Note: This archive version of the e-newsletter is in ASCII text. To view this in Rich Text Format/HTML (with pictures & links), use the Contact page to send an e-mail to request that edition. Note: Several AOL addresses bounced this edition of IQ* with the following message: Permanent Failure: Other address status Delivery last attempted at Fri, 16 Jan 2004 02:57:41 -0000 If you have an AOL account, please contact IQ* at InfoQuest4Truth@comcast.net and let me know how to resolve this issue. Thanks! Dear Friend, I originally had a different lineup for today's edition of InfoQuest*. I was going to expand on the first few items in today's contents; however, something happened this week; a "prophecy" was given on Monday Jan. 12, 2004; it was fulfilled on Tuesday Jan 13, 2004; and I was e-mailed a related "future prophecy" on Wednesday, Jan. 14, 2004; all from different sources. Now, don't freak on this "present day prophecy" news - I'm not talking about apocalypse prophesies, etc., I'm talking about forecasting cultural-socio-economic-politic change on one day, then on the very next day, seeing it happen in the newspaper. WOW. WAIT. STOP THE PRESS! What really freaked me out was when I was sent an article from a friend, who didn't know about the other "prophecy," that pointed both to the past and to the future in the same article, directly related, in topic and in content, to the "prophecy" that was fulfilled on Tuesday Jan. 13, 2004. For some, IQ* is read on work breaks and/or over a lunch break; for others, IQ* is read when the kids are taking a nap, after the kids are in bed at night, or at night after work; therefore, I try to provide you with a "summarized" "Reader's Digest" of news along with URLs to the entire articles. The first few items in today's edition will be URLs with very short descriptions. Visit the sites, enjoy, and forward. The last few items in today's contents will cover this week's fulfilled "prophesies" and provide, as always, IQ* solutions, that, if you complete, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, will beautify our community and world. CONTENTS: (1) Safety First! Two Recalls! (2) New Christian Site - BushRevealed.com (3) Petition to Stop Unconstitutional Military Draft (4) When Prophecies Come True! (A) Commonwealth Foundation's Prophecy (B) Phila. Inquirer Fulfills Commonwealth Foundation's Prophecy (C) Super Fantastic Paper Points to Past, Present, & Future IQ* Solution ==================== ==================== (1) Safety First! Two Recalls! Kindermusik International Has Recalled "Lily Pad Clacker" Instruments http://www.safetyalerts.com/recall/p/02/p0013460.htm Reason: The green coating on the Lily Pad Clacker instruments contain high levels of lead, posing a risk of poisoning to young children. Made in India. Distribution: North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Virginia and Texas. Ol’ Man Treestands Has Recalled Hunting Tree Stands http://www.safetyalerts.com/recall/p/02/p0013456.htm Reason: A serrated blade that supports the stand on a tree can bend, posing the risk of falls and serious injuries to hunters. Manufactured In China. Distribution: Nationwide. IQ* Solution: http://www.BuyAmerican.com Work to put products back into America's quality hands. http://www.thenewamerican.com/jobs ==================== ==================== (2) New Christian Site - BushRevealed.com http://www.repentamerica.com/pr_bushrevealed.html PHILADELPHIA – REPENT AMERICA, an evangelistic ministry based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Columbia Christians for Life in Columbia, South Carolina have released a new website calling Christians across the nation to re-think voting for George W. Bush in the upcoming presidential election. BushRevealed.com was launched on the world-wide-web today to provide Christians with articles, information, and commentaries on Bush’s pattern of anti-Christian behavior in the last several years, and is challenging them not to remain in bondage to the two-party system. http://www.BushRevealed.com ==================== ==================== (3) Petition to Stop Unconstitutional Military Draft The New American Article: http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2004/01-26-2004/draft.htm WND Article: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36562 Online Petition: http://www.russoforpresident.com/petition_draft.php ==================== ==================== (4) When Prophecies Come True! (A) Commonwealth Foundation's Prophecy (B) Phila. Inquirer Fulfills Commonwealth Foundation's Prophecy (C) Super Fantastic Paper Points to Past, Present, & Future IQ* Solution +++++++ (A) Commonwealth Foundation's Prophecy Entire Article in PDF: http://www.commonwealthfoundation.org/education/c04-01.pdf Commonwealth Foundation Website: http://www.commonwealthfoundation.org Snips from Commonwealth Commentary; Jan. 12, 2004; Vol 04 No. 01: The latest effort to leverage more money out of Pennsylvania taxpayers uses the Quality Counts 2004 report from Education Week and the Pew Charitable Trusts. Headlines across the state announced that “Pa. is nearly last in study of school-funding equity.” One newspaper completely confused the report’s findings by erroneously titling its article “Pa. ranks 49th of 50 in public school aid.” With extensive news coverage of the report, the tactic of fooling most of the people most of time worked once again for the public education special interest groups. Although Quality Counts gave Pennsylvania a grade of B for “resource adequacy,” it was the D- for “resource equity” that was trumpeted by various organizations demanding more money from taxpayers. For them, it is quantity—not quality—that truly counts. Just last month, The Commonwealth Foundation published a Policy Brief which empirically refutes the false and misleading claims that the state has reduced its “share” of funding for public schools, or that it has created a “funding gap” by providing inequitable funding for economically disadvantaged students. Media outlets across the state received this detailed analysis of data from the Pennsylvania Department of Education. (The full the report, “Pennsylvania’s Education Funding Gap,” is available at www.CommonwealthFoundation.org.) Instead of helping clarify the school funding debate in Pennsylvania, Quality Counts only assisted the public school special interests in further muddying the waters. The empirical data reveal that the state has not reduced its “share” of public school funding and that taxpayers already provide inequitably more state money for economically disadvantaged students. It is past time policymakers and public opinion shapers started discussing public policy based on the facts, rather than the myths propagated by those for whom only Quantity Counts. +++++++ (B) Phila. Inquirer Fulfills Commonwealth Foundation's Prophecy Entire Editorial: http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/7695475.htm Posted on Tue, Jan. 13, 2004 Editorial - Pennsylvania and School Equity - A record of chronic failure Snips from Phila. Inquirer Editorial - Pennsylvania and School Equity; Jan. 13, 2004 Education Week has given Pennsylvania's system of paying for its schools a grade of D-minus for equity. Only Illinois got a lower overall rating from the journal. And, as Education Week concedes, the citizens of the state spend a lot on public schools, more than in most states. It's just that - thanks to a stress on local school taxes - the money gets spread around very unevenly, with schools in poorer areas getting the least money, while well-off suburban areas get by far the most. [IQ* Note: this is an argument for increased socialism! See IQ* Definition of Socialism: http://fp.users.fast.net/InfoQuest/Civics_in_Seconds.htm#Types ] Yet Gov. Rendell seemed to have a devil of a time in his first year of office convincing many lawmakers of that proposition. His proposals to increase the state contribution to education and pay for improvements such as preschool and all-day kindergarten had a rough go of it. He finally got a slimmed-down version of his original plan approved. [IQ* Note: Yet another promotion of socialism. See: IQ* Education Alert 1: http://fp.users.fast.net/InfoQuest/education.htm#Stop_PA_HB1221 See: IQ* Education Alert 2: http://fp.users.fast.net/InfoQuest/education.htm#HB1290 ] Now, the action in Harrisburg focuses on approving casino gambling and using the revenues to pay for school property tax relief. But even if that tax relief occurs, in the best case it would lift Pennsylvania's contribution only to 44 percent of school costs. [IQ* Note: Promotion of gambling as a solution. See IQ* Gambling Alert: http://fp.users.fast.net/InfoQuest/government.htm#Gambling ] +++++++ (C) Super Fantastic Paper Points to Past, Present, & Future IQ* Solution IQ* Note: Dear Friend, out of all of the articles presented in this edition, this one is most important. Although I will provide you with just snips of this article, to save you initial reading time, I implore you to click on the URL and read this article/paper in its entirety. Reading this article may require 15 minutes of your time, but I tell you, after reading the Commonwealth Foundation's "prophecy" and seeing it fulfilled the very next day, this article, "What Has The Government Done to The Family," may be the most eye-opening information that you've ever read in your life (besides the Bible of course)! For this reason, the snips below may not flow smoothly - so read the whole article via the link below. Did you know that, relatively recently, the population in Sweden almost vanished, and the Swedish family unit was next to eliminated; totally?!!! I'll bet that you didn't know! That's the difference between IQ* and the mass media. ======>>>>> What Has Government Done to Our Families? by Allan Carlson [Posted January 5, 2004] Entire Article: http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1406 The fate of families and children in Sweden shows the truth of Ludwig von Mises's observation that "no compromise" is possible between capitalism and socialism. Here I show how the welfare state's growth can be viewed as the transfer of the "dependency" function from families to state employees. The process began in 19th-century Sweden, through the socialization of children's economic time via school attendance, child labor, and state old-age pension laws. These changes, in turn, created incentives to have only a few, or no children. In the 1930s, social democrats Gunnar and Alva Myrdal used the resulting "depopulation crisis" to argue for the full socialization of child rearing. Their "family policy," implemented over the next forty years, virtually destroyed the autonomous family in Sweden, substituting a "client society" where citizens are clients of public employees. While Sweden is now trying to break out of the welfare state trap, the old arguments for the socialization of children have come to the United States. In his short volume "Bureaucracy," Ludwig von Mises notes that modern socialism "holds the individual in tight rein from the womb to the tomb," while "the children and the adolescents are firmly integrated into the all-embracing apparatus of state control." In another context, he contrasts "capitalism" with "socialism," and concludes: "There is no compromise possible between these two systems. Contrary to a popular fallacy there is no middle way, no third system possible as a pattern of a permanent social order." My remarks focus on the validity of the latter statement, seen through the fate of family and children in the quintessential "middle way" state of modern Sweden. In turning to Sweden, we find a classic case of bureaucratic manipulation to destroy the state's principle rival as a focus of loyalty: the family. Viewing this rivalry between state and family, it is important to understand that a basic level of "dependency" is a constant in all societies. In every human community, there are infants and children, persons who are very old, individuals who have severe handicaps, and others who are seriously ill. These people cannot take care of themselves. Without help from others, they will die. Every society must have a way of giving care to these dependents. Under the domain of liberty, the natural institution of the family (supplemented and supported by local communities and voluntary organizations) provides the protection and care which these "dependent" people need. Indeed, it is in the autonomous family—and only in the family—where the pure socialist principle actually works: from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. [IQ* Note: The Biblical mandate of free market capitalism and family-based support systems against evil socialism is clearly and easily explained in the truly fantastic and blessed "Taking Back the Gates." http://fp.users.fast.net/InfoQuest/government.htm#Randall Treat yourself to this today! I HIGHLY recommend it! Please!] The rise of the welfare state can be written as the steady transfer of the "dependency" function from the family to the state; from persons tied together by blood, marriage or adoption to persons tied to public employees. The process began in Sweden in the mid-19th century, through bureaucratic projects that began dismantling the bonds between parents and their children. In classic pattern, the first assertion of state control over children came in the 1840s, with the passage of a mandatory school attendance law. While justified as a measure to improve the knowledge and welfare of the people, the deeper dynamic was the socialization of children's time, through the assumptions that state functionaries—the Swedish kingdom's bureaucrats—knew better than parents how children's time should be spent, and that parents could not be expected or trusted to protect their children from exploitation. [IQ* Note: Here we see the Commonwealth's Foundation's prophecy.] The next step came in 1912, with legislation that effectively banned child labor in factories, and to some degree on farms. Again, the implicit assumption was that state welfare officials were better judges of the use of children's time, and more compassionate toward children than parents were or could be. The final step came at about the same time, when the Swedish government implemented a program of old-age or retirement pensions that quickly became universal. The underlying act here was the socializing of another dependency function, this time, the dependency of the "very old" and the "weak" on mature adults. For eons, the care of the elderly had been a family matter. Henceforward, it would be the state's concern. Taking all of these reforms together, the net effect was to socialize the economic value of children. The natural economy of the household, and the value that children had brought their parents—be it as workers in the family enterprise or as an 'insurance policy' for old age—was stripped away. Parents were still left with the costs of raising the children, but the economic gain they would eventually represent had been seized by "society," meaning the bureaucratic state. The predictable result of this change, as an economist of the "Gary Becker School" would tell you, would be a diminished demand for children, and this is exactly what occurred in Sweden. Starting in the late 1800s, Swedish fertility went into free-fall and by 1935, Sweden had the lowest birthrate in the world, below the zero-growth level where a generation just managed to replace itself. The contradictions inherent in this method of social organization welled up in Sweden in the early 1930s. With the birth rate having fallen below the zero-growth level, Swedish conservatives grew frantic over the "depopulation threat," and the disappearance of Swedish children. These voices argued that the root problem was spiritual dislocation, or the decline of Christianity, or the rise of materialism, or personal selfishness. No one—not a single soul on the political right—focused on problems to be found in the educational and social legislation of the past 90 years. So as the "population crisis" reached high boil in Sweden, the opportunity was ripe for demagoguery and exploitation. Their program embraced universal state allowances for children's clothing, a universal health insurance plan, a universal entitlement to day care, state-operated summer camps for children, free school breakfasts and lunches, state-funded family housing, birth bonuses to cover the indirect costs of having babies, marriage loans, the expansion of state maternity and midwife services, centralized economic planning, and so on. Their goal was, in effect, the socialization of consumption, providing all families with a rationally determined, fairly uniform set of state services, managed by public employees, and funded through taxes imposed on the rich and the childless. Criticisms that their program, in fact, threatened the family brought a characteristically blunt response: "the little modern family is almost...pathological," the Myrdals said. "The old ideals must die out with the generations which supported them." Appeals to liberty and family autonomy evoked equally biting responses. The Myrdals charged that the "false individualistic desire" by parents for the "freedom" to raise their own children had an unhealthy origin: "...much of the tiresome pathos which defends 'individual freedom' and 'responsibility for one's own family,' is based on a sadistic disposition to extend this 'freedom' to an unbound and uncontrolled right to dominate others." In order to raise children fit for a socially cooperative world, "we must free children more from ourselves," turning them over to state certified experts for care and training. The collective day nursery run by state-controlled experts, rather than the pathological little family, was more in line with the proper goals of eliminating social classes and building a society based on economic democracy. Between 1935 and 1975, the Myrdals' domestic agenda guided, by fits and starts, the evolution of the Swedish welfare state. Periods of political and bureaucratic activism—1935 to 1938, 1944 to 1948, and 1965 to 1973 —were punctuated by evidence of stubborn resistance among the Swedish populace, or by budgetary restraints that delayed full implementation. Yet by the end of the process, most elements of the Myrdals' family agenda were in place. What were the specific results? With the family stripped, by state fiat, of all productive functions, of all insurance and welfare functions, and of most consumption functions, it should cause little surprise that ever fewer Swedes chose to live in families. The marriage rate fell to a record low among modern nations, while the proportion of adults living alone soared. In central Stockholm, for example, fully two-thirds of the population lived in single-person households by the mid-1980s. With the costs and benefits of children fully socialized, and with the natural economic gains from marriage intentionally eliminated by law, the bearing of children was also severed from marriage: by 1990, well over half of Swedish births were outside of marriage. Children, too, enjoyed as 'rights' a great parcel of benefits provided by the state: free medical and dental care; abundant and cheap public transport; free meals; free education; and even state "child advocates" available to intervene when parents overstepped their bounds. Children, too, no longer needed "family": the state now served as their real parent. Indeed, Rutgers University sociologist David Poponoe suggests that the term 'welfare state' no longer does justice to this form of total personal dependence on the government. Instead, he uses the label, "client society," to describe a nation "in which citizens are for the most part clients of a large group of public employees who take care of them throughout their lives." In Sweden, the elderly are "free" of potential dependence on their grown children; infants, small children, and teenagers are "free" of reliance on their parents for protection and basic support; grown adults are "free" of meaningful obligations either to their biological parents, or to their children; and men and women are "free" of any of the mutual promises once embodied in marriage. This "freedom" has come in exchange for a universal, common dependence on the state, and the nearly complete bureaucratization of what had once been family living. Von Mises was right: there proved to be no "middle way" here; rather, Sweden represents a more complete and therefore more oppressive version of the socialist domestic order, one surpassing in its comprehensiveness even that of the Soviet Union. But the modern Swedish welfare state contains its own contradictions, problems now coming to the fore. This contradiction has been the driving force behind the recent rebellion against the modern client state, a rebellion which started (among the Scandinavian countries) in Denmark and Norway through the electoral success of the anti-state Progress parties, and which has now spread to Sweden. Just last month, the Swedish Social Democrats suffered a major political defeat, losing power in national elections to a Center-Right coalition, bound together by a common pledge to cut back the welfare state. Particularly startling was the emergence of two new parties, which won blocks of seats in Sweden's Riksdag (or Parliament) for the first time. The first of these—the Christian Democrats—made the sorry state of Swedish family life their central platform issue. They called for a reduction in bureaucratic interference in family relations, and an end to state incentives that encourage births out-of-wedlock and discourage the parental care of children. The other novel party, called New Democracy, combines libertarian themes of sharp tax reductions, sharp benefit reductions, and an end to foreign aid with measures to curb immigration. Together, these new groups hold the balance of parliamentary power. Eliminating welfare benefits has rarely been successful, in any modern country; but for the first time since the 1930s, the Swedes have an opportunity to recover some measure of family autonomy and personal liberty. [IQ* Note: Wow, and many people say that "Third Parties" can't make a difference? That's a heap of poo!] Hewlett goes on to lay out a new policy agenda for America, including mandated parental leave, guaranteed free access to maternal and child health care, the state provision of quality child care, more "educational investment," substantial housing subsidies for families with children, and so on. Does this sound familiar? It should: these are the very arguments and the basic agenda proposed for Swedes by Alva and Gunnar Myrdal, back in 1934, albeit shorn of their more radical, openly socialist rhetoric. Nonetheless, this is a book which led the Chairman (retired) of Proctor and Gamble, Owen Butler, to state: "The conclusion is inescapable. Unless we invest more wisely in our children today, the nation's economic and social future are in jeopardy." These are also the arguments that are dominating the so-called new politics of children, in Washington. At the same time, "preventive social policy" has become the rallying cry for other American proponents of change. The arguments ring familiar: help by state officials early in life is more economical and more effective than help later on; the longer we wait before discovering symptoms of stress, the more costly it will be; "early interventions present the problem of all investments in growth- the dividends come later," etc., etc. It all sounds reasonable, in a way, but the end product would be a nightmare of bureaucratic rule, and the virtual destruction of the family in America. In the September report of the U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect, we catch the flavor of this looming, new American order. This panel, appointed exclusively by the Reagan and Bush administrations, called child abuse a "national emergency," adding: "No other problem may equal its power to cause or exacerbate a range of social ills." The key finding of the report is that the Federal and state governments have spent too much time investigating suspected cases of abuse; instead, the Federal government should focus on preventing abuse and neglect before it happens. The Board recommends that the Federal government immediately develop a national program of "home visits" to all new parents and their babies by government health workers and social investigators, who would identify potential abusers and help them. In addition to this "welfare bureaucrat in every home" approach, the Board calls for a "national child protection policy" where the Federal government would guarantee the right of all children to live in a safe environment, with appropriate vehicles of enforcement. Hewlett is right, of course, about the flaws in the existing American welfare state: we have socialized the economic value of children here; but we have left the costs with individual parents. The United States in 1991, as Sweden in 1934, has an incomplete version of the pure welfare state model. She's correct, too, that this exacts a price: the number of American children born annually inside of marriage has been stagnant through the 1980s, at a level 30 percent below the zero-growth rate. Americans are simply not investing their own time and money in more than one or two children, largely because its not worth their while. (The overall birthrate, it is true, has climbed somewhat, but this is due entirely to the sharp rise in the number of out-of-wedlock births from 665,000 in 1980 to over 1,000,000 in 1990; these births, it appears, our welfare system subsidizes well.) But there is an alternative to the "Swedish solution." It's one that Dr. Hewlett declines to mention; and it's the one that the Myrdals dismissed as "beyond reasonable debate" sixty years ago. This option is called a "free society," where instead of completing the client/welfare state by extending bureaucratic tentacles completely around children, we instead dismantle what we already have done. The agenda here is simple, radical and pragmatically anti-bureaucratic: 1. end state-mandated and state-controlled education, leaving the training and rearing of children up to their own parents or legal guardians; 2. abolish child-labor laws, again reasoning that parents or guardians are the best judges of their children's interests and welfare, vastly better than any combination of state bureaucrats; 3. and dismantle the Social Security system, leaving protection or security in old age to be provided, once again, by individuals and their families. These acts would restore the economic benefits of children to parents, and so end the anti-child contradiction that lies at the center of the incomplete welfare state. Most commentators would respond that these would be impossible, inconceivable actions in a modern, industrial society. Given the realities or complexities of the modern world, they would say chaos would be the sure result, if we engaged in such reactionary efforts. My response would be to point to scattered groups in America which, through some amazing historical quirk or some political miracle, still inhabit one of our few remaining "zones of liberty" and which survive under such an "impossible" regime. One unexpected but interesting example would be the Amish, who beat off government challenges to their special limited educational practices (namely, schooling only by Amish teachers and only through the eighth grade), who make heavy use of child labor, and who avoid Social Security (as well as government farm welfare) out of principle. Not only have the Amish managed to survive in an industrial, market milieu; they have thrived. Their families are three times the size of the American average. When facing fair competition, their farms turn profits in "good times and bad." Their savings rate is extraordinarily high. Their farming practices, from any environmental standard, are exemplary, marked by a committed stewardship of the soil and avoidance of chemicals and artificial fertilizers. During a time when the number of American farmers has fallen sharply, Amish farm colonies have spread widely, from a base in southeastern Pennsylvania to Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, Tennessee, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. It is probably true that relatively few contemporary Americans would choose to live like the Amish, given a true freedom of choice. Then again, no one can be quite sure what America would look like, if citizens were actually freed from the bureaucratic rule over families that began to be imposed here, over one hundred years ago, starting with the rise of the mandated public school. I have absolutely no doubt, though, that under a true regime of liberty, families would be stronger, children more plentiful, and men and women happier and more content. For me, that's enough. --- Allan Carlson, author of The Swedish Experiment in Family Politics and Family Questions: Reflections on the American Social Crisis, is president of the Howard Center in Rockford, Illinois. He wrote this paper for the Mises Institute's Williamsburg conference on "The Political Economy of Bureaucracy." IQ* Note: If you found Allan's solution to end socialism in the U.S.A. informative, then you'd probably find the State of Arizona's Resolution of Secession from the Federal Government in Times of Constitutional Crisis equally informative: http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17396 IQ* Note: A cute film that accurately describes a socialist bureaucracy, the IRS, is "The Mating Game," starring Debbie Andrews and Tony Randall! http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/TheMatingGame-1040118/preview.php IQ* Note: If I've begged you once, I'll beg one thousand times! Please invest in "Taking Back the Gates!" http://fp.users.fast.net/InfoQuest/government.htm#Randall +++++++ IQ* Solution to the Socialist/Communist Evil in our World: Study the following: http://fp.users.fast.net/InfoQuest/Civics_in_Seconds.htm http://www.constitutionparty.com http://www.thenewamerican.com/focus/communism/index.htm Pray, then take Action. Right Away. GODSPEED. http://www.peroutka2004.com/home.html