Are Teachers in Unions Traitors to the Constitution?

(Pro Government Edumacation Propaganda)

Silver Stock Report

by Jason Hommel, February 23rd, 2013


Employee at JH MINT to Jason:  "Jason, don't go insulting teachers now! We'll lose customers!"

Jason to Manager at JH MINT:  "It's ok.  Teachers don't make that much, besides, the ones who would be likely become our customers won't be offended anyway."

Employee to Jason: "Oh, you are bad!  I love it!" 

Ok, let the article and the roasting of teachers commence:

If people buy enough silver, and paper money crashes, government might get so small, that it stops funding things like public education.  Or, expressed another way:

If the government continues to print money like crazy to pay for things, the money will continue to be devalued until, well, I hate to be the bearer of good news, but sometimes the paper money devalues all the way to zero. 

What might the world be like if there was no paper money to pay for the extravagance of our current federal overlords?

This can be a dangerous thing to think about, but it's better to think about it now and be prepared, because things like that tend to happen after paper money fails; and especially if the world rightly starts using silver and gold as money.

See, government can't print silver and gold to make up deficit spending, and silver and gold are hard to confiscate in taxes, and are much harder to track, and income taxes are typically much lower, as in zero, when silver and gold are used as money.  The income tax started the same year the Federal Reserve was founded in 1913, so without the Fed, there was no income tax in America for 200 years before the founding of the nation, and not for 150 years later; that's 350 years of no income tax in America, vs. the last 100 with an income tax.  And the last 100 years of income tax really didn't get bad until after WWII.  So, we really have about a 400 year history as a successful nation flourishing with little to no income tax vs. the last 68 years with a heavy income tax.

Thinking like this can be dangerous, I warn you in advance.  As long as you don't remain in denial, the trouble with right thinking is that once it gets into your brain, you can't erase it.  And it will swim around in your brain until eventually, you might start to accept it, until it will come out of your mouth and that's when it might get you into trouble. 

How so?  In many cases, people are not allowed to think for themselves like I do, but rather, they must do as their bosses tell them to do, or what the "culture" says is "politically correct".  It's like this for teachers, for journalists, and for brokers.  They are all employed to push an agenda.  Teachers push liberalism in social studies, journalists push what their global media masters demand, and brokers push the stocks on the books of their investment houses.  I suppose many other professions are like this, from the police, to lawyers, and perhaps most union jobs, politicians, and I'm sure I'm missing other good examples. 

Hey, it's even dangerous for me, because I may alienate my customers, so even I have to be careful. 

I want to limit my discussion to government education in today's letter, otherwise there is just too much to cover.

I have two examples from school I'd like to share.  In my High School Junior English class back in 1987, I was getting discouraged.  I kept getting B's on my essays, despite my best efforts at analyzing the literature up for discussion.  I didn't know what else to do, and one day I just gave up.  Instead of analysis, I simply said how great the literature was, and I parroted back the same exact analysis that was discussed in class with absolutely zero new insights.  To hide the lack of real discussion and analysis in my essay, I enlarged my handwriting to fill the page.  I was expecting a D minus, or even an F.  I was almost ashamed of myself.

Some of you might guess what happened next.  I got an A.  My first A.  I was simply astounded.  Flabbergasted.  Surprised beyond belief.  I could not believe it.  I seriously wondered why.  I went to the teacher.  I explained myself.  I admitted there was no analysis.  She rebuked me.  Of course there was analysis; the same one we discussed in class, she said.  Exactly, I said.  Exactly, she said.  What?  I don't get it, don't you want us to analyse it?  But you did, she said.  And you kept it short, simple, to the point, and you were exactly on point, and understood the class discussion exactly, she said.  But I felt I didn't analyse anything; I felt like a tape recorder with zero brain activity or real analysis.  I brought no new insights to the table, nothing original, no indication that I was thinking about what we read.  But I showed I was paying attention in class, she said.  That's thinking about it.  Wow.  I don't know if the goal of my teacher was an intent to crush my spirit, but wow.

My second example is from my college days.  I was three credits short to graduate, and so I took one final class, stretching out graduation another semester.  (I now realize I should have taken two classes that last semester on the rare event that I failed a class.)  Anyway, it was some sort of political science class that I thought would be easy and interesting.  But it was more like political indoctrination, and I ended up hating the class, and during discussions, I mostly was just working on keeping my mouth shut so I could get through it.  I could sense that arguing against the indoctrination was risking being failed, and I really didn't want to risk not getting my diploma for another semester!

For the final exam, I had to write an essay.  The topic was something like "fairness in education".  The basic thrust of the essay was to parrot back the views presented in class, that equality of funding was the only way to really ensure fairness of opportunity in education to be able to allow the potential geniuses of the world the chance to better themselves to allow them to make the maximal contribution to world society.  So, my innovation that was not any sort of innovation, was to advocate a world government, and equality of funding for all children all over the world, to ensure the most fair educational environment to most greatly assist in the development of humanity.  In other words, I had to pretend to be a socialist!  I hereby admit my guilt, and let me pay my penance and make up for that essay now.

These days, I can now write what I want to.  There is no teacher.  My limits are my God given conscience, my business sense, and perhaps the guidelines of my email service provider.  (No spam.)

The hypocrisy, insanity, and lunacy of my school essay was that the most socialist form of education, through equality of funding and equality of curriculum, would be required to create that "best free market outcome" of the best education for the most people.  Yeah right! 

Let me officially renounce that entire concept.  Globally funded schools would be a horrific nightmare.  It would require global government, global taxes, global re-distribution of wealth, and the elimination of national sovereignty, property rights, and parental rights.  You can't eliminate the teaching of national history in favor of some version of "world history".  History itself, as a subject, is always being entirely re-written depending on the point of view of the person doing the writing.  Politics infect the teaching of history making it a thoroughly diseased subject.  Ditto for economics, history, social studies, and even English classes!

The opposition says, "But education is so important, the government has to DOOOO something!  We spend so much on war, and so little on education!" 

(The word "We" in this case means the federal government, and ignores what local governments or parents themselves spend on education!)

Let me counter.  I also believe education is important!  More so.  I believe in education so much, that I've spent my adult years as an independent educator, writing this newsletter, focusing mostly on promoting silver as a way to achieve not only great personal gains, which has been true, but the best way to achieve the most beneficial societal change towards freedom, and restore power to the people and take it away from the globalist banker socialists.

In fact, education is so important, we ought to have the benefits of free market competition in education, not only to lower costs, but to get the much better results that we all need and desire!  For example, this newsletter is free.

But a key point here is that if government is teaching the kids, then we don't have education, and it cannot be education, but rather propaganda; it will always push a pro government point of view, and does. 

Government education almost is incapable of teaching even the concept that government is bad, causes problems, stifles the economy, does more harm than good, is morally corrupt, derives its power from the threat of force, is composed of murderers, and when left unopposed, has become the greatest source of mass murder throughout history. 

Government schools cannot teach about how government debt causes the government to become a servant to the moneylenders rather than a servant of the people.  Government schools cannot teach that a government in debt is a government that has been overthrown already, and serves a different master.  Government schools cannot teach that the government issued money is fraudulent, a disastrous experiment, and leads to the concentration of power in the hands of the creators of that money.

Government schools are literally required to teach lies as truths, and so they do.  How can that benefit the kids?  Any kid with any insight at all will hate it, and rightly so.

Over the years, many of my readers have lamented "the taking of God out of the schools."  And they complain to me thinking that since I'm a sincere Christian, that I will understand, and that I would advocate putting God back into public schools.  But how can God be in schools that use stolen funds (taxes) to fund it?  In my view, it would be sacrilegious to let thieves teach about God, is it not? 

sac·ri·le·gious 
adj.
1. Grossly irreverent toward what is or is held to be sacred.

See, government funded schools must, by necessity, have an irreverent attitude towards private property, since stealing from property owners is the source of their funding!  Teachers have a biased, built-in incentive to have envy against property owners, from whom their salaries are derived.  Government funded schools cannot help but bash free market capitalism at every turn.  And it's a rare case when they don't.

Government funded schools are almost completely incapable of teaching the constitution or the revolutionary war that founded this nation, especially more so these days, as the government continues to trample the constitution through ever higher income taxes that violate most of the bill of rights, and make us all slaves of the bankers or Federal Reserve.

Oh, you think that's dangerous sentiment, wait, I'm just getting started.

=====

I published a preview of this article to my facebook page:  (If you ask to be my friend, I'll say yes.). 
https://www.facebook.com/jason.hommel

At my page, someone opined:  "[Teachers] do need a union or they would be working for a cot and one meal a day."

I'll respond:  This is exactly the kind of anti free market sentiment that needs to be refuted.  That is a belief.  It may or may not be true.  Some teachers might make more in a free market, and some might make less.  Perhaps teachers make less today because the people are not happy with the product?  Perhaps the best teachers would make much more in a free market world where there was competitive bidding for the best teachers.  Perhaps teachers are overpaid today because the skill set needed to be a teacher is fairly low compared to higher paying jobs?  Perhaps teachers are overpaid today because the negotiation are between unions and government officials who did not earn the money they are spending?  Perhaps teachers would make more in a free market where people were a lot wealthier where people's incomes were not being attacked by taxes and fees from excessive government at all sides?

Another reader responded: 

Education is free:
https://www.khanacademy.org/

=====

Back to my "dangerous sentiments".

The founding fathers fought a war over the concept of paying less than 1% of incomes in tax rates.  Every fourth of July I take a moment to be thankful that we don't have to pay 1% taxes because of the revolutionary war.

Wait, wait, I'm still just getting warmed up.

The opposition chimes in to introduce the next subject:  BUUUUUTTTT Jason!  Nothing is going to change in education because of the teacher's unions!  They always oppose every change like student vouchers that would enable parents to select the school they like, and bring real free market competition to schools! 

And these days, I read about teachers making in excess of $100,000 per year in certain districts!

Teachers unions?  Teachers unions?! Any teacher in a union is already a socialist, pushing socialism, participating in socialism, having been subverted, becoming a advocate for their own interests instead of the interests of the Children or for the laissez faire free market competition enshrined by our nation's founders in the Constitution. 

Here's a proposed solution already contained in the constitution, on the basis of rule of law.  District Attorneys have discretion to prosecute all teachers who belong to any teacher's unions or have "tenure", and charge them with being traitors to the constitution, an enemy of the state, as their very funding and existence poses a bankruptcy threat to the state, thus having subverted the state, causing the state to bow to their interests instead of the people's interest?  Yeah, Jason, but what jury would agree?  I know, I know!

OK, yes, of course that was over the top.  Of course, I jest.  We don't actually have nearly enough respect for the rule of law among the people for any kind of desire to put to death any traitors to the constitution.  Especially not when the worst traitors to the constitution have been in charge for decades.  In fact, it's the constitutionalists these days who are more likely to be labeled "domestic terrorists" by the out of control government in charge. 

So, I hereby state for the record that I'm not advocating the death penalty for government teachers in teacher's unions. 

Instead, how about we all just fire them instead?  Or defund public education entirely, before the collapse of the currency will force that outcome anyway?  Yes, see how reasonable that sounds by comparison?

See, I was using a literary technique called hyperbole.  It's making an exaggeration to make a point.  Look it up.  If you don't know what it is, maybe it's because you went to public schools.  HA HA!  I'm a stinker.  Throwing insults around like that if people don't understand or agree.  Sorry, the saying, "maybe you went to public schools" is a common insulting joke among us libertarians, even though most of us did go to public school, myself included. 

I was taught that the Constitution was an agreement "of the people".  Since school, I've learned that it's an agreement between the State Governments.

I was taught that the Constitution gives us rights.  Since school, I've learned that the Constitution recognized certain rights the pre-existed among the people before there was a Federal Government.

One last point.  I'm not a Constitutionalist!  Yup, I don't like the Constitution.  In my view, if the Constitution is hancuffs for the Federal Government, providing limits on its powers, then the Constitution it is far too weak.  There are at least 5 powers in the Constitution delegated to the Federal Government, that in my opinion, should never have been delegated to it.  In summary, they are the power to go into debt, the power to levy tariffs, the power to limit immigrants, the power to grant patents (monopolies), the power to set the values of silver and gold, and I wrote on this here:

The Constitution gives the U.S. too much Power  March 12, 2009

Two other ways to limit government power are through jury nullification, and through issuing indictments of corrupt government officials through the grand jury process.

But the best way to limit govenment power is to buy silver, and to advocate that other people buy silver !

I almost censored this entire letter, due to the way I presented my view in such an extreme way.  But the same day, I saw an interesting news story:

MISSOURI GOP REP. TURNS THE TABLES ON DEMS: INTRODUCES BILL THAT MAKES PROPOSING GUN CONTROL LAWS A FELONY

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/19/missouri-gop-rep-turns-the-tables-on-dems-introduces-bill-that-makes-proposing-gun-control-laws-a-felony/

See, I'm not the only freedom minded individual who is realizing that maybe it's time to try to push for our views, even if they fail, just to get a bit of publicity and make a point.

Getting back on point, there are two simple solutions now.  Homeschooling.  And private schools.  And my kids are learning a handful from me as it is!

And what better way to pay for that, than by investing into silver now?  And so, I have.  Have you? 

=====


I strongly advise you to take possession of real gold and silver, at anywhere near today's prices, while you still can.   The fundamentals indicate rising prices for decades to come, and a major price spike can happen at any time.

JH MINT & Coin Shop
13241 Grass Valley Ave
Grass Valley, CA 95945
(530) 273-8175
www.jhmint.com

Minimum telephone order $5000 for free shipping, USA shipping only.
Open 10AM to 5PM Pacific Time, Monday to Friday, closed weekends and bank holidays.  (Also Closed from Dec. 25th to Jan 1st)
Kerri handles internet phone orders:
kerri@jhmint.com
(530) 273-8822

NEW Location in Auburn, CA!
JH MINT Silver & Gold
1760 Highway 49 A140
Auburn, CA 95603
(530) 889-1086
www.jhmint.com

You can also buy silver from my mom at www.momssilvershop.com
Mom will ship overseas, even large orders up to $300,000 or larger, and also in lots of more or less than 100 ounces.   
3510 Auburn Blvd #12
Sacramento, CA 95821


Sincerely,

Jason Hommel
www.silverstockreport.com
www.bibleprophesy.org