ARCHIVES
GALLUP FINDS MOST AMERICANS PRO-LIFE
May 22, 2009 -- For the first time since 1995, a majority of Americans consider themselves pro-life rather than pro-
choice according to new Gallup poll
The poll, conducted May 7-10, found Americans are pro-life by 51 percent to 42 percent. The poll also found that the
percentage of Americans who believe abortion should be illegal in all circumstances (23 percent) is about equal to those
who believe it should be allowed in all circumstance (22 percent.) This contrasts with the last four years when public
opinion was strongly in support of unrestricted abortion.
Other polls confirm these findings. A recent Pew Research Center survey found that the percentage of Americans
believing abortion should always be legal dropped from 54 percent to 46 percent since last August. In that same period,
those believing it should always be illegal rose from 41 percent to 44 percent.
Increased support for pro-life was found across the Christian spectrum – a 7-percentage point gain among
Catholics and an 8-point gain among Protestants. Similarly, there has been a shift among men and women.
Gallup reports that a year ago the pro-choice position prevailed among women by 50 percent to 43 percent.
Men were pro-choice by 49 percent to 46 percent. Today, Gallup reports, both groups are more likely to be pro-life.
Joe Pojman, executive director of the Texas Alliance for Life, welcomed the news and attributed the shift to the Obama
administration’s “aggressive promotion of abortion both domestically and overseas.” Administration policies, he said,
have made it apparent that the meaning of the term “pro-choice” is not as benign as many thought. Obama’s initiatives, he
said, have made it clear that “pro-choice” means tax-funded abortion and abortions for minors without parental consent.
STIMULUS BILL MANDATES HEALTH CARE RATIONING
Feb. 10, 2009 - Betsy McCaughey, an adjunct senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, has exposed what may the best kept
secret in Washington – Obama’s “stimulus” bill allows a Federal bureaucrat to overrule the treatment decisions of the
doctor who examined you.
The bill creates a new bureaucracy -- the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology. Its purpose is to make
sure your doctor is treating you the way the Federal government thinks is appropriate and cost effective. While your
doctor is chiefly concerned with keeping you alive and healthy, the government is intent on saving money.
A similar proposal, she reports, was made by former Sen. Tom Daschle in his 2008 book, Critical: What We Can Do
About the Health-Care Crisis. In the book Daschle says doctors have to give up their autonomy and “learn to operate
less like solo practitioners.”
Daschle also had advice for older persons. “Seniors,” he said, “should be more accepting of the conditions that come
with age instead of treating them.” Americans, he urged, should follow the example of Europeans and accept “hopeless
diagnoses” instead of trying experimental treatments that could save their lives.
McCaughey notes that Medicare currently pays for treatments considered safe and effective. The stimulus bill changes that
and applies instead a cost-effectiveness standard set by the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness
Research. It resembles a British government agency described in Daschle’s book. It approves or rejects a treatment
depending on the number of years it decides the patient is likely to benefit from it Treatments for older patients are
approved less often because the agency believes they won’t live long enough to justify the cost.
This, of course, is a self-fulfilling projection since denying the treatment could result in early death. A succinct term for this
policy is involuntary euthanasia or, even more succinctly, murder.
According to McCaughey, the bill doesn’t spell out what may happen to doctors who refuse to surrender their
autonomy and persist in operating as “solo practitioners.” But it does make clear that hospitals and doctors that are not
“meaningful users” of the new system will face penalties. What “meaningful user” means is left to the Health and Human
Services secretary who can impose “more stringent measures of meaningful use over time.” The fact that Daschle was
Obama's first choice for this post reveals the President's plans for our medical care and, ultimately, for our longevity.
Doctors who hope to avoid the “more stringent measures” will fall in line and limit the treatments they prescribe to those
approved by the federal government even if it means the death of their patient.
EDUCATION VICTORY FOR TEXAS STUDENTS
By Ken Mercer, Texas State Board of Education Member
April 5, 2009 - Common sense, combined with the pressure of at least 14,000 constituent communications in favor of
allowing students to discuss all sides of a science theory, finally prevailed.
On Thursday I made the motion to restore the 20-year standard of "Strengths and Weaknesses" to the new science
TEKS (standards) for the next 10 years of textbooks. This motion failed by a 7-7 vote.
The radical liberals, Darwinists, atheists and secular humanists attending from around the country quickly claimed victory
to the army of national print and television media present. By Friday afternoon their language "evolved" to words and
remarks that cannot be put in print.
Friday morning, my fellow conservative board member Cynthia Dunbar (R-Richmond) proposed a final amendment to the
new “analyze and evaluate” language. After two slight language amendments to Dunbar’s motion from Bob Craig (R-
Lubbock) and Barbara Cargill (R-Woodlands), the SBOE passed the final TEKS language regarding science curriculum
by a vote of 13-2. This historic decision for the new science TEKS for grades 3-12, includes all areas of science such as
biology, chemistry, physics, environmental science, astronomy and aquatic biology.
The language passed with the following statement: “In all fields of science, analyze, evaluate, and critique scientific
explanations by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational testing including examining
all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations so as to encourage critical thinking by the students.”
Clearly, the important legislative intent is to protect the academic freedom of Texas students. Our students should no
longer feel chilled from discussion by those in authority who might claim there is no disagreement or weakness in a
scientific theory.
Every conservative group present, including Texas Eagle Forum and the Free Market Foundation, applauded this new
language as a huge victory for Texas students.
Texas School Law Attorney, Kelly Coghlan, while disappointed that the important word "weaknesses"
was deleted, stated: "Textbooks and teachers will be required to teach “all sides” (scientific evidence
both for and against and supportive and not supportive) of a scientific theory. I believe the new language
implicitly requires that weaknesses be taught and is just as strong as the old language."
The Texas statewide print media apparently once again got it wrong. It was perfectly clear to anyone on the floor of the
SBOE that our liberal opposition was not happy. Perhaps the website headline for the
conservative Texans for Better Science Education described it best: "Darwinist monopoly on public schools decisively
broken in Texas...Darwinists confused...Militant Secular Humanists are outraged."
The Wall Street Journal reported on Saturday: "The Texas Board of Education approved a science
curriculum that opens the door for teachers and textbooks to raise doubts about evolution."
In conclusion, my favorite memory was a remark from one of the California atheists who sat behind my
desk on the floor of the SBOE. After we passed one historic amendment after another, this atheist cried
out: "Oh my God!"
ALTRUISM AT THE POINT OF A GUN
By Rick Moran
March 20, 2009 - The House has passed the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act, known as the
GIVE Act (where do they come up with these Orwellian acronyms?). The bill fulfills an Obama campaign promise to
create a "civilian national security force."
This legislation will not mandate or force our young people into national service - not yet
anyway. But there is little doubt that we are being set up for just such an eventuality.
Under section 6104 of the bill, entitled “Duties,” in subsection B6, the legislation states that a
commission will be set up to investigate, “Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all
able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would
strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse
economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.”
Section 120 of the bill also discusses the “Youth Engagement Zone Program” and states that
“service learning” will be “a mandatory part of the curriculum in all of the secondary schools
served by the local educational agency.”
“The legislation, slated to cost $6 billion over five years, would create 175,000 “new service opportunities” under
AmeriCorps, bringing the number of participants in the national volunteer program to 250,000. It would also create
additional “corps” to expand the reach of volunteerism into new sectors, including a Clean Energy Corps, Education
Corps, Healthy Futures Corps and Veterans Service Corps, and it expands the National Civilian Community Corps to
focus on additional areas like disaster relief and energy conservation,” reports Fox News.
Clearly, the goal of this program is to involve every single young person in America in a mandatory service program. The
"Commission" is a smokescreen. Of course they are going to recommend that there be mandatory service and they will lay
out procedures on how to do it.
During the campaign, Obama envisioned a program that would require youngsters to spend several hours a week in
community service. Many high schools already require a certain number of hours devoted to "community service" in order
to be eligible to graduate. How this all fits into "national security" will be very interesting to see.
What we have here is nothing less than altruism at the point of a gun. Fine thing we're teaching our kids - that government
can compel you to do "good."
BREAKING FREE FROM THE CONSTITUTION
By Bob Ward - Editor,Texas Daily
Nov. 14, 2008 - There are any number of things to be concerned about in a Barack Obama, administration but among
the most serious is his attitude toward the judicial branch.
In a 2001 interview on National Public Radio, Obama discussed the Supreme Court’s role in the civil rights movement.
While the court affirmed the basic civil rights of blacks, he recalled, it “never ventured into the issues of redistribution of
wealth.” The reason the court failed to redistribute wealth, according to Obama was that, “It didn't break free from the
essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution.”
While most Americans would consider it appropriate for a court to adhere to the Constitution, Obama sees it otherwise.
The Constitution, he said, “reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day.”
And that blind spot, he continued constitutes “the fundamental flaw of this country.”
We are forced to conclude that during the Obama administration, our judges – at all levels from District Court to the U.S.
Supreme Court – will be appointed by someone who believes it is their duty to “break free” from a
flawed constitution.
Obama plainly believes courts should disregard the Constitution in order to redistribute wealth, it is unclear in
what other areas he thinks the Constitution should be overruled. There is strong sentiment among Democratic
leaders in the Congress to re-establish the “fairness doctrine” in broadcasting.
After the old fairness doctrine imposed in 1949 was abolished under Ronald
Reagan in 1987 we saw the rise of talk radio. It is dominated by conservatives
and has been a raspberry seed in the molar of liberals. There have been many
attempts by liberals to emulate the success of conservative talk radio and they
have all been dismal failures.
Under the fairness doctrine a radio station that aired Rush Limbaugh would be compelled to devote three hours to liberal
talk that nobody would listen to. Stations would respond by changing their formats to less controversial programming.
The legal basis for this intrusion by government is the fiction that the “airwaves” belong to the public and the
statutory requirement that stations licensed by the Federal Communication Commission operate “in the public
interest.” These condition do not apply to non-broadcast media which are protected from government interference by
the first Amendment to the Constitution.
However, Obama believes the Constitution is flawed and courts should “break free” from it. It is not
unreasonable to expect the Federal government, under Obama, to attempt to control other media. Most
vulnerable is the Internet with its bloggers who operate without the editorial “gatekeepers” that keep the
mainstream media in line and usually without the discipline of the marketplace as well.
And if the mainstream mediaalso become victims of Obama’s judicial philosophy, they have only themselves to
blame. They gave this guy a pass overall, and specifically, this interview with National Public Radio should have had
widespread coverage early in the campaign instead of turning up on a few conservatives venues just days before the
election.
Churches are another area where the Constitution is on shaky ground. There are already constitutionally suspect limits on
what pastors can say or do if they speak for their congregations on public issues while enjoying a tax exemption. Liberal
pressure groups are constantly filing complaints with the IRS in an attempt to silence conservative clergy. Under an
Obama administration, such groups could succeed beyond their wildest dreams and without the complication of involving
the IRS. A pastor who spoke out against homosexuality, for example, could be charged with a hate crime, as happens in
Canada, and the U.S. Justice Dept. would deal with him.
Creative U.S. attorneys could find new ways to enforce the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law to silence critics
during the critical weeks just before an election. And Federal judges who subscribe to the Obama view of the
Constitution will uphold these prosecutions.
The First Amendment guarantees of free speech and religious freedom are not the only rights that can be
violated once our courts are populated by judges who consider it their duty to “break free” from a flawed
constitution. Life, liberty and certainly property are at risk once Barak Obama begins to appoint judges and the
Democratic controlled Senate starts confirming them.
KINDERGARTNERS GET GAY 'PLEDGE CARDS'
Pete Chagnon - OneNewsNow
Nov. 9, 2008 - A pro-family advocate is outraged that a California public school teacher would pass out homosexual
pledge cards to her kindergarten students.
The pledge cards were produced by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, or GLSEN, and featured oaths
that students would not use "anti-lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender language or slurs," that students would intervene
on behalf of homosexual students when possible, and that they would actively
support safer schools efforts.
Tara Miller is a kindergarten teacher at Faith Ringgold School of Arts and Science in Hayward, California.
She passed out the pledge cards to her students, which she then asked them to sign.
Peter LaBarbera, the president of Americans for Truth about Homosexuality, is outraged at Miller's actions.
"Why is homosexuality as an issue being raised at all in kindergarten? These are students who don't even know what sex is
yet, and this teacher is talking to them about homosexuality," he contends. "This is an abuse of these students' minds, and
it's just wrong."
According to a report on FoxNews.com, one parent was angry when she found her child's signature on the
pledge card. LaBarbera believes this instance highlights the real agenda of the homosexual movement.
"This is just bizarre, and it shows how the teachers with their radical sexual agenda want to start early to
reprogram these kids' minds. They want to undermine the faith teachings that the kids have at home; this is part of a plan,"
he suggests. "To me, this is like Hitler with Nazi Germany and the Soviets wanting to get to the youth and change the kids
by getting to them at a very young age."
In the same report on FoxNews.com, a spokesperson for the school agreed the pledge was inappropriate for the
kindergarten students and said that the pledges were meant for middle school and high school students.
GROWTH IN GOVERNMENT JOBS NO BLESSING
By Tom Pauken, Chairman, Texas Workforce Commission
Sept. 13, 2008 - Texas, I’m proud to say, wins regular praise as a top location for new jobs. We have added
more than a million new jobs over the past four years, with most of them in the private sector. That’s why the
latest July employment statistics for Texas look so odd.
“Odd” meaning what? Even though July employment increased in Texas by 17, 500, the great majority of the growth –
roughly 16,000 jobs – came from growth in the government sector. The private sector grew by a mere 1,500 jobs.
Where is this “government growth” coming from since state spending has been held in check in recent years by Gov. Rick
Perry and our legislative leaders who have resisted the
temptation to grow state government faster than inflation plus population growth?
A recent study by the Texas Taxpayers and Research Association (TTARA) may give us a clue as to the
source of “government growth” in Texas. You all know about that one-third cut in school property taxes which Perry and
the Legislature got passed into law back in the spring of 2006. A new TTARA study reveals
that local taxing entities have taken away most of the property tax relief we received through a combination of
the “stealth tax” of skyrocketing appraisals, higher tax rates, and bond elections. This has led to total property
taxes in Texas being $1.7 billion higher today than they were in 2005.
As the TTARA study points out, the restructuring of our state’s business tax was designed to increase
state support for public education in an amount “sufficient to provide an overall net tax cut of $2.5 billion a
year. In fact, House Bill 1 provided Texas property taxpayers with a savings in 2007 of nearly $7 billion by
reducing school maintenance and operations tax rates.” Why then are we not seeing our promised property tax relief?
I would suggest that a major reason is that local taxing entities have gone on a spending spree since the passage of that
legislation, adding government jobs and increasing public spending at a pace far in excess of the growth of inflation. For
example, property taxes necessary to repay school bonds increased by 37 percent from 2005 to 2007, according to the
TTARA study. Appraised values on property are way up during the last two years: “ The overall increases in the assessed
value of property in Texas in 2006 (12.3 percent) and in 2007 (12.1 percent) were the highest in recent memory,” reports
TTARA.
While the rate for public school taxes fell significantly due to the school finance reform legislation, local taxing
entities have proceeded to make those property tax cuts disappear. Again, the TTARA study is enlightening on that issue:
“since 2005 the average annual tax growth in these jurisdictions (city, county, and special districts) has accelerated to
roughly 11 to 12 percent – well above the 3.6 percent inflation increases in the municipal cost index (American City and
County Magazine) and the 2.2 percent average annual Texas population growth.”
A significant reason why states like California, New Jersey, and Michigan have gotten themselves in such
serious financial jams is that they ignored the importance of sound fiscal and tax policies designed to encourage job
creation in the private sector, not the creation of more government jobs.
Our current state leadership in Texas understands that low taxes and fiscal prudence encourage economic
development. Unfortunately, many of our local taxing entities seem to have forgotten that important economic
lesson as they continuously keep raising our local property taxes and increasing the number of government
employees. That’s why the growth of 16,000 “government jobs” in Texas in the month of July may not be
such good news after all if we are concerned about the long term economic future of our state.
The only good news coming out of the TTARA study is that the property taxes would be $7 billion higher today but for
the passage of the school finance reform legislation. Nonetheless, appraisal reform and property tax relief need to be at
the top of the agenda during the next session of the Texas Legislature in January 2009 if we are going to ever get local
property taxes under control.
COMMUNIST CALLED OBAMA MENTOR
By CLIFF KINCAID
Oct. 9, 2008 - The man pictured here is Frank Marshall Davis, known in the
media as a mentor for Barack Obama. A new book, The Dream Begins, claims
Davis was "demonized" as a Communist but that he helped shape Obama's views.
I will leave it to you to decide what influence he had over Obama. But I do have
the shocking truth about Davis. He was not only a documented member of the
Communist Party USA, but a sex pervert, homosexual and pornographer. I have
the entire 600-page FBI file on Davis. I also have excerpts from and an analysis
of Davis's pornographic Sex Rebel book.
When you read our reports on Davis, you will be absolutely astounded. You will ask yourself:
Why haven't I been told this until now? Why the cover-up?
My name is Cliff Kincaid. I am editor of the Accuracy in Media (AIM) Report. Conservative
media personalities such as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck have given me credit for unearthing
the facts about the Global Poverty Act, a notorious foreign aid welfare giveaway bill. I am a
journalist by training and have been a writer, analyst and researcher in Washington, D.C. for 30
years. My agenda is uncovering the truth.
I also serve as president of America's Survival, Inc. (ASI), a foreign affairs watchdog group. It
was in this capacity, as we were researching the bloody legacy of international Communism, that
I came upon the hard and cold facts about Frank Marshall Davis and his influence.
Please understand that we don't take a stand for or against any candidate. We have no affiliation
with any political campaign. Our purpose is to educate the public about the role played by global
movements and institutions on America. I came to the conclusion that we wouldn't be true to our
mission if we didn't put all of our information about Frank Marshall Davis and his international
communist connections on the record for you to consider. You can come to your own
conclusions about the extent of his influence.
Simply put, we discovered that Davis was a key high-level operative in a Soviet-sponsored
network in Hawaii. His FBI file suggests that he may have been involved in espionage activities
on behalf of the Soviet Union.
We disclosed our initial findings at a May 22 news conference in Washington, D.C., where we
released our two reports on communist influence in Hawaii and Chicago. These reports are
available at our website. However, major organs of the national news media have seen fit to
either ignore Davis or play down his communist affiliations. That tendency is clearly at work in
the new book, The Dream Begins.
When America entered into our current economic crisis, I reviewed a copy of a 1932 book,
Toward Soviet America, by then-CPUSA boss William Z. Foster. He explained how socialism
will come to America. It is frightening to realize that Davis was part of that movement. Davis's
communist activities began in 1931 and continued into the 1970s. He passed away in 1987. He
never stopped being a communist.
Let me caution you. When you go to our website and read some of this material, especially the
information about Davis's perverted sexual activities, you will be sickened and disgusted. This
material is for adults only! I do not provide it to titillate or amuse you. I provide it so that you
will understand that this is someone who should never have been put in charge or control of any
young person.
It is necessary to put this on the public record because there is a coordinated effort to suppress the
truth about Davis. The book I previously mentioned is only the latest example of a media trend to
depict this hard-core communist agent as some kind of civil rights activist. Nothing could be
further from the truth. He was a Communist pervert.
When you go to our website -- www.usasurvival.org -- and examine our reports on Davis and
related matters, you will see for yourself the terrible truth.
WHO IS SARAH PALIN?
By Butch King -- Alaskan Bush Pilot and Guide
Sept. 9, 2008 - Sarah “Barracuda” Palin is a straight shooting, hard charging, get it done gal. She knows when to listen,
how to analyze the facts and how to make a decision, then implement the plan. She doesn’t do a poll before jumping in
with both feet like too many of the Washington types.
She has little legislative experience because she has always held the executive position; in private life, as mayor of
Anchorage’s largest bedroom community and more recently as governor. She is a smart, attractive home grown Alaska
girl with excellent moral and family values. She can see what needs to be done and does not hesitate to get it done.
One of our state’s major problems is that its capital is in Juneau, 500 miles from the nearest road and 800 air miles from
the population base which is Anchorage, Wasilla and Fairbanks. Our legislature and most of the state government is in
Juneau and they ALL behave like a bunch of freshmen in a college town. It has been this way since statehood in 1959.
When Sarah moved to Juneau, so did accountability and responsibility. When the oil revenue started flowing and a barrel
of North Slope Crude hit $23, these people began spending money like drunken sailors. You can only imagine what was
happening when oil hit $100 a barrel, about the time Sarah took command. My wife Kathy has first-hand experience with
this fiasco, as her father and her ex-husband were Alaska legislators.
About the time Sarah took the helm as governor of Alaska, about half of the state legislature was in the pocket of big oil
companies or contractors doing big projects for native corporations around Alaska, all funded by state oil revenue.
Alaska government was nothing but a good old boys club riding the perpetual wave of prosperity. This filtered down
from the legislature, through the Department of Natural Resources, Department of Labor and even spilled into the Public
Safety who are supposed to “preserve and protect”.
When Sarah walked into the Governor’s Mansion, she promptly dismissed the state trooper detachment assigned to
governor and had her and her husband’s gun case brought in from Wasilla. Then, she got rid of the former governor’s
state jet and told legislators there were no more free rides, they would have to fly Alaska Airlines just like her and her
family if they wanted
to travel.
Next came the the Barracuda part. The heads that rolled were too numerous to name, but when Sarah finished cleaning
house, a number of our legislators ended up in jail on corruption charges, or tendered their resignations along with
numerous department heads and those who had been riding the gravy train for way too long. And then she had lunch.
By the end of the day, Sarah Palin had saved the people of Alaska millions and has not yet slowed down.
She has truly brought CHANGE to Juneau. I personally know several persons in the private sector in Alaska, that hold
her in high esteem. She surrounds herself with smart people, many from my hometown of Anchorage. She listens to them
but makes her own decisions. Sarah Palin is a no B.S. politician. It is refreshing that there is such a thing anymore. You
want to talk about change? You should see a before and after picture of the state government in Alaska.
That’s change!
Sarah will bring a number of things to the election. I am sure she will appeal to many voters who otherwise could have
gone the other direction on election day. We need what Sarah will bring, first to the election and second, what she will
bring to Washington D.C. John McCain has been advised well, Let’s just hope the American people can get the straight
scoop on her in the weeks
ahead.
This is just the opinion of one Alaska Bush Pilot and Guide, who pays attention to national politics, watches the news and
is deathly afraid of the direction our nation is headed. I guarantee that if Sarah gets a chance to dig her spurs into the
flanks of the liberal Washington types, they will know that she is in the saddle.
CHARTER SCHOOLS SURGING ACROSS U.S.
By Robert Holland
July 5, 2008 - There has been a bumper crop of charter school stories this graduation season. What's more, the articles
have been largely positive, a sign that these independently managed public schools are gaining popularity.
In Greenfield, Mass., the first graduating class at Four Rivers Public Charter School -- 26 strong -- celebrated the fact
that six years ago they had gathered as seventh graders, along with their parents, on
an overgrown field. Their school hadn't even been built yet. They took a leap of faith and fashioned a new school together.
A start-up success story on a larger scale comes from New Orleans, where charter schools have brought an
entrepreneurial spirit to education restoration in a city devastated by Hurricane Katrina three years ago. Charters now
handle 53 per cent of the city's post-hurricane enrollment; pre-Katrina, they had just two per cent.
Charters are booming in the state with the longest track record. Although overall public school enrollment in Minnesota is
declining, charter schools last year experienced their largest increase since 1991-92, the year the nation's first charter
school opened in Minnesota.
Charter schools are free of most of the rules that hamstring other public schools, including regulations pushed by teacher
unions to benefit their members instead of students. This freedom allows charter schools to tailor programs to children's
real needs.
The University of Minnesota's Joe Nathan, one of the authors of the Center for School Change's report on "Enrollment
and Demographic Trends for MN Charter and District Public Schools," offered these reasons for the rise in charter
enrollments:
"First, small size of the schools. Secondly, safer schools. Third, distinctive programs, whether
they're language immersion, ... the arts, things like that. Fourth, there's a feeling of great respect
from teachers to parents and from teachers to students" (Minneapolis Star-Tribune, June 19).
It also doesn't hurt that charters are public schools that parents can actually choose.
In Rochester, members of the Democrat and Chronicle newspaper's editorial board visited True North Rochester
Preparatory School to learn how it's racking up some of the highest math scores in New York State. The answer is
shorter than the school's name: discipline.
On Principal Stacey Shells' watch, students do not talk in the hallways and must walk a straight line to and from the
lunchroom. There are carrots, too, in the form of rewards for good conduct and high achievement.
"After all, it's impossible to teach amid disorder," the board noted in a June 19 editorial. "Too many City School District
teachers know that all too well. Many tell disturbing stories of constant disruptions by students uninterested in learning.
They create chaotic environments that make it almost impossible for other students to pursue knowledge."
There is abundant statistical evidence of the impact of the charter movement. EdSource, an
independent research organization, recently found charter middle and high schools performed
much better than regular public schools on California's 2007 achievement tests. Oakland's charter
middle schools scored an eye-popping 210 points higher than the city's noncharters on an
800-point scale (Oakland Tribune, June 19).
In Denver a group of angry parents came to a school board meeting last month demanding to know why the same choice
was not available to them. "We want this for our kids and our families," said Luci Saenz, mother of a child at Valdez
Elementary. "We are ready to fight. We believe in our children, and we believe they deserve it" (Denver Post, May 7).
The successes of charter schools are grabbing attention within the education establishment, but for a different reason.
Vested interests want less competition from excellent schools, not more. Thus the Delaware State Education Association
(DSEA), the state's teachers union, expropriated its members' dues to commission a Washington, DC public relations firm
to craft a slick strategy for halting further charter start-ups in the state.
If the likes of the DSEA get their way, students and parents won't be the only parties with diminished choice. Teachers
will join them--unless, that is, success stories just keep coming in and eventually overwhelm the selfish resistance.
Robert Holland is a senior fellow for education policy at The Heartland Institute, Chicago, Ill.
STATE OFFERS DEATH, NOT REMEDY
June 27, 2008 - Anyone who finds the liberal depictions of universal medical care provided by the government appealing
should consider the plight of Barbara Wagner, a 64-year-old lung cancer patient living in a low-income apartment in
Springfield, Oregon.
World Net Daily reports that the Oregon Health Plan will not pay for the drug her doctor has prescribed for her, but it will
pay for assisted suicide.
Wagner was notified of this decision in a letter from LIPA, the private company contracted to administer the state
program. Wagner, according to a local paper, was “devastated” when she learned of the state’s refusal to pay for her life-
saving medicine. "To say to someone, we'll pay for you to die, but not pay for you to live,
it's cruel," Wagner told the newspaper.
Dr. John Sattenspiel, senior medical director for LIPA, told the paper, "We had no intent to upset her,” but the company
had to inform her of “her options” under the Oregon Health Plan. Her sole option, of course, was to die but at least the
state would pay someone to “assist” her.
Dr. Walter Shaffer, a spokesman for the state Division of Medical Assistance Programs, explains the state’s
position, "We can't cover everything for everyone.”
Despite the state’s macabre proposal, Wagner will receive the drug she needs to save her life. She reported
receiving a notice from the pharmaceutical company that it will provide the drug, which costs $4,000 a month, for at least
a year. At the end of the year, the local paper noted, she can apply for further treatment from the company.
Part of the irony in this situation is that pharmaceutical companies rank just below oil companies in the liberal
rogue’s gallery, while government care is touted as the answer to everything. the incident also reveals what we can
expect when "assisted suicide" is legal.
TAKE ACTION AGAINST CPS
By Christopher Robinson
August 26, 2008 - On May 29, 2008, the Texas Supreme Court upheld the 3rd Court of Appeals ruling which found the
State had no right to seize the FLDS children from the ranch in Eldorado because it failed to prove either abuse or
neglect. The Supreme Court held "removal of the children was not warranted."
This case is not about whether you agree with the FLDS or not; it is about whether you value your liberty. I do not agree
with the FLDS lifestyle and belief system, but I do value family and liberty and oppose any attempt by the government to
abuse its authority with respect to either Protective Services (formerly CPS) has done just that - overstepped its authority.
And did you catch this headline: "Senate panel suggests taking FLDS sect's assets to cover costs." A legislative panel
suggested that the state explore garnisheeing the religious organization's assets to recoup the costs of caring for the
children they seized! Said Sen. Bob Deuell, "Why should we be footing the bill when they've got assets?" So, they can
wrongly take our children from our homes and then consider charging us for their care!
Who will be next? What if CPS comes knocking on your door? Do you or your family hold beliefs or practice a lifestyle
that may be considered "counter-cultural" or against "mainstream" society? Do you or a loved one home school? Are
you a born-again Christian? Are you leery of the environmental extremist agenda? Do you hold certain beliefs or practice
a lifestyle that would be considered today or in the near future "harmful" or against modern society?
We live in a world where the definition of "normal" or "acceptable" is quickly changing. Family values are no longer
upheld as they once were. The definition of marriage has changed. You are "strange" if you go to church more than once
a week. Same-sex relationships are applauded, and equal rights are demanded for them. If you disagree, you could be
found guilty of "hate crimes."
We are on a slippery slope. It would be easy for this case to fade into the background because popular opinion does not
favor FLDS. "Yeah, they're strange, who cares what happened to them." But if we don't let our governor and our
legislators know that we strongly disapprove of the strong-arm tactics employed by CPS, who will be next? An
unverified phone call was all it took for the DFPS to raid the ranch in Eldorado. We must call for an overhaul of this
agency.
If you love liberty, if you value family, and you don't want to see the state trample on either - please take a moment to
contact Gov. Perry and your legislators. Don't be apathetic. Take action today. If we don't speak up, we may lose our
opportunity to do so in the future.
"When they came for us, there was no one left to protest. . . ."
Christopher Robinson is a Lubbock attorney and home school father.
WHO KNEW FREE ENERGY COULD BE SO EXPENSIVE?
By Drew Thornley
May 24, 2008 - The Electric Reliability Council of Texas recently estimated that billions of dollars will be needed to
transmit wind-generated electricity from the areas of Texas most suitable for wind generation -- West Texas and the
Panhandle -- to the areas of the state that need energy the most -- the I-35 corridor and the upper Gulf Coast.
These costs will be borne by Texas ratepayers. How did we get here?
Renewable energy mandates and subsidies have paved the way for Texas’ wind energy boom. Texas leads the nation in
installed wind power capacity, adding 1,708 megawatts (MW) in 2007, bringing its total to 4,446 MW by the end the
year. California is a distant second, with 2,439 MW by year’s end. In 2007, just 0.77 per cent of the nation’s electric
generation came from wind energy; in Texas, wind accounts for two per cent of generation.
Robust wind power expansion is expected, as Texas producers are required to generate 5,880 MW of renewable energy
by 2015 and face a 10,000-MW target for 2025. To this end, $700 million went into new wind Texas farms in January.
Wind energy proponents extol wind as free, safe, and clean, but these characterizations miss the point. Energy users
expect reliability, and challenges dot the path from wind to the electric grid to the energy consumer.
For wind turbines to produce power the wind must blow. Because the wind does not blow constantly, wind turbines
produce a fraction of their potential generating capacities.
Furthermore, wind blows the least during the summer months when power is needed the most. ERCOT relies on just 8.7
per cent of wind power’s capacity when determining available power during peak summer hours. Also,
due to wind’s intermittency, wind farms must rely on conventional power sources to back up their supply.
Besides generous federal subsidies and tax incentives, Texas entices wind developers with tax exemptions and
deductions; yet wind power remains more expensive per kilowatt-hour than conventional energy sources.
ERCOT’s estimates for transmitting West Texas wind energy, under four different scenarios, range from $3.78
billion to $6.28 billion.
ERCOT estimated costs by using straight-line lengths for transmission cables. Thus, transmission costs were estimated
using a best-case-scenario approach and, as such, should be considered minimums. Add to this ERCOT’s estimates of
$410 million to $1.03 billion for connecting wind generation to the new collection substations.
Wind energy also comes with legitimate environmental concerns. Wind farms require vast tracts of land,
disrupting farming acreage and animal habitats; and turbine blades kill thousands of birds each year, including
protected species.
ERCOT estimates Texas’ electricity demand will rise 20 per cent by 2015 and 43 per cent by 2025. Texas must
remain focused on providing its residents with affordable, reliable energy and not turn its back on fossil fuels,
which can meet our needs and are cleaner than ever before.
Wind alone cannot meet the increasing demand we face. Rather, wind is one stick in a bundle of larger sticks,
all of which can and should contribute to meeting energy demands. Wind should be part of a diversified
portfolio of energy resources, anchored by the traditional energy sources that have the capacity to meet Texas’’
burgeoning energy needs.
Drew Thornley is a natural resources policy analyst at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a non-profit, free-market
research institute based in Austin.
OBAMA’S ANTI-MARRIAGE AGENDA
By Gary Bauer
March 4, 2008 - As the campaign for the Democrat nomination heats up, Barack Obama is moving aggressively to
outflank Hillary Clinton on her left. To rally the radical base, he is now pandering to the militant homosexual rights
movement, advocating policies that would effectively clear the way for the imposition of same-sex "marriage" across the
country.
In advance of the Ohio and Texas primaries the Obama campaign released an "open letter" to the homosexual community.
Here are some key excerpts:
"...throughout my career, I have fought to eliminate discrimination against LGBT Americans. In Illinois, I co-sponsored a
fully inclusive bill that prohibited discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity, extending
protection to the workplace, housing, and places of public accommodation. In the U.S. Senate, I have co-sponsored bills
that would equalize tax treatment for same-sex couples and provide benefits to domestic partners of federal employees.
And as president, I will place the weight of my administration behind the enactment of the Matthew Shepard Act to
outlaw hate crimes and a fully inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act to outlaw workplace discrimination on the
basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. As your president, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex
couples with
full equality in their family and adoption laws.
"...I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) - a position I have held since before arriving in
the U.S. Senate. While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute
altogether. ... I have also called for us to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and I have worked to improve the Uniting
American Families Act so we can afford same-sex couples the same rights and obligations as married couples in our
immigration system."
"Complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act," would enable radical judicial activists to impose same-sex "marriage"
across the country at their whim. The Defense of Marriage Act did not ban homosexual "marriage." It created an
exemption from the Constitution's full faith and credit clause, giving states the right to refuse to recognize same-sex
"marriages" performed in other states.
Right now, if you are married in California and move to Florida, you do not have to get remarried, because
legally valid marriages of one state are recognized in other states due to the Constitution's full faith and credit
clause. Without the exemption created by the Defense of Marriage Act, one federal judge could declare the
same-sex "marriages" performed in Massachusetts legal in all 50 states. No state would be exempt, because
state constitutional amendments are still subject to federal review, and without DOMA, even the 27 states that have
enacted marriage protection amendments would be extraordinarily vulnerable.
Conservative columnist Terry Jeffrey noted that Obama justifies his position scripturally, as well. Yesterday, he told a
gathering in Ohio, "I think that it [same-sex "marriage"] is a legal right that they should have that is
recognized by the state. If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the
Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans."
Just to be clear about how radical and controversial Obama's position is, in 1996 DOMA passed the House of
Representatives on a vote of 342-to-67 (83 per cent in favor), passed the Senate 85-to-14 and was signed into law by
Bill Clinton. So in order to get to Hillary's left with the most radical elements of the Democrat Party,
Obama is willing to embrace a position overwhelmingly rejected by Congress, a Democrat president and 27
states that have passed marriage protection amendments by an average vote of 69 per cent.
Gary Bauer is the founder of Campaign for Working Families
IS BARACK OBAMA ‘BIG BROTHER’?
By Gary Bauer
May 20, 2008 - If exit polls are to be believed, Barack Obama may be popular with college-educated liberals, but he is
having trouble connecting with blue-collar workers, the "Reagan Democrats" who live and work in "Main Street, U.S.A."
-- and it's not hard to understand why.
In addition to his remarks about "bitter" people clinging to faith and guns, Obama made this startling statement: "We can't
drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72
degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK."
If that's any indication of what we can expect from a President Obama, the American people better start asking some
tough questions before Election Day. What kind of big government policies would a President Obama propose to
implement such a statement? Would an Obama administration ban SUVs? Would it impose rationing at the grocery store,
like World War II-era restrictions? California officials are already contemplating the use of remote control devices to
control the thermostats in new homes and businesses.
Is this what "Big Brother Barack" has in mind for all of us?
Liberals insist that the government has no interest in defining the meaning of marriage and family, or preserving the sanctity
of life. Those are personal "choices" and matters of individual orientation that somehow rise to the level of cherished
constitutional rights. But Barack Obama thinks government can tell us what to drive, what to eat and where to set our
thermostats!
But wait, there’s more.
A Vision Of The Future
If you're still thinking of staying home on Election Day, let me give you a vision of the future. During a mass mass rally,
Obama told the crowd, "Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a
serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us." Here were 80,000 people listening to "President
Obama" telling them that Iran is a "tiny" nation that poses no significant threat to us. That's the mindset that will guide his
face-to-face negotiations with our enemies.
Let me be clear about this: Iran is sitting astride of the world's energy supply. It is feverishly working to acquire nuclear
weapons and is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. Its Holocaust-denying dictator has vowed to "wipe Israel
off the map," called our ally a "stinking corpse," and has also prayed for the destruction of America. And Barack Obama
sees no serious threat?
John McCain responded sharply to Obama's comments, saying, "The biggest national security challenge the United States
currently faces is keeping nuclear material out of the hands of terrorists. Should Iran acquire nuclear weapons, that danger
would become very dire, indeed. They might not be a superpower, but the threat the government of Iran poses is anything
but 'tiny.'"
In recent weeks, I have gotten messages from good folks saying I've been too harsh on Barack
Obama. How is one supposed to be gentle about a presidential candidate who is signaling that he is clueless about the
dangers facing our country? Why should we handle with kid gloves a candidate who believes it is ok to allow a child who
survives an abortion to be thrown in a trash can and left to die? (Obama blocked a bill in the Illinois state legislature that
would have protected children who were born alive after botched abortion attempts.) Obama wants to repeal the Defense
of Marriage Act, the only legislation now standing in the way of the California Supreme Court's ruling being forced on
every state in the union.
I don't see how any conservative activist or "Christian conservative leader" can say with a straight face, "It really doesn't
matter whether Barack Obama or John McCain gets elected as far as our issues are concerned."
Gary Bauer is founder of Campaign for Working Families
REWRITING HISTORY - AN EROSION OF OUR STANDARDS
By Mike Pearce
Nov. 7, 2007 - Today, in Texas schools, the study of our history is under assault by academic elites and education
bureaucrats under the guise of multiculturalism and political correctness.
The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board has developed college readiness standards for the high school
curriculum. These proposed standards abandon the instruction of traditional history and replace it with vague feel-good
“diverse human perspectives and experiences.”
Texas parents must take a stand against this erosion and demand that our history be taught as it really happened.
America’s greatest generation, our World War II veterans, are dying at a rate of 1,000 per day. But you won’t find any
mention of them or their heroic deeds in the proposed social science standards. What you will find is a recommendation
that our students explain the impact of World War II on the African-American and Mexican-American civil rights
movements, how the policies changed our economy, and whether the decision to drop the atomic bombs was correct.
Our high school students will now study the impact of WW II, but not the war itself.
There are no recommendations on how industrialization led to the betterment of mankind. Instead, students must evaluate
the impact of the Industrial Revolution and rapid urbanization “on the environment.” Where is the standard that asks one
to evaluate the quality of life in America before and after industrialization? Our scholars in high school will be figuring out
much deeper problems, like “how climate change might affect the US economy.” So, the Industrial Revolution is out and
global warming is in.
The standards have no mention of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Ronald
Reagan, or the Magna Carta. But what did make the list was a recommendation that students listen to Martin Luther
King’s “I Have a Dream” speech and summarize five main points. While King’s historic speech is very worthy of tudy,
so are many other monumental events.
What the standards do is to provide an “approach” to questions under the guise of trying to make the students believe that
they are developing their own conclusions. It is the belief of the academic elite that the “broad” should be substituted for
the “narrow”; and they set the parameters of academic importance.
You will not find a standard that asks students to learn about the beautiful melting pot that is America; but our students will
study “xenophobia and its impact on immigration policies in the United States.” Our students will not be learning about the
Judeo-Christian values that were the foundation of our nation; but our students will “analyze how conflicting religious
values create social conflict in local communities.” Students will not learn about how the United States has
stood as a beacon of liberty for the world, but they will learn about various important civil rights cases, including Lawrence
v. Texas which mandated an end to anti-sodomy laws.
There were few things I enjoyed more about teaching American history than covering the Declaration of Independence.
From the philosophy of John Locke to the poetic words of Thomas Jefferson; from the faith in the idea that men had
divine rights rather than mere secular ones, to the notion that liberty was an institution for which all men yearned. Now,
under these proposed standards, our children will no longer hear any of that. Instead, they will “analyze the Declaration of
Independence from the perspective of men and women, and people of Native American, European, and African
descent.” In other words, The Declaration of Independence was merely a document wrought with chauvinism, racism,
and could just as easily be viewed as a “declaration of treason” by the British.
Texas parents must stand up to this erosion of our historical standards now. The Higher Education Coordinating Board is
accepting public comments online now through Dec.10 at www.thecb.state.tx.us. We must teach our students integrity,
leadership and character and use the heroic figures in our history as models. If we allow the purveyors of political
correctness to re-write our history, we sentence our greatest patriots to death through their expulsion from our
history books.
Mike Pearce is a former Texas public school social studies teacher who taught for ten years.
NORTH AMERICAN INFLUENZA PLAN
VIOLATES RIGHTS OF U.S. CITIZENS
By Phyllis Schlafly
Sept. 12, 2007 - It's now leaking out that there was more going on than met the eye at the Security and Prosperity
Partnership Summit in Montebello, Canada, in August. The three amigos -- President George W. Bush, Canadian Prime
Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon -- finalized and released the "North American Plan
for Avian & Pandemic Influenza."
The "Plan" -- that's what they call it, with a capital P -- is to use the excuse of a major flu epidemic to shift powers from U.
S. legislatures to unelected, unaccountable "North American" bureaucrats.
This idea was launched on September 14, 2005, when Bush announced the "International Partnership on Avian and
Pandemic Influenza." He was speaking to the United Nations General Assembly.
We might have thought that idea had some merit because the influenza partnership called for "transparency in reporting of
influenza cases in humans and in animals" and the "sharing of epidemiological data and samples." That's very different from
the Security and Prosperity Summit, where transparency has always been conspicuously avoided like the plague.
This year's Security and Prosperity Summit in Canada morphed the Influenza Partnership into the North American Plan.
Now we discover that the Plan is not only about combating a flu epidemic but is far-reaching in seeking control over U.S.
citizens and public policy during an epidemic.
The Plan repeatedly features the favorite Bush word "comprehensive" - it calls for a "comprehensive, coordinated North
American approach." The Plan would give authority to international bureaucrats "beyond the health sector to include a
coordinated approach to critical infrastructure protection," including "border and transportation issues."
The Plan is a wordy 44-page document, much of which sounds innocuous. It is helpful to exchange information about
disease and take precautions against letting foreign diseases enter the United States.
However, self-government and sovereignty are at risk when control over these matters is turned over to a newly created
North American body headed by the representative of another country. It's an additional problem when the entire Plan is
a spin-off of the Security and Prosperity Partnership, an arrangement created in secret solely by White House press
releases, without Congressional approval or even oversight.
The 2007 Plan acknowledges that it is based not only on the Influenza Partnership, but also on the guidelines, standards
and rules of the World Health Organization, the World Organization for Animal Health, the World Trade Organization,
and the North American Free Trade Agreement.
"Decision Makers"
The Plan sets up a "senior level coordinating body to facilitate the effective planning and preparedness within North
America for a possible outbreak of avian and/or human pandemic influenza under the Security and Prosperity
Partnership." The Plan identifies this Security and Prosperity Partnership coordinating body as "decision-makers."
The Plan then (ungrammatically) states: "The chair of the Security and Prosperity Partnership coordinating body will rotate
between each national authority on a yearly basis." Thus, a foreigner will be the "decision maker" for Americans in two out
of every three years.
What powers will this foreign-headed coordinating body exercise? The Plan suggests that these include "the use of
antivirals and vaccines; ... social distancing measures, including school closures and the prohibition of community
gatherings; ... isolation and quarantine."
Will this foreign-headed coordinating body respect the First Amendment "right of the people peaceably to assemble"? Or
will the rules of the Plan, Security and Prosperity Partnership, World Health Organization, World Organization for Animal
Health, World Trade Organization and NAFTA take precedence?
Health Powers
In evaluating the Plan, it is instructive to recall the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act, an anti-epidemic plan
launched by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Oct. 23, 2001. Designed to be passed by all state
legislatures, the model bill was primarily written by Lawrence O. Gostin, a former member of U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham
Clinton's discredited Task Force on Health Care Reform, and was promoted by the Bush administration during its first
year.
The proposed Emergency Health Powers Act would have given each governor sole discretion to declare a public health
emergency and grant himself extraordinary powers. He would have been able to restrict or prohibit firearms, seize private
property and destroy it in many circumstances, and impose price controls and rationing.
Governors would have been given the power to order people out of their homes and into dangerous quarantines. Children
could have been taken from their parents and put into public quarantines.
Governors could even have demanded that physicians administer certain drugs despite individuals' religious or other
objections. The Emergency Health Powers Act was based on the concept that decision-making by authoritarian bosses
and unelected bureaucrats is the way to go in a time of crisis.
The proposed Emergency Health Powers Act roused a nationwide storm of protest because it was an unprecedented
assault on the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens, as well as on the principle of limited government, and so it never passed
anywhere in its original text. Will similar totalitarian notions now bypass legislatures and be forced upon us by Security and
Prosperity Partnership press releases?
TEACHERS RESISTING LEFTIST UNION
By Connie Sadowski
Published in School Reform News by The Heartland Institute
Oct. 7, 2007 - Rank-and-file teachers are so fed up with the far-left policies the National Association of Education
adopted at its annual convention in Philadelphia that some are planning to become delegates themselves in order to change
the union's makeup.
Sissy Jochmann, a second-grade teacher in Pittsburgh, took issue with non-educational recommendations adopted by the
NEA Board of Directors --such as incorporating sexual orientation and gender identity in teacher education standards;
enhancing gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) partnerships; expanding the union's GLBT web page; and
supporting federal hate crimes legislation.
During the meeting of the Committee on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identification, Jochmann -- an NEA convention
delegate since 2001 and chair of the NEA Conservative Educators Caucus -- said all the research presented and the
discussion that followed were "one-sided from a gay-affirming viewpoint," because the committee was "not interested in
hearing research contrary to their viewpoint."
The Board of Directors subsequently adopted the GLBT policies in a closed session, literally behind closed doors.
Conservative teachers must not "sit idly back and pay dues," Jochmann said. "It's unconscionable," she continued, for
state members to do nothing while the NEA continues to "adopt non-education policies regarding social issues like
abortion and homosexuality."
NEA spokesperson Will Potter repeatedly declined comment.
Need for Accountability
According to the organization's website, approximately one-third of the NEA's three million teacher members are
conservatives.
NEA delegates should more closely represent members' views and be more accountable to members for the policies they
adopt, said Judy Bruns, an Ohio delegate and middle-school teacher. The NEA should institute policies to "ensure annual
meeting delegates invite members' input before attending the meeting and then to report back to members after the
meeting," but her recommendation was defeated, she said.
The NEA is making an effort to reach out to its conservative base, said Diane Lenning, former chair of the NEA
Republican Educators Caucus and a retired Orange County, California high school teacher. A delegate to the annual
meeting each year between 2000 and 2006, this year she was one of 80 teachers attending the NEA's first Republican
Leaders Conference in Minneapolis August 2-5.
An NEA news release said the conference was "part of NEA's commitment to bipartisanship in its political and legislative
advocacy" and its "initiative to increase its presence in [the] Republican Party."
Calls for Vouchers
Lenning said she hopes NEA leaders will work to arrive at "common-ground positions" regarding some "historically
adversarial issues such as school choice and reauthorization of No Child Left Behind, curriculum content, school safety,
improving the high school graduation rate, reducing the dropout rate, and teaching each generation about the processes of
democracy.
"When education and political leaders are adversarial and indecisive, the kids suffer," Lenning added. "We want our
students across the nation to succeed with an accessible, quality education."
Reflecting increasing public dissatisfaction with the NEA's growing disdain for mainstream American values, some social
conservative groups, which historically have been silent on the issue of school choice, are beginning to take up the banner.
One of these is the American Family Association (AFA), based in Mississippi, which asked in a July 31 e-mail alert to its
3.3 million constituents, "is it time for school vouchers?"
"The NEA has consistently passed very leftist resolutions and held very liberal political positions over the years," so AFA
decided to "promote public policies that support a parent's right to choose their child's school and to work to raise the
profile of politicians who support such policy," AFA President Tim Wildmon explained. "The vast majority of people who
take surveys on our Web site favor vouchers."
Connie Sadowski (connie@ceoaustin.org) directs the Education Options Resource Center at the Austin CEO Foundation.
HOUSTON PUPILS GAIN FROM COMPETITION
BY JAMIE STORY
Sept. 22, 2007 - While the public school lobby has traditionally opposed any introduction of
competition into the education system, the state’s largest school district seems to have embra embraced it.
In Houston, 80 state-authorized charter schools enroll approximately 20,000 students. That’s one charter student for
every 10 students in the Houston Independent School District (HISD). Few school districts in the country face this degree
of competition—and even fewer have risen to the challenge like HISD.
At a recent forum hosted by the Texas Public Policy Foundation, HISD Chief Academic Officer Dr. Karen Soehnge
emphasized that “we fundamentally, as an organization, embrace choice.” That’s not something you typically hear from a
public school administrator. But HISD has responded to competition by maximizing choice within the public school system.
In HISD, students can choose to attend any school where space is available. Campus funding is based on enrollment – if a
school doesn’t compete to keep students, it loses the dollars that go with them. And students have a wide variety of
learning environments from which to choose, since HISD has created specialized magnet schools and virtual courses that
maximize student flexibility.
HISD has also responded by establishing a network of district-authorized charter schools. Today, 29 district charters
enroll approximately 11,000 students. By comparison, the state as a whole only contains 54 district charters, meaning
more than half of the state’s district charters are in HISD.
What are the results of this movement toward choice? In 2005, HISD had 31 campuses rated unacceptable, and only six
rated exemplary. In 2007, the district had 15 of each. For its size, Houston has half as many unacceptable schools as
either Fort Worth or Dallas, and fewer even than Austin, a property-rich district.
A study by the Texas Public Policy Foundation found that traditional public schools facing competition from charters
outperform those public schools that do not face competition. HISD provides concrete proof to support this unsurprising
finding.
It is no coincidence that HISD, with its significant charter competition, is one of the most innovative urban districts in the
country. If charter schools were allowed to expand more freely throughout the state, other Texas districts might be
motivated to undertake similar reforms in response to competition from charters. Unfortunately, a legislative limit on the
number of state-authorized charters has hampered the effects of competition.
But despite this limitation, school districts are still within their power to increase student choice. Charters authorized by
school districts and universities do not fall under the state mandated cap, so district charters can proliferate elsewhere like
they have in Houston.
Even more important, parents have the power to demand choice within their children’s districts. According to a little-
known portion of the education code, the majority of parents and teachers of an existing public school may petition their
school board to grant a charter to the campus. While the school board is not required to honor the petition, they are not
allowed to arbitrarily deny the request either. To date, this authorization option has not been utilized by parents and
teachers, but it holds great promise for increasing parental choice within the public school system.
“We are not threatened at all by competition,” Dr. Soehnge said at the TPPF forum. When more Texas school districts
adopt that same attitude and embrace choice, parent satisfaction and student performance will soar.
Jamie Story is an education policy analyst at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a non-profit,
free-market research institute based in Austin.
May 22, 2009 -- For the first time since 1995, a majority of Americans consider themselves pro-life rather than pro-
choice according to new Gallup poll
The poll, conducted May 7-10, found Americans are pro-life by 51 percent to 42 percent. The poll also found that the
percentage of Americans who believe abortion should be illegal in all circumstances (23 percent) is about equal to those
who believe it should be allowed in all circumstance (22 percent.) This contrasts with the last four years when public
opinion was strongly in support of unrestricted abortion.
Other polls confirm these findings. A recent Pew Research Center survey found that the percentage of Americans
believing abortion should always be legal dropped from 54 percent to 46 percent since last August. In that same period,
those believing it should always be illegal rose from 41 percent to 44 percent.
Increased support for pro-life was found across the Christian spectrum – a 7-percentage point gain among
Catholics and an 8-point gain among Protestants. Similarly, there has been a shift among men and women.
Gallup reports that a year ago the pro-choice position prevailed among women by 50 percent to 43 percent.
Men were pro-choice by 49 percent to 46 percent. Today, Gallup reports, both groups are more likely to be pro-life.
Joe Pojman, executive director of the Texas Alliance for Life, welcomed the news and attributed the shift to the Obama
administration’s “aggressive promotion of abortion both domestically and overseas.” Administration policies, he said,
have made it apparent that the meaning of the term “pro-choice” is not as benign as many thought. Obama’s initiatives, he
said, have made it clear that “pro-choice” means tax-funded abortion and abortions for minors without parental consent.
STIMULUS BILL MANDATES HEALTH CARE RATIONING
Feb. 10, 2009 - Betsy McCaughey, an adjunct senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, has exposed what may the best kept
secret in Washington – Obama’s “stimulus” bill allows a Federal bureaucrat to overrule the treatment decisions of the
doctor who examined you.
The bill creates a new bureaucracy -- the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology. Its purpose is to make
sure your doctor is treating you the way the Federal government thinks is appropriate and cost effective. While your
doctor is chiefly concerned with keeping you alive and healthy, the government is intent on saving money.
A similar proposal, she reports, was made by former Sen. Tom Daschle in his 2008 book, Critical: What We Can Do
About the Health-Care Crisis. In the book Daschle says doctors have to give up their autonomy and “learn to operate
less like solo practitioners.”
Daschle also had advice for older persons. “Seniors,” he said, “should be more accepting of the conditions that come
with age instead of treating them.” Americans, he urged, should follow the example of Europeans and accept “hopeless
diagnoses” instead of trying experimental treatments that could save their lives.
McCaughey notes that Medicare currently pays for treatments considered safe and effective. The stimulus bill changes that
and applies instead a cost-effectiveness standard set by the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness
Research. It resembles a British government agency described in Daschle’s book. It approves or rejects a treatment
depending on the number of years it decides the patient is likely to benefit from it Treatments for older patients are
approved less often because the agency believes they won’t live long enough to justify the cost.
This, of course, is a self-fulfilling projection since denying the treatment could result in early death. A succinct term for this
policy is involuntary euthanasia or, even more succinctly, murder.
According to McCaughey, the bill doesn’t spell out what may happen to doctors who refuse to surrender their
autonomy and persist in operating as “solo practitioners.” But it does make clear that hospitals and doctors that are not
“meaningful users” of the new system will face penalties. What “meaningful user” means is left to the Health and Human
Services secretary who can impose “more stringent measures of meaningful use over time.” The fact that Daschle was
Obama's first choice for this post reveals the President's plans for our medical care and, ultimately, for our longevity.
Doctors who hope to avoid the “more stringent measures” will fall in line and limit the treatments they prescribe to those
approved by the federal government even if it means the death of their patient.
EDUCATION VICTORY FOR TEXAS STUDENTS
By Ken Mercer, Texas State Board of Education Member
April 5, 2009 - Common sense, combined with the pressure of at least 14,000 constituent communications in favor of
allowing students to discuss all sides of a science theory, finally prevailed.
On Thursday I made the motion to restore the 20-year standard of "Strengths and Weaknesses" to the new science
TEKS (standards) for the next 10 years of textbooks. This motion failed by a 7-7 vote.
The radical liberals, Darwinists, atheists and secular humanists attending from around the country quickly claimed victory
to the army of national print and television media present. By Friday afternoon their language "evolved" to words and
remarks that cannot be put in print.
Friday morning, my fellow conservative board member Cynthia Dunbar (R-Richmond) proposed a final amendment to the
new “analyze and evaluate” language. After two slight language amendments to Dunbar’s motion from Bob Craig (R-
Lubbock) and Barbara Cargill (R-Woodlands), the SBOE passed the final TEKS language regarding science curriculum
by a vote of 13-2. This historic decision for the new science TEKS for grades 3-12, includes all areas of science such as
biology, chemistry, physics, environmental science, astronomy and aquatic biology.
The language passed with the following statement: “In all fields of science, analyze, evaluate, and critique scientific
explanations by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational testing including examining
all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations so as to encourage critical thinking by the students.”
Clearly, the important legislative intent is to protect the academic freedom of Texas students. Our students should no
longer feel chilled from discussion by those in authority who might claim there is no disagreement or weakness in a
scientific theory.
Every conservative group present, including Texas Eagle Forum and the Free Market Foundation, applauded this new
language as a huge victory for Texas students.
Texas School Law Attorney, Kelly Coghlan, while disappointed that the important word "weaknesses"
was deleted, stated: "Textbooks and teachers will be required to teach “all sides” (scientific evidence
both for and against and supportive and not supportive) of a scientific theory. I believe the new language
implicitly requires that weaknesses be taught and is just as strong as the old language."
The Texas statewide print media apparently once again got it wrong. It was perfectly clear to anyone on the floor of the
SBOE that our liberal opposition was not happy. Perhaps the website headline for the
conservative Texans for Better Science Education described it best: "Darwinist monopoly on public schools decisively
broken in Texas...Darwinists confused...Militant Secular Humanists are outraged."
The Wall Street Journal reported on Saturday: "The Texas Board of Education approved a science
curriculum that opens the door for teachers and textbooks to raise doubts about evolution."
In conclusion, my favorite memory was a remark from one of the California atheists who sat behind my
desk on the floor of the SBOE. After we passed one historic amendment after another, this atheist cried
out: "Oh my God!"
ALTRUISM AT THE POINT OF A GUN
By Rick Moran
March 20, 2009 - The House has passed the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act, known as the
GIVE Act (where do they come up with these Orwellian acronyms?). The bill fulfills an Obama campaign promise to
create a "civilian national security force."
This legislation will not mandate or force our young people into national service - not yet
anyway. But there is little doubt that we are being set up for just such an eventuality.
Under section 6104 of the bill, entitled “Duties,” in subsection B6, the legislation states that a
commission will be set up to investigate, “Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all
able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would
strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse
economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.”
Section 120 of the bill also discusses the “Youth Engagement Zone Program” and states that
“service learning” will be “a mandatory part of the curriculum in all of the secondary schools
served by the local educational agency.”
“The legislation, slated to cost $6 billion over five years, would create 175,000 “new service opportunities” under
AmeriCorps, bringing the number of participants in the national volunteer program to 250,000. It would also create
additional “corps” to expand the reach of volunteerism into new sectors, including a Clean Energy Corps, Education
Corps, Healthy Futures Corps and Veterans Service Corps, and it expands the National Civilian Community Corps to
focus on additional areas like disaster relief and energy conservation,” reports Fox News.
Clearly, the goal of this program is to involve every single young person in America in a mandatory service program. The
"Commission" is a smokescreen. Of course they are going to recommend that there be mandatory service and they will lay
out procedures on how to do it.
During the campaign, Obama envisioned a program that would require youngsters to spend several hours a week in
community service. Many high schools already require a certain number of hours devoted to "community service" in order
to be eligible to graduate. How this all fits into "national security" will be very interesting to see.
What we have here is nothing less than altruism at the point of a gun. Fine thing we're teaching our kids - that government
can compel you to do "good."
BREAKING FREE FROM THE CONSTITUTION
By Bob Ward - Editor,Texas Daily
Nov. 14, 2008 - There are any number of things to be concerned about in a Barack Obama, administration but among
the most serious is his attitude toward the judicial branch.
In a 2001 interview on National Public Radio, Obama discussed the Supreme Court’s role in the civil rights movement.
While the court affirmed the basic civil rights of blacks, he recalled, it “never ventured into the issues of redistribution of
wealth.” The reason the court failed to redistribute wealth, according to Obama was that, “It didn't break free from the
essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution.”
While most Americans would consider it appropriate for a court to adhere to the Constitution, Obama sees it otherwise.
The Constitution, he said, “reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day.”
And that blind spot, he continued constitutes “the fundamental flaw of this country.”
We are forced to conclude that during the Obama administration, our judges – at all levels from District Court to the U.S.
Supreme Court – will be appointed by someone who believes it is their duty to “break free” from a
flawed constitution.
Obama plainly believes courts should disregard the Constitution in order to redistribute wealth, it is unclear in
what other areas he thinks the Constitution should be overruled. There is strong sentiment among Democratic
leaders in the Congress to re-establish the “fairness doctrine” in broadcasting.
After the old fairness doctrine imposed in 1949 was abolished under Ronald
Reagan in 1987 we saw the rise of talk radio. It is dominated by conservatives
and has been a raspberry seed in the molar of liberals. There have been many
attempts by liberals to emulate the success of conservative talk radio and they
have all been dismal failures.
Under the fairness doctrine a radio station that aired Rush Limbaugh would be compelled to devote three hours to liberal
talk that nobody would listen to. Stations would respond by changing their formats to less controversial programming.
The legal basis for this intrusion by government is the fiction that the “airwaves” belong to the public and the
statutory requirement that stations licensed by the Federal Communication Commission operate “in the public
interest.” These condition do not apply to non-broadcast media which are protected from government interference by
the first Amendment to the Constitution.
However, Obama believes the Constitution is flawed and courts should “break free” from it. It is not
unreasonable to expect the Federal government, under Obama, to attempt to control other media. Most
vulnerable is the Internet with its bloggers who operate without the editorial “gatekeepers” that keep the
mainstream media in line and usually without the discipline of the marketplace as well.
And if the mainstream mediaalso become victims of Obama’s judicial philosophy, they have only themselves to
blame. They gave this guy a pass overall, and specifically, this interview with National Public Radio should have had
widespread coverage early in the campaign instead of turning up on a few conservatives venues just days before the
election.
Churches are another area where the Constitution is on shaky ground. There are already constitutionally suspect limits on
what pastors can say or do if they speak for their congregations on public issues while enjoying a tax exemption. Liberal
pressure groups are constantly filing complaints with the IRS in an attempt to silence conservative clergy. Under an
Obama administration, such groups could succeed beyond their wildest dreams and without the complication of involving
the IRS. A pastor who spoke out against homosexuality, for example, could be charged with a hate crime, as happens in
Canada, and the U.S. Justice Dept. would deal with him.
Creative U.S. attorneys could find new ways to enforce the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law to silence critics
during the critical weeks just before an election. And Federal judges who subscribe to the Obama view of the
Constitution will uphold these prosecutions.
The First Amendment guarantees of free speech and religious freedom are not the only rights that can be
violated once our courts are populated by judges who consider it their duty to “break free” from a flawed
constitution. Life, liberty and certainly property are at risk once Barak Obama begins to appoint judges and the
Democratic controlled Senate starts confirming them.
KINDERGARTNERS GET GAY 'PLEDGE CARDS'
Pete Chagnon - OneNewsNow
Nov. 9, 2008 - A pro-family advocate is outraged that a California public school teacher would pass out homosexual
pledge cards to her kindergarten students.
The pledge cards were produced by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, or GLSEN, and featured oaths
that students would not use "anti-lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender language or slurs," that students would intervene
on behalf of homosexual students when possible, and that they would actively
support safer schools efforts.
Tara Miller is a kindergarten teacher at Faith Ringgold School of Arts and Science in Hayward, California.
She passed out the pledge cards to her students, which she then asked them to sign.
Peter LaBarbera, the president of Americans for Truth about Homosexuality, is outraged at Miller's actions.
"Why is homosexuality as an issue being raised at all in kindergarten? These are students who don't even know what sex is
yet, and this teacher is talking to them about homosexuality," he contends. "This is an abuse of these students' minds, and
it's just wrong."
According to a report on FoxNews.com, one parent was angry when she found her child's signature on the
pledge card. LaBarbera believes this instance highlights the real agenda of the homosexual movement.
"This is just bizarre, and it shows how the teachers with their radical sexual agenda want to start early to
reprogram these kids' minds. They want to undermine the faith teachings that the kids have at home; this is part of a plan,"
he suggests. "To me, this is like Hitler with Nazi Germany and the Soviets wanting to get to the youth and change the kids
by getting to them at a very young age."
In the same report on FoxNews.com, a spokesperson for the school agreed the pledge was inappropriate for the
kindergarten students and said that the pledges were meant for middle school and high school students.
GROWTH IN GOVERNMENT JOBS NO BLESSING
By Tom Pauken, Chairman, Texas Workforce Commission
Sept. 13, 2008 - Texas, I’m proud to say, wins regular praise as a top location for new jobs. We have added
more than a million new jobs over the past four years, with most of them in the private sector. That’s why the
latest July employment statistics for Texas look so odd.
“Odd” meaning what? Even though July employment increased in Texas by 17, 500, the great majority of the growth –
roughly 16,000 jobs – came from growth in the government sector. The private sector grew by a mere 1,500 jobs.
Where is this “government growth” coming from since state spending has been held in check in recent years by Gov. Rick
Perry and our legislative leaders who have resisted the
temptation to grow state government faster than inflation plus population growth?
A recent study by the Texas Taxpayers and Research Association (TTARA) may give us a clue as to the
source of “government growth” in Texas. You all know about that one-third cut in school property taxes which Perry and
the Legislature got passed into law back in the spring of 2006. A new TTARA study reveals
that local taxing entities have taken away most of the property tax relief we received through a combination of
the “stealth tax” of skyrocketing appraisals, higher tax rates, and bond elections. This has led to total property
taxes in Texas being $1.7 billion higher today than they were in 2005.
As the TTARA study points out, the restructuring of our state’s business tax was designed to increase
state support for public education in an amount “sufficient to provide an overall net tax cut of $2.5 billion a
year. In fact, House Bill 1 provided Texas property taxpayers with a savings in 2007 of nearly $7 billion by
reducing school maintenance and operations tax rates.” Why then are we not seeing our promised property tax relief?
I would suggest that a major reason is that local taxing entities have gone on a spending spree since the passage of that
legislation, adding government jobs and increasing public spending at a pace far in excess of the growth of inflation. For
example, property taxes necessary to repay school bonds increased by 37 percent from 2005 to 2007, according to the
TTARA study. Appraised values on property are way up during the last two years: “ The overall increases in the assessed
value of property in Texas in 2006 (12.3 percent) and in 2007 (12.1 percent) were the highest in recent memory,” reports
TTARA.
While the rate for public school taxes fell significantly due to the school finance reform legislation, local taxing
entities have proceeded to make those property tax cuts disappear. Again, the TTARA study is enlightening on that issue:
“since 2005 the average annual tax growth in these jurisdictions (city, county, and special districts) has accelerated to
roughly 11 to 12 percent – well above the 3.6 percent inflation increases in the municipal cost index (American City and
County Magazine) and the 2.2 percent average annual Texas population growth.”
A significant reason why states like California, New Jersey, and Michigan have gotten themselves in such
serious financial jams is that they ignored the importance of sound fiscal and tax policies designed to encourage job
creation in the private sector, not the creation of more government jobs.
Our current state leadership in Texas understands that low taxes and fiscal prudence encourage economic
development. Unfortunately, many of our local taxing entities seem to have forgotten that important economic
lesson as they continuously keep raising our local property taxes and increasing the number of government
employees. That’s why the growth of 16,000 “government jobs” in Texas in the month of July may not be
such good news after all if we are concerned about the long term economic future of our state.
The only good news coming out of the TTARA study is that the property taxes would be $7 billion higher today but for
the passage of the school finance reform legislation. Nonetheless, appraisal reform and property tax relief need to be at
the top of the agenda during the next session of the Texas Legislature in January 2009 if we are going to ever get local
property taxes under control.
COMMUNIST CALLED OBAMA MENTOR
By CLIFF KINCAID
Oct. 9, 2008 - The man pictured here is Frank Marshall Davis, known in the
media as a mentor for Barack Obama. A new book, The Dream Begins, claims
Davis was "demonized" as a Communist but that he helped shape Obama's views.
I will leave it to you to decide what influence he had over Obama. But I do have
the shocking truth about Davis. He was not only a documented member of the
Communist Party USA, but a sex pervert, homosexual and pornographer. I have
the entire 600-page FBI file on Davis. I also have excerpts from and an analysis
of Davis's pornographic Sex Rebel book.
When you read our reports on Davis, you will be absolutely astounded. You will ask yourself:
Why haven't I been told this until now? Why the cover-up?
My name is Cliff Kincaid. I am editor of the Accuracy in Media (AIM) Report. Conservative
media personalities such as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck have given me credit for unearthing
the facts about the Global Poverty Act, a notorious foreign aid welfare giveaway bill. I am a
journalist by training and have been a writer, analyst and researcher in Washington, D.C. for 30
years. My agenda is uncovering the truth.
I also serve as president of America's Survival, Inc. (ASI), a foreign affairs watchdog group. It
was in this capacity, as we were researching the bloody legacy of international Communism, that
I came upon the hard and cold facts about Frank Marshall Davis and his influence.
Please understand that we don't take a stand for or against any candidate. We have no affiliation
with any political campaign. Our purpose is to educate the public about the role played by global
movements and institutions on America. I came to the conclusion that we wouldn't be true to our
mission if we didn't put all of our information about Frank Marshall Davis and his international
communist connections on the record for you to consider. You can come to your own
conclusions about the extent of his influence.
Simply put, we discovered that Davis was a key high-level operative in a Soviet-sponsored
network in Hawaii. His FBI file suggests that he may have been involved in espionage activities
on behalf of the Soviet Union.
We disclosed our initial findings at a May 22 news conference in Washington, D.C., where we
released our two reports on communist influence in Hawaii and Chicago. These reports are
available at our website. However, major organs of the national news media have seen fit to
either ignore Davis or play down his communist affiliations. That tendency is clearly at work in
the new book, The Dream Begins.
When America entered into our current economic crisis, I reviewed a copy of a 1932 book,
Toward Soviet America, by then-CPUSA boss William Z. Foster. He explained how socialism
will come to America. It is frightening to realize that Davis was part of that movement. Davis's
communist activities began in 1931 and continued into the 1970s. He passed away in 1987. He
never stopped being a communist.
Let me caution you. When you go to our website and read some of this material, especially the
information about Davis's perverted sexual activities, you will be sickened and disgusted. This
material is for adults only! I do not provide it to titillate or amuse you. I provide it so that you
will understand that this is someone who should never have been put in charge or control of any
young person.
It is necessary to put this on the public record because there is a coordinated effort to suppress the
truth about Davis. The book I previously mentioned is only the latest example of a media trend to
depict this hard-core communist agent as some kind of civil rights activist. Nothing could be
further from the truth. He was a Communist pervert.
When you go to our website -- www.usasurvival.org -- and examine our reports on Davis and
related matters, you will see for yourself the terrible truth.
WHO IS SARAH PALIN?
By Butch King -- Alaskan Bush Pilot and Guide
Sept. 9, 2008 - Sarah “Barracuda” Palin is a straight shooting, hard charging, get it done gal. She knows when to listen,
how to analyze the facts and how to make a decision, then implement the plan. She doesn’t do a poll before jumping in
with both feet like too many of the Washington types.
She has little legislative experience because she has always held the executive position; in private life, as mayor of
Anchorage’s largest bedroom community and more recently as governor. She is a smart, attractive home grown Alaska
girl with excellent moral and family values. She can see what needs to be done and does not hesitate to get it done.
One of our state’s major problems is that its capital is in Juneau, 500 miles from the nearest road and 800 air miles from
the population base which is Anchorage, Wasilla and Fairbanks. Our legislature and most of the state government is in
Juneau and they ALL behave like a bunch of freshmen in a college town. It has been this way since statehood in 1959.
When Sarah moved to Juneau, so did accountability and responsibility. When the oil revenue started flowing and a barrel
of North Slope Crude hit $23, these people began spending money like drunken sailors. You can only imagine what was
happening when oil hit $100 a barrel, about the time Sarah took command. My wife Kathy has first-hand experience with
this fiasco, as her father and her ex-husband were Alaska legislators.
About the time Sarah took the helm as governor of Alaska, about half of the state legislature was in the pocket of big oil
companies or contractors doing big projects for native corporations around Alaska, all funded by state oil revenue.
Alaska government was nothing but a good old boys club riding the perpetual wave of prosperity. This filtered down
from the legislature, through the Department of Natural Resources, Department of Labor and even spilled into the Public
Safety who are supposed to “preserve and protect”.
When Sarah walked into the Governor’s Mansion, she promptly dismissed the state trooper detachment assigned to
governor and had her and her husband’s gun case brought in from Wasilla. Then, she got rid of the former governor’s
state jet and told legislators there were no more free rides, they would have to fly Alaska Airlines just like her and her
family if they wanted
to travel.
Next came the the Barracuda part. The heads that rolled were too numerous to name, but when Sarah finished cleaning
house, a number of our legislators ended up in jail on corruption charges, or tendered their resignations along with
numerous department heads and those who had been riding the gravy train for way too long. And then she had lunch.
By the end of the day, Sarah Palin had saved the people of Alaska millions and has not yet slowed down.
She has truly brought CHANGE to Juneau. I personally know several persons in the private sector in Alaska, that hold
her in high esteem. She surrounds herself with smart people, many from my hometown of Anchorage. She listens to them
but makes her own decisions. Sarah Palin is a no B.S. politician. It is refreshing that there is such a thing anymore. You
want to talk about change? You should see a before and after picture of the state government in Alaska.
That’s change!
Sarah will bring a number of things to the election. I am sure she will appeal to many voters who otherwise could have
gone the other direction on election day. We need what Sarah will bring, first to the election and second, what she will
bring to Washington D.C. John McCain has been advised well, Let’s just hope the American people can get the straight
scoop on her in the weeks
ahead.
This is just the opinion of one Alaska Bush Pilot and Guide, who pays attention to national politics, watches the news and
is deathly afraid of the direction our nation is headed. I guarantee that if Sarah gets a chance to dig her spurs into the
flanks of the liberal Washington types, they will know that she is in the saddle.
CHARTER SCHOOLS SURGING ACROSS U.S.
By Robert Holland
July 5, 2008 - There has been a bumper crop of charter school stories this graduation season. What's more, the articles
have been largely positive, a sign that these independently managed public schools are gaining popularity.
In Greenfield, Mass., the first graduating class at Four Rivers Public Charter School -- 26 strong -- celebrated the fact
that six years ago they had gathered as seventh graders, along with their parents, on
an overgrown field. Their school hadn't even been built yet. They took a leap of faith and fashioned a new school together.
A start-up success story on a larger scale comes from New Orleans, where charter schools have brought an
entrepreneurial spirit to education restoration in a city devastated by Hurricane Katrina three years ago. Charters now
handle 53 per cent of the city's post-hurricane enrollment; pre-Katrina, they had just two per cent.
Charters are booming in the state with the longest track record. Although overall public school enrollment in Minnesota is
declining, charter schools last year experienced their largest increase since 1991-92, the year the nation's first charter
school opened in Minnesota.
Charter schools are free of most of the rules that hamstring other public schools, including regulations pushed by teacher
unions to benefit their members instead of students. This freedom allows charter schools to tailor programs to children's
real needs.
The University of Minnesota's Joe Nathan, one of the authors of the Center for School Change's report on "Enrollment
and Demographic Trends for MN Charter and District Public Schools," offered these reasons for the rise in charter
enrollments:
"First, small size of the schools. Secondly, safer schools. Third, distinctive programs, whether
they're language immersion, ... the arts, things like that. Fourth, there's a feeling of great respect
from teachers to parents and from teachers to students" (Minneapolis Star-Tribune, June 19).
It also doesn't hurt that charters are public schools that parents can actually choose.
In Rochester, members of the Democrat and Chronicle newspaper's editorial board visited True North Rochester
Preparatory School to learn how it's racking up some of the highest math scores in New York State. The answer is
shorter than the school's name: discipline.
On Principal Stacey Shells' watch, students do not talk in the hallways and must walk a straight line to and from the
lunchroom. There are carrots, too, in the form of rewards for good conduct and high achievement.
"After all, it's impossible to teach amid disorder," the board noted in a June 19 editorial. "Too many City School District
teachers know that all too well. Many tell disturbing stories of constant disruptions by students uninterested in learning.
They create chaotic environments that make it almost impossible for other students to pursue knowledge."
There is abundant statistical evidence of the impact of the charter movement. EdSource, an
independent research organization, recently found charter middle and high schools performed
much better than regular public schools on California's 2007 achievement tests. Oakland's charter
middle schools scored an eye-popping 210 points higher than the city's noncharters on an
800-point scale (Oakland Tribune, June 19).
In Denver a group of angry parents came to a school board meeting last month demanding to know why the same choice
was not available to them. "We want this for our kids and our families," said Luci Saenz, mother of a child at Valdez
Elementary. "We are ready to fight. We believe in our children, and we believe they deserve it" (Denver Post, May 7).
The successes of charter schools are grabbing attention within the education establishment, but for a different reason.
Vested interests want less competition from excellent schools, not more. Thus the Delaware State Education Association
(DSEA), the state's teachers union, expropriated its members' dues to commission a Washington, DC public relations firm
to craft a slick strategy for halting further charter start-ups in the state.
If the likes of the DSEA get their way, students and parents won't be the only parties with diminished choice. Teachers
will join them--unless, that is, success stories just keep coming in and eventually overwhelm the selfish resistance.
Robert Holland is a senior fellow for education policy at The Heartland Institute, Chicago, Ill.
STATE OFFERS DEATH, NOT REMEDY
June 27, 2008 - Anyone who finds the liberal depictions of universal medical care provided by the government appealing
should consider the plight of Barbara Wagner, a 64-year-old lung cancer patient living in a low-income apartment in
Springfield, Oregon.
World Net Daily reports that the Oregon Health Plan will not pay for the drug her doctor has prescribed for her, but it will
pay for assisted suicide.
Wagner was notified of this decision in a letter from LIPA, the private company contracted to administer the state
program. Wagner, according to a local paper, was “devastated” when she learned of the state’s refusal to pay for her life-
saving medicine. "To say to someone, we'll pay for you to die, but not pay for you to live,
it's cruel," Wagner told the newspaper.
Dr. John Sattenspiel, senior medical director for LIPA, told the paper, "We had no intent to upset her,” but the company
had to inform her of “her options” under the Oregon Health Plan. Her sole option, of course, was to die but at least the
state would pay someone to “assist” her.
Dr. Walter Shaffer, a spokesman for the state Division of Medical Assistance Programs, explains the state’s
position, "We can't cover everything for everyone.”
Despite the state’s macabre proposal, Wagner will receive the drug she needs to save her life. She reported
receiving a notice from the pharmaceutical company that it will provide the drug, which costs $4,000 a month, for at least
a year. At the end of the year, the local paper noted, she can apply for further treatment from the company.
Part of the irony in this situation is that pharmaceutical companies rank just below oil companies in the liberal
rogue’s gallery, while government care is touted as the answer to everything. the incident also reveals what we can
expect when "assisted suicide" is legal.
TAKE ACTION AGAINST CPS
By Christopher Robinson
August 26, 2008 - On May 29, 2008, the Texas Supreme Court upheld the 3rd Court of Appeals ruling which found the
State had no right to seize the FLDS children from the ranch in Eldorado because it failed to prove either abuse or
neglect. The Supreme Court held "removal of the children was not warranted."
This case is not about whether you agree with the FLDS or not; it is about whether you value your liberty. I do not agree
with the FLDS lifestyle and belief system, but I do value family and liberty and oppose any attempt by the government to
abuse its authority with respect to either Protective Services (formerly CPS) has done just that - overstepped its authority.
And did you catch this headline: "Senate panel suggests taking FLDS sect's assets to cover costs." A legislative panel
suggested that the state explore garnisheeing the religious organization's assets to recoup the costs of caring for the
children they seized! Said Sen. Bob Deuell, "Why should we be footing the bill when they've got assets?" So, they can
wrongly take our children from our homes and then consider charging us for their care!
Who will be next? What if CPS comes knocking on your door? Do you or your family hold beliefs or practice a lifestyle
that may be considered "counter-cultural" or against "mainstream" society? Do you or a loved one home school? Are
you a born-again Christian? Are you leery of the environmental extremist agenda? Do you hold certain beliefs or practice
a lifestyle that would be considered today or in the near future "harmful" or against modern society?
We live in a world where the definition of "normal" or "acceptable" is quickly changing. Family values are no longer
upheld as they once were. The definition of marriage has changed. You are "strange" if you go to church more than once
a week. Same-sex relationships are applauded, and equal rights are demanded for them. If you disagree, you could be
found guilty of "hate crimes."
We are on a slippery slope. It would be easy for this case to fade into the background because popular opinion does not
favor FLDS. "Yeah, they're strange, who cares what happened to them." But if we don't let our governor and our
legislators know that we strongly disapprove of the strong-arm tactics employed by CPS, who will be next? An
unverified phone call was all it took for the DFPS to raid the ranch in Eldorado. We must call for an overhaul of this
agency.
If you love liberty, if you value family, and you don't want to see the state trample on either - please take a moment to
contact Gov. Perry and your legislators. Don't be apathetic. Take action today. If we don't speak up, we may lose our
opportunity to do so in the future.
"When they came for us, there was no one left to protest. . . ."
Christopher Robinson is a Lubbock attorney and home school father.
WHO KNEW FREE ENERGY COULD BE SO EXPENSIVE?
By Drew Thornley
May 24, 2008 - The Electric Reliability Council of Texas recently estimated that billions of dollars will be needed to
transmit wind-generated electricity from the areas of Texas most suitable for wind generation -- West Texas and the
Panhandle -- to the areas of the state that need energy the most -- the I-35 corridor and the upper Gulf Coast.
These costs will be borne by Texas ratepayers. How did we get here?
Renewable energy mandates and subsidies have paved the way for Texas’ wind energy boom. Texas leads the nation in
installed wind power capacity, adding 1,708 megawatts (MW) in 2007, bringing its total to 4,446 MW by the end the
year. California is a distant second, with 2,439 MW by year’s end. In 2007, just 0.77 per cent of the nation’s electric
generation came from wind energy; in Texas, wind accounts for two per cent of generation.
Robust wind power expansion is expected, as Texas producers are required to generate 5,880 MW of renewable energy
by 2015 and face a 10,000-MW target for 2025. To this end, $700 million went into new wind Texas farms in January.
Wind energy proponents extol wind as free, safe, and clean, but these characterizations miss the point. Energy users
expect reliability, and challenges dot the path from wind to the electric grid to the energy consumer.
For wind turbines to produce power the wind must blow. Because the wind does not blow constantly, wind turbines
produce a fraction of their potential generating capacities.
Furthermore, wind blows the least during the summer months when power is needed the most. ERCOT relies on just 8.7
per cent of wind power’s capacity when determining available power during peak summer hours. Also,
due to wind’s intermittency, wind farms must rely on conventional power sources to back up their supply.
Besides generous federal subsidies and tax incentives, Texas entices wind developers with tax exemptions and
deductions; yet wind power remains more expensive per kilowatt-hour than conventional energy sources.
ERCOT’s estimates for transmitting West Texas wind energy, under four different scenarios, range from $3.78
billion to $6.28 billion.
ERCOT estimated costs by using straight-line lengths for transmission cables. Thus, transmission costs were estimated
using a best-case-scenario approach and, as such, should be considered minimums. Add to this ERCOT’s estimates of
$410 million to $1.03 billion for connecting wind generation to the new collection substations.
Wind energy also comes with legitimate environmental concerns. Wind farms require vast tracts of land,
disrupting farming acreage and animal habitats; and turbine blades kill thousands of birds each year, including
protected species.
ERCOT estimates Texas’ electricity demand will rise 20 per cent by 2015 and 43 per cent by 2025. Texas must
remain focused on providing its residents with affordable, reliable energy and not turn its back on fossil fuels,
which can meet our needs and are cleaner than ever before.
Wind alone cannot meet the increasing demand we face. Rather, wind is one stick in a bundle of larger sticks,
all of which can and should contribute to meeting energy demands. Wind should be part of a diversified
portfolio of energy resources, anchored by the traditional energy sources that have the capacity to meet Texas’’
burgeoning energy needs.
Drew Thornley is a natural resources policy analyst at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a non-profit, free-market
research institute based in Austin.
OBAMA’S ANTI-MARRIAGE AGENDA
By Gary Bauer
March 4, 2008 - As the campaign for the Democrat nomination heats up, Barack Obama is moving aggressively to
outflank Hillary Clinton on her left. To rally the radical base, he is now pandering to the militant homosexual rights
movement, advocating policies that would effectively clear the way for the imposition of same-sex "marriage" across the
country.
In advance of the Ohio and Texas primaries the Obama campaign released an "open letter" to the homosexual community.
Here are some key excerpts:
"...throughout my career, I have fought to eliminate discrimination against LGBT Americans. In Illinois, I co-sponsored a
fully inclusive bill that prohibited discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity, extending
protection to the workplace, housing, and places of public accommodation. In the U.S. Senate, I have co-sponsored bills
that would equalize tax treatment for same-sex couples and provide benefits to domestic partners of federal employees.
And as president, I will place the weight of my administration behind the enactment of the Matthew Shepard Act to
outlaw hate crimes and a fully inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act to outlaw workplace discrimination on the
basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. As your president, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex
couples with
full equality in their family and adoption laws.
"...I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) - a position I have held since before arriving in
the U.S. Senate. While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute
altogether. ... I have also called for us to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and I have worked to improve the Uniting
American Families Act so we can afford same-sex couples the same rights and obligations as married couples in our
immigration system."
"Complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act," would enable radical judicial activists to impose same-sex "marriage"
across the country at their whim. The Defense of Marriage Act did not ban homosexual "marriage." It created an
exemption from the Constitution's full faith and credit clause, giving states the right to refuse to recognize same-sex
"marriages" performed in other states.
Right now, if you are married in California and move to Florida, you do not have to get remarried, because
legally valid marriages of one state are recognized in other states due to the Constitution's full faith and credit
clause. Without the exemption created by the Defense of Marriage Act, one federal judge could declare the
same-sex "marriages" performed in Massachusetts legal in all 50 states. No state would be exempt, because
state constitutional amendments are still subject to federal review, and without DOMA, even the 27 states that have
enacted marriage protection amendments would be extraordinarily vulnerable.
Conservative columnist Terry Jeffrey noted that Obama justifies his position scripturally, as well. Yesterday, he told a
gathering in Ohio, "I think that it [same-sex "marriage"] is a legal right that they should have that is
recognized by the state. If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the
Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans."
Just to be clear about how radical and controversial Obama's position is, in 1996 DOMA passed the House of
Representatives on a vote of 342-to-67 (83 per cent in favor), passed the Senate 85-to-14 and was signed into law by
Bill Clinton. So in order to get to Hillary's left with the most radical elements of the Democrat Party,
Obama is willing to embrace a position overwhelmingly rejected by Congress, a Democrat president and 27
states that have passed marriage protection amendments by an average vote of 69 per cent.
Gary Bauer is the founder of Campaign for Working Families
IS BARACK OBAMA ‘BIG BROTHER’?
By Gary Bauer
May 20, 2008 - If exit polls are to be believed, Barack Obama may be popular with college-educated liberals, but he is
having trouble connecting with blue-collar workers, the "Reagan Democrats" who live and work in "Main Street, U.S.A."
-- and it's not hard to understand why.
In addition to his remarks about "bitter" people clinging to faith and guns, Obama made this startling statement: "We can't
drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72
degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK."
If that's any indication of what we can expect from a President Obama, the American people better start asking some
tough questions before Election Day. What kind of big government policies would a President Obama propose to
implement such a statement? Would an Obama administration ban SUVs? Would it impose rationing at the grocery store,
like World War II-era restrictions? California officials are already contemplating the use of remote control devices to
control the thermostats in new homes and businesses.
Is this what "Big Brother Barack" has in mind for all of us?
Liberals insist that the government has no interest in defining the meaning of marriage and family, or preserving the sanctity
of life. Those are personal "choices" and matters of individual orientation that somehow rise to the level of cherished
constitutional rights. But Barack Obama thinks government can tell us what to drive, what to eat and where to set our
thermostats!
But wait, there’s more.
A Vision Of The Future
If you're still thinking of staying home on Election Day, let me give you a vision of the future. During a mass mass rally,
Obama told the crowd, "Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a
serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us." Here were 80,000 people listening to "President
Obama" telling them that Iran is a "tiny" nation that poses no significant threat to us. That's the mindset that will guide his
face-to-face negotiations with our enemies.
Let me be clear about this: Iran is sitting astride of the world's energy supply. It is feverishly working to acquire nuclear
weapons and is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. Its Holocaust-denying dictator has vowed to "wipe Israel
off the map," called our ally a "stinking corpse," and has also prayed for the destruction of America. And Barack Obama
sees no serious threat?
John McCain responded sharply to Obama's comments, saying, "The biggest national security challenge the United States
currently faces is keeping nuclear material out of the hands of terrorists. Should Iran acquire nuclear weapons, that danger
would become very dire, indeed. They might not be a superpower, but the threat the government of Iran poses is anything
but 'tiny.'"
In recent weeks, I have gotten messages from good folks saying I've been too harsh on Barack
Obama. How is one supposed to be gentle about a presidential candidate who is signaling that he is clueless about the
dangers facing our country? Why should we handle with kid gloves a candidate who believes it is ok to allow a child who
survives an abortion to be thrown in a trash can and left to die? (Obama blocked a bill in the Illinois state legislature that
would have protected children who were born alive after botched abortion attempts.) Obama wants to repeal the Defense
of Marriage Act, the only legislation now standing in the way of the California Supreme Court's ruling being forced on
every state in the union.
I don't see how any conservative activist or "Christian conservative leader" can say with a straight face, "It really doesn't
matter whether Barack Obama or John McCain gets elected as far as our issues are concerned."
Gary Bauer is founder of Campaign for Working Families
REWRITING HISTORY - AN EROSION OF OUR STANDARDS
By Mike Pearce
Nov. 7, 2007 - Today, in Texas schools, the study of our history is under assault by academic elites and education
bureaucrats under the guise of multiculturalism and political correctness.
The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board has developed college readiness standards for the high school
curriculum. These proposed standards abandon the instruction of traditional history and replace it with vague feel-good
“diverse human perspectives and experiences.”
Texas parents must take a stand against this erosion and demand that our history be taught as it really happened.
America’s greatest generation, our World War II veterans, are dying at a rate of 1,000 per day. But you won’t find any
mention of them or their heroic deeds in the proposed social science standards. What you will find is a recommendation
that our students explain the impact of World War II on the African-American and Mexican-American civil rights
movements, how the policies changed our economy, and whether the decision to drop the atomic bombs was correct.
Our high school students will now study the impact of WW II, but not the war itself.
There are no recommendations on how industrialization led to the betterment of mankind. Instead, students must evaluate
the impact of the Industrial Revolution and rapid urbanization “on the environment.” Where is the standard that asks one
to evaluate the quality of life in America before and after industrialization? Our scholars in high school will be figuring out
much deeper problems, like “how climate change might affect the US economy.” So, the Industrial Revolution is out and
global warming is in.
The standards have no mention of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Ronald
Reagan, or the Magna Carta. But what did make the list was a recommendation that students listen to Martin Luther
King’s “I Have a Dream” speech and summarize five main points. While King’s historic speech is very worthy of tudy,
so are many other monumental events.
What the standards do is to provide an “approach” to questions under the guise of trying to make the students believe that
they are developing their own conclusions. It is the belief of the academic elite that the “broad” should be substituted for
the “narrow”; and they set the parameters of academic importance.
You will not find a standard that asks students to learn about the beautiful melting pot that is America; but our students will
study “xenophobia and its impact on immigration policies in the United States.” Our students will not be learning about the
Judeo-Christian values that were the foundation of our nation; but our students will “analyze how conflicting religious
values create social conflict in local communities.” Students will not learn about how the United States has
stood as a beacon of liberty for the world, but they will learn about various important civil rights cases, including Lawrence
v. Texas which mandated an end to anti-sodomy laws.
There were few things I enjoyed more about teaching American history than covering the Declaration of Independence.
From the philosophy of John Locke to the poetic words of Thomas Jefferson; from the faith in the idea that men had
divine rights rather than mere secular ones, to the notion that liberty was an institution for which all men yearned. Now,
under these proposed standards, our children will no longer hear any of that. Instead, they will “analyze the Declaration of
Independence from the perspective of men and women, and people of Native American, European, and African
descent.” In other words, The Declaration of Independence was merely a document wrought with chauvinism, racism,
and could just as easily be viewed as a “declaration of treason” by the British.
Texas parents must stand up to this erosion of our historical standards now. The Higher Education Coordinating Board is
accepting public comments online now through Dec.10 at www.thecb.state.tx.us. We must teach our students integrity,
leadership and character and use the heroic figures in our history as models. If we allow the purveyors of political
correctness to re-write our history, we sentence our greatest patriots to death through their expulsion from our
history books.
Mike Pearce is a former Texas public school social studies teacher who taught for ten years.
NORTH AMERICAN INFLUENZA PLAN
VIOLATES RIGHTS OF U.S. CITIZENS
By Phyllis Schlafly
Sept. 12, 2007 - It's now leaking out that there was more going on than met the eye at the Security and Prosperity
Partnership Summit in Montebello, Canada, in August. The three amigos -- President George W. Bush, Canadian Prime
Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon -- finalized and released the "North American Plan
for Avian & Pandemic Influenza."
The "Plan" -- that's what they call it, with a capital P -- is to use the excuse of a major flu epidemic to shift powers from U.
S. legislatures to unelected, unaccountable "North American" bureaucrats.
This idea was launched on September 14, 2005, when Bush announced the "International Partnership on Avian and
Pandemic Influenza." He was speaking to the United Nations General Assembly.
We might have thought that idea had some merit because the influenza partnership called for "transparency in reporting of
influenza cases in humans and in animals" and the "sharing of epidemiological data and samples." That's very different from
the Security and Prosperity Summit, where transparency has always been conspicuously avoided like the plague.
This year's Security and Prosperity Summit in Canada morphed the Influenza Partnership into the North American Plan.
Now we discover that the Plan is not only about combating a flu epidemic but is far-reaching in seeking control over U.S.
citizens and public policy during an epidemic.
The Plan repeatedly features the favorite Bush word "comprehensive" - it calls for a "comprehensive, coordinated North
American approach." The Plan would give authority to international bureaucrats "beyond the health sector to include a
coordinated approach to critical infrastructure protection," including "border and transportation issues."
The Plan is a wordy 44-page document, much of which sounds innocuous. It is helpful to exchange information about
disease and take precautions against letting foreign diseases enter the United States.
However, self-government and sovereignty are at risk when control over these matters is turned over to a newly created
North American body headed by the representative of another country. It's an additional problem when the entire Plan is
a spin-off of the Security and Prosperity Partnership, an arrangement created in secret solely by White House press
releases, without Congressional approval or even oversight.
The 2007 Plan acknowledges that it is based not only on the Influenza Partnership, but also on the guidelines, standards
and rules of the World Health Organization, the World Organization for Animal Health, the World Trade Organization,
and the North American Free Trade Agreement.
"Decision Makers"
The Plan sets up a "senior level coordinating body to facilitate the effective planning and preparedness within North
America for a possible outbreak of avian and/or human pandemic influenza under the Security and Prosperity
Partnership." The Plan identifies this Security and Prosperity Partnership coordinating body as "decision-makers."
The Plan then (ungrammatically) states: "The chair of the Security and Prosperity Partnership coordinating body will rotate
between each national authority on a yearly basis." Thus, a foreigner will be the "decision maker" for Americans in two out
of every three years.
What powers will this foreign-headed coordinating body exercise? The Plan suggests that these include "the use of
antivirals and vaccines; ... social distancing measures, including school closures and the prohibition of community
gatherings; ... isolation and quarantine."
Will this foreign-headed coordinating body respect the First Amendment "right of the people peaceably to assemble"? Or
will the rules of the Plan, Security and Prosperity Partnership, World Health Organization, World Organization for Animal
Health, World Trade Organization and NAFTA take precedence?
Health Powers
In evaluating the Plan, it is instructive to recall the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act, an anti-epidemic plan
launched by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Oct. 23, 2001. Designed to be passed by all state
legislatures, the model bill was primarily written by Lawrence O. Gostin, a former member of U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham
Clinton's discredited Task Force on Health Care Reform, and was promoted by the Bush administration during its first
year.
The proposed Emergency Health Powers Act would have given each governor sole discretion to declare a public health
emergency and grant himself extraordinary powers. He would have been able to restrict or prohibit firearms, seize private
property and destroy it in many circumstances, and impose price controls and rationing.
Governors would have been given the power to order people out of their homes and into dangerous quarantines. Children
could have been taken from their parents and put into public quarantines.
Governors could even have demanded that physicians administer certain drugs despite individuals' religious or other
objections. The Emergency Health Powers Act was based on the concept that decision-making by authoritarian bosses
and unelected bureaucrats is the way to go in a time of crisis.
The proposed Emergency Health Powers Act roused a nationwide storm of protest because it was an unprecedented
assault on the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens, as well as on the principle of limited government, and so it never passed
anywhere in its original text. Will similar totalitarian notions now bypass legislatures and be forced upon us by Security and
Prosperity Partnership press releases?
TEACHERS RESISTING LEFTIST UNION
By Connie Sadowski
Published in School Reform News by The Heartland Institute
Oct. 7, 2007 - Rank-and-file teachers are so fed up with the far-left policies the National Association of Education
adopted at its annual convention in Philadelphia that some are planning to become delegates themselves in order to change
the union's makeup.
Sissy Jochmann, a second-grade teacher in Pittsburgh, took issue with non-educational recommendations adopted by the
NEA Board of Directors --such as incorporating sexual orientation and gender identity in teacher education standards;
enhancing gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) partnerships; expanding the union's GLBT web page; and
supporting federal hate crimes legislation.
During the meeting of the Committee on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identification, Jochmann -- an NEA convention
delegate since 2001 and chair of the NEA Conservative Educators Caucus -- said all the research presented and the
discussion that followed were "one-sided from a gay-affirming viewpoint," because the committee was "not interested in
hearing research contrary to their viewpoint."
The Board of Directors subsequently adopted the GLBT policies in a closed session, literally behind closed doors.
Conservative teachers must not "sit idly back and pay dues," Jochmann said. "It's unconscionable," she continued, for
state members to do nothing while the NEA continues to "adopt non-education policies regarding social issues like
abortion and homosexuality."
NEA spokesperson Will Potter repeatedly declined comment.
Need for Accountability
According to the organization's website, approximately one-third of the NEA's three million teacher members are
conservatives.
NEA delegates should more closely represent members' views and be more accountable to members for the policies they
adopt, said Judy Bruns, an Ohio delegate and middle-school teacher. The NEA should institute policies to "ensure annual
meeting delegates invite members' input before attending the meeting and then to report back to members after the
meeting," but her recommendation was defeated, she said.
The NEA is making an effort to reach out to its conservative base, said Diane Lenning, former chair of the NEA
Republican Educators Caucus and a retired Orange County, California high school teacher. A delegate to the annual
meeting each year between 2000 and 2006, this year she was one of 80 teachers attending the NEA's first Republican
Leaders Conference in Minneapolis August 2-5.
An NEA news release said the conference was "part of NEA's commitment to bipartisanship in its political and legislative
advocacy" and its "initiative to increase its presence in [the] Republican Party."
Calls for Vouchers
Lenning said she hopes NEA leaders will work to arrive at "common-ground positions" regarding some "historically
adversarial issues such as school choice and reauthorization of No Child Left Behind, curriculum content, school safety,
improving the high school graduation rate, reducing the dropout rate, and teaching each generation about the processes of
democracy.
"When education and political leaders are adversarial and indecisive, the kids suffer," Lenning added. "We want our
students across the nation to succeed with an accessible, quality education."
Reflecting increasing public dissatisfaction with the NEA's growing disdain for mainstream American values, some social
conservative groups, which historically have been silent on the issue of school choice, are beginning to take up the banner.
One of these is the American Family Association (AFA), based in Mississippi, which asked in a July 31 e-mail alert to its
3.3 million constituents, "is it time for school vouchers?"
"The NEA has consistently passed very leftist resolutions and held very liberal political positions over the years," so AFA
decided to "promote public policies that support a parent's right to choose their child's school and to work to raise the
profile of politicians who support such policy," AFA President Tim Wildmon explained. "The vast majority of people who
take surveys on our Web site favor vouchers."
Connie Sadowski (connie@ceoaustin.org) directs the Education Options Resource Center at the Austin CEO Foundation.
HOUSTON PUPILS GAIN FROM COMPETITION
BY JAMIE STORY
Sept. 22, 2007 - While the public school lobby has traditionally opposed any introduction of
competition into the education system, the state’s largest school district seems to have embra embraced it.
In Houston, 80 state-authorized charter schools enroll approximately 20,000 students. That’s one charter student for
every 10 students in the Houston Independent School District (HISD). Few school districts in the country face this degree
of competition—and even fewer have risen to the challenge like HISD.
At a recent forum hosted by the Texas Public Policy Foundation, HISD Chief Academic Officer Dr. Karen Soehnge
emphasized that “we fundamentally, as an organization, embrace choice.” That’s not something you typically hear from a
public school administrator. But HISD has responded to competition by maximizing choice within the public school system.
In HISD, students can choose to attend any school where space is available. Campus funding is based on enrollment – if a
school doesn’t compete to keep students, it loses the dollars that go with them. And students have a wide variety of
learning environments from which to choose, since HISD has created specialized magnet schools and virtual courses that
maximize student flexibility.
HISD has also responded by establishing a network of district-authorized charter schools. Today, 29 district charters
enroll approximately 11,000 students. By comparison, the state as a whole only contains 54 district charters, meaning
more than half of the state’s district charters are in HISD.
What are the results of this movement toward choice? In 2005, HISD had 31 campuses rated unacceptable, and only six
rated exemplary. In 2007, the district had 15 of each. For its size, Houston has half as many unacceptable schools as
either Fort Worth or Dallas, and fewer even than Austin, a property-rich district.
A study by the Texas Public Policy Foundation found that traditional public schools facing competition from charters
outperform those public schools that do not face competition. HISD provides concrete proof to support this unsurprising
finding.
It is no coincidence that HISD, with its significant charter competition, is one of the most innovative urban districts in the
country. If charter schools were allowed to expand more freely throughout the state, other Texas districts might be
motivated to undertake similar reforms in response to competition from charters. Unfortunately, a legislative limit on the
number of state-authorized charters has hampered the effects of competition.
But despite this limitation, school districts are still within their power to increase student choice. Charters authorized by
school districts and universities do not fall under the state mandated cap, so district charters can proliferate elsewhere like
they have in Houston.
Even more important, parents have the power to demand choice within their children’s districts. According to a little-
known portion of the education code, the majority of parents and teachers of an existing public school may petition their
school board to grant a charter to the campus. While the school board is not required to honor the petition, they are not
allowed to arbitrarily deny the request either. To date, this authorization option has not been utilized by parents and
teachers, but it holds great promise for increasing parental choice within the public school system.
“We are not threatened at all by competition,” Dr. Soehnge said at the TPPF forum. When more Texas school districts
adopt that same attitude and embrace choice, parent satisfaction and student performance will soar.
Jamie Story is an education policy analyst at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a non-profit,
free-market research institute based in Austin.