Russia Insider Daily Headlines for 11/29/2016
Given the hysteria of so many, it may seem surprising to note that what Donald Trump promised was a return to political sanity. If not a full-scale conservative program, Mr. Trump’s is a crucial program for the preservation and possible renewal of the American way of life…
Now that Donald Trump is President-elect, there is among most decent Americans a strong and rational desire to put aside the unpleasantness of #nevertrump. After all, should we all not try to get along? That said, given the continuing assaults from leftist crybullies, both on the streets and on the Broadway stage, it seems worthwhile to consider what those within both the old and the nascent Republican coalitions can and should expect from a Trump Presidency. All Americans should want the Trump Presidency to succeed. Conservatives positively need it to succeed. Such success requires that at least most of the #nevertrumpers become reconciled with and within a ruling coalition that can govern and return sanity to American public life. And any such return can be made real only on the basis of reasonable expectations.
Reasonable expectations for the Trump Presidency must focus neither on recent fear-mongering, nor on down-the-line conservative orthodoxy. Rather, they must focus on what Mr. Trump actually promised. Given the hysteria of so many, it may seem surprising to note that what he promised was a return to political sanity: Concern for the national self-interest rather than globalist ideology, preservation of national borders, concern for the economic well-being of the American people, and an end to the radical ideological programs destroying our educational system and undermining the character, self-understanding, and knowledge of our young people. This is no full-scale conservative program—it lacks any overt commitment to principles of local self-government and restoration of a virtuous public square. But it is a crucial program for the preservation and possible renewal of the American way of life.
Can enough Americans of conservative inclination be brought into Mr. Trump’s broadly populist coalition to form a relatively stable governing majority? Perhaps. But first #nevertrumpers must reconsider what it is they can reasonably demand from “their” administration. Expectations vary according to the character of the #nevertrumper. There were at least two major factions within #nevertrump. First were committed supporters of establishment centrist politics. Best embodied in the person of neoconservative commentator Bill Kristol, these were political animals devoted to a certain program of action best described as managed internationalism. An intrusive foreign policy was seen as the centerpiece of a campaign to “make the world safe” for democratic capitalism. First brought into the Republican Party under Ronald Reagan, neoconservatives made their name by opposing the worst excesses of the campus left and by supporting a muscular American strategy during the Cold War. But it was well after the Cold War’s successful conclusion, under George W. Bush, that neoconservatives became the center of the Republican Party, pushing aside more traditional conservatives as the “war on terror” combined with massive, detailed, government-sponsored “free-trade” agreements took center stage, fiscal responsibility was sacrificed in the name of politicized compassion, and the surrender of our borders became habitual, if under-reported.
Some internationalist #nevertrumpers have recognized, if not the error of their ways, at least the writing on the political wall. Whether Paul Ryan lives up to his pledge to support the more conservative and nationalist policies demanded by most Republican voters remains to be seen. But it seems clear that the battle for control of the Republican Party will be fought out on the field of power politics. Bill Kristol and the rest of the Republican establishment will attempt to undermine President Trump’s policies in a variety of ways. Should they succeed, the cost to the republic will be great. Should they fail, we can count on many of them making their peace with the new coalition, while others retire from the stage, stake out more clearly dissident positions, or go “home” to the Democratic Party. (The last would be ironic, given that Mr. Trump’s centrism, or old liberalism, on social welfare policies better matches the demands of neoconservatives than traditional conservatives who seek to scale back the morally debilitating welfare state.)
More worrisome, to my mind, are the religious #nevertrumpers. My concern may be somewhat personal in nature—I know and respect a number of such persons. More generally, however, I think it necessary to address the critical mistake made by many religious #nevertrumpers. The mistake? Believing that culture’s fundamental role in any decent life means that cultural conservatives can afford to substitute our own form of virtue-signaling for meaningful engagement in the often unpleasant business that is politics. It certainly is correct to say that in the end culture trumps politics—it is more important than politics and, as the Framers of our Constitution recognized, fundamentally shapes it. But, as any Marxist dictator or leftist college professor will tell you, a ruling cadre with enough drive and power can not only trump, but also shape and even destroy a culture.
Too many people of faith looked at Donald Trump, were horrified at his rhetoric and personal conduct, and decided that they could not in good conscience support him, no matter what the cost. When confronted with the fact that their failure to support Mr. Trump was, in practice, support for Hillary Clinton, they fell back on the conservative-sounding claim that “culture is what matters” or merely repeated the worst fear-mongering of the Left. Religious #nevertrumpers proclaimed that they would continue as always to raise their children in their faith, work to build communities, and otherwise lead Christian (for some Jewish) lives, confident that “we will win in the end.” Many of the acts they promised are highly virtuous, but willful blindness to the consequences of political inaction is neither virtuous nor wise.
In essence, religious #nevertrumpers were claiming that politics matter so little that the difference between a Trump and a Clinton presidency was unimportant for our culture. It is good that this view did not win over more people than it did. It is important that this view be abandoned so that we might have some chance of victory in the struggle ahead.
People of faith dodged an only slightly metaphorical bullet when Mrs. Clinton lost her presidential bid. When someone is coming at you with a gun, it is no good saying that he is deranged by bad culture. You first must get out of the line of fire. Then you must disarm him. Only after both these are accomplished can you afford to worry about the source of his murderous intent.
We have moved out of the way of the anti-religious bullet aimed at us by the Democratic Establishment. New moves like that seeking to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to provide free contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs are less likely now—or at least less likely to succeed—as are further attempts to deny non-profit status to religious charitable organizations. We may even dare to hope that moves to criminalize opposition to same-sex marriage and to bully into silence any who dissent from the mad ideology of “diversity” through governmental control may be stymied. Victory in this election bought religious conservatives breathing room. But we have not yet begun the struggle to wrest the weapon of government coercion out of the hands of anti-religious bigots bent on using it to remove people of faith from the public square.
How will a President of only nominal religious commitment, who is pro-life but of generally liberal views and demeanor on issues related to the natural family, represent and serve people of faith? By practicing, and insisting the federal government practice, the very tolerance so often proclaimed as it is vigorously violated by the cultural left. Mr. Trump’s very brashness was and is a strong indication of his impatience with the crybullies who run our cultural institutions and seek to eliminate the influence, if not the very presence, of people of faith from the public square. Political correctness is a totalitarian ideology masquerading as empathy and tolerance. It will take a dismissive attitude and a willingness to offend tender sensibilities to set its proponents back on their heels enough to allow serious Christians and Jews to recover something of their ability to defend themselves and their communities.
But what does this mean in practice? It does not mean that American culture will suddenly become more Christian—or even less crass. A set of beliefs and practices going back to the “Social Gospel” movement of the late nineteenth century has undermined the religious foundations of our culture. We Christians allowed this to happen by buying into the idea that “correct” social policies equal virtue, that we could ignore or even embrace policies that usurped the roles of family, church, and local association, and/or that we could allow our educational institutions to mock and attack the religious grounds of law and social order without consequence. That consequence is upon us: a post-Christian culture well on its way to becoming an actual non- or even anti-Christian culture. This is a battle we must fight over decades, which we may well lose, and which, even if we “win,” will be only one among an infinite number we must fight so long as we abide on this Earth.
But we can and should look to, work with, and push for a Trump Administration that will call off the dogs of political correctness on campus, in the IRS, and through the Justice Department. The veritable brainwashing of our young people in public (and many private and parochial) schools through more-or-less official texts and curriculum, the oppressive speech codes and “training” to uphold the dehumanizing hook-up culture on campus, and the pervasive drive to “separate church and state” by banning religious symbols and conduct from public life all can and must be opposed with vigor. This will be no easy thing. Beliefs and practices dating back to the radicalism of the 1960s have been institutionalized and, over the last eight years, essentially weaponized in government agencies and schools. And the recent, breathtaking overreaching by the Obama Administration, for example in the Department of Education’s Title IX bullying, have buttressed an increasingly powerful class of apparatchiks micromanaging the conduct and very thought-processes of students and educators alike.
Renewal of our culture and traditions will not instantly take place under a Trump—or any other—Administration. Forces have been set loose and, more dangerously, allowed to take over our essential institutions, that will not easily be dislodged. But the requirements for a more decent and virtuous society begin with a federal government that does far less to enable and bankroll radical ideologues. An administration willing to begin the process of defending our national interests and borders while refusing to empower those who despise our traditional way of life is well worthy of the vigorous support of religious conservatives.
Books on the topic of this essay may be found in The Imaginative Conservative Bookstore.
« All comments are subject to moderation. We welcome the comments of those who disagree, but not those who are disagreeable. »
If Trump can defeat the oligarchy and save America, he can go down in history as Trump the Great.
Liberals, progressives, and the left-wing (to the extent that one still exists) are aligning with the corrupt oligarchy against president-elect Trump and the American people.
They are busy at work trying to generate hysteria over Trump’s “authoritarian personality and followers.” In other words, the message is: here come the fascists.
Liberals and progressives wailed and whined about “an all white male cabinet,” only to be made fools by Trump’s appointment of a black male and two women, one a minority and one a Trump critic.
The oligarchs are organizing their liberal progressive front groups to disrupt Trump’s inauguration in an effort to continue the attempt to delegitimize Trump the way the paid Maidan protesters were used in Kiev to delegitimize the elected Ukrainian government.
To the extent any of the Trump protesters are sincere and not merely paid tools of oligarchs, such as George Soros, military and financial interests, and global capitalists, they should consider that false claims and unjustified criticism can cause Trump and his supporters to close their ears to all criticism and make it easier for neoconservatives to influence Trump by offering support.
At this point we don’t know what a Trump government is going to do. If he sells out the people, he won’t be reelected. If he is defeated by the oligarchy, the people will become more radical.
We do not know how Washington insiders appointed to the government will behave inside a Trump presidency. Unless they are ideologues like the neoconservatives or agents of powerful interests, insiders survive by going along with the current. If the current changes under Trump, so will the insiders.
Trump got elected because flyover America has had all it can take from the self-dealing oligarchy. The vast bullk of America has seen its economic prospects and that of children and grandchildren decline for a quarter century. The states Hillary carried are limited to the liberal enclaves and oligarchy’s stomping grounds on the NE and West coasts and in Colorado and New Mexico, where effete wealthy liberals have located because of the scenary. If you look at the red/blue electoral map, geographically speaking Hillary’s support is very limited.
We know that Hillary is an agent for the One Percent. The Clintons $120 million personal wealth and $1.6 billion personal foundation are proof that the Clintons are bought-and-paid-for. We know that Hillary is responsible for the destruction of Libya and of much of Syria and for the overthrow of the democratically elected government in Ukraine. We know that the Clinton regime’s sanctions on Iraq resulted in the deaths of 500,000 children. These are war crimes and crimes against humanity. We know Hillary used government office for private gain. We know she violated national security laws without being held accountable. What we don’t know is why groups that allegedly are liberal-progressive-leftwing are such fervent supporters of Hillary.
One possible answer is that these groups are mere fronts for vested interests and are devoid of any sincere motives.
Another possible answer is that these groups believe that the important issues are not jobs for Americans and avoiding war with nuclear powers, but transgender, homosexual and illegal alien rights.
Another possible answer is that these groups are uninformed and stupid.
What these protesters see as a threat in Trump’s strong and willful personality is actually a virtue. A cipher like Obama has no more ability to stand up to the oligarchy than a disengaged George W. Bush so easily stage-managed by Dick Cheney. Nothing less than an authoritarian style and personality is a match for the well-entrenched ruling oligarchy and willful neoconservatives. If Trump were a shrinking violet, the electorate would have ignored him.
Trump did not purchase his presidency with the offer of handouts to blacks, the poor generally, teachers unions, farmers, abortion rights for women, etc. Trump was elected because he said:
“Those who control the levers of power in Washington and the global special interests they partner with, don’t have your good in mind. It’s a global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations and political entities. The only thing that can stop this corrupt machine is you.”
It has been a long time since the electorate heard this kind of talk from someone seeking public office. Trump’s words are what Americans were waiting to hear.
As willful as Trump is, he is only one person. The oligarchy are many.
As impressive as Trump’s billion dollars is, the oligarchs have trillions.
Congress being in Republican hands will spare Trump partisan obstruction, but Congress remains in the hands of interest groups.
As powerful as the office of the president can be, without unity in government changes from the top don’t occur, especially if the president is at odds with the military with regard to the alleged threat posed by Russia and China. Trump says he wants peace with the nuclear powers. The military/security complex needs an enemy for its budget.
It is absolutely necessary that a lid be put on tensions between nuclear powers and that economic opportunity reappears for the American people. Trump is not positioned to benefit from war and jobs offshoring. The only sensible strategy is to support him on these issues and to hold his feet to the fire.
As for the immigration issue, the Obama Justice (sic) Department has just worsened the picture with its ruling that American police departments cannot discriminate against non-citizens by only hiring citizens as officers. Now that US citizens face arrest in their own country by non-citizens, the resentment of immigrants will increase. Clearly it is nonsensical to devalue American citizenship in this way. Clearly it is sensible to put a lid on immigration until the US economy is again able to create jobs capable of sustaining an independent existence.
For years, global central banks have pushed back with extraordinary easy-money policies, delivering ultra-low and even negative interest rates worldwide.
And for years, financial commentators … including my colleagues Larry Edelson, Mike Larson and myself … have been predicting this will end very badly one day – when the spell of omnipotent central banks is forever broken and investors reject government debt of any kind.
Well, 2016 may go down in the financial history books
as a real game-changing year:
The end of the great bull-market bubble in bonds.
It was fun while it lasted. After all, the great bull market in bonds persisted for 35 years!
From a peak above 15% in 1981, yields on the 30-Year U.S. Treasury Bond steadily declined to a low of just 2.1% earlier this year.
And since bond prices move in the opposite direction of yields, this meant windfall profits for bond investors for several decades.
But now the game has changed, and it means a major shift is already underway across financial markets.
As you can see in the chart above, yields on the benchmark 10-Year Treasury note were at a low of 1.3% as recently as July, but spiked higher to nearly 2% this week.
What’s different this time is that previously, bond yields consistently declined whenever uncertainty and stock-market volatility were on the rise, but NOT this time.
This time yields are rising as investors unload bonds and prices tumble.
Now, a move in bond yields from 1.3% to almost 2% may not sound like such a big deal, but consider this: A paltry 1 percentage point rise in yields translates into a roughly 7% loss in the principle value of global government and corporate bonds.
That’s equivalent to a $3.4 trillion hit to the global bond market, a loss large enough to erase several years’ worth of interest payments!
And why are bond yields suddenly selling off worldwide?
The short-sighted seers on CNBC will tell you it’s due to fears about an impending interest-rate hike from the Federal Reserve. But I don’t believe that for a minute.
Look, the Fed’s desire to “normalize” monetary policy and to begin raising rates has been the worst-kept secret on Wall Street.
After all, the Fed ended its quantitative-easing program, when it bought government bonds to suppress interest rates, two years ago, in November 2014.
Then this past December, the Fed made its first move in over a decade to raise short-term interest rates.
Yet 10-Year Treasury prices were higher back then than they are right now. So, you can’t pin the blame for recent bond market losses on fears of rising rates alone.
What’s really happening?
Rising fears of inflation, that’s the real game-changer.
Here’s a fact that wasn’t widely reported on CNBC or in the Wall Street Journal this week: On Halloween, the Fed’s preferred measure of inflation, something called the PCE deflator, was reported to have risen 1.2% in September from a year ago.
But this time last year, PCE inflation was up only 0.2% in the year ending September 2015. In other words, inflation is accelerating.
In fact, prices are rising at a 2.1% annual clip over the past six months alone … a rate that surpasses the Fed’s publicly stated 2% inflation target.
No surprise when you consider: American wages are finally on the rise; commodities, including oil, are rebounding; oh and healthcare and tuition costs continue to soar at double-digit rates.
And it’s not just here at home either. Measures of inflation are also on the rise in Europe and the United Kingdom, too, as you can plainly see in the chart above.
Bonds are selling off due to fears that the Fed, and many other central banks are already behind the curve on inflation, which I define as the real cost-of-living, not the contrived government data.
Mind you, I’m not saying we’re in store for the 1970s-style inflation with soaring prices for everything from food to fuel. But investors have gotten so accustomed to years of low inflation, and have grown so complacent it will continue, that even a mild acceleration in prices – with interest rates at record lows – can be a major game-changer for financial markets.
How will this impact your investments?
We’re seeing the trends already.
Stocks that benefit from rising prices, including energy and financials have been outperforming the stock market.
Financials are up 6.6% since the end of June, the second-best performing sector behind technology, which is another sector that typically performs well amid rising inflation. And energy stocks are up 14% year-to-date.
Meanwhile, the most interest-rate sensitive stocks, including utility and telecom shares, are getting thrashed – both sectors have declined 6% since July 1.
Bottom line: I’m seeing growing evidence that interest rates are likely headed even higher so long as inflation remains on the rise. This means the long-anticipated bond market bust may finally be unfolding now, right before our eyes.
Stocks and ETFs with bond-like qualities are vulnerable to get dragged down along with bond prices. Be sure to adjust your own portfolio holdings accordingly.
P.S. A worldwide bust in government bonds is just one of the many market shocks my colleague Larry Edelson is forecasting. Read his latest report on how to profit from it here.
Judicial Watch Asks Court to Compel Hillary Clinton Email Answers
NOVEMBER 03, 2016
‘Secretary Clinton failed to provide sufficient reasons for refusing to answer … and the limited reasons she provides do not warrant sustaining her objections’
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today announced it filed a motion to compel former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to answer three interrogatory questions she refused to answer under oath, submitted to her by Judicial Watch under a court order issued by U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on August 19, 2016. In its brief, Judicial Watch argues that Clinton “failed to provide sufficient reasons for refusing to answer them, and the limited reasons she provides do not warrant sustaining her objections.” Hillary Clinton refused outright to answer questions about the creation of her email system; her decision to use the system despite warning from State Department officials; and the basis for her claim that the State Department had “90-95%” of her emails.
In her responses sent to Judicial Watch and the court on October 13, 2016, Clinton refused to answer three questions outright and responded that she “does not recall” 20 times concerning her non-government clintonemail.com email system. She preceded her responses by eight “general objections” and two “objections to definitions.” The words “object” or “objection” appear 84 times throughout the 23-page document submitted to the court and Judicial Watch.
In its motion to compel, Judicial Watch argues:
Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[t]he grounds for objecting to an interrogatory must be stated with specificity…. In addition, the party objecting to the interrogatory “bears the burden of ‘show[ing] why discovery should not be permitted….’” Although she objected to the three interrogatories, Secretary Clinton failed to provide sufficient reasons for refusing to answer them, and the limited reasons she provides do not warrant sustaining her objections.
Interrogatory 1 asks: “Describe the creation of the clintonemail.com system, including who decided to create the system, the date it was decided to create the system, why it was created, who set it up, and when it became operational.” In its motion to compel, Judicial Watch argues:
Secretary Clinton objects and asserts that the interrogatory is outside the scope of permitted discovery…. However, the creation of the clintonemail.com system is squarely within the scope of permitted discovery. Understanding the basic facts surrounding the creation of the system is an integral part of understanding how and why it came to be used for State Department business. To date, no witness has testified about these facts, and the Court specifically authorized interrogatories to enable Plaintiff to gather this information. Secretary Clinton’s refusal to answer the interrogatory is therefore misplaced.
Interrogatory 14 asks:
On March 6, 2009, Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security Eric J. Boswell wrote in an Information Memo to your Chief of Staff, Cheryl Mills, that he “cannot stress too strongly, however, that any unclassified BlackBerry is highly vulnerable in any setting to remotely and covertly monitoring conversations, retrieving email, and exploiting calendars.” A March 11, 2009 email states that, in a management meeting with the assistant secretaries, you approached Assistant Secretary Boswell and mentioned that you had read the “IM” and that you “get it.” Did you review the March 6, 2009 Information Memo, and, if so, why did you continue using an unclassified BlackBerry to access your clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business?
Secretary Clinton objected to Interrogatory 14, asserting that it concerned “cybersecurity issues outside the scope of permitted discovery.” In its motion to compel, Judicial Watch argues:
Interrogatory 14 does not concern “cybersecurity issues.” It asks whether Secretary Clinton read a memorandum about the general use of unapproved or unclassified Blackberries, and, if she did read the memorandum, why did she continue using an unapproved or unclassified Blackberry – the device by which [she] accessed the clintonemail.com account she used to conduct official government business. A yes or no answer to whether she read the memorandum will not reveal any information the parties’ agreed-upon scope sought to avoid. Similarly, if the answer is yes, Secretary Clinton’s explanation as to why, after reading the memorandum, she continued to access her clintonemail.com account through her Blackberry also will not reveal any information the parties’ agreed-upon scope sought to avoid. The interrogatory clearly seeks information squarely within the scope of permitted discovery. Secretary Clinton should be compelled to answer Interrogatory 14.
Interrogatory 24 asks:
During your October 22, 2015 appearance before the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Benghazi, you testified that 90 to 95 percent of your emails “were in the State’s system” and ‘if they wanted to see them, they would certainly have been able to do so.’ Identify the basis for this statement, including all facts on which you relied in support of the statement, how and when you became aware of these facts, and, if you were made aware of these facts by or through another person, identify the person who made you aware of these facts.
Secretary Clinton objected to Interrogatory 24 and asserted that the interrogatory asked for information protected by the attorney-client privilege. In its motion to compel, Judicial Watch argues:
Interrogatory 24 does not seek any factual information Secretary Clinton may have provided to her attorneys in confidence for purposes of obtaining legal advice. Nor does it seek any advice Secretary Clinton’s attorneys may have provided the secretary that would reveal facts she provided them in confidence. The interrogatory only seeks the factual basis for a specific representation Secretary Clinton made to Congress. It is irrelevant whether Secretary Clinton told her attorneys about the factual basis for this representation, either for purposes of obtaining legal advice or for some other purpose, because Plaintiff has not asked about any such communications. As a result, the attorney client privilege does not apply.
Because Secretary Clinton has failed to provide any such information to justify her assertion of the attorney client privilege, she should be compelled to answer Interrogatory 24.
“By refusing to answer our simple questions, Hillary Clinton is obstructing our efforts to get basic information about her email practices,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Because she has not – and cannot – demonstrate that her refusal to answer our questions is proper, Hillary Clinton should be required by the court to answer them promptly.”
The Clinton responses to interrogatives were received in the Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, which was first filed in September 2013 seeking records about the controversial employment status of Huma Abedin, former deputy chief of staff to Clinton (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:13-cv-01363)). The lawsuit was reopened because of revelations about the clintonemail.com system.
For the full history of this case, click here.
France — le gouvernement socialiste vise désormais la liberté de programme des écoles indépendantes
Posted: 01 Nov 2016 07:11 AM PDT
Résumé de la situation par Anne Coffinier, présidente de la Fondation pour l’école. Rappelons que, contrairement au Québec, les écoles non subventionnées par l’État en France sont libres de choisir leur programme, leur pédagogie et leurs enseignants. En effet, ceux-ci ne sont pas obligés d’être passés par une faculté d’éducation pendant des années comme au Québec, ils peuvent être des diplômés de leur branche : des historiens, des germanistes, des physiciens et avoir reçu une brève formation supplémentaire d’enseignant. Dans la pratique, les programmes des écoles indépendantes s’alignent fortement sur le programme gouvernemental en fin de scolarité afin de permettre à leurs élèves de décrocher le bac français (le DEC québécois).
Après le rejet par le Sénat du projet de passage au régime d’autorisation pour les écoles indépendantes, où en est la bataille pour la liberté scolaire ? Un point s’impose.
Le Ministère de l’Éducation nationale porte actuellement deux projets :
– changer les modalités d’ouverture des écoles hors contrat (par ordonnance législative, ce qui requiert un vote d’habilitation du Parlement)
– contraindre les écoles indépendantes à appliquer les programmes des écoles publiques, en dépit de leur droit à la liberté des programmes consacré par la loi
Où en sommes-nous ?
– Sur le régime d’ouverture
Dans un premier temps, l’Assemblée a accédé aux demandes du gouvernement. Le Sénat a voté contre en proposant de maintenir le régime de déclaration en renforçant les conditions à respecter. La Commission mixte paritaire vient d’échouer sur le texte qui passe — et ce sera la dernière étape législative — devant l’Assemblée nationale le 7 novembre prochain. La probabilité de l’adoption du projet du gouvernement est très forte, la majorité à l’Assemblée nationale ayant l’habitude de suivre les directives gouvernementales. Pourtant la nocivité du projet de passer à un régime d’autorisation a été dénoncée par toutes les parties sans exception, y compris par des élus communistes ou écologistes donc issus de la majorité gouvernementale. L’autisme du gouvernement sur ce sujet est total ! Veut-il vraiment empêcher le développement d’écoles radicalisantes ou hostiles à l’unité nationale ou poursuit-il le but de tordre le cou à la liberté scolaire ?
Les écoles indépendantes connaissent une progression fulgurante (93 ouvertures à cette rentrée). Plutôt que d’en freiner l’ouverture, ne serait-il pas temps pour l’État de se féliciter de leur développement et d’en faciliter le déploiement ? Ce changement de régime d’ouverture semble franchement inconstitutionnel. Nous ne pouvons dès lors qu’espérer que le Parlement défère le texte au Conseil constitutionnel.
– Sur le contrôle des connaissances
Le Code de l’éducation le dit sans hésitation (art 442-3) : les écoles hors contrat sont entièrement libres de leur programme. C’est l’une des dimensions essentielles de leur liberté.
Alors pourquoi Mme Najat Vallaud Belkacem veut-elle nous imposer de respecter les programmes de l’Éducation nationale et enjoint-elle à ses inspecteurs de vérifier cela ?
Un décret dans ce sens est sur le point d’être signé : il viole la loi et l’esprit de la loi. L’État ne finance pas le secteur hors contrat. Au nom de quoi lui imposerait-il de respecter ses programmes scolaires dont la médiocrité et le caractère idéologique sont dénoncés par tous ? Les écoles indépendantes ont droit à une vraie liberté, pas à la liberté de faire comme l’Éducation nationale. Les écoles indépendantes réclament d’être « libres de leurs méthodes et comptables de leurs résultats ». Le système éducatif public a le triste privilège de n’être soumis à aucune évaluation (à part le classement PISA, établi à l’initiative de l’OCDE). Les écoles indépendantes n’ont pas peur des évaluations de leurs résultats, mais contestent la légitimité de l’Éducation nationale, à la fois juge et partie, à juger de leurs méthodes pédagogiques.
La Fondation pour l’école maintient sa vigilance en alerte, et est prête à engager les recours juridiques qui s’imposeront devant le caractère illégal et anticonstitutionnel de ces mesures.