The Worlds Richest Woman Extends Her Intellectual Prowess to the Rest of the Us

By David Lazarus

L.A. Times
August 30, 2012, 9:31 a.m.

Editor's Notes in italics. 
Just in case you were beginning to think rich people were deeply misunderstood and that they feel the pain of those who are less fortunate, here's the world's wealthiest woman, Australian mining tycoon heiress Gina Rinehart, with some helpful advice.

"If you're jealous of those with more money, don't just sit there and complain," she said in a magazine piece. "Do something to make more money yourself -- spend less time drinking or smoking and socialising, and more time working."

Yeah, let them eat cake. Looks like Gina had a second helping...

Rinehart made her money the old-fashioned way: She inherited it. Her family's iron ore prospecting fortune of $30.1 billion makes her Australia's wealthiest person and the richest woman on the planet.

"There is no monopoly on becoming a millionaire," (WRONG!*) she said by way of encouragement.

"Become one of those people who work hard, invest and build, and at the same time create employment and opportunities for others."

Boom. Almost too easy.   Poor and working two jobs? No rich relatives? Invest the money you don't have in... More cake. It seems to have done wonders for Gina.

Why are people poor? Rinehart blamed what she described as "socialist," anti-business, (Anti-extra cake) government policies, and urged Australian officials to lower the minimum wage and cut taxes. 

Perfect! No one's ever tried that before! Let the dogs under the table fight for the crumbs of 'cake' that fall off the plates of the rich. Perfect! The stronger dogs will kill and eat the weaker dogs, thus ridding the house of soo many dogs to feed. Oh, wait. Reagan's "trickle down theory." The same theory, "Social Darwinism" Adam Smith first proposed nearly 300 years ago. Reagan's "trickle down theory" further plummeted the U.S. into the longest period of recession in the last 70 years.

But Gina can have ... More cake!

"The millionaires and billionaires who choose to invest in Australia are actually those who most help the poor and our young," she said. "This secret needs to be spread widely." 

(It's secret because it's a LIE. Using government anti-poverty programs as the marker, Millionaires and Billionaires pay less tax -income or sales - than the taxpayer who makes under $200,000 dollars a year; U.S. or Australian.) 

And now it's out there.

Thank you, rich people. We're not worth(y).

* Stats show that laws paid for through lobbiest's for the wealthy prove to be extremely anti-small business, and as Gina espouses in the speech, adds more of the tax burden off the rich and onto the backs of the already over taxed middle class.

Another state with obsolete laws that only apply to teachers

Former Texas HS teacher receives five years in prison for having sex with five ADULT students

By ANDY SOLTIS

With AP

Last Updated: 7:24 AM, August 18, 2012

A Texas jury took less than an hour to find a former high-school English teacher guilty yesterday of having group sex with five 18-year-old students at her home.

Brittni Nicole Colleps, 28, of Arlington, was convicted on 16 felony counts of an inappropriate relationship between a student and teacher, and each count is punishable by two to 20 years in prison.

Colleps, who is married and has three children, turned herself in after a cellphone video of an encounter with Kennedale HS students surfaced.

The trial was marked by graphic testimony of the group-sex romps, which occurred at her home in April and May 2011.

But three of the former students — who were football and track athletes — testified that they did not consider themselves victims and did not want to see Colleps prosecuted.

However, Arlington police Detective Jason Houston testified that charges were filed because “18 or not, it’s a crime” for a teacher to have sex with her students.

During the weeklong trial, a former student who is now 20 testified that he was the orgy participant who recorded his last encounter on a cellphone.

He said initially the students spoke of the importance of keeping their activities quiet because they didn’t want their teacher to get in trouble.

He also said that when school officials first questioned him, he denied the trysts because “I was trying to save her.”

Colleps’ husband, Christopher, who was serving in the Army overseas at the time of the encounters, testified he is angry at her, but stands by her “because ’til death do us part means ’til death do us part.”

PROP 38 AND PROP 30

COMPARING THE TWO MAJOR STATE SCHOOL FUNDING PROPOSITIONS: PROP 38 AND PROP 30

This Year voters will have to decide between two conflicting tax measures on the November ballot. One is Prop 38, also referred to as the Local Schools and Early Education Investment and Bond Debt Reduction Act, which has been funded almost exclusively by its proponent, wealthy tax attorney Molly Munger. The other is Prop 30, which is backed by Gov. Jerry Brown. Brown took his plan to the people after an earlier attempt to close the budget gap by raising personal income taxes failed in the state legislature. Both ballot measures focus on protecting education funding, but they go about it in different ways.

Prop 38 (M. Munger) would raise the income tax rate on almost all Californians, where   Prop 30 (Gov. Brown) targets only those who make more than $250,000 a year. The amount of the increase would depend on the individual's tax bracket (see "What Your Vote Means" below). The revenues would go into a special fund called the California Education Trust Fund, or CETF. From there, the money would have to be used for three specific purposes, in the following proportions:

pay for schools (60%)

pay for Early Care and Education (ECE) programs (10%)

pay down state debts (30%)

However, beginning in fiscal 2017, the proportions would shift. The amount allotted for schools and ECE would be capped using a formula that takes into account the average growth in Californians' per capita income during the first five years the law is in effect. Any revenues in excess of this cap would go toward debt payments. The rest would be split, with 85% going to schools and 15% going to ECE.

One critical point to consider is that the two November tax measures (Prop 30, Gov. Brown and Prop 38, M. Munger) would negatively affect the other should both pass. The state constitution already provides that when two measures conflict, the one with the most votes prevails. In addition, sections in both Prop 30 and Prop 38 explicitly bar the other from taking effect. Even if you vote for both, only one can win. However, if Prop 30 (Gov. Brown) loses, the much feared "trigger cuts," built into the current state budget, would go into effect.

Prop 38 (M. Munger) has a number of very specific rules about the distribution of funds, and it is well worth your time to read the summary from the Legislative Analyst's Office. And here's the full text of the prop.

Prop 38 (M. Munger) WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS

Voting YES means that you approve of the new taxes and would like them to be allocated to schools, ECE programs, and state debt repayment. If Prop 38 prevails, then Prop 30 cannot, and a series of trigger cuts built into the state budget will go into effect. Taxes would increase according to the following table:

Single Filer	Joint Filer	Head-of-Household	Tax Rate Increase
<$7,316	<$14,632	<$14,642	--
$7,316-$17,346	$14,632-$34,692	$14,642-$34,692	0.4%
$17,346-$27,377	$34,692-$54,754	$34,692-$44,721	0.7%
$27,377-$38,004	$54,754-$76,008	$44,721-$55,348	1.1%
$38,004-$48,029	$76,008-$96,058	$55,348-$65,376	1.4%
$48,029-$100,000	$96,058-$200,000	$65,376-$136,118	1.6%
$100,000-$250,000	$200,000-$500,000	$136,118-$340,294	1.8%
$250,000-$500,000	$500,000-$1,000,000	$340,294-$680,589	1.9%
$500,000-$1,000,000	$1,000,000-$2,000,000	$680,589-$1,361,178	2.0%
$1,000,000-$2,500,000	$2,000,000-$5,000,000	$1,361,178-$3,402,944	2.1%
Over $2,000,000	Over $5,000,000	Over $3,402,944	2.2%
	Source:	Legislative Analyst's Office

Voting NO means that you reject the tax increase. The school funding and debt repayment plan laid out by Prop 38 will not go into effect.

Prop 38 (M. Munger) WHO/WHAT IT WOULD AFFECT 

Taxpayers: Most Californians would be faced with at least some form of tax increase. See the table in "What Your Vote Means" above.

Public Schools: Public schools could receive as much as $10 billion in the first year. The bulk of that money (70%) would be distributed to schools on a per-student basis, with more money for students in higher grades levels. Additional money (18%) would be allotted to schools based on the number of low-income students enrolled. The final portion (12%), also distributed on a per-student basis, would be dedicated solely to technology -- allowing for the purchase of new equipment and teaching materials and also for teacher training. The money would be tied to a series of restrictions and mandates, including that school districts seek public input before deciding on how to spend the money.

Early Care and Education Programs: ECE programs are those that, like preschool, begin before kindergarten. Current funding levels don't come close to supporting the number of children eligible for subsidized programs in the state (of children ages five and younger, about half are eligible but only 15% are served, according to the legislative analyst's office). Prop 38 would restore some of the funding that was cut in a series of budget reductions since 2008. It would also create a rating system for ECE programs, establish a statewide database to support program management, begin an Early Head Start program modeled after the federal one, and would expand subsidized preschool for children of low-income families, among other things. ECE programs are expected to get about $1 billion a year for the first few years if Prop 38 passes.

State Budget: A share of CETF funds each year will go toward paying down state debts, with the priority on education debt-service costs. That means more General Fund money can go to other public programs and to balancing the budget, according to the legislative analyst.

Prop 38 (M. Munger) WHO'S BEHIND IT
Wealthy tax lawyer Molly Munger is the principal financial backer and proponent of Prop 38. Other than her own contributions, only one minor donation has been reported as of Aug. 14 -- $25,000 from the Atlas Family Trust, compared with $13.8 million from Munger herself.

Prop 38 (M. Munger) WHO'S AGAINST IT                                              Those interests that have lined up behind Jerry Brown's tax measure, Prop 30, are naturally opposed to the Munger plan. In addition, the California Democratic Party has come out against the measure. However, no major donations to the opposition campaign have been registered with the Secretary of State's office

ARGUMENTS BEING MADE FOR                                                       restores education money that was cut from the budget in recent years, guaranteeing billions of dollars to local schools based on enrollment -- an average of $10 billion annually over 12 years.

It will prevent more cuts by setting aside $3 billion a year through 2017 to help repay state education bond debt.

It prohibits the legislature from diverting or borrowing the money, and the money cannot be used to replace current education funding.

Money is distributed on a per-pupil basis and must be spent at the school.

The money cannot be spent to increase salaries or pensions of school personnel.

Spending decisions will be made locally and will require public input.

School districts will be accountable for improvement at each school and must report how they money was spent.

ARGUMENTS BEING MADE AGAINST
Prop 38 is a massive tax hike for middle-class taxpayers and small businesses. It would damage small businesses that pay income taxes as individuals rather than as corporations.

It would kill jobs in small and family businesses where most job growth is taking place.

It can't be changed once it's passed, so it will continue for 12 years even if there is evidence of fraud or waste.

It gives Sacramento $3 billion a year for four years to spend without restriction.

It creates a costly new bureaucracy by forcing schools to go through complex red tape just to receive basic funding, and it creates new programs even while necessary school functions have been cut back.

It will do almost nothing to improve student performance.

Prop 30 (Gov. Brown) WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS

Voting YES means that the personal income tax would go up for those earning more than $250,000 as well as a quarter-cent sales tax increase would go into effect. Also, the state would continue to fund certain public safety programs it handed over to counties in 2011.

Single Taxable Income	Joint Taxable Income	Head of Household Taxable Income	Tax Rate Increase
Under $250,000	Under $500,000	Under $340,000	--
$250,000-$300,000	$500,000-$600,000	$340,000-$408,000	1%
$300,000-$500,000	$600,000-$1,000,000	$408,000-$680,000	2%
Over $500,000	Over $1,000,000	Over $680,000	3%
Source:	Legislative Analyst's Office

Voting NO means that no new taxes will be introduced. The following trigger cuts would go into effect. Schools and other programs would face billions in reduced funding as follows:

Schools and community colleges	$5.35 billion
University of California	$250 million
California State University	$250 million
Department of Developmental Services	$50 million
City police department grants	$20 million
CalFire	$10 million
DWR flood control programs	$7 million
Local water safety patrol grants	$5 million
Department of Fish and Game	$4 million
Department of Parks and Recreation	$2 million
DOJ law enforcement programs	$1 million
Source:	Legislative Analyst's Office

Prop 30 (Gov. Brown) Who/What It Would Affect

Taxpayers: The first chart above shows how the personal income tax increase would affect those in each bracket.

Consumers: Everyone would pay an extra quarter cent sales tax at the point of sale.

Public Schools: If the measure passes, schools could see up to $6.6 billion in increased funding. If it fails, funding could go down by as much as $5.4 billion.

State Government: If it passes, the state would see an increase of billions of dollars to help cover education and balance the budget. If not, it would face a serious shortfall and begin making a series of trigger cuts to government programs to reduce overall spending.

Local Governments: Local governments, mainly counties, have already been required to take on new responsibilities in public safety, including supervising parolees and handling incarceration for some adults. The state helped by providing funds for these programs last year, but Prop 30 would ensure that these payments continue annually.

Prop 30 (Gov. Brown) Who's Behind It
This is the tax increase Gov. Jerry Brown has been trying to get approved for more than a year, part of his strategy to close the budget gap. It has the support most notably of the League of Women Voters and the two major teachers unions. The teachers unions have together donated millions to the campaign. Key financial backers include:

California Teachers Association

California Federation of Teachers

Service Employees International Union's Local 1000

Democratic State Central Committee

Prop 30 (Gov. Brown) Who's Against It
So far only a small amount has been donated to the opposition campaign, with the largest contribution so far from the Small Business Action Committee. Joel Fox, the president of that group and editor of the political blog Fox&Hounds, is actively involved in the campaign to defeat Prop 30 and has put his name to the official arguments against that will appear on the ballot. So far the key financial contributors are:

Small Business Action Committee

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

  

Arguments Being Made For

§  Prevents an additional $6 billion in school cuts and provides new funding for education this year.

§  Establishes a guarantee for public safety funding in the state's constitution, where it can't be changed without voter approval. "It keeps cops on the street."

§  Balances the budget and pays down California's debt.

§  Only the highest income earners pay more income tax. Couples earning below $500,000 a year will pay no additional income taxes.

§  It's temporary. PIT goes up for 7 years and quarter-cent sales tax for 4 Years.

§  The money goes into a special account the legislature can't touch.

§  Mandatory, independent audits will ensure funds are spent only for schools and public safety.

Arguments Being Made Against

§  Legislature can take existing money for schools and use it for other purposes, replacing it with money from Prop 30, effectively resulting in no new money for education.

§  There are no requirements or assurances that any more money actually goes to classrooms. 

§  Prop 30 rewards the dangerous behavior of spending more than the state has by giving politicians billions of dollars more with no real reforms.

§  The governor, politicians and special interests are threatening voters by saying, "vote for our massive tax increase or we'll take it out on schools," but they refuse to reform the education or pension systems to save money.

Source: Legislative Analyst's Office

"Students First" does not put students first. "Stand For Children" does not stand for children. "No Child Left Behind" (NCLB) leaves lots of children behind.

POLITICALLY MOTIVATED PROGRAMS LIKE: "Students First" does not put students first. "Stand For Children" does not stand for children. "No Child Left Behind" (NCLB) leaves lots of children behind.

from Schools Matter by skrashen

Sent to Yakima Herald-Republic (WA) for "Saturday Soapbox"
By Jane Watson
August 31, 2012

“Doublethink” is alive and well.

In 1948, George Orwell wrote 1984. “Big Brother is Watching You” was born. So was “doublethink,” the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously and accepting both of them. TVs watch YOU. Language is paradoxical. Less is more. War is Peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

The organization Stand For Children endorses gubernatorial candidate Rob McKenna and Charter Schools. Who doesn’t want to Stand For Children? Who wants Children Left Behind? Who doesn’t want Students First?

The fallacies and failures of NCLB (No Child Left Behind – aka No CORPORATION Left Behind) are well documented. ‘Nuff said.

The CEO of Stand For Children is Geoffrey Canada, a well financed man who opened Harlem’s Children’s Zone, a school which was able to provide many benefits to students who otherwise would have been left to the resources of public schools. Canada was able to spend $14,000 per student to help mitigate the effects of poverty. [Wish public schools could do that!]

When students did not get acceptable test scores, Canada kicked an entire class out of school to maintain Harlem Children Zone’s high test scores. http://susanohanian.org/show_atrocities.php?id=9289. Presumably, these students went to public schools, which don’t turn away anybody – kind of like the Statue of Liberty.

Charter schools take money from public education. They do not do better than public schools. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/charter-schools/about-the-brill-story-on-chart.html
Most national research shows that on average public schools perform as well as charter schools or better.

Michelle Rhee heads Students First. She was chancellor of DC public schools, (2007 – 2010) which had low test scores. When she was chancellor, test scores rose. Ms. Rhee’s reputation rests on those test scores, which soared while she was chancellor. Last March, USA Today published the results (http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2011-03-28-1Aschooltesting28_CV_N.htm) of a yearlong investigation of the Washington schools that found a high rate of erasures on tests as well as suspiciously large gains at 41 schools — one-third of the elementary and middle schools in the district. Michelle Rhee is now under investigation for fixing test scores. Michelle Rhee taught third grade for one year, but couldn’t control her class, said the stress gave her hives, and taped children’s mouths to keep them quiet. Rhee’s first year test scores showed a precipitous drop in her class: Average math percentile dropped from 64% to 17%. Average reading percentile dropped from 37% to 21%

In straight talk, Students First does not put students first. Stand For Children does not stand for children. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) leaves children behind.

Where does one get the truth? Talk to teachers. They’re the ones on the front line. They know students are more than test scores. They know children are being robbed of music, art, and many other things by the narrowing of the curriculum as a result of excessive testing.

Go to Parents Across America website. http://parentsacrossamerica.org/ Sign up for their newsletter.

Go to the Save Our schools website. Help them keep the “public” in public ed. http://www.saveourschoolsmarch.org/ Attend their webinars and tweets with educational professionals. (499)


CITATIONS

Charter Schools
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/charter-schools/about-the-brill-story-on-chart.html

Charters vs. public schools: Behind the numbers
http://www.educationjustice.org/newsletters/nlej_iss21_art5_detail_CharterSchoolAchievement.htm

CHARTER SCHOOL ACHIEVEMENT: HYPE VS. EVIDENCE
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/27/education/duncan-and-rhee-on-panel-amid-dc-schools-inquiry.html?_r=1

Gerald Coles: KIPP Schools: Power Over Evidence
http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2012/08/gerald_coles_kipp_schools_powe.html

Horwitz Files US Supreme Court Petition Asking to Hear Her Teacher Terminal Case

Horwitz Files US Supreme Court Petition 2007

SC Petition (brief)

SC Petition (full)

Court Terminology

Karen Horwitz Story

ACLU History

Layman's Explanation

Contact K. Horwitz

Update, 4/20/2007

WE WILL BE HEARD: THE TRUTH ABOUT OUR SCHOOLS IS FINALLY PUBLIC

On February 28, 2007, the United States Supreme Court placed Karen Horwitz's Petition for Writ of Certiorari on its docket, which asks the United States Supreme Court to hear her teacher termination case on appeal. 

Terminated in April of 1999, this tenured teacher has been trying to have her retaliatory firing heard for over eight years to no avail. Each subsequent Illinois court has refused evidence to show it was a retaliatory termination and the Illinois Supreme Court refused to hear her case altogether; the United States Supreme Court is the last chance for unconstitutional treatment of teachers to be heard.

Since Horwitz herself, denied support by the ACLU despite violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, has taken this case up through the courts to expose the lawlessness in our schools in order to carve a path for other teachers with similar cases, what happens with this case will serve as a guiding light for teachers about to file legal complaints, or speak out about administrative misconduct. Teachers need to know if it is safe to report Special Education violations or other harm to children; Horwitz has learned that contrary to what the law says, districts can punish teachers by setting them up to fail for speaking about districts' illegal conduct. We all need to know whether lawlessness in Education will continue to be ignored so that teachers and parents can make intelligent decisions. The need to know includes young people considering teaching as a career as well as those contemplating a career shift later in life, thinking they can make a difference, when in reality they will end up trapped in a pseudo career.

Horwitz's case will officially end Education's ability to "bait and switch" teachers. A teaching career, and all other positions within schools, will finally be accurately described so that dedicated, idealistic people will either be protected as they advocate for children's rights to a proper education or they will know not to enter a career that leads to the destruction of their well being as well as harms the children for which they are responsible. Our schools, as they are today, are devastating for dedicated types, and either our nation must apply the law in Education, or these types must be forewarned to avoid Education.

Therefore, regardless what this Honorable Court does, WE WILL BE HEARD. Its decision will guide us in a direction right for teachers and hence right for children; lawless schools that are bad for children become worse when districts target their teachers, using children as pawns in that process. And with this topic widely known, parents will finally realize that their real problem has been that EducRAT$ run our schools for their own power and perks, not to educate children, because they can. Those teachers who follow their orders, do so out of fear with the exception of those working toward EducRAT positions.

Recognition that Horwitz had to go all the way to the Supreme Court to seek protection for teachers and students because no lower court listened, what this PETITION engenders, gives the public what it needs to make an informed decision about our schools. We do not know whether this Court will hear her case. However, we are people who teach the next generation that being an American is an opportunity for justice, so we maintain faith that this Court will care. And, at the same time, we also know that any person who reads her PETITION will realize what it means if this Court ignores this case. This will give us insight as to why our schools are so dysfunctional. It is undisputed that Horwitz did not have an opportunity to be heard in the context of how she was set up to be terminated, that her district refused to investigate harm to her or her students, and that the conduct of her district and her state has undergone no scrutiny because the courts have decided her district and the Illinois State Board of Education can be protected from accountability in termination proceedings, making termination proceedings powerful weapons for having their way. And all of this means we have the schools we should expect considering the failure to hold school boards responsible for serving the public.

Given that most teachers do not have the opportunity to petition the highest court, this case shows the reader regardless what happens to Horwitz, we have already lost and why. Illinois courts have decided not to publish this and it will remain unpublished unless reviewed, so we can expect teachers to fall into the same traps Horwitz fell into believing teachers have rights because the Constitution says we do, yet the courts won't publish that we don't. If this Court denies this case or affirms the lower courts' ruling that terminating teachers with no protection for teachers or students is proper, at least we will be able to make intelligent decisions about teaching: where to send our children and where to expend our energy in reform. However, if the Court hears this case and mandates that EducRAT$ must follow the law, we can move forward with faith that with people with integrity leading, reform can start. Either way, EndTeacherAbuse.org will detail the Court's response so that those interested in getting our schools back will have a clear picture of what our courts offer us. If it is nothing, we need to know so that the court of public opinion, the strength of our democracy, can operate with wisdom.

The media needs to know this so it can stop putting administrators on a pedestal rather than in dark places with the Enron executives where they truly belong. It has to learn why teachers' are so silent about what is going on and why the media is needed so the truth can surface. Great humanitarians such as Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and Oprah Winfrey need to know where their money is going when they entrust it with EducRAT$. Presidential candidates need to know that taking money from teacher unions does not support teachers since teacher unions do not support targeted teachers and often help target them. 

This PETITION is important because all of the above can be gleaned from it; those who put money into our present lawless schools without first demanding they follow the rule of law, will finally realize that they are supporting a sham on the American public rather than helping reform schools.

Furthermore, work done to privatize or charter schools without first empowering teachers and others who believe in the laws of this land, by ensuring that laws are followed, simply privatizes corruption. What this PETITION shows is that EducRAT$ operate above the law and thus have done what our forefathers predicted would happen without checks and balances - corrupted our schools. It is time to stop blaming teachers and parents and start blaming school boards, their administrators and the unions for operating above the law. In a country that relies on law to establish order, we cannot expect anything but chaos when we ignore the law.

It is important to note that the US Supreme Court does not hear cases due to mistakes in law even when injustice to a citizen seems compelling. Given its limited time, and the small percentage of cases it can hear, it only reviews cases with widespread impact on the public. Few cases have such widespread significance as Horwitz's case, even if one focuses merely on the "children used as pawns" issue presented, and ignores the teachers as an underclass, the parents being ignored, and the taxpayers' funds being squandered. Given atrocities such as Columbine that evolve from dysfunctional schools where teachers hesitate to speak up about problem students to avoid becoming a center of controversy as did Horwitz for caring about students, ignoring this case is an indication that our courts, like F.E.M.A., which gave us Katrina, and our Pentagon, which has failed to give proper medical care to our soldiers and veterans, are yet another disillusionment. We hope not. We think not. But having had so many American institutions fail us, we cannot be sure. This is an opportunity to test our courts.

It is also important to note that the U.S. Supreme Court does not have the power, or jurisdiction, to make law other than by its decisions, which evolve from questions properly placed before it. Properly means they must have been disposed of by the lower courts according to strict rules, meaning questions may not simply be posed to the court, but must evolve from legal cases that have risen through the courts properly. Thus, although it would appear that the U.S. Supreme Court should have "done something about our dysfunctional schools," creating new law is not jurisdictional, or under its power. It is up to our legislature to create laws. This makes this case even more significant; it offers this Court a rare opportunity to intervene and interpret laws in a way that will protect our children and our society. Given that so few teachers could afford the time and money it takes to bring a case before this Court, it is unlikely to see another of its kind soon.

Nevertheless, the U.S. Supreme Court has the right to fail us. As one of our most revered leaders, Abraham Lincoln stated: "The probability that we may fail in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just." In time we will know whether our court system is as broken as our educational system. And being Americans, we can work together to use public pressure to right these fallen institutions and be effective once we are informed. But first we need to know where our energy is needed.

We can think of nothing that will shed more light on what has been kept so dark for so long. Your children will thank you for taking the time to learn the truth about Education. We hope you will send the following message, along with a link to this page, to any reporter or public official you trust also cares about our children and our country's future. Simply highlight the paragraph below and paste it into an email and send it along with a link to this page to people who have the power to protect our children, our schools, and our future. NAPTA

FOR THE SAKE OF OUR CHILDREN AND OUR GREAT COUNTRY'S FUTURE PLEASE READ THIS PETITION TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT AND BECOME AWARE OF WHY OUR SCHOOLS ARE SO DYSFUNCTIONAL. FOLLOW WHAT THE U.S. SUPREME COURT DOES ABOUT THIS CASE, WHICH THE ILLINOIS COURTS FAILED TO PUBLISH AND WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED UNLESS THE U.S. SUPREME COURT REVIEWS IT. YOU NEED TO KNOW THIS TO UNRAVEL THE TRUTH NEEDED TO BEGIN REFORM IN OUR SCHOOLS. IF TEACHERS DO NOT HAVE PROTECTED RIGHTS, IN ADDITION TO WHAT THIS MEANS TO TEACHERS PERSONALLY, THIS MEANS TEACHING IS NOT A PROFESSION AND IS OFFICIALLY AN UNDERCLASS - A REALITY THAT IMPACTS EVERY CITIZEN IN THIS NATION.

A Very Concerned Citizen