Left Wing Propaganda Forced on TX Teachers‏

In this installment of The Peter Morrison Report:

Public schools in Texas are already steeped in political correctness, but the never-ending assault on our children's minds by way of liberal indoctrination is getting even worse. A recent report from a whistle blower reveals the far left-wing agenda being pushed on our children in the guise of education.

Click here to send a fax to TEA Commissioner Robert Scott to let him know Texans do not want their teachers to be subjected to left-wing propaganda:

http://www.morrisonreport.com/fax_test/index.php?faxID=86

Commissioner Robert Scott
William B. Travis Building
1701 N. Congress Avenue
Austin, Texas, 78701

Phone:  512-463-8985

Fax:  (512) 463-9838

Email:  commissioner@tea.state.tx.us

Full report:

Recently the conservative website WorldNetDaily featured a shocking report from someone in the process of applying for teaching certification in Texas.  As part of the certification process, he
was required to read several extremely disturbing online articles. He chose to remain anonymous for fear of being punished for speaking out, because there are radicals deeply entrenched in the
Texas educational system who don't want this information to be made public.

Some of the materials that this prospective teacher was forced to read if he wanted to be certified to teach in a public school had absolutely nothing to do with education as most people understand it. Instead, their purpose was instilling in future teachers the idea that their role in kids' lives is to act as agents of "social change" in the classroom, all in the name of "multiculturalism."

Multiculturalism is one of those liberal buzzwords that are so dangerous precisely because they can mean whatever the speaker or writer wants them to mean.  In the past few decades, innocuous sounding terms like "social justice" and "celebrating diversity" have become code words used to sneak a radical left wing agenda past an unsuspecting public.  Extreme liberals now want to use teachers to indoctrinate our children in the name of multiculturalism.

On one of the websites that is required reading for future teachers, there's a discussion of what multiculturalism means. Even this site admits that there's no fixed meaning; but all the
definitions they propose make it clear just what multiculturalism is all about - indoctrinating our kids with a radical left-wing agenda. One of their suggested definitions is "education change as
part of a larger societal transformation in which we more closely explore and criticize the oppressive foundations of society and how education serves to maintain the status quo -- foundations such as white supremacy, capitalism, global socioeconomic situations, and
exploitation."

This ideological jargon makes it perfectly clear what our kids will be learning if we don't put a stop to this.  They'll be taught that white people are a bunch of racists; free enterprise is unjust and socialism means fairness for all; and the main reason third world nations are impoverished is because they've been exploited by greedy, oppressive Western countries.  In other words, instead of being given a real education, our children will be taught the philosophy espoused by Barack Obama and his former pastor Jeremiah Wright, who famously said "white folk's greed runs a world in need."

That's just the beginning.  If there's one trait all left wingers share, it's their unrelenting hatred of traditional family values. The new "certification standards" that liberals want to impose on
Texas teachers are no exception. Future teachers are warned that they must not harbor any feelings of "heterosexism," and that one of their main functions as a teacher will be to eliminate this same "heterosexism" in their students.  This is apparently just as important as teaching reading, writing and arithmetic, if not more so, because schools now serve a higher purpose, which is "the transformation of society" to eliminate all forms of "prejudice" and "oppression."

Heterosexism is the radical new PC term for the belief that homosexual conduct is immoral, or in any way inferior to heterosexual behavior.  It's now established liberal doctrine that homosexuality and heterosexuality are moral equivalents which should be treated exactly alike, and anyone who disagrees is guilty of "hate."  Of course, traditional Americans don't view homosexuality as being on an equal plane with opposite sex attraction, and part of the teacher's job is to eradicate this "privileging" of heterosexuality in the minds of our children.  The ultimate goal is the very "transformation of society", in the words of the radical left wing website future teachers are required to read.

What would a "transformed society" look like to these people? Look no further than a book published in October of last year by Sarah Schulman to see what they have in mind for us.  Schulman is a lesbian activist, as well as a professor at City University of New York, College of Staten Island.  She's also a Fellow at New York University, and is considered one of the leaders in the fight against "homophobia" and "heterosexism" in America.  Here's what one reviewer says of her book, Ties That Bind: Familial Homophobia and Its Consequences: "In her book, Schulman offers a strategy for dealing with homophobic trauma: Homophobia should be identified as a sickness, with families court-ordered into treatment programs." To be clear, Schulman is not talking about people who physically assault homosexuals.  She's talking about people who regard homosexuality as immoral. She says they're "sick" and they should be forced into "treatment" until they're "cured."

That's just one aspect of the "transformation of society" agenda Texas teachers are now expected to take part in.  These social engineers want Texas schools to teach this moral insanity to our
innocent children, in order to lead the next generation into their brave new world, where free enterprise is oppression, Mom and Dad are racists, America and the rest of the Western World are the cause of third world poverty, and Christianity and traditional moral values are labeled as hate.

It's imperative that we raise our voices against our schools being used to perpetrate this outrageous radical agenda.  This sort of stuff is the last thing our future teachers should be  reading, but some of them are being forced to if they want to become teachers. When WorldNetDaily contacted the Texas Education Agency about this, their spokesperson downplayed it, saying these new "standards" aren't statewide; Texas schools are divided into 20 Education Service Center regions, and so it's only a regional issue, as if that settled the matter.

That's not good enough.  None of the Education Service Centers should be requiring prospective teacher to read through this radical left wing propaganda in order to become certified to teach.
They shouldn't even be recommending this sort of material in the first place.  Our children are our most precious heritage; they're not pawns to be programmed and used by liberals to  accomplish their radical goals of "transforming society." 

Contact Texas Education Commissioner Robert Scott and demand that he put a stop to this practice of forcing prospective teachers to read these materials, no matter where in Texas it's  happening:

Click here to send a fax:

http://www.morrisonreport.com/fax_test/index.php?faxID=86

Commissioner Robert Scott
William B. Travis Building
1701 N. Congress Avenue
Austin, Texas, 78701

Phone:  512-463-8985

Fax:  (512) 463-9838

Email:  commissioner@tea.state.tx.us

Sources:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=120622

http://www.edchange.org/multicultural/initial.html
Link fixed.


http://www.slate.com/id/2187358/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Schulman

http://www.insidehighered.com/views/mclemee/mclemee262

Subscribe to The Peter Morrison Report!
http://www.PeterMorrisonReport.com
http://www.facebook.com/morrisonreport

PO Box 8742, Lumberton, TX 77657, USA 


Thanks Peter!

Read more...

Texas' In-State Tuition Law - Unconstitutional

Our second installment of The Peter Morrison Report:
Summary of this week's report:

Under current Texas law, illegal aliens qualify for in-state tuition at state colleges and  universities, paying far less than legal immigrants and American citizens from other states. This
benefit costs Texas taxpayers tens of millions of dollars annually, and the amount is getting higher every year. IRCOT has filed suit to put a stop to this outrage. Let's support their efforts, and also contact our lawmakers to demand they repeal the law.

Full report:

Many Texans aren't aware of it, but public colleges and universities in Texas are required by law to treat illegal aliens better than American citizens who live in other states. Back in 2001 the legislature passed a law letting illegal aliens pay the same tuition as legal Texas residents pay, as long as they've been in the country for at least three years, and promise to apply for permanent residency. Meanwhile, a young man or woman who is an
American citizen, but grew up a few miles across the Oklahoma or Louisiana state line, has to pay thousands of dollars more than the illegal alien to attend the same Texas university.

There are certainly good reasons to charge out of state residents higher tuition at public  universities than Texans pay. State funded colleges and universities are set up primarily to educate Texans. In-state tuition rates are subsidized by Texas taxpayers, and so if out of state students want to attend one of our schools they're more than welcome to, but they'll have to pay extra for the privilege and don't get the Texas taxpayer subsidy. This is standard operating procedure in almost all states, and has been going on for decades. There's nothing unfair about it.

It becomes extremely unfair, however, when people who are in the country illegally are given in-state tuition, which is subsidized by the taxpayers of Texas, while American citizens from other states have to pay thousands of dollars more per semester. We are now becoming second class citizens in our own country. American citizens from out of state are treated worse than people who shouldn't even be here in the first place, people who are breaking the law every day they remain in America.



Liberals and RINOs like to claim that giving illegal aliens in-state tuition at taxpayer expense is a good "investment."  According to this theory, because the illegal must promise to seek permanent residency, it encourages them to assimilate and become legal citizens, and in turn they become role models for other illegals to emulate. They also say that it's far better for them to go to college and get employment training so they can become productive members of the economy, which justifies the massive tax subsidies they receive.

They're wrong on all counts. Illegal aliens shouldn't be "assimilating" in the first place. They should be returning to their country of citizenship, not freeloading here. As far as the "role model" argument, all we do when we give illegal aliens tens of thousands of dollars of taxpayer subsidies for college is to encourage even more illegal immigration. That's Economics 101 - what you subsidize, you get more of. Compounding this is the fact that legal immigrants who respect our nation's laws don't qualify for the lower tuition. We're rewarding illegal immigrants and
punishing the ones who follow the rules. Their third argument is also faulty. If we need more productive workers in the Texas economy, we could simply quit charging higher tuition for out of state Americans.

It's an outrage that this law was ever passed, as it's blatantly unconstitutional. Finally, a patriotic organization is stepping up to the plate to do something about this injustice. The Immigration
Reform Coalition of Texas (IRCOT) has filed a lawsuit to put a stop to this practice. IRCOT spokeswoman Rebecca Forrest spoke to the Lone Star Report about the lawsuit:

"We believe Texas is in clear violation of federal law by giving cash grants to illegal aliens. Texas is currently treating illegal aliens better than it treats legal residents and American citizens, and we obviously want our leaders in Texas to change this situation...we want people to come  legally, obey our laws, speak our language and assimilate."

IRCOT is a fine organization working hard to reverse the invasion of illegal aliens, and deserves your support. Former Supreme Court Justice Steven Wayne Smith is also a party to the lawsuit, which speaks well of the solid legal argument the suit is based on.  Several states have passed similar laws, but there's a growing groundswell of opposition from outraged Americans fed up with their government coddling illegal aliens. Oklahoma recently rescinded its law, and even in liberal California, the state appeals court ruled their version unconstitutional (although it's been appealed to the state Supreme Court).

Texas' in-state tuition law is not only unconstitutional; it's also extremely expensive. No  government office tracks the figures, but The Lone Star Foundation estimated that in-state tuition for illegals cost Texas taxpayers approximately $18 million in 2003 and nearly $35 million in 2005, nearly doubling in just two years! If that rate of growth continues, it won't be long before its costing Texas over $100 million per year. As long as our government refuses to get serious about stopping illegal immigration, that figure is going to keep going higher every year.

We've got high hopes that the IRCOT lawsuit will be successful, and that the expensive, unjust practice of granting illegal in-state tuition benefits will be officially declared unconstitutional.
It's a travesty that IRCOT has to even take this to court, because our legislature could rescind the law at any time. There's no excuse for it ever being passed in the first place, but in today's economy, it's even more indefensible. We can't afford to be giving tens of millions of dollars every year to illegal aliens who shouldn't even be here in the first place, while legal immigrants
and American citizens have to pay their own way to attend Texas universities.

We should all support IRCOT and their efforts to nullify this unjust and wasteful law, but we shouldn't stop there. Contact your legislators today and demand that they repeal the in-state tuition law. They have the authority to do so, and there are no good reasons why they shouldn't. When it comes to illegal immigration, it's often the federal courts that impose these liberal  policies, and there's little we can do about it. That's not the case this time. It's our own elected officials in Texas who passed this law, and it's time we demanded they repeal it.

Sources: 
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6772447.html?plckFindCommentKey=CommentKey:0ae09396-5284-4525-95a5-276c5f0602be 
http://www.ircot.com/documents/Lone_Star_Rpt_IRCOT_Lawsuit_12-18-09.pdf 

The Peter Morrison Report 
http://www.PeterMorrisonReport.com 
http://www.facebook.com/morrisonreport

Read more...

Debra Medina Interview‏ - Candidate for Texas Governor

NOW FEATURING:

The Peter Morrison Report has graciously granted the Robot permission to republish his in-depth interviews with Texas political candidates and insightful commentary on issues close to those of us in Texas and Southeast Texas in particular. The Peter Morrison Report will also be featured in a new sidebar on this site along with other sites of importance to Texans and to the S/E portion of the state as we get ready for the 2010 election cycle.  Thanks Peter. Here is the first installment:

A few weeks ago the Peter Morrison Report was contacted by the Debra Medina campaign. She is a Republican candidate for governor here in Texas. An interview came out of that discussion.
To be fair, I have also contacted the campaigns of the other three declared candidates: Kay Bailey Hutchison, Larry Kilgore and Rick Perry. If they agree, each will be featured in a future report so you can make an informed decision in March.

The interview consists of a question followed by the candidate's unedited responses. Let's get to it:

Peter Morrison Report: What do you see as the top challenges facing Texas, and our next governor?

Debra Medina: Texas, like all of the United States, is facing unprecedented economic challenges. Property taxes, excessive regulation and broad use of eminent domain authority all but destroy private property ownership. Couple those concerns with a
growing dependence on federal largesse, a high unemployment rate, additional school property tax buy down and diminishing sales tax returns and you quickly realize that the state of Texas must cut spending drastically and restructure tax in order to relieve the drag it places on the economy.

PMR: In your opinion, what are the causes of the terrible setbacks the Republican Party suffered in 2006 and 2008? How do you think we can reverse this trend?

DM: Failure to walk our talk. We must elect officials who follow the strict interpretation of constitution and govern in a manner consistent with our party platform. Recognizing that politics is corrupting and that absolute power corrupts absolutely, the Texas Republican Party should adopt a rule unilaterally establishing term limits as an additional eligibility requirement when seeking a place on the primary ballot for all state officeholders i.e., state representatives, state senators and all state-wide officeholders.This would serve to protect not punish Republican office holders.It would keep them beholden to the people they serve and remove incentives to be "bought and paid for" by special interest groups seeking to use the law to gain favor in the marketplace.

PMR: What are your major differences with Rick Perry, and why should conservative Texans support you over him?

DM: I recognize that the family is the building block of a free society and that parental rights to manage that family as they deem must be aggressively defended.  It is not the role of the government to usurp that right even when the government thinks it knows best. Rick Perry only wants you to manage your family until
he doesn't like what you do, then he will use the mighty arm of the great state of Texas to swoop in and mandate healthcare or take your children.

I recognize that private property ownership and gun ownership are essential elements of freedom.  I will fight to curtail eminent domain authorities and will certainly recognize the duty to protect the sovereignty of Texas rejecting any attempts to cede our land to foreign interests.  I will advocate the ownership and skilled use of weapons so as to increase safety and security in our state.  I will not, as Perry did, cavalierly throw tax money at psychological counseling following the next tragic shooting in our state as though that will help solve the problem.  I recognize that the protection of life, liberty and property must begin with us. We
must be prepared to defend ourselves. In our earliest days as a country, Noah Webster recognized, "the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, of any pretence, raised in the United States."

I recognize that the central banking system in the United States is incapable of maintaining a stable economy.  I recognize that the market is the best regulator of the economy where inefficient businesses are allowed to fail and are held responsible for those failures.  I recognize that Texas assets must be protected and that just as nations such as China and India are moving away from the dollar, Texas must move a portion of our assets as well to protect those assets and protect the Texas economy.  I will not sit idly by and wait for Washington D.C. to protect Texas.  I will not, as the
Governor did with his "what recession" remark discount the suffering in Texas as many are unemployed and struggling.  I will recognize that people not government care best for people.  I will resist efforts to make the state the benefactor of the hurting and needy - families and businesses alike. 

PMR: If elected, what concrete steps will you take to deal with the invasion of illegal immigrants which is transforming Texas?
DM: Texas must press the federal government aggressively to secure our border.  Meanwhile, however, we can not simply wait on Washington D.C. to act.  We must develop stronger working relationships with border county sheriffs to support and augment their efforts to secure the border to insure that all traffic enters Texas through a legal port of entry.  These efforts should involve coalition building between state and local law enforcement, allocation of funds for equipment and personnel and enhanced deployment of State Guard and volunteer corps along the southern border.

Texas must also protect the economic interests of her citizens by challenging federal mandates into healthcare.  The cost of providing "free healthcare" to anyone who asks has forced many hospitals from market-driven profitable enterprises to
public-dependent (tax funded) facilities.  Texas' healthcare providers must be allowed to set their own charitable service policies.  Texas should fight to overturn the federal EMTALA provisions and return to the state oversight of our healthcare
industry.

PMR: What is your stance on the Voter Photo ID bill from the last session?

DM: Do not believe photo ID will serve to prevent illegal voting until and unless the issuance of photo ID is restricted to U.S. citizens and legal aliens.  Texas currently issues drivers licenses to individuals who admit to being in our state illegally.  We
should work instead to tighten voter registration requirements and to insure that the voter rolls are accurate.

PMR: Do you support sanctions against employers that knowingly employ illegal aliens?

DM: Yes.

PMR: Do you support a border fence?

DM: Only in areas where local law enforcement acknowledges that it will help in their efforts to secure the border.  In discussions with these individuals believe that is in densely populated urban areas only. 

PMR: Do you believe that local governments and law enforcement officers have the authority to enforce immigration laws?

DM: No, believe that immigration law enforcement is clearly the purview and responsibility of federal law enforcement.  Do believe that we, local governments and law enforcement, must enforce the laws that we have.  Do believe that  individuals convicted of a crime in Texas should be deported if they are here illegally. 

PMR: As governor, would you encourage localities in Texas to enforce immigration laws?

DM: Will work closely with local law enforcement to identify where and if state law needs to be strengthened to address this issue. Would not advocate local law enforcement becoming "federalized."

PMR: Do you support Sheriff Arpaio in Arizona, who has vowed to keep enforcing immigration laws even though the feds have ordered him to cease and desist?

DM: Appreciate Sheriff Arpaio's efforts to insure law and order.Appreciate his leadership in enforcing law and protecting citizens in his county in spite of "you can't do that" opposition.  Agree with Sheriff Mack regarding the role of the county sheriff, "We must start at home, in our counties, in our own 'spheres.' We must erect the barriers and keep those at bay who would confiscate bank accounts, guns, land, property, and children...You cannot shrink from that duty merely because the violator comes into town with a three piece suit and a fancy attaché case." 

PMR: In August, you posted an article called "Latinos and the GOP" on your campaign website, which many conservatives would find troubling. You seemed to be criticizing Kay Bailey Hutchison for voting against Sonia Sotomayor on the Supreme Court, and saying that her vote will make it harder to attract Hispanics to the GOP. Yet Sotomayor is a hard core supporter of affirmative action and quotas, as well as gun control. This seems inconsistent with your stances on personal liberty and the right to bear arms. Can you explain what you meant?

DM: Kay Bailey Hutchison was absolutely correct to vote against Sotomayor; the problem I was addressing is that the GOP has treated Latinos so poorly for so long that George Lopez was able to characterize this as a racially motivated "no" vote instead of a "no" vote based on the fact she was the wrong candidate on the issues.  Texas Republicans have for years claimed to be working hard on "minority outreach" and yet we see no indication of any meaningful relationship with or participation of Hispanics in the Republican Party.  Because there is no true relationship between the party and the Hispanic community in this state, all action is viewed along strictly racial lines.  People are social beings, we crave belonging to a group.  Texas Republicans must recognize that there are many areas where we share common ground with Hispanics. We must purposefully and genuinely reach out to this group (and to other groups) where there is a high likelihood of shared value.  We must teach and we must engage...or Hispanics will continue to block vote straight ticket democrat...and in just a few years when that voting block alone comprises in excess of 50% of our population, conservatives will be forever a bygone relic in the Texas public square.  There is no room for compromise of values and ideals; there is plenty of room to talk so that we are heard - that includes speaking the language (or, in my case, at least making sure my message is communicated in Spanish), getting into the community, meeting people where they are and where they live. 

PMR: In that same piece, you went on to say that the GOP must start considering the reaction of the Latino community when it comes to illegal immigration and border security. You even refer to these as "Latino interests." It's hard to understand this as anything but a call for the GOP to back off on these issues. Could you please clarify what you meant?

DM: By ignoring our law, we've contributed to a climate that has hurt the state and no area more so than the Texas border.  A new culture of lawlessness exists along the border and an area which was once a paradise of productive farm land has become economically depressed and in some areas quite desolate.  We must enforce the
law, but we should see this as an issue of law, not an issue of race.  We must stop allowing it to drive a wedge between cultures.That doesn't help anyone. 

This issue is a polarizing one because we've allowed it to travel along racial lines, rather than directed the dialog along state sovereignty and economic lines where it belongs.  We would not be at odds with fellow Texans if the debate were kept in proper perspective:  The state of Texas and the United States have a duty to protect our sovereignty.  My comments were not a call to back off on these issues.  They were anything but.  I said we can not be indecisive.  We've not taken a position; we've not stuck to a position.  Meanwhile, the social and economic divides along the
Texas border have grown wider; the crime rate climbing, the drop out rate among Hispanics remains alarmingly high and is predicted to stay there.  Until and unless, Republican leadership is willing to make a concerted effort to address these issues and others that are uppermost in the minds of the Latino community in this state,
we are likely to see that block vote continue straight ticket Democrat.

PMR: You support the growing movement among states to reclaim our sovereignty from the federal government. What actions would you take to strengthen this trend, and to reclaim more sovereignty for Texas in particular?

DM: In particular, I have already taken steps to lead the charge against the socialization of health care presented by the Obama Administration. I have consulted with the Attorney General's office. I have called on the citizens to lobby their representatives for special session of the Texas Legislature to prohibit enforcement. I am also looking into the legal process of suit against the federal government on constitutional authority to stop this legislation, whether it be injunction or class action.

PMR: Does the U.S. Constitution prohibit secession? If so, where?

DM: I find no prohibition to secession in the original content of the U.S. Constitution but understand that historically, secession has led to war. I prefer taking steps to declare our sovereignty as stated in the Texas Bill of Rights and nullification of federal authority on constitutional grounds. 

PMR: Do you support the concept of state nullification of federal law?

DM: Yes

PMR: There is currently a move to hire hundreds of additional state employees to administer the food stamp program in Texas. Supporters say that there's a backlog resulting in some people experiencing long delays in getting approved. Where do you stand on this?

DM: I will not grow state government.  Our state has a debt of $31 billion. The inefficiency of government, whether it be federal or state, has gotten out of hand as leadership has been taken over by entrenched career politicians.  Running a state is a business and should be handled as a business. We must use sound business and management practices to correct inefficient use of resources.

PMR: What additional taxes or tax increases, if any, would you support and under what conditions?

DM: I support the elimination of all property taxation and prefer a broader based sales tax that would decrease the present sales tax percentage and allow property owners to own their property without the danger of losing it to any government agency. I do not anticipate supporting any tax increases.  I support shifting responsibility for government to counties and cities - closest to the area where the service is delivered and allowing/forcing the revenue to be derived there ie., altering the 6.25:2% sales tax allocation so that more of the tax stays local.

PMR: Do you support the franchise tax?

DM: No, the franchise tax is nothing more than an income tax imposed on businesses.

PMR: Do you support any sort of race-based preferences (i.e. affirmative action)?

DM: No, under the rule of law, in a Constitutional Republic, all citizens are equal and should not receive unjust preference to the detriment of others.

PMR: Do you support the continuation of preferences in state spending being given to Historically Underutilized Businesses (HUBs)?

DM: No, the decision to patronize business should only be the decision of the consumer, through a free market economy and should not be based on preferential treatment.

PMR: Do you support extending concealed carry rights to Texas universities?

DM: Yes, the Second Amendment insures the right of law abiding citizens to carry a weapon for the protection of the innocent.

PMR: Do you agree with Harrold ISD's decision last year to allow board authorized individuals who have undergone specified training and have their concealed carry permits to carry concealed weapons on Harrold ISD school campuses?

DM: Yes, the Second Amendment insures the right of law abiding citizens to carry a weapon to protect the innocent.

PMR: When does human life begin?

DM: Human life begins at conception.

PMR: When does a baby get human rights?

DM: A human baby receives rights from the creator at conception.

That's it for the Debra Media interview.  I appreciate her taking the time to answer my questions and urge all Texans to carefully consider their options in the March 2nd primary.

The Peter Morrison Report
http://www.PeterMorrisonReport.com - Sign up for newsletter
http://www.facebook.com/morrisonreport

Read more...