LETTER: U.S. governance moving toward fascism
To the Editor:
Your Aug. 28 Our View opposing school sentinels explains why your Aug. 24 front-page report did not include my point that school board members who refuse to implement my request to be a school sentinel are not upholding their oaths of office, which includes defending the constitutions of both the United States and the state of South Dakota.
Only allowing law enforcement firearms in our schools and prohibiting citizens the right to bear arms not only creates a police state environment in our schools, but also gives students the mindset that a police state is OK.
This paper also failed to report my Aug. 26 public testimony before the Mitchell school board that informed it about recent changes to the Family Privacy Act, which have opened the door so private information can be given to third parties without the knowledge of parents.
The above examples support Joan Veon's argument that the constitutional form of governance is being replaced by a new form of governance, the fascism of public-private partnerships. In such partnerships, those who have the most money have the most control.
In most cases, it is corporations and business interests who have the most money. So, in the name of economic development, I argue the governance of Mitchell has been turned over to Bryan Hisel.
Recently, Superintendent Joe Graves publicly supported a TIF in regard to chamber-promoted rental housing, which is a public-private partnership. Graves also set up a public-private partnership with the Abbott House so all South Dakota taxpayers are forced to give funds to a private charity.
This all gives credibility to the unreported statement I made to the school board that education is no longer about educating students, but about training them for the economic machinery. Not only has public education created the mindset that has removed the importance of the American Constitutional Republic, it is now participating in the form of governance that is taking its place -- the fascism of public-private partnerships.
And by restricting exposure of my research, this paper is no longer a reliable defender of freedom.