America has been successful at keeping God out of schools, but not guns. And that irony isn’t lost on leaders in Arkansas, who are desperately trying to put positive influences back into classrooms. If there was ever a time to put a simple reminder like “In God We Trust” before students, it’s now. While Florida families mourn the loss of 17 young lives, maybe it’s time to rethink what messages we’re teaching our teenagers.
In Arkansas, the idea was simple: require schools to put up “In God We Trust” posters. The bill sailed through the state legislature, passing 78-1 in the House and 28-2 in the Senate. Rep. Jim Dotson (R) thought it wouldn’t just be an opportunity to honor America’s heritage, but also “provide students with a good conscience while in school.” “We all know of instances in recent events where our culture of violence is being shown all around, and I think it’s something that hopefully students will be able to see on the walls and know that our country was founded on something better.”
As a show of support, local American Legion posts have raised money to pay for 1,000 framed posters in one school district, and others are lining up to donate more. As usual, the American Atheists are pitching a fit that children might be exposed to the word “God,” something they could certainly stand to hear more of, if the latest headlines are any indication. “Rep. Dotson and groups who have pledged to donate these displays have been quite clear about their purpose: injecting religion into Arkansas’s public schools.” Well, I hate to break it to them, but God’s already there. Unless these kids check their purses and wallets at the front door, He’s on every dollar they have.
As for putting the motto out where everyone can see it, the Supreme Court has said time and time again that there’s absolutely nothing wrong about it. The motto isn’t an endorsement of religion, the court said, but a “statement of optimism” about America’s heritage. If you want to protect kids from something, try the schools’ graphic sex-ed curriculums or propaganda of those trying to deconstruct society and the family that’s paraded through our schools. Those are the real destructive influences.
At a time when more schools are war zones than classrooms, surely we can all see the good of pointing kids to the fact that there is a God to whom we will all give an account — including the atheists who work night and day to fight someone they say doesn’t exist. For everyone else, maybe we should ponder the possibility that by letting God back in we might keep the violence out.
Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.
http://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/022118_ingodwetrust_700x400-e1519257188309.png366640Family Research Councilhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFamily Research Council2018-02-21 18:53:522018-02-21 18:53:52In God Schools Trust
We don’t know the student’s name, but we do know that he hit a nerve — in fact, he hit a whole bunch of them. Identified only as a boy of Asian descent at C.K. McClatchy High School in California, the teen’s recent science-fair project, “Race and IQ,” propounded the thesis that differences in groups’ average intelligence influence their academic performance. He couldn’t win, though, because his project was removed after parents, staff and other students became “upset” and one girl said she felt “unsafe and uneasy.” The irony?
A project on evolution would no doubt have been well received — even though an assumption of racial differences is implicit in evolutionary theory.
In fact, The Sacramento Bee, which hasn’t yet evolved out of the progressive primordial soup, mentioned that the student’s thesis is associated with eugenics (which the Bee casts negatively), the science of improving the human race via selective breeding. The paper is likely unaware, however, that the term “eugenics” itself was coined by Sir Francis Galton — a cousin of famed evolutionist Charles Darwin — and that Galton made clear that in his eugenicist endeavors, he was merely building on his cousin’s work.
Philosopher G.K. Chesterton once noted that if people “were not created equal, they were certainly evolved unequal.” This is easy to understand:
What are the chances that different groups could have “evolved” isolated from one another for eons — subject to different environments, stresses, procreation-influencing cultural imperatives and adaptive realities — and ended up identical in every worldly measure? Why, even if the peoples evolved isolated in identical environments, the separation alone would make the prospects of winding up completely “equal” a virtual statistical impossibility.
Whatever you believe about evolution, it’s clear that equality is not a thing of this world. Do we see it in nature? Some species can dominate others or are more adaptable, which is why the rat is a pest and the dodo is extinct (and, in fact, the rat helped drive the dodo to extinction). Even within species, some members are hardier, smarter, faster or stronger than others. There are alphas and betas, with a silverback gorilla running his troop and a dominant lion leading his pride. And different breeds of dogs have different characteristic traits, with some being more intelligent than others.
As for people, how is it that we can even characterize different groups as “groups”? Since we don’t do it based purely on location (e.g., dividing 10 boys into two groups of five, each on opposite sides of a room), we can only do so because there are differences among them. We can only speak of “men” and “women” because sex differences actually exist. Regarding the races, we know there are distinctions relating to skin color and hair, for example. It’s differences that make groups “groups.”
But are the differences only skin deep? Tay-Sachs disease is most common among Ashkenazi Jews, while sickle cell anemia is almost exclusive to people of Middle Eastern, Indian, Mediterranean and African heritage. Relative to American whites, American blacks generally have longer limbs, more sweat glands (and thus dissipate heat better), narrower pelvises and greater bone density; and black men have higher free testosterone levels than white men do. Not that it’s the focus of this article, but all these characteristics bring advantages and disadvantages.
Now, next question: Are the differences only neck high? If evolution is a reality, would its principles be operational with the body but, somehow, some way, be suspended with the brain? My, believing that would truly take faith.
Of course, whether nature, nurture or both — whether the tests are valid or not — the fact remains that we do see marked IQ differences among groups. Ashkenazi Jews score the highest of all, at 115 (the world average is currently about 88); this may explain why Jews are only 0.2 percent of the world’s population but were 22 percent of the 20th century’s Nobel Prize winners. Hong Kong and Singapore lead the country list with average IQs of 108, while many nations register far, far lower. Note that while good scientists may debate why these differences exist and how meaningful they are, that they exist is not in dispute.
Of course, some may quibble with the numbers I provided or the group differences I cited, but the details aren’t really the point. The point is, again, that evolution and Equality Dogma contradict one another. Embracing both is akin to believing it likely that on two different occasions, you could spin a giant bin with one million numbers in it, remove them randomly and put them in a row, and they would end up in the precise same order each time. Random processes yield variable results.
That is, unless you believe that God guided evolution. Even this belief, however, allows for the inequality that is the world’s apparent norm. How could this be? It’s simple: Equality is our hang-up — not God’s.
Is “equality” emphasized in any great, time-tested religious canon? It’s certainly only mentioned in the Bible in reference to weights and measures. In fact, Christian theology holds that in that perfect, sinless realm of happiness — Heaven — we will not all have equal glory, as St Thérèse of Liseaux once explained.
As for this fold, Hell on Earth is what Equality Dogma helps create. It has spawned perverted scientific priorities that deny Truth and demand ideological determinations. We’ve seen this before. The Soviet equality dogmatists did it with Lysenkoism, insisting that acquired traits could be inherited because Marxist ideology demanded a malleable human nature. The Nazi superiority dogmatists did it with their racial theories, believing in a “master race” that could become all the more masterful through selective breeding. And we’ve combined elements of both, demanding an unnatural and unattainable equality and measuring it by racial, ethnic and sexual representation in worldly endeavor.
In a saner time, Equality Dogma would be considered a vile heresy. The truth here isn’t hard to grasp: There are differences within groups, but there are also differences among groups. We know we mustn’t paint every individual with the same brush. Why would we paint every individual group with the same one?
One group we should paint over with the label “Rejected” is equality dogmatists. The McClatchy student’s scientific methods might very well have been shoddy, but this wasn’t what got his project scuttled. Rather, The Sacramento Bee article quoted individuals who said the it was “shocking” and its creator “closed-minded”; it spoke of how people felt “upset” and “unsafe and uneasy.” What’s notable is that no one quoted said the project’s conclusion was wrong or untrue.
Oh, if asked, the critics would surely bellow, “Well, of course it’s untrue!” But it’s no accident that they didn’t think to say it; in fact, this failure is typical today when fashionable emoters react to unfashionable science. These critics don’t think to call it untrue because the truth of the matter isn’t their focus. Ideology is.
It’s feelings over facts, emotion over education. But science doesn’t exist to make us feel good or bad; its purpose is the discovery of Truth via the scientific method. People who reject this, who subordinate Truth to agenda-driven lies, are dangerous to civilization. They also are hardly progressive — except insofar as they’re progressing toward ignorance.
http://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/iq-race.jpg360640Selwyn Dukehttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngSelwyn Duke2018-02-16 05:59:132018-02-16 06:15:18Race and IQ: A High School Science Fair Project Ignites a Storm
On Valentines Day 2018 Nikolas Cruz, a 19-year old, decided to enter his former high school and began slaughtering students and faculty. Does this scenario sound familiar? It should because we knew, as a society, this was going to happen over and over again. We did not listen to those sounding the alarm bells. We turned a blind eye, and because we did there is blood flowing in our public schools and worse. We blamed everything and everyone but ourselves for this blood shed.
How did this happen? Answer: God was taken out of our schools.
God was taken out of public schools by United States Supreme Court on June 25th, 1962. In 1989 researcher David Barton published a book titled “America, to pray or not to pray?”
It is impossible to know how many of the 39 million children were involved in daily verbal prayers, but most accounts indicate that a clear majority of the students voluntarily participated in daily school prayer.
Is it possible that the prayers that were being offered by these children and their teachers across the nation actually had any measurable, tangible effect?
The editorial staff of The Forerunner in 2008 published an op-ed titled “What Happened When the Praying Stopped.” The editorial staff looked at David Barton’s book and wrote about what Barton found in six areas:
Figure 1: SAT Total Scores. Basic data from the College Entrance Exam Board
Figure 1: The SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test) is an academic test that measures the developed verbal and math reasoning of a student exiting from high school or some similar type of learning facility. The results of these tests are commonly used by colleges and universities to indicate the strength of a student’s academic preparation and his potential for success on the college level.
Figure 1 shows how drastically the actual knowledge of high school students began to drop at an accelerating rate after 1962. Barton notes in his report that the upturn in SAT scores since 1981 is due to the increase in private Christian educational facilities which began to flourish at that time. Statistics have proven that students from private Christian schools showed higher academic achievement and higher test scores.
Figure 2: Percentage of U.S. Teenage Girls Who Have Had Pre-Marital Intercourse.
Figure 2: This graph shows the increase in sexual activity in unmarried teen-age girls after the 1962 Supreme Court decision. It is evident from the figures provided that in the years previous to the removal of prayer the rates remained stable and relatively unchanged. In the post- prayer years the numbers immediately began to soar. The sudden increase on the graph appears as if a great restraining force had suddenly been removed.
Figure 3: Unwed women 15-19 years of age showed a phenomenal increase in the rate of pregnancies after the School Prayer decision. Note that the figure jumps drastically after the Supreme Court’s Roe vs. Wade decision which made abortion legal in the U.S. The United States now has the highest incidence of teen-age motherhood in any Western country.
Figure 5: SINGLE PARENT HOUSEHOLDS. Female Head, No Spouse Present
Figure 4: For the 15-19 and 20-24 age group, the rates of youth suicide remained relatively unchanged during the years from 1946 to the School Prayer decision in 1962. But in the years since, suicides among the same group have increased 253 percent, or an average of 10.5 percent per year.
Figure 5: Stability in the family has also been affected since the 1962 decision. Divorce, single parent families, couples living together but not married, and adultery are areas of family breakdown which have experienced radical growth in recent years. In the graph above, the increase in single parent families (households with only a mother and children) are detailed. Note the dotted line at the bottom, which shows the rate of growth prior to the 1962 decision.
Figure 6: VIOLENT CRIME: Number of Offenses.
Figure 6: Crime, productivity, and national morality had been on a fairly stable level prior to the 1962 decision, but that is no longer the case. It is obvious that such a quantity of students praying for their nation had a very positive effect on the course that this nation had taken. The rate of violent crime, as shown above, has risen over 330 percent.
“One can argue, and some have, that the decision by the Supreme Court – in a series of three decisions back in 1962 and 1963 – to remove Bible and prayer from our public schools, may be the most spiritually significant event in our nation’s history over the course of the last 55 years,” Jeynes said.
[ … ]
Since 1963, Jeynes said there have been five negative developments in the nation’s public schools:
Academic achievement has plummeted, including SAT scores.
Increased rate of out-of-wedlock births
Increase in illegal drug use
Increase in juvenile crime
Deterioration of school behavior
Dr. Jeynes noted, “So we need to realize that these actions do have consequences. When we remove that moral fiber — that moral emphasis – this is what can result.”
Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision the top five complaints of teachers from 1940-1962 were talking, chewing gum, making noise, running in the halls and getting out of turn in line. Since 1963 the greater concerns are rape, robbery, assault, burglary and arson.
EDITORS NOTE: Nikolas Cruz has been identified as the alleged killer of 17 at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Broward County, FL. Cruz was “expelled from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School for unspecified disciplinary reasons.” Cruz was adopted by Lynda Cruz, a widow. Postings under the name Nikolas Cruz included threatening comments under videos on YouTube and other sites, including “I whana shoot people with my AR-15” (sic), “I wanna die Fighting killing s**t ton of people” and “I am going to kill law enforcement one day they go after the good people.”
http://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/god-1.jpg387640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2018-02-15 07:56:512018-02-21 15:14:27What is fundamentally wrong with our schools? Let us count the ways...
After much speculation pertaining to the Trump administration’s official policy on transgender restroom policies, a White House spokeswoman indicated that the U.S. Department of Education won’t investigate any complaints regarding transgender restroom policies.
Spokeswoman Liz Hill told BuzzFeed News that specific kinds of transgender complaints may be investigated, but no bathroom complaints will garner the Department of Education’s scrutiny.
“Long-standing regulations provide that separating facilities on the basis of sex is not a form of discrimination prohibited by Title IX,” Hill said, explaining that the department will continue investigating sex-based stereotypes and sex discrimination against transgender individuals, but will not devote resources to the slew of transgender bathroom cases.
“Until now, the official position of the department has been that Title IX protects all students and that they were evaluating how that protection applies to the issue of bathroom access,” said the chairwoman of the United States Commission on Civil Rights, Catherine Lhamon, who disagrees with Hill’s statement that the DOE isn’t required to include transgender restroom policies under Title IX.
“This new categorical bar of civil rights protection for transgender children required to attend schools every day ignores the text of the law, courts’ interpretation of the law, the stated position of the department to date, and human decency,” Lhamon said, according to BuzzFeed News. “That interpretation represents an appalling abdication of federal enforcement responsibility, inconsistent with the law and with courts’ interpretation of the law, and totally lacking in human compassion for children in school, whom the department is charged to protect.”
The Education Department’s announcement comes after the Trump administration revoked a vague Obama administration order that forced taxpayer-funded schools to allow transgender students to use the bathrooms and locker rooms of their choice.
“This is a states’ rights issue and not one for the federal government,” then-White House press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters in February 2017.
Montana is considering adopting a measure requiring people to use the bathroom and locker room of their biological sex. The Locker Room Privacy Act says Montana residents must use the bathrooms and locker rooms that correspond with their birth gender rather than their gender identity, according to the Missoulian.
Maryland schools adopted a new policy in November, however, allowing transgenders to use the bathrooms and locker rooms of their choice, according to The Washington Post.
A transgender student also won $800,000 from her Wisconsin high school in January after reaching a settlement in a lawsuit alleging staff had monitored her trips to the boys’ bathroom.
Ash Whitaker, who identifies as male, filed a lawsuit claiming that teachers had accompanied her to the boys’ bathroom and forced her to wear an identifying bracelet to single her out from other students. The Kenosha, Wisconsin, school board voted 5-2 to grant the $800,000 settlement.
A pro-family student organization at Georgetown University has received its donations back after an investigation of faculty and others who the group accused of misappropriating funds contributed to it.
The group, Love Saxa, said that Georgetown officials had taken private donations intended for it and deposited them into other student organizations’ accounts.
The organizations who received those funds hold views contrary to the Love Saxa mission. The money was reportedly deposited into LGBT-affiliated student groups’ accounts.
During the fall 2017 semester, some students at Georgetown were angered by Love Saxa’s pro-family messaging and called on the university to withdraw recognition of the group as an affiliate of the school.
After a thorough vetting of the club and its leaders by the university, Love Saxa remains an officially recognized student organization on campus.
Love Saxa’s views on marriage and family align with official Catholic teachings, and Georgetown has long been recognized as one of the most prestigious Catholic and Jesuit universities in the United States.
Proponents of the club agree that a student organization on a Catholic campus should be able to support Christian views on marriage without being threatened with having its organizational recognition revoked.
The group’s unusual name stems from Georgetown’s college chant “Hoya Saxa,” which translates as “what rocks.” Love Saxa means “love rocks.”
In a letter addressed to Georgetown’s president, John J. DeGioia, Love Saxa and its legal advocate, the Alliance Defending Freedom, called on the university to investigate the funding misappropriation matter, restore the donations, and hold the individuals responsible accountable.
There were three specific incidences of misappropriations of funds cited in the letter, written by Tyson Langhofer, director of the Alliance Defending Freedom’s Center for Academic Freedom. The Alliance Defending Freedom is a nonprofit focused on advocating, training, and funding on the issues of religious freedom, the sanctity of life, and marriage and family.
One example, from November 2017, cited an individual who sent a check for $50 to Love Saxa. The president of the student organization, Amelia Irvine, deposited the check with Georgetown officials. Yet, Love Saxa never received the funds.
To the contrary, the donor received a receipt from Georgetown showing that the donation had been credited to the LGBTQ Resource Center reserve.
The other two examples of misappropriations of funds showed the money being appropriated to similar LGBTQ resources and organizations.
“In light of the sustained mistreatment of Love Saxa throughout this academic year, now is the time for transparency and accountability,” Langhofer wrote. “While we desire to resolve this matter amicably, Georgetown needs to demonstrate its commitment to integrity through its actions.”
Asked about the matter, a Georgetown university spokesperson sent the following statement to the Daily Signal:
All gifts to Love Saxa have been identified and deposited to Love Saxa’s account. When the university receives a gift designated by a donor for a student group with access to benefits, the gifts are allocated with a designated worktag that ensures they reach the intended recipient.
Because a fall 2017 gift was the first donation of its kind to Love Saxa, no established path existed.
As always in these cases, we corrected the mistakes, have developed a path to ensure that funds are routed properly in the future, and have communicated to the student group and the donors that the gifts have been properly allocated.
http://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/LoveSaxa-1250x650-e1518570322363.gif380640The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2018-02-13 20:05:322018-02-13 20:12:23Georgetown University Pro-Family Group Gets Back Money Wrongly Given to LGBT Organizations
Svetlana Powell was dismissed from the T2 Apprenticeship Academy in Bristol in July 2016 after leaders at the government-funded college said students had been offended by comments the teacher made.
Bristol Employment Tribunal heard that a pupil who was being persistently disruptive brought up Mrs. Powell’s religion and proceeded to quiz her on her personal beliefs in an “argumentative” way, LifeSiteNews reported.
Asked her views on homosexuality, the teacher said that as a Christian, she “personally” believed homosexual activity was against the Lord’s will, but that God loves every person regardless of their sexual preference.
The same student, who had been warned about his misbehaviour throughout the day, told Mrs. Powell that another pupil in the class was a lesbian, to which the teacher replied that God loved her.
Two days later, Mrs. Powell, a teacher of some 17 years experience, learned she was fired for “gross misconduct”, and that she would not be allowed to appeal her dismissal.
Chief Safeguarding Officer at the college, Sian Prigg, told the tribunal students complained that they were “brainwashed and preached to” during the incident, prompting her to report Mrs. Powell to the government’s counter-terrorism strategy, Prevent.
The Christian Legal Centre (CLC), which is supporting the educator in suing the T2 Academy for loss of earnings, said Mrs. Powell was fired because of her Christian beliefs, comparing her dismissal to how the college dealt with complaints against a teacher described as an “outspoken left-wing atheist”.
CLC lawyer Pavel Stroilov told the court that Andrew Spargo continues to teach at the college despite having been reported by pupils as spending most of his time in class “preaching to them on the daily basis about how terrible England is and how many innocent people the government has killed, as well as why Jesus never existed”.
He added: “By contrast, Mrs Powell was dismissed on the spot for much milder comments. In my submission, we have proven today that this was because her views are Christian.”
The case represents a “worrying trend” in Britain, according to barrister and CEO of the CLC, Andrea Williams, who commented: “The fact that Svetlana was reported to Prevent for holding Christian views is a sign of our times.
“It shows how Prevent will be used to punish innocent and soft targets. A radical rethink is required.”
UKIP education spokesman David Kurten told Breitbart London the case is symptomatic of increasing discrimination against Christians in UK schools at a time when militant activists are “becoming tyrannical in seeking to eradicate opinions which fail to celebrate every aspect of LGBT-ism”.
Have you ever heard of “Social emotional learning” (SEL)? It’s the new fad in public schools that has permeated education policy. Proponents of SEL claim that injecting the SEL agenda into all pre-k and K12 curricula will cultivate in children the attitudes, feelings, and behaviors necessary for academic achievement, such as empathy and regulation of emotions.
In an FRC Speaker Series event, Senior Contributor to The Federalist Stella Morabito revealed how SEL is presented with a veneer of building kids’ self-confidence, but in reality is a form of groupthink through the regulation of personal interactions and relationships. The SEL model is taught in a way that requires total compliance with its methods, including the monitoring and tracking of students’ emotions. As Morabito pointed out, those pushing the SEL agenda have fallen into the trap of a collectivist utopianism that believes that if only the government were able to teach everyone the “right way” of thinking, everyone will be equally happy.
In reality, the SEL agenda enforces conformity, it invades privacy, and it undermines the influence of family and faith in a child’s life.
Instead of promoting strong relationships, as SEL proponents claim, the SEL agenda serves more to isolate children through a program of peer-modeled behavior modification that manipulates the human fear of being socially rejected. The SEL model makes almost no mention of the primary mediating institutions that form us as human beings: family, church, and civic institutions. Instead, it pushes conditioned emotional reflexes over open and honest discussion. The result of this misguided philosophy is readily apparent in how many in our society now behave — in a mush of emotional sensitivities that are easily “triggered” whenever a contrary opinion is encountered.
How can we respond and fight against this “social emotional learning” movement?
Morabito suggests that freethinkers should strengthen their support networks and spread awareness through outreach to those who are not informed on the dangers of SEL. As French philosopher and sociologist Jacques Ellul said, “Propaganda ends where simple dialogue begins.”
Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.
http://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Social-emotional-learning.jpg397636Family Research Councilhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFamily Research Council2018-02-06 19:03:302018-02-06 19:08:46VIDEO: The Social Engineering Agenda of 'Social Emotional Learning'
I write with regards to growing foreign influence operations of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in the United States, particularly in our academic institutions. There is mounting concern about the Chinese government’s increasingly aggressive attempts to use “Confucius Institutes” and other means to influence foreign academic institutions and critical analysis of China’s past history and present policies. Additionally, the PRC continues its efforts to interfere in multilateral institutions, threaten and intimidate rights defenders and their families, and impose censorship mechanisms on foreign publishers and social media companies. For reasons outlined below, I respectfully urge you to consider terminating your Confucius Institute agreement.
Confucius Institutes are Chinese government-run programs that use the teaching of Chinese language and culture as a tool to expand the political influence of the PRC. In November 2011, Li Changchun, a former member of the Standing Committee of the Politburo, the highest body of the Chinese Communist Party, stated in a speech at the Beijing Headquarters of the Confucius Institute:
“The Confucius Institute is an appealing brand for extending our culture abroad. It has made an important contribution toward improving our soft power. The ‘Confucius’ brand has a natural attractiveness. Using the excuse of teaching Chinese language, everything looks reasonable and logical.”
There are presently more than 100 Confucius Institutes, in addition to Confucius Classrooms at the K-12 level in the United States, including several in the state of Florida. These institutes are overseen by a branch of the Chinese Ministry of Education, and are instructed to only teach versions of Chinese history, culture or current events that are explicitly approved by the Chinese Government and Communist Party. As the American Association of University Professors noted in a June 2014 report:
“Confucius Institutes function as an arm of the Chinese state and are allowed to ignore academic freedom. Their academic activities are under the supervision of Hanban, a Chinese state agency which is chaired by a member of the Politburo and the vice-premier of the People’s Republic of China. Most agreements establishing Confucius Institutes feature nondisclosure clauses and unacceptable concessions to the political aims and practices of the government of China. Specifically, North American universities permit Confucius Institutes to advance a state agenda in the recruitment and control of academic staff, in the choice of curriculum, and in the restriction of debate.”
Moreover, Confucius Institute instructors are almost always hired in China and trained by the Chinese Ministry of Education without any of the same employment and hiring protections that exist in the United States. Much more difficult to measure but no less insidious, however, is the self-censorship that often takes place in academic settings where there is a Chinese government presence in the form of a Confucius Institute. University of Chicago professor Marshall Sahlins has called Confucius Institutes “academic malware” because they represent and reflect decidedly illiberal views of education and academic freedom. We know from multiple reports that topics, such as the status of Tibet and Taiwan, the fourth of June 1989 at Tiananmen Square, Falun Gong, and universal human rights, are off-limits at these institutes.
In a 2017 report titled, “Outsourced to China: Confucius Institutes and Soft Power in American Higher Education,” the National Association of Scholars found that “to a large extent, universities have made improper concessions that jeopardize academic freedom and institutional autonomy. Sometimes these concessions are official and in writing; more often they operate as implicit policies.”
In turn, a growing number of universities have already cut ties with Confucius Institutes:
In 2014, the University of Chicago suspended negotiations to renew its agreement to host a Confucius Institute following a petition signed by more than 100 faculty members raising concerns.
Days later, Pennsylvania State University cut ties with its Confucius Institute, noting: “Several of our goals are not consistent with those of the Office of Chinese Languages Council International, known as the Hanban, which provides support to Confucius Institutes throughout the world.” 
Ontario’s McMaster University shuttered its Confucius Institute in 2013 after a former instructor alleged that the university was “giving legitimization to discrimination” because her contract with Hanban prohibited her participation in Falun Gong.
Indeed, as Politico reported in “How China Infiltrated U.S. Classrooms” (January 16, 2018): “The American Association of University Professors, America’s leading professorial guild, also recommended in 2014 that ‘universities cease their involvement in Confucius Institutes unless the agreement between the university and Hanban is renegotiated,’ so that the universities have unilateral control over the curriculum and faculty, Confucius faculty have the same rights of free inquiry as their fellow teachers, and contracts between Hanban and the partner universities are made public.”
I remain deeply concerned by the proliferation of Confucius Institutes and Confucius Classrooms in the United States. Given China’s aggressive campaign to “infiltrate” American classrooms, stifle free inquiry, and subvert free expression both at home and abroad, I respectfully urge you to consider terminating your Confucius Institute agreement. Should you have any questions or concerns please do hesitate to contact my office for further discussion.
Thank you for your time and attention to this important matter.
The Collier County School District voted in November to join a lawsuit alongside other Florida county schools board, claiming that the Florida Legislature violated the constitutional rights of the school boards to “operate the free public schools.”
Specifically, the School Board challenges the Florida Legislature’s right to create a system of “schools of hope” during the 2017 session, whereby failing public schools may now be converted into charter schools so that the students of this state have a better chance of receiving a quality education through new leadership. Apparently, the Legislature has found that “schools of hope” have actually worked elsewhere throughout the United States, and wants to give students of failing schools that same chance here in Florida.
In a carpetbagging Motion to Intervene, the Collier County School Board asserted a right to now join the lawsuit previously filed by the Alachua County School Board and other school boards, sanctimoniously regurgitating legal arguments already made by other lawyers. The Motion to Intervene is linked here:
The lawsuit pits a battle between the competing but co-equal constitutional authority of the school boards and the Florida Legislature:
Florida Constitution Art. IX, Sect. 4(b) empowers the various school boards to “operate the free public schools.” This has been construed to mean grades K-12.
Florida Constitution Art. IX, Section 1(a) empowers the Florida Legislature to create a “uniform…high quality system of free public schools that allows students to obtain a high quality education.” it also empowers the Legislature’s “establishment, maintenance, and operation of institutions of higher learning and other public education programs that the needs of the people may require.”
The battle before the court is whether the establishment of “schools of hope” intrudes upon the School District’s right to “operate the free public schools,” or alternatively whether the Legislature can critically analyze the various school districts’ failure to meet the educational needs of all students of this state, and thus legislatively create a statewide “schools of hope” option under its constitutional authority to create a “uniform high quality system of free public schools” so that all students have a chance to “obtain a high quality education.”
This will be an interesting legal debate, since the law provides that different sections of the Florida Constitution are to be construed “in pari materia,” meaning “equally.” The court will have to balance these overlapping constitutional powers. Expect this one to end up before the Florida Supreme Court.
What is interesting to this author, though, is the hypocrisy of the Collier County School Board.
In its Motion to Intervene, the School Board argues that its constitutional rights are violated because the Legislature’s new “schools of hope” create a “dual or even multiple system of public education.” But nothing in the Florida Constitution or Statutes prohibits a dual system of public education. Rather, the Legislature is constitutionally empowered to create a “uniform” system of public education. “Uniformity” does not necessarily prohibit having a “dual” system, as long as that dual system is uniform statewide.
So here’s where the school board’s hypocrisy is on display…..One area of Florida’s Education Code where there is clearly a strict requirement for a “single system” of education is with Florida’s colleges. The Florida Legislature has provided that there shall be a “single Florida College system.” Fla. Stat. 1001.60. It then defines by name all of the 28 state colleges. Fla. Stat. 1000.21(3). For instance, for Collier County, the designated state college is Florida Southwestern State College. The Legislature then provides that the term “college” can only be used in those state colleges’ name if they meet certain criteria. Fla. Stat. 1001.60(2)(b). And lest there be any remaining doubt, the Legislature states that no other institutions may use the term “college,” individually or in combination with any other letters or words. Fla. Stat. 1005.03.
Despite these clear directives from the Legislature, in 2015 the Collier County School Board changed the name of its “institutes of technology” to “technical Colleges”:
Lorenzo Walker Institute of Technology became “Lorenzo Walker Technical College.”
Immokalee Technical Center became “Immokalee Technical College.”
The Florida Legislature has the sole authority to legislate requirements for the establishment “state colleges” and “postsecondary institutions” because they fall within the Legislature’s constitutional authority to create “institutions of higher learning and other public education programs that the needs of the people may require.” The Collier County School Board has no constitutional authority here because these are tuition-charging institutions and thus do not fall within the “free public schools” operated by school boards under their constitutional authority. Thus, the Florida Legislature alone has the authority to create a “single Florida College System,” and the Collier County School Board must abide by the Legislature’s statutory mandates.
The Collier County School Board — alongside many other school boards throughout the state — have effectively thumbed their noses at the Legislature, establishing an illegal “dual Florida College system,” by creating a statewide system of “technical colleges” which are not really colleges at all.
So note the irony here. The Collier County School Board wants to sue the Florida Legislature for creating a “dual or multiple system of public education” despite no specific prohibition against that; but the Collier County School Board is operating a “dual Florida College system” in direct contravention of the Legislature’s statutory prohibitions.
That, my friends, is hypocrisy.
Might the Collier County School Board also be committing fraud?
Students attending these career centers may think they are getting a college education, but they are not. When the Collier County School Board voted to change the name of its technical centers to “technical colleges” back in 2015, it was with the specific stated intent to have post-secondary students now go to a “college.” The school district presented a Powerpoint showing how more students will enroll if it is called a “college.” They posted a video testamentary about a student who was pleased that her hard work at the career center is more recognized now that she is attending a “college.”
Steve Bracci, of B&B, has repeatedly placed the School Board on notice about this “technical college” issue, and thus the district cannot deny its knowledge and intent. These notices include:
Public comment to the School Board on January 22, 2018:
Powerpoint presentation to the School Board, asking by what authority the District is operating “technical colleges” [Click here for Powerpoint]
It is the opinion of this author that the Collier County School Board may want to gird its loins for a possible class action lawsuit for “fraud” or “deceptive trade practices” when these students realize that they were deceived into paying tuition to the Collier County School Board for a “college” education at a so-called technical college, which is really no college at all.
Huh…so Erick Carter has now retroactively become a “college graduate?” Does that mean the Collier County School Board created decades-worth of college grads in one day, simply by changing the name of its career centers to “technical colleges” in contravention of Florida statutes?
What say you, Board?
And how about you, Mr. Carter? Are you now a college grad?
http://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/collier-county-school-logo.jpg394639Bolduc & Braccihttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngBolduc & Bracci2018-02-04 07:28:442018-02-04 07:29:10The Hypocritical, Sanctimonious Indignation of the Collier County School District
In her first major policy address of 2018, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos criticized the education policies of the Obama and Bush administrations, and laid out plans for the future of education reform.
DeVos has made school choice and reducing the role of the federal government in education two of her priorities as the Trump administration’s education chief. She also is working toward fulfilling President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign promise to end Common Core—the education initiative that outlines what students should know in math and language arts at the end of each year of K-12 schooling.
“I agree—and have always agreed—with President Trump on this: Common Core is a disaster,” DeVos said in recent remarks at the American Enterprise Institute.
“And at the U.S. Department of Education, Common Core isdead,” DeVos added.
“It’s about educational freedom,” she said, expressing support for school choice. Opponents of school choice could repeal every state and local school choice measure, but it “wouldn’t go away,” she said. “There would still be school choices … for the affluent and the powerful.”
DeVos said the “federal first” approach did not start with the federal No Child Left Behind law under President George W. Bush and noted how the federal government created the Department of Education under President Jimmy Carter in the late 1970s. She said federal mandates “distort” what the education system should be, which is “a trusting relationship between teacher, parent, and student.”
Even with the creation of the federal Education Department, she said, most classrooms today look “remarkably similar” to those of 1938, the year the American Enterprise Institute was founded. “Our societies and economies have moved beyond the industrial era, but the data tell us education hasn’t,” she said, contrasting it with how retail has changed over the past 80 years, from general stores to websites.
Each time the federal government has passed education reform legislation, such as with No Child Left Behind, which “did little to spark higher scores,” it has not changed “the system,” DeVos said. “Each attempt has really just been a new coat of paint on the same old wall.”
It’s not just the amount of education funding, either, DeVos said. “The fact is the United States spends more per pupil than most other developed countries, many of which perform better than us in the same surveys.”
Additionally, the Obama administration’s School Improvement Grants, which sought to fix targeted schools by “injecting them with cash,” cost $7 billion with little to show for it.
DeVos didn’t knock all of President Barack Obama’s policies, however. She said the Every Student Succeeds Act “charted a path in a new direction” and “is a good step in the right direction, but it’s just that—a step.”
DeVos said she thinks equal access to a quality education “should be a right for every American, and every parent should have the right to choose how their child is educated.”
She added, “I trust parents and teachers, and I believe in students.”
EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos speaking during a rally to promote the importance of school choice as part of National School Choice Week, in Washington on Jan. 18. (Photo: Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call)
ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center (“TMLC”), a national nonprofit public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, filed a federal lawsuit yesterday evening in the New Jersey District Court against several officials and teachers of the Chatham Middle School and the School District of the Chathams, located in New Jersey.
The lawsuit, claiming several violations of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, was filed on behalf of Libby Hilsenrath and her minor son. Seventh-grade students at Chatham Middle School were forced to endure Islamic propaganda and an explicit call to convert to Islam through a disturbing set of videos in their World Cultures and Geography class.
TMLC’s affiliated New Jersey attorney, Michael Hrycak, filed the lawsuit. TMLC staff attorney, Kate Oliveri, the principle drafter of the federal complaint, observed: “The Board of Education and other Defendants are waging a war against the religious protections afforded by the First Amendment. They attack religious liberty by enticing young school children with a direct call to convert to Islam and providing a step-by-step guide on how to effect that conversion.”
One of the videos, linked in this press release, seeks to convert students to Islam and is filled with the Islamic religious beliefs presented as facts, as well as pure Islamic propaganda. This five-minute video ends with the prayer “May God help us all find the true faith, Islam. Ameen.”
This video includes the following phrases as facts:
“Allah is the one God who created the heavens and the earth, who has no equal and is all powerful.”
“Muhammad (Peace be upon him) is the last & final Messenger of God. God gave him the Noble Quran.”
“Lo, We have sent thee (O Muhammad) with the truth, a bringer of glad tidings and a warner.”
“What is the Noble Quran? Divine Revelation sent to Muhammad (S) last Prophet of Allah. A Perfect guide for Humanity.”
“The Noble Quran: Guidance, Mercy and Blessing for all Mankind.”
“The Noble Quran: Without any doubt and an eloquent guide from Allah.”
“The Beautiful Quran: Guidance for the wise & sensible.”
“Islam: A shining beacon against the darkness of repression, segregation, intolerance and racism . . .”
This propaganda video also contains excerpts from the Quran stating that Islam is “perfected” religion and the only religion for mankind. And it ends with a call to conversion: “May God help us all find the true faith, Islam.”
However, just as shocking is the background music which includes the poem “Qaseedah Burdah” in Arabic, describing Christians and Jews as “infidels” and praising Muhammad in gruesome detail for slaughtering them:
“He [Muhammad] kept on encountering with them (infidels) in every battle until they looked like meat put on butcher’s bench (they were the lesson for those who were willing to encounter with the Muslims)” (parenthetical in original).
“It is as though the religion of Islam was a guest that visited every house of those (infidels and was) extremely desirous for the flesh of enemy. . .” (parenthetical in original).
“(The Muslims made their) white shining swords red (with the blood of infidels) after they were plunged; (and the majority of) enemies were having black hair (i.e., most of them were young).” (parenthetical in original).
Seventh-grade students were also instructed to view a subtle propaganda cartoon video, 5 Pillars, which included bright, multi-colored words quoting the Islamic conversion creed: “There is no god except Allah and Prophet Muhammad is His messenger.” The video concludes with text containing contact information for the students of Chatham Middle School to set up their own mosque tour.
Clearly, seventh graders were given a sugarcoated, false depiction of Islam. They were not informed of the kidnappings, beheadings, slave-trading, massacres, and persecution of non-Muslims, nor of the repression of women — all done in the name of Islam.
Richard Thompson, TMLC President and Chief Counsel remarked, “What would people say if our public schools taught Christianity as the true faith? After watching this video, I can’t imagine any reasonable person saying this is not Islamic indoctrination. Chatham Middle School made a mockery of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.”
Continued Thompson, “When Libby Hilsenrath brought her concerns to the school board’s attention, on February 6, 2017, they were disregarded. And when she appeared on the Tucker Carlson Show on February 20, 2017 to express her concerns to the Nation, the school community pilloried her. Clueless school administrators across our Nation are allowing this type of indoctrination to take place, and it’s up to vigilant and courageous parents like Libby Hilsenrath to stop it.”
Because of Libby Hilsenrath’s attempts to get the Board of Education to remove the videos and end the Islamic indoctrination of her son and the other seventh-grade students, she was subjected to a barrage of personal attacks from her own community: “hateful,” “ignorant,” “intolerant,” “racist,” “closed minded,” and the list goes on. These attacks significantly intensified after she appeared on the Tucker Carlson Show.
http://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/chatham-middle-school-new-jersey-2-e1516817178539.jpg388640Thomas More Law Centerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThomas More Law Center2018-01-24 13:01:152018-01-24 13:08:29New Jersey Middle School Sued For Instructing Students Islam Is The 'True Faith'
The right to choose where your kids attend school should be common sense. But for too long, it’s something too many parents have been denied for their children.
Thankfully, we live in a day when access to education choice is gaining ground. More kids across our country are now being freed from broken schools and have the chance to select schools that meet their needs, setting them on a course to achieve their own dreams.
That is progress worth celebrating, and it’s why I am celebrating National School Choice Week. To have played a part in fighting for school choice has been a true privilege.
As an advocate for school choice, I’ve followed many families whose children found success. One of the students I’ve stayed close to is Tiffany Dunston.
I first met Tiffany and her grandmother when they attended an information session about a scholarship that would allow Tiffany to attend a better school that would nurture her. I remember chatting with a mature 13-year-old girl whose eyes sparkled as she talked about doing well in school and making her family proud.
Immediately, I knew that the future would be bright for this young girl.
That hope of a scholarship turned into a reality for Tiffany in 2004. Congress had approved the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, providing scholarships to children from low-income families (like Tiffany), which enabled them to attend a private school of choice.
I saw Tiffany again that year and learned that she had received a scholarship through the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program and was enrolled at Archbishop Carroll High School.
Tiffany had grown into a lovely young woman who was thriving as a freshman at Carroll. I was delighted to see her and so many other students excelling who had benefited from the same scholarship option.
Tiffany went on to graduate as valedictorian from Carroll in 2008, and received a scholarship to Syracuse University. I prayed that this young woman would do well and accomplish her dreams there. And she did.
Not only did she thrive at Syracuse, but after receiving her bachelor’s degree in biochemistry, she was accepted into a doctoral program. Tiffany received her doctorate in chemistry one year ago and is now working at Johns Hopkins University as a post-doctoral research fellow in oncology.
Tiffany Dunston, left, stands with Virginia Walden Ford, right. (Photo: Virginia Walden Ford)
Tiffany’s journey has not only brought joy to my heart—it has made the hard work of fighting for school choice worth every second. And there are countless other children like Tiffany who stand to benefit from expanding school choice across our nation.
National School Choice Week is a time for us to rejoice over stories like Tiffany’s, and also look forward to a day when every child in America will have the doors of education opened wide to them. Our movement is winning. Let’s keep winning more.
Virginia Walden Ford Virginia is a national board member and a founding member of The Black Alliance for Educational Options, Inc. She also serves on the D.C. Advisory Committee of the US Civil Rights Commission, and serves as executive director of D.C. Parents for School Choice, Inc. which she founded in 1998.
http://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/GirlWriting-1250x650-e1516794539279.jpg385640The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2018-01-24 06:49:072018-01-24 20:15:52School Choice Helped This Girl Escape a Broken School, Then Become Valedictorian
The Humanitarian Hoax is a deliberate and deceitful tactic of presenting a destructive policy as altruistic. The humanitarian huckster presents himself as a compassionate advocate when in fact he is the disguised enemy.
Obama, the humanitarian huckster-in-chief, weakened the United States for eight years presenting his crippling Common Core advocacy as altruistic when in fact it was designed for destruction. His legacy, the Leftist Democrat Party with its “Resistance” movement, is the party of the Humanitarian Hoax attempting to destroy the capitalist infrastructure of American democracy and replace it with socialism.
Common Core is a deliberate information war targeting American children. It is a deceitful campaign to undermine established American Judeo-Christian cultural norms celebrating patriotism, the meritocracy, and American sovereignty. The Leftist/Islamist axis is promoting collectivism in preparation for one-world government. This is how it works.
Serious educational reform enacted by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 was designed to provide high standards and measurable goals to improve individual outcomes in education. Federal funding was correlated to test performance. Rather than improving education the net effect of NCLB was education reformatted to teach to the tests. Education critic Alfie Kohn argued that the “NCLB law is ‘unredeemable’ and should be scrapped – its main effect has been to sentence poor children to an endless regimen of test-preparation drills.” There were loud calls for reform.
Enter Common Core State Standards (CCSS) launched under Obama in 2009 deceptively marketed by a propaganda campaign emphasizing the positive benefits of national standards and uniformity in curriculum guidelines with measurable effectiveness for American public education K-12. Common Core State Standards (CCSS) are mistakenly understood to be a derivative of the No Child Left Behind Act – they aren’t.
Obama’s 2009 Race To The Top program was introduced as a competitive grant program that awarded points to states for satisfying performance-based evaluations of teachers and principals based on measures of educator effectiveness. Sound familiar? It should because measurable effectiveness = student test scores. Even though Race to the Top did not mandate adoption of Common Core, to receive federal stimulus money states had to “commit” to adopting Common Core standards. Forty-two states now operate public and private education under the Common Core program.
So, what makes Common Core a humanitarian hoax? Let’s review.
“The Common Core State Standards provide a consistent, clear understanding of what students are expected to learn, so teachers and parents know what they need to do to help them. The standards are designed to be robust and relevant to the real world, reflecting the knowledge and skills that our young people need for success in college and careers. With American students fully prepared for the future, our communities will be best positioned to compete successfully in the global economy. . . These Standards do not dictate curriculum or teach methods.”
Sounds great. The problem is the deceptive language referring to the “real world” the “global economy” and the misleading statement that the Standards do not dictate curriculum or teaching methods. This is how it works.
Priority 1: Put Every Child in School
Priority 2: Improve the Quality of Learning
Priority 3: Foster Global Citizenship
It is Priority #3 that is most problematic and the basis for the humanitarian hoax of Common Core.
Obama’s Common Core is not teaching American children about the world and how to be effective and competitive in a global marketplace. Obama’s deceitful Common Core initiative is propagandizing American children toward collectivism, globalism, and one-world government with its anti-American, anti-Judeo-Christian, pro-Islamic bias. American public/private education no longer advocates American patriotism, the meritocracy, American exceptionalism, or American sovereignty. America is no longer in control of American education. This is how it happened.
Obama’s infamous Cairo speech launched an eight-year initiative Connect All Schools that was fraudulently presented as a program to help different people who believe different things be able to communicate and understand one another.
Bethany Blankley’s stunning 4/2015 article exposes Obama’s Common Core as “originating from the One World Education concept, a global goal orchestrated by the Connect All Schools program to globalize instruction. Its origin is funded by the Qatar Foundation International (QFI). The director of QFI’s Research Center for Islamic Legislation and Ethics is Tariq Ramadan, grandson of Muslim Brotherhood founder, Hassan al-Banna.”
World Net Daily WND reported that in 2011 Qatar Foundation International “partnered with the Department of State and the U.S. Department of Education to facilitate matchmaking between classrooms in the U.S. and international schools through. . . the ‘Connect All Schools’ project.” QFI proudly states on its website that the initiative was founded in response to Mr. Obama’s 2009 Cairo speech with the Muslim Brotherhood prominently seated in the front row.
The conspiracy of the Leftist/Islamist axis to re-educate American children away from America-first patriotism toward global governance and Islam is well underway and well funded.
Why is your global presence limited to a select few countries?
While QFI’s mission is dedicated to connecting cultures and advancing global citizenship through education, our current focus is K-12 public and charter schools in the United States, Canada, and Brazil. To find out if a school near you is a QFI partner, see our map to find other resources that may help your child learn Arabic, visit Al Masdar.
Most parents have no idea what their children are learning in school unless their child asks for help with homework or relates an experience at school. Parents in any of the 42 states that have adopted Common Core State Standards need to start reading their children’s textbooks immediately. It is up to parents to decide if they support American sovereignty and fair trade in the global marketplace or if they support global citizenship and a globalized curriculum promoting one-world government. It is a matter of informed consent.
The United Nations Agenda 21 is a plan for a New World Order that internationalizes the entire world into a global society under its own UN global governance for our own good of course. Its lofty Preamble reads like the lyrics of John Lennon’s song “Imagine.” In the old days power grabbers for world domination were not so soft spoken. Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini did not sing lullabies of peace – but this is the 21st century and requires a different approach. We have “Imagine” and the updated 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
The Culture War is an insidious information war being waged on America through the political correctness, moral relativism, and historical revisionism embodied in the informational materials supplied by the pro-globalism enemies of national sovereignty at the UN. Stealth jihad is quietly being fought in classrooms with the educational propaganda of the World Core Curriculum – not with bullets or airplanes.
In 1989 the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) awarded its prize for peace education to the father of global education and creator of the World Core Curriculum (WCC) Robert Muller. He accepted his award saying, “I dream that UNESCO will study and recommend by the year 2000 a world core curriculum for adoption by all nations.”
Why is a world core curriculum desirable? Most people understand the mission of the United Nations to be promotion of mutual respect and understanding between sovereign nations with differing cultures. Were we mistaken or mislead? Was the goal of the UN always universal citizenship? Muller says, “In the final analysis… the main function of education is to make children happy, fulfilled, and universal human beings.” Universal human beings?? Really?
In November, 2010 Obama’s Secretary of Education Arne Duncan addressed UNESCO praising universal education without ever mentioning educational content. Educating the world’s children is a laudable goal. Putting every child in school and improving the quality of learning is an altruistic undertaking. The problem is that most people naively assume universal education advances literacy and do not realize it is a propaganda tool designed to advance global governance. It is a humanitarian hoax.
In a world of technology where hard copy books are increasingly being replaced with software and lessons taught on computers it is incredibly simple to alter, censor, and manipulate original texts. Having the world’s children literate and able to read about the world to better understand other cultures and live together in peace is not the same thing as having the children of the world literate to be propagandized by manipulated curriculum content.
There are 193 member states in the United Nations and only 86 are full-fledged democracies. The G77 has 134 members (69% of member states) and functions to advance the economic well-being of the Third World. It should surprise no one that UN educational objectives are in conflict with traditional American educational objectives.
Curriculum content for American educational materials must be developed by Americans for Americans with an unapologetic America-first foundation. Parents endorsing the Common Core State Standards are unwittingly endorsing the pro-Muslim anti-American globalized educational products designed by British publishing giant Pearson Education. Pearson Education supplies educational materials to Connect All Schools.
When the UK froze Muammar Gaddafi’s assets in 2011 The Sovereign Fund of Libya had a 3.27% stake in Pearson. Libya was the second largest shareholder in Pearson Education. CAIR, designated a terrorist organization by the United Arab Emirates, was also an investor. The anti-American, anti-Semitic, pro-Muslim Pearson educational products must not be allowed to propagandize American students.
Words matter. It is essential that Americans understand what one-world government global citizenship means in the Arab world. To Qatar and the Islamic world it means the re-establishment of the Islamic caliphate that rules the world under religious Islamic sharia law. It is equally important for Americans to understand what one-world government means to the secular globalist elite.
Secular one-world government was described in chilling detail 65 years ago by English aristocrat Lord Bertrand Russell in his alarming book, The Impact of Science on Society. Neither the secular nor the religious version of one-world government is the fulfillment of John Lennon’s iconic song “Imagine.” Both are regressive returns to feudal infrastructures consisting of the few ruling masters, the mass of ruled slaves, and an army of soldiers to enforce the pyramid. Both see the United Nations as the instrument for imposition and management of their own version of global governance.
If American parents do not become actively involved in discovering what their children are learning in school they will be unable to oppose the radical education initiative currently transforming the children of the world into “green” or “global citizens” prepared for the New World Order. The humanitarian hoax of Common Core will successfully propagandize American children to reject American citizenship and become citizens of a world dictated and governed by the United Nations. Ignorance is not bliss and willful blindness is not a position of strength – it is submission.
http://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/common-core-scandal.jpg370640Linda Goudsmithttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngLinda Goudsmit2018-01-14 18:35:292018-01-14 18:35:29The Humanitarian Hoax of Common Core: Killing America With Kindness
By Cathy Ruse, FRC’s Senior Fellow for Legal Studies
Amy Ellis Nutt
A Northern Virginia public school held a school-wide assembly before Christmas break featuring transgender crusader Amy Ellis Nutt. George Mason High School in the City of Falls Church brought in Nutt, a Washington Post reporter, to lecture students on her book Becoming Nicole, about a boy who “identified” as a girl as a toddler, had his puberty suppressed as a child, and was castrated as a teenager.
Nutt’s lecture hit all the usual notes. Your gender is “assigned at birth” by people who might get it wrong. Toddlers can be transgender. Moray eels change sex and female reef fish produce sperm when there are no males. “Gender is a spectrum,” everyone must get “comfortable” with new gender language that is “changing every day.” Asking a biological boy to use the teachers’ rather than the girls’ restroom is “bullying.”
Did the school make plain to the students that they could decline to attend? That’s not clear. In her presentation, Nutt quipped: “Thank you for coming, although I know you’re probably required to be here.”
Nor is it clear whether parents were fully informed about the assembly in advance. At least one shocked George Mason teacher, who remains anonymous, says parents were not.
What does seem clear is that this public school will not hold another school-wide assembly featuring other views on the issue: such as first-person accounts of the negative consequences of “transitioning,” health warnings from pediatricians and other medical experts, or condemnation from the feminist community, from which the term “female erasure” has sprung to describe the transgender program.
Transgender ideology in children is extremely controversial, not least because so many children who experience gender dysphoria later desist and accept their natal biology. According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition (DSM-5) as many as 98% of boys and 88% of girls will “grow out of” their gender dysphoria and accept their biological sex after naturally passing through puberty.
There is no medical or psychological test to show which 2% of those boys will persist in their gender dysphoria as young adults. Protocols that encourage school-wide affirmation of every case of gender dysphoria could impede the overwhelming majority of children from accepting their natal biology, as well as sow confusion in other vulnerable children.
There has been a spate of articles in recent weeks on the phenomenon of “rapid onset” gender dysphoria in teen girls, thought to be a “social contagion” like anorexia 30 years ago. Details of these cases reported by therapists are heartbreaking.
At the end of the talk, Nutt was asked two student questions, written on index cards.
“What is gender dysphoria and how does the transgender community respond to the idea that they are glorifying the mental health condition known as gender dysphoria?”
That was a good question, and evidence that at least one student at George Mason has held on to his critical thinking skills.
Nutt’s answer was not good: “Gender dysphoria is not a mental health condition,” she said, continuing:
It is included in the DSM, which is the bible of mental illnesses, of psychiatrists, but only because gender dysphoria isn’t the inability or confusion of a transgender child to understand why they are the way they are, it’s the failure for [sic] other people to understand that. It’s the confusion that comes because of the cultural misconceptions and not being able to fit into that.
So a person is diagnosed because other people are confused? It’s in “the bible of mental illnesses” because it’s a healthy condition that the culture doesn’t understand? Now I am confused.
The DSM defines gender dysphoria in children as “clinically significant distress” from “a marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and assigned gender” manifested by, among other things, “a strong dislike of one’s sexual anatomy.”
The ICD – the International Classification of Diseases – calls it a “childhood disorder” characterized by “persistent and intense distress.” Diagnosis requires “a profound disturbance of the normal gender identity.”
If Nutt is trying to dismiss their distress as a cultural condition, she’s freelancing.
The final question was also a good one: “Did Nicole undergo reassignment surgery and if so was there any risk to it?”
Nutt’s answer was bad, and sort of creepy. “Yes. She was 17 at the time…I was there.”
“It was not the most important thing…but it was the last thing that she needed to do,” said Nutt.
“What was important for her early on was to have her puberty suppressed as a child, so that she knew what she really wanted.”
Puberty-blockers are serious business. Puberty suppression and cross-sex hormones can stunt a person’s growth and render him completely infertile, never able to have genetically-related children, even by artificial means. You cannot walk back up this road.
What’s more, there are no scientific studies on their use by growing children. None.
Nutt’s cavalier treatment of puberty blockers was awfully reckless.
And isn’t her logic backwards? How does blocking your natural development tell you what you really want? Isn’t it, rather, tipping the scales toward an ideologically pre-determined outcome?
Did Nicole even have the capacity to consent to this untested, irreversible medical treatment in the first place? “There is a serious ethical problem with allowing irreversible, life-changing procedures to be performed on minors who are too young to give valid consent themselves,” cautions the American College of Pediatricians.
Nutt went on: “When the time for puberty came, she took estrogen, and she made the puberty that all girls do at the right time.”
Making the puberty that all girls do is strange phraseology. But of course this teen could not make the puberty that all girls do without ovaries and a uterus. Were the teen girls in the audience misled? Were the boys?
As to risk, Nutt brushed it aside: “You know, there’s always a risk to surgery, it’s actually not that complicated.”
“She will be, for all purposes, physically and biologically a girl. A woman.”
Wrong. Biologically, Nicole will never be a girl. Every cell in Nicole’s body contains male sex chromosomes. A lifetime of male-suppressing hormones will never change that fact.
At one point in her lecture, Nutt said: “I’m not trying to be funny, I’m trying to be factual.”
She should have tried harder.
Children suffering from gender dysphoria deserve our compassion. Surely their suffering is genuine, and profound. But they also deserve an adult response: first and foremost, our recognition that the distress and confusion they are experiencing will give way to acceptance of their natal biology in the vast majority of cases.
The person with persistent dysphoria who ultimately chooses radical surgery and a lifetime of hormones deserves compassion, too. As well as great sympathy, in my opinion, for treating a healthy body as sick and a troubled mind as healthy.
Nutt obviously disagrees. There is great disagreement on this issue, especially among medical experts.
When a public school takes sides, nobody wins. But students, and taxpayers, lose.
Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.
http://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/011218_confusion_700x400-e1515798345254.png366640Family Research Councilhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFamily Research Council2018-01-12 18:06:132018-01-12 18:09:35Public School Kids Get Assembly on Sex Changes
A frequent point I have made in past columns has been about the educational travesty happening on many college campuses.
Some people have labeled my observations and concerns as trivial, unimportant, and cherry-picking. While the spring semester awaits us, let’s ask ourselves whether we’d like to see repeats of last year’s antics.
An excellent source for college news is Campus Reform, a conservative website operated by the Leadership Institute. Its reporters are college students. Here is a tiny sample of last year’s bizarre stories.
Donna Riley, a professor at Purdue University’s School of Engineering Education, published an article in the most recent issue of the peer-reviewed Journal of Engineering Education, positing that academic rigor is a “dirty deed” that upholds “white male heterosexual privilege.”
Riley added that “scientific knowledge itself is gendered, raced, and colonizing.”
Would you hire an engineering education graduate who has little mastery of the rigor of engineering? What does Riley’s vision, if actually practiced by her colleagues, do to the worth of degrees in engineering education from Purdue held by female and black students?
Sympathizing with Riley’s vision is Rochelle Gutierrez, a math education professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
In her recent book, she says the ability to solve algebra and geometry problems perpetuates “unearned privilege” among whites. Educators must be aware of the “politics that mathematics brings” in society.
She thinks that “on many levels, mathematics itself operates as Whiteness.” After all, she adds, “who gets credit for doing and developing mathematics, who is capable in mathematics, and who is seen as part of the mathematical community is generally viewed as White.”
What’s worse is that the university’s interim provost, John Wilkin, sanctioned her vision, telling Fox News that Gutierrez is an established and admired scholar who has been published in many peer-reviewed publications.
I hope that the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s black students don’t have the same admiration and stay away from her classes.
Last February, a California State University, Fullerton professor assaulted a CSUF Republicans member during a demonstration against President Donald Trump’s executive order on immigration. The students identified the assailant as Eric Canin, an anthropology professor.
Fortunately, the school had the good sense to later suspend Canin after confirming the allegations through an internal investigation.
Last month, the presidents of 13 San Antonio colleges declared in an op-ed written by Ric Baser, president of the Higher Education Council of San Antonio, and signed by San Antonio Mayor Ron Nirenberg and 12 other members of the council that “hate speech” and “inappropriate messages” should not be treated as free speech on college campuses.
Their vision should be seen as tyranny.
The true test of one’s commitment to free speech doesn’t come when he permits people to be free to make statements that he does not find offensive. The true test of one’s commitment to free speech comes when he permits people to make statements he does deem offensive.
Last year, University of Georgia professor Rick Watson adopted a policy allowing students to select their own grade if they “feel unduly stressed” by their actual grade in the class.
Benjamin Ayers, dean of the school’s Terry College of Business, released a statement condemning Watson’s pick-your-own-grade policy, calling it “inappropriate.” He added:
Rest assured that this ill-advised proposal will not be implemented in any Terry classroom. The University of Georgia upholds strict guidelines and academic policies to promote a culture of academic rigor, integrity, and honesty.
Ayers’ response gives us hope that not all is lost in terms of academic honesty.
Other campus good news is a report on the resignation of George Ciccariello-Maher, a white Drexel University professor who tweeted last winter, “All I Want for Christmas Is White Genocide.” He said that he resigned from his tenured position because threats against him and his family had become “unsustainable.”
If conservative students made such threats, they, too, could benefit from learning the principles of free speech.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University
http://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/college-classroom-e1515584773308.jpg363640The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2018-01-10 06:46:392018-01-10 06:46:39Here’s How Bad Left-Wing Antics on Campus Were in 2017