Trump administration threatens funding for UNC/Duke course promoting Islam

This is long overdue: “The Trump administration is threatening to cut funding for a Middle East studies program run by the University of North Carolina and Duke University, claiming that it’s misusing a federal grant to advance ‘ideological priorities’ and unfairly promote ‘the positive aspects of Islam’ but not Christianity or Judaism.”

There are courses of this kind in universities and colleges all over the country, and have been for years without any pushback. None of the academic institutions that promote this Islamic proselytizing should receive any federal funding at all. Universities and colleges from great to insignificant, from Stanford University in California to Saint Anselm College in New Hampshire, have long been radioactive wastelands of Leftist indoctrination and Islamic apologetics in an increasingly totalitarian and threatening atmosphere. They need to be cut off. They need to be cut off immediately. They need to be cut off yesterday.

As it happens, I took a UNC/Duke graduate course on Islam back in 1985, when I was a graduate student at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Even that many years ago, the violent aspects of Islamic doctrine were downplayed and whitewashed. There is no doubt whatsoever that in the intervening years, the impulse to absolve Islam of all responsibility for the crimes committed in its name and in accord with its teachings has only intensified.

“Jay Smith, a history professor at UNC and vice president of its chapter of the American Association of University Professors, said that the Education Department official who signed the letter threatening funding, Robert King, “should stay in his lane and allow the experts to determine what constitutes a ‘full understanding’ of the Middle East.”

“Experts.” Yeah. Everyone at this point should be wary of what historian Christopher Dummitt calls “the so-called proof presented by alleged experts.” He notes, in a fascinating article about his own promotion of currently fashionable gender fictions, that his “own flawed reasoning was never called out—and, in fact, only became more ideologically inflected through the process of peer review.” Yes, and that is happening in every academic department.

“DeVos Threatens College Funding Due to Islam Course,” Associated Press, September 20, 2019 (thanks to Henry):

(AP) — The Trump administration is threatening to cut funding for a Middle East studies program run by the University of North Carolina and Duke University, claiming that it’s misusing a federal grant to advance “ideological priorities” and unfairly promote “the positive aspects of Islam” but not Christianity or Judaism.

An Aug. 29 letter from the U.S. Education Department orders the Duke-UNC Consortium for Middle East Studies to revise its offerings by Sept. 22 or risk losing funding from a federal grant that’s awarded to dozens of universities to support foreign language instruction. The consortium received $235,000 from the grant last year, according to Education Department data.

A statement from the UNC-Chapel Hill said the consortium “deeply values its partnership with the Department of Education” and is “committed to working with the department to provide more information about its programs.” Officials at Duke declined to comment. The Education Department declined to say whether it’s examining similar programs at other schools.

Academic freedom advocates say the government could be setting a dangerous precedent if it injects politics into funding decisions. Some said they had never heard of the Education Department asserting control over such minute details of a program’s offerings.

“Is the government now going to judge funding programs based on the opinions of instructors or the approach of each course?” asked Henry Reichman, chairman of a committee on academic freedom for the American Association of University Professors.

“The odor of right-wing political correctness that comes through this definitely could have a chilling effect.”

More than a dozen universities receive National Resource Center grants for their Middle East programs, including Columbia, Georgetown, Yale and the University of Texas. The Duke-UNC consortium was founded in 2005 and first received the grant nearly a decade ago.

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos ordered an investigation of the program in June after North Carolina Rep. George Holding, a Republican, complained that it hosted a taxpayer-funded conference with “severe anti-Israeli bias and anti-Semitic rhetoric.”

The conference, titled “Conflict Over Gaza: People, Politics and Possibilities,” included a rapper who performed a “brazenly anti-Semitic song,” Holding said in an April 15 letter….

In the UNC-Duke case, the department’s findings did not directly address any bias against Israel, but evaluated whether the consortium’s proposed activities met the goals of the National Resource Center program, which was created in 1965 to support language and culture initiatives that prepare students for careers in diplomacy and national security.

Investigators concluded that the consortium intended to use federal money on offerings that are “plainly unqualified for taxpayer support,” and that foreign language and national security instruction have “taken a back seat to other priorities.” The department cited several courses, conferences and academic papers that it said have “little or no relevance” to the grant’s goals.

“Although a conference focused on ‘Love and Desire in Modern Iran’ and one focused on Middle East film criticism may be relevant in academia, we do not see how these activities support the development of foreign language and international expertise for the benefit of U.S. national security and economic stability,” the letter said.

Investigators also saw a disconnect between the grant’s mission and some academic papers by scholars at the consortium. They objected to one paper titled “Performance, Gender-Bending and Subversion in the Early Modern Ottoman Intellectual History,” and another titled “Radical Love: Teachings from Islamic Mystical Tradition.”

The letter accused the consortium of failing to provide a “balance of perspectives” on religion. It said there is “a considerable emphasis” placed on “understanding the positive aspects of Islam, while there is an absolute absence of any similar focus on the positive aspects of Christianity, Judaism or any other religion or belief system in the Middle East.”

It added that there are few offerings on discrimination faced by religious minorities in the Middle East, “including Christians, Jews, Baha’is, Yadizis, Kurds, Druze and others.” Department officials said the grant’s rules require programs to provide a “full understanding” of the regions they study.

Jay Smith, a history professor at UNC and vice president of its chapter of the American Association of University Professors, said the letter amounts to “ideologically driven harassment.”

He said the Education Department official who signed the letter, Robert King, “should stay in his lane and allow the experts to determine what constitutes a ‘full understanding’ of the Middle East.”…


Winchester, Massachusetts: “Islam Is RIGHT About Women” flyers plastered all over town

Sinead O’Connor says that she was “born Muslim in the first place”

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

The College Decision Needs Stronger Price Signals

Money cost saving for goal and success in school, education concept : US dollar bills / cash in burlap bags, a black graduation cap or hat, a certificate / diploma and a book on basic balance scale.

Last week, I compared the risk of a college football bet against the odds of an “investment” in a college degree paying off. Multiplying the following data points together yields just a 35 percent chance a student will both graduate and find a job that justifies the investment:

  1. A March 2019 NPR report showing only 58 percent of new students in 2012 had earned a degree six years later.
  2. An August 9 Wall Street Journal story revealing 40 percent of recent college graduates were working “jobs that typically don’t require a degree.”

After reading this, Congressman Paul Mitchell (R—Michigan) called to tell me of a bi-partisan idea that—if implemented—might put a serious dent in this national problem.

Obviously, some students in some programs win their bet on the college investment. But choosing between different colleges and different academic disciplines is currently too much like a wager and not enough like an investment, because we don’t know precisely where the college degree bet is failing.

That’s a costly failure, as Americans currently spend $559 billion per year on higher education. If spending in the higher education sector were a country it would be one of the world’s 25 largest economies. As I wrote last week, this can give colleges and their staffs influence in excess of their value to our culture:

Where all that money goes should already be a cause for concern. According to the American Association of University Professors, the average, full-time faculty member enjoys a six-figure-salary. Don’t forget that these professors also enjoy tenure and are all but secure in their positions for life.

Spending that $559 billion more wisely is the idea behind the “College Transparency Act” (HR 1766). Introduced by Mitchell, plus fellow U.S. Reps. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL), Elise Stefanik (R-NY), and Josh Harder (D-CA), it has 49 co-sponsors. Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana introduced the U.S. Senate companion (S 800) which was cosigned by a large bi-partisan team that includes left-leaning Democrats such as Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.

The College Transparency Act requires the U.S. Department of Education to share individual student data collected from colleges with the U.S. Department of Treasury, which already has all the income and career data for all of us filing a tax return. This will allow Treasury to merge the data, compile aggregate statistics regarding graduation rates and income for every school and every major, and return the aggregated data to the Department of Education. (Importantly, of course, Treasury will retain all individual and personal data regarding tax returns, so this would not be an additional privacy violation in excess of what the IRS already gets away with.)

With Treasury’s help, the National Center for Education Statistics (an agency within the Department of Education) would be able to report accurate statistics regarding the graduation rates and salary outcomes specific to every major at every college in the nation. Prospective students would be able compare the exact historical return on investment between similar programs at different schools (i.e.: “Which history programs offer me the highest graduation rates and best average salaries?”) and different programs within the same school (“Wow, I love the journalism program here at Central Nowhere University, but it looks like I’ll eat better if I switch to nursing”).

The proposal is supported by organizations such as the Association of Public and Land Grant Universities and the American Association of Community Colleges. Like their prospective students, schools apparently don’t want to be in the dark regarding both their failures/redundancies and their successes.

Collecting the data for all individual student outcomes is a potentially revolutionary change. At present, colleges must try to collect the info themselves through such methods as alumni surveys. In addition to being costly and difficult for the schools to do, this method is open to severe selection bias and other statistical flaws. The journalism graduate who became an anchor for CNN is much more likely to keep in touch with the school and report her earnings and job title than a fellow classmate who never got a media job and is now selling sodas at 7-11. The result is a false perception of success for a new student trying to weigh her options.

Mitchell wrote in an April 2019 Detroit News commentary: “College classes should be challenging, determining the best college options should not be.”

What he’s talking about is a price signal, an essential component of every functioning market. But government has grossly distorted that signal for higher education by flooding the market with subsidized student loans and grants. This problem has been compounded by misleading data regarding college outcomes. The result is a severely malfunctioning price signal telling us all college is inherently and generally valuable while obscuring the truth that some degrees for certain students are valuable, even though others are not. The College Transparency Act—though far from a total solution—will at least empower millions of students to help solve the problem and personally dodge the worst of it.


Ken Braun

Ken Braun is CRC’s senior investigative researcher and authors profiles for and the Capital Research magazine. He previously worked for several free market policy organizations, spent six…+ MORE BY KEN BRAUN

Support Capital Research Center’s award-winning journalism

Donate today to assist in promoting the principles of individual liberty in America.

EDITORS NOTE: This CRC article is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Higher Ed Is Dominated by the Left. So Where Should Conservative Students Turn for Help?

It is no secret that college campuses have become a bastion for progressive thought and activism. With so many universities striving to push their left-wing agenda on young people, the work of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute is more important than ever.

On today’s episode of The Daily Signal Podcast, Charlie Copeland, ISI’s president and CEO, shares how his organization is working on college campuses all over America to provide students with an educational background on conservative thought. Copeland weighs in on the state of high education today and what trends he is seeing across university campuses.

Listen to the full episode or read a lightly edited transcript below.

Rob Bluey: We are joined by Charlie Copeland, president and CEO of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. ISI is an organization that’s focused on providing college students with an educational background on conservative thought.

The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution. Find out more >>

Charlie, thanks for joining us.

Charlie Copeland: Thank you so much for having me. I’m looking forward to it.

Bluey: Well, Charlie, as you and I know, students across America are heading back to campus, or in many cases probably already there, and ISI’s mission is to inspire them to discover, embrace, and advance the principles and virtues that make America free and prosperous.

Tell us, as those students are now back in their classes and experiencing all the joys of campus life, how do you go about accomplishing that on so many of these bastions of liberal thought in America?

Copeland: We’ve been around since 1953, and so we’ve got some pretty good experience. The first place that we start is with our faculty associates. We have a network of faculty, conservative faculty and libertarian faculty, on campuses across the country. Interestingly enough, they do exist. They’re woefully outnumbered, but they do exist.

We’ve been offering graduate student fellowships since the early ’60s. About 600 faculty on campuses across the country are actually ISI graduate student fellows. Then there’s another almost 2,400 faculty that are on the campus that we’ve engaged with in one way or another, and we communicate regularly to them with content ideas, with curriculum ideas, and other information about conservative ideas and where the educational space is in conservative circles.

In return to that, they provide us access to some of their students. We are really looking for bright, deep-thinking, intellectually curious conservative and libertarian college students who really … understand that there’s something else out there than what they’re being fed by 90% of the faculty, and they’re looking for it, and they find it through our faculty associates.

Then we also have a few staff that we have of regional directors, and they’re usually just a year or two out of college. They carry a caseload of college campuses, and they go and they meet with students and help those students develop ISI societies. They help those students organize and host lectures and debates.

We’ll also work with students to set up student journalism programs and student newspapers. We’ve got on almost 60 campuses conservative-focused, if you will, coming from the conservative side, investigative journalism newspapers that do stories on campus.

It’s really very robust, and it’s across the board.

As I said, we have these faculty members that help us identify students. We have our staff, our regional directors that help identify students. Then we have other students that will say, “Hey, I know this young student, male or woman, or whatever, and they’d love to get involved in ISI,” and we dial them in.

Lastly, we do a lot of social media outreach. Any parent or grandparent or aunt or uncle or student who may be listening to the podcast, if they go to, they can sign up and get an intellectual starter kit, which includes a book from Russell Kirk and some other material, as well as Modern Age, which is an intellectual journal we’ve got, and some regular updates on conservative thought, both from economics, policy, philosophy, and politics.

Virginia Allen: That’s great.

Well, you’ve now served as ISI’s president since 2016, after a career in politics and business. Can you share about the founding of ISI and why your predecessors saw the need for an organization that would advance critical thinking among college students?

Copeland: We go back a long way. We were founded in 1953, and our first president was William F. Buckley Jr. We’ve got some big shoes to fill over those many, many years. He started ISI, or became the first president, after writing his book “God and Man at Yale,” in which Bill Buckley pointed out, and, again, this is 1953, that the campus culture was being increasingly dominated by a progressive, secular, left-leaning faculty elite. So he started this, and we’ve been working away at it ever since.

Flash forward to today, where, as I mentioned, we’ve got almost 3,000 faculty associates that we work with, we’ve got 100 societies on campus, we run almost 200 lectures and debates every year.

What we’re looking for is, again, that really bright, deep-thinking, intellectually curious conservative or libertarian thinker who’s going to go on when they graduate and be a leader somewhere. They’re going to be a leader in their community, a leader in their state, a leader in the country, and maybe that’s in business or maybe it’s in politics, maybe it’s in the law.

The founders of The Federalist Society that have done such a great job identifying and promoting conservative justices were all ISI alumni. Two members of the Supreme Court, Sam Alito and Neil Gorsuch, both participated in ISI programming when they were on college campus.

I could go on and on with the number of folks that you and I would would all know out there that went through ISI programming.

We want to identify those kids because we firmly believe that one person with courage and intellect makes a majority … We know they have the courage and we know that they’re bright, and we want to make sure they understand where these root and foundational principles come from and why they are still appropriate to today’s culture, to today’s society, to today’s world—as a matter of fact, they’re more important today than ever—and why these are the tickets that will continue to make Americans, and frankly, the rest of the world, prosper and grow.

Bluey: Charlie, thanks so much for sharing that impact that you’re having. One of the things that I think is fascinating is the involvement you have on such a deep level on so many college campuses across this country. As you talk to students, or maybe some faculty in certain cases, what issues do you hear coming up over and over again today that our listeners should be aware of?

Copeland: There are a handful of issues, and they revolve around, as you might imagine, things like free speech. They revolve around intellectual diversity. They revolve around feeling that you are able to espouse and debate the ideas that you believe are correct. Maybe you find out that they’re not, but they’re afraid to necessarily even raise those points. It’s gone beyond just sort of this, ” … I don’t want to look like I’m the only one in the class,” to, in many cases, a fear of property and physical safety.

We, last year, identified what we thought were five of the most compelling activities of suppression of free speech, and that suppression of free speech came not only from fellow students, which were probably the least frequent suppressive activities, but from the faculty or the administrations themselves.

That’s what I think is much newer today, over the last 20 years, than you might’ve seen previously on college campus, is the administration and the faculty themselves really driving a dogma and a perception down to students that, if you don’t parrot back to us what we’ve said to you, we will affect your grades, we’ll affect what courses you can get into, we’ll affect what housing you might even get into, because the administrations and the faculty have significant leverage over students.

It is a power structure, and our students are the ones that are on the receiving end of that.

Then sometimes you wind up with the Antifas of the world and groups like that that are physically assaulting students, but it really is the universities themselves that have created bureaucracies that are trying to stamp out conservative or libertarian or free thought.

Allen: One of the key debates among young people and across America right now is gun control. When you speak with students on this issue, what are some of their concerns?

Copeland: The average student that we work with is not all that worried about gun control writ large, other than they believe in the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms. Obviously, they’re as affected as the rest of us are by these instances of mass shootings that get so much publicity. …

Again, our students are really bright, insightful young people, and they know it is not a soundbite issue. Whenever anybody says, “Oh, well, I’m just for commonsense gun reform,” well, what does that even mean? It’s when they start saying, “Well, we should do this or that,” that all of a sudden common sense disappears, and our students recognize that.

We’ve had students, even over the summer, write in some of our student journals editorials that are research-based across the board talking about, is this a mental health issue or is this a broader denigration of our culture issue? Should we have red laws? Should we not? What is the impact of these shootings versus the impact of just being on a college campus?

Every year on every college campus, there are acts of violence that do not get the coverage that a single grotesque act does, like Dayton or El Paso. And both Dayton and El Paso, as we all know, were conducted by individuals that had very different worldviews, although they both believed in the green agenda. But that’s not what was driving them. It was an anger, as far as I can tell, about American culture.

Our students, I think, very much understand that, to a certain extent, because they are in an area of culture on the college campus that is not the “preferred culture” by the administration and the faculty. They understand the harshness that now occurs and how social media creates a pile-on mentality.

I think that they’re very thoughtful and they’re very upset, but they don’t believe that you’re just going to solve this by snapping your fingers and saying, “Well, if we had ‘red flag laws’ and identified folks with mental health issues … ” because much gun violence is not committed by people with mental health issues, but they are people that are disconnected from society. Our students see that connection as directly as anybody else because they’re outnumbered on campus so significantly.

Bluey: Charlie, it’s so refreshing to hear you talk about the students having a principled point of view, and value for the founding principles of this country, and also the critical thinking skills to hopefully decipher what they hear about and read about.

We’re already here at the beginning of the the academic year and hearing stories about the political correctness on college campuses. We just had on The Daily Signal Podcast Penny Nance talking about her and her own son’s experience at Virginia Tech, for instance.

What advice do you have for parents who might be looking to ISI or to you personally for advice on some of the things that they’re hearing about on their children’s college campuses and how maybe the values that are reflected from those administrators stand in such stark contrast with those of their own family? What do you have to say to them?

Copeland: First, I would say to them, have their son or daughter go to, and make sure that that they’re tied into an intellectual community of bright, deep-thinking kids that are national in scope, and also involved in that community are our faculty associates across the country. And thirdly, involved in that community is our alumni base, which goes back decades. We’ve got alumni in almost every community around the country. That would be No. 1,

The next thing I would certainly do is reach out to every campus … Our faculty associates are on 37% of college campuses, and most of those are on the elite schools, the large state schools, as well as some of the smaller liberal arts colleges.

So, there are conservative faculty members that are there, and reach out to us and get the name of who that faculty member is and go talk to them.

In addition to that, one of the questions I would ask that faculty member is, “Who are the other faculty members that may not be conservative on this campus, but who value viewpoint diversity and are good teachers?” Because there are good teachers on the left who recognize that no ideology or no set of beliefs has all the answers to all the questions that face society. If we had those answers, we would have solved them by now.

So, who are the good professors that will challenge you and make you think, even if those professors come from the left? Because there’s value in hearing and debating that type of viewpoint.

The last piece is identify other students who are not … There’s these radical, dogmatic, left-leaning students who aren’t really there to learn, but they’re there to threaten and cajole.

You can do well on almost every college campus across this country, but when you are a conservative or a libertarian and you want to try to investigate those intellectual backgrounds, you have to do more work, and you have to be very focused on what you do and avoid the useless courses that really junk up most college curriculum at this point in time.

The other thing is you need to have a sense of humor. It is so easy to be outraged at some of the, really, just childish things that other students and faculty and, honestly, the administration will do. If you let it eat you up and let it get you angry, you’re playing their game.

Roger Scruton is going to be speaking at our annual dinner. Well, he’s leaving a video message for us. He’s ill. But he talks about finding beauty in the world. I think that is something that conservatives do much better than liberals, is look and identify true beauty, not just this passing fad. I think that if we’re happy warriors who identify the right professors and the right students, you will be successful.

Allen: I love that expression, happy warriors. Thank you for sharing that.

You mentioned social media and how ISI is adapting to the way students get information today. What are some ways conservatives can more effectively communicate with Gen Z and with other young people?

Copeland: I think that everybody hangs out in Twitter, and Twitter is a little bit of an outrage factory. It’s designed to be that way. You can’t have deep intellectual discourse in 280 characters or less.

It’s fun to participate there and be there and that kind of stuff, but if you really want true discussion and discourse, social media is not the place to do that. …

You look at some of these folks who founded social media companies, and they clearly are not very good at interpersonal relationships, which is probably why they created computer programs to handle their interpersonal relationships for them.

If you really want to have discourse, you’ve got to go do that in person. You’ve got to go to an election. You’ve got to go to a debate. You have to have a discussion group or a reading group.

I would use social media largely to try to create those events and those opportunities to sit down with one, two, five, 20 other people and talk about the deep ideas and how to apply them to today’s community and culture.

Bluey: Charlie, I’m so glad to hear you say that. We often hear that same type of advice from our president at Heritage, Kay Coles James. What she does in terms of showing up—

Copeland: It’s good advice.

Bluey: Yes, it certainly is.

One of the other ways that you’re having success at ISI is through conservative journalism and teaching people the principles and the practices that go into creating some of those successful dialogues and discourse through campus publications.

Tell us more about that journalism program and what kinds of work that students are doing through ISI’s support.

Copeland: The student journalism program, we’ve been doing this for over 20 years, and we’ve got 57, 58 papers. They’re investigative journalist-type papers. If a student wants to start one of those papers, again, they can go to our website, and there’s an area on that website where they can indicate that.

We have a staff member here who actually ran a student newspaper when he was in college a couple of years ago and is a very bright and smart young man, and we’ve got a lot of great things going on there.

We have a couple of classes that we will offer throughout the year to help them get started, a couple of conferences that we invite student journalists to so that they can get an understanding of, “How do I do this? How do I run a student newspaper?” I use air quotes on that because only a handful of them actually still print hard copies. They’re largely web-based at this point in time.

It’s one thing to put content up on the web. It’s another thing, “How do you go and get the stories? And what kinds of stories should they be looking for?”

Then we help to promote those to other outlets, so that, in some cases, they can be picked up by national media and others and maybe even create the point of the sphere of a specific issue that might have occurred on a campus, whether it’s about free speech or whether it’s about viewpoint diversity or whether it’s about inappropriate behavior by a faculty member or what have you. We really want to encourage those papers along.

Then we offer, every year, 10 summer internships, paid internships, that we place our student journalists at major media outlets—Raleigh News & Observer, National Review—and we offer 10 full-year paid when you graduate fellowships at similar national or regional news outlets. We’ve got folks at places like USA Today, for crying out loud, and The Wall Street Journal. We’re very cognizant of trying to place these really bright kids who are great writers at these outlets because they do a great job.

In the last year, 70% of our fellows who wanted to stay in journalism were able to get jobs within the journalism area, and some of our alumni: Marc Thiessen, columnist at The Washington Post; Jonathan Karl, ABC News; Laura Ingraham at Fox; and Katrina Trinko at The Daily Signal.

Allen: Thank you for mentioning The Daily Signal.

Can you tell us just one more time about how students can get involved with ISI?

Copeland: The best way for a student to get involved in ISI, because it’s easy, is You just put in your email, where you’re going to school, or if you’re at school, what grade you’re in, and we will send you an intellectual starter kit and we will get you onto our regular weekly email message, which usually includes three or four different five-to-seven-minute reads on conservative intellectual thought and history.

We’ll also be able to tie you into whether there’s a local ISI society there or if we have a faculty associate on that campus, as well as perhaps get you tied into debates and lectures.

We offer about five or six regional conferences every year. We have a summer honors conference, as well as we offer a freedom of virtue conference. That would be the No. 1 way.

No. 2 way is to look for an ISI society on your campus, as well as whether or not you think there’s a conservative professor on your campus. That professor is likely an ISI faculty associate and can get you tied in as well. But the best way is

Bluey: Charlie, that’s great. Congratulations again on the success you’re having at ISI, and thanks for spending the time with The Daily Signal to tell us about it.

Copeland: Thank you very much, and thank you guys for what you do.

Bluey: We look forward to keeping in touch and following your work.

 You bet. Thanks so much.


Rob Bluey

Rob Bluey is executive editor of The Daily Signal, the multimedia news organization of The Heritage Foundation. Send an email to Rob. Twitter: @RobertBluey.


The Unchanging Principles of Conservatism Defined

How Jefferson Lost Some Luster in His Own Hometown

Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column us republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Michigan, California, Georgia, Texas, Florida, NJ public schools: Islam glorified, Christianity vilified, U.S. bashed

There is nothing wrong with students learning about Islam in school, if what they’re taught is accurate. But it isn’t. Because of the overpowering influence of the multiculturalist ethos and fears of charges of “Islamophobia” and “racism,” public school materials on Islam and other religions are for the most part heavily biased, with scarcely a critical word about Islam, Muhammad depicted as a cross between Gandhi and Sheriff Andy Taylor, no mention of jihad or dhimmitude, and harsh criticism of Christianity.

TMLC Uncovers Tax-Payer Funded Islamic Propaganda Forced On Teachers,” Thomas More Law Center, August 22, 2019 (thanks to R.):

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national nonprofit public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, has uncovered evidence of a well-orchestrated Islamic propaganda campaign aimed at teachers in school systems throughout Michigan and several other states.

Concerned about a two-day mandatory teacher-training seminar on Islam conducted by a Muslim consultant hired by Michigan’s Novi Community Schools District, TMLC filed a Freedom of Information Act request for documents related to the workshop.

Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Law Center, commented on the results of their investigation, “We found that the teachers were subjected to two days of Islamic propaganda, where Islam was glorified, Christianity disparaged, and America bashed—all funded by Novi taxpayers.”

Moreover, during the past five years the school district has presented no teacher-training seminars focusing on Christianity, Judaism or any other religion – only Islam.

The hired Muslim consultant was Huda Essa, a resident of the Dearborn area and of Arab descent. She appeared before the Novi teachers in a hijab, the Muslim headscarf, billing herself as an expert in “cultural competency” and “culturally responsive teaching.”

Most disappointing was the fact that of the more than 400 teachers attending the workshop, not one teacher challenged Essa’s denigration of Christianity or attacks on America.

TMLC inspected dozens of internal school documents, including audio recordings of Essa’s presentation.

The information on Islam she provided to Novi teachers was riddled with falsehoods and errors of omission that were clearly meant to deceive.

Essa provided no truthful information on Sharia law and jihad, two of the most important aspects of Islam. All references to terrorism were dismissed as having nothing to do with Islam. White Christian males, she suggested, are more dangerous than Islamic radicals.

Essa is the face behind Culture Links LLC, a Michigan-based consultancy. She describes herself on the Culture Links website as an advocate of social justice who encourages children to “take pride in their many identities.”

But, as TMLC discovered from the Novi documents, the one identity Essa does not celebrate is that of patriotic Americans who believe in our nation’s exceptionalism.

And her message extends far beyond Novi.

Essa’s client list reveals she has been spreading her “trash America first” philosophy to colleges, universities, schools and professional educator associations throughout Michigan, California, Georgia, Texas, Florida and beyond. In Michigan alone her website lists nine school districts as clients – Oakland County Schools, Ann Arbor Schools, L’Anse Creuse Public Schools, Plymouth-Canton Community Schools, Roseville Community Schools, Farmington Public Schools, Dearborn Public Schools, Birmingham Public Schools and Melvindale Public Schools.

Under the banner of promoting diversity, inclusion and a multicultural approach to education, Essa sets about comparing Islam to Christianity, calling them “mostly similar.” The one big difference, she claims, is that Islam is the world’s “only purely monotheistic religion.”

Islam’s holy book, the Koran, came straight from Allah to the prophet Muhammad and, unlike the Jewish and Christian scriptures, has never been altered or changed, she told the Novi teachers. Significantly, the Koran commands Muslims to “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.” (Koran 9:5)

Her message was clear: The Koran is superior to the Bible. But she did not address the fact that it calls for the extermination of Christian and Jews.

While quick to indict America as guilty of “cultural genocide,” Essa was silent on the 1400 years of actual genocides, also known as jihads, in which Muslims wiped out Jewish tribes on the Arabian Peninsula, and slaughtered millions of Christians throughout the Middle East, North Africa and the European Continent. Referring to Islam, Winston Churchill wrote, “No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.”

Novi’s Islamic teacher-training is just the latest example of professional Islamic indoctrinators infiltrating U.S. public schools even as Christianity has been forced out of the classroom.

“This type of infiltration amounts to an Islamic Trojan horse within our public-school systems,” Thompson said. “No other religion gets this kind of special treatment in our schools.”

Only action by patriotic American parents will put a stop to the indoctrination of teachers and students. They must attend school board meetings and call their board’s attention to the existence of unconstitutional Islamic propaganda whenever they find evidence of it in their children’s schools. And when their board is unresponsive, they must be willing to take legal action to stop it whenever the law permits.

TMLC has several active cases involving public schools bending over backwards to promote Islam while trashing Christianity.

In New Jersey, seventh-grade students at Chatham Middle School were taught “Islam is the true faith,” required to learn the Shahada, or Muslim creed, and forced to watch videos that sought to convert them.

TMLC is representing another student at La Plata High School in Maryland, where pupils in world-history classes were taught that “Most Muslims’ faith is stronger than the average Christian” and “Islam at heart is a peaceful religion.”

Jihad, meanwhile, was introduced to La Plata students as a “personal” spiritual struggle, having nothing to do with using violence to spread the faith. And, like in New Jersey, the Maryland students were forced to learn the Five Pillars of Islam and memorize the Shahada.


Essa spent a great deal of time in her Novi presentation talking about Muslim women, whom she described as victims of Islamophobia on the part of bigoted Americans.

She said her own mother’s decision to wear the hijab was met with “rage” from random Americans. Other hijab-wearing Muslim women have been spat upon, had hot liquids poured on them, been beaten and even killed because they wear the hijab, Essa said, without giving details of when or where these atrocities supposedly occurred.

Essa presented no statistics on hate crimes to back up her claims. FBI crime stats show that anti-Muslim attacks are relatively rare in America and actually fell by 17 percent in 2017. Anti-Jewish hate crimes that year out-numbered anti-Muslim offenses by nearly four to one.

Globally, Christians are the most persecuted of all religious groups, according to the watchdog Open Doors. Of the top-ten most dangerous countries to be a Christian, all but two of them are Muslim-majority nations, according to Open Doors’ 2019 World Watch List.

But Essa’s attempts to con Novi teachers into accepting her anti-American, pro-Islamic worldview didn’t stop with the idea that Muslims are the most persecuted and victimized people.

She said any poor treatment of women in Islamic countries should be attributed to “cultural” differences, not the religion of Islam.

She failed to mention that Muhammad, Islam’s prophet, is reported to have said that the majority of hell would be populated by women (hadith by Sahih Bukhari Vol. 1:28, 301, Vol. 2:161, Vol. 7:124-126). Also absent from her presentation was the Koranic instruction for husbands to beat a disobedient wife (Sura 4:34).

Exercising the art of deception, Essa said Muslims love Jesus and refer to him as “messiah.”

But the word “messiah” has a different meaning for Muslims than for Christians. When Christians speak of Jesus their Messiah, they are referring to God’s “anointed One,” who has the power to forgive sin and grant salvation.

Muslims confer no such divine authority to their Jesus. Under Islam Jesus was only a man, a lower prophet under Muhammad, not the Son of God, and he did not die on a cross or rise from the dead as documented in the gospels.

Essa hammered Novi teachers with the Islamic teaching that the Jewish and Christian scriptures are not to be trusted. Although once pure, they were gradually “corrupted” by unscrupulous men. Only the Koran contains the final, “pure” words of God, she said.

Essa also schooled teachers in the proper use of the phrase “Allahu Akbar!” or “Allah is greatest!” While this is widely known as battle-cry of Muslim terrorists, Essa said it’s really just a refrain that Muslims use to convey feelings of happiness, sadness, anger, or thankfulness while praising Allah.

Essa said the word “Islam” is an offshoot of the Arabic term “Salaam,” which means peace. This is a common ploy used by Muslim apologists to deceive uninformed Westerners.

“Islam” is more accurately translated as “submission” and good Muslims know they must submit to Allah and his Sharia (Islamic law), above all other systems of law.

Essa noted Islam is the world’s fastest-growing religion without mentioning that Muslims are forbidden from leaving the faith. Considered apostates, those leaving the faith are subject to severe punishment, up to and including death. And forced conversions have been a well-documented fact of history.

The Middle East and North Africa, once overwhelmingly Christian, were Islamized by a series of jihads starting with Muhammad, his successor caliphs and later by the Ottoman Turks.

She completely ignored the jihadi terrorist attacks conducted on U.S. soil: The 9/11 attack that murdered nearly 3,000 people, the Fort Hood massacre of 12 U.S. soldiers, the Pulse Nightclub attack that killed 49 Americans in Orlando, the San Bernardino attack that killed 14 at a Christmas party, the Chattanooga shooting that killed five at a Navy recruitment and reserve center, the Boston Marathon bombing that killed three and left hundreds wounded, and the Chelsea, New York, pipe-bombing that injured 30 innocent Americans. Not to mention the countless terror attacks that have been foiled by the FBI.

Here are some other facts uncovered by TMLC’s Freedom of Information Act requests:

  • Novi school district has no guidelines for the selection of presenters for teacher-training events.
  • The school district did not fully vet Huda Essa before selecting her as a presenter and providing her with data about the school district and its students.
  • Essa was given access to data from student and teacher surveys.
  • The school district said it had no records that would indicate it ever conducted a factual analysis of Essa’s presentation.
  • The school district signed a contract on August 2, 2017, agreeing to pay Essa $5,000 for her two-day seminar on August 28 and 29, 2017.


Austria: Muslim migrant arrested for attempted arson at office of party that warns against Islamization

Tlaib’s “Palestinian” village is wealthy and thriving as she whines about “oppression”

Denmark: MP proposes ban on migrants “with Muslim values” becoming Danish citizens

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Are Your Tax Dollars Being Spent on Islamic Indoctrination in Schools?

It sure looks like it, according to a press announcement on their investigative reporting from the Thomas More Law Center yesterday entitled,

TMLC Uncovers Tax-Payer Funded Islamic Propaganda Forced On Teachers


ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national nonprofit public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, has uncovered evidence of a well-orchestrated Islamic propaganda campaign aimed at teachers in school systems throughout Michigan and several other states.

Concerned about a two-day mandatory teacher-training seminar on Islam conducted by a Muslim consultant hired by Michigan’s Novi Community Schools District, TMLC filed a Freedom of Information Act request for documents related to the workshop.

Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Law Center, commented on the results of their investigation, “We found that the teachers were subjected to two days of Islamic propaganda, where Islam was glorified, Christianity disparaged, and America bashed—all funded by Novi taxpayers.”

Moreover, during the past five years the school district has presented no teacher-training seminars focusing on Christianity, Judaism or any other religion – only Islam.

The hired Muslim consultant was Huda Essa, a resident of the Dearborn area and of Arab descent.

She appeared before the Novi teachers in a hijab, the Muslim headscarf, billing herself as an expert in “cultural competency” and “culturally responsive teaching.”

Most disappointing was the fact that of the more than 400 teachers attending the workshop, not one teacher challenged Essa’s denigration of Christianity or attacks on America.

TMLC inspected dozens of internal school documents, including audio recordings of Essa’s presentation.

The information on Islam she provided to Novi teachers was riddled with falsehoods and errors of omission that were clearly meant to deceive.


And her message extends far beyond Novi.

Essa’s client list reveals she has been spreading her “trash America first” philosophy to colleges, universities, schools and professional educator associations throughout Michigan, California, Georgia, Texas, Florida and beyond. In Michigan alone her website lists nine school districts as clients – Oakland County Schools, Ann Arbor Schools, L’Anse Creuse Public Schools, Plymouth-Canton Community Schools, Roseville Community Schools, Farmington Public Schools, Dearborn Public Schools, Birmingham Public Schools and Melvindale Public Schools.


Novi’s Islamic teacher-training is just the latest example of professional Islamic indoctrinators infiltrating U.S. public schools even as Christianity has been forced out of the classroom.

“This type of infiltration amounts to an Islamic Trojan horse within our public-school systems,” Thompson said. “No other religion gets this kind of special treatment in our schools.”

Much more here.

Looking for something to do, see if your school district has employed Muslim consultants to ‘train’ your teachers.  Maybe the TMLC would like to hear about it.

RELATED ARTICLE: Ethnic Studies Latest Ploy to Brainwash Kids

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Schools Are Outdated. It’s Time For Reform

The public education system we currently know has been around for more than 150 years. However, the basic schooling model remains the same. Roughly 20 to 30 kids of the same age are stuffed into a classroom and taught by one teacher.

Even though the curricula have developed, the essence has stayed the same. Children are still taught in a standardized and industrialized way. As with anything that comes from centralized control, it is highly inefficient, bureaucratic, and wasteful.

Yes, the overall educational system has changed in many regards. However, the way we are taught has not. A teacher at the front and the children seated is the optimal way to learn for some students, but others struggle in this environment.

Children learn best in different ways. Some children are best suited to learn through visual stimulation. Others may learn best through hands-on education. The reality is that the current educational system doesn’t really accommodate any learning style, nor does it aim for anything other than high test scores.

Children rarely are allowed to be children. Play is stifled. Students are crammed into a classroom and taught in a standardized way. Creativity is restricted. They aren’t allowed to harness their inquisitive minds. Questioning things is part of the analytic mind and a key to societal development, but this takes a backseat to examinations.

The very nature of tests relies on memorization, repetition, and regurgitation: Tests infrequently harness the analytical mind. They train students to know the answers. However, they don’t train them on how to find the answers.

Faculty aspire to develop students’ thinking skills, but research shows that in practice, we tend to aim at facts and concepts in the disciplines, at the lowest cognitive levels, rather than the development of intellect or values.

Critical thinking is key to creating free and individual minds. It is also increasingly important in today’s age, where the line between information and facts is so fine. In fact, 95 percent of statistics are made up. A critical mind will question where this actually came from. Where did this statistic come from? Is it actually reliable?

The issue we have today is that students are taught to test. Whether the information makes sense or not is irrelevant as long as it is correct. This comes at a cost. Schools teach students what to think as opposed to how to think. There are important critical skills that aren’t taught. Do students truly question whatever they read or accept any claim blindly? Or, perhaps, do they accept it as long as it confirms their biases? The current system is failing because it is offering the wrong type of education. We must develop individual minds, not mindless zombies.

Each child is unique in their own right. Each has a different personality and preferred way of learning. Under the current system, each child is bundled under one standardized umbrella. When considering the different types of learners, it is easy to see why some get left behind.

The four learning styles include: visual learners, auditory learners, reading/writing learners, and kinesthetic learners. However, the idea of learning styles is not definitive. That is to say that you are not exclusively one type of learner or another.

Research from Pashler et al. disputes the evidence of specific learning styles.

Rather, these learning styles are preferences rather than “hard-coded.” This is to say that these preferred learning styles can change over time. When a specific learning style is preferred, it is easier for students to take in that information. For example, some students may prefer visual stimulation to emphasize a point, so graphs and charts may be useful. If this engages the students, they take more in. This inevitably affects educational outcomes.

Kinaesthetic learners are probably the biggest anomaly in the classroom. For students who learn best by being active, the classroom is the last place to be. It is no wonder why there are always a few individuals who are consistently disengaged. These individuals are often sporty and have high levels of energy. The traditional football captain who struggles to maintain his place on course may spring to mind. By continuing along with this standardized type of schooling, we are putting millions at a disadvantage.

Whether you buy into learning styles or not, it is evident that the current classroom system is outdated. Literacy rates have stagnated since 1971, while there has been no progress in math since 1990. So what are the causes of this stagnation?

The New York Times would have you believe the issue is under funding. Throwing more money at something is a classic proposal used by modern-day liberals.

This problem cannot be solved with money alone, however. Kansas City, Missouri, provides us with a perfect example. It currently spends roughly 63 percent of its entire budget on schooling. Benefiting from the best-funded school facilities in the country, student performance has failed to improve. Furthermore, the US spends more on education than any other OECD country besides Norway.At the same time, it is receiving little value for the money. Outcomes are average, but mathematic results are particularly poor. Countries such as Vietnam, Hungary, and Slovakia score higher.

So why is testing such a bad thing? It teaches children how to absorb information. Children “learn for a test.” However, once the test is taken, is the information truly absorbed? How long does it stay present in the mind? Research by neurobiologists Blake Richards and Paul Frankland suggests it isn’t very long.

According to the neurobiologists, the brain quickly disregards information that is no longer required. Forgetting is an evolutionary strategy to promote the survival of the species. Richards and Frankland state:

From this perspective, forgetting is not necessarily a failure of memory. Rather, it may represent an investment in a more optimal mnemonic strategy.

It is true that repetition can help with memory retention. However, if that specific memory is not recalled, it is eventually forgotten. Further research from Bacon and Stewart studied individual students for up to two years following course completion. They concluded that most of the knowledge gained during the course was lost within two years.

It is clear that the current system is generally based upon memory—who can memorize the most information to prepare for the test. Is this really arming kids with the tools they need for adulthood?

One potential solution for education would be to start “formal” schooling at age seven. Research from the University of Cambridge concludes that there are benefits of later starts to formal education. This evidence relates to the contribution of playful experiences to children’s development as learners and the consequences of starting formal learning at the age of four to five years of age.

There also needs to be a reduction in the level of testing. We have developed a system whereby teachers have a strong incentive to “teach to test.” It’s about memorizing as much information as possible rather than learning how to think.The benefits of school choice are widely documented. 

Furthermore, the testing culture is putting a strain on both teachers’ and students’ mental health. Test results are the be-all and end-all. It is for that reason that many teachers are already leaving the profession. Reforming this testing culture would not only reduce teacher and student stress but also relieve teacher turnover rates.Thirdly, school vouchers are a viable option. There are already a number of states that have experimented with this. Mostly, there has been large success across the board. The benefits of school choice are widely documented. The vast majority of existing studies find positive effects. Not only are test scores improved, but graduation rates and civic engagement are also enhanced.


Paul Boyce

Paul is a Business Economics graduate from the UK and currently an editor at

RELATED ARTICLE: School Board to Fight After Judge Imposes Pro-Trans Bathroom Policy

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

How LGBTQ Groups Are Quietly Dismantling Norms, Changing Education

Virtually every week, there seems to be another issue that preoccupies the country.

But while our attention is focused on President Donald Trump, Google, Charlottesville, Russia, impeachment, Jeffrey Epstein, the next elections, racism, a trade war with China, the #MeToo movement, or something else, LGBTQ organizations are quietly going about their work dismantling ethical norms, making a mockery of education, ruining innocent people’s lives, and destroying children’s innocence.

If you think this is overstated, here are some examples:

The LGBTQ Dismantling of Women’s Sports

Last month, a transgender weightlifter won multiple gold medals at the 2019 Pacific Games in Samoa. Laurel Hubbard of New Zealand won two gold medals and a silver in the three heavyweight categories for women weighing more than 87 kilograms, or 192 pounds. Hubbard is physically male.

Last year, two biologically male sophomores at different Connecticut high schools competed in the female division of the state open track and field competition. They came in first and second place in the 100- and 200-meter dashes.

Because the Western world cowers before LGBTQ demands, no matter how unfair they are to women athletes, men who deem themselves female must be allowed to compete against women. They almost always win.

The Dismantling of Male and Female—Even at Birth

As reported by the Associated Press: “Parents also can choose (gender) ‘X’ for newborns. New York City is joining California, Oregon, and Washington state in allowing an undesignated gender option on birth certificates. A similar provision takes effect in New Jersey in February.”

What percentage of Americans believe children are lucky if born to parents who will not identify them at birth as male or female? On the other hand, how many of us think such parents are engaged in a form of child abuse?

The Dismantling of Children’s Innocence and Parental Authority

The Associated Press also recently reported that “California has overhauled its sex education guidance for public school teachers, encouraging them to talk about gender identity with kindergartners.”

Tatyana Dzyubak, an elementary school teacher in the Sacramento area, objected: “I shouldn’t be teaching that stuff. That’s for parents to do.”

But parents and parental authority have always been a thorn in the side of totalitarian movements. Therefore, dismantling parental authority is one of the primary goals of the left, of which LGBTQ organizations are a major component.

Libraries in major urban centers now feature Drag Queen Story Hour—drag queens reading stories to preschool-age children. (Read, for example, the laudatory New York Times article “Drag Queen Story Hour Puts the Rainbow in Reading” from May 19, 2017.)

A few weeks ago, the popular actor and TV host Mario Lopez told Candace Owens (Full disclosure: Her podcast is produced by PragerU):

If you’re 3 years old and you’re saying you’re feeling a certain way or you think you’re a boy or a girl, whatever the case may be, I just think it’s dangerous as a parent to make that determination then: ‘OK, well, then you’re going to be a boy or a girl,’ whatever the case may be. … I think parents need to allow their kids to be kids, but at the same time, you gotta be the adult in the situation.

For sensibly and respectfully saying what any loving parent of a 3-year-old should say, he was so forcefully condemned by GLAAD and PFLAG, two of the biggest LGBTQ organizations, that, knowing his livelihood was on the line, he immediately recanted.

In the style of the Chinese Cultural Revolution, he “recanted” everything he said and acknowledged how much he still has to learn about parents allowing 3-year-olds to determine their gender.

The Dismantling of Educational Norms

CNN reported last week:

Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker signed into law a bill that ensures the contributions of LGBTQ people are taught in public schools. …

[The bill states] ‘In public schools only, the teaching of history shall include a study of the roles and contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people in the history of this country and this State.’

Equality Illinois, the state’s largest LGBTQ civil rights advocacy organization, supported the bill and said the curriculum can have a ‘positive effect on students’ self-image and make their peers more accepting.’

Once the purpose of teaching history is changed from teaching what happened to “having a positive effect on students’ self-image,” history is no longer about what happened; it is propaganda. But rewriting history is not a problem for the left.

As a famous Soviet dissident joke put it: “In the Soviet Union, the future is known; it’s the past that is always changing.”

I note almost every day that truth is a liberal value and a conservative value, but it has never been a left-wing value. This is just one more example.

The Dismantling of Reality

David Zirin, sports editor of The Nation: “There is another argument against allowing trans athletes to compete with cis-gender athletes that suggests that their presence hurts cis-women and cis-girls. But this line of thought doesn’t acknowledge that trans women are in fact women” (italics added).

Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., in a letter to USA Powerlifting: “The myth that trans women have a ‘direct competitive advantage’ is not supported by medical science.”

Sunu Chandy of the National Women’s Law Center: “There’s no research to support the claim that allowing trans athletes to play on teams that fit their gender identity will create a competitive imbalance.”

How can these people say such lies? Because lying is not an issue when truth is not a value.

LGBTQ organizations care about lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgenders as much as communists cared about workers. They use them as a cover for their real agenda: dismantling civilization as we know it.



Dennis Prager is a columnist for The Daily Signal, nationally syndicated radio host, and creator of PragerU. Twitter: .


LGBT History Effort Is An Assault On Parental Rights

Preferred Pronouns and More: What a Mom Saw at Her Son’s College Orientation

President of Brazil to Remove LGBT Influence from Public Schools

Biological Male “Jessica” Yaniv Misses Pool Party Because He Forgot His Tampons

LGBT Site Celebrates Middle-Aged Man’s “Relationship” With 16-Year-Old Boy

Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Federal Lawsuit Filed On Behalf of Marine Dad Banned from School Property After He Objected to Islamic Indoctrination of Daughter

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, yesterday afternoon, filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of former Marine, John Kevin Wood, and his wife, Melissa, who refuse to allow their teenage daughter to be subjected to Islamic indoctrination and propaganda in her high school World History class.  The lawsuit was filed against the Charles County Public Schools, the Board of Education, and the Principal and Vice-Principal of La Plata High School located in La Plata, Maryland.

The Woods’ daughter was forced to profess and to write out the Shahada in worksheets and quizzes.  The Shahada is the Islamic Creed, “There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.”  For non-Muslims, reciting the statement is sufficient to convert one to Islam.  Moreover, the second part of the statement, “Muhammad is the messenger of Allah,” signifies the person has accepted Muhammad as their spiritual leader.  The teenager was also required to memorize and recite the Five Pillars of Islam.

Charles County Public Schools disparaged Christianity by teaching its 11th grade students, including the Woods’ daughter, that: “Most Muslims’ faith is stronger than the average Christian.”

The Charles County Public Schools also taught the following:

  • “Islam, at heart, is a peaceful
  • “To Muslims, Allah is the same God that is worshiped in Christianity and Judaism.”
  • The Koran states, “Men are the managers of the affairs of women” and “Righteous women are thereforeobedient.”

Read the two exhibits containing Student worksheets here.

The sugarcoated version of Islam taught at La Plata High School did not mention that the Koran explicitly instructs Muslims “to kill the unbelievers wherever you find them.”  (Sura 9-5)

When John Kevin Wood discovered the Islamic propaganda and indoctrination of his daughter, he was rightfully outraged.  He immediately contacted the school to voice his objections and to obtain an alternative assignment for his daughter.

The Woods, as Christians, believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and our Savior, that Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins, and that following the teachings of Jesus Christ is the only path to eternal salvation.  The Woods believe that it is a sin to profess commitment in word or writing to any god other than the Christian God.  Thus, they object to their daughter being forced to deny the Christian God and to her high school promoting Islam over other religions.

The school ultimately refused to allow the Woods’ daughter to opt-out of the assignments, forcing her to either violate her faith by pledging to Allah or receive zeros for the assignments.  Together, John Kevin Wood, Melissa Wood, and their daughter chose to remain faithful to God and refused to complete the assignments, even though failing grades would harm her future admission to college and her opportunities to obtain college scholarships.

Adding insult to injury, in an effort to silence all pro-Christian speech in her school, La Plata’s principal, without a hearing or any opportunity to refute the false allegations against him, issued a “No Trespass” notice against John Kevin Wood denying him any access to school grounds.

Wood served 8 years in the Marine Corps.  He was deployed in Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm and lost friends to Islamic extremists.  A few years later, Wood responded as a firefighter to the 9-11 Islamic terrorist attack on the Pentagon.  Wood witnessed firsthand the destruction created in the name of Allah and knows that Islam is not “a religion of peace.”  The school prevented John Kevin Wood from defending his daughter’s Christian beliefs against Islamic indoctrination, even though as a Marine, he stood in harm’s way to defend our nation, and the Charles County Public Schools.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented: “Defendants forced Wood’s daughter to disparage her Christian faith by reciting the Shahada, and acknowledging Mohammed as her spiritual leader. Her World History class spent one day on Christianity and two weeks immersed in Islam. Such discriminatory treatment of Christianity is an unconstitutional promotion of one religion over another.”

Thompson added, “The course also taught false statements such as “Allah is the same God worshiped by Christians, and Islam as a “religion of peace. Parents must be ever vigilant to the Islamic indoctrination of their children under the guise of teaching history and multiculturalism.  This is happening in public schools across the country.  And they must take action to stop it.”

The Woods’ lawsuit seeks a court declaration that Defendants violated their constitutional and statutory rights, a temporary and permanent injunction barring Defendants from endorsing Islam or favoring Islam over Christianity and other religions, and from enforcing the no trespassing order issued against John Kevin Wood.

Read entire Federal Complaint here.

There Is No Way to “Cancel” Student Loan Debt

We must confront the reality that “cancellation” of student loan debt may successfully serve a political campaign promise, but it fails as serious policy.

America’s polarized political system is ripe for radical ideas. Democratic political systems are based on the notion that politicians must find ways to appeal to voters. As the demographics of a population change, the types of political offerings change. Currently, a growing trend within the Democratic Party is to offer younger voters reforms to the student loan debt situation.

The student loan debt “crisis” has been perpetuated by the myth that one’s best shot⁠—perhaps only shot⁠—at achieving success in life is to have a college degree. One of the long-term benefits of a degree in our skills-based economy is the opportunity to earn more than an individual with a high school diploma or less.

As Daniel Kowalski notes, government helped fuel this demand for higher education. Between 1980 and 2016, the number of higher education institutions increased from 3,231 to 4,360.

As Kowalski writes,

the government’s backing of student loans has caused the price of higher education to artificially rise; the demand would not be so high if college were not a financially viable option for some.

Since the 1980s, costs of education have surged eight times faster than wages. Unsurprisingly, a loan for $100,000 for a degree that may lead to a job with an annual salary of $40,000 per year is financially challenging.

Like other areas of government intervention, the government’s infiltration of student loan markets has produced unexpected trade-offs.

Remarkably, leading Democratic contenders for the 2020 presidential nomination like Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth have argued that the solution is to “cancel” outstanding student debt, currently totaling $1.6 trillion.

As some scholars, such as Cato’s Corey A. DeAngelis, have pointed out, there is no way to “cancel” these debts. The debt burden would merely be shifted to people who didn’t agree to take out these loans.

These plans have been described, quite fairly, as a “bailout for the elite, as the top 25 percent of households by income hold almost half of all student debt.”

The plans should be described for what really are: an effort to “buy” the votes of student loan debt holders, predominantly younger voters. According to USA Today, “forty-three percent of young voters, ages 18 to 29, surveyed said they are likely to participate in the nominating contests” in 2020. Comically, even Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar, a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, has said, “I wish—if I was a magic genie and could give that [free four-year college] to everyone and we could afford it, I would.”

Our current political discourse requires some grounding and perspective, as policymakers are right to note that student loan debt has larger implications on the economy writ-large. Given that Senator Warren’s plan is financially dubious and impractical on its face, it is worthwhile to explore alternative ventures this $1.6 trillion could support. That amount of money could:

  • Give each of Los Angeles county’s 59,000 homeless residents roughly $27 million
  • Buy every resident of New Jersey a $175,000 yacht
  • Give each of the United States’ roughly 40,000 homeless veterans around $40 million
  • Buy every resident of Texas a Tesla Model 3
  • Develop 40 bases on the moon

Some or all of these things may be desirable.  Yet to pursue them would ignore basic economic realities, including our growing federal debt. The United States currently owes around $22.5 trillion, a figure projected to rise over the next decade. There must be a concerted effort by members of Congress to address our national debt if we are to avoid a financial reckoning.

In the meantime, politicians ought to look for more grounded ideas to reform the student loan situation:

  • Legislators can amend or remove the provision of federal law that exempts student loans from being discharged during bankruptcy.
  • Thought leaders can promote trades and apprentice programs that will benefit young people in the current job market. (Some companies have promoted their efforts to hire individuals without degrees due to the tight labor market.)
  • Policymakers can continue to promote relationships between online educational tools and higher education institutions.
  • At The Wall Street Journal, Joseph Weinstein recommends that policymakers should reduce the salaries of university presidents and administrators.
  • We can all work to debunk the myth that a university diploma grants a specific status in civil society.

Providing the wholesale cancellation of student loan debt may comfort those affected in the near-term. However, it does not address the underlying ills of our ways. Instead, we ought to look at the flaws in the government takeover of the student loan market and how it has artificially increased the cost of college attendance.

This fact may evade the bartering politicians, but it should not evade the average voter. We must confront the reality that the cancellation of student loan debt may successfully serve a political campaign promise, but it fails as serious policy.


EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. © All right reserved.

More bad news from the home front . . . the betrayal by the National Education Association

We saw  the changes coming.  We heard all the historic revisionism about Israel and the boycott/divestment/sanctions of the only democratic state in the Middle East; the anti-Zionist textbooks and programs that took root in colleges and universities across the country; and the assault upon the vulnerable K-12 students.  We learned that schools were discouraging little ones from having a “best friend,” that they would be isolated in front of a computer every day, with the adults’ role changing from teacher to facilitator, to increase learning frustration.  We know that Common Core brought them difficult math and uninspiring literature, the children learning less, knowing less, and with equalized grades, grasping that they are less sure of themselves.  Yes, they’re graduating, but they don’t seem to know enough to hold a decent job or qualify for a higher wage.  They know less about their own country, its founding, its history and mission, and more about Islam, resulting in less pride in their heritage and feeling more discontent.  They’re learning that men, particularly white men, are worthless, that boys can be girls, that they can indulge in sexual activity at a young age and human babies are dispensable.  Has the educational establishment lost its mind and/or purposely ceded control to powers with severely evil intent?

National Education Association (NEA), the largest labor union of professionals with three million members in 14,000 communities across the country, held a 7,000-strong assembly in Houston. They represented faculty and support staff of public schools, colleges and universities, and retirees.  With an exemplar budget of more than $341 million for fiscal year 2012-2013, its official mission is “to advocate for educational professionals and to unite our members and the nation to fulfill the promise of public education to prepare every student to succeed in a diverse and interdependent world.”  It has drifted off course.  Originally conservative, it now lobbies and firmly supports with ample campaign contributions the Democrat party, changing the tenor of the promise of education to indoctrination at full throttle.  The assemblage was described as an anti-Israel fest.

The program’s New Business Item #26 may be read in its entirety on the link.  The several supporting groups listed are notably anti-American, antisemitic, anti-Israel, and supportive of the Palestinian narrative.  They form part of the Red/Green Axis (Communist and agents of Islam), using propaganda designed to destroy America’s ideals, undermine Israel’s legitimacy, and to remove security, liberty and our Judeo-Christian values from our children by seeking to sever Christianity from its Jewish roots and graft it onto Islam.

Parents Against Child Detentions (PACD) is an organization of Palestinians in the (Judea-Samaria) West Bank’s Jenin refugee camp, the site of the infamous April 2002 “Jenin Massacre.”  Jenin had been the launch site for numerous terrorist attacks against Israel, and Israel’s Defense Forces (IDF) entered, only to walk into a booby-trapped ambush.  After a 12-day battle, with 46 to 55 Palestinian fighters and 23 IDF soldiers killed, the Palestinians surrendered and the IDF withdrew a week later.  Yet, the official Palestinian report accused Israel of full-scale genocide, a massacre.  However, Doctors Without Borders revealed that 500 bodies were actually corpses that had been unearthed from a cemetery and booby-trapped (wired with explosives) by the Palestinians.  Islam relies on lies for their agenda; the “massacre” was a hoax to reap world sympathy.

Instead of revealing the truth that Jenin’s constant refugee status continues because their brethren are unwelcoming, PACD blames Israel to again engage world pity.  It also accuses Israel of incarcerating Palestinian children, insinuating that these are young, innocent children, but without providing the backstory. To the West, children are our most precious possessions, but to Islam, they are the expendable warrior class, pressed into jihad, trained to kill with deadly weapons and become enthusiastic martyrs. They are practiced at throwing deadly missiles at passing Israeli vehicles; igniting and sending aloft incendiary kites and balloons that destroyed thousands of acres of Israel’s agricultural land, forestry and wildlife; and stabbing unarmed citizens on the streets.  Judaism teaches values and ethics, basic life skills, and provides their children with a strong education for a productive future.  Islam teaches the obligation of self-sacrifice for Hamas and Allah, for exploitation and death.  Their early immersion in warrior activities feeds their desire to engage in criminality and become suicide bombers, with their parents generously rewarded.

Hamoked: Center for the Defense of the Individual is an Israel-based, anti-Israel human rights organization, funded by Europe, the Ford Foundation, The Forward (NY newspaper), the Finnish government, a Ramallah-based NGO and other anti-Semitic foundations.  It seeks self-determination for a fictitious “Palestinian” people at the expense of self-determination for the indigenous people, Jews, on their own land for 3,000 years.  They use terminology, such as “occupier” and “settlement,” to demonize Israel as the fraud, engaging in apartheid rhetoric to support anti-Israel BDS and cripple her economy.  Some of its activities include challenging delays at checkpoints, never acknowledging the need to prevent infiltration for border security, and against the IDF’s destruction of illegal housing built by Bedouins or the UN in defiance of building requirements.  Bedouins often refuse other viable land.  Again, the slander validates the Palestinians for world opinion.

Defense for Children International-Palestine (DCIPalestine) is an independent Palestinian organization created to defend human rights of children in the Arab-made “humanitarian crisis,” falsely dubbed “Occupied Palestinian Territory.”  Again, jihad includes a war of language.  Occupied” implies illegality and aggression, but Israel occupies only historically and legally documented territory, and this territory became Israel’s when she won her defensive war of 1967 against five attacking Arab armies.  Every inch of Gaza is now under Palestinian control, containing not one Israeli soldier, not one Jewish settler.  Yes, their children need to be protected  — from the Islamic culture in which they are objectified, used by their parents and Hamas as weapons to carry out violence. The children understand that their lives have little value and their futures hold little promise.

American Friends Service Committee is a religious Quaker society that alleges to work for nonviolence and justice, yet it supports the Islamic culture that encourages violence.  Ignoring all the peoples that have lost to Islam, the Friends desire land for Palestinians at the expense of Israel, which is just 1/6th of 1% of the Arab land mass.  Friends have worked with UNRWA schools, never changing the students’ educational message that includes biases and violence against Jews, resulting in the continued support of youthful Palestinian terrorists who are at the front lines, shooting, igniting volatile missiles to Israel, and carrying out stabbings and suicidal explosions among Israeli citizens.

Jews Against Anti-Muslim Racism (JAAMR), offers resources for “community education and organizing.”  Part of the Islamic psychological war strategy against the West is to go on the offensive with a defensive approach, challenging Islamophobia and anti-Muslim racism to make their prey apologetic and obedient.  They instruct and use the word “terrorist” to include white supremacists and others who commit ideologically motivated acts of violence, thereby deflecting the focus from Muslims.  A member of JAAMR’s advisory circle, blatantly antisemitic activist and jihada, Linda Sarsour, often speaks to the community, organizations and foundations, high schools and universities, synagogues and Hebrew schools, to curb free speech and whitewash Islamic crimes and stealth jihad.

Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), a left-wing activist organization, claims to oppose anti-Jewish, anti-Muslim and anti-Arab bigotry, but Its members disrespect the international laws of Israel’s sovereignty by speaking of Israeli occupation on her own land.  Generously supported by Nazi collaborator George Soros, JVP stands with antisemitic representative Ilhan Omar, BDS and Trump resistance, and against Israel.   Very active on college campuses across the country, the group uses organizers for grassroots anti-Israel advocacy, and strong-arm tactics to censor pro-Israel speakers.  Their objective is to create a widespread Jewish anti-Zionist movement.

The final entry listed was the No Way to Treat a Child campaign, designed to continue the victimhood position of Islam, in this instance, to pressure relevant Israeli authorities to “end the detention and abuse of Palestinian children.”  This is blatant mendacity; it is not – neither has it ever been – Israeli policy to kidnap and incarcerate small children!  There are 203 minors in Israeli prisons, 80 percent over 16, none under 14, all guilty of having committed deadly jihad crimes.  While we understand childhood to be the time for developing building blocks for educational achievement, economic productivity, responsible citizenship, lifelong health, and successful parenting of the next generation, Islam’s belief system is diametrically opposed to our own.  It is a shame-blame culture that creates stress, emphasizes victimhood and, in fact, weakens the brain’s development. Females are subservient, the males disrespectful of all women, and their youth are made ready to do battle and sacrifice their lives for jihad.  Palestinian children are kept uneducated, exploited by their families as terrorist decoys, human shields, and participants in propaganda films for monetary gain. Islam is no way to treat a child; it is the dehumanization of the individual.

Why have some Christian groups joined on the side of Islam?  We may first credit the strain of Christianity’s bitter split from Judaism, the ensuing framework for the negative perception of the Jew, and the charge of deicide by Bishop Melito of Sardis in the second century and into the time of the Crusades, when antisemitism became an integral part of European and Western culture.   It may be the desire for supersessionism, or replacement theology, which asserts that the New Covenant has superseded the Mosaic covenant.

There are myriad speculations for why such Jews become virulent and join the antisemites to disparage and harm other Jews, but there are no definitive answers.  I believe them to be collateral damage from the many centuries of persecution, and the totality of stories of cruelty and exile in an unwelcoming world.  These “Jews” have abandoned Judaism and are eager to become invisible and unrecognizable as they join their foes in a future globalist world.  There is a curious parallel with Chancellor Angela Merkel, who apparently seeks to erase Germany and its dark, evil past by receiving hordes of migrants of another culture, but also to annihilate and completely change her country, hoping to make Germany invisible and indistinguishable within the burgeoning global community.

Of the Red and Green factions, there is bound to be a battle for sole domination of the rest of us, and there’s no telling what the globalists will be – a choice between poisons – but neither bodes well.


Radical Islam’s Children

Hamas TV show has Gaza children sing praises of suicide bombing

UPenn study on racism in Trump era SMASHES the Left’s narrative

  • A study from the University of Pennsylvania finds that racism in the U.S. has significantly decreased since President Trump’s election in 2016.
  • This finding comes amid backlash from students, when many on college campuses are claiming that Trump is racist.

A recent study from the University of Pennsylvania finds that racism in America has significantly decreased since President Donald Trump’s election in 2016, directly contradicting the narrative pushed among many academics and mainstream media personalities.

The Rise of Trump, the Fall of Prejudice? Tracking White Americans’ Racial Attitudes 2008-2018 via a Panel Survey was authored by UPenn political science professor Daniel J. Hopkins and research assistant Samantha Washington.

Hopkins, in an article for FiveThirtyEight, detailed on Tuesday the study, which used 13 waves of panel surveys to gather data and determined that white racial prejudice against African Americans and Hispanic Americans has declined since 2016, when Trump was elected president.

Hopkins noted that the fall in prejudice was present for both Democrats and Republicans.

Hopkins and Washington, according to the study, voice their opinions on Trump and his statements.

“As a political leader, Donald Trump has used racist rhetoric to build political support,” the study states.

“In his campaign and first few years in office, Donald Trump consistently defied contemporary norms by using explicit, negative rhetoric targeting ethnic/racial minorities. Did this rhetoric lead white Americans to express more prejudiced views of African Americans or Hispanics, whether through the normalization of prejudice or other mechanisms?” the study’s co-authors asked at another point in the study.

Ultimately, though, the study found that the “racist” rhetoric from the president has not resulted in more racist attitudes among Americans.

“We find that via most measures, white Americans’ expressed anti-Black and anti-Hispanic prejudice declined after the 2016 campaign and election, and we can rule out even small increases in the expression of prejudice,” the study’s abstract states.

This new finding contradicts ongoing public perception.

Quinnipiac University poll found in 2018 that 55 percent of survey respondents believed that “President Trump has emboldened people who hold racist beliefs,” according to the study.

“Latino approval of President Trump has skyrocketed to 50 percent. We’ve had the lowest Latino unemployment in history under President Trump,” Joel Valdez, a Mexican-American and recent student at the University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign. “Latinos and African-American[s] are prospering under the Trump Administration.”

“Yet, according to the left and the mainstream media, you’d expect worse,” Valdez, who is also an intern at the Leadership Institute, Campus Reform’s parent organization, continued. “As a Latino, I’m told to expect rampant racism, but that’s not America today or one I’ve experienced, especially under President Trump.”

Hopkins, however, explains that he believes that Trump has been “elevating racially charged issues.”

“For a president who has routinely made appeals to white voters’ racial anxieties, it might sound counterintuitive that white Americans have become less prejudiced since his election,” Hopkins said in his article. “Even if Americans aren’t becoming more racist on average, racist rhetoric, like Trump’s attacks on the Democratic congresswomen, still can reshape the political environment.”

The UPenn results also come amid a time during which many politicians have labeled Trump “racist.” Prominent Democrats, like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and presidential candidate Sen. Cory Booker, have both accused the president of racism.

“You have a racist mind in your head, and a racist heart in your chest,” Ocasio-Cortez told Trump on Twitter.

Booker alleged that Trump is “worse than a racist,” according to CNN.

Perceptions that Trump is “racist” extend far beyond members of Congress, though.

In the last week alone, Campus Reform has reported on a professor who doubled down after comparing young Trump supporters to Hitler Youth, as well as another professor who asserted that Trump is the “most racist person.”

As Campus Reform previously reported, students indicated that Obama’s immigration policy quote was racist, but only when they thought it was actually a Trump quote.

“I think that policy comes from a place of white American nationalism,” one student said about the quote, before being told that Obama had said it.

Another student remarked that “Donald Trump has embraced this rhetoric of racism and xenophobia that’s not beneficial to our country at all.”

In another recent Campus Reform video, students characterized statements made by former Vice President Joe Biden as “racist” when they thought those quotes were from Trump.

Follow the author of this article on Twitter: @ethanycai.


Profs hate Trump’s ‘Salute to America’ on Fourth of July

Students say Obama immigration quote racist…when they think it’s from Trump]

RELATED VIDEO: Students SHOCKED to learn Biden, not Trump, said these ‘racist’ quotes.

Will you help expose liberal bias on America’s campuses?

Campus Reform exposes the liberal bias and abuse against conservatives on America’s colleges and universities.

As a Campus Reform reader, you know about the abuse taking place at our nation’s higher education institutions, and you know how important it is to bring these stories to light.

College campuses are no longer bastions of higher learning. Leftist professors indoctrinate students with their agendas. They even silence conservative students with their attempts to suppress free speech.

Campus Reform depends on the financial support of concerned Americans like you to report on leftist indoctrination on college campuses and uncover the blatant misconduct of university administrators, faculty, and students.


EDITORS NOTE: This Campus Reform column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

PODCAST: Prize-Winning Student Film Shows What It Means to Be American

What does it mean to be American? That was the question over 6,000 students attempted to answer through a short film in the 2019 C-SPAN StudentCam competition.

The Daily Signal spoke with Eli Scott and Mason Daugherty, the grand-prize winners of the competition, to find out how they defined what it means to be American, and what they learned as they spoke with political leaders and policy experts across the aisle.

Virginia Allen: I am joined on The Daily Signal Podcast by Eli Scott and Mason Daugherty, the 2019 grand-prize winners of the C-SPAN student film competition. Eli and Mason are rising seniors at Imagine International Academy of North Texas in McKinney, Texas. Eli and Mason, thank you all for joining me today.

Mason Daugherty: Thank you for having us, Virginia.

Eli Scott: Yeah, thanks for having us on.

Allen: This year C-SPAN received nearly 3,000 documentary submissions from over 6,300 students from all over the country. And all these documentaries had to answer the question “What does it mean to be American?

Eli and Mason, your film won the grand prize. Congratulations to both of you.

Daugherty: Thank you.

Allen: Now, how did you all answer that question of what does it mean to be American?

Daugherty: We really started at a position where we wanted to find something that people wouldn’t typically think about when it comes to being an American.

I mean, we’ve got the Constitution, the Bill of Rights. We have all of our founding documents. We have the ideals of the Founding Fathers that remain with us, but we wanted to take it into a direction that has existed from then and existed until now.

We found that to be holding your government accountable and the responsibility in the role of citizens in preserving our democratic republic. That’s how we got there.

Scott: Holding your government accountable is a truly unique American aspect and not many other people around the world can claim to enjoy that freedom and privilege.

Although it’s a little bit unconventional, I think it honestly is one of the most important ones and withholding our integrity and structure as a society.

Allen: Yeah, absolutely. How did you answer that question of as American people, how do we go about holding the government accountable?

Daugherty: What we agreed on and what we learned from speaking with numerous people from different political leanings is that it starts at a local level and a state level, and then onto a federal level.

It is so easy and almost effortless to be active in your local community on a political level. At your city council, you can pretty easily get a meeting with your mayor. If you live in a small town, medium-sized city, and they’re the people who listen to you, they’re the people that you can talk to and suggest maybe policy, anything like that. And you’ll see those changes in your daily life on state and federal issues.

You can hold them accountable, you can elect who you want to be in power, you can communicate your views by voting, but it’s a lot easier to do that on a local level. And that’s where it all comes from.

Scott: I think it’s a common misconception among the general public … we see on the news Trump, Trump, Trump, executive, executive, executive, Congress, and then that becomes ingrained into their heads and you begin to think of it as a distant kind of goal to where only the privileged and people with money can attain that.

Reverse engineer it. Who actually consents to those? What’s impacting you directly? It’s not those people that necessarily while, yes, they can …

The biggest impacts you’ll see on your day-to-day life are coming from the people who might live in the same neighborhood as you. Once you’re able to realize that and put into action specific goals you can collectivize with people who you live around, be nice to one’s neighbor.

So, starting at a much lower level is one of the common themes that we found to be the most significant impact to you as an American citizen.

Daugherty: One more thing, it was a completely bipartisan issue of holding your governor accountable, fighting corruption. We spoke with people from more progressive grassroots organizations … Then, of course The Heritage Foundation, libertarian legal scholars, and everybody had different interpretations about how to hold one one’s government accountable, but it’s something that really tied everyone together.

I think that really showed in the final cut of the video. It’s something that pulls everyone together no matter what your political leaning is.

Allen: Can you share a little bit about the process of actually making the film? I know you both put so much work into this project. Did you have a favorite part? Was there something especially challenging that stands out in your mind?

Daugherty: Of course. My background is in freelance video production for companies and people in my community. This is what I love to do on a daily basis, and when we were approached with this opportunity, I said, “Yes. Let’s do this.” Although, I had never really shot a formal documentary that you think of when you see on like “Dateline.”

There was a lot of learning. We both collaborated quite significantly. Eli, more so on the people PR, anything scheduled. And then my focus remained on how do we communicate what we’re talking about in the best way possible to the people who will be watching it?

It was a very dynamic relationship and I think that was what made it stronger is that we can each specialize on our own areas and make things go a lot more smoothly so that the quality at the end would be higher.

I think the hardest part, and then we didn’t realize this initially, was just how long it would take to edit and how many possibilities we would have and different directions that we could have taken it in.

In the end, that would have conveyed widely different messages. We spent a good month in the editing room, last December, trying to finalize it and turn out the final copy, the “final copy” that we were happy with.

Scott: Absolutely. I think the collaboration aspect is what really made the video how it is. We’re both passionate about our own things. you’re more visually creative and that really showed.

It was a wonderfully made, wonderfully executed video and being a really big fan of debate in history and politics, I was able to really search and research things and speak with people that I’d been wanting to speak with for years and really delve into the whole issue of corruption and government accountability firsthand, whether it was special-interest groups, it was professor Randy Barnett at Georgetown Law, or anybody of that sort.

It was a really interesting thing to undertake and the collaboration really shown through.

Allen: You are both rising seniors in high school. Where did this interest in politics and, specifically, conservative policy come from at your young age?

Daugherty: We’ve been both in same grade and that same school for a while now and through connection and friendship, we were both involved in our school’s Youth and Government and we have a fabulous history teacher, Ms. Presley. If you’re out there, thank you.

It kind of nurtured our interests and I think it’s just kind of in us, as a commonality that we’ve had. We’ve been able to engage in certain debates and conversations over things and that’s kind of how we call it. Do you want to add to that?

Scott: Yeah. The wonderful thing about Mason was that we’re always debating, even arguing sometimes, about ideas politically, even though we’re kind of on the same side of the spectrum. We have that ability to disagree with each other and still get along.

I think that’s wonderful and that’s what the more conservative side kind of champions. You can have disagreements with each other and get along and not fight and that’s sort of something that’s been catalyzed through Youth and Government through other extracurricular activities.

Even growing up in Texas has probably had a lot of an influence on it, but really seeing what the conservatives, the Republicans are doing in Washington currently and what they’ve done in the past.

It’s been a really interesting thing to live through and it’s had a big influence on my views on politics and I think a lot of other people in our generation, and I think it’s going to continue to grow as people go into college and our generation and it’s going end up pretty, pretty cool.

Allen: You did so much traveling as you made this film and you came to D.C. and you did interviews at The Heritage Foundation and on the hill. What was maybe one or two surprising takeaways as you were meeting with these various leaders from across the aisle?

Daugherty: One of the most common things I found on both the local and federal level is how nonpartisan of a topic this is. There’s some deep accordance to be had with that.

Scott: Yeah, we saw, no matter who we interviewed, there were things that tied us all together—young Americans, old Americans, conservatives, liberals—and that was wonderful. I mean, scholars, people at special-interest groups, or grassroots organizations. It was really wonderful to see and I think that really kind of showed in the video and the final cut just how nonpartisan of an issue it was.

Allen: I watched the film. It’s excellent, so strong. You all did an amazing job making it. How has it been received by your peers?

Daugherty: I’d say well. I think I confused them a little bit because, traditionally, in class and outside of school, we’re usually associated with a bit more conservative-leaning values, but the way we tried to present this video was that this isn’t a partisan issue. This is something that everybody needs to be concerned about and that unites us all.

I have people, extended family who watched it, who I’m not as close to, but they were legitimately wondering what direction we were going with. The fact that we were able to trip up even some of the closest people that we know and make them question, “What is this truly?” And so that was a really surprising reaction we had.

Scott: Yeah. The impressive thing is that I think a lot of people had different takeaways from the video.

The more progressive, more liberal people that saw the video and commented on it basically said, “Well, good job communicating more progressive values and stuff.”

They were impressed that, as Texans, we kind of took that on and then, maybe a teacher or a family member who was more conservative, really took away the issues of suspicion of power or limiting the power of the federal government.

Everyone took something away from it. Even the peers.

We have a very diverse class of people everywhere in the political spectrum and everyone really had their own takeaways and there were no real negative comments. Nobody was offended by the video. That was really cool because there are a lot of other ways, as Mason said, that we could have cut the video up, extended it, added more clips in where it could be extremely partisan based on what people said, how we edited it.

Daugherty: Beyond the politics side of it, people, [who may have not been as familiar with the topics we discussed] really enjoyed having a way … to kind of connect the dots in their own heads.

I think that’s what’s so special about the video is we’re able to present maybe more a complex topic but presented it in such a way that anybody who wants to can become familiar and engaged with it and learn something that they had not known beforehand.

Scott: Yeah.

Allen: What is next for you guys? Do you want to keep making more films? Are you hoping to continue to be involved in political thought and debate?

Daugherty: Well, C-SPAN is hosting the 2020 StudentCam competition. With the election coming up, it’s very tempting to … we can both vote this election and so, I think there’s just as much potential this time around.

What do you think, Eli?

Scott: I absolutely agree with that because the topic revolves on issues that we would like the candidates in 2022 to examine or bring as part of their campaign and I think that this gives us an opportunity to communicate to potential voters, people in our generation, anybody who views the video. That’s going to be what the power is.

So, I agree. It’s very tempting to do that. Besides that, I think some future steps, future goals would be to keep filmmaking as a medium that we always use to express whatever we’re interested in. Politics is one of the biggest things. Debating, having open discussions, freedoms, freedom of speech.

It’s all really good things that can be communicated through video really well. And it broadens the audience of politics as a whole, especially with young filmmakers kind of putting out that content.

Daugherty: Definitely. Just beyond the competition, filmmaking is something that I live and breathe and it’s a lot of fun, honestly, to have so much work put into a project.

I will continue to hopefully do passion projects, [that are] not necessarily bound by any sort of guidelines, but that I can manifest what it is that I might be feeling or an issue that pops up in a community or something I just want to highlight and help get more attention to.

Beyond that, in terms of career, I’m a little bit unsure currently, though I know wherever I go, filmmaking will be an integral part of it and a powerful medium of doing so.

Allen: Well, I look forward to seeing future films by you guys. Where can the film be found?

Scott: Definitely. Anybody who’s interested in seeing the film can go to We’re located on the past winners page for the 2019 competition.

Allen: That’s great. Mason and Eli, thank you.

Daugherty: Thank you.

Scott: Yes. Thanks again, Virginia. It’s been a pleasure.


Virginia Allen

Virginia Allen is a contributor to The Daily Signal. Send an email to Virginia. Twitter: @Virginia_Allen5.

Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column with podcast is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Public vs Charter Schools in the US: Which is Better?

Several decades ago, the only three options for kids to get their first education certificate were to attend public, international, or private-funded schools. In 2019, school types range from public schools to magnet schools or even homeschooling.

Nowadays, more and more parents are looking for alternative education options for their children. It is, therefore, important to know the advantages and disadvantages of a school you wish to enroll your kid in. There are some crucial differences between public and charter schools; unlike private schools, they are funded and supervised by the local government.

Basically, charter schools are no better or worse than public ones. Their only difference is that they are excepted from local school districts supervision and are not required to sign agreements with local educational boards or government bodies. Public schools, on the other hand, are dependent on school district rules and must keep their schedule, study load, and timetable in compliance with state education norms.

Comparing Public And Charter Schools

Despite the fact that both schools are funded by the government, they abide by different regulations and norms. In order to gain a better understanding of the two, we will look into these differences and explain them.

Charter schools are funded on a per-pupil basis. Partial coverage of expenses through private funds is not forbidden but it is infrequent. The more pupils are enrolled in a special school, the more prestigious it is considered. Public schools are partially funded from the state budget and local taxes. They are prohibited from receiving any funds from individuals or private companies.

When it comes to government regulation, charter schools are the only ones responsible for their own curricula. However, they must meet some state education norms (for example, a list of mandatory subjects to be taught to pupils) in order to get state funding. Public schools have to abide by all laws and regulations established by local school district commissions. The body responsible for developing these regulations is a local school board, which is locally elected and responsible for supervising the district.

With regard to teacher accreditation, special schools teachers do not necessarily have to have a university diploma or other certificates. The certification requirements vary from state to state and are usually quite lenient. In typical schools, all lecturers have to be accredited by the state education board. It means that teachers should at least have a Certificate of Secondary Teacher.

Curriculum wise, charter schools are free to decide study load for their students. However, they are still required to sign a performance contract with the local government. Traditional schools should follow established curricula which are developed by state school boards and implemented by local school boards. Thus, you can expect public schools in the same district to have identical curricula.

Finally, charter schools may require a mandatory application process for individuals, but it depends on the area they are located in. In traditional schools, all pupils can freely attend classes and should not submit any applications.

Which School Type Is Better?

It is hard to say which school type is better or worse. Those in favor of charter schools argue that in the majority of cases, kids studying there receive a better quality education. They believe that traditional schools cannot reveal pupils’ potential due to not paying enough attention to each student, poor teachers’ motivation, unsafe learning milieu, and lack of sufficient funding. Charter schools, on their part, provide their students with a more engaging atmosphere. Teachers at special schools can teach fewer students, thus being able to devote more time to each pupil. Moreover, charter schools frequently specialize in specific subjects (for example, math or religion), which helps talented pupils fully reveal their potential. For example, if your kid frequently asks you, “Can you edit my paper?”, you should consider finding a school which places a strong emphasis on language studying.

On the other hand, those who are fond of the public school system claim that charter schools support an unfair enrollment system. Traditional schools are required to enroll all students living in a specific area, while special ones frequently require applicants to meet some academic and psychological standards. The worst thing is that if too many students apply, charters schools may be forced to decide who will be enrolled on a lottery basis. A typical school must enroll any number of students who apply and hire additional teachers if needed.

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, there were only 3 million pupils attending charter schools in 2018. In comparison, the total number of students who attend primary school amounts to 50 million. More than 56% of charter schools are located in cities, while only 10% are located in rural areas. Therefore, your choice of an educational institution depends on where you live and if a charter school’s specialization corresponds to your child’s interests. For example, charter schools in New York are outperforming public ones in terms of a higher number of A students.

Which School Is Better For Your Kid?

Is your kid interested in arts, maths, science, theatre or religion? If they are, then you should consider looking for a charter school. If your child has no distinct preferences, it would be better for you to enroll them in a public school and let them narrow down their choice while picking a college. In terms of quality, charter schools are on a par with public ones, since they are both state-funded, free to enter and have to meet education requirements.

Behind the chiffon curtain: Drag queen story hours and child endangerment

Drag queen story hours (DQSHs) have quickly become one of the most divisive controversies in the 21st century culture war. Recent research revealed that these events are part of a much larger, intentional effort by the American Library Association to promote LGBTQ activism. New evidence from their recent annual conference shows how deep this promotion runs and how libraries are protecting themselves instead of protecting children. Communities are demanding to know: What’s really behind the values DQSHs are said to promote? Do DQSHs actually provide children with positive role models or expose them to dangerous men.

The initial exposure

In June, Personhood Alliance Education brought to light an intentional movement within the American Library Association (ALA) to bring DQSHs and other LGBTQ-promoting events into libraries across the country, even helping “secret librarian advocate operative[s]” sneak LGBTQ books and materials into current programs and use outside sponsors to host DQSHs in resistant communities. Over 43,000 people responded by signing our petition with LifeSite News. A similar petition partnership between CitizenGo and the Activist Mommy brought an additional 56,000 signatures. Both petitions were delivered to the ALA’s office in Washington, DC, on July 11th.

If you have not yet signed the petition to the ALA, which is now moving to Congress, click here to add your name.

Georgia Kijesky, leader of Personhood Maryland, was instrumental in bringing this issue to the forefront, as her local library in Lexington Park, Maryland is an active example of how larger forces are working to promote corrupted sexuality and gender to children. She also helped organize a well-attended prayer vigil on June 23rd during the DQSH and Drag 101 events at the library, which were led by a drag queen whose name was purposefully withheld from the public by the event sponsor.

The response to the research, the petition, and the vigil is one that has become familiar to Christian communities across the country. It’s a response shared by the ALA, LGBTQ advocacy groups, DQSH organizers and supporters, and even some churches:

  1. DQSHs reflect good values like inclusivity, acceptance, and freedom of expression.
  2. DQSHs are harmless and offer children positive role models.

Let’s examine what’s behind these claims.

The values beneath the veneer

At the 2019 ALA annual conference and exhibition, held in Washington, DC in June, intellectual freedom and inclusivity were front and center. Supported by the structures within the ALA that were created to normalize and promote the LGBTQ lifestyle, these rhetorical concepts—core values, according to the ALA—were woven throughout the workshops and exhibition hall. These core values were also worn proudly by ALA executives and attendees, even ALA president Loida Garcia-Febo, as they celebrated World Pride Month and the 50thanniversary of The Stonewall Riots. The Stonewall Uprising, as it’s also known, is a key milestone in the gay rights movement—six days of violent demonstrations started by drag queen Marsha P. Johnson against police who had raided a gay club in New York City in 1969.

More than 100 ALA conference workshops boasted an equality, diversity, and inclusivity theme; a reported one-third of the total workshop offerings. Sessions included:

Other workshops included, “A Child’s Room to Choose: Encouraging Gender Identity and Expression in School and Public Libraries” and “Are You Going to Tell My Parents?: The Minor’s Right to Privacy in the Library.”

It is important to note here that, under the guise of right-to-privacy, 1st Amendment protections, and anti-censorship, the ALA fought vigorously against requiring pornography blocking software on library computers in the early 2000s. This software was mandated for public libraries and schools through the federal Children’s Internet Protection Act. The ALA opposed porn filters all the way to the Supreme Court, but lost United States v. American Library Association in 2003. Today, the ALA is bypassing this decision, giving children access to pornography and age-inappropriate events and materials offline, in the form of DQSHs, Drag 101 events, explicit sex education workshops, and pornographic book displays.

The role models beneath the makeup

The ALA’s promotion of DQSHs legitimizes the idea that a man dressed as an exaggerated caricature of a woman promotes acceptance, inclusion, and children’s literacy. The DQSH website itself says that these events “capture the imagination and play of the gender fluidity of childhood and give kids glamorous, positive, and unabashedly queer role models.”

So what is a drag queen?

According to the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLADD), “Drag queens are men, typically gay men, who dress like women for the purpose of entertainment.” Drag queens perform for gay audiences in adult nightclubs and at other homosexual- and transgender-themed events and venues. They are performers who live other lives outside of their drag characters and may or may not be transgender, notes the National Center for Transgender Equality.

What about the “other life” of a drag queen, and does it matter in terms of having access to children?

This drag queen, Dylan Pontiff (aka Santana Pilar Andrews) says he can filter himself for different audiences—the gay men who pay money to see him in sexually charged drag attire and the children who sit in front of him as he reads children’s books that introduce homosexuality and gender-fluid concepts. Yet, he makes a startling admission: “[The DQSH] is going to be the grooming of the next generation. We are trying to groom the next generation.”

And what of the drag queen whose identity was purposefully withheld from the public prior to the June 23rd events at the Lexington Park Library in Maryland?

According to Samantha McGuire, the spokesperson for the event sponsor Southern Maryland Area Secular Humanists (SMASH), her organization ran a background check on Stormy Vain before the DQSH occurred, yet chose to withhold his identity because drag queens “get viciously attacked by trolls”. Once Stormy Vain posted about the DQSH on Facebook a few days later, it took an activist about 10 minutes to discover who he is.

Meet Todd Musick (aka Stormy Vain), who runs a lurid sex business that features gay males called Stormy’s Angels of Entertainment, dba Eroticasy. Though Musick has now taken his website offline and made all of his social media accounts private, here are just a few screenshots of his work, which was captured in a 70-page exposé (credit: Mass Resistance, at the request of Personhood Maryland’s Georgia Kijesky).

During a July 9th St. Mary’s County Commissioners’ meeting, SMASH’s Samantha McGuire presented an indirect defense of Stormy Vain, without addressing the issue of the background check, by accusing Personhood Maryland’s Georgia Kijesky of “doxxing.” She also thanked the commissioners for “listening over and over again to the same bigoted comments by a misinformed public.” McGuire went on to address Kijesky again: “Some of the people in this room expose themselves to be those very bigots.” You can watch her 4-minute response here.

Here’s what Kijesky had presented to the commissioners earlier in the meeting, regarding what had been uncovered about Stormy Vain.

The Lexington Park Library’s meeting room policy absolves the St. Mary’s County Library Board of Trustees from the responsibility of vetting who has access to children, because to avoid the controversy of sponsoring a DQSH, it allows third parties to reserve a room to do so. This has left a gray area as to who does background checks and whether they are even required. The Board of Trustees had even addressed the DQSH controversy beforehand, during its June 12th board meeting, saying that “talking points will be developed for Board members…We will not be putting out a press release since we do not want to draw attention to the event.” Here again, there was no mention of a background check on the men who would have access to children.

Kijesky explains:

“This is just another loophole library officials have created to circumvent community objections to such events at the library. They’re passing the buck onto the event organizers who are not obliged to provide proof that the background check was even done!”

Who is responsible then?

Who is responsible for protecting children at public libraries? The libraries? The ALA? The groups that sponsor the events? The parents? The police? The community?

The answer is all of the above.

Yet, evidence is mounting across the country, regarding the “other lives” of drag queens and how they are blurring the lines between adult sexual entertainment and children’s entertainment:

Drag queen culture is also pulling children into its world in other ways, like this video showing drag kid Nemis Quinn Mélançon-Golden (aka Queen Lactatia) getting his start on stage (caution, language warning). Nemis also recently posed with nude adult drag queen Violet Chachki. In another video, drag kid Desmond Napoles (aka Desmond is Amazing) is shown dancing provocatively at a gay nightclub in New York City. The mainstream media has been championing the drag kid phenomenon for some time, as shown in this recent clip of Good Morning America, where Desmond was praised for being a “trailblazer.”

Despite increasing evidence, supporters continue to claim that DQSHs and similar events, in general and as a concept, are harmless.

Are DQSHs harmless?

According to Jon K. Uhler, MS, LPC, who has worked for over 11 years with thousands of incarcerated sex offenders, DQSHs are not harmless. He took to Twitter to note that gay men who dress in drag give sufficient indication of being sexually deviant outside of DQSHs. Twitter has since screened and censored all of Uhler’s posts that suggest predators exist within the homosexual and transgender communities.

“Concerns about these men, who seem very interested in spending time up close and personal with other people’s kids, are not phobic. The issue is child safety…Keeping kids from sexual predators must become a priority. No longer is it acceptable for people to place children at risk to pacify or placate men who want to play dress-up and/or act sexualized in front of kids…Events such as [DQSHs] are the perfect invitation for predators to attend and access kids for ‘hands on’ interactions.”

Are communities singling out DQSHs in particular, and are those who oppose DQSHs “bigots,” as Samantha McGuire and many others charge? Uhler says, “Of course not!” and references recent pedophile scandals in the Boy Scouts and in Catholic and Southern Baptist churches as other venues where predators have gained access to children.

“The concern is to ensure that wherever men would want to access kids, there be close scrutiny, instead of ‘an open door’ policy. Protecting [kids] must take priority over men who desire access to them.”

American College of Pediatrics president, Dr. Michelle Cretella, recently spoke about the psychological dangers of DQSHs. Her organization has taken a bold stand against puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and surgeries for children diagnosed with gender dsyphoria.

“The idea of the permanence of biological sex doesn’t form in a child’s cognitive development until age 7… It takes up until age 7 for many children to think ‘I was born a boy, I am a boy. If I put on a dress that doesn’t make me a girl, it just makes me a boy in a dress.’ What is dangerous is that these young children are just developing the awareness of the fact that they are a boy or a girl… It’s dangerous because when you give young children fantasy picture books like this it indoctrinates them into thinking that their sex is all external. A preschool boy, for example, may think ‘The boy teddy bear became a girl when he turned his bow tie into a barrette. I can do that, too.’ Children will come to believe that their sex is whatever they think they want it to be. This is dangerous from a psychological point of view. It’s disrupting the natural process of gender identity formation.”

But that is precisely the point.

What about the parents?

Parents who bring their children to DQSHs genuinely believe they are teaching their children to love and accept everyone. Joelle Retener, author of Free to Be Incredible Mea book on the ALA’s 2019 Rainbow List, wrote this in an Instagram post:

“Some people might wonder why we celebrate pride with our kids. To us it’s pretty simple. Because teaching them to not just accept but to love and embrace people that are different from them means actually exposing them to those very people… Because here amidst all these beautifully diverse people from all walks of life, sexual orientations, gender identities, races and religions, my son is no longer a boy in a dress. He is just, a kid.” [emphasis added]

Retener is shown below with Stormy Vain at the June 23rd DQSH in Lexington Park, Maryland, where Stormy read her book.

Parents who bring their children to DQSHs are adamant that the events do not promote homosexuality or transgenderism. But the question must be raised:

Why allow children to be exposed to books that do just that?

Airlie Andersen, the author of Neither, another ALA-promoted book read by Stormy Vain at the Maryland DQSH, said this on the website LGBTQ Reads:

“I try to make books for everyone, but particularly for very young readers, children who need a jumping-off place to start talking about being different, feeling awkward, finding a special spot in the world. Someday my son may experience exclusion or pressure to make a choice one way or the other, when it’s his in-betweenness that should be celebrated.”

What can be done?

Personhood Alliance Education’s initial research listed several things local communities can do to detect, prevent, and where necessary, protest “cancel-proof” DQSHs in their libraries (scroll to the end of the article for the list). But can there be a larger effort to stop children from being put in harm’s way?

The Personhood Alliance is working with other groups on model legislation at the state level to protect children from DQSHs and to prohibit public resources from being used for the promotion and delivery of pornography and other age-inappropriate materials and events at libraries. This model legislation will be based on existing child endangerment and child welfare laws, which vary widely across the country. According to Personhood Alliance president, Gualberto Garcia Jones, a plan to go after the taxpayer funding the ALA receives at the federal level is also in the works, as well as legislation that applies the federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act to the DQSH phenomenon. “We will no longer sit by and allow this to be pushed onto children who are at a vulnerable place in their development and cannot consent to being exposed,” says Jones.

The Personhood Alliance currently has 22 state affiliates, with seven more states in the application process. “We will be working through our affiliates in different ways to put an end to the exploitation of children and the corruption of God-designed sexuality and gender by the American Library Association and activist library boards throughout the country.”

For more information on how to get involved in your state, find a Personhood Alliance affiliate or contact

RELATED ARTICLE: Democrats’ Equality Act Could See Repeat Of Canada’s Transgender Genital Waxing Dispute

EDITORS NOTE: This Personhood Alliance column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

This Summer Camp Teaches Kids to Burn the American Flag

Watch this video from a summer camp for 125 children run by the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, Israel, where they teach kids to burn the American flag.

Posted on the Facebook page of  the Palestinian Authority’s Higher Council for Youth and Sports, the July 3, 2019 video upload features Camp Director Ihsan Hattab, who says that the camp’s goal is to provide children with a “patriotic education.”

The camp is being run under the council by the Society for Children with Autism and Learning Disabilities and includes 25 special needs children aged 13-15.

As documented by MEMRI (Middle East Media Research Institute), Yaman, a young boy participating in the program, said that on the first day of the program, they discussed President Trump’s “Deal of the Century” and the following day, they tore up and burned pictures of the American flag and Trump (pictured with horns).



Spend a Summer of Jihad With Hamas

UN Agency Funds ‘Camp Jihad’ for Palestinian Children

Five Child-Incitement Hot Spots

RELATED VIDEO: Proof That Islam Is Taking Over U.S. Schools.