Keep America Great AND Healthy Again
John R. Houk, Blog Editor
© November 9, 2024
WE THE PEOPLE should really come to the realization of the Leftist Dem-Marxist bullet American Patriots dodged on Election Day 2024.
Two posts from 11/8/24 should highlight that dodged bullet AND bring hope that President Trump takes Inauguration Day running to drastically eradicate government tyranny against WE THE PEOPLE:
o Gov’t Schools Spent $3.2B Tax Dollars Fighting Against Parents Last Year Alone, Study Reveals; By Alex Newman; HARBINGER’S DAILY; 11/8/24
o The CDC Planned Quarantine Camps Nationwide; By Jeffrey A. Tucker; Activist Post; 11/8/24
Either click the embedded links above or read the cross posts below. KNOW THIS: There is a huge amount of dismantling that needs to proceed. Do NOT believe the Dem-Marxist Bureaucratic Deep State is just going to lay down and allow President Trump to preserve our Constitutional Republic.
BE VIGILANT! Remain a voice to keep America Great AND Healthy Again.
JRH 11/9/24
READER SUPPORTED!
PLEASE! I need more Patriots to step up. I need Readers to chip in $5 - $10 - $25 - $50 - $100 (one-timeor recurring). PLEASE YOUR generosity is NEEDED. PLEASE GIVE to Help me be a voice for Liberty:
Big Tech Censorship is pervasive – Share voluminously on all social media platforms!
Our Senior Citizen Family Supplements our income by offering healthy coffee products. BETTER YOUR HEALTH with healthy & good tasting COFFEE and enjoy some weight management supplements. BUY Happy Coffee & Weight Loss Supplements at the Diana Wellness Store: https://dianawellnessstore.com
******************************
Gov’t Schools Spent $3.2B Tax Dollars Fighting Against Parents Last Year Alone, Study Reveals
Mom & Child – Photo: Common Space Images (HD photo screengrab)
By Alex Newman
November 8, 2024
Government school districts across America spent a staggering $3.2 billion of taxpayer money last year fighting against parents and school board members concerned about the indoctrination and sexualization of children, according to a new study that examined costs nationwide. Critics blasted education officials over the news.
The study, headlined “The Costs of Conflict: The Fiscal Impact of Culturally Divisive Conflict on Public Schools in the United States,” examined the financial impact of what leftist researchers described as “heightened conflict over culturally divisive topics.” The subjects included race-mongering as well as homosexual and transgender propaganda.
Led by leftwing researchers at the University of California and other academic institutions, the final report suggested that it was concerned parents who were to blame. Government “educators” peddling racial hysteria and sexual deviancy were portrayed as innocent victims merely facing an onslaught of attacks from unhinged parents.
The report demonizes parents, taxpayers, and even school board members using an array of smears including “activists,” “agents of disruption,” “conflict entrepreneurs,” “extremists,” and more. Their concerns, meanwhile, are dismissed and belittled as “disinformation” or “misinformation” that is a threat to the government schools.
Among the alleged horrors perpetrated by these supposed evildoers are things like speaking out at school-board meetings, seeking public records, publicly reading excerpts from obscene schoolbooks, promoting parental rights legislation, criticizing school administrators on social media, and much more.
To get the results, academics surveyed hundreds of school superintendents from across the country. Creating a “conflict score,” the researchers found that about two thirds of the school superintendents reported “moderate to high” levels of conflict and division in their districts over racial and sex indoctrination being foisted on students.
That “conflict” resulted in spending billions on legal work, fighting “disinformation,” “security,” and more, according to the superintendents. For perspective, a district with 10,000 students and “moderate” level conflict would spend about $500,000 taxpayer dollars, researchers said. The same district with “high” conflict would drop over $800,000.
“This research makes clear that culturally divisive conflicts in the nation’s schools are generating fear, stress and anxiety that is disrupting school districts and taking a personal toll on the educators and staff members who work in them,” said lead researcher John Rogers, who leads UCLA’s “Institute for Democracy, Education and Access.”
“Sadly, as superintendents have told us, the cost of these conflicts not only has a financial impact but is also eroding teaching and learning and undermining the trust between schools and the communities so essential to our democracy and civic life,” continued Rogers, who also serves as a professor of “education.”
Fellow co-author of the study Joseph Kahne, a professor at UC – Riverside, also blamed parents for hurting children by resisting the brainwashing. “It’s important for the public and policymakers to be aware of ways culturally divisive conflicts are harming the schools our children attend,” he said. “These conflicts come with a very real cost.”
According to the surveys, half of superintendents reported experiencing at least one incident of “harassment” in the last school year. One in ten reported receiving at least one “threat of violence” linked to the “conflict.” And more than 10 percent experienced at least one incident of vandalism.
The report from UCLA starts with the story of one anonymous Midwestern superintendent. After smearing school board members seeking to rein in woke indoctrination as “extremist” school board members, the tax-funded edu-crat also slandered Moms for Liberty and other organizations advocating for parental rights as “special interest groups.”
Among other complaints, the far-left superintendent complained that the new “extremist” school board members were using social media to “challenge” the district’s “LGBTQ+ policies.” Apparently, school board members are just supposed to shut up, ignore the desperate pleas of parents and constituents, and rubber-stamp perversion.
Nationally renowned attorney Mat Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel and now a strong advocate of Christian education, argued that government schools were now “fighting against” families. “The only way to keep children from becoming casualties of this well-funded war against families is to get them out of the government-run schools,” he added.
If the price were not so outrageous and the stakes so high, the unhinged report might almost be funny portraying parents protecting their children as bad. These superintendents are supposed to be public servants, and their salaries are paid by the public. It is time to deal with this systemic crisis before it destroys more tax money — and more children.
Alex Newman is an award-winning international journalist and the Founder of Liberty Sentinel.
[HARBINGER’S DAILY] Editor’s Note: Why Is This News Biblically Relevant?
The assertion that parents and state teachers share partial ownership over children caused Ken Ham, the founder of Answers In Genesis, to pen an important article titled, “Who Owns Children?”
“Who ‘owns’ the children—parents or the government? In our day and age, many involved in western government believe it’s the government that owns kids,” he described. “Many believe they know what is best for children and think they should get to dictate what children learn—and parents are just in the way of accomplishing the state’s goals.”
“And that shouldn’t surprise us because how you answer the question of ‘Who owns the children?’ depends on your starting point and the worldview you build that’s based on that starting point,” he explained.
“If you reject God and his Word, then anything goes—there’s no absolute standard on which to base your thinking. In this view, children are just biological machines, the product of millions of years of evolution. They aren’t given to parents—they are just a ‘choice’ parents made,” Ham continued. “But when we start with God’s Word, we learn that children are a gift from God—given to parents. He has given parents authority over their children and the responsibility of training, teaching, and raising children. They are not just “choices,” nor are they the government’s responsibility—children are parent’s responsibility because God gave children to their parents to train them up for him.”
“You see, the family unit didn’t evolve. God created the family when he created marriage (Genesis 1:27 and Gen. 2:24) and told the first couple to be fruitful and multiply (Genesis 1:28),” he underscored. “He entrusted children to parents to raise them in accord with the principles he has laid down for us in his Word (e.g., Psalm 127:3).”
© Copyright 2024 Harbingers Daily News Media
++++++++++++++++++++++++
The CDC Planned Quarantine Camps Nationwide
Quarantine Camp Fence (Activist Post Photo)
November 8, 2024
No matter how bad you think Covid policies were, they were intended to be worse.
Consider the vaccine passports alone. Six cities were locked down to include only the vaccinated in public indoor places. They were New York City, Boston, Chicago, New Orleans, Washington, D.C., and Seattle. The plan was to enforce this with a vaccine passport. It broke. Once the news leaked that the shot didn’t stop infection or transmission, the planners lost public support and the scheme collapsed.
It was undoubtedly planned to be permanent and nationwide if not worldwide. Instead, the scheme had to be dialed back.
Features of the CDC’s edicts did incredible damage. It imposed the rent moratorium. It decreed the ridiculous “six feet of distance” and mask mandates. It forced Plexiglas as the interface for commercial transactions. It implied that mail-in balloting must be the norm, which probably flipped the election. It delayed the reopening as long as possible. It was sadistic.
Even with all that, worse was planned. On July 26, 2020, with the George Floyd riots having finally settled down, the CDC issued a plan for establishing nationwide quarantine camps. People were to be isolated, given only food and some cleaning supplies. They would be banned from participating in any religious services. The plan included contingencies for preventing suicide. There were no provisions made for any legal appeals or even the right to legal counsel.
The plan’s authors were unnamed but included 26 footnotes. It was completely official. The document was only removed on about March 26, 2023. During the entire intervening time, the plan survived on the CDC’s public site with little to no public notice or controversy.
It was called “Interim Operational Considerations for Implementing the Shielding Approach to Prevent COVID-19 Infections in Humanitarian Settings.”
Screenshot CDC byline for Quarantine Camps Plan (Activist Post Photo)
“This document presents considerations from the perspective of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) for implementing the shielding approach in humanitarian settings as outlined in guidance documents focused on camps, displaced populations and low-resource settings. This approach has never been documented and has raised questions and concerns among humanitarian partners who support response activities in these settings. The purpose of this document is to highlight potential implementation challenges of the shielding approach from CDC’s perspective and guide thinking around implementation in the absence of empirical data. Considerations are based on current evidence known about the transmission and severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and may need to be revised as more information becomes available.”
By absence of empirical data, the meaning is: nothing like this has ever been tried. The point of the document was to map out how it could be possible and alert authorities to possible pitfalls to be avoided.
The meaning of “shielding” is “to reduce the number of severe Covid-19 cases by limiting contact between individuals at higher risk of developing severe disease (‘high-risk’) and the general population (‘low-risk’). High-risk individuals would be temporarily relocated to safe or ‘green zones’ established at the household, neighborhood, camp/sector, or community level depending on the context and setting. They would have minimal contact with family members and other low-risk residents.”
In other words, this is what used to be concentration camps.
Who are these people who would be rounded up? They are “older adults and people of any age who have serious underlying medical conditions.” Who determines this? Public health authorities. The purpose? The CDC explains: “physically separating high-risk individuals from the general population” allows authorities “to prioritize the use of the limited available resources.”
This sounds a lot like condemning people to death in the name of protecting them.
The model establishes three levels. First is the household level. Here high-risk people are “physically isolated from other household members.” That alone is objectionable. Elders need people to take care of them. They need love and to be surrounded by family. The CDC should never imagine that it would intervene in households to force old people into separate places.
The model jumps from households to the “neighborhood level.” Here we have the same approach: forced separation of those deemed vulnerable.
From there, the model jumps again to the “camp/sector level.” Here it is different. “A group of shelters such as schools, community buildings within a camp/sector (max 50 high-risk individuals per single green zone) where high-risk individuals are physically isolated together. One entry point is used for exchange of food, supplies, etc. A meeting area is used for residents and visitors to interact while practicing physical distancing (2 meters). No movement into or outside the green zone.”
Yes, you read that correctly. The CDC is here proposing concentration camps for the sick or anyone they deem to be in danger of medically significant consequences of infection.
Further: “to minimize external contact, each green zone should include able-bodied high-risk individuals capable of caring for residents who have disabilities or are less mobile. Otherwise, designate low-risk individuals for these tasks, preferably who have recovered from confirmed COVID-19 and are assumed to be immune.”
The plan says in passing, contradicting thousands of years of experience, “Currently, we do not know if prior infection confers immunity.” Therefore the only solution is to minimize all exposure throughout the whole population. Getting sick is criminalized.
These camps require a “dedicated staff” to “monitor each green zone. Monitoring includes both adherence to protocols and potential adverse effects or outcomes due to isolation and stigma. It may be necessary to assign someone within the green zone, if feasible, to minimize movement in/out of green zones.”
The people housed in these camps need to have good explanations of why they are denied even basic religious freedom. The report explains:
“Proactive planning ahead of time, including strong community engagement and risk communication is needed to better understand the issues and concerns of restricting individuals from participating in communal practices because they are being shielded. Failure to do so could lead to both interpersonal and communal violence.”
Further, there must be some mechanisms to prohibit suicide:
Additional stress and worry are common during any epidemic and may be more pronounced with COVID-19 due to the novelty of the disease and increased fear of infection, increased childcare responsibilities due to school closures, and loss of livelihoods. Thus, in addition to the risk of stigmatization and feeling of isolation, this shielding approach may have an important psychological impact and may lead to significant emotional distress, exacerbate existing mental illness or contribute to anxiety, depression, helplessness, grief, substance abuse, or thoughts of suicide among those who are separated or have been left behind. Shielded individuals with concurrent severe mental health conditions should not be left alone. There must be a caregiver allocated to them to prevent further protection risks such as neglect and abuse.
The biggest risk, the document explains, is as follows: “While the shielding approach is not meant to be coercive, it may appear forced or be misunderstood in humanitarian settings.”
(It should go without saying but this “shielding” approach suggested here has nothing to do with focused protection of the Great Barrington Declaration. Focused protection specifically says: “schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.”)
In four years of research, and encountering truly shocking documents and evidence of what happened in the Covid years, this one certainly ranks up at the top of the list of totalitarian schemes for pathogenic control prior to vaccination. It is quite simply mind-blowing that such a scheme could ever be contemplated.
Who wrote it? What kind of deep institutional pathology exists that enabled this to be contemplated? The CDC has 10,600 full-time employees and contractors and a budget of $11.5 billion. In light of this report, and everything else that has gone on there for four years, both numbers should be zero.
Source: Brownstone Institute
Published under a Creative Commons Attribution
4.0 International License
For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author.
Jeffrey Tucker is Founder, Author, and President at Brownstone Institute. He is also Senior Economics Columnist for Epoch Times, author of 10 books, including Life After Lockdown, and many thousands of articles in the scholarly and popular press. He speaks widely on topics of economics, technology, social philosophy, and culture.
Become a Patron!
Or support us at SubscribeStar
Donate cryptocurrency HERE
Activist Post - ALTERNATIVE INDEPENDENT NEWS - Creative Commons 2019
