Best News & Politics

We have known for quite some time that there is a socialist political agenda behind the movement to do away with systematic phonics and replace it with Whole Language and other similar sight-reading programs.

A sight method, like Whole Language, teaches children to read English as if it were Chinese, that is, composed of word-pictures like Chinese characters, rather than letters that stand for sounds. Children are taught a “sight vocabulary,” a list of words they are supposed to memorize by their shape or association with a picture. They do not learn the letter sounds or how to decipher words by analyzing their phonetic structure and breaking multisyllabic words into their syllables, which is the proper way to teach a child to read.

And why do you suppose our educators would use the sight method to teach reading knowing that it is highly inefficient and causes reading problems? The answer is political. In an article in defense of Whole Language in Education Week of February 27, 1985, we read:

The accumulating evidence clearly indicates that a New Right philosophy of education has emerged in this country…. By limiting reading instruction to systematic phonics instruction, sound-symbol decoding, and literal comprehension, and by aiming its criticism at reading books’ story lines in an effort to influence content, the New Right’s philosophy runs counter to the research findings and theoretical perspectives of most noted reading authorities.

If this limited view of reading (and, implicitly, of thinking) continues to gain influence … the New Right will have successfully impeded the progress of democratic governance founded on the ideal of an educated — and critically thinking — electorate.

Growing up, I felt our nation was united by several core beliefs: Opposition tocommunism, pride in our space program and agreement in the greatness and goodness of America. Sadly, today we have a horribly divided country with little that binds us other than history, geography and language.

Todays fractured America is reflected in our political leaders, who are locked in a battle of blame. The Republicans blame big government and high taxes as the source of our problems. The Democrats blame big business and the wealthy as the scourge of the nation.

The intransigence of both sides sheds little light on a solution. The Republicans no tax pledge and the Democrats no entitlements cuts both reflect principled positions but neither will solve our problems. They simply encourage agreements to kick the financial can on to our children.

Leadership is easy when times are good. But times are not good today and they may get worse. The irony is that these are the times when America needs leadership the most, and leadership starts at the top.

President Obama had — and still has — the opportunity to unite the nation. Most Americans want their President to succeed. Unfortunately, over the course of the last year, which has been the most critical moment for the White House, Obama has not stepped up to offer visionary leadership.

On spending, President Obama ignored the bipartisan recommendations of the Simpson-Bowles Deficit Commission, a commission he created. Instead, he bowed to political pressure and cut a deal with Republicans to extend all the Bush tax cuts, thus only adding to our deficit woes. The Supercommittee, charged with providing the leadership on spending the president has all but abdicated, is unlikely to agree to a passable deal. This means that in 2012, the nation will have to confront the brutal prospect of mandatory cuts to defense ($454 billion) and Medicare ($123 billion).

Land said he has heard Romney publicly tell stories about researching embryonic research and recognizing that the embryos are human life.

But he recognizes that not every evangelical voter feels the same way because of Romney’s past.

“Not all evangelicals have had the chance to hear him say it personally,” he said.

Still, Land said evangelicals would turn out in a potential general election match-up between President Barack Obama and Romney, if only to vote against Obama.

“That’s what’s ironic about Romney … they know who they’re voting for,” Land said. “In large part, they feel he’s not Mormon enough. If he had the same position on life and on marriage the Mormon faith has, there wouldn’t be a question.”

“The fact is that he’s so far off the reservation that there are lingering concerns about whether he’s really committed to the pro-life cause,” he said.

Land says Christians and evangelicals are more familiar with Mormonism because their preachers have explained the religion to them. He said that makes them possibly more accepting of Mormonism than people with other religious beliefs. 

This article first appeared on POLITICO Pro at 4:15 p.m. on November 3, 2011.

At the core, Romney’s fairly conservative.He obviously had to go to the center to get elected in Massachusett’s. I don’t think conservatives need to worry about him going back to the center on those issues. He’d be a socially conservative president.

However, Romney won’t go out of his way to make social issues a top priority. If elected, his mandate would be to get the economy going again. In my opinion.