If you don't know this, you don't know anything about what you are pretending to discuss.
You really need to sharpen your tools, mate, if you want to appear to have any credibility at all.
Don't waste our time with your sophomoric scholarship. You make me laugh!
Simple. Out of 27 footnotes in the essay you quoted, six are citations of a single article by Frederick Clarkson. The publication it's found in, "The Public Eye", is published by a group called "Political Research Associates". Here's a statement about them, taken from their own website:
Founded in 1981, Political Research Associates serves as the premier national organization addressing the full spectrum of the US political Right - from the right-wing in the electoral arena to paramilitary organizations. PRA works to facilitate public understanding of the threat posed to democratic values and principles by the Right in the United States. Through our research and publications and as a national resource and support center for activists, journalists and others, PRA helps to build the movement for progressive social change.
So, how long have you been secretly pushing the Democratic Party's agenda on Free Republic, Herr Chancellor?
Let's get back to our analysis of this hit piece:
Of the remaining 21 footnotes, only three directly reference a "core" Reconstructionist author or publication (Gary North twice, Rev. Sandelin once). Only two of those reference direct quotes (both North), and neither are made in the context of home schooling or private education. Of the remaining 18 footnotes all appear to reference articles/quotes made by parties hostile to either conservative politics, Christian Reconstructionism, or Christian activism in general. Add in the six citations mentioned above, and it totals to 24 footnotes of secondary/tertiary sources, one primary book source, and only two actual source quotations from the accused (none about education).
In other words, Chancellor Palpatine (may I call you Darth Sidious?) you've provided us with a wonderfully biased, openly-Democratic-party-supporting slam-job of an article, one that more properly belongs on that whinefest better known as Democratic Underground than on Free Republic.