Alan Keyes: "Uncle Sam's dangerous drug" (Implies Bush Is Worse Than Hitler!)

WND ^ | Saturday, December 15, 2001 | Dr. Alan Keyes

[Keyes For President]

WorldNetDaily: Uncle Sam's dangerous drug

This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25705

Saturday, December 15, 2001

---

---

Uncle Sam's dangerous drug

---

By Alan Keyes

---

© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com--> © 2001 WorldNetDaily.com

House and Senate negotiators reached agreement this week on education legislation that the president is expected to sign quickly. And the House of Representatives, in an overwhelming vote uniting Democrats and Republicans, passed the bill on Thursday. Representatives Tom DeLay and Peter Hoekstra led a small group of the conservative remnant in opposing the $26.5 billion package, which Bush Republicans are trying hard to portray as a prudent implementation of conservative principle. But it is, in fact, the culminating capitulation of the conservative attempt to reform the federal government's role in education.

What I wrote about the bill in September remains true today: Instead of the promised attempt to rein in government domination of education, we have an education bill that ramps-up federal funding, increases federal control and was cooperatively stripped of all elements of support for genuine school choice and local control.

However distracted conservatives may be by the drama of the war against terror, we should not let this moment pass without noticing the comprehensive defeat that Bush education policy, enshrined in the bill, represents.

Apparently ended is the struggle conservatives have waged for decades to head off the nationalization of K-12 education. Constitutional language, American tradition and fundamental principles of self-government all weigh decidedly against any federal involvement in local education. Since the first election of Ronald Reagan, the Republican Party had stood for a rollback of that involvement, even abolition of the Department of Education. Now, at the federal level, we have abandoned the argument with the public about the costs and dangers of federal involvement in K-12 education. The current bill does not artfully advance an incremental version of the principled position of President Reagan. Indeed, it takes us in precisely the opposite direction.

It also utterly and finally reneges on one of the most important of President Bush's education policy campaign promises. Candidate Bush called for cutting funds to failing schools and returning to the parents that money in a limited voucher scheme. The bill about to pass Congress for President Bush's signature will give failing schools more money! And the voucher proposal was jettisoned shortly after the inauguration.

The increase in federal education funding in this bill is staggering – over 40 percent in one year. This is more than the education budgets of an average-sized state, such as Iowa or Colorado. With the money, President Bush has eagerly taken on himself, on behalf of the national government, responsibility for the educational performance of the nation's children. No rhetoric about flexibility and local independence will prevent the inevitable – ongoing torrents of federal money, bilge about federal resolve to "leave no child behind" and ever increasing levels of federal oversight and control.

And what will happen when an extra $8 billion fails to improve our children's learning? And fail it will, because real improvement in government schools is blocked by administrative inertia, obstructionist unions and statist secularism in the professional educational establishment. Sad history and all the data show that these impediments are increased, not diminished, by federal dollars. But still the cry will go up for more money, and a more aggressive federal commitment. What will President Bush say next year when another $8 billion increase, or $12 billion, is demanded to make real reform happen? After all, the federal government can leave no child behind. What next? Shall we pass the "Lake Woebegone Act" and decree that all the children shall be "above average?"

Most discouraging of all is that the new bipartisan federal education initiative is such a distraction from the deepest source of our educational problems – the demise of the two-parent, marriage-based family. The family is the school of character and must be the primary agent in education. No federal spending can effectively energize the real reform we need – reform in which parents get control of their own lives, reassert effective, wise and moral control over the lives of their children, and extend that control finally to the common life of our public schools.

As with most federal welfare, federal education money is a drug that obscures and intensifies underlying problems. The Republican Party used to preach "Just say 'No!'" Now we are increasing the dose and inviting the country to party on. It's a prescription for GOP and national addiction that immeasurably weakens our children's future. Let us pray it does not ultimately cost us our capacity for responsible self-government.

---

Be sure to visit Alan Keyes' communications center for founding principles, The Declaration Foundation.

---

Former Reagan administration official Alan Keyes, was U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Social and Economic Council and 2000 Republican presidential candidate.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

I can't decide which is more pitiful, the ones paid to say this stuff, or the ones who obviously hit the bottle and say this stuff, as in the post you referenced.

I'd say it's a toss-up with the only difference being one has a hangover in the morning.

[Rowdee]

Sorry, Miss Marple....while with some of the names I was attempting to show no particular preferences of flagging, I flagged you because you had been one of the few who actually discussed the issue of education, and have done so in the past. I don't even remember if you said anything about Keyes--I do recall that you said (either on this thread or another one) you support Bush in other areas.

Perhaps its wishful thinking that some of your attitude/mindset might rub off on some others. :)

Regards

[EternalVigilance]

I see you haven't been to charm school since the last time we crossed paths here.

Your post #661 is perhaps the most offensive post I have ever seen on FR...and that's saying something.

Your self-righteousness, hatred and venom is astonishing.

If you must respond to this post, don't expect me to continue after that...You have nothing constructive or of goodwill to contribute here, and I have better things to do than engage with you further. But this needed to be said.

I wish for once you could see how you look when you act this way. SAVAGE is the only word I can think of to describe it.

[marajade]

I wish for once you could see how you look when you act this way. SAVAGE is the only word I can think of to describe it.

Hey I don't see her calling people insane or saying they must have had abortions because they have something to be guilty about. To me that's more offensive.

[EternalVigilance]

This should not be a forum to compete for the title of 'Most Offensive'.

And I wasn't addressing you...deal with those who offended you, please...not me.

[marajade]

You may not be the offender but a co-dependent is just as bad.

[VRWC For Truth]

Your post #661 is perhaps the most offensive post I have ever seen on FR...and that's saying something.

Post #661 is the truth. It's sad you can't handle it.

[EternalVigilance]

Luis, my great respect for you is only increased by the fact that you are here with facts...you have pointed out quite succinctly the positive things you see in this legislation.

Thank you sir.

Regards...EV

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

Your post #661 is perhaps the most offensive post I have ever seen on FR...and that's saying something.

You are either hopelessly exaggerative or haven't read much in this forum. Either way, you aren't worth a conversation. Nonetheless my comment had to be made. I'm sure any rational person who read your claim is laughing at your idiocy and chalking it up to a typical Keyester MO. Most offensive, huh? LOL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Miss Marple]

Thank you for your reply. A I have said before, I am not particularly thrilled with this bill. On the other hand, apparently most of the House and Senate voted for it, so President Bush will sign it. This is the way our government works. I already spoke my piece to my Senators and Congressman; I must assume there were more who voiced their opinion in support of it. That is the way it goes.

I did not agree with everything Ronald Reagan did, yet I considered him, and still do, a great president.

President Bush feels this is the way to go. I think he is mistaken. However, I am not sitting in the Oval Office; he is. So, I will defer to the judgement he and Congress have worked out, and see if he is right. If not, I will make my opinion known.

Unlike some people, I do not think that President Bush is a traitor simply because he does something I do not agree with. That is to be expected with all presidents. Hyperbole in attacking or defending one's people is counter-productive. We MUST work together, if we want to move forward. These personal attacks from both sides are not helpful.

At any rate, I hope people on this thread will consider my suggestions. I especially hope that Keyes for President, who posted this obvious flame-baiting thread, will re-consider his actions and refrain from such activity in the future. Continued insults only produce polarization. If the insults continue, I must conclude polarization is what is desired. And then I am left to wonder..to what end?

[Rowdee]

FWIW, my respect for you continues to grow.

[EternalVigilance]

Very well put.

You are a very intelligent individual, as I have said in the past. I very much like the position you have adopted on this very important issue.

You have gained much respect in my eyes, and I thank you.

[EternalVigilance]

Broadbrushing every individual who ever breathed the same air as Alan Keyes as cultists is not 'truth'.

Sorry.

[Jethro Tull]

#652: ""...Until we can regain the majority in the Senate, there will be a lot of compromising..."

Don't you get it?

If the R's do a "lot of compromising" like you suggest, they'll never regain the majority.

Re-read Joseph Heller's Catch-22...

[roughrider]

They can't make up their minds. First it is only for politics that Bush put forward this socialist nonsense. If only he had the Senate. If only this. If only that. "You have to compromise. It is a brilliant political strategy." Then it is a "good EDUCATION bill."

It is either an "education bill" or it is a "politics" bill. It can't be both. We know it won't do a damn thing for education, as these things never do. We throw more money at it, and still drift down the list of educational achievement among the nations of the world. It must be POLITICS, and I am opposed to that for these reasons:

1. It is corrupt to spend public money for a political purpose, no matter WHAT party does it.

2. Spending money for a political objective does nothing for education.

I am opposed to bills like this, and will always be opposed to them. Those who want my vote for Bush, and make no mistake they want every vote they can get as Bush had a hell of a time getting elected, better stop trying to intimidate me into supporting everything he does, as that is never going to work. They may claim they don't want my vote, but I'll never believe that.

If I see one more Patriot (sic) Act, or one more Education Bill, these people can forget about my vote in 2002 and 2004 for one damn Republican. They better start dealing with the fact that conservatives and libertarians are their base, not the liberals. If they don't, we're taking our money and our votes elsewhere! They can call all the names they want, but they still lose the money, the time, and the VOTE, so I shall get the last word in the end.

When I have a complaint like this, they better come up with some reasons why a vote for their guy really means anything better than a vote for Phillips, or even Browne. Even if Browne got elected, I might not get the social stuff I want, but I would get enough smaller government that it would be analogous to getting meat, potatoes, and a salad rather than than the crust of bread, cup of cold soup, and warm water I have been getting from the GOP.