Stanford University: Susan Rice’s Republican Son Assaulted by Leftist-Fascist

This incident is one of many recent indications of the fact that the increasingly authoritarian Left, having comprehensively lost the public debate, is more and more resorting to violence in order to intimidate those whom it hates into silence. Then, taking a page from their jihadist allies, Leftist thugs turn around and claim victimhood, as we see from the predictable piece in the egregious Stanford Daily, “Change my mind: SCR’s only concern with violence is how to use it,” by Justin Wilck.

In that article, young Wilck claims that the Stanford College Republicans, despite the fact that the violence was directed against them, and the additional fact that they have never called for violence or approved of violence, are the real violent ones. They did this also when Stanford student Hamzeh Daoud vowed to physically assault supporters of Israel on campus. It’s a total inversion of reality, and it’s ideologically based: these Stanford Leftists are so thoroughly indoctrinated that they think that if a victim of a crime is an ideological enemy, and the perpetrator a comrade, then the true victim must be the perpetrator, and the true evildoer the one who suffered the injury.

Instead of being taught how to think for themselves, evaluate evidence, and determine the truth and falsehood of an assertion, Stanford students are being taught that adherence to the Leftist ideology and all that matters, and those who dare to dissent can justifiably be physically assaulted as well as libeled.

And so Justin Wilck, in the time-honored fashion of the Stanford Daily, can’t talk about the Stanford College Republicans without including a lie about me: “Did SCR care last November when Robert Spencer published students’ personal information and his followers sent them threatening emails?” I did not, of course, publish any students’ personal information. In reality, I responded point-by-point to attack pieces, most of them loaded with libels about my work and my character, written and signed by Stanford students. If these students hadn’t wanted their names known, they should have written the pieces anonymously. But in a civilized world of genuine rational discourse, which is, of course, quite far from what takes place at Stanford today, those who disagree have discussions based on evidence, and one side doesn’t start whining that “personal information” was published if the other side responds to attacks.

This is, however, the level of discourse that one would expect from Stanford students today. My event there last November was forcibly disrupted by administrators and fascist students, and the Leftists there still crow about their destruction of the possibility of genuine discussion and free discourse. The Left doesn’t want discussion or debate. Leftists want to silence their foes, by violence if necessary. We see that in arenas small and large, from Melinda Hernandez’s assault of John Rice-Cameron here all the way to the Stalinist gulags. In Stanford, the next generation of gulag guards is being trained now.

“Susan Rice’s Republican Son Assaulted at Pro-Kavanaugh Event,” by Kristina Wong, Breitbart, October 10, 2018:

Stanford College Republicans said Tuesday that John David Rice-Cameron, its president and son of former Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice, was assaulted that day at a event at Stanford University, where he is a sophomore.

“Today, SCR experienced the violent and totalitarian behavior of the unhinged Stanford left. During a ‘Change My Mind’ tabling event regarding the presumption of innocence and the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation, SCR’s President was assaulted by Melinda Hernandez. A sophomore at Stanford, Hernandez approached our President, hit him in chest and forcefully pushed him back,” the group posted on Facebook.

“Our President is pressing full charges against Hernandez. Violence is completely unacceptable, and we will not allow anyone to get away with it. Throughout the day, our signs were vandalized and destroyed, and we will be posting more video and photos shortly. Stay tuned,” it said.

The group posted pictures, including of sheriff’s deputies on the scene and a torn up poster.

Later, the group posted video of three students attempting to vandalize the table the Stanford College Republicans had set up.

“In addition to having our President assaulted by the violent and unhinged Melinda Hernandez, SCR members were harassed at yesterday’s ‘Change My Mind’ table throughout the day. Leftists vandalized and destroyed our signs, threw paint and water at our members, and hurled insults and profanities for hours. This is the state of poltical discourse at Stanford University: defined by the violent and childlish [sic] antics of the unhinged left.”

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images and video was originally published on Jihad Watch.

Five Questions to Ask Yourself Before Doing a Public Speaking Engagement

Nowadays, a lot of people get up on stage to talk about something before an audience. Their listeners range from a jam-packed local bar to an arena-sized crowd. These people who love to listen to public speaking engagements have different motives. Some want to get inspired, while others are looking to learn something new.

Most speakers, on the other hand, are looking for a story to tell their audiences or to promote their business or to entertain their listeners. Along the way, you’ll meet smart and bright public speakers to boring ones and all types in between.

If you want to become a brilliant public speaker, it’s a must that you know the basics of public speaking. For a start, you should know the five questions to ask yourself before you get on stage for your first public speaking engagement.

Who are My Listeners?

In any speaking engagement, whether addressing a small or large crowd, it’s crucial that you know the people you’re speaking to. You should learn what they already know about the topic you’ll be discussing. It will also help you a lot if you consider their knowledge gaps and their motives why they choose to listen to you.

What Do I Want My Listeners to Feel During and After My Talk?

Of course, you should think about how you like your listeners connect with your topic. If your motivation is to provide them with inspiration, you need to ask yourself what are the speaking strategies you should do to attain this goal?

If your purpose is to entertain them, what material do you have to offer to achieve it? Considering what the audience will feel and think during and after your talk is essential to connect to them successfully.

What Tone Would Be Ideal for Your Listeners?

The tone of your public speaking should achieve a friendly and conversational tone. In this way, you can captivate your audience and make them engage freely with your ideas.

However, it’s crucial to strike a balance. Most of the time, it’s a must to adopt a more authoritative tone in your talk. Taking this tone of public speaking will make your ideas believable, especially if the goal of your speech is something that calls for an action.

What Do I Want My Listeners to Say about the Topic of My Presentation?

You should always have in mind how your talk can cause your audience to discuss it after your presentation. If you want your listeners to remember your topic and your strategies of public speaking, it’s a must that you highlight the facts, statistics, and the ideas to make them easier to remember for them.

What Do I Want My Listeners to Do After Your Talk?

Any public speaker will surely want their listeners to do something after giving a talk. This characteristic is common among motivational speakers and visionaries.

So, if you’re to change the listeners’ perspective and make them act on what you’re saying, you should see to it that you craft your material in a way that it’s calling for real action. There are strategies for you to achieve this goal. If you want to learn public speaking, you can reach out to organizations like Talent Bureau for that purpose.


If you want to be an excellent public speaker, you should see to it that you know what to do before you get up on stage. For instance, you should know the type of audience you’re addressing, how you should make them think and feel about your talk, how to make them act, and what tone will be ideal to them.

Liberal Profs Hit a Grand Sham in Journal Hoax

You’ve heard of fake news — but what about fake academia? According to three gutsy professors, it’s alive and well and being featured in plenty of peer-reviewed journals. Together, the trio set out to prove it in a scholarly hoax that’s taken the entire education world by surprise.

Medieval religious scholar Helen Pluckrose, author and mathematician James Lindsay, and philosopher Peter Boghossian aren’t conservative (as a matter of fact, they call themselves “Left-leaning liberals), but they certainly share a lot of conservatives’ concerns about the bias of higher education. Fed up with the “grievance studies” that they think have taken over academia, they set out to prove what a joke the field of gender and identity studies has become.

Starting in August of 2017, the professors started cranking out fake papers and submitting them to scholarly journals under different names. The more absurd the topic, the more likely it seemed to get published. Among other things, the trio wrote entire sham essays on subjects like: dog parks becoming “petri dishes for canine ‘rape culture,'” what motivates heterosexual men to eat at Hooters, the fat-exclusionary culture of bodybuilding. They even argued for replacing “western astronomy” with “feminist astronomy.”

Their experiment worked. Seven of the 20 papers were accepted, all having undergone so-called “rigorous” peer review. “Their submissions were outlandish,” the Wall Street Journal points out, “but no more so, they insist, than others written in earnest and published by these journals.” When the three professors revealed what they’d done, the academic community exploded. They were outraged that anyone would pull back the curtain on what the trio calls “absurd and horrific scholarship.”

Obviously, they wanted to get the country’s attention about a community that’s fixated on politically-correct outcomes. As Ben Shapiro pointed out in Newsweek, “Education,” he says, “has become about underscoring the preferred power politics of those who control the flow of information. Ironically, those who insist that reality is mere social construction insist that their alternative social construction be made reality. That means that politics become paramount, and truth becomes completely superfluous.”

So much so that three liberal professors were willing to risk their careers to shine a light on the problem. As WSJ tells it, “Mr. Boghossian doesn’t have tenure and expects the university will fire or otherwise punish him. Ms. Pluckrose predicts she’ll have a hard time getting accepted to a doctoral program. Mr. Lindsay said he expects to become ‘an academic pariah,’ barred from professorships or publications.” Regardless, they say, it was all worth it. “For us, the risk of letting biased research continue to influence education, media, policy, and culture is far greater than anything that will happen to us for having done this.”

Whether educators will be embarrassed enough to do something about it remains to be seen. What we do know is that it takes a lot of courage to expose a problem most liberals are too afraid to admit — let alone combat. Our hats go off to the professors for giving America a real study in academic bias!

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


Dem Tactics Rotten to the Court

Where Will You Be November 4th?

EDITORS NOTE: This column is republished with permission.

Florida’s “Red-flag” Law Has Red Flags Of Its Own

Mr. Thompson et al – you deserve a big Garland for your Ledger and News Chief editorial of October 6th entitled “Red-Flag” law has red flags of its own.

My wife and I, both of whom are Constitution loving, U.S. Army veterans, and law abiding gun owners; extensively studied Florida’s new 105 page SB 7026 school safety law. We immediately saw problems and warned in writing about much of your excellent editorial’s content/concerns regarding the “Risk Protection Orders (RPOs) also referred to as “Red Flag” laws. We have also notified our Polk County Congressional Delegation of our concerns. You are 100% accurate when you wrote about Florida being a (surprising) outlier compared with the other 10 states enacting red-flag laws which “are known for harboring hostility to guns and a proclivity for stricter gun-control laws.”

This law was hastily written following great pressure on the Legislature and Governor after the evil Parkland murders. With few exceptions, much of this law would never have been passed under other circumstances. It was a knee jerk reaction to a failure of law enforcement in Broward County both at the FBI and Sheriff levels and the Broward County School Superintendent as well. Yet, to date they have not been held accountable !

Children were murdered and something substantial needed to be done quickly such as Sheriff Judd’s Sentinel/Martial program to provide protection for children in our schools by school start-up but not with these RPOs which can bring the loss of rights, financial expense and reputations of law abiding citizens who are also gun owners.

You followed with the astute comments that “Yet strict attention must be paid to how this law is executed. The RPO process is fraught with significant potential for abusing the rights of law-abiding gun owners”. How true, including potential violations of our 2nd, 4th, 5th and 14th Amendment rights. As stated above, the only part that should have been so rapidly put into place was Sheriff Judd’s Sentinel or Martial program. The rest should have been thoroughly thought through including specific, understandable, not subject to open interpretation, constitutional procedures. Three (3) weeks was not enough time to get this hugely significant legislation right. Mid-term elections should not have been a consideration in the Legislature’s decisions..

After your explanation of potential factors for issuing a RPO such as violent criminal history, threatened violence, history of mental illness or substance abuse or threats of self harm you rightfully followed with “Yet, per Florida Senate staff analysis of the law, judges may grant RPOs after considering a simple “intent” to possess guns, or “any relevant information” supplied by family members or witnesses.”

You then quoted Kendra Parris, an Orlando lawyer who has been critical of the law, as noting on her blog that this standard is way too broad writing “Virtually anything can be considered relevant” – she also noted “the risk doesn’t have to be “concrete, likely, or imminent,” and she is so right about that.

For example, it is very disturbing to me as a combat veteran that a PTS diagnosis might be considered “relevant information” here especially since 99.9999% of those veterans with PTS are non-violent and non-threatening nor should this in any way be construed as mental illness.

Many of us lawful gun owners fear cases involving angry neighbors, jealous wives or girlfriends, vindictive ex-spouses, anyone who is anti-gun and knows others with guns or has an axe to grind can call in a false report. There are countless other false scenarios which could lead to an improper seizure by an RPO including possibly even the involvement of biased liberal judges or DAs with an anti-gun agenda. To make matters worse, the seizures come first followed by a hearing which is wrong and violates 4th, 5th and 14th Amendment rights to be free from unlawful seizures and to have Due Process. Unless there is formidable evidence of an imminent threat, the hearing should occur, the evidence heard and considered and the accused being able to present evidence before all the guns, accessories and concealed carry permits (if issued) are seized.

Please see the attached articles including my Letter to the Editor which you published. Lawyers are also beginning to recognize the potential violations of 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments because of the loose way this portion of the law is written leaving itself to many various interpretations. As stated above, I was gratified to see your reference to Orlando Attorney Kendra Parris adding her voice to the chorus of those concerned about the potential violations of Constitutional rights especially of Due Process. You also referenced Lakeland Attorney Tony C. Dodd’s concerns in your front page article of Sep 30 entitled Guns under lock – he was absolutely correct in his assessment and appreciate your inclusion of his remarks in this article. I would also invite you to read what another Attorney, Cynthia Clark had to say about this law.

Speaking of this Sep 30 article. I wrote to you and reporters Mr. Chambliss and Ms. Schottelkotte about their article the same day it was published – please see email below. Unfortunately, I have not received a response in answer to the following:

“Mr. Chambiss and Ms. Schottelkotte, I would urge you to follow up on this very huge issue including information on how many of these 121 Risk Assessment Orders since Sep 17 and beyond are/were overturned and at what cost to the rights (and personal financial expense) of law abiding, actually non-threatening citizens.” Also “what is/was the bureaucratic procedure for obtaining his (the grandfather in case overturned) lawful firearms back; how big a hassle was it; how much time did it take to get their property back and what condition were his guns in upon return?”.

It should also be noted that a person ordered to appear before a NPO hearing would be smart to hire an attorney but the law gives no recourse for this person to be reimbursed for his/her legal fees if found not to be a threat. Additionally, all of the accused’s firearms, accessories and permit most likely are seized before the hearing commences which is not Due Process. Nor is it Due Process for the accused to have to prove they are not a threat and should keep their firearms rather than the Court/Prosecutor proving they are a threat and holding all their seized firearms, accessories and concealed carry permit (if issued) for 1 year leaving them defenseless to protect themselves and their families against possible criminal acts.

Again, thank you for this timely and astute editorial on the RPO portion of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas Public Safety Act and please follow up on this whole issue. Lakeland Lawyer Tony C. Dodds was insightful when he predicted that “there will be numerous challenges to its constitutionality.” With the exception of Sheriff Judd’s Sentinel or Martial Program many parts of this law including the part dealing with ex parte and RPO seizures are bad law as written.

I’m sure you know that both Senator’s Bill Nelson and (disappointingly) Marco Rubio have indicated they favor national Red Flag laws and so has anti-2A Representative Darren Soto – 9th Dist and Gov candidate Andrew Gillum. Nelson, Soto and Gillum also are on record for banning AR 15 type rifles and high capacity magazines of all kinds (rifle and pistol) and mandatory registration of all firearms.

Sir – when I went to bed at 3:30 am on November 7, 2016, I was hugely relieved that Hillary Clinton would not be my President. Among other reasons she was adamantly against my 2nd Amendment and other God given natural rights spelled out in the Bill of Rights not as rights but as prohibiting government over-reach of these rights. She would have taken action including SCOTUS appointments to do away with or weaken my Second Amendment and other rights. Now, with this Florida government over-reach, I find myself with this same kind of anxiety as a resident of the State of Florida because of this bad law. This isn’t right and must be changed !

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Debby Hudson on Unsplash.

Help Get World Hijab Day out of the Public Schools

The Christian Action Network has launched an aggressive campaign to end any public school celebration of World Hijab Day this coming February of 2019.

World Hijab Day (WHD) was launched in 2004 and began to be celebrated in some public schools in 2013.

Public schools participating in the event ask female students to dress up as Muslims during classroom hours by wearing the Islamic hijab. Some schools add male head garments and other Islamic garb for boys to wear.

Read more

Students at Pembroke Pines HS in Pembroke, FL show off their Muslim hijabs during World Hijab Day.

World Hijab Day is celebrated by students during classroom hours at Richwood HS in Peoria, IL

World Hijab Day organizers say they are promoting the event in public schools to show that Muslims “rule the world.”

Learn more about this event and what Christian Action Network is doing to stop it from happening this February in the public schools.

Our mailing address is:
Christian Action Network
PO Box 606
Forest, VA 24551

RELATED ARTICLE: How Foreign Terrorist Funders Get U.S. Public Schools To Teach Anti-Jew Propaganda

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Scott Webb on Unsplash.

VIDEO: Alex Epstein’s Q&A with energy MBA students at TCU

Two years ago I got an invitation from TCU professor Ed Ireland to talk to his energy MBA students. The class had read my book The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, and Ed wanted them to have the chance to ask me their toughest questions. (You can view it here.)

It was one of the most enjoyable Q&As on energy I’ve done, and so I was excited when Ed invited me back again this year to discuss fossil fuels with a new class of energy MBAs. This time we covered a lot of interesting territory including the meaning of “sustainability,” my biggest pollution concerns, the criminalization of nuclear, and California’s commitment to be “100% CO2-free” by 2045.

After reading “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels,” Professor Ed Ireland’s Energy MBA students bring their toughest questions in this remote Q&A session with me.

Upcoming Speeches

I’m getting ready for a bunch of speaking engagements that are coming up in the next few weeks.

  • 9/26 – California Tripartite Conference
  • 10/1 – Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC)
  • 10/8 – Independent Lubricant Manufacturers Association (ILMA)
  • 10/9 – New Mexico Oil and Gas Association (NMOGA)

If you’re interested in having me speak at a high level event, here is the latest list of the topics I cover:


  • Human Flourishing and Energy Progress
  • The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels
  • Our Fossil Future: Why Fossil Fuels Will Continue to Outcompete Solar, Wind, and EVs
  • What Exactly is “Social Responsibility Investing”? A Human Flourishing Approach
  • The Moral Case for Fossil Fuel Investment
  • How Moral Biases Cause Bad Investments
  • Understanding the ESG Threat
  • The Moral Case for Nuclear Power
  • The Moral Case for GMOs
  • The Moral Case for Chemicals


  • “Arguing to 100”: How to reframe the debate instead of reacting to the debate
  • How to Win Hearts and Minds
  • How to Talk to Anyone About Energy
  • Asymmetric strategy: How to persuade more people with fewer resources
  • Constructive Conversations Workshop
  • Asymmetric Strategy Workshop


  • The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels
  • Energy Heroes
  • The Oil Industry’s Millennial Problem—And How to Solve it

To host me on one of these topics or any other topic click the button below.

Send Event Details 

The Human Flourishing Project: Relaxed productivity (part 1)

On the latest episode of The Human Flourishing Project I discuss what “relaxed productivity” is, why it’s so desirable, and what practices can help us achieve it.

Visit our Facebook page and join in the discussion. And for the latest news visit where you can sign up to receive email updates.

Popular link

To learn more and get free resources visit

How the Janus Decision Could Vastly Improve Public Education

Two new pieces of research give us reason to be encouraged by the Janus decision.

On June 27, 2018, the Supreme Court ruled 5–4 in favor of the plaintiff in the case of Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31 (AFSCME). Dry as it sounds, this was a landmark ruling; the Court said that public sector unions could not force non-members to pay fees to them. Furthermore, in the future employees will have to “opt in” to pay fees; their consent cannot be assumed.

What is likely to happen to teachers and students in the wake of Janus v. AFSCME? Typically, teachers unions have argued that weakening their power to collectively bargain would hinder both students and teachers. Fortunately, however, two new pieces of research give us reason to be encouraged by the Janus decision.

The first is a paper titled “The Labor Market for Teachers Under Different Pay Schemes,” by economist Barbara Biasi.

The vast majority of districts pay teachers according to similar lock-step schedules. This means that all teachers with the same education degree and years of experience are paid exactly the same amount, regardless of their effectiveness, their skills, or the demand for their labor. There is often little variation in these schedules across all districts within a state, owing to pattern bargaining, facilitated by the state’s teachers’ union, one of those services allegedly at risk following the Supreme Court’s decision.

Biasi’s paper asks, “If allowed to set pay in a more flexible way, could school districts improve the quality of the teaching workforce?”

Data from Wisconsin allow Biasi to address this question. In 2011 the Wisconsin legislature passed Act 10. The law limited collective bargaining over teachers’ salary schedules in the state. Previously, Wisconsin had seen strict adherence to lock-step schedules, which were negotiated between each school district and its teachers’ union. Act 10 gave districts full autonomy to decide on compensation, allowing them to negotiate salaries with individual teachers using any criteria the two sides desired.

The result, according to Biasi, was that “Teacher quality increased in these districts [which adopted flexible pay schedules] relative to those with seniority pay, due to a change in workforce composition and an increase in effort.”

A switch away from seniority pay [SP] towards flexible pay [FP] in a subset of Wisconsin districts, following the interruption of [collective bargaining] on teachers’ salary schedules mandated by Act 10 of 2011, resulted in higher-quality teachers moving to FP districts and lower-quality teachers either moving to SP districts or leaving the public school system altogether. As a result, the composition of the teaching workforce improved in FP districts compared with SP districts. Effort exerted by all teachers also increased.

In short, the labor market for teachers in Wisconsin worked much as you’d expect. There was more movement, better teachers earned more money, and teachers were encouraged to work harder.

The second paper is “The Long-run Effects of Teacher Collective Bargaining” by economists Michael Lovenheim and Alexander Willén. They investigate how teacher collective bargaining, one of the key services offered by their unions, “impacts student outcomes.”

The authors focused on “duty-to-bargain (DTB) laws, which require districts to negotiate with teachers’ unions in good faith.” These laws have been shown to increase union membership and the likelihood that a district elects a union to bargain collectively. Lovenheim and Willén use the timing of the passage of DTB laws between 1960 and 1987 and data on educational and labor market outcomes among 35-49 year-olds to investigate how teacher collective bargaining impacts a broad array of long-run outcomes.

They find, among male past students, “negative effects of exposure to teacher collective bargaining laws on the long-run labor market outcomes of students who grew up in states with these laws. These results are consistent with the “rent-seeking” hypothesis of teacher unionization.”

This hypothesis, according to the authors, states that “unions lead to a re-allocation of resources towards teachers while also making educational resources less productive.” Specifically, Lovenheim and Willén find that ten years of exposure to collective bargaining reduces annual earnings by $2,134.04 (or 3.93%) and weekly hours worked by 0.42 (or 1.09%). These individuals are also 1 percentage point less likely to be employed, are 0.8% less likely to be in the labor force and find themselves in lower-skilled occupations.

Furthermore, the negative effects of collective bargaining are particularly pronounced among black and Hispanic males. Here, ten years of exposure to collective bargaining lower annual earnings by $3,246 (9.43%), hours worked per week by 0.72 (2.18%), and the likelihood of being employed by 1.3 percentage points. All told, the authors concluded the following:

A back-of-the-envelope calculation indicates these laws reduce total labor market earnings by $213.8 billion per year, which suggests our findings have large implications for earnings in the US due to the prevalence of duty-to-bargain laws…In total, our estimates indicate that state duty-to-bargain laws have sizable, negative labor market consequences for men who attended grade school in states with these laws.

The teachers’ unions might be correct that the Janus vs AFSCME verdict will compromise their ability to effectively offer its membership such services as collective bargaining. But, on the basis of these two new pieces of research, it is unclear that its other warnings stack up. They suggest that teacher pay will be more closely related to their output and that students—particularly black and Hispanic boys—will be better off.

Whenever a representative of producers, like teachers unions, claims to be motivated by a concern for the welfare of their consumers, students, it might be more appropriate to raise a quizzical eyebrow. This new research suggests that, contra union claims, it is they who will be negatively impacted by Janus vs AFSCME. Students and even teachers may well be better off thanks to the Supreme Court’s decision.

John Phelan

John Phelan

John Phelan is an economist at the Center of the American Experiment and fellow of The Cobden Centre.

It Does Not Take A Village – It Takes An Adult

Mammals, including humans, have a cycle of life with a beginning, a middle, and an end. The survival of the species requires that adult members of the group help newborns survive and develop into reproducing adults who can then help their own newborns develop into reproducing adults and the cycle of life continues. The growth process from the smallest to the largest mammals demands food, water, shelter, and a transfer of information from the knowledgeable adult to the uninformed young. The adults in the community teach their young how to survive. What happens when the process is impeded?

The United States of America and its social order was founded upon the principles of adulthood. Powers entrusted to the adult members of the family were gradually transferred to the children as they became adults themselves and began having families of their own. Parents taught their children survival skills and imbued them with their personal, moral, and religious values. What happened?

There has been a gradual shift in the established social order of America. Institutional “experts” pressured society toward regression, dependence, and mediocrity rather than growth, independence, and individual achievement. This movement has eroded parental authority and tilted young people away from independence and adulthood toward collectivism and middling both personally and professionally. The social order of adulthood is under attack. This is how it works.

Let’s begin at the beginning. Traditionally, when new babies are born young mothers turn toward their own mothers for guidance – grandmothers have standing in the transfer of knowledge about raising children. Grandma’s successes as well as her mistakes are a rich source of information for new moms – not anymore.

Authors Ari Brown, MD, Denise Fields, and Michele Hakakha, MD, have written an overbearing and incredibly condescending book titled Baby 411: Clear Answers & Smart Advice for Your Baby’s First Year. On the acknowledgements page of the 2014 edition they arrogantly state that, “It’s sad but true: any parenting book written before 2013 is already outdated.” REALLY?

In an equally pompous description of themselves they state, “We give you the 4-1-1. Ours is the ONLY parenting book series in the market that updates with new editions every two to three years, giving our readers the most current, scientific-evidence based advice.”  Ahhh – scientific advice!

21st century parents are persuaded by anything claiming to be scientific – it is the foundation of their world. They willingly surrender their common sense and critical thinking skills to the “experts” who gladly tell them how to do anything and everything scientifically. A generation of American parents have surrendered their adult authority and independence to the self-proclaimed experts who offer them self-assured advice and online communities for support.

No other mammal seems to have this problem – once the bears and the cows learn their survival lessons they are on their own and either survive or die in the environment.

People are more complicated, especially new parents, they ruminate and obsess over whether they are doing the right thing and whether they are being good parents. Most of all they worry if their children are happy. Rather than having confidence in their own parenting instincts and the generational advice of trusted family, they trust the often corrupt “scientific-evidence based” advice of designated experts. Bears and cows trust themselves.

What happens when their children go to school? 21st century parents willingly surrender their adult authority to the educational experts as well. Why is that a problem?

Most parents are completely unaware of the ideological agenda of the experts in charge of the Education Establishment in America. Their children are being indoctrinated away from independence and traditional Judeo-Christian values toward collectivism and global citizenship and the parents are oblivious. Out with the old – in with the new.

Parents today are extremely stressed – they lack confidence in their own competence and ability to problem solve and are constantly in search of experts who will soothe their fragile selves and absolve them of personal responsibility. It’s easier to believe the experts than trust themselves. Why are these parents so fragile and uncertain?

Adulthood requires assuming personal responsibility for one’s decisions and taking responsibility for the consequences of those decisions. Parents today are so other-directed that they have unwittingly denied themselves the self-confidence and self-esteem enjoyed by their parents and grandparents because they have never assumed the adult responsibilities that empowered their elders. When an individual surrenders his/her adult authority and independence that individual is resuming the position of childhood instead of assuming the position of adulthood. Why does this matter?

It matters because it does not take a village – it takes an adult to raise a child. It matters because Hillary Clinton’s village is socialism. When she talked about an unaware and compliant public she described the situation of childhood. Socialism is a children’s village where the state has assumed the responsibilities of adulthood and the public has resumed the powerlessness of childhood.

Still, Hillary’s romanticized village requires leadership – Hillary conveniently leaves that part out of her description of the village. It is the elite in socialist societies who rule those societies and reap the benefits – not the citizens. The Cubans and the Venezuelans were promised social justice and income equality too. What the citizens of their once thriving nations now have under socialism is poverty, scarcity, and lawlessness. The leaders have all the wealth and power – of course they do – that was their plan all along.

Every incremental step that reduces individual personal adult authority awards the government more authority and control over the individual. To understand the devastation of Hillary’s village it is necessary to examine education in the village.

Bruce Deitrick Price has written a stunning book titled Saving K-12 that explains in chilling detail the deliberate destruction of public education in America courtesy of the leftist Education Establishment. He writes:

“When most people say the word ‘education’ they mean something very specific, and almost everyone knows exactly what that is: reading, writing, arithmetic, geography, to be followed by history, science, literature, and the arts. . . Unfortunately, the people who control public education and shape the debate have another meaning in their minds, and they know exactly what that is: social engineering, indoctrination, political correctness, and left-wing politics.”

Price explains in unique and meticulous detail how failed systems of Sight-Words and Reform Math are still being taught decades later to innocent students with the support of clueless parents, often with fancy new scientific names. Traditional learning modes that stress simplicity, facts, and practical application are out of fashion. The new methods focus on “scientific” abstract concepts instead of basic skills. Common sense dictates it is impossible to run before walking so it should surprise no one that American children in public schools are falling down.

Consider the method known as Constructivism, an experiential program where children are supposed to invent their own versions of knowledge and teachers stand back and act as their facilitators to encourage the process. WHAT?? The problem with Constructivism is the same problem with Sight-Words and Reform Math – running before walking. Basic skills are what give children the foundation to understand their experience – simple before complex – children must walk before they can run.

Constructivism is just another harmful example of adults (teachers) abandoning their authority because the experts told them to. The children end up anxious and without foundational knowledge. It is idiotic to expect children to “invent knowledge,” and since they cannot read they cannot even acquire basic knowledge independently outside their toxic classrooms.

The left-wing experts have deliberately dumbed down, confused, and produced such nervousness in students that many are being misdiagnosed as having disruptive behavior disorders, learning disabilities, anxiety disorders, and/or attention deficit disorders. The children are then given drugs and other therapies to calm them down!!

In 1955 Rudolph Flesch published his blockbuster book Why Johnny Can’t Read that sold 8 million copies and explained why America had an illiteracy problem (Sight-Words) and what to do about it (bring back phonics). Flesch explained that English is a phonetic language that must be taught phonetically. If you teach English as Sight-Words, you are turning English into Chinese. The “experts” have arrogantly ignored Flesch’s wisdom for 60 years but Johnny still cannot read. Why not?

What is the motive for deliberately insisting upon systems that are known failures? Why is this happening?

The answer is extremely difficult to accept because the good citizens of America trust the Education Establishment to teach their children well. They have great difficulty embracing the notion that there is a purposeful educational dumbing down of their beloved sons and daughters. Parents remain perilously unaware of the despicable ideological campaign of the Education Establishment toward mediocrity and socialism. It is simply inconceivable to most parents that their children are being deliberately taught to fail.

The Education Establishment’s collectivist goals are accomplished through the the twin strategies of eliminating as much of the traditional curriculum content as possible and then making the remainder so confusing that the children don’t understand or remember what they are being taught. The outcome is a staggering ignorance of basic knowledge.

Bruce Dietrick Price explains in exquisite detail the traumatizing experience of the child being taught to sight-read in a system of WHOLE WORDS rather than learning the foundational basics of sounding out words using phonics:

“Just for a moment, consider the silly theory that our top educators put forward. There should be no sounding out of letters and syllables; instead, children should memorize words as graphic designs or diagrams. Put yourself in the head of a kid showing up for first grade. The teacher points to a design like ‘xhylg’ and instructs, ‘This means house. When you see this, say house.’ So, can you memorize ‘xhyld’? Probably. But will you be able to pick it out from similar designs, of which there are dozens, such as: xhydd, xyhld, xhydl, xyyld, xhdyl, xyjkl, xkyht, xygld, etc. of course you will need to be ready for variations such as XHYDD, XYHLD, XHYDL, XYYLD, XHDYL, XYJKL, XKYHT, XYGLD. . . You can probably feel the dyslexia creeping into your brain.”

Price’s book is riveting and should be required reading of all parents with young children. Saving K-12 says the unsayable. The motive for insisting upon failed systems of Sight-Reading and Reform Math that produce illiteracy is social control through a dumbed-down population. It is the strategy necessary to create Hillary’s village of compliant adults who function as compliant children. A functionally illiterate society is easy to control.

In an equally disturbing article appearing in Renew America titled, “Memo to K-12 students: Resist” Bruce Dietrick Price exposes the psychological warfare being waged against K-12 students to prepare them for global citizenship in a restructured globalist one world government.

“You are a participant in a vast psychological war. Believe it or not, you are the enemy in this war. You are the primary target. Yes, they want you, your unformed personality, your uninformed mind. They want to shape you and make you so that finally you’re indistinguishable from other kids. You’re not supposed to know much or think much. In Brave New World you would be a Gamma or maybe a Delta. According to Wikipedia,’these people are deliberately limited in their cognitive and physical abilities, as well as the scope of their ambitions and the complexity of their desires, thus rendering them easier to control.’”

Limited cognitive abilities has been the undisputed consequence of decades of debilitating educational systems that subvert learning the basic skills of reading, writing, and arithmetic. There are 50 million people in the United States who are functionally illiterate. Price argues very persuasively that READING is the basis of all learning so parents can at least inoculate their children against the education establishment by teaching the children phonics at home.

Price reiterates Flesch’s central thesis that English is a phonetic language and must be taught phonetically. If you teach it as Sight-Words, you are turning English into Chinese. It is as simple as that. So, why does Common Core teach Sight-Words?

Under ex-president Obama the egregious Common Core State Standards were adopted by 42 of the 50 states – all incentivized by “stimulus money” – nothing scientific about bribery. Common Core is the educational standard of the United Nations Agenda 2030 marketed to “ensure inclusive and equitable quality education for all.” WOW! Sounds great! The problem is that United Nations Agenda 2030 is a globalist campaign to indoctrinate our children into becoming global citizens in an internationalized world under one world government – administered by the UN of course!

Now you are beginning to understand the deceit because what the “experts” mean by inclusive and equitable is probably not what you understand those words to mean.

Ileana Johnson has written an important article titled, “The Link Between Declining National Education Quality and UN Agenda 2030” that appeared in The Epoch Times on 7/15/18. Johnson directs the reader to the Pearson curriculum and its Common Core textbooks that are methodically indoctrinating our children and grandchildren.

In a suspiciously unpublicized event Education Secretary Betsy DeVos signed on to the anti-American globalist United Nations Agenda 2030 initiative while attending the July, 2018 G20 Education Ministerial Meeting in Argentina. Any American Secretary of Education who signs on to the globalist United Nations education agenda, including Betsy DeVos, is not fit for office.  What could DeVos be thinking?

Appointing Betsy DeVos to be Secretary of Education was a HUGE mistake. DeVos’ job was to eliminate the destructive Common Core Standards and return educational authority to the states and to parents. The United Nations Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals are diametrically opposed to American sovereignty, American independence, and the stated America-first goals of the Trump administration. President Trump has wisely taken us out of the Paris Accord, the Iran deal, and NAFTA – thanks to Betsy DeVos he will now have to take us out of any commitment whatsoever to this egregious agreement with the UN.

The United Nations and every one of its deceptive initiatives is designed to weaken America in preparation for one world government. The deal DeVos signed on to with the Education Working Group of the Group of 20 is arguably the worst and most sinister deal of all because it propagandizes American students against America! We need representatives of America who represent American interests like Nikki Haley – not incompetent fools or closet globalists like Betsy DeVos.

When curriculum content becomes a national security threat it is a federal matter and demands the attention of the President. President Trump must withdraw the United States from any involvement in UN Agenda 2030 and replace Betsy DeVos with an education secretary who is committed to American excellence through excellence in American public schools.

Making America great again requires making American public education great again. We must reclaim the power we were entrusted with and demand a total K-12 educational overhaul committed to reading, writing, arithmetic, geography, to be followed by history, science, literature, and the arts. We must insist upon restoring phonics and traditional math in the classroom. We must ensure our children acquire the skills they need to survive.

It does not take a village to raise a child – it takes an adult.

If Americans continue to trust the Education Establishment “experts” and allow the insidious dumbing down of America through Common Core and the UN Agenda 2030, America will not remain free. As Thomas Jefferson said, “You cannot be both ignorant and free.”

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on the Goudsmit Pundicity. The featured image is from UnSplash/Sandy Millar@sandym10.

A Banner Day for Texas Cheerleaders!

At Friday’s football game, the people of Kountze, Texas will really have something to cheer about. Late last week, after a six-year struggle, the Texas Supreme Court finally put an end to the debate over Bible verses on high school rally banners. It had been a long haul for the families of Kountze, but the seven cheerleaders of 2012 who fought the suit were right: they can do all things through Christ who strengthens them.When the superintendent caved to the bullying tactics of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, the cheerleaders and their parents took a stand. Soon, this little town was at the center of a big debate over religious liberty. So big, it turns out, that even former Governor Rick Perry and then-Attorney General Greg Abbott weighed in. In an odd twist, the district fought to keep the challenge alive — even after local courts gave the cheerleaders the green light. That was probably the most infuriating part of the case, at least for local families — that the district is consciously funneling money away from education to fuel this gratuitous attack on faith.

First Liberty Institute represented the seven cheerleaders who made the signs, and the group’s Hiram Sasser celebrated that the journey had finally come to a successful end. “As the football season kicks off across Texas,” he told Fox News’s Todd Starnes, “it’s good to be reminded that these cheerleaders have a right to religious speech on their run-through banners — banners on which the cheerleaders painted messages they chose, with paint they paid for, on paper they purchased.”

The cheerleaders who fought back, including Rebekah Richardson who I profiled in my book No Fear, have long since left Kountze High. But the legacy of courage they left behind is something the whole town can be proud of. Because of them, generations of cheerleaders and students will be able to exercise their faith. Sometimes standing up for what you believe in takes time before it pays off. But the lesson here is as clear as it was when I talked to Rebekah in the beginning. If your conviction is rooted in your love for Jesus and obedience to His Word, then you’ve already won — no matter what the earthly outcome.

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


Left Rushes to Judge Kavanaugh

Americans on Nike Deal: Just Boo It

The Base of the Democratic Party is Socialist/Marxist — How they’re infiltrating our public school system

A pamphlet by the Young Democratic Socialists of America (YDSA), in conjunction with the Democratic Socialist Labor Commission, outlines a push for socialists to “take jobs as teachers” as a way to move teachers unions “in a more militant and democratic direction.”

The blood-soaked history of socialism is no longer brought up in history classes so it’s unknown by millennial’s, leading them to identify as supporters of the movement.

Campus Reform reported that the YDSA’s 11-page pamphlet notes teachers are able to use their relationships with students to discuss “campaigns around police brutality, immigrant rights, and environmental justice.” In an article titled “YDSA urges socialists to infiltrate public education” Zachary Petrizzo reports:

The Young Democratic Socialists of America organization is urging socialists to “take jobs as teachers” in order to exploit the “political, economic, and social potential the industry holds.”

“Why Socialists Should Become Teachers,” an 11-page pamphlet crafted jointly by YDSA and the Democratic Socialist Labor Commission, contends that education is “a strategic industry to organize,” and offers prospective socialist educators “a basic roadmap for how to get a job in education.”

“Even in West Virginia, where teachers experienced some of the lowest pay in the nation, they were sometimes the highest-paid workers in their communities.”    ]

The pamphlet begins by outlining the “success” of the recent West Virginia teachers strike, which it attributes to “creative shop floor organizing” from teachers who believed in “socialist politics.”

“Our immediate win in West Virginia was a 5% raise for all public sector workers, plus halting charter school legislation and attacks on seniority,” the document boasts. “But crucially, our movement’s demand was that the money come from highly profitable corporations that have long exploited West Virginia’s natural wealth.”

The Democratic Socialist platform was championed by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) two years ago on the campaign trail.

Using the same platform, young political newcomer Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez won a shock victory in June over Rep. Joe Crowley (N.Y.) in a Democratic primary. A new Gallop Poll revealed that more Democrats have a positive view about socialism than those who express a positive view about capitalism. Gallop found:

For the first time in Gallup’s measurement over the past decade, Democrats have a more positive image of socialism than they do of capitalism. Attitudes toward socialism among Democrats have not changed materially since 2010, with 57% today having a positive view. The major change among Democrats has been a less upbeat attitude toward capitalism, dropping to 47% positive this year — lower than in any of the three previous measures. Republicans remain much more positive about capitalism than about socialism, with little sustained change in their views of either since 2010.

The following are the Gallop Poll numbers:

  • 47% of Democrats view capitalism positively, down from 56% in 2016
  • 57% of Democrats now view socialism positively, little changed from 2010
  • Republicans very positive about capitalism; 16% positive on socialism

Views About Capitalism and Socialism: by Political Party

Positive view of capitalism Positive view of socialism
% %
2018 47 57
2016 56 58
2012 55 53
2010 53 53
2018 71 16
2016 68 13
2012 72 23
2010 72 17

Radio host Michael Knowles said on “Fox & Friends” that Democratic Socialists are urging Socialists to become teachers because they can’t win a “fair fight.” Knowles said Saturday that he believes Democratic Socialists are targeting the public school system and as a result, the students, because they can’t win against their parents.

“They can’t win in the battle of ideas, Democratic Socialists are trying to cut off any thought of freedom by students and replace it with socialist ideology. “They’ve got to indoctrinate an ideology rather than educate in history because if they teach history, they’re going to lose,” he said.

The pamphlet notes that organizing in schools is a way to “win concessions from the millionaire and billionaire class.”

“Teaching is proving to be one viable way for socialists to get into the labor movement and wage class struggle in a key industry that is under attack by capital,” it reads.


No. 2 ranked U.S. law school study finds conservative profs shunned by elite schools

Harvard Prof: Merit-based admissions ‘reproduce inequality’

Progressivism Takes Its Place Among the Major Religions

RELATED: Democratic Socialists set up shop on campuses nationwide

Radicalized Democrats: Destroying the Country and Their Own Party

The Media Lies About the Number of School Shootings in America

“One of the most heinous lies that the legacy press loves to perpetuate – the number of school shootings that have taken place in America. It’s so easy to debunk, but none of them bother to.” —Dana Loesch

EDITORS NOTE: Judicial Watch reported the following.

Most School Shootings in Federal Report Just Didn’t Happen

This is one for the annals of fake news. A federal agency is blundering around with erroneous but inflammatory data on a major topic of national contention, it gets called out by a government-supported news outlet … and it does nothing about it. Our Corruption Chronicles blog peeks into the window of this fun house.

In an amusing story, a government-funded media outlet notorious for its liberal slant found that the overwhelming majority of school shootings listed in a federal report never occurred. The embarrassing blunder involves Department of Education (DOE) figures stating that schools around the U.S. reported an alarming 235 shootings in one year.

National Public Radio (NPR) launched an investigation and actually contacted every one of the schools included in the DOE data, which was gathered by its Office for Civil Rights. The figures focus on the 2015-2016 school year and reveal that “nearly 240 schools…reported at least 1 incident involving a school-related shooting.”

Three months later, after every school was contacted by NPR, the stats changed drastically. More than two-thirds of the reported gun incidents never happened, according to the news outlet. “We were able to confirm just 11 reported incidents, either directly with schools or through media reports,” the article states. “In 161 cases, schools or districts attested that no incident took place or couldn’t confirm one. In at least four cases, we found, something did happen, but it didn’t meet the government’s parameters for a shooting. About a quarter of schools didn’t respond to our inquiries.” A program director at the nonprofit research organization that assisted NPR in analyzing the bogus government data is quoted in the piece saying: “When we’re talking about such an important and rare event, [this] amount of data error could be very meaningful.”

Even though the DOE is the agency responsible for disseminating the erroneous information, in typical government fashion, it shrugged it off as no big deal. When asked for comment by reporters, the agency said it relies on school districts to provide accurate information. Evidently, the federal agency doesn’t bother checking data before publishing it as fact. In the meantime, the DOE has no plans to correct the errors. The article points out that the confusion comes at a time when the need for clear data on school violence has never been more pressing. Dozens of school safety measures have been enacted nationwide on the heels of high-profile school shootings in Texas and Florida and public districts are allocating large sums to boost campus security. “Our reporting highlights just how difficult it can be to track school-related shootings and how researchers, educators and policymakers are hindered by a lack of data on gun violence,” the NPR piece reads.

This is hardly an isolated incident of government inefficiency, but the seriousness of the matter should inspire the feds to provide the public—and policy makers—with accurate information. Instead, the DOE, a typical bloated agency with a $59 billion budget, passed the buck to the so-called civil rights data collection division which apparently plays fast and loose with facts. In the report with the skewed stats, schools were asked: “Has there been at least one incident at your school that involved a shooting (regardless of whether anyone was hurt)?” The DOE should have known better than to blindly publish the information. All it had to do was check out the easily available figures provided by a reputable group that maintains a reliable gun safety database. For the same school year that the DOE listed 235 shootings, the group had only 29. “There is little overlap between this list and the government’s, with only seven schools appearing on both,” the NPR story says.

No NRA Members Need Apply

Like most people, we understand that educational institutions and staff tend to lean left. The degree and intensity of the bend varies across universities, but a leftward orientation is actually expected today.

We’re aware that some – perhaps even many – academics look upon the NRA and gun owners with disdain. We always hoped this didn’t extend to the individual level, that the disdain was limited to the aggregate, and that personal interactions could be open-minded or – gasp! – even cordial.

The thought that academics would consider NRA members the bottom of the proverbial barrel never occurred to us. We never imagined that more college professors would be comfortable with an avowed communist than with an NRA member. It sounds like a joke, like an appeal to extremes to call attention to the absurd, but that’s precisely what a new study has discovered. A sociology professor at the University of North Texas found that political biases in academia peak with NRA members.

Professor George Yancey wanted to investigate possible hiring discrimination in higher education. He asked professors across the country how their support for a job applicant would change if they knew the applicant was a member of certain groups. Of all the groups Yancey tested, “NRA membership was ranked as the most likely to hurt an aspiring professor’s chances of getting hired.”

NRA membership was more damaging than being a Republican, a Libertarian, a vegetarian, a member of the ACLU, or a member of the Green Party. NRA membership is considered more damaging than being a communist.

Overall, more than two in five professors say a person’s membership in the NRA would “‘damage’ an applicant’s chances of getting hired.” Yancey suspects that, “academics envision individuals in the NRA as being on the far right.” Yancey also found that “meat hunters, evangelicals, and fundamentalists also are less likely to be hired.”

Imagine that. Being an actual, admitted communist – who proudly acknowledges being as far left as left can go – is less harmful to one’s career prospects than being an NRA member.

We’ve heard about high school teachers kicking students out of class for wearing NRA shirts. We’ve heard politicians disparage this association and its membership. But to hear that college professors would rather work with a communist than an NRA member is just sad. We found two takeaways from this: first, an inability to explain one’s adherence to a political and economic ideology with an absolute perfect failure rate probably doesn’t matter in academia and, two, academia is somehow even more out of touch with America than any of us thought.

Remember that the next time “academics” release a “study” on “gun violence.”


As Land Confiscations Loom, South Africa Rules 300,000 Gun-Owners Turn Over Their Weapons

Outrage of the Week: New Mexico Principal Bullies Pro-Second Amendment Student

University of Utah Instructor Ostracizes Concealed Carriers

University System Plans ‘Full Criminal Investigation’ After Confederate Statue Toppled

The University of North Carolina System is taking action after protesters toppled the statue of a Confederate soldier at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill on Monday night.

“Campus leadership is in collaboration with campus police, who are pulling together a timeline of the events, reviewing video evidence, and conducting interviews that will inform a full criminal investigation,” UNC System Board Chairman Harry Smith and UNC System President Margaret Spellings said in a statement Tuesday, adding:

The safety and security of our students, faculty, and staff are paramount. And the actions last evening were unacceptable, dangerous, and incomprehensible. We are a nation of laws—and mob rule and the intentional destruction of public property will not be tolerated.

“Around 9:20 p.m. Monday night, a group from among an estimated crowd of 250 protesters brought down the Confederate Monument on the campus of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,” UNC Chapel Hill said in an official statement in an email to The Daily Signal.

The statue of the Confederate soldier is known as Silent Sam.

One person has been arrested for “concealing one’s face during a public rally and resisting arrest,” according to Jeni Cook, a spokesperson for the Office of University Communications.

An article on the University of North Carolina’s grad school website describes the statue this way:

Erected in 1913, in remembrance of ‘the sons of the University who died for their beloved Southland 1861-1865,’ the Confederate monument known as Silent Sam stands on McCorkle place, the University’s upper quad, facing Franklin Street. The monument was given to the University by the United Daughters of the Confederacy in 1909. More than 1000 University men fought in the Civil War. At least 40 percent of the students enlisted, a record not equaled by any other institution, North or South. Sam is silent because he carries no ammunition and cannot fire his gun.

“Last night’s actions were dangerous, and we are very fortunate that no one was injured,” the university’s statement continued. “We are investigating the vandalism and assessing the full extent of the damage.”

The statue toppling is meant to be “smashing white supremacy” at UNC, according to Maya Little, who is charged with vandalism for an April protest and also faces an Honor Court hearing. Little’s remarks were reported by the Associated Press.


Portrait of Rachel del Guidice

Rachel del Guidice

Rachel del Guidice is a reporter for The Daily Signal. She is a graduate of Franciscan University of Steubenville, Forge Leadership Network, and The Heritage Foundation’s Young Leaders Program. Send an email to Rachel. Twitter: @LRacheldG.

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Police surrounding the toppled remains of a Confederate statue on Aug. 20, 2018, at UNC-Chapel Hill in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Demonstrators surrounded and obscured the statue with large banners before toppling it. (Photo: Travis Long/TNS/Newscom)

VIDEO: Jewish Students Speak About Anti-Semitism at George Washington University

Whenever Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) or other anti-Israel activists initiate a Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) campaign, Jewish students become fearful of the accompanying anti-Semitism. This is exactly what happened in April 2018, at George Washington University (GWU).

The ugly face of BDS at  #GWU: Jewish students voice their fears again and again, student government ignores them and votes for a secret ballot to push BDS through with zero accountability.

Please retweet #BDSisAntiSemitic

RELATED ARTICLE: CAIR in the Classroom: Islamist Group Partnering with Public Schools

Massachusetts’ Taxpayers sue over anti-Semitic, pro-Islam public school lessons

At last, some push back against what is a nationwide problem.

“Massachusetts Taxpayers Sue Over Anti-Semitic, Pro-Islam School Lessons,” by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, August 17, 2018:

A group of Massachusetts-based taxpayers are suing the school committee in the city of Newton, a wealthy, liberal enclave, over what they claim is the leadership’s ongoing promotion of anti-Semitic school materials and the promotion of Islamic religious beliefs, according to an announcement from the organization handling the lawsuit.

Education Without Indoctrination, a local community group driving the lawsuit, “claims multiple violations of the Massachusetts Open Meeting Law stemming from the school committee’s handling of a burgeoning scandal over anti-Semitic lessons and the promotion of Islamic religious beliefs as objective facts in the public school district’s history classes,” according to a press release from the group.

The lawsuit stems from a controversy of Newton Public Schools use of what the group claims are “unvetted educational materials” produced by the Saudi Arabian oil company ARAMCO and the Qatari government, which has long been cited for its funding of terrorism.

“In teaching world history, Newton Public Schools (NPS) use unvetted educational materials funded by the Saudi oil company ARAMCO and the government of Qatar. As a result, Newton public school students are propagandized with materials that slander Israel and the Jewish people, and that falsify history to promote the Islamic religion in public schools,” the press release states.

“Just this past May, Newton North High School invited an anti-Semitic group to screen Palestinian propaganda films to its students,” it continues. “For this, NPS Superintendent David Fleishman earned a rebuke from the New England branch of the Anti-Defamation League and Boston’s Jewish Community Relations Council.”

Concerned parents have been stonewalled in their attempts to gain information from the school leadership about these activities, the group claims….