President Trump announces new entry restrictions on Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, North Korea, Venezuela

This is fine, since there are only two choices: keep out some harmless people or let in some harmful people. Trump is choosing the former, but if he really wants to keep jihadis out, he is going to have to extend the restrictions eventually to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

“Trump administration announces new travel restrictions,” by Laura Jarrett, CNN, September 24, 2017:

Washington (CNN)The Trump administration has unveiled new travel restrictions on certain foreigners from Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela and Yemen as a replacement to a central portion of its controversial travel ban signed earlier this year.

Chad, North Korea and Venezuela are new to the list of affected countries. The new restrictions on travel vary by country and include a phased-in approach.

For the last three months, the Trump administration used an executive order to ban foreign nationals from six Muslim-majority countries from entering the US unless they have a “bona fide” relationship with a person or entity in the country. Those nations include Iran, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, and Sudan.

Individuals with that “bona fide” exception — such as a foreign grandparent of a US citizen — can still apply for visas until October 18. After that date, the new restrictions on travel will begin….

RELATED ARTICLES:

3 Key Elements of Trump’s New Travel Ban

London’s Muslim mayor says Trump’s rhetoric is like that of the Islamic State

Trump’s New Travel Ban Is Standard Security Policy

The Political Purpose of Anti-Semitism

Anti-Semitism originated during biblical times when Jesus Christ, the most famous Jew in the world, left traditional Judaism to create a new religion. Christ’s first century Jewish following was eventually expelled from the synagogues and Christianity established an identity separate from Rabbinic Judaism. Followers of Christ were called Christians and the original Jewish population was divided.

The Old Testament remained with the Jews and the New Testament belonged to the Christians. Jesus was a Nazarene and lived most of his life in the town of Nazareth in the province of the Galilee. Israel’s history has been a continuous struggle for national sovereignty. Israel was invaded and occupied by Babylonians, Persians, Syrians, Greeks, and Romans but also enjoyed periods of sovereign self-rule under Hebrew Kings. At the time of Jesus the Romans occupied Israel.

During the time of Jesus Judaism was divided into four main groups. The Zealots were revolutionaries who chose a military option to free themselves from the Romans. The Sadducees were wealthy pragmatists who tried to negotiate and compromise with the Romans. The Pharisees chose spiritual purity and strict adherence to the Torah. The Essenes withdrew from the struggle by committing themselves to monastic life waiting for God to save them.

Jesus brought a form of non-violent resistance that resonated among the people and empowered them. During the time of Jesus politics and religion were deeply intertwined so his influential teachings and growing popularity were a threat to Rome and to traditional Judaism. Jesus was sentenced to death by Romans on the charge of political treason for claiming to be “King of the Jews.” The Roman occupiers of Israel considered Jesus to be a political threat and the Jewish leaders considered him to be a religious threat. Both were responsible for his crucifixion yet the Gospel narratives only blame the Jews – it was the beginning of institutionalized anti-semitism for political purposes.

Early Christianity in the Roman empire was considered a sub-sect of Judaism. In 64 AD Emperor Nero blamed the Christians for the Great Fire of Rome and the scapegoating, persecution, and killing of Christians continued until Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity and proclaimed the Edict of Milan in 313 AD which insured benevolent treatment for Christians within the Roman Empire. Some consider the Edict of Milan a political pact between Romans and Christians to stabilize the country’s growing instability. Monotheistic Christianity was incompatible with the traditional polytheistic “pagan” Roman religion but Christianity prevailed and became the official religion of Rome in 380 AD under Emperor Theodosius I. The persecution of Christian and non-Christian heretics followed.

Government sanctioned anti-semitism has been used for political purpose since Theodosius I. It is an extremely effective political tactic that deflects attention away from the government’s own failures and focuses attention on the blamed target. Wikipedia lists some examples: The Rhineland massacres preceding the First Crusade in 1096, the Edict of Expulsion from England in 1290, the Massacre of Spanish Jews in 1391, the persecution of the Spanish Inquisition, the expulsion from Spain in 1492, the Cossack massacres in Ukraine from 1648-1657, various anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire from 1821-1906, the Dreyfus affair in France, the Holocaust in German-occupied Europe, official Soviet anti-Jewish policies, and Arab and Muslim involvement in the Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries.

The political purpose of anti-semitism is to galvanize support for a political movement during times of social and political upheaval. Anti-semitism in America today is a variation on the deflection theme because it is not President Trump’s administration that supports anti-semitism it is Obama’s Leftist/Islamist axis legacy that is trying to depose President Trump. Obama’s eight year radical socialist, anti-semitic, anti-American, pro-Muslim term encouraged Leftist/Islamist anti-semitism. After Hillary’s stunning loss to President Trump the globalist elite Deep State continued funding Obama’s anti-semitic “blame the Jew” policies through his “resistance” movement. The leftover Obama saboteurs and globalist advisors continue to foment the anti-semitism in Trump’s government.

The current anti-semitism in America is being fomented to solidify the Leftist/Islamist axis and deflect public attention from the movement’s anti-American platform and their intention to destroy American democracy. The concurrent restrictions on freedom of speech in the United States is being instigated by the Deep State’s attempt to further destabilize and destroy President Trump’s government.

Today the rise in anti-semitism worldwide and at home is a consequence of the globalist initiative that is relying on the Leftist/Islamist anti-semitic screeds that blame Israel and the Jews for the chaos in the world. Here we go again. It is the globalist elite – not the Jewish people – who require chaos for transformative change. The political purpose of the anti-semitism they foment is to deflect attention from their own intention to internationalize the world under their own dystopian rule of one-world government.

Hitler blamed the Jews for Germany’s economic problems to galvanize support for the Reich and deflect attention from its expansionist goal to take over Europe and the world. Islam blames the Jews to galvanize support for the caliphate and deflect attention from its expansionist goal to impose sharia law worldwide. The Leftists blame the Jews in support of “social justice” and their identity politics. The activists of the Leftist/Islamist axis comprise the useful idiots for the globalist just like the Japanese were the useful idiots for Hitler. Hitler was an Aryan supremacist – does anyone actually believe Hitler’s sincerity in naming the Japanese “honorary Aryans” or that Hitler would ever abide by any pact he made with them?

The current trend of anti-semitism fomented by the Leftist/Islamist axis is assaulting American separation of Church and State with its demands for political correctness, moral relativism, and historical revisionism. No one will be safe or protected if this continues because if the Leftist/Islamist axis is successful in dismantling the foundational principles of America they will eventually destroy American sovereignty.

For 241 years the United States remained a shining example of the intentional separation between Church and State. Tomorrow it may not be so. The conscious effort by our founding fathers’ to disallow the intrusion of religion into politics has provided protection for America’s diverse citizenry including its Jewish population. For the first time in United States history free speech is not protected. The First Amendment is being challenged by censorship and a preference for Islam disguised as political correctness. Any criticism of Islam is being labeled Islamophobic hate speech. Do Americans really want Islamic sharia law forbidding criticism of Islam to replace our First Amendment? I don’t.

FATWA: Hunted in America

Pamela Geller’s shocking new book published by Milo’s New Publishing House, Dangerous Books

At a major news conference kicking off the now cancelled “free Speech Week” at Berkeley San Francisco, Milo announced the launch of the shocking new book, Fatwa: Hunted in America. It will be the first book published by Milo’s groundbreaking new publishing house, Dangerous Books. Old school publishers would be terrified to publish this book.

Get it. Now. Support the work. Support new media.

Look what they are they saying:

When Pamela Geller talks about Islam, she does it with both barrels. For sparing us the platitudes when confronting this direct and present danger, she is reviled by society’s bien pensant. In this book, she recounts her adventures in “hate speech,” or as we used to call it, “telling the truth.”  It is both an enlightening and gripping tale.

—- Ann Coulter, Bestselling Author

“How did a nice Jewish girl from Long Island become the Joan of Arc of the counterjihad movement? In this remarkably absorbing page-turner of a book, Pamela Geller tells her story – a story of courage in the face not only of the jihadist enemy but of a veritable army of apologists, appeasers, pacifists, whitewashers, self-styled “bridge-builders,” and assorted cowards, careerists, and sellouts. Armed only with the truth and a passionate love of American liberty, Geller has survived their smears and kept hope alive. It’s an inspiring story that I hope will encourage other freedom-lovers to stand up and be counted before it’s too late.” 

— Bruce Bawer, author of The Victims’ Revolution: The Rise of Identity Studies and the Closing of the Liberal Mind.

Pamela Geller’s fascinating book is the vivid chronicle of a courageous woman who fought vigilantly and with fierceness, confronting dangers, threats and vile defamation, to preserve the American soul of freedom and democratic liberties. A most actual record of our perilous time.

—- Bat Ye’or, Historian, author of Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, and of Europe, Globalization and the Coming Universal Caliphate

“Pamela Geller is a towering hero of freedom. If free people survive into the next generation, which is by no means assured, Pamela Geller will be celebrated as one of those who stood against the tide of Leftism and Islamic supremacism when it was at its apogee. No proper history of the freedom of the human spirit in our darkening age can be written without including her.”

—- Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch and author of the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad.”

“Free-speech advocates who don’t make waves are not doing their jobs. Pamela Geller writes a guidebook here for Paladins of the First Amendment.”

—- Ambassador John Bolton

Pope Francis accused of propagating heresy

In a document titled Correctio Filialis De Haeresibus Propagatis (Correction subsidiary of heresies propagator) Catholic scholars and lay people world wide have in a letter to Pope Francis raised the issue of heresy in Church doctrine. The letter was sent to Pope Francis, when there was no reply, these Catholics published their letter to the world on September 24th, 2017.

The document deals with two issues facing the Catholic Church, modernism and the influence of Martin Luther on Pope Francis. The document states:

Scandal concerning faith and morals has been given to the Church and to the world by the publication of Amoris laetitia and by other acts through which Your Holiness has sufficiently made clear the scope and purpose of this document. Heresies and other errors have in consequence spread through the Church; for while some bishops and cardinals have continued to defend the divinely revealed truths about marriage, the moral law, and the reception of the sacraments, others have denied these truths, and have received from Your Holiness not rebuke but favour. Those cardinals, by contrast, who have submitted dubia to Your Holiness, in order that by this time-honoured method the truth of the gospel might be easily affirmed, have received no answer but silence. [Emphasis added]

In May 2015 Russ Douthat in The Atlantic column titled Will Pope Francis Break the Church? wrote:

The Church is not yet in the grip of a revolution. The limits, theological and practical, on papal power are still present, and the man who was Jorge Bergoglio has not done anything that explicitly puts them to the test. But his moves and choices (and the media coverage thereof) have generated a revolutionary atmosphere around Catholicism. For the moment, at least, there is a sense that a new springtime has arrived for the Church’s progressives. And among some conservative Catholics, there is a feeling of uncertainty absent since the often-chaotic aftermath of the Second Vatican Council, in the 1960s and ’70s.

It appears that the Church is now in the grip of a “counter revolution” against the policies and politics of Pope Francis.

The following is a summary of Correctio Filialis De Haeresibus Propagatis:

A 25-page letter signed by 40 Catholic clergy and lay scholars was delivered to Pope Francis on August 11th. Since no answer was received from the Holy Father, it is being made public today, 24th September, Feast of Our Lady of Ransom and of Our Lady of Walsingham. The letter, which is open to new signatories, now has the names of 62 clergy and lay scholars from 20 countries, who also represent others lacking the necessary freedom of speech. It has a Latin title: ‘Correctio filialis de haeresibus propagatis’ (literally, ‘A filial correction concerning the propagation of heresies’). It states that the pope has, by his Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia, and by other, related, words, deeds and omissions, effectively upheld 7 heretical positions about marriage, the moral life, and the reception of the sacraments, and has caused these heretical opinions to spread in the Catholic Church. These 7 heresies are expressed by the signatories in Latin, the official language of the Church.

This letter of correction has 3 main parts. In the first part, the signatories explain why, as believing and practising Catholics, they have the right and duty to issue such a correction to the supreme pontiff. Church law itself requires that competent persons not remain silent when the pastors of the Church are misleading the flock. This involves no conflict with the Catholic dogma of papal infallibility, since the Church teaches that a pope must meet strict criteria before his utterances can be considered infallible. Pope Francis has not met these criteria. He has not declared these heretical positions to be definitive teachings of the Church, or stated that Catholics must believe them with the assent of faith. The Church teaches no pope can claim that God has revealed some new truth to him, which it would be obligatory for Catholics to believe.

The second part of the letter is the essential one, since it contains the ‘Correction’ properly speaking. It lists the passages of Amoris laetitia in which heretical positions are insinuated or encouraged, and then it lists words, deeds, and omissions of Pope Francis which make it clear beyond reasonable doubt that he wishes Catholics to interpret these passages in a way that is, in fact, heretical. In particular, the pope has directly or indirectly countenanced the beliefs that obedience to God’s Law can be impossible or undesirable, and that the Church should sometimes accept adultery as compatible with being a practising Catholic.

The final part, called ‘Elucidation’, discusses two causes of this unique crisis. One cause is ‘Modernism’. Theologically speaking, Modernism is the belief that God has not delivered definite truths to the Church, which she must continue to teach in exactly the same sense until the end of time. Modernists hold that God communicates to mankind only experiences., which human beings can reflect on, so as to make various statements about God, life and religion; but such statements are only provisional, never fixed dogmas. Modernism was condemned by Pope St Pius X at the start of the 20th century, but it revived in the middle of the century. The great and continuing confusion caused in the Catholic Church by Modernism obliges the signatories to describe the true meaning of ‘faith’, ‘heresy’, ‘revelation’, and ‘magisterium’.

A second cause of the crisis is the apparent influence of the ideas of Martin Luther on Pope Francis. The letter shows how Luther, the founder of Protestantism, had ideas on marriage, divorce, forgiveness, and divine law which correspond to those which the pope has promoted by word, deed and omission. It also notes the explicit and unprecedented praise given by Pope Francis to the German heresiarch.

The signatories do not venture to judge the degree of awareness with which Pope Francis has propagated the 7 heresies which they list. But they respectfully insist that he condemn these heresies, which he has directly or indirectly upheld.

The signatories profess their loyalty to the holy Roman Church, assure the pope of their prayers, and ask for his apostolic blessing.

VIEW HERE FULL THE DOCUMENT HERE

I was asked by a Rabbi what I thought, as a Catholic, about Pope Francis. My reply was, “I don’t want a Catholic Church that changes with the world. I want a Catholic Church that changes the world.” Perhaps this quote by Bishop Fulton J. Sheen says it best.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Is the Pope Catholic Enough for Conservatives?

Pope Francis, Fr. Martin, and Faith without Reason

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of The Atlantic.

The Next Scandal in the Church?

William Kilpatrick writes that the Church, because of its endorsement of unlimited immigration, is complicit in the rise of Muslim sex abuse in Europe.

In a recent article, Fr. James Schall, S.J. argues that “The only real way to eliminate the historic aggressiveness of Islam is to convert its believers.”  Yet if you had to bet, “the conversion of the world to Islam is, in the long run, more likely than its conversion to Christianity.”

From a purely human perspective, the conversion of Muslims is a tall order. It’s not just that Islam is a tough nut to crack, it’s also that some today – usually Catholics – have an aversion to conversion. (Even the pope had denounced “proselytism.”)  In good multicultural fashion, they don’t want to fiddle with the unique cultural identity of the “other.”

These fashionable ideas won’t attract many Muslims, and it has an alienating effect on Christians as well. The Church in the West has been losing members as a result of the impression it gives that other faiths are just as valid as our own. So before undertaking the conversion of the Muslim world, the Church needs first to do something about the deconversion of Christians.

Ironically, one of the factors that is driving people out of the Church is its response to Islamic terror. After every terrorist attack, the Vatican (or some prominent bishop) assures us that the violence has nothing to do with Islam, which we are told is a “religion of peace” – a response not a whit different from the politically correct, secular liberal response.

In fact, Church leaders often put secular leaders to shame in their advocacy for Islam. The Obama administration called for the admittance of 10,000 Syrian refugees; the USCCB called for 100,000. When European leaders began to admit that Muslim migration should be restricted for the sake of national security, Pope Francis responded by insisting that the safety of migrants was more important than national security.

There are no statistics about how many Catholics are leaving the Church because of its welcoming attitude towards Islam, but there is anecdotal evidence.

Click here to read the rest of Mr. Kilpatrick’s column . . .

Clorox Company lies to defend ads on Huffington Post — Take Action by sending them an email.

Clorox blatantly lies to defend its advertising at Huffingtonpost.com.

Florida Family Association sent out email alerts the week of September 18, 2017 which reported that Clorox was a top advertiser at Huffingtonpost.com.  Thousands of people sent emails to encourage Clorox to stop supporting HuffPost’s propaganda with its advertising dollars.

Denise Hahn, Clorox Consumer Affairs Operations Manager responded to the emails it received with the following email message:

Thank you for reaching out to The Clorox Company about our advertising. We appreciate receiving feedback from our consumers and want to thank you for taking the time to share your opinions. The Clorox Company and our Family of Brands set strict criteria and standards around where our ads are placed to ensure that the media environment and corresponding content reflect our standards. For example, we do not advertise in or on politically focused programs, publications or websites, etc. While we do advertise on Huffington Post, we don’t place our ads in any of the political sections. But in this digital age, it can be difficult to track where our ads may appear. We would welcome you letting us know if you do see one of our ads in an inappropriate context.

However, Clorox is LYING to the public about placement of its ads at Huffingtonpost.com.  The following photos of Huffingtonpost.com on a mobile device prove it.

This photo of a cell phone taken on September 21, 2017  8:57 PM shows Clorox’s Liquidplumr at the top of the home page which includes ALL of Huffingtonpost.com’s political trash and social propaganda.

And this cell phone photo was taken two minutes later in the middle of the home page just above a political attack article.

There were several more Clorox ads posted on the home page that were not photographed.

Furthermore, AdChoices does not give advertisers the flexibility to choose to opt out of articles with specific content.

Clorox’s above statement is a blatant lie.

Seventeen examples of Huffington Post’s Islamist propaganda articles are posted at the bottom of this article.

Clorox certainly has the right to advertise in whatever forum it chooses.  You have the same right to voice concern regarding the content on such forums and choose to spend your money elsewhere

Florida Family Association has prepared an email for you to send to urge Clorox directors to stop supporting  Huffingtonpost.com propaganda with its advertising dollars.

Click here to send your email to Clorox.

This email will open in your email browser unlike most email campaigns.  This is because Clorox is blocking emails from Florida Family Association’s email delivery server. If the above link does not open in your email browser or if the email is returned to you please prepare an email using the suggested subject line, content and email addresses provided below.

Cannot believe that Clorox is lying to defend advertising support of Huffingtonpost.com propaganda.

Suggested content:

I was very disappointed to learn that Clorox is blatantly lying about its advertising at Huffingtonpost.com who calls American military racists, fundraises for CAIR, defends the Muslim Brotherhood and publishes Islamist propaganda.

Please stop supporting Huffington Post propaganda with Clorox advertising dollars.

Email addresses:

Officers

Benno Dorer, Chairman and CEO
benno.dorer@clorox.com

Stephen Robb, CFO
steve.robb@clorox.com

Eric Reynolds, CMO
eric.reynolds@clorox.com

Directors

Richard H. Carmona, M.D., M.P.H., F.A.C.S.
Vice Chairman, Canyon Ranch
richardcarmona@canyonranchinstitute.org

Spencer C. Fleischer
Managing Partner, FFL Partners
sfleischer@fflpartners.com

Esther Lee
Executive Vice President – Global Chief Marketing Officer, MetLife, Inc.
estherlee@metlife.com

Russell J. Weiner
President, Domino’s USA
russell.weiner@dominos.com

What happens when an ordinary American stands up to the global jihad?

Canada is now discussing criminal penalties for “Islamophobia.” Facebook’s Vice President went to Pakistan in July to assure the Pakistani government that Facebook would remove content critical of Islam. American columnists seriously call for the denial of free speech rights to those who warn about the jihad threat. That call was directed at me, for the crime of  “falsely constructing a divide between Islam and the West.”

“Falsely”? Really?

Clearly there are some very powerful people who are desperately afraid of what they call “Islamophobia,” and are now cracking down on it hard. For years I have been sounding the alarm about the threat of jihad terror and the human rights abuses that Sharia enables, and increasingly the West, instead of heeding these warnings, is turning against those who have been sounding them.

In my forthcoming book Confessions of an Islamophobe, I make my case. Is there really a threat to the free world from jihad terror and Sharia oppression, or is such concern all just paranoid fear-mongering, xenophobia, racism, bigotry, paranoia, profiteering — in a word, “Islamophobia”?

I’ve always found such accusations bewildering and baseless, and still do. I began this work because I was an ordinary American — a believer in the freedom of speech and free society and the equality of rights of all before the law — who saw problems that weren’t being addressed adequately. In the intervening years, those problems have only gotten worse, although the ruling elites still generally do not admit there are any problems at all.

So: are they right, or am I? You be the judge: in Confessions of an Islamophobe, I discuss the real threat women, gays, Jews, Christians, secular liberals and secular Muslims face, and reveal what happens to those ordinary citizens who dare to tell the truth about that threat.

Pre-order Confessions of an Islamophobe here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

EU-funded exhibit “Islam, It’s Also Our History!” opens after delay caused by jihad massacres

Saudi Muslim cleric: Women have “a quarter the brainpower of men”

Students Rake in Extra Credit After Taking Quiz on Their White Privilege

Students at San Diego State University can earn extra credit by taking a quiz that gauges their level of “white privilege,” according to a Tuesday report.

Professor Dae Elliott offers this extra credit in a sociology class, reported The College Fix. Her “White Privilege Checklist” asks students to peruse a list of 20 statements and check the ones that they think apply to them.

dcnf-logo

“The following are examples of ways white individuals have privilege because they are white,” states the quiz, which goes on to assert that white people have privilege because they can be around people of their race the majority of the time, can see people of their race “widely represented” in the newspaper or on TV, and can find “music of [their] race” in a music shop.

“I can be pretty sure that if I ask to talk with the ‘person in charge,’ I will be facing a person of my race” reads one statement on the quiz. Another says, “I can take a job or enroll in a college with an affirmative action policy without having my co-workers or peers assume I got it because of my race.”

After responding to the statements, the quiz informed students of other alleged privileges of class, religion, sexual orientation, and gender and asked students to respond to a series of reflection questions.

“[The quiz] asks my students to step out of their subjectivity, extend their understanding, and begin to be a conscious part of understanding and hence gaining more power and agency to effect change,” Elliott told The College Fix. “In a society that values fairness, our injustices that are institutionalized are often made invisible.”

“This is another attempt by the left, and professor Elliott, to divide America,” Brandon Jones, president of the university’s College Republicans, told The College Fix. “The left’s political goal is to ensure that minorities in America perpetuate that their primary problem is white racism.”

Racial curriculum at San Diego State University also came under scrutiny earlier in September with media discovery of the school’s “Black Minds Matter” course, which trained future educators to teach Black Lives Matter ideology.

“[The quiz] is an excellent prompt to get the students discussing issues around how institutions work,” Elliott told The Daily Caller News Foundation. She noted that the seemingly objective, authoritative phrasing of the concept of “white privilege” “is for the students to broach in the discussion.”

“[My class] is actually listed as one of the favorites as the ensuing discussions do exactly as intended and help my students see things from multiple perspectives,” said the professor. “I have no intention of censoring liberal or conservative thought in my class but encouraging engagement using reason and evidence.”

San Diego State University did not respond to a request for comment from The Daily Caller News Foundation in time for publication.

Rob Shimshock

Rob Shimshock is a reporter for The Daily Caller News Foundation. Twitter: @ShimshockAndAwe

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

More than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

RELATED ARTICLE: Anne Hathaway denounces white privilege in award speech

EDITORS NOTE: “[The quiz] is an excellent prompt to get the students discussing issues around how institutions work,” a professor says of a “white privilege” quiz her students take. (Photo: iStock Photos)

UK: Growing Support for Arming More Police

The UK’s fear of firearms, and potential weapons of all kinds, is well-documented. Subjects are urged not to carry any item, such as pepper spray, that might be adapted for self-defense. Officers take to social media to boast of “weapons sweeps” that turn up old kitchen knivesbaseball bats, and sharpened sticks. In 2009, the Home Office even contemplated replacing traditional glass pint glasses out of fears about their use in barroom brawls. However, a recent report from the Wall Street Journal reveals that there is growing sentiment in the UK to abandon one of the clearest representations of their antipathy towards arms and equip more police officers with guns.

Since the Metropolitan Police Service was founded in 1829, most officers have conducted their duties unarmed. In order to carry a firearm on duty, an officer must volunteer and be trained as an Authorised Firearms Officer (AFOs). According to the WSJ, today a mere five percent of officers in England and Wales carry firearms. A March 2017 report by NBC News indicated that even in London, less than 10 percent of officers carry a gun.  Data from the Home Office shows that from 2009 to 2016, the number of AFOs in England and Wales dropped 18 percent, part of an overall reduction in the police force. Further, citing this data, the Independent pointed out that the number of AFOs as a percentage of the overall police force fell from 2010 to 2016.

The shift in mindset has taken place amidst a string of terrorist attacks and an increase in violent crimes perpetrated with guns and knives. In what will be seen by some as a blow to the efficacy of UK gun law, the WSJ reported that “London’s Metropolitan Police says the number of guns being smuggled into the U.K. is ‘worrying,’ and there are fears terrorists might use them to carry out marauding attacks.”

Showing just how much opinion has turned, the WSJ article quoted Open University Professor of History and Criminology Clive Emsley, who stated, “There is a much stronger movement for arming the ordinary bobby than I can ever remember.”

Moreover, the article shared the story of Constable Damon Blackman, who was on hand for one of London’s recent terror attacks,

A police medic trained to carry a Taser, he responded to the June 3 terrorist attack at London Bridge that left eight people dead. He said he believed more lives could have been saved if the first responders had been able to shoot the attackers before they rampaged through nearby Borough Market.

“If you’re dealing with someone with a knife, [Tasers don’t] give the same level of security as a firearm,” Mr. Blackman said.

Some high-profile officials have also called for a change. For the past several months, former leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party and Member of the European Parliament Nigel Farage has used his radio program to advocate for an armed police force. Following the London Bridge attack, Colonel Richard Kemp, who worked for the UK’s Joint Intelligence Committee, issued a statement where he advocated for a number of measures to combat terrorist violence. In it, he noted, “We also need to have every cop in this country armed, which gives us a greater chance of having an immediate response.”

The evidence of a change in sentiment is more than anecdotal. A 2006 poll of officers conducted by the Police Federation of England and Wales found that 82 percent “[did] not want all officers to be routinely armed on duty.” A Police Federation fact sheet accompanying the results noted that “there has been almost no change in police officers’ opinions since we conducted the previous surveys in 2003 and 1995, and this despite the massive rise in gun related crime.” A September 2017 version of the poll found, “34% of all Federated Rank officers responding to the survey are in favour of officers being routinely armed both on or off duty, or just on duty;” a 16 point shift in favor of arming officers.

The UK government has already taken some measures to arm more officers. Following the November 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris, France, the government allocated funding to train 1,500 new AFOs. However, recruiting new AFOs has proved difficult and the allotment has not been filled. Additionally, the National Police Chiefs’ Council is in the midst of a review of armed policing in the UK. A July 13 press release from the organization stated that the group “will carefully consider whether there is a need to further increase the number of highly specialist officers working in armed response vehicles, whether some currently unarmed officers in key locations should be armed and more Tasers for front line officers.”

It is encouraging that a growing number of British subjects are coming to the realization that firearms are an effective means of confronting criminal violence. While recent debate on this matter has almost exclusively concerned firearms for police, the UK would do well to rediscover that all law-abiding individuals have the right to access the tools of self-defense.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Reuniting The United States With Reciprocity

Wall Street Journal/NBC News Poll Throws Wrench in Anti-gun Agenda

Anti-Gun Politicians: Blocking Out The Facts About Suppressors

Washington Post Employs Deceptive Tactic on ‘Children’ and Guns

The Washington Post has surpassed the Brady Campaign and Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety to take a place alongside the New York Times as the premier anti-gun propagandists in the country. While those gun control groups have been known to pervert the facts to fit their agenda, a recent Post article and accompanying editorial go where even the most hardline gun control groups no longer tread.

On September 15, the Washington Post published an article with the sensationalist headline “Children under fire,” which carried the subtitle, “Almost two dozen kids are shot every day in the U.S. This 4-year-old was one of them.” In it, the author used the tragic shooting of a 4-year-old Cleveland boy as a jumping-off point to discuss the number “children” shot in the U.S. each day. Throughout the article, the author referred to his subjects as “children,” contending, “On average, 23 children were shot each day in the United States in 2015.” Accompanied by extensive artwork of the boy and his injuries, the author’s obvious intent was to give the impression that such incidents involving young children are common.

Using a well-worn anti-gun tactic, the author came to the deceptive 23 “children” a day figures by combining the annual number of firearms-related injuries among those properly identified as children (0-14) with firearms-related injuries among juveniles (15-17) and labeling the entire group “children.” As one might expect, juveniles, rather than children, account for the vast majority of firearms-related injuries.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, in 2015 there were 8,369 firearms injuries among those ages 0-17. Juveniles ages 15-17 accounted for 6,476, or 77 percent, of those injuries. Excluding these individuals from the measurement, the average number of children who sustained a firearm injury each day drops from 23 to 5.

Not content to let the article alone mislead the public, on September 18 the Post’s editorial board weighed in. The online version of the Post editorial carried the headline “Twenty-three children are shot every day in America,” just above a picture of the 4-year-old featured in the article. Once again, the Post’s intent was obvious; to portray young children as suffering gunshot wounds 23 times each day.

Such deceptive tactics place the Post at odds with even the institutional gun control lobby. After using this approach throughout the 1990s (sometimes using ages 0-19), the Brady Campaign (formerly Handgun Control Inc.) now refers to this age group as “children and teens” in their materials. Everytown also uses the term “children and teens” to refer to those ages 0-19. Unlike the Post, Everytown grants some additional context to the statistic, admitting on its website, “Rates of firearm injury death increase rapidly after age 12.”

If this NRA-ILA Grassroots Alert article seems familiar, that is because there has been a recent resurgence in the use of the misleading method employed by the Post. While Americans’ trust in the media is already near a historic low, the Post’s use of a deceptive tactic that even the gun control lobby has abandoned should further inform readers as to the “quality” of journalism to expect from the publication.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Reuniting The United States With Reciprocity

Wall Street Journal/NBC News Poll Throws Wrench in Anti-gun Agenda

Anti-Gun Politicians: Blocking Out The Facts About Suppressors

Totalitarianism, Anarchism and Our Growing Discontents

David Carlin on the rising forces of the American Left: they begin as Democrats, then become anarchists, and, as history proves, will end up as totalitarians.

Given the history of Communism in Russia, China, and elsewhere, we have good reason to fear that political leftism will have totalitarian tendencies, even when the leftists in question happen to be Americans. That’s so, but there’s a further danger beyond the threat of tyranny. Please bear with me as I try to explain.

There’s an odor of totalitarianism in the many efforts being made by leftists nowadays to repress certain manifestations of free speech and freedom of conscience. We are told that “hate speech” doesn’t deserve the protections that are normally given to all other kinds of speech. For hate speech, unlike scientific speech and pornography (allegedly), does harm.

We are also told that when somebody engages in racist hate speech, this does serious harm, both direct and indirect, to African-Americans and other “persons of color.” And this harm is more serious than the harm done by, let’s say, pickpockets.  The same goes for homophobic hate speech. If we can ban pickpocketing, why can’t we ban hate speech?

Our leftists would agree, at least as an abstract proposition, that freedom of conscience is an excellent thing. But if your conscience tells you, a member of the KKK, to beat up a black man, should the rest of us, should the law, respect your freedom of conscience? Of course not.

But if your conscience tells you not to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding celebration, is that any different?

Some of us (myself, for example) think we detect embryonic forms of totalitarianism in this leftist crusade against hate speech and freedom of conscience. Others (leftists) think people like me are moral dinosaurs, trying to block a wonderful movement that is “on the right side of history.”

Allow me to suggest, however, that totalitarianism isn’t the ultimate leftist aim. The ultimate aim is anarchism. Totalitarianism is an intermediate step between the dreadful present and the anarchist ideal of total freedom.

Click here to read the rest of Professor Carlin’s column . . .

David Carlin

David Carlin

David Carlin is professor of sociology and philosophy at the Community College of Rhode Island, and the author of The Decline and Fall of the Catholic Church in America.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Anarchists shopping in Seattle. © 2017 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.orgThe Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

 

Frictional Characters Threaten GOP Repeal

There’s no such thing as a perfect piece of legislation. And for Republicans like Senator Rand Paul (Ky.), that’s been a hard reality to swallow. Like a lot of us, he wants nothing more than to scrap Obamacare completely and start over with a competitive, pro-life, free market system. But unfortunately, that’s no longer an option at this moment for the GOP after a summer of misfires and wasted opportunities. The clock is ticking. And the only thing Republicans have less of than time is voters’ patience. And both demand leaders act now.

In the plan from Senators Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.), Republicans have a choice. They can vote “yes” and gut a significant portion of Obamacare and Planned Parenthood funding, or they can vote “no” and keep 100 percent of it. Apparently, Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) prefers the latter, tweeting that he’s prepared to kill the GOP’s repeal a second time because it isn’t the product of “regular order.” (Neither, conservatives are quick to point out, was Obamacare.) “I think most of us are trying to figure out what the logic is,” Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) said. “We all know that some folks would rather have a bill that’s perfect. But I guess if we can’t have a bill that’s perfect, I’d rather have a bill that’s much better than what [the law] is today.”

And for a lot of Americans, this debate is about a lot more than dollars and cents. It’s about actual human lives, whose fate will literally be decided by what the Senate does in seven days. If the Graham-Cassidy bill fails, so does the GOP’s best shot at defunding Planned Parenthood. At a rally outside Senator Paul’s Kentucky office, Students for Life did their best to drive that urgency home. “The disastrous status quo that is Obamacare is harming families, using our taxpayer dollars to fund abortion and line the pockets of Planned Parenthood’s billion-dollar abortion industry,” said President Kristan Hawkins. Vice President Mike Pence agrees. “The president and I consider Senator Paul a friend,” he made clear. “He’s a good man, but he’s wrong about this.” And unless he changes his mind, thousands of future Americans will pay the price.

Meanwhile, in pockets across the country, the Left’s opposition “is again reaching jet-aircraft decibels of outrage,” the Wall Street Journal jokes. Armed with the usual misinformation, liberals are taking to the airwaves and social media to bash the effort, which they claim would leave 18 million uninsured. (Of course, they neglect to mention that at least half of those would be willfully uninsured after the bill scraps Obama’s individual mandate.)

Liberals are also making a big deal about voting on a bill without a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) score. But what good was a CBO score for Obamacare? If you want a good laugh, read its prediction for the 2009 law – which, among other things, claimed Obamacare would reduce the U.S. deficit. Besides, “CBO forecasts are often wrong,” the Wall Street Journal editors point out. “In this case, they’d also be meaningless. The point of Graham-Cassidy is to allow states to experiment and tailor approaches to local populations. Some might try to expand Medicaid’s reach or even go single-payer. Others might tinker with reinsurance. The budget office can’t possibly know what 50 states would do or how that would affect coverage.”

While the two sides snipe back and forth, the issue is also starting to bleed into the Alabama Senate primary. Senator Luther Strange and Judge Roy Moore are locked in a heated runoff for Jeff Sessions’s old seat, and health care is front and center. In some press reports, the media is trying to paint Moore as an opponent of the Graham-Cassidy bill. But that’s absolutely not true. I spoke with him last night, and although he would prefer a full repeal of Obamacare, he sees the importance of in ending the forced partnership between taxpayers and Planned Parenthood. As far as he’s concerned, the GOP plan is a good first step.

For now, though, the focus will be on the senators who already have a vote. Make sure they cast the right one!

Contact your senators and urge them to start freeing America from the grip of Obama’s failed law.


Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC Action senior writers.


Also in the September 22 Washington Update:

Religious Liberty Is Abbott Forming

A Boston Massacre of the First Amendment


Previous Washington Update Articles »

Lib Teacher Tries to Mx up Kids on Gender

It’s hard enough to raise kids these days without worrying if their teachers are working against you! Unfortunately, that’s exactly what seems to be happening in public schools these days, as elementary schools become even more brazen in their liberal indoctrination. We talked about what’s happening in Rocklin, California yesterday. Today’s threat is in Tallahassee, Florida, where a teacher was quite up front about her real agenda for the year.

In a letter to parents, Canopy Oaks Fifth Grade teacher Chloe Bressack warned homes that only politically-correct pronouns would be tolerated.

“One thing you that you should know about me is that I use gender neutral terms. My prefix is Mx. (pronounced Mix). Additionally, my pronouns are ‘they, them, their,’ instead of ‘he, his, she, hers.’ I know it takes some practice for it to feel natural, but in my experience, students catch on pretty quickly. We’re not going for perfection, just making an effort! …My priority is for all of my students to be comfortable in my classroom and have a space where they can be themselves while learning.”

What if a student is most comfortable being their actual gender (which, I assume in the Fifth Grade, would be the majority)? What if embracing this radical ideology (one the American College of Pediatricians calls “child abuse”) is uncomfortable and scary — as the kids in Rocklin expressed? Don’t their feelings matter? Local parents certainly think it should. Moms and dads are fuming about the policy, which they made quite clear on a Facebook group.

Unfortunately, Canopy Oaks Principal Paul Lambert has no intention of heeding families’ concerns — or common sense. “We support her preference in how she’s addressed, we certainly do. I think a lot of times, it might be decided that there’s an agenda there, because of her preference — I can tell you her only agenda is teaching math and science at the greatest level she can.”

How can a person teach science at the “greatest level” if she doesn’t understand basic biology? Or the English language? Apart from being outrageous, the plural pronouns “they, them, and theirs” are incorrect for addressing a single child. When pressed, Lambert did admit to reporters that the school had fielded a lot of calls from concerned parents who object to the reeducation of their kids. But even Superintendent Rocky Hanna refuses to intervene. In a tone-deaf statement to the Tallahassee Democrat, he insisted that “teachers in our district will not be allowed to use their influence in the classroom to advance any personal belief or political agenda. At this time, I do not believe that is the case in this instance.” Then what, exactly, is this — apart from a gross misunderstanding of a teachers’ role, scientific law, and the rules of grammar? How would they respond if a teacher in Mr. Hanna’s district sent a letter home saying they would only use the proper biologically correct pronouns in a classroom? Would they support that teacher as not promoting an agenda?

Stories like this one are cropping up in every corner of the country — and the only way to stop them is for parents to get involved before bad decisions are made! It’s time for more moms and dads to run for seats on the school board, where they can take back control of our classrooms. As my good friend, Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.) says, “We need to push back our vision as Christians to not just vote — but run for office or recruit other Christians to run. We should be just as focused on Filing Day as we are Election Day! Rather than being reactionary (as is often portrayed in article after article of Christians flooding school board meetings AFTER a bad policy decision and trying to convince school board members to change their minds), we should be proactive and purposeful in recruiting Christians to run for school boards in the first place and avoid the problem to begin with.”

She has a book that will help you do exactly that called, Running God’s Way. Pick up a copy and learn how you can start taking back your community!


Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.


Also in the September 21 Washington Update:

For Senate: Life Begins at 50… Votes

On Adoption, Left Attacks Mich. Again


Previous Washington Update Articles »

The Female Jihadi

If one needed a convincing example of the damage done to the female psyche by a strict Islamic upbringing, look no farther than to Linda Sarsour.

The treatment of women is brutally degrading within Islam; they are raped and harassed daily, and “not worthy of protection.” Traditional gender roles provide that men are superior to women and the female is responsible for the family’s honor; hence, they must be obedient to the many prohibitions or punished – even murdered.

Islam should be considered a shame-honor religion as Arab and Muslim cultures are shame-honor cultures that provide a means of manipulation and control by the family or group.  It allows for no creativity and no autonomy.  When shame becomes a destructive force, it leads the victimized family member to seek revenge and spill blood.  It is brought by the families who migrate to the West, and further exacerbated if they observe traditional rigid regulations of surveillance, a key concept that leads to tension and crippling development.

The daughter (and the son up to age 7) spends her time with the devalued mother who was herself a deprived, distressed child who grew into a troubled adulthood, unable to nurture healthy children.  The girls especially do not develop independently but understand that they are like their mother and any other women who serve as wives to the authoritarian male head of household. The women live in dread of losing favor, of being beaten, abused, kept naked in isolation, or even annihilated. If the husband divorces her, by simply repeating the divorce mantra thrice, she is left with only the dowry provided by her parents at the time of her arranged marriage.

The child is injured by their strict sharia laws, and by the disharmony, rivalry and envy that exist within the Islamic household, not to mention the fear and anger caused by the intense political hatred found in the Koran and repeated in their prayers five times daily. The pre-adolescent girl is further traumatized and degraded by the physically and psychologically painful Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) that is performed on her without anesthesia, under non-medical conditions, that may well cause lifelong infection.

Children living under circumstances of neglect, abuse, and trauma grow up with defective bonding relations and stay forever connected to the mother, in a painful traumatic bonding or terror bonding. When the daughter is ultimately given in marriage to a man of any age, not of her choosing, she is programmed to replicate the life of her devalued mother.

A young Muslim in Gaza or Judea and Samaria (West Bank) would have experienced enough shame to be overwhelmed by rage and aggression, resulting in never developing empathy with others.  They are treated as objects from an early age and, thus, treat as mere objects real people with real needs.  Boys who are radicalized at an early age bond violently and aggressively to females, including to the mother; girls internalize that same male rage, also directing it against the female and eventually become pawns of male extremist groups.

So now we have Linda Sarsour, the oldest of seven children born to a Muslim family from Gaza and living among people of the same background in Brooklyn, New York.  She promotes herself by championing “cool issues,” but seeks leadership roles to promote Islam and Palestinian self-determination. She professes to stand for the feminist movement, but rejects all who support Israel and silences any who speak of Islam’s severe cruelty to women.

She spoke briefly of her ties to her mother when she said she had to attend the local school, her mother’s choice. No doubt, her spare time was spent assisting with the care of her six younger siblings at the expense of a typical American childhood, thus denied the opportunity to play and work through fantasy life.

Steeped in the Islamic ideology and the Palestinian narrative, Sarsour endured FGM and shuts down all who criticize the practice. She was limited to meeting young men and women of her own heritage and shared mentality and chose the hijab for further identification.  Given in marriage at age 17 to her parents’ preference, she bore three children by the time she was in her early twenties. Where she is duty-bound to repress her anger against her family about her own personal abuse, she directs her rage outwardly against Americans, women, and the President of the United States.  

She joined several Muslim organizations and labeled herself a “radical activist,” that is, a civilizational jihadist, an Islamic supremacist who, through multicultural coalitions, seeks to curry the favor of the public to accept Islam. She has joined rallies of Nation of Islam, Black Lives Matter and, more recently, the Women’s March. She is deeply involved with community, may seek a City Council candidacy and ponder the idea of mayor of New York City.

Islam is democracy’s sworn enemy because their belief system, their raison d’etre, is based on envy and hatred. The Koran contains 109 versus that decree war with Jews and Christians, commands all manner of torture and extermination, and warns that non-fighters for Allah will go to hell, because Mohammed was offended when the Jews rejected his religion. One of many such commands is “Fight against those to whom the Scriptures were given. 9:29

A subtle proponent of the prescribed terrorism, Sarsour is a jihadi.  Pew Research estimates that 330 million Muslims believe in violent jihad, a number that exceeds that of the Nazis. Although not trained in armed warfare, Sarsour conducts her own war with lies and propaganda, and her cries of Palestinian injustice and suffering through social media and the Women’s March. She bears a strong odium for Israel, and was proud to share a stage with a convicted terrorist murder of two Jewish university students.

As she thwarts all comments about women’s oppression under Islam, she extols the benefits of FGM, by explaining it as a mere “cut.”  And it is here that we find her not trying to free her oppressed female co-religionists, but sanctioning their position of submission, their bondage, and the pathology of her severe jihadi hatred of women. She warns American Muslims not to assimilate. Of Brigitte Gabriel, Sarsour tweeted, “I wish I could take their (female sexual organs) away; they don’t deserve to be women.”  Of Ayaan Hirsi Ali she tweeted, “Brigitte Gabriel= Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She’s asking 4 an a$$ whippin’. I wish I could take their vaginas away – they don’t deserve to be women.”

Sarsour is pathologically fused to, dependent on, and smothered by her mother.  While male jihadists attempt to cleanse and release themselves from the maternal bond by killing others, she has exposed a similar malignancy in her desire for bloody violence against her despised enemies, which include all women, Israel, and President Donald Trump. Unable or unwilling to join the physical war, she will continue seeking to inveigle the public through her multicultural activism, spewing hatred and finding her own path of perpetual rage as she works to make the misogynist sharia law, Islamic violence and destruction, legally part of our American way of life.

Acknowledgment: Kobrin, Nancy Hartevelt, PhD, (2016) The Jihadi Dictionary; Mamaroneck, NY, Multieducator Press.

RELATED ARTICLE: New Hampshire: Muslim refugee charged with inappropriate sexual contact with several young girls

The Trans Agenda in Schools: It’s Elementary

Do parents even have a role in their children’s education these days? That was the question posed to one school board in Rocklin, California, where administrators have intentionally kept moms and dads in the dark while they push transgenderism on kids as young as five. Angry parents lined up to complain about the indoctrination, which started when the school demanded that students call a young boy a girl — and continued when another teacher read a book about gender-confusion to her kindergarten class. Hundreds of families, community leaders, and pastors turned out to protest Rocklin’s handling of the situation, which left dozens of young children confused and scared. And why shouldn’t it?

The American College of Pediatricians calls this kind of transgender propaganda “child abuse.”

But despite the outcry, Rocklin’s board went ahead with a ridiculous policy that gives teachers more authority than the students’ own parents. With unanimous approval, the board will now let “teachers decide if an issue is controversial.” Teachers will also decide — not when, but if — parents are notified about controversial lessons on gender. And, in the most outrageous development of all, the district has decided that it will not allow families to opt their kids out.

Forty families have pulled their children from the district — and I don’t blame them!

It shows a stunning amount of arrogance on the part of the academic elite to suggest that teachers know better than parents. That’s in direct contradiction to the biblical instruction to mothers and fathers to train up their children in the way they should go. Parents are the first line of defense for their kids, especially as education becomes an even deeper liberal abyss. Now, districts like Rocklin are robbing moms and dads of their authority on an issue that shouldn’t be a classroom discussion in the first place — let alone an elementary school one.

San Antonio families can sympathize. Monday night, local families streamed into the city’s school board meeting to object to a gender-free policy that would let boys into girls’ bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers. As usual, members approved the rules without ever consulting parents! And the backlash has been severe. More than 1,300 San Antonio residents have signed their names to a petition in opposition to the guidance, our friends at Texas Values explain.

“The community here in San Antonio needs to understand that we’re here tonight for every student –not just one particular kind of student,” said Elizabeth Gonzales. “If we’re truly wanting to be united, we must be fair and just to every student. And to be fair, we must make sure parents and students are being given ample opportunity to come to the table and be heard. I believe in doing that, there will be change.” Until then, she (and countless other parents around the country) aren’t so optimistic.

In schools, discussions aren’t allowed. And in an environment that already stigmatizes any form of religious expression, it’s not difficult to see where this kind of ideological oppression leads. What’s more, teachers are increasingly sending students the subtle message that parents don’t know what they’re talking about. That’s a dangerous seed to plant — and one that only grows as teenagers transition from public schools to public universities.

Too many parents have abdicated their leadership role in their kids’ education. And if moms and dads don’t take it back now, there won’t be much hope left.


Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.


Also in the September 20 Washington Update:

U.N. Bears the Blunt of Trump

FRC in the Spotlight