Category: American history

Why the Puritan Agenda Must Not Prevail

The Founding Fathers’ collective vision of education in a democratic republic reflected their profound understanding of education’s essential role in ensuring the sustainability and robustness of the new nation. We were fortunate that the wealthy early leadership of the nation—Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, and George Washington—shared a common conviction: that education was indispensable for self-government and the preservation of liberty. Jefferson and Madison insisted on the widespread diffusion of knowledge as foundational to liberty. They were acutely aware that an ignorant populace could be easily manipulated, that education was the bulwark against tyranny and mob rule.

Today in the United States, secular education is seen as a threat to religious belief by about ten percent of the population, which to a thinking person would hint at a problem with their religious beliefs. But it seems this small portion of the population instead sees the outlier status of their beliefs as a badge of honor, somehow proving they are right and everyone else is wrong. Yet while most Christian extremists rely on the science behind cell phones, modern medicine, and public health standards governing water and air quality, they suffer cognitive dissonance between their religious mythology and the realities of scientific advancement. The fear of new information is so deeply ingrained that these religionists cannot escape it. This is the kind of ‘knowledge’ and ‘faith’ that Christian extremists seek to embed in the minds of their children, and not just theirs.  

The intention is to force institutional ignorance onto the entire nation. For our own good, of course. Because otherwise their loving God will condemn us all to burn in hell for eternity.

We’ve seen this before, as elaborated in the first chapter, times when religious power brokers forced a population to adhere to specific doctrines and if refused, initiated imprisonment, torture, and death for the “infidels.” Christian Nationalist ideas of proper acceptance of authority are rooted in a belief that God holds supreme authority and has delegated power to specific earthly institutions—primarily the church, family, and state—to maintain order and enforce a Christian social hierarchy.

Adherents believe that specific leaders are chosen by God to “save the country,” as demonstrated by their continuing support of presidents such as Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, George Bush, and now Donald Trump. A significant segment of Christian Nationalists and their supporters believe that Trump is a divinely ordained leader sent to save the United States, viewing him as a “warrior for Christ” tasked with restoring America to its perceived Christian roots. Because such leaders are seen as advancing a divine plan, supporters can overlook their breaches of democratic rules or norms as well as their personal immorality and perfidiousness, believing such actions are necessary to uphold a rightly ordered society.

It follows then that control over education and tax support for schools teaching these theories are a primary objective. But that was not the vision of the Founding Fathers or the visionary early 19th century government in establishing tax-support public schools. Fortunately, as science and other fields of study have advanced over the last 250 years, religious power over learning has diminished.

Leading us to this point has been the “common school,” established in the 1830s and 1840s in the new United States, comparable to today’s standardized public school. Considered the father of American education, Horace Mann envisioned common schools as institutions that were free and open to all students. In his role as Secretary of the Massachusetts State Board of Education (1837–1848), he established teacher training schools, improved school infrastructure, and raised educational standards. [1] He wanted those teachers to teach standardized curricula that instilled students with civic values. Catholic and other parochial schools in particular objected to Mann’s belief that schools should not adhere to any specific Christian sect, an argument that continues to the present day.

An obvious drawback of religious schools that is often overlooked is the inevitable assumption of such schools and their adherents that their beliefs are the only truth, that anything other than specific Christian dogma is a lie. Denial of science is the best example of this prejudice as scientific discoveries have slowly dismantled much of the institutionalized mythology enshrined by religion. As myth becomes ingrained in students of religious schools, their beliefs serve as a wedge between the people practicing that belief system and the needs of a nation to move forward in all areas such as advancing industry and the economy with new inventions based on new scientific discoveries and the acceptance of facts about human life previously not understood.

For the 68% of Americans who do not adhere or sympathize with the strict religious views of Christian extremists, the fundamentals of accepted education typically aligns with secular, pluralistic, and science-backed academic standards. These standards prioritize critical thinking and inclusivity rather than religious doctrine or rigid ideological frameworks. In fact, of the approximate 32% of Americans counted as Christian Nationalists, the actual adherents are only 11% while another 21% are considered sympathizers.[2]

The question of funding public schools boils down to what we expect our educational tax dollars to accomplish. Programs which teach narrow and exclusive religious doctrine are by definition not meant to support a cooperative relationship among persons of various cultural and religious backgrounds, but rather to hold up one belief system as the only truth. This becomes an impetus for authoritarian overreach and ultimately war, as history has long shown us.

While historically this conflict in the U.S. has been decided in favor of the constitutional standard not to mix church and state, the most compelling factor in the present day argument is that we all pay taxes and the majority of Americans do not agree that taxes should support the extreme Christian agenda. Tax support violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause by compelling taxpayers to fund the teaching of religious doctrines, essentially creating a government-sanctioned religion.

The slow but determined creep of Christian Nationalism shows every intention of overturning this Constitutional mandate. The camel’s nose is well under the edge of the tent. A 2024 investigation by The Washington Post found billions in tax dollars now pay tuition at private, mostly religious schools. For example, Florida’s voucher program is expected to exceed $3 billion, with over 80% of funds going to religious schools. Ohio is projected to spend nearly $1 billion, with 91% of voucher users attending religious institutions. Hundreds of thousands of students use these programs. The rise in funding is attributed to the expansion of voucher programs in Republican-led states, which now allow more or all families to qualify, shifting from programs once aimed only at low-income students.

Reduced funding for public education leads to layoffs, larger class sizes, and reduced individualized attention for students. Schools that serve the vast majority of students are forced to cut essential services, including arts, music, athletic programs, and after-school programming. There is less money for modern technology, up-to-date textbooks, and lab equipment. Meanwhile, private schools receiving public funds can exclude students based on religion, academic performance, disability, or sexual orientation, narrowing the educational options for those students. Vouchers can deepen racial and socioeconomic segregation by subsidizing tuition at private schools that often lack the diversity of public schools. Continued siphoning of funds can result in the closure of neighborhood public schools, particularly in rural areas where the school is a central community institution.

Long term erosion of financial support for public education puts the entire nation at risk, not only from prejudicial curricula in religious classrooms, but also from the inevitable schism between people educated in stringently oppositional systems. In a nation that has long pursued unity despite our different origins and beliefs, such divisive practices are a form of violence against the existing government.

The Supreme Court has said the Establishment Clause forbids, among other things, financial support of religious activity. Subsequent cases challenging the longstanding interpretation of the First Amendment have brought us to the Espinoza vs. Montana case, allowing tax dollars to flow to the parents/students of religious schools. This is by far not established law. While Espinoza reaffirmed that governments may not discriminate against beneficiaries solely on the basis of their religious character, it left open the possibility that governments might still be able to bar beneficiaries that would put public funds to religious uses.

The U.S. majority has become increasingly aware of the conflict between a religious agenda and our multicultural society. The percentage of Americans who say religion is “very important” has dropped from over 88%-95% in the 1960s to 47% in 2025. The latest Religious Landscape Study, fielded over seven months in 2023-24, finds that only 62% of U.S. adults identify as Christians. That is a decline of nine percentage points since 2014 and a 16-point drop since 2007. Within Christianity, 19% are Catholic, 3% are Mormon, Orthodox, Jehovah’s Witness, and other, and 42% are Protestant divided into Evangelical (23%), Mainline (14%),[3] and Historically Black Protestant (5%).

Projections indicate that by 2070, Christians could shrink from 64% (2020) to between 35% and 54% of Americans, while “Nones” (no religion) rise from 30% to over 50% in some scenarios. This shift drives religious zealots to push a movement which seeks to assert “dominion” over societal institutions, including government, education, and media, believing that Christian moral values should dictate law.

Growing concern within the U.S. public is slowly building into a response to Christian Nationalism, Dominionism, Christian Reconstructionism, and the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) including tracking by civil rights organizations, legal challenges, and theological counter-movements from within Christianity. These initiatives aim to counter the rising influence of these new Puritan groups. Organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) are actively documenting the spread of Dominionism,[4] profiling key leaders in the New Apostolic Reformation, and tracking associated hate groups. (This is directly connected to the Trump Administration’s May 2026 lawsuit against the SPLC in an effort to intimidate all civil rights organizations from speaking out and doing their work.)[5]

Scholars and progressive faith leaders are working to produce public-facing biblical interpretations that contradict Dominionist, coercive, and authoritarian interpretations of Scripture. Efforts are underway to inform the public and Christians about the anti-democratic nature of white Christian Nationalism and Dominionism to “inoculate” them against its appeal. The ACLU of North Dakota and other organizations actively fight against initiatives promoted by Dominionists, such as forcing religious prayer into public schools, banning books, and promoting anti-LGBTQ+ policies. Organizations like American Atheists oppose lobbying efforts to pass laws that violate the separation of church and state, such as those permitting discrimination under the guise of religious freedom. Researchers such as Dr. Matthew D. Taylor are working to expose the ties between modern charismatic prophets and the political, antidemocratic, and “spiritual warfare” approaches used to influence elections.

Defenders of the United States Constitution emphasize the importance of religious pluralism and the separation of church and state, arguing that Christian supremacy rejects these principles. Organized efforts underway to combat Christian supremacy include

  • A grassroots movement launched by the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty (BJC). It unites Christians across the theological spectrum to speak out against the merging of Christian and American identities.
  • Interfaith Alliance: A national, pro-democracy organization that mobilizes diverse faith communities to challenge Christian nationalism, protect civil rights, and uphold religious pluralism.
  • State Ecumenical Groups: Various regional faith networks, such as the Wisconsin Council of Churches, that host educational campaigns, study groups, and sermons to counter nationalist theology.
  • Americans United for Separation of Church and State: A leading organization dedicated to preserving the constitutional wall separating church and state. They actively litigate cases and advocate against policies that advance white Christian nationalism.
  • Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF): A prominent secular organization working to defend the constitutional principle of separation of church and state, frequently challenging religious favoritism in the public and political spheres.
  • Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC): Monitors far-right and extremist movements. The SPLC identifies and exposes the ideologies and groups—including Christian supremacist and Dominionist networks—that threaten democratic institutions.
  • Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI): While not an activist group, PRRI conducts rigorous data-driven research and polling on Christian nationalism. Their work tracks the demographics and organizations that resist these movements.

These efforts fight against the adoption of “biblical authoritarianism” and the idea that Christians are mandated to take over societal institutions.

[1] Little, Becky. “Who Invented Public School in America,” History, Sept 10, 2025. https://www.history.com/articles/public-school-america-horace-mann

[2] More than half of U.S. Republicans are either adherents (20%) or sympathizers (33%).

[3] a group of historically established, traditional Protestant denominations in North America, often associated with a theologically liberal, progressive, or moderate approach to Christianity

[4] Dominionism (or Dominion Theology) is the religious belief that Christians are divinely mandated to take control of secular political and cultural institutions to establish the Kingdom of God on Earth. It is smaller and more fringe than broad Christian nationalism, but it holds disproportionate sway in certain fundamentalist, charismatic, and Pentecostal factions. While closely related, Dominionism and Christian Nationalism differ in their ultimate goals, theological roots, and how they view the relationship between religion, government, and the end of the world. Apparently neither group is familiar with the writings attributed to John in 18:36 where Jesus clarifies the nature of his realm: “My kingdom is not of this world.”

[5] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/4/21/trump-administration-sues-southern-poverty-law-center-on-fraud-charges

This is the 4th chapter in the booklet New Puritans and the U. S. Peerage: The Willful Destruction of Public Education

Education Is A National Priority

Throughout our national history, conflict over education has erupted with tiring regularity. Soon after the Revolution, common schools were designed by Protestant elites to foster “Americanization,” but they used the King James Bible and Protestant curriculum. Irish Catholic immigrants in New York and Philadelphia resisted what they saw as forced indoctrination and demanded public funds for their own schools. These tensions led to riots in Philadelphia in 1844, where Catholic homes and churches were burned. This conflict cemented the shift towards non-sectarian public schools, although they often retained a general Protestant character.

Many citizens, particularly wealthier ones, were reluctant to pay taxes for other people’s children to be educated. Some workers resisted the invasiveness of compulsory education, as it kept children out of the workforce, forcing some towns to temporarily abandon or reduce public school efforts, such as in Beverly, Massachusetts, in 1860.[1] Child labor was highly widespread in the U.S. during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, with over 1.75 million children aged 15 and under (roughly 18% of the workforce) reported as working in 1910. Children as young as 3 or 4 were sometimes used for small, specialized tasks, while 5 to 8-year-olds were frequently employed in hazardous textile mills, mines, and factories. Child labor was finally curbed by the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.[2]

Before the Civil War, most Southern states passed laws making it illegal to teach enslaved people to read or write out of fear that they would read abolitionist literature, such as David Walker’s Appeal, and communicate, fueling organized uprisings like Nat Turner’s Rebellion of 1831. Also, literate enslaved people could read maps, forge travel passes, or write passes for themselves to escape to free states, a method used by many to escape bondage. Slaveholders believed an illiterate, ignorant enslaved person was easier to manage and obey, whereas literacy made them “disconsolate and unhappy” in their captivity. And literacy challenged the white supremacist justification that Black people were inherently inferior, unintelligent, or “less than human.”

Even in northern states, black children were largely denied access to public schools, often being forced into segregated, inferior schools, leading to early school desegregation battles, such as Roberts v. City of Boston in the 1840s. The “Slave Bible”—formally titled Select Parts of the Holy Bible for the use of the Negro Slaves—was used in the 19th-century United States, particularly in the South, though it was primarily produced in London in 1807 for British Caribbean colonies. It was a heavily redacted version of the Bible created to promote obedience and prevent slave revolts, with 90% of the Old Testament and 50% of the New Testament removed.

Following the Civil War, southern schoolhouses became battlegrounds to teach the “Lost Cause” narrative—a false interpretation of history that portrayed slavery in a positive light and argued the war was over states’ rights, not slavery. School officials strictly monitored textbooks to ensure they did not challenge Confederate interpretations of history. This led through coming decades to culminate in Brown v. Board of Education (1954) in which the Supreme Court ruled that separate schools were “inherently unequal.” Decades of “massive resistance” from Southern states ensued. In the 1970s, court-ordered busing forced integration in schools resulting in violent protests, most notably in Boston in 1974, and contributed to “white flight” to suburban schools. In response to integration orders, numerous private, segregated religious schools were established, particularly in the South, to circumvent desegregation.

Concurrently, the Scopes “Monkey” Trial in 1925 was a landmark confrontation between traditionalists (conservatives) and modernists (progressives), focusing on a Tennessee law prohibiting the teaching of evolution in public schools, effectively curbing the teaching of science for several decades.

School prayer remains a hot topic for both religionists as well as those defending the Constitution, with two lawsuits serving to define the subject. Engel v. Vitale (1962) and Abington School District v. Schempp (1963) declared that state-sponsored Bible reading and prayer in public schools were unconstitutional, fueling long-term debates over the secularization of public education. The fact is that public school children have always been able to pray when and wherever they pleased. What upsets religionists is that children in public schools cannot be led in prayer by adults—not teachers, not parents, not the principal. The desire to inculcate all children through prayer voicing religious doctrine drives this falsehood.

The later part of the century was marked by “curriculum wars” over the inclusion of diverse, non-European perspectives in history and literature curricula, which opponents claimed was a political attack on traditional national identity. Like the prayer argument, the textbook/curriculum battles continue unabated today, with most book content decided by heavily-conservative boards. [3]

“Given the high concentration of students in Texas and California, textbook makers know…they need to create books that are going to be approved by those large states.” said Dr. Max Altman, director of research and policy at the Southern Education Foundation. Altman said that requests for changes and outright rejections based on the inclusion of certain concepts are what make California, Florida and Texas so influential.

“This small group of people who approve textbooks within a couple of states have a very, very large effect on what students across the bottom of the United States and really across the country as a whole are able to learn,” he said.

[This 2022 article reports that] …[i]n April, the Florida Department of Education initially rejected 41% of all K-12 mathematics textbooks submitted for state adoption approval — the most in Florida’s history. The dismissal of the 54 textbooks — including 71% of K-5 math materials — stems from several claims: references to Critical Race Theory (CRT), inclusions of Common Core and “unsolicited” inclusions of Social Emotional Learning.

The public push to provide evidential examples of the above reasons for rejection made national headlines, as the state’s Department of Education did not initially release any specifics. Later, it published four visual examples from the rejected textbooks.

Experts suggest that overseeing public school curricula in a small number of highly populated states has an outsized influence on what children are learning throughout the country. Because publishers often create uniform national editions, major state adoption boards, particularly in Texas (conservative-leaning) and California (liberal-leaning), exert outsized influence on nationwide content. Texas, one of the largest purchasers of textbooks, often pushes to emphasize “positive aspects” of American history, de-emphasize the role of slavery, increase the influence of Christianity, and promote gun rights. Conservative, evangelical, or religious viewpoints have often driven content to prioritize patriotism and limit topics like climate science or critical race theory.

California often pushes for inclusive, multicultural narratives, ensuring that textbooks feature stories of LGBTQ+ individuals, marginalized groups, and a more critical view of historical events. Due to this, publishers often create different regional versions or compromise by including, for instance, both more critical and more patriotic interpretations of events, creating a “whitewashed” or highly contentious final product.

Textbook selection and other elements of public schools are the task of school boards, both local and state level. While curricula are determined by state boards of education, there are no educational standards required of state board members. Eligibility for state boards of education typically requires candidates to be residents of the state, registered voters, and often residents of the specific district they aim to represent.

Not requiring a college degree for state boards of education is part of a broader, bipartisan shift towards skills-based governance and a move away from formal credential requirements, which are increasingly seen as unnecessary barriers to entry. While education policymakers need expertise, proponents of this shift argue that a degree is not a guarantee of competence, effective leadership, or relevant experience.

On the other hand, without a deep background in subject matter and education policy, board members may rely on ideological rather than research-based solutions to solve problems like low student achievement, leading to increased political polarization in schools. Members may struggle to evaluate curriculum standards, assessment tools, and learning theories, potentially leading to decisions that do not align with evidence-based practices. More concerning is that without the experience of the wide array of college coursework, members may focus on short-term political issues or “quick fixes” rather than the long-term, systemic changes needed to improve student outcomes.

State boards typically adopt standards (e.g., in reading, math) that outline skills students must master, hopefully informed by state law, national benchmarks, and expert input. State-level entities create frameworks, which may act as official requirements or recommended guidelines for local curriculum. State laws often mandate specific topics (e.g., specific subjects, or in some cases, restricting approaches) that schools must adopt. The degree of control varies by state; some states have highly centralized, mandatory curriculum lists, while others allow local districts greater flexibility. Boards often adopt standards at public meetings, occasionally with guidance from curriculum committees and teacher panels.

Local level textbook adoption policy leaves decisions to a local education agency (i.e. school district). State level textbook adoption policy leaves decisions to a state agency (i.e. state board of education) California has a statewide adoption policy at the elementary level. Secondary textbooks are chosen by local governing boards. The state of Hawaii comprises a single school district.
Map: Emily Schmidt, APM Research Lab Source: Education Commission of the States

Curricula

There are no federally mandated national education standards in the United States, as education is primarily managed by states and local districts. However, the nation utilizes voluntary, state-led standards like the Common Core State Standards, adopted in June 2010 by most states to ensure consistent math and English learning goals. Not adopting the standards are Alaska, Nebraska, Texas, Virginia, and Oklahoma. The reasons for common standards for curricula include the obvious, that children of a family moving from one state to another meet the same basic education as at their previous location. Also obvious is the need for all Americans to share the same understanding of national history, the operations of government, and fundamentals of reading, writing, and mathematics, as well as science.

School boards and districts have been empowered to make curriculum decisions in order to prepare future citizens. State constitutions require the operation of systems of education, and we elect school boards to make important decisions for community schools, including those related to materials and instruction. In some cases, parents object to these decisions, arguing that their constitutional rights have been violated. For example, in the [2008] federal appeals case of Parker v. Hurley, parents objected to their children being presented with books depicting diverse families, including families with parents of the same gender. The district refused to grant the children an exemption from the instruction. The parents argued that the refusal of an exemption amounted to an infringement on their constitutional rights as parents and their free exercise of religion rights under the First Amendment. The court disagreed, citing a long line of cases establishing that while parents have a constitutional right to raise their children, there is no right to direct how a public school teaches those children. [4]   

The New Puritans at Work

The overarching religious education agenda is not a single project but rather a continuous political tug-of-war for the control of educational narratives. The division between these two fundamentals of education has led, in part, to today’s division in American society.

We can identify the ways that the Puritan ethic drives Christian Nationalism. The Puritans sought to build a “city on a hill” defined by severe piety, communal surveillance, and strict adherence to moral codes, rather than by religious freedom. Christian Nationalists interpret the “city on a hill” phrase, derived from John Winthrop’s 1630 sermon,[5] as a divine mandate that the United States is a uniquely ordained, Christian nation meant to act as a moral, religious beacon to the world. This vision, often championed by President Ronald Reagan, blends national identity with biblical prophecy, suggesting America holds a special, providential covenant to embody Christian principles enforced by the government.

Puritan men held public office, imposing religious law to govern social and legal life. Only adult male church members (“the elect”) could vote in elections and participate in town government. Laws were based on Old Testament teachings. Today, many within the Christian Nationalist movement believe that men are specifically ordained by God to lead in government, politics, and the public sphere. This ideology is rooted in a belief in “biblical patriarchy” or complementarianism, which argues that God established distinct roles for men and women, where men are designed to lead and protect while women are called to support and submit.

Puritan leaders were intolerant of dissenting religious views, which were seen as dangerous to the community’s mission. Christian Nationalists generally believe that America was founded as a Christian nation and that its laws and public life should reflect Christian, specifically Protestant, values. Other religions are viewed as subordinate, threats to national identity, or demonic, with many proponents supporting the restriction of non-Christian practices.

Puritan households were strictly hierarchical, with the father as the head. Women were viewed as “helpmeets” for their husbands with fewer rights, though they held significant responsibility in managing the home, raising children, and tending the gardens. Likewise, many proponents of Christian Nationalism believe that women should prioritize staying at home, focusing on raising children and submitting to their husbands’ leadership.

During the early Puritan period, the “Old Deluder Law” required every town of fifty or more families to pay for a teacher, and they founded Harvard College in 1636 for training ministers. They believed in the active presence of the devil and witches, leading to the Salem witch trials in 1692, which occurred when religious political control was waning. Christian Nationalists view public education as a vital, yet currently hostile, battlefield for the nation’s cultural and spiritual direction. They generally aim to dismantle the traditional secular public school system by promoting school choice vouchers to fund private religious education, instilling conservative Christian values, banning certain books, and reversing LGBTQ+ inclusion.

The Trump administration (2017-2021 and 2025-2028) has adopted key elements of the Christian Nationalist agenda by prioritizing policies that blur the line between church and state, fostering religious exemptions for conservative Christians, and appointing individuals aligned with this ideology to high-ranking positions. Trump has appointed conservative Christian judges, including three Supreme Court justices (Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett), who have delivered rulings expanding religious exemptions. They joined John Roberts and Samuel Alito, both appointed by evangelical adherent George W. Bush; Clarence Thomas, the sixth conservative on the nine-member court, was appointed by Bush’s father, George H. W. Bush.

At the prompting of his Christian Nationalist backers, Trump initiatives aim to review federal actions for “anti-Christian” sentiment and protect “religious freedom,” defined by Christian nationalists not as the separation of church and state, but as the right to embed a specific, conservative Christian worldview into government, law, and public life including the use of taxpayer dollars in support of religious education and eliminating government support for advancing educational effectiveness.

Based on 2026 budget proposals and actions, we see that the Trump administration has sought to cut or eliminate over $8.5 billion in K-12 education programs and $2.7 billion in higher education, while targeting programs like TRIO (outreach and student services initiatives funded by the U.S. Department of Education to help low-income, first-generation college students, and individuals with disabilities succeed in education, ranging from middle school through adult education), GEAR UP (a federal discretionary grant program designed to increase the number of low-income, underserved, or first-generation students who are prepared to enter and succeed in postsecondary education), and Federal Work-Study for elimination or massive reductions. (Initiated in 1964, the program provides part-time jobs for undergraduate and graduate students with financial need, allowing them to earn money for education expenses.)

The Trump administration’s cuts to K-12 education focus on slashing, consolidating, or eliminating programs like after-school, summer, and mental health grants. More than 760 in-progress grants, worth over $2 billion, were discontinued in 2025, including cuts to college prep ($300m+), civics ($35m), and racial integration ($26m). Other cuts target teacher training ($2.2 billion) and English learner services ($890 million). The administration also proposed the “Make Education Great Again” block grant, which would overhaul K-12 education by consolidating federal funding, cut federal oversight, and shift control to states. It prioritizes school choice, patriotic education, and literacy/math, while reducing the Department of Education’s role. This would cut existing program funding by 70%.

Trump’s cuts aren’t the first to take the U.S. educational efforts backwards despite extensive research showing the benefits of programs now being eliminated. This has been an ongoing effort by Christian Nationalists over the last fifty years. During the 1980s, Ronald Reagan campaigned on abolishing the Department of Education, with his 1981 budget reducing spending and consolidating grants.

This despite findings on the effectiveness of public education funding showing that increased spending per pupil yields significant social returns, especially in high-poverty districts. State cutbacks to K–12 spending, the rise of voucher programs, and Trump’s attacks on the federal Department of Education threaten to rob the majority of U.S. children of an adequate education.[6] The vast majority of our youth (90%) are in our public school system. Approximately 49-50 million K-12 students attend public schools in the U.S., while roughly 4.7 to 5.5 million (9%-11%) students are enrolled in private schools, based on 2021-2022 data.

Despite Trump’s claim that such cuts are necessary to reduce the outrageous federal deficit, the numbers prove him wrong. The U.S. national debt increased by approximately $1.78 trillion to $2.25 trillion since January 2025, pushing the total gross national debt past $38 trillion. The debt stood at roughly $36.22 trillion around Jan. 20, 2025, and reached $38 trillion by late October 2025. By March/April 2026, total debt crossed $39 trillion.

As for national security and a sound economy, inadequate education is a root cause of significant social issues, primarily driving cycles of poverty, high unemployment rates, and increased crime. It limits economic mobility, reduces workforce productivity, and fosters gender inequality, while also contributing to poor health outcomes, political instability, and social unrest.

Finally, in studies comparing the racial and ethnic composition of charter schools to public schools, researchers generally find that charter schools preserve or intensify racial and economic segregation, and/or facilitate white flight from public schools. Furthermore, studies that compare individual students’ demographic characteristics to the schools they are leaving (public schools) and the schools they are switching to (charter schools) generally demonstrate that students “leave more diverse public schools and enroll in less diverse charter schools.”[7]

Hardly the path toward a unified nation.

[1] Vinovskis, Maris A. “The Politics of Educational Reform in Nineteenth-Century Massachusetts: The Controversy Over the Beverly High School in 1860. Final Report,” Institute of Education Sciences, Aug 15, 1980. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED200495

[2] Indiana, Iowa, West Virginia, Idaho, and Arkansas have passed legislation loosening these protections, with Arkansas eliminating work permits and age verification requirements for children under sixteen.

[3] Schmidt, Emily. “Required Readings: How Textbook Adoption in 3 States Influences The Nation’s K-12  Population,” APM Research Lab,  June 2, 2022. https://www.apmresearchlab.org/10x-textbook-adoption

[4] Paige, Mark. “Constitution vs. Curriculum,” Resource Hub, National Association of Elementary School Principals, Mar 14, 2022.  https://www.naesp.org/resource/constitution-vs-curriculum/

[5] See https://www.americanyawp.com/reader/colliding-cultures/john-winthrop-dreams-of-a-city-on-a-hill-1630/

[6] Wething, Hilary, Bivens, Josh. U.S. Investment in Public Education Is At Risk,” Economic Policy Institute, Aug 21, 2025.  https://www.epi.org/publication/u-s-investment-in-public-education-is-at-risk-vouchers-state-budget-austerity-and-federal-attacks-on-the-department-of-education-threaten-childrens-futures

[7] “School segregation in the United States,” Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_segregation_in_the_United_States

This material is Chapter 2 of New Puritans and the U.S. Peerage: The Willful Destruction of Public Education

History of Church as State

Why devote tax dollars to teach children to read? Why do they need to understand how numbers work? What do we benefit from learning about our history, the past 250 years of this nation, the past millennia of human existence? Why not let churches provide education?

Why? Because a review of the past warns us of where religious government can lead. Colonists sailing to these shores in the early 1600s taught reading to support religion, a purpose that continued through the mid-19th century. Warring among themselves over which doctrine would be in control, Protestant-Catholic conflicts were driven by intense religious prejudice, political fears of loyalty to the Pope, and imperial wars against France and Spain. While Maryland was founded as a Catholic refuge, Protestants often took control, passing anti-Catholic laws. Maryland’s 1649 Toleration Act, providing freedom, was twice overturned by Puritans. In 1654, Puritan forces overthrew the proprietary government, outlawing Catholicism. Later, in 1689, “Protestant Associators” led by John Coode defeated Maryland’s Catholic proprietarial government, leading to the prohibition of public Catholic worship and the loss of their political rights.

Needless to say, religious violence didn’t start with American colonists. As far back as you care to examine European history, you find religious wars. The Crusades (11th–13th centuries) were launched by Western European Christians, sanctioned by the Pope, primarily to reclaim the Holy Land (Jerusalem) from Muslim rule, assist the Byzantine Empire against the Seljuk Turks, and reunite Christendom. Total deaths are estimated between two to six million. While exact breakdowns are impossible due to limited records, contemporary estimates suggest hundreds of thousands of Muslims died, while Christian losses included roughly one to two million Europeans.

Perhaps most horrific of these bloody religious wars were the years of the so-called Spanish Inquisition (1478–1834) which used systematic, often bureaucratic, methods to enforce Catholic orthodoxy including secret interrogations, psychological coercion, property confiscation, and calculated torture to extract confessions. Common torture methods included waterboarding, the rack, and pulley-based limb dislocating to force confessions which led to public auto-da-fé ceremonies and executions. Roughly 150,000 people, with an estimated 3,000–5,000 burned alive, were caught up in this religious insanity. As a global power, Spain engaged in religious wars against Protestantism, including conflicts with England, culminating in the 1588 Spanish Armada.

These actions were driven by Spain’s determination to create a uniformly Catholic society.  Sound familiar?

Other similar conflicts included:

  • The Wars of the Three Kingdoms (1639–1653): A series of armed conflicts, including the Bishops’ Wars, the English Civil War (1642–1651), and the Irish Confederate Wars. This involved Anglicans (Royalists/Cavaliers) fighting Puritans (Parliamentarians/Roundheads), who were often allied with Scottish Presbyterians, against a backdrop of Catholic uprising in Ireland.
  • The English Civil War: A fundamental conflict between Anglicans (supporters of King Charles I) and Puritans (supporters of Parliament), leading to over 100,000 battle deaths and thousands more non-combat deaths.
  • Cromwellian Conquest of Ireland (1649–1653): Part of the wider civil war, aimed primarily at Catholic forces.
  • The Glorious Revolution (1688–1689) and Williamite War: A shift in power from Catholic King James II to Protestant forces (Anglicans and others), featuring battles between Anglicans and Catholics, particularly in Ireland.
  • Persecution of Quakers: Quakers were not an army but faced severe persecution from Puritans in New England (1656–1661) and both Anglicans and Puritans in England.

Other European religious wars included the Thirty Years’ War (1618–1648) resulting in 4.5 to 8 million deaths, while the French Wars of Religion (1562–1598) caused 2 to 4 million deaths.

The period after “discovery” of the New World featured the slaughter of millions of indigenous people. Upon arriving on these lands, still thriving with wildlife and virgin forests despite 40,000+ years of indigenous settlement, Europeans viewed these peoples as inferior and un-Christian, a view which justified brutal violence. Estimates suggest that roughly 55 to 56 million native people died in the Americas due to European colonization between 1492 and the early 1600s. This mass mortality, known as the “Great Dying,” represented about 90% of the indigenous population and was primarily caused by introduced diseases, alongside warfare, forced labor (slavery), and societal collapse.

Based on a 1493 papal decree, Christian explorers believed they had the right to claim land belonging to non-Christians, often viewing themselves as bringing civilization and God to “pagan populations.”

One wonders, what would Jesus do?

Religious conflicts in colonial America were widespread, characterized by Puritan persecution of Quakers and Baptists in New England, anti-Catholic laws in Maryland, and violence against dissenting evangelicals by Anglican authorities in the South. Conflicts also occurred between “Old Light” traditionalists and “New Light” revivalists during the Great Awakening. Puritans in Massachusetts Bay exiled dissenters like Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson, and hanged four Quakers between 1659 and 1661.

Intermingled among these loving brothers and sisters in Christ were the witch hunts driven by Puritan beliefs and fear of the devil, culminating in the 1692–1693 Salem witch trials, which saw 19 people hanged, one pressed to death,[1] and over 200 accused. While Salem is most famous, over 100 cases occurred across New England and Virginia between 1626 and 1730, including a significant 1662 panic in Hartford, Connecticut.

You’ll notice that in all that violent turmoil, it was the Puritans who were the most intolerant, the most determined to force everyone to their chosen faith. The Puritans believed they had a divine mandate to establish a “Holy Commonwealth” that would influence all areas of life, including public morality, law, and social behavior. This strongly parallels the Catholic crown’s effort to create a uniformly Catholic society across Europe.

Nothing could be closer to this four-hundred year old depraved mindset than the present-day reality of the Christian Nationalists’ ongoing determination to force their beliefs on everyone else, that “God has called Christians to exercise dominion over all areas of American society.” They seek secure political power, social dominance, and the implementation of policies based on their religious worldview.

Small wonder that by 1776, the Founding Fathers emphasized the importance of separating the powers of the church and the function of government in writing the new nation’s fundamental governing document and its First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

In the same line of thinking, founders like Thomas Jefferson and later reformers argued that a republic could not survive on ignorance. They viewed tax-supported public education as an insurance premium paid for by the wealthy to ensure political stability, create good citizens, and prevent social unrest. Nativism, driven by fears that newcomers would steal jobs, lower wages, threaten national identity, bring crime, and fail to assimilate particularly targeted Catholicism in the 19th century and non-northern European immigrants later. As immigration increased, particularly in the mid-19th century, public schools were viewed as a mechanism for assimilating children from diverse cultural and religious backgrounds into a shared “American” culture.

Education’s role today is all that and more, critical to our role as citizens of a nation meant to be governed by the people. We are tasked with self-governance as well as developing our moral character, intellectual growth, science-based literacy, and academic proficiency. Few would argue that most modern employment would be possible without these skills.

The chaos permeating United States society today is a primary outcome of our compromised educational system. It’s only going to get worse as budget cuts further undermine school operations and digital media becomes more permeated by artificial intelligence. But the greatest threat is the insidious creep of religious indoctrination, a largely unrecognized form of subversion which demands tax dollars in support of religious teachings in specific opposition to the Founding Fathers’ intent.

These efforts have simmered through our nation’s history, but only in the last fifty years have they made strides in overthrowing our constitutional foundations. We truly face a crisis.

[1] “Pressing” was a method where victims were laid down with heavy weights placed on their bodies, causing breathing to become impossible as ribs fractured, lungs collapsed, and internal organs failed over several hours or days. This happened to Giles Corey, an 81-year-old farmer.

New Puritans and the U.S. Peerage: The Willful Destruction of Public Education

Like the slow spread of a fatal disease, certain interest groups within the United States have been working to undermine the nation’s education system. Their goal, as so clearly outlined in the 900 pages of Project 2025, is to change our democratic republic into plutocratic theocracy. Ruling from the top, the wealthiest citizens (U.S. Peerage) will enjoy virtually no restrictions on their profits or the damage caused by their industries, while ruling from the bottom, the Christian Nationalists and other religious extremists (New Puritans) will ensure the population lives by Christian rules.

This is not a theory. This is the fact of the current situation as recent Supreme Court decisions have opened the door for unregulated homeschooling and religious private schools to receive our tax dollars in support of their operations. This is in direct opposition to the Constitution’s First Amendment, which specifically prohibits any government support for any religion.

This workaround has been steadily advancing since colonial days but has increased significantly since the 1940s when the “Red Scare” brought a fresh level of religious fanaticism to the public arena. The result? Today, billions of our tax dollars flow into religious school coffers while public schools suffer for inadequate funding even though 90% of K-12 students attend public schools. Perhaps more damaging than the financial costs are the lessons learned under religious instruction: that the Earth is only 6,000 years old; that vaccinations are harmful; that men are superior to women. These are the seeds of a modern nation’s destruction.

Grab your copy, only $6. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0H3NW358F

New Puritans

Like the slow spread of a fatal disease, certain interest groups within the United States have been working to undermine the nation’s education system. Their goal, as so clearly outlined in the 900 pages of Project 2025, is to change our democratic republic into plutocratic theocracy. Ruling from the top, the wealthiest citizens (U.S. Peerage) will enjoy virtually no restrictions on their profits or the damage caused by their industries, while ruling from the bottom, the Christian Nationalists and other religious extremists (New Puritans) will ensure the population lives by Christian rules.

This is not a theory. This is the fact of the current situation as recent Supreme Court decisions have opened the door for unregulated homeschooling and students at religious private schools to receive our tax dollars in support of their operations. This is in direct opposition to the Constitution’s First Amendment, which specifically prohibits any government support for any religion.

This workaround has been steadily advancing since colonial days but has increased significantly since the 1940s when the “Red Scare” brought a fresh level of religious fanaticism to the public arena. The result? Today, billions of our tax dollars flow into religious school instruction while public schools suffer from inadequate funding even though 90% of K-12 students attend public schools. Perhaps more damaging than the financial costs are the lessons learned under religious instruction: that the Earth is only 6,000 years old; that vaccinations are harmful; that men are superior to women. These are the seeds of a modern nation’s destruction.

91 page booklet $6 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0H3NW358F

Table of Contents

Preface

History of Church as State

Education Is A National Priority

The Education Problem: Bigger than the New Puritans

Why the Puritan Agenda Must Not Prevail

Unregulated Private and Home Schooling

The Arkansas Situation

Christian Nationalism’s Goal: Overturn the Constitutional Separation of Church and State 

In Conclusion

Afterword

MAGA

“Confederate dead Miller Farm, Antietam Battlefield, September 19, 1862,” House Divided: The Civil War Research Engine at Dickinson College, https://hd.housedivided.dickinson.edu/index.php/node/32956.

What will happen to them, these lovers of Trump, the men and women who act as if he is the next risen Christ, or at least the best man possible to lead the United States of America? Who even now cling to their fantasy in the face of his utter perfidy—starting a war, abandoning the American economy, exposed as a defiler of children. What will happen when the inexorable turn of the wheels of justice—or perhaps death—finally finally grind him into the ground? Will they weep? Yes. Will their anger grow exponentially to the point of ignition? Yes.

When the inevitable happens—and yes, I believe in the Constitution and our system of laws which have steered this nation through war and despair for over 200 years—when Trump is finally held accountable for all his lies and frauds and empty promises that continue to spill from his deteriorating mind, mouthed in nonsensical phrases and welcomed with open arms into the aisles of churches and homes of the True Believers, I believe that the witnesses and the attorneys and the juries and judges will do their duty, that he will be convicted of his crimes against the people and the nation, that he will at some point have to face the truth about himself.

Nothing could be more terrifying for a man like Trump than to face the truth, that his life was wasted in harming his fellow man, that he was a liar, thief, an adulterer and a rapist, that he could produce nothing of value in this world. That he had every advantage and he squandered that gift in his ignorance, in his greed and desperation for his life to have some meaning but never did.

What will these people do who hold him up before themselves and now will find him cast down into the depths of human failure, deceit, corruption? When the proof of his amoral guilt opens their eyes with blinding light, will they refuse to believe the truth? Will they take up arms and storm the courthouses and prison, or stand in line to honor his corpse, cry out demanding a new day still grasping for that promise, that fable of his greatness?

They believed. They tied their lifeboats to his ship, that great phantasm of belief that he was the strong man, the savior of our times, that their lives could be made meaningful and fruitful under his leadership, that their hatreds and prejudices would be vindicated. As the seas toss and roll, tossing his ship into wreckage, will their lives also capsize, splinter into driftwood to drift back to the littered beaches over the coming months and years?

Somewhere deep inside, most of the True Believers sense the truth, that Trump is a fool, an emperor without clothes. They know in that secret room of themselves that they have followed a lie. But for many of them, the truth is too painful, too terrifying, and their solution is to justify war, believe they will emerge triumphant in a new white Christian America led by God Almighty with Trump seated on His right hand.

These are the fantasies of those who have never understood their purpose in life. They mouth the words of the Bible without comprehending their personal duty to act on those words. They labor under the belief that their primary duty is to follow a person like Trump because he says what they want to hear, that they are the chosen ones. In their glorious imaginings of redeeming the nation, the radical right imagines the fight as taking down the figureheads of ‘liberal’ democracy without realizing the liberal agenda aligns with the teachings of Christ.

Will justice for Trump open the door to insight, even epiphany, for his True Believers? Will they be able to accept the truth of his malfeasance or the rectitude of the courts’ judgements? Some will. Some already have. But many will not, reliant on media that supports their viewpoint, reinforcing their perception of Trump. Many of them align with his fight against “the system” over specific policy successes or moral scrutinies and focus on the broader, long-term impact they expect from his policies. We probably should feel compassion for their loss of a dream, of a self-made parody of a god who misled them, made promises he couldn’t keep, presented himself in a fictional persona simply to aggrandize himself no matter the price to be paid.

The private, personal cost will be great for those True Believers unable to let go of the fantasy, that they alone stood by a true hero. They will not be treated kindly by history.

The greater cost to the rest of us, and to our nation, is incalculable.

O’Sullivan, Timothy H., and approximately 1823-1896 Mathew B. Brady. “Union dead at Gettysburg.” Photograph. [1863]. Digital Commonwealth, https://ark.digitalcommonwealth.org/ark:/50959/q524n605q (accessed April 05, 2026).

I am an American

The United States is supposed to be an effort toward a more evolved culture. No kings. No one above the law. That’s the ideal—freedom of speech, of the press, of religion, a country for all of us to be equal. Thousands have fought and died for this.

How did this vision get perverted into a front for rapacious capitalism? Or was it that way all along?

Time and again we have confronted waves of greed and division, but we have pulled ourselves up from those depths.

It is painful to see the bad guys win, to slide in with their buddies and cover stories to start raping and plundering through every government department and every principle, abandon all integrity and honor and holding no one responsible.

Will this disgrace on our nation’s promise bring about a renewal of all we stand for? Will common sense and the common good rise up in November to put the Trump regime to an end?

That is the hill I will die on. 

Trump’s Drug War

The absurdity is overwhelming. Here we are as Americans, all party to the White House’s illegal murder of over eighty (so far) men in boats on the premise they are bringing drugs to the United States. As well remarked elsewhere, there is no evidence these boats are carrying drugs and no credibility in the idea these small vessels with a fuel range of 100-200 miles are embarking on a thousand mile journey to the U.S.

But even more insane is the idea that a nation under any government can stamp out drug use/abuse by ‘interdicting’ drugs enroute to this country. We can’t even stamp out drugs manufactured in within the borders of this country. Anyone who believes such nonsense needs to have these words tattooed onto their forehead: Supply-Demand. If people want a product, no matter how potentially dangerous, there will ALWAYS be a supplier. Basic economic fact. Reducing supply only results in higher prices for said product, i.e. better profits, more incentive to supply.

So let’s get real about illegal drugs. First, “drug users” include people who depend on caffeine in their morning coffee, iced tea at lunch or other caffeinated beverages, persons who ‘must have’ their cigarettes or other tobacco products, and persons prescribed any of a multitude of pharmaceuticals which address any of a multitude of human conditions from depression to headache to cancer. Secondly, there is an enormous difference between the use of and the abuse of any drug. Prohibitionists prefer to consider all illegal drug use as ‘abuse’ in order to justify draconian laws punishing users. We must keep in mind the blurred line dividing legal and illegal drugs is primarily based on their regulatory status and whether their production, sale, and use are permitted by law. Theoretically, this status is determined by government authorities based on factors like medical utility, potential for abuse, and perceived harm to the individual and society. In other words, there is no truly ‘illegal’ drug.

This theory supporting the prohibition of certain drugs has been shown to be a fabrication serving other less savory objectives. The drug war is a tool used by government to carry out activities which are illegal. For example, one might wonder about the president’s single-minded assault on alleged drug smugglers from Venezuela when coca leaf is grown in three other Latin American countries: Peru, Bolivia and Colombia. Surely the fact that Venezuela possesses the world’s largest oil reserves has nothing to do with it. Surely.

Never mind the fact that cocaine is hardly relevant in drug abuse circles since fentanyl hit the streets. In 2023, there were approximately 72,776 overdose deaths involving fentanyl (synthetic opioids other than methadone) compared to about 29,449 deaths involving cocaine.

Postcard showing an underground opium den in San Francisco, pre-1906 earthquake. By 1896, there were around 300 opium dens in San Francisco, mostly in Chinatown. In the 19th century and the early 20th century, opium smoking was common worldwide, especially in Asia, which was one of the sources of the opium poppy.

In order to better understand this absurdity, let’s go back more than a century to the country’s first ‘drug war’. The San Francisco Opium Den Ordinance of 1875 made it a misdemeanor to maintain or visit places where people smoked opium. These places were mainly in Chinese immigrant neighborhoods. Similar racially inflammatory state laws emerged. Soon after came the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which barred Chinese laborers from entering the U.S., a ban expanded to all Chinese people in 1902 and not fully repealed until 1943. The first federal drug law, the 1909 Smoking Opium Exclusion Act, prohibited importing and using opium. It wasn’t that the government suddenly became concerned about opium use. In a nutshell, it was that the railroads powering the economic growth of that period were now built, and thousands of Chinese who had been welcomed to this country to do the backbreaking work of carving tunnels out of rock and laying steel track were no longer of use. Even worse, these immigrants, the primary users of opium, were inviting relatives to immigrate and their jobs were seen as threats to white workers.[1]

Then there was alcohol. After nearly a century of growing religious fervor stemming from massive evangelical movements, especially the “Second Great Awakening,” characterized by fiery camp meetings, frontier revivalism, and emotionally charged preaching, a rising cry against alcohol resulted in ‘prohibition,’ enacted on a federal basis in 1920 but in individual states as early as the 1880s.

Carrie Nation became famous for her attacks on alcohol-serving establishments, using rocks, bricks, and her signature hatchet to destroy liquor bottles, mirrors, and bar fixtures. Before resorting to violence, she would kneel outside saloons, sing hymns, and deliver strong sermons to patrons and owners, sometimes calling herself the “Destroyer of Men’s Souls”.

“A wide coalition of mostly Protestants, prohibitionists first attempted to end the trade in alcoholic drinks during the 19th century. They aimed to heal what they saw as an ill society beset by alcohol-related problems such as alcoholism, domestic violence, and saloon-based political corruption.”[2]

Alcohol prohibition led to massive increases in organized crime (bootlegging, speakeasies), rampant corruption of officials, dangerous unregulated alcohol leading to sickness/death, huge losses in government tax revenue, and a general disrespect for the law, with little measurable public health benefit, ultimately proving a costly failure. Ultimately, prohibition led to the development of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), significantly expanding the role and authority of the FBI’s predecessor, the Bureau of Investigation (BOI), making it central to federal law enforcement by creating massive new criminal enterprises (bootlegging) that required federal intervention, strained resources, spurred corruption, and ultimately led to bigger federal crime-fighting roles and the rise of modern organized crime, impacting federal investigations for decades.

This powerful new agency could have drifted into irrelevance when alcohol was once again legal in 1932, but instead there is evidence that the federal official who spearheaded cannabis prohibition saw it as a way to maintain his department’s relevance and budget. Harry Anslinger, the head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN), needed a new focus for his agency after alcohol prohibition was repealed. He launched a public campaign against cannabis (often using the “marihuana” spelling to associate it with Mexican immigrants), portraying it as a dangerous substance to justify his department’s continued existence. Anslinger’s rhetoric carried strong undercurrents of racial prejudice and xenophobia, targeting Mexican immigrants and Black jazz musicians.

Then as the ‘60s ended with massive marches in support of equal rights for minorities and women, against the Vietnam war, and in support of gay rights, President Richard Nixon officially launched the “War on Drugs” in the early 1970s, declaring drug abuse a public enemy and enacting significant federal legislation like the Controlled Substances Act to combat drug production, distribution, and use, though policies intensified under subsequent administrations. 

One of Richard Nixon’s top advisers and a key figure in the Watergate scandal said the war on drugs was created as a political tool to fight blacks and hippies, according to a 22-year-old interview recently published in Harper’s Magazine.

“The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people,” former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman told Harper’s writer Dan Baum for the April cover story published Tuesday.

“You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities,” Ehrlichman said. “We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”[3]

A 2017 study showed that police forces which received military equipment were more likely to have violent encounters with the public, regardless of local crime rates. A 2018 study found that militarized police units in the United States were more frequently deployed to communities with large shares of African-Americans, even after controlling for local crime rates. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militarization_of_police#cite_ref-17

In the next administration, First Lady Nancy Reagan famously addressed the drug “problem” with her “Just Say No.” advice, unwittingly illustrating the parental role now assumed by government over the private, consensual behavior of drug users. Reagan’s successor, George H.W. Bush, took it a step further. He promoted the 1033 Program (Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) Disposition Services) in the early 1990s to transfer surplus military gear to local law enforcement for the “War on Drugs.” Nowhere in this rush to judgement did anyone point out that M16/AR-15 rifles, grenade launchers, armored vehicles (APCs, MRAPs), night vision, tactical robots, and “less-lethal” gear (beanbag/pepperball guns, flashbangs) have absolutely no effect on drugs. These weapons and the “war” in which they are being used are against PEOPLE—American citizens, most of whom simply preferered to toke a joint after work rather than drink an alcoholic beverage.

This despite the fact that in the 1970s and ‘80s, marijuana was by far the most widely used of illegal drugs, was found in multiple studies not to be addictive and also found not to be a ‘gateway’ to harder drugs, as so often alleged in government reports. Even today, with drugs like cocaine and even fentanyl in the headlines, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) World Drug Report 2024, the estimated number of people who used various drugs at least once in the prior twelve months was: Cannabis (Marijuana): 228 million users; Opioids: 60 million users; Amphetamines: 30 million users; Cocaine: 23 million users; Ecstasy: 20 million users.

All the while, the drug war of those decades provided cover for illegal U.S. government operations in Central and South America as those nations began to resist colonization by American corporations seeking to exploit natural resources like oil, minerals, and agricultural opportunities. Fertile land and cheap labor could produce crops such as coffee, bananas, and other foods requiring year-round growing seasons.

According to Tim Weiner, the Central Intelligence Agency “has been accused of forming alliances of convenience with drug traffickers around the world in the name of anti-Communism” since its creation in 1947.[4] The CIA has a long, controversial history in South America, primarily during the Cold War, involving covert operations like coups, political destabilization, and support for right-wing regimes (e.g., Operation Condor) to counter perceived communist influence, leading to significant human rights abuses and democratic declines, with operations continuing into recent times, such as those in Venezuela. Key actions included overthrowing governments (Chile, Ecuador, Brazil), supporting anti-communist forces (Contras in Nicaragua, a major scandal where in U.S. operatives sold guns to Iran between 1981 and 1986, facilitated by senior officials of the Ronald Reagan administration. The administration hoped to use the proceeds of the arms sale to fund the Contras, an anti-Sandinista rebel group in Nicaragua.), and involvement in conflicts like the Salvadoran Civil War, with consequences like suppressed democracy and economic impacts.

This kind of interference in the affairs of other nations more or less permeates American history. In the early 20th century, during the “Banana Republic” era of Latin American history, the U.S. launched several interventions and invasions in the region (known as the Banana Wars) in order to promote American business interests. During the Cold War (1950s-1980s), the CIA carried out coordinated campaigns to install South American dictatorships (Argentina, Chile, Brazil, etc.) to track, kidnap, torture, and kill left-wing dissidents, with CIA support and intelligence sharing. In Guatemala (1954), the CIA overthrew the democratically elected President Jacobo Árbenz, linking to U.S. corporate interests, using exile forces and propaganda. In Chile (1970s), CIA efforts undermined President Salvador Allende, paving the way for a military coup. Same idea for Brazil (1964): Supported a coup against President João Goulart, leading to a military dictatorship. Nicaragua (1980s): Funded and trained the right-wing Contra rebels fighting the socialist Sandinista government, with alleged links to cocaine trafficking. El Salvador (1980s): Trained and equipped military units involved in massacres during the civil war.

CIA interventions often resulted in the collapse of democratic institutions, reduced civil liberties, and economic hardship, despite justifications of promoting democracy or fighting communism, according to research. The support ‘troops’ for these political objectives has become de facto occupation of these nations with armed agents of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, with 87 foreign offices in 67 countries. For example, in the so-called “Southern Cone,” (Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay), are considered to be transit zones for the movement of cocaine base, cocaine HCL, and heroin being shipped from Colombia and Peru to markets in the U.S. and Europe, or producers of coca leaves. The end result of these often violent interventions in the affairs of our neighbors is the current and ongoing flood of desperate people arriving at our borders.

Not only are drug laws used outside our nation’s borders as cover for extra-judicial interference in international relations, they also serve domestically to selectively target specific individuals and politically inconvenient groups or based on racism or other prejudices, most recently undocumented immigrants. This is a useful tool for xenophobes determined to turn the United States into a white patriarchal “Christian” nation. The current administration manipulates this demographic by playing up the drug war.

Public support for prohibition policies relies on judgments of morality, that becoming intoxicated is immoral, an echo of the early 1800s temperance movement which reached its zenith with alcohol prohibition, the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This same moral judgment about private consensual activity remains a strong current in the United States where prostitution, gambling, and drug use (other than legal drugs) fall under strong government control. While government cannot (yet) spy on the living rooms and bedrooms of its citizens, government agents find such laws useful in targeting specific types of people, as previously illustrated.

“Today, police make more than 1.5 million drug arrests each year, and about 550,000 of those are for cannabis offenses alone. Almost 500,000 people are incarcerated for nothing more than a drug law violation, and Black and brown people are disproportionately impacted by drug enforcement and sentencing practices. Rates of drug use and sales are similar across racial and ethnic lines, but Black and Latinx people are far more likely than white people to be stopped, searched, arrested, convicted, harshly sentenced, and saddled with a lifelong criminal record.

“The wide-ranging consequences of a drug law violation aren’t limited to senseless incarceration: people with low incomes are denied food stamps and public assistance for past drug convictions; states including Texas and Florida suspend driver’s licenses for drug offenses totally unrelated to driving; and numerous other policies deny child custody, voting rights, employment, loans, and financial aid to people with criminal records.”[5]

Despite apparent national political resolve to deal with the drug problem, inherent contradictions regularly appear between U.S. anti-drug policy and other national policy goals and concerns. Pursuit of drug control policies can sometimes affect foreign policy interests and bring political instability and economic dislocation to countries where narcotics production has become entrenched economically and socially. Drug supply interdiction programs and U.S. systems to facilitate the international movement of goods, people, and wealth are often at odds.[6]

  • “We are still in the midst of the most devastating drug epidemic in U.S. history,” according to Vanda Felbab-Brown, senior fellow at the Center for Security, Strategy, and Technology at Brookings Institution. In 2020, overdose deaths in the United States exceeded 90,000, compared with 70,630 in 2019, according to research from the Commonwealth Fund. Yet, the federal government is spending more money than ever to enforce drug policies. In 1981, the federal budget for drug abuse prevention and control was just over a billion dollars. By 2020, that number had grown to $34.6 billion. When adjusted for inflation, CNBC found that it translates to a 1,090% increase in just 39 years.[7]

What if that money had instead been applied to individuals and programs that support individual ambitions and needs—tiny homes for the homeless, for example? What if the costs of our interference in foreign nations had instead been directed toward helping the people of those nations deal with loss of farmland to multinational corporations, climate-change induced drought and hurricane damage, and support for social programs, education, and entrepreneurship, thereby reducing the urgency of people in those countries to flood to U.S. borders in hope of better lives?

Without hot button issues like women’s reproductory rights and drugs, politicians would have to gain votes based on performance rather than propaganda. Stepping away from “government as nannies” and the idea of controlling private behavior would allow taxpayer dollars to support programs that help deter substance abuse in the same way that public education has helped reduce the use of cigarettes. No one knows better than addicts that they, individually, are the only ones who can control their addiction. Ultimately, as free people, we must claim the fundamental right to kill ourselves if we wish it. Most importantly, awareness of draconian drug policies as a cover for illegal objectives both in and outside our nation’s borders would forever eliminate travesties such as the murdering of likely-innocent people in boats leaving Venezuela.

And, in the case of the current administration, understanding the real agenda of the drug war could rightfully turn the public attention fully to the president’s dirty Epstein laundry.

[1] https://muse.jhu.edu/article/240064

[2] Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States

[3] https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_drug_trafficking_allegations

[5] https://www.vera.org/news/fifty-years-ago-today-president-nixon-declared-the-war-on-drugs

[6] https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL33582.html

[7] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/17/the-us-has-spent-over-a-trillion-dollars-fighting-war-on-drugs.html

The Mysterious Criminality of John Work

5 Star Review: 5.0 out of 5 stars Violence, Courage, and Resilience:

This meticulously researched work will be particularly interesting to those with Cherokee ancestry. The book creates a personal narrative that allows the reader a first-hand look at the challenges, both personal and political, found in this era. The focus on John Work provides compelling insights into the times. You won’t be disappointed.

~~~

Fayetteville Weekly Democrat, January 11, 1889

“John Work came to the West with John Ross and his party of Cherokee in 1838. He was then in appearance 25 or 30 years old, about six feet in height, weighing 180 or 190 pounds, dark complexion, black hair worn long like the Indians of that day. He was uneducated and unrefined but possessed a strong natural mind. His influence was felt in any crowd or community he associated with or resided amongst. He took up his abode along the line and soon became a frequenter of the gambling and drinking houses then so numerous on the border. He soon became notorious for his fighting and drinking qualities…”[1]

So begins a newspaper article written by Fayetteville attorney and historian James P. Neal (1820-1896). Neal was not alone in his fascination with John Work, a man who to this day remains an enigmatic and compelling figure. Work played an important role in the intertribal conflict of the Cherokee. But according to all reports, he was a white man.

For over 250 years, the Cherokee managed to exist alongside the increasing population of European immigrants before being pushed off their ancestral lands. With the 1836 signing of the Treaty of New Echota, the newly formed United States government sent military troops to force their move west, what became known as the Trail of Tears. Along with the Natives, their slaves, white spouses, and freedmen also made this journey.

John Work was not Cherokee, but he too trekked west on the thousand-mile passage. As he and the others struggled over mountains and rivers toward what is now Oklahoma, their fury grew, so that by the time they had built new homes and licked their wounds, certain selected assassins began killing the treaty signers. This ushered in an era of near civil war among the Cherokee.

One of the most notorious of the anti-treaty assassins was John Work. Little is known of this man whose skill with his Bowie knife became something of legend. Separate from his role in cold blooded murder, his story serves to tell the broader history of those years of vicious violence that spilled over the border into Washington County, Arkansas and helped shape the future of the county.

[1] Fayetteville Weekly Democrat Jan 11, 1889, p. 2. The story continued in the Jan 18 edition, p. 3. Neal never cites sources for his information.

NEW RELEASE! Available at Amazon.com

Woodstoves!

Bought a new wood stove lately? Who knew my longtime desire to buy one would bring me to the brink of despair. Let me tell you, my friend. This is not a step you should take without proper warning.

The old stove, fortunately still in my possession in case I give up this fight, was a Big Box model I inherited when my new husband and I moved into an old cabin. That was in 1974. Local lore claimed an old man named “Ringo” died in that cabin, tired of life, sick, and unable to gather wood. Reportedly, he froze to death.

Fire in the Big Box was simple. Two logs with space enough between them for some crumpled newspaper, a handful of twigs and other flammable bits gathered from the surrounding woods, and then another log across the top, positioned so that when the kindling burned up, the third member would not collapse into the middle but rather perch over the coals to burn freely. Air intake open and the damper open, a match set it off. It was safe to walk away to return a half hour later to shut the air intake and let that baby burn. Whenever fresh wood was needed, simply open the damper to let the smoke escape up the chimney, open the stove door to add wood as needed, and there you go! No smoke pouring into the room.

The problem with the Big Box was that by midnight, fast asleep, one started to sense the cold creeping in. Even the most magnificent fat cut of oak or hickory burned up in only 3-4 hours. That’s because any seal that might once have lined the top edges and front door was long gone and so even with all moveable parts closed, air still moved through the stove. Such things as seals or firebrick probably never existed as part of the stove—at least, in my fifty years with it, no such trace remains. So as my knees got worse with advancing age, trekking up and down the five steps to the living room where the Big Box held pride of place became a more troublesome issue especially at two a.m. when I slept past the life of the fire and only a few coals remained.

I lusted after those fabled wood stoves like Jøtul which held fire overnight. Not only would that solve my overnight heat problem, but it also offered a glass door so I would watch the flames leap and glow. Watching fire can lead to trance-like relaxation effects. These effects have been backed by research that shows that watching an open flame can decrease blood pressure. The longer you sit by the fire, the more relaxed you’ll feel. So when I finally had sufficient funds, I visited the local wood stove store and considered my options.

Admittedly, I failed utterly in the research-before-you-buy department. I’m here to share what I’ve learned.

News flash: Woodstoves now must meet new EPA standards, passed sometime in the 1990s, that specify several aspects of the device. Not only did this drive up the prices to absurd levels, but also led to the admonition by my two-man installation team who warned me that the stove would probably smoke. The Jøtul stoves meet EPA requirements with the use of a catalytic device that serves as a kind of filter, but as the EPA guidelines admit, the ‘catalyst’ can burn out within a couple of years.

  • In catalytic combustion, the smoky exhaust is passed through a coated ceramic honeycomb inside the stove where the smoke gases and particles ignite and burn. Catalytic stoves are capable of producing a long, even heat output.
  • All catalytic stoves have a lever-operated catalyst bypass damper which is opened for starting and reloading. The catalytic honeycomb degrades over time and must be replaced, but its durability is largely in the hands of the stove user. The catalyst can last more than six seasons if the stove is used properly; but if the stove is over-fired, inappropriate fuel (like garbage and treated wood) is burned, and if regular cleaning and maintenance are not done, the catalyst may break down in as little as 2 years. 

Not that I would ever burn garbage or treated wood, but spending $300 every couple of years wasn’t on my list of things to do. And as I approach 80 years of age, I have little patience with machines that require “regular cleaning and maintenance.” So for nearly a month I lost sleep worrying about using the stove. It was still summer, so I had time to fret. Finally, after speaking with the store manager, they agreed to allow me to trade my unused Jøtul for a non-catalyst stove manufactured by Pacific Energy.

Beware! The store staff failed utterly to inform me that in many ways, the non-catalyst stove created more problems than the catalyst version.

But I didn’t know that yet. My decision narrowed to the model that allowed for 18” firewood, of which I already had over four ricks of seasoned wood. This model is Pacific Energy’s Alderlea T6. It’s a handsome stove, although several aspects of its construction are big problems.

One of the Alderlea’s many shortcomings is that while the manual states that maximum wood length is 20 inches, the only way to fit a log that size into the stove is on a diagonal from front corner to back corner. Even the owner’s manual phrase “Ideal Wood Length” of 16 to 18 inches placed “endwise” [does this mean end to end sideways or end to end from door to back of stove? No diagram.] leaves zero clearance between the burning wood and the door/firebrick, which means that the glass door quickly becomes coated with soot. So much for watching the fire. The fire box is exactly 18 inches square.

But I’m getting ahead of myself.

After multiple readings of the product manual, I began to break in the stove setting fires meant to burn off the ‘paint’ fumes with house windows open. Right away I noticed what is now a major problem: there is no way to manually vent the stove. Once wood starts burning, if I need to open the stove door to add more wood, or reposition wood, the only option is to open the door and do the task as fast as possible while smoke pours into the room.

Apparently Pacific Energy’s engineers believe the price of making the outside air ‘cleaner’ is to pollute my inside air. The manual fails utterly to address this issue. The instructions for ‘Lighting a Fire’ are:

  1. Adjust air control to “High” position (all the way to the left) and open door.
  2. Place crumpled newspaper in the center of the heater and crisscross with several pieces of dry kindling. Add a few small pieces of dry wood on top.
  3. Ignite the paper and leave the door ajar approximately ½” until the wood kindling is fully engulfed in flame.
  4. After the kindling is fully engulfed, [open the door while smoke pours into the room] add a few small logs. Close door.
  5. Begin normal operation after a good coal base exists and wood has charred. [In other words, spend a half hour watching the stove or make repeated trips to check on it.]

Further instructions follow for Normal Operation:

  1. Set air control to a desired setting. If smoke pours down across the glass, this indicates you have shut the control down too soon or you are using too low a setting. [Wrong. Smoke pours down across the glass with the air control wide open, max setting.]
  2. For extended or overnight burns, unsplit logs are preferred. Remember to char the wood completely on maximum setting before adjusting air control for overnight burn. [“Char” is defined as partially burn wood so that the surface is black.]
  3. Use wood of different shape, diameter and length (up to 18”). Load your wood endwise and try to place the logs so that the air can flow between them [while smoke pours into the room].
  4. Do not load fuel to a height or in such a manner that would be hazardous when opening the door [while smoke pours into the room].

The instructions continue with information about restarting after an overnight or extended burn:

  1. Open door and rake hot embers toward the front of the heater. Add a couple of dry, split logs on top of the embers [This assumes that you need to load wood ONLY when the previous load has burned to embers. What if you want to go to bed and the current load has only burned 75%? Even 90% burned wood smokes. You have to load while smoke pours into the room], close door.
  2. Adjust air control to high and in just a few minutes, logs should begin burning. [If they don’t start burning, open door to add kindling or reposition wood while smoke pours into the room.]
  3. After wood has charred, reset air control to desired setting.
  4. To achieve maximum firing rate, set control to high “H”. Do not use this setting other than for starting or preheating fresh fuel loads.

Nowhere in the manual does one find a drawing showing the “H” and “L” positions. The lever which moves left to right for this function goes a half inch past the H and L lettering, leaving one to wonder if maximum left or maximum right are the correct positions, or if the lever must be positioned exactly under the H or L.

More instructions follow, including how to use the ash clean out system which proposes one use the tiny opening in the bottom of the stove to dump ash into the ash pan that sits underneath the firebox. One is cautioned not to leave the ash dump door open afterwards. One is not shown the location of the ash dump handle, just informed that the handle is located under the ash lip [also not identified in any drawing] on the left hand side. This is a total waste of owner manual space and engineering salary, and a stupid idea to start with. Just shovel it out, for god’s sake.

An entire page of the manual (27 pages in all) is devoted to the door glass. The #1 instruction regards the potential [unavoidable] darkening of the glass:

  1. If glass becomes darkened through slow burning or poor wood, it can readily be cleaned with fireplace glass cleaner when stove is cold. Never scrape with an object that might scratch the glass. The type and amount of deposit on the glass is a good indication of the flue pipe and chimney buildup. A light brown dusty deposit in that is easily wiped off usually indicates good combustion and dry, well-seasoned wood and therefore relatively clean pipes and chimney. On the other hand, a black greasy deposit that is difficult to remove is a result of wet and green wood and too slow burning rate.
    1. WRONG! My wood is well seasoned hardwood (12-18 months) and I don’t adjust the control lever to “L” until the fire is fully engaged, but every morning I must clean the glass, especially the lower side corners where the ‘black greasy deposit’ requires a single-edge razor blade to remove in addition to several applications of glass cleaner. Is this a malfunction of the stove? Queries to the manufacturer are met with advice to contact the dealer! Does this mean that two months into using the stove, I need to have my chimney cleaned?!

Further warnings on that page caution that “excessive ash buildup” should be kept clear of the front of the firebox because it will block air flow. Here’s the problem: Where exactly is this mysterious air intake? It is not shown on any drawing. There are two stair-stepped lips along the front where air might enter, so “excessive” ash remains undefined. Consequently, I keep the fronts of both steps clear. Once again, would a diagram be so hard?

Item #8 on this page is especially informative:

  • Be aware that the hotter the fire, the less creosote is deposited. Weekly cleaning may be necessary in mild weather, even though monthly cleaning is usually enough in the coldest months when burning rates are higher. When wood is burned slowly, it produces tar and other organic vapours, which combine with expelled…

And there the text ends. But apparently the conclusion is that closing the air intake completely is not recommended even though an overnight burn would seem to call for minimal air flow. If the best fire method for this stove is a ‘hot burn’ in order the keep the glass clear, how is that compatible with overnight heat?

Old Faithful, Big Box

Not that it actually matters. There is an ugly creosote buildup on the glass in both lower corners even with ‘hot’ fires, with any level of air control, and if I want to watch the fire through the glass, I have to ignore the creosote or clean it daily, which doesn’t last until the end of the day.

The next page of the manual is about maintenance. Monthly, I’m supposed to check:

  • Brick rail tabs and brick rails
  • Air riser tube in the back of the firebox
  • Back slide of airwash chamber
  • Baffle locking pin
  • Boost tube cover

Not only are there NO DRAWINGS showing the location of these various important maintenance parts, my knees don’t work well enough to crawl around peering inside or under the stove. This would also require that no fire exist in the stove at the time of inspection, meaning my house would have NO HEAT except for little electric heaters in the bathrooms. The last few days have bottomed at sub-zero temps, at no time without fire. That would be a summer job, so I can only hope that the brick rail tabs and airwash chamber are OK for fire throughout the winter.

Genius.

Further, the maintenance instructions continue with “Cleaning the Chimney System”:

  • Top baffle board/blanket
  • Baffle
  • Top heat shield and mountain bolt
  • Baffle gasket
  • Brick rails
  • Manifold

Again, no drawings, diagrams, or other user aid.

I can only hope that I can keep my fires going until warm weather without having something fall apart and/or a chimney fire. Not exactly the peace of mind I had hoped for.

I’m refraining, with difficulty, from speaking of the overall worth of the owner’s manual. After all, I’m a writer and wordsmith dedicated to communicating clearly–not a stove engineer. Somebody apparently did their best with this booklet, sadly. The lack of drawings illustrating the key components of the stove is enough of a failure that the countless other shortcoming hardly bear mention. Pages 11 through 20 detail installation methods. Page 25 is blank. Hint to manual editor: PLENTY OF ROOM FOR DRAWINGS.

There is, however, a full page breakout drawing of the stove PARTS, as if the manufacturer was more interested in selling parts than in adequately explaining the stove’s functions.

At the moment, I’m not sorry I bought it. It does a better job than the old Big Box in keeping heat all night–with luck and holding my mouth right, coals are left in the morning ready for fresh wood. I do have to live with smoke pouring into the room while I try to load in wood and kindling, at which point I’m reminded that I could have stuck with the Jøtul. At least its Norwegian inventors/manufacturers figured out how to create a more environmentally-friendly wood stove without any need to allow smoke to pour into the room.

Note: Look for future updates on this saga once I try to find a person who can service this stove, the possible need for parts replacements, and the status of creosote buildup in the chimney.

Another note: I failed to mention that I still have the Big Box in use at the back of the house and also have this jewel of an old wood cookstove in my dining room complete with hot water reservoir.