Posted on 10/05/2011 9:35:01 PM PDT by dangus
1. Perry refused to allow Hispanics to be educated in English, and preferring Mexico-supplied history books which inculcate them with a hatred of America.
2. Perry violated the spirit and letter of conservative-supported federal law which prohibits giving illegal aliens preference over American students in state-run tuition breaks.
3. Perry subverts conservative-supported federal law, by interfering with the construction of the border fence. The law is that it must be built. Incredibly, he claims the reason he opposes it isn't because of his zealous crusade to flood the American job market with cheap labor, but on the grounds that violates private property. But...
4. Perry Initiated on the most massive state campaign to subvert private property by abusing eminent domain to try to build a superhighway allowing Mexican truckers and coyotes access to America’s heartland, while denying access to this highway by actual Americans
5. Perry opposes the implementation of E-Verify, and feeding his Perrytards with lies and disinformation against E-Verify. Despite years of searching, liberals have yet to find the American who lost his job because of E-Verify. Contrary to Perrytards’ lies, E-Verify does NOT create any new databases, stores, or even associations for any worker, but merely allows employers to check existing social-security data.
His views as governor may seem inconsequential, but the views of the president are very significant. Jorge Busho and his liberal wife added a nail to the coffin that once was America. Don’t you agree?
I can’t find anything about the textbooks from Mexico through several searches. Do you have references or sources?
The State Board of Education (SBOE) is made up of elected representatives of Texas voters. The SBOE decides the content of our textbooks, not the Legislature, not the Governor.
I have followed this past year’s debate over the history books at the State Board of Education, and past debates over other subjects. I’ve even testified at one of the hearings over Health texts.
Rossell’s thesis that bilingual education is ineffective and/or not offered to parents appear faulty, as evidenced by her own table on page 18. Children in the lower grades are enrolled in Bilingual Education, but in the higher grades, the number is less than 1% and less than 0.5% in grades 10-12.
Further, we know that our Texas minorities do better than students in other States and better than the National average. http://www.willisms.com/archives/2011/03/trivia_tidbit_o_924.html
Your own source, the Rossell piece, refutes your claim:
http://www.texaspolicy.com/pdf/2009-09-RR01-bilingual-rossell.pdf
The Act asserts the superiority of native-tongue instruction
and requires the districts aff ected to off er:
• a bilingual education program in elementary
school beginning with kindergarten;
• a choice of bilingual education, instruction in
English-as-a-Second-Language (ESL), or other
transitional language instruction approved by
the agency in middle school; and
• English-as-a-Second-Language in grades 9
through 12.
I blew up number 1 in my posts #103 and #102.
Now, for your number 2: There is no such “preference.”
Everyone who goes to the last 3 years of school and graduates from a Texas high school qualifies for in state tuition, along with anyone who goes to a school in a county bordering Texas in New Mexico, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana.
Those who are residents of other States who do not meet these criteria only have to live in Texas for one year, regardless of where they went to school or graduated.
Number 3: The law covers 800 miles of fence, along the 2000 mile border with Mexico. The law also allows the Department of Homeland Security to decide how and where and when the fence will be built. The Governor has advocated strategic fencing in populated urban areas.
Number 4: No truth at all. Legal eminent domain process was being followed. There was no citizenship test at all for the use of the highway. The “Superhighway” was never built, and won’t be built. See Wayne Christian’s statement: http://wingright.org/2011/09/02/state-representative-wayne-christian-endorses-governor-perry-for-president/
Number 5: Until recently, Perry had only made one statement that E-verify wouldn’t make a “hill of beans” difference unless we control the border.
Here’s Perry, in his own words:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2788889/posts
That’s a filthy lie.
In fact, we managed to get one law through without the “rape and incest” exception, just this year.
The “rape or incest” exceptions limit the size of our lifeboat. However, it’s the lifeboat that we have, it’s bigger than it was 10 years ago and we’re making trip after trip to rescue babies and their mothers.
Until Roe v. Wade is overturned, I don’t know how successful we will be in getting rid of these exceptions. This is the hardest barrier to break, because the people who cite them believe they’re compassionate and pro-life. We in the pro-life community who have won parental notification, parental consent, prenatal protection and informed consent (Texas Alliance for Life, Texas Right to Life, Texas Life Alliance, etc.) do try to educate our Legislators, as we’re able.
Our parental consent laws are among the strictest in the Nation and have cut off the non-parental abuser.
Bush was definitely wrong to grow the government as he did, for sure.
I congratulate the Texas legislature on passing pro-life legislation. My concerns aren’t with the Texas legislature, but with Perry’s intellect and political philosophy. Most conservatives I’ve known use “states’ rights” to mean devolving power from the federal level to a more responsive, locally controlled level. Perry seems to use it to mean that the state should replace the federal government as an all-powerful tyrant. While that’s consistent with overturning the legal logic of Roe v Wade, it’s highly troubling to me, as someone who believes in the principle of subsidiarity. However, I’d be highly concerned that Perry’s political philosophy, if adopted by a nominee of his to provide the swing vote in the USSC might overturn Roe v Wade, but using a “states’ rights” logic that prevents Congress from any reasonable restriction of abortion.
OTHERS on this thread pointed out Perry’s “rape and incest” exceptions to me, which were not in terms of, “this is the best we could do for now, but let’s go out and do better,” but rather “I oppose doing better.” If you can show me any evidence that Perry has now decided that those unfortunate enough to be conceived of incest don’t deserve to be viciously ripped apart and slaughtered, please do so.
Also, I’d be very interested in hearing if Perry has done any of the following:
1. Cut funding to Planned Parenthood.
2. Made it a crime for an abortion worker to fail to report underage pregnancies to the police, to allow prosecution of statutory rapists, pedophiles (actually, the term in this case would be ephibophiles), and molesters.
3. Prohibited state employees from helping children receive abortions.
PLEASE NOTE: I am NOT implying Perry has not taken any of these steps. Just, since this thread is moving towards abortion, an issue of great concern for me, I’d like to know what steps Perry has taken on the issue. I don’t trust Perry, partly because he was once a groupie for Al Gore and a Democrat activist and fundraiser, long after the Democrats became hyper-partisan and rigidly mandated allegiance to the Party of Death. (I can readily forgive Reagan, Gingrich, et al for having been Democrats before Ted Kennedy’s purge of moderates).
On the other hand, I know personally people who claim first-hand knowledge of Perry having a born-again experience since those days. I’ll never support Perry in a primary because of condemnation of all those who support conservative immigration enforcement policies. But I would be much at ease to discover that his “pro-life” positions aren’t merely Texas political posturing, along the lines of Elizabeth Dole who ran as a pro-lifer in the bible belt, was defeated for re-election, and went on to co-found (with notorious liberal Republican Christine Todd Whitman) a political movement to exclude pro-lifers and Christians from the Republican Party, called “It’s MY Party” and “It’s MY Party PAC.”
Any examples of Perry going beyond the usual red-state template for restricting abortion would actually put me at ease.
The Governor actually comes to our pro-life rallies to speak. I’m always amazed when he speaks, because he understands what he’s saying, even when talking about complicated issues like embryonic stem cell research. (Not many politicians do.)
People that I trust on this, Joe Pojman at Texas Alliance for Life (I’m on the Board of Directors) and Elizabeth Graham of Texas Right to Life (I saw her rant at a Bishop over a disagreement on a fine point, once) tell me that the Governor does not believe in the “rape and incest,” but that it’s a sad compromise that we use to get limits passed, chipping away at Roe v. Wade. (or making multiple trips in our leaky, small lifeboat.)
Just this year, we took State funds from abortionists (including PP) and stopped the practice of county hospitals and health districts that took State money, but use other funds to pay for abortions. (This is a case of good from bad - the budget had to be cut, so we put PP last in line for “women’s health services” by stipulating that clinics and hospitals that provide comprehensive care would get the money first.)
10 PP’s have closed or announced they will close: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/four-more-planned-parenthood-clinics-closing-in-wake-of-texas-de-funding-la/
This was in the budget passed during the Special Session. Travis County had been paying for hundreds of elective abortions each year, and voted to stop that practice within the month, to keep from losing State funds. We’re still waiting to hear from Parkland in Dallas and some of the others.
In SB 7, we won a strict “medical emergency,” “life of the mother” or “substantial impairment of a major bodily function” criteria and got rid of the “rape and incest” exceptions. We did have to compromise on “fetal anomalies” that include children who couldn’t live. I hate that last, but the argument literally was down to the last hour of possible passage.
It’s still a giant step forward from using “health of the mother,” “rape and incest,” or “fetal defects.” that would include Down’s syndrome, etc.
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/Text.aspx?LegSess=821&Bill=SB7
(c-1) The department shall ensure that money spent for
purposes of the demonstration project for women’s health care
services under former Section 32.0248, Human Resources Code, or a
similar successor program is not used to perform or promote
elective abortions, or to contract with entities that perform or
promote elective abortions or affiliate with entities that perform
or promote elective abortions.
*********
Sec. 285.202. USE OF TAX REVENUE FOR ABORTIONS; EXCEPTION
FOR MEDICAL EMERGENCY. (a) In this section, “medical emergency”
means:
(1) a condition exists that, in a physician’s good
faith clinical judgment, complicates the medical condition of the
pregnant woman and necessitates the immediate abortion of her
pregnancy to avert her death or to avoid a serious risk of
substantial impairment of a major bodily function; or
(2) the fetus has a severe fetal abnormality.
(a-1) In Subsection (a), a “severe fetal abnormality” means
a life threatening physical condition that, in reasonable medical
judgment, regardless of the provision of life saving medical
treatment, is incompatible with life outside the womb.
(a-2) In Subsection (a-1), “reasonable medical judgment”
means a medical judgment that would be made by a reasonably prudent
physician, knowledgeable about the case and the treatment
possibilities with respect to the medical conditions involved.
*********************
We already had a law that required clinics to sign a paper saying they wouldn’t use State funds for abortions. The Attorney General fined 4 clinics in San Antonio (not all PP clinics) for medical abortions under this law, this year.
He helped us pass our prenatal protection act back in 2003, in addition to the Woman’s Right to Know informed consent law. https://lifeethics.wordpress.com/2007/11/22/court-upholds-texas-prenatal-protection-act/
He appointed strong pro-life advocates to the committee that wrote the literature for WRTK (which is paid for by abortion clinic fees.)
http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/wrtk/pdf/booklet.pdf
(The law also requires a “Resource guide” containing information for help for those who want to keep their babies. http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/wrtk/pdf/booklet.pdf )
We achieved the Parental Consent law with increased consent forms that prevented child abusers from obtaining abortions for their victims (I know, fathers can abuse, too, but in the vast majority of cases, fathers are their daughters’ protectors). The forms require a notorized affadavit.
This provision was strengthened this year, in the same law that provided for the ultrasound. I believe that that portion still stands, in spite of Federal court intervention.
More on his record and the people who defend him
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2754085/posts
285.202 is written very intelligently.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.