Eagle Forum of Sacramento

Five years ago, Eagle Forum of Sacramento began collecting information on subversive educational diversity programs across America, one in particular called Seeking Educational Equity and Diversity (SEED). Their mission statement is change. The silent transformation is done through a unique set of classes instituted to train teachers in unnatural diversity values and ideas and then return to the classroom and incorporate these concepts into all of their subject matter.

Their goal is to change the principles of common sense that our nation was founded upon, into a utopia world where all ideas, values, morals, ethics, lifestyles, religions, and cultures are equal.

In order to do this they must erase common sense principles based on Judeo-Christian beliefs, closely held personal beliefs such as pro-life, and a so-called “white” way of living (white privilege), which do not agree with them. This is happening in schools, businesses, and government and is having a profound negative effect upon our churches, traditional family life, and the stability of our country.

The destructive result of the past 20-30 years of this education is now apparent. The children, teens, and adults exposed to this education are now the citizens shouting loudest for Obama. Apathetic adults are charged with sudden enthusiasm for a man who promises them a quick fix for their failures and young people who see him as a rescuer for a way out of individual responsibility.

For those people who do not have computers, do not listen to talk radio, and/or have little exposure to the truth, they fall easily into diversity thinking through victimization, shame, blame and guilt. The outcome is diversity addiction that guides them down a road to loss of conscientious individual freedom.

But we believe there are enough of us left that are knowledgeable or borderline thinkers that can stop the programs. How? Letting our voices be heard.

Knowing your rights is very important for you do not have to compromise your stand when it comes to your beliefs. You do not have to attend diversity programs against your will in the work places. You do not have to have your child indoctrinated in public schools? Your representatives in government do not have to go along with diversity concepts that undermine our government, our American way of life, or the life of unborn children, the citizens of America.

If we continue to walk the path of unnatural diversity education, the revolutionary change will occur at an even faster rate than presently, for we will have more and more people educated in this way of thinking. It is addictive.

My book Diversity Addiction: The Cause and The Cure explains how this happens and how we can reverse things by understanding our rights and by doing simple things to stop this madness that has taken over America. Already we have a nation that is ready for an Obama or a Hillary, and if not now, will be in the 2012 election.

We can make a difference but only if we care about the future of our children and grandchildren and I find it hard to believe that you would not care about this. If an Obama or Hillary ever gets into office, we may never be able to reverse it.

Why? Because subversive education has changed the actual thinking of Americans and thus the positive change that came with Reagan after the Carter years, may not be possible after an Obama or Hillary type gets into office. The damage could be permanent and this great nation may very well cease to exist.

So we ask that you join us in this very important endeavor to stop enforced education diversity programs. Learn how to say NO to them. Join us on our march to common sense. There is hope that we can look at our country and know that it lies in our hands, not in the hands of those who want to change it into a foreign land that will be of no use to future generations.

By saying No to subversive programs, we point out the truth, which sets people free. To compromise America is poor judgment and makes no sense. Utilizing the tools of our forefathers is good judgment and makes common sense.

Help us use the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence to save this nation. There is a right and there is a wrong in life and to rob us of that, which has made our nation the greatest ever, is wrong.

Become pioneers in the rediscovery of our rights in the schools, businesses, and government. Join Eagle Forum of Sacramento by stopping educationally enforced diversity and begin planting the seeds of common sense.

The California State Supreme Court, lead by Chief Justice Ron George, repealed California law stating that marriage is between a man and a woman as set forth by both the Legislature and the people through the passage of Prop. 22.< ?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

The Court’s ruling is breathtaking for its overreach. Using words like “dignity” (23 times), “liberty” (34 times), and “privacy” (37 times) to describe same-sex partners full right to marry, the Court overturned millennia of experience and more than 150 years of state law precedence. (For the ruling, see: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF.) In so doing, their strained justifications threw the door wide open to polygamous and incestuous marriage. How? By using the flawed logic that marriage is none of the government’s business insofar as marriage should be afforded to all to afford people privacy, liberty and dignity. The same weak logic can be applied to the “plural” marriages of the Fundamentalist LDS cult in Texas or to a devout Muslim citizen of Saudi Arabia who wishes to emigrate to California with his four wives. In fact, due to the equal protection provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, both a Fundamentalist LDS cult member and a devout Muslim could argue that their First Amendment right to free exercise of religion are being violated by any restriction on polygamy “after all, their ‘dignity,’ ‘liberty,’ and ‘privacy’” would be violated otherwise.

Allow me to close my comments with two political observations.

First, the Court’s sweeping ruling is likely to ignite support for the California Marriage Protection Act, a constitutional ballot initiative that would overrule the Court’s decision that should appear on the ballot this November. (See: http://www.protectmarriage.com/.) This, in turn, may have an impact on other California races, from the President on down to the legislative races. In this, liberal Democrats should be wary of what they wish for!

Second, I find it ironic to see commentators describe the Court as conservative since the majority of its members were appointed by Republican governors. Lest we forget, there is a simmering divide in the Republican Party over whether the label “conservative” includes social policy, or only tax and fiscal policy. Chief Judge Ron George was first appointed by Gov. Deukmejian, then appointed chief justice by Gov. Wilson. Justice Ron George has had a long history of very liberal rulings long before the same sex marriage ruling. In fact, back in 1997, I drafted a resolution opposing Justice Ron George for his election in 1998. It passed the Orange County Republican Party Central Committee, then stalled when it hit the California Republican Party. It was argued that Justice George was a Republican, so the Party should support him. The reason for my opposition to Judge George in 1997 was his ruling in American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren which overturned a California law requiring parental consent for minors to obtain abortions (“privacy” of the minor girl was the reason cited in that case too). Other bad rulings already made by Justice George at that time included: a pro-criminal decision in People v. Superior Court (Romero), three anti-private property rights decisions in Ehrlich v. Culver City, Smith v. Fair Employment and Housing Commission, and Alcarez v. Vece, a pro-public union decision in Loder v. City of Glendale, and an anti-business decision in Stevenson v. Superior Court.

Of course, there is the remote possibility that Judge George’s terrible ruling really is a Republican plot in the vast right wing conspiracy to boost conservative turnout so much that McCain wins California and is elected President in 2008, stranger things have happened in the world of politics.

Just for old time’s sake, I’ve reprinted below the 1997 resolution that passed the OC Republican Party Central Committee only to fail at the California Republican Party convention. It was authored by me and my long time friend, Fred Whitaker, a respected Orange attorney who should someday be on the California Supreme Court.

*************************************
A Resolution Calling to Oppose Confirmation of Certain California Supreme Court Judges.

WHEREAS, The California Supreme Court overturned a 1987 law requiring parental consent for minors to obtain abortions.

WHEREAS, The law in question was a carefully written to meet the U.S. Supreme Court’s strict guidelines for valid parental consent legislation.

WHEREAS, Chief Justice George, Justice Chin, Justice Kennard, and Justice Werdegar ruled that the parental consent law violated the “autonomy privacy rights” of minor girls. Further that a minor girl’s uninhibited right to an abortion “is so central to the preservation of her ability to define and adhere to her ultimate values regarding the meaning of human existence and life, “we conclude that a minor who is pregnant has a protected privacy interest under the California Constitution in making the decision whether to continue or to terminate her own pregnancy.” Yet, almost a year earlier, the court ruled that the same law was valid.

WHEREAS, Lower courts in California blocked enforcement soon after its passage in 1987, claiming that girls as young as 13 or 14 possess the necessary maturity and rationality to make informed decisions about abortion. Yet, under the law do not have maturity and rationality for ear piercing and medical treatment without parental consent until age 18.

WHEREAS, These arguments, aside from ignoring common sense and human experience, are irrelevant to the issue of constitutionality which is supposed to be the only reason for the court to overturn legislation.

WHEREAS, A parent’s right to direct his or her child’s upbringing is among the most basic of human rights.

WHEREAS, Justice Mosk, in dissent, pointed out that according to the ruling, the privacy rights for minor girls would reach to those who were as young as nine years old.

WHEREAS, Justice Brown, noted in her dissent that the California Constitution protects “a parent’s interest in directing his child’s upbringing” and that the “liberty interest of a minor is qualitatively different than that of an adult, being subject both to reasonable regulation by the state and to an extent not permissible with adults.”

WHEREAS, It is illogical and inconsistent to require that minors obtain parental permission for aspirin at school, tattoos, tanning salons, body piercing, drivers’ licenses, etc., but not for a dangerous and invasive procedure like an abortion.

WHEREAS, This Court’s judicial activism is reminiscent of the Rose Bird Court when, the rule of law in California succumbed to the whim of four justices occupying seats on its highest court.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the California Republican Party joins the Republican Party of Orange County in calling upon itself and all those of good will to actively oppose confirmation for any California State Supreme Court Justice who voted to overturn the 1987 law requiring parental consent for minor girls to obtain abortions.

Cosponsors:
Fred M. Whitaker, Member
Chuck DeVore, Member

Chuck DeVore
California State Assemblyman, 70th District
www.ChuckDeVore.com

Eagle Forum of Sacramento
Georgiana Preskar-Director

People say “If we don’t fix America soon, we will lose our freedoms.” We already have lost our freedoms!

Tonight we went to see Ben Stein’s new movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Many people do not know about it; why should they, for the media is not going to advertise it. The churches certainly will not talk about it. Many movie theaters would not show it. Some people just do not want to see it.

Fortunately The Century in Elk Grove did show it. It is a powerful movie about Darwinism and Intelligent Design. Clearly academic freedoms to present Intelligent Design, and/or Creationism, as possibilities, are gone, but this applies to all areas of truth in America today. Freedom to speak out is unacceptable and you will pay a price if you cross the line!

Five years ago I began my adventure into the discovery of why America had changed. I honestly believed that if people heard the truth of nationwide deception in schools and workplaces, through my writings and speaking engagements, they would be concerned and take action. Certainly presenting the Day of Silence, and outrageous programs like SEED, with documented evidence, would outrage parents and citizens. I was convinced that they would take their children out of schools on that day; and that churches would ask members to speak out against programs that not only abuse adults, but also our most vulnerable citizens, children and teens.

Yet no one spoke out. In fact Christians were silent. We sent over 100 letters to pastors, ministers, and priests in regards to Day of Silence and the SEED program; only one pastor responded. Even people in some conservative organizations did nothing to support our effort to stop the Day of Silence or diversity programs such as SEED. It was a rude awakening to apathy reality.

The last week I have tried to write updates about legislation, issues surrounding the next election, and other topics. I was not able to write. The reality of our loss of freedoms made me sick to my stomach.

No one can speak out anymore without receiving hate mail and even life threatening notes. A Catholic orphanage had to close its doors after 100 years because the homosexuals have become so powerful that they demanded children be given to them in adoption. God bless the orphanage for closing their doors in Massachusetts, rather than handing over children to homosexual couples.

Brigitte Bardot, in France, was arrested and could be fined $23,000 for saying that the Muslims intruded in her country, destroyed it, and that they need to leave. An Oklahoma Assemblywoman, Sally Kern, received thousands of hate mails because she said the homosexuals cause a greater threat to America than the terrorists. She has to have security guards because of many life-threatening emails. Capitol Resource Institute’s website was shut down by hackers because of the work they are doing to fight legislation that is homosexual oriented.

Now this courageous man, Ben Stein, has called the scientific community on their politically correct agenda when dealing with Darwinism and Intelligent Design. It is an outstanding movie; creative, truthful, and profound. Do not miss it and tell others about it.

God bless this man for his work and effort. After writing two books, I understand the frustration connected with trying to deliver the truth to closed minds that are addicted to diversity thinking.

However, our job is not to know the outcome of our efforts, or to avoid frustration, but to be the best we can be in delivering His word. Ben Stein accomplished this and that is the truth!

Special Note: Please forward this e-mail to all of your California friends and associates.
This will help us get out the news about the SB 777 referendum petitions!

Overview of SB 777

As average citizens become aware of the SB 777 referendum, they have several questions
that we would like to answer in order to further educate and inform. Authored by
lesbian state senator Sheila Kuehl, and signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger,
Senate Bill 777 prohibits any classroom instruction or school-sponsored activities
that “promote a discriminatory bias” against homosexuals, transsexuals, bisexuals,
transgenders and other controversial lifestyles. This means equal time instruction
about these lifestyles for children as young as 5. It would “promote bias” against
homosexuals to only discuss heterosexual families. Students with religious or traditional
values will be victims of reverse discrimination if they voice their opinions at
school. This is one of the most outrageous assaults on traditional families values
that we have witnessed in California. The SB 777 referendum will “refer” the bill
to California voters and ask them to overturn this shocking new law.

Major Milestone Reached!

Save Our Kids is thrilled to announce that we have already counted 100,000 signatures!
Our volunteers are working around the clock to continue counting the petitions we
receive in the mail every day. We know that we have enough petitions circulating
to qualify the referendum, but we need them returned ASAP so that we can continue
counting and preparing the petitions for submission to the Secretary of State.

To date, we have mailed more than 400,000 petitions! With space for 10 signatures
each, that equals 4 million signatures!

We have done all that we can do on our end-now it is up to the People to gather
signatures and mail them back.

Please begin mailing your petitions right away! Each and every signature will be
vital to getting the 500,000 signatures we need.

Deadline Confusion

There has been some confusion about the actual deadlines for returning petitions.
Here are the official dates:

December 21st: Last day to request petitions from www.SaveOurKids.net [http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001A1f2UKqHc_PFpv3SPw-DsyBXBugpGMRFrSNLwgxds1IhaWawqHZZCEBAmQdeLTxytU5FcwBnfz0YYP8EYojjvclxuRV9nJtR6hd4HFMf_57pCnWwbKd1_A==]
*
January 4th: Last day for campaign to receive petitions (they must be mailed a few
days prior to ensure their arrival by the 4th!)

Please keep working on gathering signatures until we reach our January 4th deadline!
We need every single signature we can get to qualify this referendum.

Save Our Kids Weekend!

December 28th-30th

With only a few weeks left in the campaign, Save Our Kids is encouraging families,
Bible study groups, political organizations and churches to make one last push for
signatures. December 28th-30th is Save Our Kids weekend!

During the Christmas and New Year season, many of our fellow citizens will be out
at shopping centers and stores. This is the perfect time to set up a table to gather
signatures. In just a few hours, you can make a huge difference by informing your
fellow citizens and gathering signatures.

Churches should host a petition drive this weekend to inform their members about
this assault on traditional values. Save Our Kids has several resources to assist
churches in hosting a petition drive. So far, churches have been an integral part
of this effort. These beacons of light can push us across the finish line if they
continue to host petition drives.

We need your help to make this campaign a success!

We are continually amazed by the dedication of our pro-family allies. Average citizens
are answering the call to protect and defend the innocence of our children. Thank
you for partnering with us in this historic effort to preserve our values!

Order Petitions

Just the Facts – The Truth About SB 777 [http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001A1f2UKqHc_MbrVKNRF4FiUEV0aeAuPowr7BpY_lAt5kBjNkl4oXxUNjq-mApbUQ8pBXJDxr7hfwEcYaN02G_LoBTEyzZX3KJVVN1uFi_ZBRTZEnPQL3noxCy1LIcMb_AVcsFg2kDjhZiTmZG9ocGAA==]

Contribute to the Save our Kids Campaign [http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001A1f2UKqHc_O40cyogX6lK2vWc8rdWREZWRujdoOJ9kme8dv8F2_Z60tU51eNnGTf----8fqBnYBrgqx1r77oh3HqB9HoiaFJf3Yi_JqW30dUWAwX2e3tH_2UgsJCKMxlbuAlOA4n269bznjJbNplslHQ6jyG0R6AhI1QqV7gYQUDMUbDdoRcEg==]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Save Our Kids Co-Chairs
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Senator George Runner
Assemblyman Joel Anderson
Assemblyman Bob Huff
Assemblyman Doug La Malfa
Assemblywoman Sharon Runner
Assemblywoman Audra Strickland
Senate Candidate Dennis Mountjoy
Assembly Candidate Larry Dick
Assembly Candidate Jim Nielson

By Robert Knight | November 15, 2007 – 11:42 ET
When California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed two bills on Oct. 12 that essentially turn the state’s public schools over to homosexual and transgender activists, there was virtually no media coverage outside California. There still isn’t.

Beginning in January 2008, California public schools must teach children as young as 3 to 5 years old that homosexuality is a normal, healthy lifestyle and that kids can choose their “gender.” This means banning the terms “husband” and “wife” for the more progressively inclusive term “partner.” “Moms” and “dads” will morph into sexually neutral “parents.” Textbooks will be rewritten to blot out any reminder of married-couple-led families as a social norm. Gender-confused kids will get to use the restrooms of their choice. Any expression of negativity toward deviant sexuality will be punished as “bigotry.” The coming changes are so radical that they produce gasps or professions of disbelief from people who hear about it from sources outside the mainstream media.

Bruce Shortt, an advocate of private schooling who writes a periodic report called “the Continuing Collapse” about problems in government schools, provides this analysis:

So far, the media have maintained a near total news blackout on this development.

A recent article [at Medill Reports online] on homosexual gains in the schools reflects how the advocates of legislation to mainstream deviant lifestyles plan to respond to queries from naive or fellow travelling reporters:

With the October signing of Senate Bill 777, California is the most recent state to have seen a battle between the two sides. Its sponsor, state Rep. Sheila Kuehl of Los Angeles, said the bill did little more than make language in the education code consistent with language in the state’s other anti-discrimination laws. Discrimination based on sexual identity, she said, had been illegal in California for eight years.

So, the official story line is that SB 777 just makes technical changes that bring the Education Code into conformity with other laws that have been on the books for a long time. In other words, “nothing to see here folks, just move along.”

Of course, Kuehl is right in a sense. After all, we could pass legislation requiring Jack Daniel’s to be served in school cafeterias, and then claim that we are just making the Education Code consistent with other laws that have been on the books for years (the Volkstead Amendment was repealed over 70 years ago, and drinking alcohol is legal in California).

Leaving aside the question of any prior California legislation regarding deviant lifestyles and ADULTS, the relevant question is whether Zelda’s “advanced thoughts” on this subject should be inflicted on children. The reporter, as you will note, didn’t really get to this, and she entirely missed the importance of California’s brave new definition of “gender.”

November 7, 2007

Lodi Unified School District
Board Members
Superintendent William Huyett
James Areida Education Support Center
1305 E. Vine Street
Lodi, CA 95240

Re: Teacher Training Day, October 22, 2007

Dear Board Members and Superintendent Huyett:

Eagle Forum of Sacramento stands for the political, social and economic principles upon which our Nation is founded. We attempt to educate and inform citizens of issues that many times will affect the most influential unit of our society, the traditional family.

I have recently corresponded with you regarding the teacher training day you had on October 22, 2007. Some teachers in the Lodi Unified School District were concerned about the racial content of the programs and DVDs that you chose to introduce. In spite of my correspondence, LUSD continued with the programs.

If each of you stays current with news and media, you will know that the University of Delaware recently instituted a program by Dr. Shakti Butler, the same person that provided you with the “Making Whiteness Visible” video that you introduced in Lodi. Amid much public outcry and outrage, the University of Delaware immediately ceased the program. I find it very alarming that LUSD ignored public and employee alarm and instead went forward with this program.

Dr. Butler’s definitions include: “A RACIST: A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality”; “REVERSE RACISM: A term created and used by white people to deny their white privilege”; and “A NON-RACIST: A non term. The term was created by whites to deny responsibility for systemic racism….” (Emphases added.)

The Lodi Unified School District seems terrifyingly unaware that a state and federal sponsored public education institution in the United States does not have the legal right to engage in a program of systematic thought reform. The First Amendment protects the right to freedom of conscience—the right to keep our innermost thoughts free from governmental intrusion. It also protects the right to be free from compelled speech. As the Supreme Court declared in the landmark case of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943): “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.” The Court concluded that “the purpose of the First Amendment to our Constitution” was precisely to protect “from all official control” the domain that was “the sphere of intellect and spirit.” The LUSD’s teacher training education program is an unconscionable and unconstitutional incursion into the private conscience of teachers whose greatest offense is simply choosing the LUSD as a place of employment.

When you have a black principal allowed to get up and rant about how she wakes up knowing she is black and does not have white privilege, and support a video talking about how whites are racists that whites think they are better than blacks, you are promoting racism. When this same black principal makes over $75,000 a year, and drives an expensive luxury sports car, and is talking to white teachers about how she is oppressed because she is black, you are promoting racism. When these same teachers are told that they cannot critique the comments made this day, you are engaging in denial of freedom of speech, and the right to freedom of conscience.

When you allow Kino Carson to go into children’s classrooms and tell them that the Statue of Liberty is a black woman, you are promoting racism. When you bring in “Cycle of Inquiry” where teachers are told to choose low-performing students and the only criteria is that at least one must be black, you are promoting racism and racial profiling. When Odie Douglas and Barbara Johnson are planning to go around talking with various teachers and at meetings, although the content of their speech is not yet known, Eagle Forum of Sacramento concerned that it will be promoting racism.

The legal problems posed by programs such as these are abundant and cut to the core of the most essential rights of a free people. Possible claims include violations of the right to privacy as well as federal and state constitutional claims for having and enforcing an unconstitutional speech code, and for violations of the right to freedom of conscience.

To be clear, however, Eagle Forum of Sacramento is not a litigation organization, and our objection to programs such as these is far more than legalistic. What makes programs like this so offensive is their brazen disregard for autonomy, dignity, and individual conscience, and the sheer contempt it displays for all of the District’s teachers.

As aggressive as organizations like Eagle Forum may seem, at the heart of all concepts relating to freedom of the mind is a recognition of our own limitations—like us, those in power are neither omniscient nor omnipotent, and therefore have no right to dictate to others what their deepest personal beliefs must be. Concerns for free speech and freedom of conscience are rooted in the wisdom of humility and restraint. The teachers’ training day that you had on October 22, which presumes to show teachers the specific ideological assumptions they need in order to be better people, crosses the boundary from education into unconscionably arrogant, invasive, and immoral thought reform. We can conceive of no way in which teacher training programs such as this can be maintained consistent with the ideals of a free society.

We ask for nothing less than the immediate and total dismantling of the all such programs that promote racism and white privilege theory within the District.

Very truly yours,

TERI LAWRENCE
Education Director, Eagle Forum of Sacramento

U.S.A. Schooling the Communist Way

                                   Part 2

By Brannon S. Howse

 After Part 1 of this series appeared, I received several e-mails that confirmed my fears: Far too many of my fellow citizens actually think school-to-work is a good idea.
“Why,” I wondered, “would any American think the merging of education with industrial production as found in the Communist Manifesto benefits our children?” It must be because they are educated beyond their intelligence, they love socialism and communism, or they don’t recognize Marxism even when it stares them in the face.
Let me be very clear on a few things. First, I do think vocational education is a good idea. I also think apprenticeship programs are an outstanding approach to career preparation for some people. Too many students are pressured to go to college just because “that’s the way to get ahead.” And I certainly do not believe state and federal governments should be the ones pressuring students to go to college or not or pressuring students to pick certain career majors. All students from first grade through the twelfth should receive a strongly academic education that will well prepare them to be thinking, creative persons in life and in whatever career they choose.  
If you think school-to-work style education reform is not occurring where you live, then you need to ask whether or not your state receives any federal education funds. If your state is not receiving federal dollars, this communist brand of education reform may not be taking place. But lest you be even slightly optimistic, I’ll tell you plainly that I don’t know of a single state that has rejected federal education funds and the accompanying mandates. That means, it’s happening right where you live. Whether it is private grants, No Child Left Behind, or some other U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Department of Labor program, states are rushing to comply with federal requirements so they can gorge themselves at Uncle Sam’s money trough.
Florida, Minnesota, Illinois, Oregon, and Washington are further along in their implantation of school-to-work/ready-to-work/Small Learning Communities, but make no mistake: Every state in the union has school districts that are in some way weaving this reform package into their systems, thereby moving America down the road toward a centrally planned economy.
Lynn Cheney, wife of Vice-President Dick Cheney, is the former chair-woman of the National Endowment for the Humanities. While serving with NEH, Mrs. Cheney wrote about the dangers of school-to-work:
A central thesis of school-to-work plans, for example, is that eighth-graders should choose careers. To help them along, schools administer interest and personality assessments that direct students toward specific occupations, often ones that have little to do with their ambitions. Kristine Jensen, a Nevada mother, told me that her daughter, an honor student who wants to work for NASA, had been advised to consider a career in sanitation or interior design. Eunice Evans, a parental-rights advocate in Pennsylvania, described a boy in her neighborhood that wanted to be a doctor but was told it would be more appropriate for him to be a gas station attendant or a truck-driver.

            Mrs. Cheney also pointed out the goal of workforce development boards—backed profusely by federal funds—that now exist in almost every state:

To consider future market needs and decide which career choices schools should encourage. But predicting work-force needs is an iffy business. In 1989, for example, a prestigious study declared that by 1997, there would be a substantial shortage of humanities Ph.D’s, when, in fact, there is now a glut.
We need more public servants like Craig Hagen who will take a stand for what is right. In her congressional testimony, Lynn Cheney told Mr. Hagen’s story:
Concerned that schools in his state would get in the business of enforcing politically correct thinking led Craig Hagen, North Dakota’s Commissioner of Labor, to resign from his state’s school-to-work management team earlier this year. “I couldn’t remain in that position with my principles,” he said.

           But abuses abound. In Las Vegas, for example, Rene Tucker’s daughter, Darcy, was pulled out of a geography class without her parents’ consent in order to be given a computerized career assessment. Although Darcy wants to become a veterinarian, the computer held that she should be a bartender or waitress, and it spat out a list of courses she ought to take toward that end. Mrs. Tucker said, “We’re Christians, and the school stepped on my toes as a parent. It is my job to direct my child’s career path, and it would not be in her best interest to be a bartender.” Given the gargantuan hospitality needs of the state, it might be in Nevada’s best interest to turn Darcy into one of the minions of the gambling and entertainment industry, but that approach to career path development sounds more like it belongs in the 1960s Soviet Union than in 21^st century America.

A few years ago I testified before the Kansas state senate along with Rene Tucker. We were joined by an economist from Hillsdale College to urge Kansas not to implement school-to-work in that state. The anticipated tidal wave of federal funds was too much for the mere state of Kansas to resist, though, and on behalf of its people, the state legislature instead rejected common sense and freedom to imbibe the failed economic polices of communism.
In his now classic book, Brave New World, Aldous Huxley wrote,
To bring about the revolution we require…Enabling government managers to assign any given individual to his or her proper place in the social and economic hierarchy. Round pegs in square holes tend to have dangerous thoughts about the social system and to infect others with their discontents.

            In other words, those who do not agree with the State’s worldview or “standards” will not be encouraged to pursue positions of power or influence either socially or economically.

A career exploration test already used in six states features 100 true or false questions, including these:
• I have taught a Sunday school class or otherwise take an active part in my church;
• I believe in a God who answers prayers;
• I believe that tithing is one’s duty to God;
• I pray to God about my problems;
• It is important that grace be said before meals;
• I read the Bible or other religious writings regularly;
• I believe in life after death;
• I believe that God created man in his own image;
• If I ask God for forgiveness, my sins are forgiven.
          Now let that sink in for a moment, and then ask yourself this question: Why are such questions included on a career exploration test if not to determine the “proper place” to assign each student? The benign answer, of course, is to find out whether or not someone is suited to a job as a church pastor. But there is also a frighteningly non-benign possibility as Christian thought becomes increasingly marginalized in our culture. It could all too easily become the new frontier for “black balling” undesirables such as people who actually think God matters.
          The goals of the Communist Manifesto and those who signed the Humanist Manifesto are being accomplished even now as we see the merging of education with labor policy—or what many are referring to as corporate fascism. The American Heritage Dictionary defines corporate fascism as “a philosophy or system of government that advocates or exercises dictatorship through the merging of state and business leadership.”

The fact that so many Americans don’t even know this communistic education reform is sweeping our nation is perilous. What is even more alarming are the ones who know it yet believe it is a good thing. Liberal Republicans and Democrats alike have succeeded in achieving the goals that Secular Humanists and Communists have long sought for America’s children. And there, as they say, goes the future.  

U.S.A. Schooling the Communist Way
Part 1
By Brannon S. Howse
           Several weeks ago, I was sitting in a hotel lobby sipping a Coke and visiting with my friend Michael Reagan who had just given a speech before several hundred people. Mike, as you may know, is a best-selling author, radio talk-show host, Fox News contributor, and eldest son of President Ronald Reagan.

A few minutes into our conversation, Mike remembered something he wanted to tell me. “Brannon,” he said, cocking his head in my direction, “I thought of you this morning when I read the newspaper.”

I wondered if he were about to crack a joke at my expense but noted that there was no trace of a smirk on Mike’s face. “Really?” I wondered, “What made you think of me?”

“Well,” Mike said before pausing for an instant (I wonder where he picked up that mannerism) “I was thinking of you because I read in the paper that Jeb Bush has become the first governor in America to sign into law a state-wide requirement that ninth-grade high school students pick a career major and focus on that major from ninth through twelfth grade. You’ve predicted something like that on my radio show more than once since 1993—also in your book for which I wrote the foreword.”

Mike was correct. It’s a prediction I hoped Americans would be wise enough to stop before it came to pass. As the education reporter and often the guest host of Michael Reagan’s program I had spend countless hours warning Mike’s listeners about Goals 2000, School-to-Work, Outcome-Based Education, HR6, No Child Left Behind, and other federal plans that have the goal of merging education with industrial production, thus turning our schools into vocational centers where students are “trained” rather than educated.

Republicans and Democrats alike are to blame for nailing this tenth plank of the Communist Manifesto into the educational foundation of schools right here in the good old U.S. of A. Lest you think I exaggerate, the tenth principle of the Communist Manifesto states that the goal of schooling for society’s children should be the “combination of education with industrial production.”

Starting in 1992, the transformation of America’s schools into vocational centers greatly accelerated. T.G. Stict, who served under Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, has observed, “Many companies have moved operations to places with cheap, relatively poorly educated labor. What may be crucial, they say, is the dependability of a labor force and how well it can be managed and trained, not its general education level.” In other words, as long as we can control people, who cares what they know?

Through programs like School-to-Work the “State” decides which children will go on to college and which go straight into the workforce following their “training certification.” State education authorities review a student’s educational history and determine the career track the individual will follow. The desires of Big Brother, I mean, the State take precedent over the wishes of the individual and his or her parents. Those who conform to governmental standards are rewarded with further education and a good job. Those who do not reflect the liberal, Secular Humanist worldview will likely be pushed to vocational jobs where their Christian worldview is less likely to have an impact on the culture.

The California PTA has noted that “School-to-Work is based on the premise that government control can do a better job of training individuals, satisfying occupational demands and managing the development of economic activities than can the effort and initiative of millions of individuals.”

           The draconian educational measures of the past fifteen years have made strange bedfellows. President George H. W. Bush gave us America 2000. Although President Clinton later changed the name to Goals 2000, he supported the program and pushed through several federal bills that further meshed education with industrial production. President George W. Bush expanded what his father and President Clinton had begun when he cozied up with Ted Kennedy to give us a massive federal program with the irresistible sound-bite name, No Child Left Behind. Florida Governor Jeb Bush then took advantage of federal funds available from his older brother’s program and on June 5, 2006 signed into law the ninth grade career major requirement. Florida is the first state in the nation to require this state-wide. Under Florida’s new law, career exploration will begin as early as sixth grade. By ninth grade, students will need to declare their career major. Several other states are not far behind and will soon join Florida in this radical American implementation of the Communist Manifesto.

           Did you know what you wanted to do when you were in ninth grade? Do you wish the government had decided for you then what you would be doing for the rest of your life to earn a living? Would that seem like a heavy-handed restriction on your freedom to be self-determining? (In case you need help on this test, the right answers are No-No-Yes.)

           Students will be encouraged to select a career that will direct them either along a vocational track or a college-bound track. With the assistance (or coercion, perhaps?) of school career counselors, students will be channeled into the path that is “right” for them. But here’s one of the big problems that is guaranteed to arise: If a ninth grade student who decides on the auto mechanic track, for example, changes his mind in the eleventh or twelfth grade, he’s stuck without the schooling needed to go to college upon graduation. At that point, a vocational track student will not have taken courses needed for acceptance into college.

Some of you may consider this a good idea since not everyone should be college bound. And I agree that in many regards, college is a waste of time and money unless a person aspires to be a doctor, lawyer, nurse, engineer, or other such professional. Several studies reveal that many, if not most, of America’s millionaires do not have college degrees. Such notables as Rush Limbaugh, Bill Gates, President Harry Truman, and the late Peter Jennings never graduated from college. Yet while a college degree is not needed for success, an academically sound education from kindergarten through twelfth grade is essential for every student regardless of their post-high school plans. It is the only way to have an informed citizenry.

Perhaps even more critical, the federal government is not qualified to project the supply and demand of the workforce two years—much less ten—from now. Trying to do so is one of the stultifying aspects of centrally planned economies (remember the Soviet Union?). Whether the plan is called ready-to-work, school-to-work, school-to-career, small learning communities, or any other soundbite-crafted moniker, it is still a fulfillment of the Communist Manifesto, not the Declaration of Independence or any other foundational American document.

          The frightening reality is that codifying these programs will only make an already dangerous situation worse. Even without Florida-style programs solidly in place yet, many students are already finding themselves channeled where they don’t want to go. In part 2 of this series, we will examine several examples of how honor students that are also conservative Christians have been funneled into jobs as bartenders and waitresses. And bear in mind as elections approach that you can’t simply assume a given Republican or Democrat is for or against such programs just because of party affiliation. You’ll have to find out where each individual candidate stands. Educational communism is not a party-specific issue. So be careful not to vote for someone who will add a communist plank to an election platform.

Preschool-for-All Initiative, What ‘Meathead’s’ Not Telling You, Part I

By Julie M. Quist Over the unruly objections of International Baccalaureate (IB) supporters, school board members from the Upper St. Clair, PA district voted 5 to 4 last Monday to end their K-12 IB program. Upper St. Clair is a top-performing school district in Pennsylvania with an IB program in place since 1998. The IB described the vote as the most significant challenge to come to IB, because it involves the K-12 curriculum. IB has been successfully challenged in cities which include Fairfax, VA and San Diego, CA.

Ironically, the qualities IBO describes itself as promoting, a "peaceful world" through "understanding and respect," were conspicuously missing from enraged IBO advocates in Upper Clair. For example, the Pittsburg Tribune Review, 2/21/06 states: As board members in opposition to IB stated their positions, the crowd in the high school auditorium became boisterous. Board members were met with boos and screams of "We’re going to recall you." The interruptions became so frequent and intense that board president Sulkowski requested police officers present come to the front of the auditorium. Sulkowski also threatened to clear the auditorium if the interruptions did not stop.

Parents and students had been mobilizing to save the program since some board members labeled it anti-American last week. More than 300 people attended a meeting Thursday to organize their opposition and parents and students picketed in front of the district administration offices Friday. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is threatening a lawsuit to force the district into continuing IB. Opponents of IB cited concerns about IB’s violation of local control, IB’s endorsement of the radical Earth Charter, IB’s promotion of the UN Universal Declaration of Independence, and its needless duplication of Advanced Placement classes. "Why do we not want to foster a strong Advanced Placement offering," questioned board member David Bluey, who holds a masters degree in education. IB is an international curriculum out of Geneva, Switzerland. The Pittsburg Tribune Review quotes IB’s deputy regional director, Ralph Cline, as stating, "There’s nothing in the curriculum of any of the programs that require any teacher or student to be taught about the Earth Charter or to support it." The IB publication "IBO: Myths and Facts," however,states that IBO "promotes the Earth Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the idea of multiculturalism." IB is coming under increased scrutiny across the country, largely because it is being expanded through additional federal grant money.

A recurring criticism concerns IB’s promotion of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Critics point out that students are not taught nor is the public informed that Article 29 of that UN document puts the United Nations in authority over individual rights — unlike America’s founding documents, which describe individual rights as "inalienable." Article 29 states: "These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations." Another frequent criticism is IB’s emphasis on creating "world citizens." Former IBO Deputy Director General, Ian Hill states in the publication, Education for Disarmament, , speaking to the Disarmament Forum, that "IBO seeks to develop citizens of the world." ["Curriculum development and ethics in international education," 2001] Whatever we are a citizens of, we are governed by. Teaching "world citizenship" undermines our own American citizenship and the authority of our Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights and Constitution. These documents describe the principles that make protect our freedom. As opposition to IB gathers steam, a bi-partisan bill will be heard in the Senate next week, S 2198, which would provide even more federal money to implement the IB curriculum nationally. President Bush’s American Competitive Initiative, introduce in January, also recommends more federal IB funding. INTRODUCTORY IB SEMINAR As an example of the political slant of IB curriculum, A.C. Flora High School in Richland, VA described the 2002 IB Introductory Seminar given in Danvers, MA "designed for schools from around the world interested in becoming part of the IB Program."

A. C. Flora’s Plan for Integrating Global Concerns into the Curricula:

• Math Studies curriculum explores problems concerning the weather, environmental protection, conservation, and energy.
• In HL Math the students will look at the global population problem, regional population problems, and models for the spread of disease, using data from problem areas such as the African AIDS epidemic.
• The statistics unit will examine a variety of problems from a global perspective, such as the disparity of wealth distribution between first and third world countries.
• The IB Physics curriculum will integrate global concerns and perspectives in the following ways: when studying electricity and magnetism, students look at power production and the third world, the control of emissions from power producing plants, control of emissions from automobiles, non-point source pollution and countries right to defend against it (for example, Canada’s right for compensation from the US for the production of acid rain);when studying the law of conservation of energy, they will examine the oil reserves on earth and the rights of OPEC countries to control the production of oil;
• Students will delve into some of the more pressing international pollution concerns, such as global warming, fossil fuels, heavy metals, and other waste products of an increasingly industrialized world.
• Because science … some examples include: environmental concerns (presently the honors level biology classes, which are pre-IB, are researching the Galapagos Islands oil spill from an Ecuadorian tanker. The students are writing persuasive letters to government officials. Worldwide environmental issues will always exist and can be integrated into the lessons.),
• In Theory of Knowledge, students will frequently address issues from a multicultural perspective. For example, ethical topics must always be discussed from the perspective of different cultures, such as Muslim, Native American, Western European, African, and so forth. Also, students will seek to identify and examine the validity of cultural stereotypes for example, the common assumption that Europeans use primarily linear rational thought, while people of the Far East think in non-linear, mystical ways.
• Students will look at languages in translation and how misperceptions can arise from translation and social and cultural biases.
• In Latin SL, an ancient language, students will examine the ancient world as a sounding board to measure and compare the global issues in a modern world. Students will discuss the impact on the Roman world, as well as their own, of such topics as women’s rights, slavery, and national imperialism.

At A. C. Flora the French classes have continuously integrated global concerns, such as pollution, endangered species, health issues (obesity, aging, AIDS, cloning), space research, human rights, and the death penalty.