Privatizing Public Schools

Pam Buttram is a retired lawyer who took a hard look at the 2021 bill passed into law (HB349 and SB86) named the Missouri Scholarship Accounts Program, or MOScholars for short. What she found was the bill laid the foundation for the privatization of public schools, which has now been furthered by the "school choice" bill, SB727, that was passed in the 2024 legislative session and signed into law by Gov. Parson.

Who benefits? Not the taxpayers, not the students. Pam does a great job of breaking down the intricacies of the situation and who really benefits. David Rice has added links at the end of the article, as well as a transcript.

Listen in:

SB727 Threatens Public Schools & Children--It Privatizes Public Money and Accountability by David Rice

Pam Buttram, a former tax lawyer, walked Gretchen Garrity and me, David Rice, through the new funds and fees created by SB727. She showed millions will sit in accounts, letting a trickle go to kids.

Read on Substack

Missouri Freedom Initiative Livestream at 7:30 p.m.

 Tonight's livestream includes the admonition from Patrick Holland that "Americans MUST focus on their own backyards rather than be distracted by the media and things they cannot change. Investigate your LOCAL and STATE candidates BEFORE the primaries."

Even the Politicians are Joining in on the Censorship

Politicians who seek to censor individuals or the free exchange of information and ideas are not the kind of people you want in office.

Censorship. Silencing opposition. The LGBTQ+, radical democrats, the teachers union and @RepMarkMcBride joined forces to silence Oklahoma parents. Much like the efforts against President Trump, this is an unprecedented political attack. pic.twitter.com/NV58pfoy4v

— Superintendent Ryan Walters (@RyanWaltersSupt) May 31, 2024

Censorship Betrays Weakness

 

 

 

By Gretchen Garrity

Very early this morning, my blog post titled "Stealth Groomer Books in the Library" was removed by Blogger.com. The post was flagged. Perhaps it was the word "groomer" or "gentle grooming" that Blogger objected to. Perhaps it was the American Library Association or one of its minions who complained. Perhaps it was Christian County library staff. Perhaps it was the authors of the two books I featured, or the folks at the COOLcat catalog.

 

Whoever was behind the censorship betrayed a great weakness. They cannot fight the truth, so they must suppress it. Exposing books that harm children is considered Hate Speech. And yet, here is Blogger's guidelines on content that is harmful to children:

"More broadly, Google prohibits the use of our products to endanger children. This includes but is not limited to predatory behavior towards children such as:

• ‘Child grooming’ (for example, befriending a child online to facilitate, either online or offline, sexual contact and/or exchanging sexual imagery with that child);
• ‘Sextortion’ (for example, threatening or blackmailing a child by using real or alleged access to a child’s intimate images);
• Sexualization of a minor (for example, imagery that depicts, encourages or promotes the sexual abuse of children or the portrayal of children in a manner that could result in the sexual exploitation of children); and
• Trafficking of a child (for example, advertising or solicitation of a child for commercial sexual exploitation)."

 How does that square with Blogger's hate speech policy here:

"Hate speech is content that promotes or condones violence against or has the primary purpose of inciting hatred against an individual or group on the basis of their race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, age, nationality, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or any other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization."

My article objected to the sexualization of children through books that push the LGBTQ agenda and are marketed to minors. Blogger is speaking out of both sides of its content policy.

 

But I have a mustard seed, and I know how to use it. 

This post will be cross-posted at Hick Christian. Also, it is likely that Right to Win Ozarks will be deleted. However, we have contingency plans and you will be able to find us again soon if the blog is deleted.

Time to Learn and Connect

 

The Benevolent Missouri Dictator Aligns with the WHO

"These outside forces use our political structure, corrupting our political leaders to destroy our economy and take away our natural rights." -- David Rice

This is an important article (which is getting attention outside Christian County) that tells the story of how Gov. Parson is allowing a One Health laboratory to be built in Missouri. Horrors will emerge from this lab eventually.

 

 Rice spares no feelings, nor should he:

"Our benevolent and wise dictator Parson and his supermajority Republican politburo have decided that we’re not worth protecting. Parson already demonstrated his lack of care throughout his administration, and every voter who said, “He’s a nice guy. We shouldn’t criticize one of our own,” might as well have been wearing a Red Flag on their lapel."

Republicans in Missouri must wake up now. Read the ARTICLE. Then pay attention to who is running for governor in the August primaries. Another swamp creature will be catastrophic.

(MO) “Republican Reps & Senators have voted into their budget a WHO laboratory—they just decided to call it a different name so the voter doesn’t get upset as they design viruses to cull the population.”

Please read the article below and share it so people know to 👀 ONE HEALTH. https://t.co/F7N1DvBNtA

— Lisa Logan (@iamlisalogan) May 26, 2024

Censorship Doesn't Work

 

Deplatformed repeatedly from every platform, targeted by the WH and CDC and dragged into a UK court hearing by media ‘watchdog’ agency OfCom, all seeking to censor me and those who ‘platform’ me. And I just passed 400,000 followers on X. As I proved in my Oxford DPhil thesis:…

— Dr Naomi Wolf (@naomirwolf) May 26, 2024

The Missouri Freedom Initiative Live at 7:30 p.m.

 

“Occupants of public offices love power and are prone to abuse it." – George Washington, Farewell Address, September 17, 1796

Suppressing Free Speech

 By Gretchen Garrity

"Students who live under a regime of censorship are being taught that freedom of speech and government accountability are disposable values that must give way to 'making the school look good.' The lessons these students learn about the First Amendment--lessons they will carry with them into their adult lives--are that people with power get to control what is said about them, and that viewpoints should be suppressed by the government if they challenge prevailing beliefs. This is not only bad preparation for journalism, it is bad preparation for citizenship."

 In the first chapter of the reference tool, "Law of the Student Press," the editors write about censorship. Their focus is high schools and colleges, but their words apply to the larger world, where censorship is alive and well on social media platforms.

While we tend to think censorship and suppression of free speech is something Google, Mark Zuckerberg and the old Twitter indulges in, the culture of censorship has trickled down to local platforms and activists who routinely suppress and delete articles and writers they find objectionable.

Often, there is back channel chatter that attempts to demean and discredit individuals who say or publish uncomfortable truths. Even elected officials indulge in this behavior. Instead of engaging the public in a spirited debate, or pointing out errors, these individuals subvert free speech in a stealthy background campaign to censor points of view with which they disagree or find inconvenient, and to discourage others from engaging in public discourse.

It points to the larger issue in the Republican Party right now. What is a conservative? What does it mean to be a Republican? What are the values of the individuals who make up the Party? How do those values, or lack of them, affect what happens on the local, state, and national level?

In a 1988 decision that was devastating to the free speech rights of students, the United States Supreme Court ruled that students at a St. Louis, MO high school did not have the right to publish articles the school administration deemed unacceptable. You can read about the ruling HERE.

The editors of the Law of the Student Press had this to say in reference to the ruling:

"A generation's worth of legalized Hazelwood censorship has damaged the learning environment in schools, discouraged young people from meaningfully engaging in civic life, and obstructed the public's access to truthful information. As the director of the University of Arizona's journalism program told a law-school symposium reflecting on the legacy of Hazelwood, 'We are raising a nation of sheep. I don't think it's extreme to say that we risk democracy."

Meanwhile, writers are being called extremist around the state of Missouri and in Christian County. David Rice interviewed Gail Griswold and myself the other day. Judge for yourself who the extremists are:

Censorship within Conservative Grassroots by David Rice

How do Conservative Journalists survive censorship and cancel culture within the conservative movement? I ask Gail Griswold, Local Control, and Gretchen Garrity, Right2WinOzarks. We also laugh a lot.

Read on Substack

American History of Freedom of the Press

 

From: Helpful Professor

 

From a timely article from Colonial Williamsburg.

"Here is a list of the States and how the law was written in their Constitutions or Bill of Rights going from north to south:

1. A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. - June 15, 1780: XVI.--The liberty of the press is essential to the security of freedom in a state: it ought not, therefore, to be restrained in this Commonwealth.
2. A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth or State of Pennsylvania - September 28, 1776: XII. That the people have a right to freedom of speech, and of writing, and publishing their sentiments; therefore the freedom of the press ought not to be restrained.
3. A Declaration of Rights, and the Constitution and Form of Government agreed to by the Delegates of Maryland, in Free and Full Convention Assembled. - November 11, 1776: XXXVIII. That the liberty of the press ought to be inviolably preserved.
4. Virginia Declaration of Rights – June 12, 1776: XII That the freedom of the press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty and can never be restrained but by despotic governments.
5. North Carolina, A Declaration of Rights, &c. - December 18, 1776: XV. That the freedom of the press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty, and therefore ought never to be restrained.
6. An Act for Establishing the Constitution of the State of South Carolina. - March 19, 1778: XLIII. That the liberty of the press be inviolably preserved.
7. Constitution of Georgia; February 5, 1777: ART. LXI. Freedom of the press and trial by jury to remain inviolate forever.
8. A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the State of Vermont – July 8, 1777: XIV. That the people have a right to freedom of speech, and of writing and publishing their sentiments; therefore, the freedom of the press ought not be restrained. (Vermont was not yet a state yet, but saw fit to set up a Declaration of Rights)"

 

It's Not Going Away

David Rice interviews 2024 GOP State Convention delegate, Tony Petrosino, for another perspective about the day. Naturally, more questions are raised. 

For audio or to read, go HERE.

Tony Petrosino--7th Congressional District Delegate by David Rice

Tony shares his experiences with the State Convention and the Floor. He discusses some of the failures of the day.

Read on Substack