This is How Panera Found Out That Socialism Does Not Work By Edwin Benson

This is How Panera Found Out That Socialism Does Not Work

By Edwin Benson

A recent article by John Ellis brought the news that Panera has closed its last “Pay What You Want” restaurant. Located in Boston, the bold experiment ended on February 15, 2019.

Panera Cares

The “Panera Cares” chain once operated five restaurants – one each in Boston, Chicago, Dearborn (greater Detroit), Portland (Oregon), and St. Louis (Missouri). It was the brainchild of Panera founder, Ron Shaich. In a recorded talk, he explained that the concept arose after he and one of his children volunteered at a food bank. That evening, he decided to devise a far more efficient way to make quality food available to those suffering from “food insecurity.”

Mr. Shaich has a long record of success in food preparation. Before founding Panera Bread, he owned the bakery chain Au Bon Pain, which operates in 29 states, mostly in large cities and university towns. Au Bon Pain created an Americanized version of a French bakery. Mr. Shaich later sold that chain and founded Panera. Both of his companies operated on a similar premise that people wanted high quality baked goods, and were willing to pay a premium price for them. The two chains were so similar in concept that recently they merged and now offer similar menus.

The basic idea behind Panera Cares was simple. The restaurants would serve food similar to the fare at other Panera locations. However, patrons would only pay as much as they thought themselves able to pay. In this way, Panera would be able to provide food security on a small scale to the needy.

Socialism on a Small Scale

In 1875, Karl Marx penned his most famous line, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” The idea was not original, but his precise wording is seared into the consciousness of every socialist and pseudo-socialist in the world.

It sounds so good. It is so logical, and yet so altruistic. It goes well with other platitudes like, “the wealthiest nation in the world ought to be able to feed its people.” One can almost hear an elevator music version of John Lennon’s Imagine playing in the background.

Intentionally or not, Panera Cares tested Marx’s premise. Mr. Shaich believed that those who were able would happily pay something extra to provide food for those who could not afford to pay the full price. He also believed that those who could not afford the full price would pay what they could.

The Candle Burns Out

Unfortunately, Mr. Shaich’s faith in this premise proved overly optimistic. Eater Detroit describes Panera Cares’s short history. “[T]he restaurants weren’t financially viable… Panera Cares was reportedly only recouping between 60 and 70 percent of its total costs. The losses were attributed to students who “mobbed” the restaurant and ate without paying, as well as homeless patrons who visited the restaurant for every meal of the week.”

In 2017, Panera was sold to a conglomerate. Mr. Shaich left the company the following year. The new owners pulled the plug on Panera Cares. On February 15, the lights went out.

Socialism Always Fails

Socialism eats away at the vitals of once healthy economies, be they small or large. The same human and economic forces that ate away the altruism of Panera Cares has consumed Venezuela. The list of economies that have been devastated by socialism is long and growing. The list of successes is blank.

Modern progressives – long on emotion and short on analysis – try to place the nations of Scandinavia in the success column. They do not know that they are describing a time that now lies almost fifty years in the past. The “cradle to grave” welfare systems of the sixties and seventies failed as well. While those societies have not restored absolutely free markets, even liberal CNN has to admit that they have moved well to the right.

Every group of budding socialists believes that they will avoid the socialist disasters of the past. They are the bright, young, and altruistic people who can make Karl Marx’s goals into reality.

While not a Marxist, on some level Panera’s Ron Shaich thought so too. His was not the starry-eyed and empty-headed optimism of modern socialists.  The restauranteur was working in an area in which he had broad experience. He had control of all of the necessary resources. He was motivated by the best of intentions. He had the gift of optimism. The need that he was trying to address was real. His plan was limited in scope, but he had plans to grow gradually. If there was any way for such an enterprise to meet that need, Panera Cares should have succeeded.

Taking Away Responsibility

His failure shows the inherent flaw of socialism. This flaw is so fundamental that even a successful practitioner of the free market cannot overcome it. Socialism removes the element of personal responsibility from the recipient.

Socialists have a hard time with personal responsibility because it creates inequities. Any system will have those who exercise responsibility and those who do not. Those who are responsible will take whatever initiative that the system allows and prosper relative to those who are irresponsible. The result is inequity.

By accepting the fact that those who have “the right stuff” will prosper, the free market inspires people to acquire those characteristics – it breeds responsibility. Socialism spawns dependence. Dependent societies cannot thrive. As the Panera Cares experience shows, they will eventually fail.

Catching GOD's Thoughts

Catching GOD’s Thoughts

I just heard a TV preacher say he “caught a thought about GOD, just like he caught a cold last February.” The rest of his message was good, but that sentence, “I caught a thought about GOD like I caught a cold last February.” caught my attention and I started thinking about it. How is catching a thought about GOD like catching a cold? I mean you do not try to catch a cold so how is the process the same?

At first I thought it was a bad analogy, but then I realized that you catch a cold by being around people who have colds, cold germs are not just floating around in the air waiting for someone to walk by so they can catch them. That means to catch a thought about GOD you have to be hanging around people who are thinking and talking about GOD; you have to be reading His Word and thinking about what it means.

GOD is everywhere at all times, there is nowhere in existence where GOD is not present. GOD is Omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent! He speaks and it exists and happens! His thoughts are everywhere and they are looking for those who want them; they do not return to Him unaccomplished. It is not unheard of but rarely does someone who is resistant to GOD catch GOD’s thought that reveals Himself; it only happens if they have a pure heart.

We think of catching a cold as an accident, but to catch a thought about GOD you have to be purposeful. GOD uses all of His creation to reveal Himself to us, He has given us His Word (instruction) on how to find and hear Him, He wants us to catch His thoughts.

We call the cold common because of its prevalence in the world, but a thought about GOD should be even more common, daily. We are told that we should have the same mind that was in CHRIST, a mind of humility and service in obedience to The Father.

How Should America Deal with Iran? Not by Surrendering! By James Bascom

How Should America Deal with Iran? Not by Surrendering!

By James Bascom

The world was stunned on January 3 when the United States military launched a missile strike that killed notorious Iranian Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani. Even bigger than the explosion in Baghdad, however, was the debate over the use of force against Iran, and whether the attack would provoke World War III.

In fact, Iran has been at war against the United States since the Iranian Revolution of 1979. The country is the largest state-sponsor of terrorism in the world and is responsible for the deaths of many hundreds of Americans. President Trump’s decision to strike Soleimani was a much-needed response that will make war less likely, not more. It will instill fear in Iran’s rulers of American power and force them to think twice about attacking us or our allies. The alternative – do nothing and allow even more Americans to die from Iranian aggression — is a show of weakness that is tantamount to surrender.

Iran’s mullahs, accustomed to years of Western inaction in the face of Iranian terrorism, were shocked that an American president would take such a step against such a prominent Iranian target and promised to retaliate.

The reaction in the West, however, was mixed. For most on the political right, the strike ordered by President Trump was a cause for celebration. It is rare for any Western leader to take such a bold step, even against a notorious terrorist like Soleimani. In the face of aggression, most Western countries would much prefer to pay protection money (in the form of sanctions relief), issue yet another U.N. declaration, or simply turn a blind eye.

The left, motivated by its customary pacifism or by simple hatred for President Trump, was outraged. Rep. Ilan Omar, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Speaker Nancy Pelosi, among many others, all condemned the strike in the strongest terms. At a town hall in Iowa, Sen. Bernie Sanders said, “The American people do not want endless war! We cannot allow Trump to drag us into war with Iran. We must prevent what would be an unmitigated disaster.”

Most of the media quickly attacked President Trump, warning that such an action would lead to World War III. CNN anchor Erin Burnett even interviewed the Iranian ambassador to the UN, Mavid Ravanchi. She asked him such softball questions that the segment turned into a broadcast of Iranian government talking points. Colin Kaepernick, a darling of the race-baiting left, tweeted: “There is nothing new about American terrorist attacks against black and brown people for the expansion of American imperialism.”

Many on the right also shared such anti-war sentiments. Tucker Carlson, Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter and others all came out strongly against the President that they have generally supported. “All Republican presidents run on keeping us out of war, as Eisenhower, Nixon Reagan actually did. Then, they start wars.  We thought Trump was different,” Coulter tweeted. Rush Limbaugh, long a supporter of the President, told him in an interview on his show: “People are being scared to death, their kids are being scared to death, out of their minds, that somehow this is going to start World War III.”

On his Fox News show, Tucker Carlson condemned “chest-beaters” who advocate for foreign interventions. “Is Iran really the greatest threat we face? And who’s actually benefiting from this? And why are we continuing to ignore the decline of our own country in favor of jumping into another quagmire from which there is no obvious exit?” he asked. “The risk of terror is also increased by bombing other people’s countries.”

According to this view, any military action against Iran, no matter how justified, is a step towards a full-fledged shooting war that we cannot win (which, they remind us, did not turn out so well in Afghanistan and Iraq). Therefore, the only sensible choice is to disengage entirely from the Middle East in general and from Iran in particular.

There is only one problem with this analysis: we are not in danger of going to war. Iran is already at war with us and has been since the Iranian Revolution of 1979.

First, some facts about Iran and Gen. Qasem Soleimani:

·         Qasem Soleimani was the second most powerful man in Iran, after Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei himself.

·         Soleimani was the commander of the elite Quds Force, a 20,000-strong military organization responsible for terrorism, assassinations and other unconventional activities in Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, India, Egypt and other countries across the Muslim world.

·         Quds Force was the main supporter of terrorist groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas and a partner with Al-Qaeda. It is accused of assassinating Lebanon’s Sunni Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri, attempting to bomb the Saudi and U.S. embassies in Washington and other terrorist activities in countries such as Germany, the US, India and Argentina.

·         Quds Force was one of the primary suppliers of weapons and especially Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) to Iraq’s Shiite militia, which have killed no less than 600 American soldiers in Iraq, according to the Pentagon.

• Soleimani sought to subvert the whole Middle East in accordance with the ideology of the Iranian Revolution. He stated that the uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa “provide our (Iran’s) revolution with the greatest opportunities…Today, Iran’s victory or defeat no longer takes place in Mehran and Khorramshahr. Our boundaries have expanded, and we must witness victory in Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon and Syria. This is the fruit of the Islamic revolution.”
• Starting in October 2019, thousands of Iraqis have protested in the streets against corruption and Iranian influence in Iraq. Soleimani-backed Kata’ib Hezbollah Iraqi militias have killed hundreds of Iraqis and wounded thousands more.
• Kata’ib Hezbollah attacked a US airbase in Kirkuk province, killing a U.S. civilian contractor and injuring four U.S. soldiers. In response, the U.S. bombed Kata’ib Hezbollah bases in Iraq and Syria, killing 25 militia and wounding 55.
• Soleimani retaliated by directing his militias to attack the U.S. embassy on December 31, smashing windows and setting fire to part of the compound. It was in this context President Trump ordered the attack on Soleimani on January 3, after U.S. intelligence indicated an imminent attack against U.S. forces in Iraq.

Iran has waged an undeclared war on America and its allies ever since Ayatollah Khomeini took power in 1979. Hundreds of Americans have been killed in this war, from the 1983 bombing of the Marine Corps barracks in Beirut that killed 241 Americans, to the bombing of the U.S. embassy in Kuwait that same year, to the hundreds of American soldiers killed by Iranian-backed militias in Syria and Iraq.

Central to Iran’s goal of dominating the Middle East is the building of an atomic bomb. An Iranian nuclear weapon would certainly lead to an arms race in the region and make a major regional war far more likely. President Obama’s 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, also known as the “Iran Deal,” was instrumental in helping Iran achieve this goal. According to the deal signed by the US, UK, France, Russia, Germany, China and Iran, Iran promised — without any verification mechanism — not to enrich uranium and build a bomb. In exchange, Iran received $100 billion in sanctions relief, much of which went straight towards its terrorist operations.

On May 8, 2018, President Trump decided to end the Western policy of appeasement and withdrew from the faulty Iran Deal, thereby reapplying heavy U.S. sanctions on the Iranian economy. Since then, Iran has suffered an economic meltdown. Its currency has lost half its value and oil exports have fallen from 2.5 million barrels per day to 250,000.

In spite of crushing sanctions, Iran refuses to curb its terrorist activities. In 2019, Iran attacked and captured oil tankers in the Persian Gulf, downed a U.S. drone, and partially destroyed a major Saudi oil refinery via drone attack. Each time the U.S. showed restraint and did not retaliate in kind.

Iran also suffers from massive internal unrest. Major protests against the regime erupted in 2009 and again in 2017. Discontent with the mullahs is widespread, and it is only by force that they remain in power.

Faced with economic meltdown and internal unrest, Iran is the last country that wants to enter an all-out shooting war with the most powerful military in the world. More than anything, Iran’s mullahs want to retain power, and war is the one thing that would certainly bring that about. Just ask Saddam Hussein.

Iran’s response to the Soleimani’s death was very revealing of the regime’s weakness. On Jan 8, Iran launched more than a dozen missiles at U.S. base and civilian airports in Iraq. No one was killed or injured, and the bases suffered only minor damage. The head of the Revolutionary Guard’s Aerospace Force, Brig. Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh, declared on Iranian state media that “we did not intend to kill… We intended to hit the enemy’s military machinery.” Such a weak response suggests a desire by the regime to save face in the eyes of its hardline supporters and to de-escalate to avoid serious repercussions. By killing Soleimani, the United States called Iran’s bluff.

Rather than an escalation, it would be more accurate to say that President Trump’s strike was an act of de-escalation. It was a prudent but firm show of force that sends a message in the only language that terrorists understand. This is not to say that Iran will never attack again in the future, but they will certainly think twice. The United States will no longer tolerate the murder of its citizens and attacks against its allies. As Secretary of Defense Mark Esper said, “The game has changed.”

2 Chronicles and History

2 Chronicles and History

“then, if My people, who bear My Name, will humble themselves, pray, seek My Face and turn from their evil ways, I will hear from Heaven, forgive their sin and heal their land.” 2 Chronicles 7:14 (CJB) is one of the most quoted verses for prayer and repentance; and it applies to every situation where it is genuinely prayed. But, most of the time Christians are left wondering why their prayer is not being answered! Why have we not seen revival in America or any other nation where the Church is praying for it? I would suggest studying revivals of the past and 2 Chronicles chapters 6 and 7. It is not just a matter of getting a lot of people to pray this or any other prayer for revival!

A little history: 2 Chronicles 5-7 is about the completion of the twenty year project of building GOD’s House and Solomon’s palace in Jerusalem. In the dedication of the Temple; the first permanent structure to house the Arc of the Covenant, Table of Showbread, the Gold Altar of Incense and the Gold Lampstand; that lasted 7 days all of the nation was gathered, all of the priests and Levites were sanctified and present, hundreds of thousands of animals were sacrificed and much praise and glory were offered up to GOD. Then Solomon prayed a prayer of dedication to GOD asking for His favor and forgiveness whenever the people or nation sinned, GOD judged and the people repented in prayer (Chapter 6). GOD came to Solomon after that in a dream and answered every point of his prayer (Chapter 7) with a prophetic admonition of what would happen if the people strayed from obedience and went after the ways of the world. And it all came true!

GOD blessed Solomon more than any other man before or since with wisdom, honor and riches; yet he strayed after the flesh and the world and his kingdom was divided between his son Rehoboam who ruled over Judah (the Southern Kingdom) and his servant Jeroboam who ruled over Israel (the Ten Tribes). Both Rehoboam and Jeroboam did not follow after the LORD and most of the Kings after them did not follow after the LORD. This led to seventy years of captivity in Babylon, four hundred years of silence from GOD, the Virgin Birth, Sacrificial Death, Resurrection and Ascension of JESUS CHRIST, then the total destruction of Jerusalem and Israel for 1,858 years.

Now some world history: GOD has raised up and brought down many nations to bless and punish His People, The Church, even as He was punishing His people Israel. In fact GOD has raised up and brought down people groups and nations throughout the history of the world to bless and punish those who seek Him and those who do not. Since the fall of Israel we have had the Roman Empire, the Catholic Empire, the British Empire, the Socialist (Communist) Empire, and the American Empire. All have started with good intentions to better the world through their own doctrine and rule of government; and all have failed because “every thought of men is evil”.

The Body of CHRIST, the Church, has failed to be the governing body for the nations of the world that it is called to be and therefore the world is in sin and chaos. It is the Church that has to come before The LORD in repentance in humility and declare our sin and ask GOD to forgive us so that He will hear us from Heaven. It is all true Christians from every nation and land who believe in JESUS CHRIST and have personally repented and surrendered their life to the work of GOD’s Kingdom in the earth; not Christian organizations or religious orders; for revival to come to nations. For revival to come to the world it has to be the outcry of the masses of those who love GOD and serve Him; those who repent for themselves, their families, their organizations and their nations.

When a majority of Christians in a locality are humbly repenting and seeking the Will of GOD, then GOD will hear, forgive and heal, then revival will happen there! The great revivals of the past always started small with just a couple of people who were so earnest that GOD revived them and they shared that with others and GOD revived them until it grew and could not be contained until people started to take the glory onto themselves and preach what they did rather that Who GOD is.

So the lessons of 2 Chronicles is that great sacrifice is required to hear from GOD and great effort is required to work out our salvation (revival – being revived from eternal death to eternal life). We know that JESUS is our great sacrifice for salvation but we have to work at it daily with fear and trembling before GOD Almighty who judges both body and soul for eternity. We can pray any prayer from the Bible but we also need to understand the circumstances of the person praying and GOD’s response; they are not feel good quotes or mystical phrases that we can just get GOD to answer because we want or need Him to.

Revivals come from persecution, humble prayer and the timing of GOD! It does not come because we need or want it, it comes as the Will of GOD!

Study 2 Chronicles 5-7; Matthew 6:5-13, 6:23-34, 10:27-31; Luke 11:1-4, 12:4-7; Philippians 2:12-18; Hebrews 12:1-2

Are Conservatives Soul-Searching in the Wrong Places? By John Horvat II

Are Conservatives Soul-Searching in the Wrong Places?

By John Horvat II

A brutal business climate and societal breakdown have brought major changes to America. In response, many Americans, especially conservatives, are soul searching for something more compassionate for those left behind. Unfortunately, they are looking in the most unlikely places: business and government. They will likely be searching for a long time.

The controversy over this shift in mentality erupted with the publication of a Wall Street Journal advertisement in which major firms pledge a commitment to “stakeholder” capitalism, which holds businesses should be run having all society, not just shareholders, in mind. Sen. Marco Rubio’s (R-Fla.) stirred the pot with his recent speech at Catholic University, where he explored what he called “common-good capitalism.”

The thesis is that the modern American economy does not care for everyone. It falls short by concentrating only on return on investment to shareholders. Businesses need to think in terms of more general obligations to workers and community—“stakeholders” in the overall economy. Since business cannot provide for all social needs, state systems must also be put in place. The soul-searchers say it is time to admit that the federal government might indeed have a role in helping those left behind.

Challenging the Conservative Orthodoxy

Such thinking is especially hard for conservatives to accept. It challenges the reigning orthodoxy that has long held to low taxation, decreased federal spending, scrapping socialist government meddling and regulation, and free and fair markets as a means of providing for the common good. The movement maintains a Reaganesque distrust of government and a rightful distaste for its eternal programs. The libertarian right relegates the solving of most problems to markets.

However, there is no denying that something is missing from today’s superficial and materialistic society. Countless people are suffering materially and especially spiritually, whether it be from anxiety, depression, opioids or family breakup. Society seems to have lost its soul. Hence, the searching.

As a result, many conservatives now question old assumptions about market reliability or the evils of government social largess. They are looking for new models for business and government to help find a soul for society that will help people cope. They assume these are the only two institutions from which all solutions flow.

The Limitations of Markets

These are strange places to look for solutions. Modern economy and government are sterile institutions built upon mechanical models and systems. To have recourse to them is to look for materialistic solutions for spiritual problems.

Modern capitalism, as it now operates, is not meant to be soulful. It is meant to produce material stuff—lots of stuff. It works like a machine producing efficiently, quickly and abundantly. Modern markets scour the globe looking to maximize efficiency and distribute risks. While such efforts do benefit society greatly, their primary purpose is directed toward trading, not giving.

Markets work in function of commutative justice.  This form of justice requires a fair exchange of goods or services between contracting parties. It facilitates transactions by requiring, as nearly as may be, a near equal payment be rendered for the near equal value of a good or service.

Markets do not work in function of charity.  Charity cannot govern economic transactions since, for an economy to function justly, each party must be strictly given its due. To insist that charity be made part of economic theory would put the charitable at a disadvantage and leave the marketplace in the hands of the hard-hearted or dishonest.

Thus, efforts to baptize modern capitalism by insisting upon integrating charity into its program will inevitably fail. Soul-searching conservatives might encourage entrepreneurs to practice charity in their dealings, as indeed many do. However, the cold mechanical processes of modern capitalism remain morally indifferent and soulless. They will not “renew the face of the earth” (Ps. 103:30), no matter how they are tweaked.

The Limitations of Big Government

The same comments can be made about modern government. If any institution can be called soulless, it is the anonymous, bureaucratic machinery of big government. Its bloated systems offer to be everything to everyone while suffering from a lack of the efficiency of business.

A government is supposed to be the political system and institutions by which the State is administered and regulated. It should be oriented toward the common good by providing a general framework by which society can prosper. It also is not directed toward giving but administering.

The sad reality is that modern government is usually big government. It does not provide for the common good but buries it under its massive structures.

Decades of social programs have proven that big government, like markets, is not meant to work in  function of charity. Big government distributes its largess with cold indifference and sterile rules. Once entrenched, its self-perpetuating programs tend to prolong not diminish poverty at great cost to the nation.

Looking for America’s Lost Soul

Looking for America’s lost soul in business and government is not the right move. These institutions themselves are not bad, but they are directed to other purposes. The modern versions of these institutions are further handicapped by their cold mechanical structures and systems that can lead to abuse and frenetic intemperance.

Some conservatives have the idea that their message can be more palatable if it is dressed up with secularized systems of charity and government oversight. However, to replace one mechanical system with another does not address the soulless component that is missing.

That is not to say that these institutions cannot be instruments for a return to a more soulful America. Like all instruments, their use depends upon the motives of those using them. The human element is the most crucial part of their functioning.

A Needed Moral Regeneration     

If America is to find its soul, a moral regeneration is needed that will address the causes of society’s breakdown. It should not focus on symptoms. As it stands, everything is upside down.

Soul-searchers must seek out those institutions that are especially directed toward moral regeneration, not the mechanical workings of society. The God-given institutions of the family and the Catholic Church are two important natural regenerators that work in function of charity. They can transform society.

When all society is infused with family-like relationships and religious, moral observance, business and government can then play their essential role in fostering (not controlling) virtuous life in common.

However, such a message is not what people want to hear. It involves restraint, sacrifice, responsibility and accountability amid a culture that teaches the contrary. It is much easier to solve problems by creating stop-gap aid programs that never stop. Better to tweak the system than revamp fundamentals.

Only true Christian charity can overcome the selfish interests that cloud the soul-searching process.  For charity is that supernatural virtue by which people love God above all things for His own sake, and their neighbors as themselves for the love of God. The present soul-searching must either lead to God or end in failure.

Why Common Core Failed and What You Can Do to Keep it From Coming Back By Edwin Benson

Why Common Core Failed and What You Can Do to Keep it From Coming Back By Edwin Benson

A recent article by Dana Goldstein in the New York Times about the Common Core displays a common tendency among liberals. They never acknowledge that their pet programs can fail. When a “progressive” proposal fails, the left never goes back to construct an entirely new scheme. They return to their overriding goals, tweak the old plan a bit, and hang a new name on it.

Dana Goldstein is unashamedly leftist, but she does have some grasp of reality. Her 2014 bestseller, The Teacher Wars: A History of America’s Most Embattled Profession, adroitly mixes her admiration for the philosophy of John Dewey with respect for the plight of many America’s teachers.

The subtitle to the Times article illustrates the leftist tendency to cling to bad ideas. “It was one of the most ambitious education efforts in United States History. Did it fail? Or does it just need more time to succeed?”

Whence Came Common Core?

Common Core is an offspring of John Dewey’s socialist system of education which he branded as “democratic.” At first, his system kept a local agency in charge. However, later elaborations shifted power to the states and the national government when the inherent defects of egalitarian socialism came out. American parents and taxpayers listened to slogans like “a world-class education” and promises of being “in the vanguard of education reform.” Those parents wanted the best for their children, and the “experts” promised it.

Between about 1950 and today, those experts controlled the show. They have convinced parents that Dewey’s new methods will produce better results than the classical education of the past. When the radicals of the sixties entered the scene, they introduced programs of social change to further a socialist agenda.  Actual learning became secondary.

At the same time, parents and the general public noticed that young people often knew less than their elders. Parents discovered that their children could not write a sentence correctly. Young store clerks could not make change. Work habits deteriorated. Parents and taxpayers began to question the quality of increasingly expensive schools.

The bureaucrats sprang into action, attempting to justify their salaries by creating ever more cumbersome “programs.” Each failure spawned a more “comprehensive” response. Common Core was one of the later results of this process.

Fortunately, parents rejected Common Core, and it is now in its death throes. The program generated a wave of criticism rarely seen in education. The experts are taking a step back.

Abandoning Common Core – and Simultaneously Embracing It

One thing is sure; the phrase “Common Core” is gone. However, the ideology that created Common Core will continue. Winning this battle does not mean overall victory. No one yet knows what they will call the next plan, but it will come.

Goldstein points out that the state of Kentucky was the first to adopt the Common Core. In 2017, it left the fold. However, the repeal did not mean repudiation. Kentucky drew up a similar program, calling it the Kentucky Academic Standards. Then, the bureaucrats and legislators can assure voters that the hated Common Core is gone, all the while knowing that its spirit marches on.

The Times article mentioned one reason why Common Core was unpopular. Parents could not understand it. They could not figure out, for example, the calculation methods of “unbundling” and “number bonds.” The author mentioned that “Both methods are commonly used in high-achieving nations. But to many American parents sitting at kitchen tables and squinting at their children’s homework, they were prime examples of bureaucrats reinventing the wheel and causing undue stress in the process.”

Goldstein’s thinking is typical of leftist analysis. First, she indicated support for the overall ideas by appealing to a source of authority (those in high-achieving nations) that cannot be verified. Then she looks down on parents who can’t figure the math out. Last, she presents the right-wing backlash as products of the frustrations of the unenlightened.

The Lesson

The good news is that the program shook the education establishment. The experts and their bureaucrats have never been more threatened. The defeat of the Common Core is significant. Parents and taxpayers are increasingly willing to question the experts.

Four generations of parents and students have faced an arrogant education bureaucracy that holds them in contempt. The Common Core marks the first time that an education program was abandoned through massive public rejection.

It is long past time for those parents to recover the sense that they know what is best for their children. It is time to challenge that bureaucracy – over and over again.

Asking the Right Questions

The best challenge may be to ask simple questions. When you notice something that raises concern, you have the right to an answer. School officials should be able to explain what they are doing in words that you can understand. They will try to take refuge in jargon or professed good intentions. Members of the public cannot afford to allow the bureaucrats to escape so easily. If they can’t justify their ideas in words you can understand, then you can’t trust them with the education of your children.

Concerned parents can also find allies within the schools. The enormous amount of testing that Common Core – and previous “reform” programs – created is still a fixture of school life. Such tests have a place, but they should consume no more than three to four days a year.

Herein lies an opportunity. Most teachers and school site administrators hate the testing regimes as much as students and parents do. The cost of these tests – and it is considerable – is often borne by cash-strapped local school systems.

State boards of education mandate many of these tests. These boards are subject to oversight by state legislators. Even the most leftist state legislators will respond if their offices get twenty-five or fifty calls on a single subject.

The end of Common Core is encouraging, but it is not enough. Bringing sanity back to education is possible. The future hangs on the people’s willingness to get involved – and not be tricked by responses that they do not understand.

What's Really Being Impeached: A Christian Vision of America by John Horvat II

What’s Really Being Impeached: a Christian Vision of America

By John Horvat II

It is hard to make sense of the political chaos reigning in America today. Most people throw up their hands in despair when asked to explain the impeachment. And rightly so. The proceedings have become a mixture of politics and circus.

This bizarre drama cannot help but confound. It lacks a cohesive plot, character development or script. Those directing the proceedings have filled them with emotions, fury and slogans that only serve to fragment and alienate America as never before.

There is something sinister in all this chaos. There does not seem to be a desire for clarity. We find a will to destroy revered institutions and protocols. The media-choreographers have created scenes like those which prepared revolutions past.

Thus, what can we say amid this chaotic landscape that defies simple explanations? Perhaps the best thing to do is to take a distance from the stage and the minute details of the case. We need to look beyond the quid pro quo squabbling that has dominated the debate.

Let us make some general observations about the overall picture as seen from a distance, far from the howling mob.

Not About President Trump

The first observation about the impeachment is that it is not about President Trump. Of course, there are the pretexts for the proceedings that involve his behavior. Independent of any merit of the case against him, the passion of the moment indicates that the real target is something much more intense and profound than the person of the President.

The vitriol of the left is directed toward something that the President represents, not so much who he is or what he has done. Those opposing him do so because he represents something they find so incompatible that they are willing to risk all to eliminate it from the political scene. This same motivation extends outside Congress to the liberal establishment and Hollywood/Silicon Valley false elites that now clamor for his removal.

They are not impeaching a man but a vision of America. It is so important it cannot wait. It must be done now.

The President Does Not Represent the Pseudo-Narrative Prepared for Him

The second observation is that the left and the media have prepared a false narrative into which they have tried to shoehorn the President and the 63 million voters who elected him.

According to this false narrative, President Trump represents a resentful and declining demographic of white voters who hate other racial groups, minorities, women and immigrants. They frame the debate in classical Marxist class struggle dialectics as a case of those desiring to stay in power against those whom they oppress.

The left has turned this false narrative into dogma, admitting no other motives for the Trump voter (like opposition to abortion, Hillary, or illegal immigration, for example). This narrative is repeated ad nauseam all over the liberal media. Indeed, The New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg described the final impeachment debate as “Republican speeches delivered by old white men alternated with Democratic speeches from women, people of color and young people.”

Thus, they have mischaracterized this debate as a racist one because this is their only issue that can still resonate with the general public. By tying the fate of the 63 million Trump-voters to “the most powerful white man in the world,” Goldberg and the left hopes to demonize everyone deplorable enough to have voted for the President no matter their reasons for doing so.

However, racism is not what the debate is all about, and those directing the left know it. They merely trot out this canard to further their cause. All Americans with common sense reject racism wherever it is found.

What Exactly Does Trump Represent?

If the impeachment debate is not about the racist narrative, then what do he and his voters represent — and why does it terrify the left into risking everything to remove the threat?

This is not an easy question to answer. Everyone will admit that the President is a complex person that defies categories, suffers contradictions and can behave erratically. Similarly, his voters do not form a monolithic bloc in which all think the same way. Given such unknowns, it is hard to plot a defined program or make an effective attack upon the moving target.

Adding to the complexity is the growing radicalization of society, the breakdown of the family and communities. This decay has shaken the solid foundation of the classical liberal world. In its place is a fast-paced unstable world where image is everything. Indeed, all becomes possible, although nothing is certain.

Thus, we should observe not so much what President Trump actually represents but what he has come to represent to both the left and right. The real fight is between two visions of America for which the President has served as a lightning rod.

A Fight Between Two Visions of America

For the traumatized right, the President touches upon certain universal themes that resonate deeply. Thus, he encourages the need for love of country. He promotes the family and the unborn with many of his statements and judicial appointments. He invokes the name of God, the cross, and unapologetically wishes Americans a “Merry Christmas!” Such positions represent hope in a forlorn world.

For the radicalized left, the President’s touching upon these themes represents all that is deplorable about America. It threatens all the “progress” of the past and especially that of the sexual revolution that introduced unbridled license for every passion.

When the Smallest Gestures Have Meaning

Some might object that other presidents made similar references to God, family and country. Indeed, it is part of our national discourse for presidents, even liberal ones, to ask that a vague God vaguely bless America.

What makes things different today is the desperation of the times. Many on both sides believe we have reached a point of no return. People are willing to grasp at anything even to the point of embracing glaring contradiction.

Thus, those who defend Christian morals will overlook the President’s defects and embrace his smallest moral gestures as encouragement to continue their fight for the Faith. The radical liberals will forget his past (and even some present) support for their causes and view his tiniest conservative actions as a trigger for outrage, irrationality and discontent.

Avoiding the Possibility of an Awakening

In such a climate, all the President’s actions take on exaggerated importance. Both sides see that a simple word of support for the unborn insinuates a moral law and a social order based on traditional marriage and the family. Outward manifestations of old-fashioned patriotism might resurrect notions of duty, sacrifice and honor at odds with the liberal demands for the abolition of borders and the setting up of a world government. A mere mention of God might awaken religious sentiments that challenge our sterile secularism.

The unthinkable possibility that moral gestures might reawaken something deep inside America terrifies the left and makes the impeachment urgent. Its drama/circus obscures the real issues. That is why its false narrative must drag down the 63 million voters who elected the President. We have reached a point of incompatibility in which the real object of the impeachment is a Christian vision of America.

Updated January 4, 2020.