Once Upon a Time, American Schools were Worthy Institutions for Learning……..

…….until the Leftist Revolution generation victory electing Barack Hussein Obama president in 2008.

I attended public elementary and secondary school from September 1939 to June, 1952 in St. Paul, Minnesota.
Until 1947 all of my teachers were very, very well educated old maids, confident and well prepared to cause certain essential learnings to be passed on to our young for the betterment of mankind by knowing the known to become ever better able to expose the unknown for understanding, and therefore become closer to a beneficient God…..for God, we were told, knows all matter.

I was severely dyslexic in elementary school….long before the disorder was discovered. I couldn’t read sentences and paragraphs and wrote certain letters of the alphabet backwards. I adored listening to these well educated, profoundly well educated old ladies with fervor and excitement. At the end of an October school day in 1942, I sneaked back into school to my third grade teacher Lucille Jaeger’s room instead of hiking home. I had an important question to ask her.

“Miss Jaeger, how did you get to know so much?” I knew even then she was surprised as I re-entered her room fifteen minutes after the school was emptied of children.

I asked her my question….and to this day I can see a blessed surprise light up her face. She knew I was in trouble with reading…everybody in the classroom did. We had to perform our reading efforts orally by standing up to read texts the best we could. Even my buddies whispered wrong nouns and verbs to ‘assist’ my efforts by getting their yucks out of adding to my misreading. I laugh now, but I was so terrorized then to read story books or paragraphs of any kind, except atlases and their maps, and encyclopedias.

There were no story books in our classrooms then. It was wartime. Public schools had no money for books. We had to buy our own or get hand-me-downs.

Ms. Jaeger spoke to me as an adult…..”Well, Glenn, you can start learning by “reading” these magazines here”. ….and pointed to a wall encased with book shelves filled with magazines….called, as it turned out, the National Geographic….monthlies from 1921 to October, 1947, Ms. Jaeger’s own magazines. “You can come after school anytime until four o’clock to read them if you wish.” And so I did.

Pictures matter in learning…..especially boy learnings from the National Geographics even in those days of black and white prints. Cut lines described the pictures and the pictures emphasized the stories they belonged to. I never could read novels, but I became a whiz kid learning from National Geographic and Life magazines along with my atlases. I knew where the Congo, Figi Islands, and Norway were. I could draw the map of the United States and all the 48 states by heart very, very accurately…..an advantage or two over the non-dyslexic masses I came to enjoy…..all occurring from staying after school in Ms. Jaeger’s room ‘reading’ her National Geographics.

Our country’s flag decorated every classroom. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was President then….and was so honored by having his picture displayed on the wall next to Abraham Lincoln and George Washington.

Schools then weren’t allowed to be places where savages learned their trades.

Friend and fellow school teacher, Mark Waldeland sent the following article which caused me to remember the above wonderful moments of my learning life…it’s worth reading:

“Haunting chalkboard drawings, frozen in time for 100 years, discovered in Oklahoma school”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/06/06/eerie-chalkboard-drawings-frozen-in-time-for-100-years-discovered-in-oklahoma-school/?postshare=8461433724200122

Religious Opposition to the Destruction of the Institution of Marriage Act

THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE AND THE RIGHT OF RELIGIOUS
FREEDOM: REAFFIRMING A SHARED WITNESS
An Open Letter from Religious Leaders to All in Positions of Public Service
Released April 23, 2015
Dear Friends:
At this significant time in our nation’s history with the institution of marriage before the United States
Supreme Court, we reaffirm our commitment to promote and defend marriage—the union of one man and
one woman. As religious leaders from various faith communities, we acknowledge that marriage is the
foundation of the family where children are raised by a mother and a father together. Our commitment to
marriage has been expressed on previous occasions, including the Letter of Shared Commitment and Letter
on Marriage and Religious Liberty. This commitment is inseparable from affirming the equal dignity of all
people and the necessity of protecting their basic rights.

The state has a compelling interest in maintaining marriage as it has been understood across faiths and
cultures for millennia because it has a compelling interest in the well-being of children. Every child has a
mother and a father, and every child deserves the opportunity, whenever possible, to be raised by his or her
own married mother and father in a stable, loving home. Marriage as the union of a man and a woman is the
only institution that encourages and safeguards the connection between children and their mother and
father. Although this connection cannot always be realized and sustained—and many single parents, for
example, are heroic in their efforts to raise their children—it is in the best interests of the state to
encourage and uphold the family founded on marriage and to afford the union of husband and wife unique
legal protection and reinforcement.

The redefinition of legal marriage to include any other type of relationship has serious consequences,
especially for religious freedom. It changes every law involving marital status, requiring that other such
relationships be treated as if they were the same as the marital relationship of a man and a woman. No
person or community, including religious organizations and individuals of faith, should be forced to accept
this redefinition. For many people, accepting a redefinition of marriage would be to act against their
conscience and to deny their religious beliefs and moral convictions. Government should protect the rights
of those with differing views of marriage to express their beliefs and convictions without fear of
intimidation, marginalization or unwarranted charges that their values imply hostility, animosity, or hatred
of others.

In this and in all that we do, we are motivated by our duty to love God and neighbor. This love extends to
all those who disagree with us on this issue. The well-being of men, women, and the children they conceive
compels us to stand for marriage as the union of one man and one woman. We call for the preservation of
the unique meaning of marriage in the law, and for renewed respect for religious freedom and for the
conscience rights of all in accord with the common good.

Sincerely Yours:
The Rev. Dr. Leith Anderson
President
National Association of Evangelicals
The Most Rev. Dr. Foley Beach
Archbishop and Primate
Anglican Church in North America
Dr. A.D. Beacham, Jr.
Presiding Bishop
International Pentecostal Holiness Church
The Rev. John F. Bradosky
Bishop
North American Lutheran Church
Rev. Mark Chavez
General Secretary
North American Lutheran Church
Clint Cook
Executive Director
General Association of General Baptists
Most Rev. Salvatore J. Cordileone
Archbishop of San Francisco
Chairman
USCCB Subcommittee for the Promotion
and Defense of Marriage
His Eminence Archbishop Demetrios
Archbishop of America
President of the Holy Eparchial Synod
Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
The Most Rev. Robert Duncan
Archbishop Emeritus
Anglican Church in North America
Bishop, Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh
Rev. Dr. Ron Hamilton
Conference Minister
Conservative Congregational Christian
Conference
Rev. Dr. Matthew Harrison
President
Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod
Rev. Bruce D. Hill
Bishop
Evangelical Congregational Church
John Hopler
Director
Great Commission Churches
Steven R. Jones
President
Missionary Church, Inc.
Imam Faizul Khan
Islamic Society of Washington Area
Most Rev. Joseph E. Kurtz
Archbishop of Louisville
President
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
Most Rev. William E. Lori
Archbishop of Baltimore
Chairman
USCCB Ad Hoc Committee for
Religious Liberty
Dr. Jo Anne Lyon
General Superintendent
The Wesleyan Church
Most Rev. Richard J. Malone
Bishop of Buffalo
Chairman
USCCB Committee on Laity, Marriage,
Family Life and Youth
Dr. Russell Moore
President
Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty
Commission
Dr. Gus Reyes
Director
Christian Life Commission, Texas Baptists
Rev. Eugene F. Rivers, III
Founder and President
Seymour Institute for Black Church and
Policy Studies
Jacqueline C. Rivers
Executive Director
Seymour Institute for Black Church and
Policy Studies
Larry Roberts
Chief Operating Officer
The Free Methodist Church – USA
Rocky Rocholl
President
Fellowship of Evangelical Churches
Rev. Samuel Rodriguez
President
National Hispanic Christian Leadership

Congressional Republicans Conflict of Interest regarding ObamaCare

Many Congressional Republicans Opposing Obamacare Have a Conflict of Interest

from the National Center for Policy Analysis:

“Congress may soon have the opportunity to amend the Affordable Care Act (ACA), says NCPA senior fellow John R. Graham.

The grounds would be a Supreme Court decision in King v. Burwell, a case, which seeks to make the Obama Administration enforce the ACA as written.

The main point in question in King v. Burwell is the administration’s paying tax credits to health insurers offering ACA plans in 34 states with federally facilitated exchanges. As a result of these tax credits, people who buy health insurance on exchanges pay premiums much lower than they otherwise would. If the plaintiffs prevail, these tax credits will stop and premiums will go up.

Congressional Republicans have promised an offer, which will be acceptable to the president while mitigating the worst effects of Obamacare. However, they have not rallied around a unified response.

One reason may be that many Representatives and Senators are benefitting from another illegal payment of public monies the administration is using to prop up Obamacare. When the ACA was being debated, one sticking point was that politicians were proposing to impose an unpopular health insurance “reform” on vulnerable citizens while leaving their own generous health benefits untouched. Members of Congress and their staff have long been covered by the same health plan unionized federal public servants enjoy.

This obstacle was overcome by putting a clause in the ACA requiring congressional politicians and their staff to pay for Obamacare health plans.

Obviously, Congress cannot stand up to illegal Obamacare payments as long as it benefits from its own illegal ACA payments.

Until congressional Republicans reject the illegal Obamacare exemption with which the administration has privileged them, it is difficult to see how they can commit to cleaning up other messes in the Affordable Care Act.”

Source: John R. Graham, “Many Congressional Republicans Opposing Obamacare Have a Conflict of Interest,” National Center for Policy Analysis. June 8, 2015.