Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) have garnered significant attention and debate in economic, social, and political circles in recent years. As governments and financial institutions explore the possibilities and implications of CBDCs, it’s crucial for individuals to stay abreast and engaged with the ongoing discourse surrounding this topic. To aid your understanding, here are 15 free resources covering various aspects of CBDCs, including expert opinions, analyses, and discussions.
Finally, navigating the realm of CBDCs requires a thorough understanding of the complex issues at play. By engaging with these resources, you’ll be better equipped to grasp the implications of CBDCs on economies, financial systems, and individual freedoms. Stay informed, stay vigilant, and join the ongoing conversation surrounding the future of digital currencies.
Sadie Aldaya is the Research & Quality Assurance Specialist for Classical Conversations. Sadie and her husband homeschooled for over 20 years. She served as a Classical Conversations field representative for 15 years, providing community and support for other homeschooling families. Sadie’s passions are to stop government encroachment in areas where they have no authority or jurisdiction and to see Christians return to a biblical Christ-centered worldview.
In recent months, Oklahoma and Michigan, two states that have historically had low regulation on homeschool freedoms, have sought to pass restrictive laws. These states both claim to be passing homeschool registration and oversight laws to prevent the abuse of home-educated children.
Since homeschooling became legal in 1992, many states have tirelessly attempted to oversee and regulate a parent’s right to home education. If you wish to learn about your state’s homeschool laws, you can do so by visiting HSLDA’s website.
You can learn more about the specifics of Michigan’s proposal and its problems here.
In Oklahoma, Rep. Amanda Swope has introduced HB 4130, which would require homeschool parents to send in a letter to the Department of Human Services requesting to homeschool their child, provide the information of every adult involved in the child’s education, and go through biannual background checks performed by the DHS.
While the intentions of Swope may sound noble at first (who wouldn’t want to put an end to the abuse of children?), this bill is founded on a false premise and represents a trend of state aggression towards homeschooling. For these reasons, Americans, especially in Oklahoma, must strongly oppose Swope’s bill to restrict and regulate homeschooling families.
The Narrative is Fabricated
The entire reason for the bill rests upon the premise that there is an epidemic of abuse among homeschooled children, and we need new legislation to address it. Sadly, for Swope and her bill, the statistical facts strongly contradict this narrative.
First, all of the evidence available shows that “homeschooled children are abused at a lower rate than are those in the general public, and no evidence shows that the home educated are at any higher risk of abuse.”(Ray, 2018) What’s more, a Gen 2 Survey found that homeschooled students are actually 257% less likely to be sexually abused than their government-schooled peers.
It is ironic that Swope’s proposed solution to the fallacious low abuse rates among homeschoolers is government regulation. This has yet to help public schoolers who experience constant state oversight. What makes her think it will help the homeschoolers in any way?
Additionally, according to the statistics, if Swope were truly concerned with addressing child abuse in her state, she would turn her attention to the place where children suffer the most—government schools.
Even if there were high rates of abuse among homeschooled children, there are already nationwide laws on the books that protect all children from abuse, including homeschoolers. There is no reason to pass another bill. Oklahoma simply has to enforce the ones it already has in place.
So why do Swope and those who support HB 4130 want to pass it so badly? The answer is increased government oversight and regulation on homeschooling.
To understand the extent of the government overreach within HB 4130, we must examine the document ourselves.
Letters of Intent
Paragraph F. reads, “On or before the school district start date, parents making the decision to choose homeschooling, podschooling, or microschooling shall submit a letter of intent to the Department of Human Services.”
A Letter of Intent can easily be dismissed as “normal” because many states require homeschooling parents to write a letter outlining their intent to homeschool. However, most states require parents to submit it to their local school district or to their state. The purpose of this is to inform their state schools that it is not responsible for their child’s education.
The difference is that with this bill, Oklahoma parents must submit their letter of intent to the Department of Human Services. Later in the bill, the letter of intent is referred to as “a request to homeschool” and may be denied by the DHS. Denial of a fundamental right to educate one’s child is an egregious abuse of power. Since when did the DHS (the civil government) have the right to determine whether a family has the right to homeschool their children?
The bill continues by explaining what information parents are required to surrender:
The names of the homeschooling parents
The social security numbers of parents.
The names of all the homeschooled children
The home address of the family homeschooling
The names of all individuals living at the home address
The names of “any associated individuals or organizations assisting with the child’s or children’s schooling.”
Along with “A brief statement for the decision of schooling”
Furthermore, this bill requires you to “reapply” for homeschooling by sending in a “subsequent letter of intent” every time you make a change in your initial decision to homeschool, whether it is “a result of a move or otherwise.”
Paragraph H. says, “When the Department of Human Services receives a letter of intent, it shall perform an initial background check on parents, other adults within the home, and any adults assisting in the children’s schooling.”
The fact that the DHS wants to perform background checks on parents to decide whether or not they have the right to home-educate their children is Orwellian. It also begs a fascinating question:
Why does this bill not include background checks for the parents of public school students? Those students are home, with no government supervision, for three whole months. Why isn’t Swope concerned about abuse in those homes?
Background checks on “parents, other adults within the home, and any adults assisting in the children’s schooling” is both a disturbing invasion into the homes of home educators and will also cause a multitude of issues for tutoring programs and independent educators who will now be subject to background checks by the DHS.
Moreover, parents must repeat all the regulations examined so far biannually. “The Department shall maintain a system to conduct biannual checks of the database and compile a database of individuals, facilities, and organizations that perform and assist with homeschooling, podschooling, or microschooling.”
This regulation means that by the time an Oklahoma homeschool student has graduated, the DHS will have made 24 reviews on that child’s security information, address, family members, homeschool organizations, and teachers.
The bill concludes that the DHS may deny “requests” to homeschool and will deny them if any adult involved in the child’s education has a “pending child abuse or neglect investigation” against them.
Constitutional Home Educators explains the danger of this vague wording: “There are so many loopholes here that could allow DHS to deny your request to home educate. It does not say just an abuse or neglect conviction; it includes a pending investigation. All it takes is an accusation.”
Oppose HB 4130
This bill represents an outrageous abuse of government authority and power. First, it is completely unnecessary and will be totally ineffective. Regulation does not reduce abuse. Second, the bill is designed to empower government-run agencies to dictate a parent’s right to home educate and to regulate that right if it is “approved” by the state. This bill is a blatant abuse of power and must be ardently rejected by the citizens of Oklahoma before it is instated and enforced.
Homeschool freedom is a right that many before us have fought to win. We cannot allow the state to deceive us into surrendering this right for a fabricated narrative and a false promise. All Americans must stand in support of Oklahoma citizens as they fight on the front lines for educational freedom.
Elise DeYoung is a Public Relations and Communications Associate and a Classical Conversationsgraduate. With CC, she strives to know God and make Him known in all aspects of her life. Elise is a servant of Christ, an avid reader, and a professional nap-taker. As she continues her journey towards the Celestial City, she is determined to gain wisdom and understanding wherever it can be found. Soli Deo gloria!
 (n.d.). 2022 Oklahoma Statutes Title 21. Crimes and Punishments §21-843.5. Child abuse – Child neglect – Child sexual abuse – Child sexual exploitation – Enabling – Penalties. Justia US Law. https://law.justia.com/codes/oklahoma/2022/title-21/section-21-843-5/
Fascism. It is a term widely used but hardly understood.
Are you aware of the history and philosophy surrounding this term? Can you define it?
When these questions arise, men like Benito Mussolini are often accredited with the philosophy of fascism, and words such as “authoritarianism” and “right-wing extremism” are frequently given as synonyms. Armed with these ambiguous and frightening words as arrows in their quiver, left-wing politicians commonly use the word fascism to attack their right-wing opponents. We are all familiar with CNN anchors referring to Donald Trump as a right-wing, MAGA fascist.
Where did this term originate? Is fascism really right-wing extremism? Are there fascists in America today?
By exploring each of these questions, we will come across three misconceptions of fascism that have distorted our understanding of this powerful word.
These misconceptions are:
Benito Mussolini founded fascism.
Fascism is a radical right-wing ideology.
The modern Left is anti-fascist.
Misconception One: Mussolini and Fascism
Contrary to popular belief, Benito Mussolini was not the founder of fascism. Instead, he explicitly recognized the real founder of fascism as Giovanni Gentile, and gave him the title, “The philosopher of Fascism.”
Gentile lived from 1875 to 1944 and was an extremely prominent Italian philosopher, politician, and educator. He established the idea of fascism, and with his ideology, he paved the way for the dictatorship of Mussolini, which lasted from 1922 to 1943.
Gentile, like Marx, sought to create a form of government that resembles the family unit. What would this look like exactly? Well—if you think of the family unit, who is the head of the household? Traditionally, it is the father. And what is the role of the father? It is to provide for and to protect his family.
Likewise, Gentile ordered his fascist ideology in such a way that the government would be the father of civilization—its sole provider and protector. With this structure, personal responsibility and individual liberty, which Gentile condemned as “selfish,” are thrown out the window and replaced by slothful dependence and security through submission to Father Government. It is obvious why authoritarianism is so closely attributed to fascism; they have many similarities. Now that we understand Gentile’s philosophical intention, we can define his term.
Fascism is a political movement that seeks to establish an authoritarian system of government that resembles the family unit.
There is one final fact about Gentile that must be understood to have a well-rounded understanding of his philosophy of fascism. That is—Gentile was a Leftist. This may come as a shock because fascism has been attributed to the right for many decades, but when we consider the philosophy of fascism in relation to the modern right and left, it begins to make sense.
Misconception Two: Fascism and the Right
As I said before, fascism has been viewed as the end game of radical right-wing politics for many decades. Republican politicians have seemed to accept this abuse of language and have allowed it to continue all these years.
However, a brief comparison of conservatism and fascism will expose the ridiculous claim that fascism is rooted in the right. Allow me to ask this simple question: Do conservatives want big government? The answer is an obvious and resounding no.
If there is one thing that has not changed in the Republican party, it is the desire for small government. To claim otherwise is folly.
Additionally, what true conservative wants to surrender personal responsibility and individual liberty to Father Government? The answer is none.
For fascism to work at all, liberty and responsibility must be discarded and replaced by a far-reaching, powerful, all-consuming government that rules its complacent society with an iron fist. That is what happened in Italy under Mussolini’s fascist reign, and that is precisely what conservatives are actively fighting against.
Misconception Three: The Left and Modern-Day Fascists
So, if Republicans are not undercover fascist dictators, are there fascists in America at all?
I am not here to make the argument that all leftist politicians and Democrat voters are fascists. Because that is not the case, however, there are clear-cut agreements between the two political movements that we must acknowledge.
“At the 1984 convention of the Democratic Party, the governor of New York, Mario Cuomo, likened America to an extended family where, through the government, people all take care of each other.”
They continue bysaying,
“Nothing has changed. Thirty years later, a slogan of the 2012 Democratic Party convention was, ‘The government is the only thing we all belong to.’ They might as well have been quoting Gentile.”
The left has taken Gentile’s idea of collectivism under Father Government and applied it to their political philosophy. We must be aware of the left’s implementation of this core fascist ideal in its policies and plans for our country.
Fascist Philosophy Embedded in Leftist Policies
Just to name a few, the Welfare system has resulted in a complete dependence upon the government by large swaths of the American public. In addition, the left’s movement to ban assault rifles would instantly create a total dependence on Father Government for protection. These two examples prove that the left is furthering our dependence on the government for provision and protection; Gentile would be proud.
The most glaring example, however, of fascist philosophy embedded in leftist policies was the effort by Democratic politicians to instate federal mask and vaccine mandates during the COVID-19 pandemic. This would have exponentially multiplied the scope and influence of the state and greatly increased our submission to it in the name of security. Gentile’s philosophy continues infiltrating institutions today, such as education and healthcare, through Democratic policies.
It is abundantly clear that there are extreme misconceptions surrounding the term and ideology of fascism. Thankfully, we can know the facts behind the philosophy. With a newfound clarity of the origin and political affiliation of fascism, we must now boldly oppose all efforts to instate Father Government in our fascist-free country.
You can read other articles written by Elise here.
Elise DeYoung is a PR & Communications Associate as well as a Classical Conversations graduate. With CC, she strives to know God and make Him known in all aspects of her life. She is a servant of Christ, an avid reader, and a professional nap-taker. As she continues her journey towards the Celestial City, she is determined to gain wisdom and understanding wherever it can be found. Soli Deo gloria!
Recently, House Bill 4130 was introduced to regulate homeschool families in Oklahoma. Americans must strongly oppose this bill to restrict and regulate families, because its narrative of abuse in homeschools is fabricated. This bill would introduce extreme government overreach into the realm of home education.
Homeschoolers have the fundamental right of autonomy to educate and disciple their children apart from state overreach. A more detailed analysis of this bill is coming, but due to urgency of action, here are some reasons to oppose it:
Children do not belong to the state, but to the parents.
Therefore, the Civil government has no authority or jurisdiction over homeschooling.
The reasons for restricting and regulating homeschooling are baselessly supported, fueled by fear tactics.
If passed, the state will require social security numbers and background checks for the purpose of tracking every home resident.
If passed, parents may be subjected to home inspection visits.
For these reasons, we’d like to stand with our friends at HSLDA and oppose Rep. Amanda Swope’s bill.
To join our efforts opposing HB 4130, please contact Rep. Amanda Swope to let her know that you oppose this bill.
Elise DeYoung is a Public Relations and Communications Associate and a Classical Conversations graduate. With CC, she strives to know God and make Him known in all aspects of her life. She is a servant of Christ, an avid reader, and a professional nap-taker. As she continues her journey towards the Celestial City, she is determined to gain wisdom and understanding wherever it can be found. Soli Deo gloria!
In an era marked by rapid technological advancements, the financial landscape is undergoing a transformative shift towards digital currencies. While the promise of efficiency and convenience is enticing, the rise of centralized digital banking currency comes with its own issues that warrant a critical examination. Although this isn’t to demonize, today we’ll explore the potential risks associated with centralized digital currencies and their implications for individuals and society.
Government Control and Manipulation
The centralization of digital currencies places substantial power in the hands of governments and central banks. This concentration of authority raises concerns about the potential for governments to manipulate currency value, control capital flows, and exert undue influence over citizens’ financial lives.
Loss of Privacy
One of the primary concerns with centralized digital banking currencies is the potential erosion of privacy. Traditional currencies allow for a level of anonymity in transactions, but centralized digital currencies often require extensive user data to operate effectively. The centralization of this information poses a significant risk, as it becomes vulnerable to hacking, surveillance, and misuse.
Centralized digital currencies enable unprecedented levels of surveillance by central authorities. Every transaction with these currencies can be tracked, creating a comprehensive financial profile for individuals. This surveillance raises ethical concerns and threatens personal freedom and autonomy.
Single Point of Failure
Centralized systems are inherently vulnerable to systemic failures. A single point of control makes the entire financial system susceptible to hacking, technical glitches, or even deliberate manipulation. The consequences of such failures could be severe, leading to financial crises and widespread economic instability.
Centralized digital currencies may inadvertently exclude segments of the population who need access to the necessary technology or cannot navigate the digital landscape. This exclusionary aspect can deepen existing social and economic disparities, leaving certain individuals and communities behind.
Lack of Redundancy
Like traditional banking, decentralized systems often have built-in redundancies to ensure stability. In contrast, a centralized digital currency system lacks this redundancy, making it more susceptible to disruptions. A technical failure or cyberattack could have far-reaching consequences on the entire financial ecosystem.
Many issues must be considered as many move forward with crypto purchases and investments. In other words, before you invest, count the cost. The dangers associated with centralized digital banking currencies highlight the need for careful consideration of potential risks and implementing robust safeguards. Striking a balance between innovation and security is essential to creating a financial landscape that is both technologically advanced and resilient to the challenges posed by centralization.
Sadie Aldaya is the Research & Quality Assurance Specialist for Classical Conversation’s Special Projects & Policy Research Department and the CC Foundation. Sadie and her husband homeschooled for over 20 years. She served as a Classical Conversations field representative for 15 years, providing community and support for other homeschooling families. Sadie’s passions are to stop government encroachment in areas where they have no authority or jurisdiction and to see Christians return to a biblical Christ-centered worldview.