We’re coming upon the time of year when parents and children alike obsess over which teacher(s) they will receive for the upcoming school term. There is no real implied choice in the matter; similar to your “zoned school,” most families don’t search beyond what’s handed to them, so if a student doesn’t mesh well with their instructor, it’s “too bad, Jimmy, better luck next year.”
But, on the rare chance your child’s teacher isn’t a pedophile or serial public pooper, and doesn’t have anger management issues, perhaps you’ll gloat about what a wonderful person they are. “He shares my values,” you may say, or “She attends my church.” “We’re both supporting _____ in the Senate race.” This, you tell yourself, is the perfect person to replace you during the average of 8 hours a day your impressionable youngster is in school.
You would be wrong.
Regardless of a teacher’s political, religious, or otherwise ideological views, they are subject to the all-powerful organization known as the teacher’s union, which has overwhelmingly only one agenda.
Whether you agree or not with a union supporting certain political parties, the fact that teacher’s unions have in recent years given 94% of political contributions to liberal candidates and organizations. This money is not solely from donations, but from dues paid by those illustrious, upstanding teachers at a school near you.
Besides your standard Senate candidates and, of course, Hillary Clinton, NEA (National Education Association) and AFT (American Federation of Teachers), the two largest teachers’ unions in the United States, have contributed to many decidedly one-sided organizations, including but not limited to: the Human Rights Campaign (national group working for “working for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights”); the Center for American Progress (progressive think tank led by former Clinton and Obama aides); and Jesse Jackson’s “Rainbow Push Coalition” and Al Sharpton’s “National Action Network.”
Millions upon millions of dollars are spent by these unions every year to support candidates, policies, and organizations on just one side of the aisle. And what’s more, from 2004 to 2016, their donations grew from $4.3 million to more than $32 million. What’s more, Democratic bigshots like Hillary Clinton are welcome faces at union events; Clinton received the AFT’s “Women’s Rights Award” on Friday, and the response to her presence at the Pittsburgh event was akin to teenyboppers at a Justin Bieber concert.
“But that’s just the union,” you protest, still trying to remain in denial. “They don’t represent the values of OUR teachers!” Oh, really? Then who DO they represent? And why are they taking their money? The truth is, teachers listen to their union leaders, and believe they will fight for them to have less time with your kids and more money for what is essentially glorified babysitting, for much of the school day. If union leaders tell them to vote one way, chances are, they will. Because just like they are teaching your kids, day in and day out, to be mindless automatons dependent on someone else to tell them what’s in their best interest, teachers will often blindly follow their leaders. In fact, they are more likely to revere their local union leaders over their school principal.
So before you recommend your child’s teacher for canonization, perhaps you’d best examine where their loyalties really lie.
Hillary begins speech: ‘I’m so tired, I can barely stand’
Big Political Spending By Unions–Paid With Dues
OpenSecrets.org – Teachers Unions
How Liberal Politics and Teachers’ Unions Got So Entangled