How Can the USA Possibly Survive the NEA ?

Dems Endorse The Teachers' Radical Agenda

By PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY
Posted Wednesday, August 22, 2007

Some critics complain that the issue of education has been conspicuously absent from presidential television debates. But Democratic presidential candidates did sound off with their pro-federal government, pro-spending policies at the annual convention of the National Education Association, and the nation's largest teachers union liked what it heard.

Sen. Hillary Clinton told delegates she would fight school vouchers "with every breath in my body." Reiterating the message of her book "It Takes a Village," she called for universal preschool for 4-year-olds.

Sen. Barack Obama likewise inveighed against "passing out vouchers." Former Sen. John Edwards also announced his opposition to vouchers and proposed that the federal government pay college tuition for all students who will work 10 hours a week.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson wants to "raise teacher's average minimum wage to $40,000 a year." Rep. Dennis Kucinich goes all out for "a universal pre-kindergarten system that will provide year-round day care for children age 3 to 5."

All Democratic candidates look forward to increased federal control of and spending for public schools. And they all attacked President George W. Bush's No Child Left Behind law for not appropriating more funds to implement it.

After cheering the promises made by the candidates, NEA delegates buckled down to the serious business of spelling out their political goals, many of which have nothing whatever to do with better education.

The NEA demands a tax-supported, single-payer health care plan for all "residents," a word artfully chosen to include illegal immigrants. The NEA supports immigration "reform" that "includes a path to permanent residency, citizenship or asylum" for illegal immigrants.

For many years, and again this year, the NEA urged a national holiday honoring Cesar Chavez. The NEA must have forgotten that Chavez, a strident advocate for farmworkers, opposed illegal immigration because he knew it depressed the wages of U.S. citizens and legal immigrants.

The NEA supports a beefed-up federal hate crimes law with heavier penalties. The NEA wants federal legislation to confer special rights on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity and expression.

The NEA passed at least a dozen resolutions supporting the "gay rights agenda" in public schools. These cover employment, curricula, textbooks, resource and instructional materials, school activities, role models and language, with frequent use of terms such as sexual orientation, gender identification and homophobia.

The NEA enthusiastically supports all the goals of radical feminism, including abortion, the Equal Rights Amendment, school-based health clinics, wage control so the government can arbitrarily raise the pay of women but not men, the feminist pork called the Women's Educational Equity Act and letting feminists rewrite textbooks to conform to feminist ideology.

The NEA supports statehood for the District of Columbia. The NEA supports affirmative action. The NEA calls for repeal of right-to-work laws, which allow teachers in some states to decline joining the NEA.

The NEA supports U.N. treaties, especially the U.N. Convention on Women, the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the International Court of Justice. The NEA loves global education, which promotes world citizenship and taxing U.S. citizens to give away their wealth to other countries.

Another NEA favorite is environmental education, which teaches that human activity is generally harmful to the environment and population should be reduced.

Here are some things the NEA opposes: vouchers, tuition tax credits, parental choice programs, making English the official language of the U.S., the use of voter identification for elections, and the privatization of Social Security.

High on the list of NEA policies that actually relate to education is opposition to the testing of teachers as a criterion for job retention, promotion, tenure or salary.

The NEA reiterated its support for pre-kindergarten for "all 3- and 4-year-old children," mandatory full-day kindergarten, and "early childhood education programs in the public schools for children from birth through age 8." The NEA demands that this "early" education have "diversity-based curricula" and "bias-free screening devices."

The NEA wants the right to teach schoolchildren about sex without interference from parents, but wants its pals in the bureaucracy to regulate all home-schooling taught by parents. The NEA opposes allowing home-schoolers to participate in public school sports or extracurricular activities.

Two of the NEA's favorite words in its resolutions and policies are "diversity," which means teaching that gay behavior is OK, and "multiculturalism," which means stressing negative things about the U.S. and positive things about non-Christian cultures.

The exorbitant dues teachers pay to the NEA enable its well-paid staff to lobby Congress and state legislatures on behalf of all these goals.

© 2007 PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY. Copley News Service

Good for Democrats Means Bad for America

If It's Bad for America, It's Good for Democrats

By Dennis Prager
Tuesday, August 14, 2007

One of the two major political parties of the United States has linked all its electoral hopes on domestic pathologies, economic downturns and foreign failure.

It is actually difficult to name any positive development for America that would benefit the Democratic Party's chances in a national election.

Name almost any subject, and this unhealthy pattern can be discerned.

If African Americans come to believe that America is a land of opportunity in which racism has been largely conquered, it would be catastrophic for the Democrats. The day that most black Americans see America in positive terms will be the day Democrats lose any hope of winning a national election. Whatever one believes about the extent of racism in America, one cannot deny that the Democrats need black Americans to feel victimized by racism. Contented black Americans spell disaster for the Democratic Party.

If women marry, it is bad for the Democratic Party. Single women are an essential component of any Democratic victory. Unmarried women voted for Kerry by a 25-point margin (62 percent to 37 percent), while married women voted for President Bush by an 11-point margin (55 percent to 44 percent). According to a pro-Democrat website, The Emerging Democratic Majority, "the 25-point margin Kerry posted among unmarried women represented one of the high water marks for the Senator among all demographic groups."

After women marry, they are more likely to abandon leftist views and to vote Republican. And if they then have children, they will vote Republican in even more lopsided numbers. The bottom line is that when Americans marry, it is bad for the Democratic Party; when they marry and make families, it is disastrous for the party.

If immigrants assimilate, it is not good for Democrats. The Democratic Party has invested in Latino separatism. The more that Hispanic immigrants come to feel fully American, the less likely they are to vote Democrat. The liberal notion of multiculturalism helps Democrats, while adoption of the American ideal of e pluribus unum (out of many, one) helps Republicans. That is one reason Democrats support bilingual education -- it hurts Hispanic children, but it keeps them from full assimilation -- and oppose making English America's official language.

Concerning the economy, the same rule applies. The better Americans feel they are doing, the worse it is for Democrats. By almost every economic measure (the current housing crisis excepted), Americans are doing well. The unemployment rate has been at historically low levels and inflation has been held in check, something that rarely accompanies low unemployment rates. Nevertheless, Democrats regularly appeal to class resentment, knowing that sowing seeds of economic resentment increases their chances of being elected.

The most obvious area in which this rule currently applies is the war in Iraq. The Democrats have put themselves in the position of needing failure in Iraq in order to win the next election. And again, perceptions matter more than reality. Even if America is doing better in the war, what matters most for the Democrats are Americans' perceptions of the war. The worse the stories from Iraq, the better for Democrats.

That helps to explain why the mainstream media, who ache for a Democratic victory, feature stories of wounded American soldiers, grieving families of killed soldiers and atrocity stories -- such as the apparently fictitious story printed in the New Republic. But they almost never feature stories about military heroism and altruism. Americans read and watch far more stories about soldiers who commit atrocities than about soldiers who commit heroic actions and who show love to Iraqi civilians.

The list is almost endless. Thus, when pro-American foreign leaders -- such as Nicolas Sarkozy in France -- are elected, even that is not good for the Democrats. The more the Democrats can show that America is hated, the more the Democrats can argue that we need them in order to be loved abroad.

Undoubtedly, some Democrats might respond that the same thesis could be written if a Democrat were in the White House and the Republicans were out of power. But that is not at all the case. First, there is no equivalent list of bad things happening to America that benefits Republicans. Second, everything written here about the Democrats -- except about the Iraq War, which was not taking place then -- could have been written when Democrat Bill Clinton was president.

I am not saying that in their hearts all Democrats want black America to regard America as a racist society, or want Hispanics to remain unassimilated, or Americans to feel economically discontented, or fewer families to be formed, or America to lose in Iraq, or foreign nations to hate us.

But what most Democrats want in their hearts is not the issue. The issue is that if Democrats want to win, they can do so only if bad things happen to America.

Dennis Prager is a radio show host, contributing columnist for Townhall.com, and author of 4 books including Happiness Is a Serious Problem: A Human Nature Repair Manual.

Caution: Muslims in America

The Muslim Mafia in America

A Muslim 'Mafia'?

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted Tuesday, August 14, 2007 4:30 PM PT

Homeland Security: Forget everything you've been told about "moderate" Muslim groups in America. New evidence that U.S. prosecutors have revealed at a major terror trial exposes the facade.

Exhibit No. 003-0085 is the most chilling. Translated from Arabic by federal investigators in the case against the Holy Land Foundation, an alleged Hamas front, the secret document outlines a full-blown conspiracy by the major Muslim groups in America — all of which are considered "mainstream" by the media.

In fact, they are part of the "Ikhwan," or Muslim Brotherhood, the parent organization of Hamas, al-Qaida and other major Islamic terror groups. They have conspired to infiltrate American society with the purpose of undermining it and turning it into an Islamic state.

Check out this quote from Page 7 of the 1991 document:

"The Ikwhan must understand that all their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging their miserable house by the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah's religion is made victorious over all religions."

Sounds like the latest screed from Osama bin Laden. But it comes from the Muslim establishment in America.

The secret plan lists several Saudi-backed Muslim groups as "friends" of the conspiracy.

They include the Islamic Society of North America — the umbrella organization — and the North American Islamic Trust, which controls most of the mosques in America and is the forerunner to the Council on American-Islamic Relations, this country's most visible Muslim-rights group.

All three have been cited as unindicted co-conspirators in the case, with all three sharing membership in the Muslim Brotherhood. Yet all have claimed, in the wake of 9/11, to be moderate, even patriotic.

Another exhibit reveals their plan to create innocuous-sounding "front groups" to hide their radical agenda.

Many in the media and politics have fallen for their deception and helped bring them into the mainstream.

Now everyone knows the truth.

The Muslim establishment that publicly decries the radical fringe — represented by Hamas and al-Qaida — may actually be a part of it. The only difference is that they use words and money instead of bombs to accomplish their subversive goals.

Over the past two decades they have constructed, with Saudi money, an elaborate infrastructure of support for the bad guys — right under our noses.

They even brag about putting "beehives" (Islamic centers) in every major city.

These exhibits — which so far have been ignored by major media outside the Dallas area, where the trial is under way — completely blow the mainstream Muslim NGOs' cover as pro-American moderates. Many, if not most, aren't.

This is their real agenda, spelled out in black and white. It should help investigators build a RICO case to dismantle the entire terror-support network in America.

Many have suspected it, but now we have proof that there is a secret underworld operating inside America under the cover of fronts with legitimate-sounding names.

It even uses charities to launder money for violent hits on enemies. It's highly organized, with its own internal bylaws and security to avoid monitoring from law enforcement.

Sounds like the Mafia.

But unlike the mob, this syndicate is religious in nature and protected by political correctness.

More evidence like this should put an end to such nonsense.

Hard-Left, Main-Stream News Media is Democratic Party Lap-Dogs !

The hard-left, main-stream news media is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party!

Press Acts Like Goon Squad For Democrats

By L. BRENT BOZELL
Posted Wednesday, August 01, 2007 4:30 PM PT

Sen. Charles Schumer is a legendary pursuer of television cameras. But look at the way the national media are covering Schumer's heavy-breathing pursuit to make Attorney General Alberto Gonzales cry uncle and resign.

It makes you wonder just how hard Schumer has to work to get press attention. The media appear Schumer owned and operated.

One interview really captures how the press acts more like a Democratic goon squad than nonpartisan observers of the national scene.

On ABC's "Good Morning America," news anchor Christopher Cuomo, son of Mario Cuomo, asked this pushy question on July 27: "Is Alberto Gonzales out of a job at end of business today?"

Cuomo wanted the attorney general whacked, and he wanted it now. He was asking the question to George Stephanopoulos, the former Clinton lie-spinner.

At least George bluntly explained the game: The Democrats' price for confirming a new attorney general would be "very, very high."

The Democrats are trying to set up a game of damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't, and most of the liberal media are playing along with them, refusing to cover the naked politics of it.

If our political media were truly nonpartisan, they might be pushing Schumer back about his record: a partisan double standard for truth-bending politicians and Cabinet officers, and a sudden hunger for a special prosecutor after years of opposing the same under a Democratic regime.

Start at the top. How many Senate Democrats voted to remove Bill Clinton from office for lying under oath in a sexual-harassment investigation?

Did they favor special prosecutors then, or did they treat them like unelected tyrants?

Schumer, for example, had the unique historical distinction of voting against Clinton's impeachment in both houses of Congress — first as a lame-duck House member in December 1998, then as a freshman senator in 1999.

How many Democrats would suggest that Hillary Clinton should resign, or should have never run for office, for hiding Rose Law Firm documents from the special prosecutor in the Whitewater investigation for several years (until they were discovered near her private office in the White House quarters)?

What About Democrats?

Special prosecutor Robert Ray found that Hillary Clinton provided factually false statements to the special prosecutor in the travel office case. Neither Rep. Schumer nor Sen. Schumer cared.

And no one in the "news" media cares.

This controversy is supposedly about the dismissal of seven U.S. attorneys. So where was Chuck Schumer when the Clinton administration dismissed all 93 U.S. attorneys in 1993?

Back then, it was perfectly fine. Now he's outraged. No one in the "news" media cares about the hypocrisy.

How many Democrats suggested that Attorney General Janet Reno should resign after she took responsibility for the fiery deaths of cult members in the fiasco at Waco, Texas, months after the incident?

They didn't need to, as long as the national media were doing their bidding and hailing her as a hero.

Time put her on the cover with the words "Reno: The Real Thing," like she was as appealing as Coca-Cola, noting she was "cheered on both sides of the aisle in Congress." Reporters dismissed her Republican predecessors in the office as "25 watt" dim bulbs by comparison. CNN called her a "rock star celebrity."

Journalists also cheered Reno when she lied to the family members of Elian Gonzales in order to conduct a surprise raid on their Florida home in the middle of the night to send the 6-year-old boy back to Fidel Castro.

Tom Friedman of the New York Times raved on PBS about how she would be the toast of lawless towns:

"What people in Bogota, Colombia, would give for five minutes of Janet Reno!"

Nine summers ago, Reno adamantly refused to name a special prosecutor in the Asian-foreign-contributions scandal, despite it being urged by her own appointed investigator, Charles LaBella — a recommendation endorsed by FBI Director Louis Freeh.

Neither Schumer nor the Schumer-sympathetic media found any reason to ask her to resign.

Chuck Schumer and Co. aren't really sticklers for honest testimony, but they are partisans seeking to win more Senate seats and the White House by any means necessary.

They pose now as the avatars of accountability after spending the Clinton years raging against prosecutors and congressional oversight probes.

Sadly, you would never know that if you relied on TV news as the only source of your political information.

They're doing the very same poses.

Copyright 2007 Creators Syndicate, Inc