Times article published yesterday, April 5, 2011, (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/06/world/middleeast/06cairo.html?_r=1),
1) “…for many people life today is even harder than before, especially for the poor and for those who survive on tourism.”
8) “The military is suddenly not looking like such a good guy any longer, accused of using beatings, torture and military tribunals to silence critics.”
2) Egyptians have used humor as a tonic for centuries, but “No one is joking,” said Mohamed Saleh Mohamed. “There is no happiness, no work. The country is a mess.”
3) “People had hoped for overnight change only to awaken to the myriad challenges facing them.”
4) “This victory has not achieved its goals.”
5) “There are signs of increased sectarian tensions.”
6) “The economy is in deep trouble.”
7) “The crime rate is rising.”
And according to Glenn Beck’s piece on this today, (http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/04/06/egyptians-say-they-are-worse-off-post-mubarak/),
9) “It looks like the regime now is taking away laptop computers, cellphones, any kind of mobile, mobile devices at all,”
10) “There are also reports that the new regime has enacted a “virginity squad” to check women to see if they are virgins.”
I’m sure that you would agree that these are not the goals anyone wanted except for the tyrants behind this revolution. No, I do not want “Egyptians to remain living under dictatorships forever.” I hope that they can work towards a government which would allow freedom and liberty, which is the right of all of God’s children. I do not denigrate their attempts at all, but the problem all along has been WHO IS BEHIND THE MOVEMENT? I say the same thing as it occurs in “Enculturating the Young into a Social and Political Democracy”. Who is behind this saying and the Democracy Agenda which this district follows so closely? Good teachers or administrators who want the best for our children? No, they didn’t come up with it, and I believe that the majority have pure intentions. It came from an atheist and socialist named John Goodlad, who just happens to have radical Bill Ayers as a good friend and co-speaker at his conferences where our administrators and teachers are trained. It is always important to look beyond words and to look at the meaning, the intent and the outcome. While most in ASD have good intentions, the top leaders in the Democracy Agenda like Goodlad and Ayers have radically different political views than most parents and are using the clever use of words to trick the greater populace. While the people of Egypt hoped for representative democracy and freedom, the organized and evil revolutionaries behind it, such as communists and the Muslim Brotherhood, used the word “Democracy” to attain their tyrranical goals and now the people are stuck with something much worse than what they had.
I certainly hope that someday Egypt might develop into a thriving nation with free people who can vote for good leaders, if THAT’s what you mean by democratic. I believe that many of us want the same result, but as you stated, words are deceptive and meaningless at times, sometimes used by coniving people to get their way.
I do not wish to argue. We probably have much in common and we probably disagree in other things. If you find that you do not agree with all these conservative Constitutional sites which you admittedly spend so much time searching, and that they just make your blood boil, I hope that you will find some positive outlets instead in which you can contribute.
Patriot, your definition of a democratic republic does not fit our government, because the supreme power is not vested in the people or their elected agents. Can the people democratically take our right to speech, exercise of religion, due process, etc? I would say supreme power is vested in the constitution, which protects our rights. We need such terms as “constitutional compound republic” to better understand our system and how our rights are protected. If we can’t look back to the original meaning, then by what standard do we determine meaning? Does each generation determine meaning (which is what the socialists/humanists want)? What security is there if a majority can determine our rights? Susie’s and Oak’s goal is to maintain our rights, and I am with them.
How about you respond to the other three questions I asked? I’d like to hear your thoughts on those.
JennyZ,
The Constitution says “We the People,” not “We the Constitution.” The Constitution belongs to the People, and the People can amend it. So yes, the People could “take our right to speech, exercise of religion, due process, etc.” Fortunately, I don’t believe that will ever happen. The supreme power is vested in We the People, who have institutionalized our rights in a Constitution. Ultimate power rests in the people who have the power to amend the Constitution through their elected agents. This is consistent with what Madison taught. This is also the definition of democratic republic, as mentioned above. There is nothing “socialist” or “humanist” about the fact that the meaning of words can shift over time. As shown above, the word “gay” has changed over time, and I do not believe I am a socialist for saying that a homosexual person is “gay.” These days, it would be silly to call a happy straight person “gay,” don’t you think?
You said, “We need such terms as ‘constitutional compound republic’ to better understand our system and how our rights are protected. If we can’t look back to the original meaning, then by what standard do we determine meaning?” So, if I understand correctly, you think we need terms that politicians in Salt Lake City made up a few weeks ago in order to best understand our form of government that has been around for over 200 years? I strongly disagree.
Thank you, The_Patriot, for bringing this issue to light.
The Federalist Papers are among the definitive, original sources for constitutional interpretation. In Federalist 51, Madison (credited with writing the Constitution) explains:
“In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments … . Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other.” (This is from Ken Ivory’s op-ed in the SLC Trib on July 8, 2011.)
The term “compound republic” was not invented by our reps in SLC, but it’s new to me too. I guess that just goes to show the quality, or intent, of our educational system. So many people now seem to be against our original form of government, wanting to change to a more direct democracy, Rep. Chaffetz gets many letters urging this. I believe this idea and desire are planted through the schools, which are truly directed by humanists/socialists.
As parents we want our children taught the truth so that they may live in liberty.
People say that today is different than the time of the founding, and I must agree, but making a living is so much easier now in this country. It’s not hard to obtain food, housing, clothing, medical care, etc, and when did life ever guarantee those? If socialism was ever needed it would have been 200 years ago when the needs of life were hard to obtain, when families even needed the children to help. Freedom allows us to prosper by our work and it built this great country that we have been given, and socialism will not make it better.
Susan,
Here are a couple questions I asked that you didn’t answer at all:
1. After correcting you on who is actually running Egypt, I asked, “How would you react to your daughter’s teacher saying something like, ‘Newt Gingrich is currently our President’ when he clearly is not?” I honestly want to know how you would react to that.
2. I also wrote this: “You seem to rely solely on definitions of the word “democracy” as used 200+ years ago and reject all definitions outside of the 1776-1826 definitions of that word. How would you like it if I call you and Oak the ‘gayest people I’ve met’? After all, gay used to only mean happy, not homosexual. Shouldn’t we only use words according to their old meanings, not their newer ones?” In essence, explain to me why we should use only the old definition of democracy but also should use only the new definition of gay.
Now let me quickly respond to your latest post:
1. “And the ‘good’ kind of democracy in which you probably are speaking won’t occur because of the way the revolution happened and who was behind it.”
Who do you think was “behind” Egypt? Obviously you don’t think it was the people who were taking to the streets, so tell us what your theory is.
2. “What is happening now is exactly what educated conservatives said would happen.”
I don’t think anyone with any credibility said Egypt would develop strong democratic institutions overnight. So it wasn’t just “educated conservatives” who said that.
3. After you posted a long list of bad things that are happening in Egypt (as if those things weren’t happening before) you said, “I’m sure that you would agree that these are not the goals anyone wanted except for the tyrants behind this revolution.”
Right, those aren’t the goals of the people who wanted the revolution. Similarly, I don’t think it was the goals of our Founding Fathers to see the American colonists’ homes burned and their towns plundered. Revolution isn’t pretty; as a supposed student of American history, I would have thought you knew that.
4. “WHO IS BEHIND THE MOVEMENT?”
Careful using all caps; Oak told me a few days ago that this is considered demagoguing.
5. “I do not wish to argue. We probably have much in common and we probably disagree in other things. If you find that you do not agree with all these conservative Constitutional sites which you admittedly spend so much time searching, and that they just make your blood boil, I hope that you will find some positive outlets instead in which you can contribute.”
This isn’t the first time you’ve made a comment like this. Don’t you want ideas discussed on your website? What you wrote here (and you’ve done this much more explicitly in the past) suggests you don’t want non-conformists coming to your website to post.
Sorry Patriot. I do the best I can answering questions in the time that I have allotted in my busy life. I really don’t have all day to answer your individual questions which just go round and round. When I try, you fill the page up with more. My guess is that you ran out of steam arguing with Oak so you decided to knock on this door. I’m not interested. Obviously, he isn’t either. I could spend all day answering your questions and still you would not be satisfied and would continue to try to cause contention. I really don’t understand people who purposely go on sites they disagree with only to cause trouble. I don’t have the time nor the interest. I’m not copping out. I have too many other important things to do. I was just inviting you to do the same so you could spend your life doing something more positive. It’s OK if we agree to disagree. It’s not OK if I spend my day contending with you and ignore my other responsibilities. It’s not solving anything for either of us. Let it go.