Actions made when enacting new legislation often have unintended consequences. Because these consequences often benefit the agenda of the Left, resulting in impediments to freedom and good governance, they will be referred to herein as “mistakes.” The details of the bills enumerated below are NOT the only mistakes that have been made in expanding the Code of Law in South Carolina, but they are indicative of the kinds of mistakes that inadvertently slip into law. Their unintended consequences are often ignored or forgotten by the Right while the Left uses them as it moves forward with its woke, totalitarian agenda. Lack of due diligence by the Right, in researching and evaluating potential long-term implications as well as following the implementation and scope of laws after they become law, gives free rein to those who would pervert our society. Unfortunately, these kinds of legislative mistakes are not confined to Title 59.
1) Using the legislative process for repeal of better legislation than what is passed to take its place: Note: In general, repeal should be the preferred use of legislation. New law should be passed only when there is no alternative or to replace defective law. The number of laws everywhere is increasing at an alarming rate, useful mainly for ensuring our captivity under them and creating a legal hell that is cumbersome, not promoting the ideals of individual liberty and responsibility.
In 2006 our legislature was deceived into repealing (A254, R262, H4328) Title 59, Chapter 30 “Basic Skills Assessment Program.” This chapter required teaching basic skills to meet the expectations of academic assessment, so the education of children would be directed to teaching actual facts and functional basic skills, critical foundations for developing higher order thinking skills.
The ramifications of this repeal have changed education. First, repeal left a void in the focused teaching of essential and accurate basic facts and functional skills that has been effectively filled by change agents teaching very different kinds of “facts,” “skills” and knowledge. Second, the entire focus of public education shifted from traditional education to indoctrination and mind control, social and cultural engineering, and cradle to grave tracking through extensive data-mining of personal and private information.
This chapter repeal opened the door for dramatic change in the focus and purpose of education. It reinforced the transition from (1) teaching reading, writing, vocabulary, grammar, and related skills to teaching “literacy” and “language arts;” (2) mastery of basic arithmetic facts, sound computation and calculation skills, as well as methods for problem solving and enhancing logical thinking, to the confusion and questionable pedagogy of Common Core, its derivatives, or New Math; (3) factual history, geography, civics, government, and other areas that teach children facts about and pride in our American heritage by conflating and addressing them under the umbrella of indoctrination called “social studies;” and (4) acquisition of basic scientific knowledge based study and understanding of God’s orderly and amazing creation, with rigorous standards of practice and proof, into a sociological and distorted caricature of what was taught as science prior to the mid-sixties. All this enables the expansion of progressive programs many people think suddenly appeared just before Covid.
Repeal of this whole chapter proves that major repeal is possible. Ironically it takes legislation to legislate the repeal of existing law, so legislation for repeal must be carefully crafted and watched closely to avoid creating more problems and leaving us with only reactive and generally ineffective options.
2) Inserting into the statutes selected Acts referred to by number, which can include associated frameworks and regulations—without divulging the contents of these regulations within the statues themselves. Note: Such powerful extensions of the law are hidden so that they are not apparent in a review of the statutes themselves without additional, and sometimes difficult, research.
As recently as 2018, Act 213 was put into place, now hidden within Chapter 33, Special Education for Handicapped Children. Disguising a direct assault on education and opening the door to CRT, DEI, SEL, MTSS and a Brave New World of human manipulation, Act 213 carefully hides the programming of “social-emotional learning” (SEL) under the guise of “dyslexia screening.” This is only one of a myriad of acts that have been passed without proper critical consideration and debate. However, it may be one of the most dangerous acts, as it is a Trojan horse. The dangers are not clearly evident in just what is written in Title 59. The full text of the Act and the Frameworks for implementation tell the real story. In addition, the use of Act 213 and resultant Frameworks takes the control of what actually happens under the law away from the awareness and oversight of the people and legislators, giving extraordinary power to the State Board of Education and State Department of Education. This allows for reliance on change agents who know exactly how to utilize the opportunities that are given to them in this kind of mistake.
3) Passing bad law Note: It is difficult to define “good law,” but bad law is easy to spot. Most laws are dangerous as they give a platform to every kind of change agent or subversive agenda, limit freedom, extend the power of government, are costly in more than just the financial burdens, and further restrict the free operation of individuals, groups, organizations, and many basic societal functions.
A tiny gem, an example of CRT, DEI, and cultural and social engineering at their best, is embedded in Chapter 29 Subjects of Instruction, Section 59-29-130 (A)(1)(a)(i),(ii),(iii), (iv),(v) . Our colleges, which teach our teachers what to teach, have an amended list of requirements as of 2021 regarding our nation’s history and founding. A study of the educational standards, as well as more of Title 59, expands on how subtle revisionist history and cultural and social engineering are codified under our law. This gem also elucidates how seemingly innocuous or benevolent changes may have unintended consequences. The words “at a minimum, reading” are key to understanding that teachers are NOT being asked to study or be able to impart any meaningful knowledge to students about the real American heritage.
In the section identified, the first three documents—the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and Emancipation Proclamation (which, since this document is included, should be enough to provide a balanced, if limited, view of a part of “Black history”), along with excerpts from the Federalist Papers, sound wonderful. BUT, by clearly creating an open door, the fifth area of required reading does not specify a document, but rather allows for the change agent in charge to choose favorites from any “one or more documents that are foundational to the ‘African American Freedom struggle.’” (!?) No specifics or limitations on sources are listed. This open door enables a dramatic change from the far more accurate and balanced presentation of the history and heritage of these United States of America than what children learned not that long ago. The “balance” in this short section of sources and documents is so unbalanced that few ignorant new teachers would be able to impart to anyone a good understanding or appreciation of this nation’s heritage. It appears that those who put this into law do not intend for balanced truth to be presented.
We simply cannot continue to let these “incremental” changes in the LAW be passed—and we cannot “incrementally” undo them in the time left before public education has completely finishes indoctrinating and destroying our children, taking all truth away from their existence. Our legislators must start acting decisively and correctly, asking for and accepting the knowledge, experience, and contributions their constituents may offer to avoid falling into these kinds of traps.
Another interesting item is noted above Act 213. A federal court case adjudicated in SC in 2020, actually repealed a section of Title 59 to allow for teaching sex education any way the schools choose (or are directed). This clearly is also meant to open the door for gender ideology, Comprehensive Sex Education, pornography in our schools, and more. Obviously no one is paying attention, and no one is doing anything about these actions even when they are presented with this evidence. I know this is the case because Michelle and I have met with prominent state legislators who expressed great interest, concern, and often surprise, but who have done nothing. The threat we face by actions like this is clearly not being recognized or fought by conservatives. This case was brought by the Sexuality Alliance, which is a national organization with some activity, apparently, in South Carolina. Court action is not the right way to amend or interpret our laws, but if it is happening, someone should be sounding the alarm, which in this case should have been Molly Spearman.
Anything referring to “handicapped children” seems to be given free rein in our society which is so stuck on erasing even blatant individual differences—and especially real limitations—in order to promote with “compassion” their agenda of equity. I could go a long way down this path to the bottom, but it would only be a distraction tonight.
The LCTT report by Richard and Garris Davis and myself clarifies this more fully and is included in the material you received. It was mailed to and/or shared in person with dozens of legislators. When legislators are confronted with Act 213’s existence and need for repeal, polite interest has been expressed, but that is short-lived, with endless excuses for how this happened and why it can’t be addressed at this time.
We simply cannot continue to let these “incremental” changes in the LAW be passed—and we cannot “incrementally” undo them in the time left before the public education system has completely finished indoctrinating and destroying our children, taking all truth away from their existence.
Our call to action is for both legislators and every concerned South Carolinian citizen: we must scrutinize proposed legislation more closely. Understand that once a bill is introduced, it will eventually become law that the Left exploits to advance their agendas. The Left isn’t the only faction that hijacks bills—the right, particularly those with left-leaning tendencies, have significantly contributed to the proliferation of laws that have led us to our current situation. We must also promote the repealing of laws, but with vigilance. Even legislation intended to repeal laws can unintentionally pave the way for dangerous proposals.