The Humanitarian Hoax of Pearson Education: Killing America With Kindness

The Humanitarian Hoax is a deliberate and deceitful tactic of presenting a destructive policy as altruistic. The humanitarian huckster presents himself as a compassionate advocate when in fact he is the disguised enemy.

Pearson, PLC, a public limited corporation, is a British multinational multi-billion dollar publishing powerhouse and the largest education company in the world. Pearson Publishing’s reported 2017 share in global revenues was $8.2 billion with a staggering 60% control of U.S. textbooks sales. It listed the Libyan Investment Authority as its largest financial contributor. Pearson is an anti-American, pro-globalism, antisemitic, pro-Muslim globalized education provider that is indoctrinating our American children.

Pearson is the premier global educational humanitarian huckster hawking its anti-American message of globalism to K-12 students and teachers in America. Its globalized curriculum comports to Obama’s pet Common Core Initiative Standards (CCIS). Globally, Common Core originated from the One World Education concept, a global goal orchestrated by the Connect All Schools program. Its origin is funded by the Qatar Foundation International (QFI) and supported by the United Nations Agenda 2030. This is how it works.

Obama appointed Vartan Gregorian, board member of the Qatari Foundation International (QFI), to the prestigious and influential President’s Commission on White House Fellowships. The Qatar Foundation International partnered with the Department of State and the U.S. Department of Education in 2011 to integrate classrooms in the U.S. and international schools through a program called Connect All Schools.

Obama’s dream of a globalized, internationalized pro-Muslim education was facilitated courtesy of the Qatari government, Qatar Foundation International, and the Libyan Investment Authority’s major Islam-promoting donors:

  • Turkey
  • Saudi Arabia
  • Muslim Brotherhood
  • Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)

The stated goal of humanitarian huckster-in-chief Barack Obama’s Connect All Schools initiative was to “connect every school in the U.S. with the world by 2016.” Sounds great, just like “hope and change” sounded great until it was exposed as a sinister humanitarian hoax designed to shatter the Judeo-Christian norms and sovereignty of the United States. Let’s review.

Our American children are being indoctrinated to be self-loathing Americans by pro-Muslim, anti-American Muslim Brotherhood propaganda courtesy of Barack Obama’s “Connect All Schools” initiative. The transnational Muslim Brotherhood has the singular goal of spreading Islam worldwide and is “educating” our children with its propaganda. The Muslim Brotherhood Explanatory Memorandum makes it crystal clear that indoctrination of American students through textbooks is a primary tactic to settle the United States of America and make it Muslim.

Obama’s deceitful Race To the Top program bribed school districts to accept destructive Common Core standards in exchange for federal grants that also affected teacher certification. New York State no longer evaluates its teachers. Pearson Education does. Pearson Education took over teacher certification for New York State in 2014 with its Teacher Performance Assessment (TPA) and is the sole administrator and evaluator of the assessment.

A 2012 article written by New York Hofstra University educator Alan Singer asks the question, “Pearson ‘Education’ – Who Are These People?” It is a pivotal question.

Alan Singer writes, “The question that must be addressed is whether the British publishing giant Pearson and its Pearson Education subsidy should determine who is qualified to teach and what should be taught in New York State and the United States? I don’t think so! Not only did no one elect them, but when people learn who they are, they might not want them anywhere near a school — or a government official.”

In a particularly egregious example of Pearson’s ideological bias many advanced placement students used a 2018 textbook published by Pearson titled, By the People: A History of the United States. The final section titled The Angry Election of 2016 depicts President Trump as mentally ill and his supporters as racists. A Pearson spokesperson defended the textbook insisting it had undergone “rigorous peer review to ensure academic integrity.” This is the predictable outcome of globalist ideology and globalist revisionism disguised as scholarship.

Pearson is unapologetically committed to globalism and is a signatory to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. In Pearson’s own words:

“The good news is that the world has agreed on a plan to put us on a more sustainable path and ensure that no one is left behind. UN Member States have adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, including its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Paris Agreement to tackle climate change. We have an opportunity and a responsibility to play our part in delivering these landmark agreements. By supporting the SDGs, we will help create a better world in which our business can grow and we can more effectively achieve our mission to help people improve their lives through learning.”

In February of 2019 Pearson sold its U.S. K-12 courseware business to Nexus Capital Management LP for $250 million in its planned shift from textbooks to digital content. Pearson claims the sale is part of its ongoing work to become a simpler more efficient company. That is company-speak for their move toward higher education and digital delivery of their globalist educational curriculum. Pearson is going to college! In their own words:

“The broader US K-12 market remains an important area of focus for Pearson and we are continuing to invest in faster growing digital services such as virtual schools and building on our strong position in US student assessment. We will continue to provide Higher Education courseware for Advanced Placement programmes in K12 schools.”

The odd terms of the deal only give Pearson $25 million cash upfront but after the balance is paid Pearson retains 20% of the future cashflow from the business and is entitled to 20% of the sale price if Nexus sells. So who is Nexus Capital? What did they buy? Why the odd deal?

Nexus is a Los Angeles-based private equity firm and member of Emerging Markets Private Equity Association (EMPEA). EMPEA is a consortium of globalist companies that share information in their singular objective of creating unfettered world markets for their goods and services. Sustainable is the watchword. Sustainable is the abracadabra Open Sesame key that begins with private equity firms in emerging markets and ends in one world government.

Tariq Ramadan, director of Qatari Foundation Institute’s Research center for Islamic Legislation and Ethics, is the grandson of Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. At a 2011 fund raiser in Dallas for the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) he openly called for young Muslims to colonize America. Pearson/Nexus is the medium and Muslim supremacy is the message.

The Explanatory Memorandum should be required reading for every American parent and every American educator to fully understand the depth, breadth, and commitment of the movement to colonize America and make it Muslim. Most Americans scoff at the idea of such a seemingly outlandish objective. They have not read the Explanatory memorandum. What many Americans fail to remember is that aspirational world domination is not new or unfamiliar in contemporary life – it has just appeared in a different form.

Globalism is the modern-day ambition for world domination. It is deceitfully marketed as progress – the New World Order of global citizenship ruled by the globalist elite under the auspices of the United Nations – to help us improve our lives of course.

Americans have been lulled to sleep by the security of their unparalleled freedoms, the vastness of their country and the oceans that surround it. The Islamic menace will not conquer America by land or sea and neither will the leftist menace. The globalists will eventually conquer America through Obama’s sinister textbook initiative that indoctrinates American children and produces the self-loathing voters who will willingly choose one world government over sovereignty – no bullets required. We must wake up to stop them.

A 2015 EdTech article exposes the overarching threat that the sinister humanitarian hoax of Pearson Education poses. The article titled, “Do School Districts Need Their Own Data Centers Anymore?” explains how school districts are moving their entire educational databases online to Google Apps and Chromebook, and moving all files to Google Drive for cloud storage. They will have Pearson host PowerSchool instead of the school district hosting themselves. This means Pearson and Google will have absolute control over educational content.

In January, 2019 Pearson announced that Pearson Realize, its single digital platform, is now a Google for Education Premier Partner. This means that Pearson’s globalist propaganda package is what American children will be indoctrinated with. Political correctness, historical revisionism, moral relativity are now mainstream digital learning tools for social engineering that prepare American children for global citizenship and one world government.

The Pearson/Nexus globalist indoctrination toward one world government is either not known and recognized as an existential threat, or it is known and embraced by ideologues who support its objective. In either case it is up to the parents to decide how their children will be educated – not up to a foreign company with an anti-American globalist agenda.

The humanitarian hoax of Pearson Education must be exposed and eliminated. American textbooks and digital content must be provided by American patriots who are committed to our glorious Constitution and the extraordinary freedoms it provides. Freedom is never free. We must wake ourselves to the clear and present danger of the triple menace of the Islamist/leftist/globalist axis and their apologists who seek to destroy America from within. If we want to remain free we must be willing to oppose globalism and stand up for our national sovereignty.

Islamist leaders strive for a worldwide religious Islamic caliphate that rules an infantilized population without free will. Leftists strive for a secular world of international socialism that provides an infantilized population with cradle-to-grave care. The globalists who own, operate, and continue to expand their global control of the private sector and the Internet use the Islamists and leftists as useful idiots to create the chaos required for total globalist domination and one world government.

President Donald J. Trump is the existential enemy of the entire Islamist/leftist/globalist axis that has conspired and colluded in common cause to overthrow his patriotic America-first government. Unlike his adversaries, President Trump’s policies and objectives require adult awareness of the humanitarian hoaxes that threaten our freedom and sovereignty.

Islamism, socialism, and globalism all provide an infantilized dependent escape from freedom whether secular or religious. Freedom requires adulthood. If we choose freedom we cannot allow the humanitarian hoax of Pearson Education to kill America with kindness in the disingenuous names of progress and multiculturalism.

We are the land of the free and home of the brave. We must free ourselves from Pearson/Nexus, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the globalists who control their propaganda in our schools if we are to remain free, sovereign, and independent.

EDITORS NOTE: This Goudsmit Pundicity column is republished with permission.

Twenty years after Columbine, Colorado schools are assessing an astonishing number of student threats

The Colorado Sun has conducted an investigation to mark the 20th anniversary of the 1999 Columbine High School shooting, which killed 13 students. The Sun’s investigation discovered a stunning increase in the number of school district threat assessments since then. In some districts the number is ten times higher. Suicide threat assessments follow the same trend.

The public-school district in Jefferson County, one of Colorado’s most populous counties, established a threat assessment team in the 2007-08 school year when 43 cases were evaluated. Last year that number grew to 767 school-level threats, with more than 800 such threats so far this year.

A similar proliferation in suicide assessment threats has taken place over the same time in school districts across the state. Mesa County Valley School District 51, for example, has done 900 suicide threat assessments this school year, up from 210 in 2014.

Read the Colorado Sun article here.

Note: We notice that the rise in assessments for both threats and suicides parallels the marijuana legalization effort in Colorado. The state commercialized the drug for medical use in 2009 and for recreational use in 2012, effective January 1, 2014.


“I’m too high. Something’s wrong.” Teens caught vaping marijuana in a scary new trend.

A new trend among students has caught parents and teachers unawares—vaping marijuana. It is possible to vape pot without anyone knowing. There is no telltale odor, and vaping devices look like pens or flash drives, implements students routinely carry in their backpacks.

The problem with vaping marijuana is that THC is so much more potent and vaping it intensifies the high. One vaping cartridge confiscated by an Indiana school resource officer contained 83.6 percent THC. THC levels in the plant material that people smoke range from 15 percent to 24 percent.

The officer reports, “I’ve walked down the hallway, and you can visibly see kids who are so stoned that they don’t know where they are.”

A nurse in that school sent several students to the emergency room after they exhibited signs of being so high.

Experts say that parents, teachers, and students need to be aware of the dangers of vaping, and students should be encouraged not to vape marijuana or nicotine to protect their health.

Read USA Today story here.


Medical pot firms spent big to ease law

An exposé by the Atlanta Journal Constitution reveals the power Big Marijuana wielded over elected officials to get what it wanted: HB 324, which legalized marijuana cultivation, processing, and sales in Georgia.

Most Georgians see desperately sick kids and say if marijuana can help them, let it. But most medical societies say the science is lacking, and the drug can hurt people. For six legislative sessions public health proponents have watched Big Marijuana ruthlessly deny the science in order to make Big Money.

The AJC reports that three marijuana companies hired 20 lobbyists to persuade lawmakers to pass HB 324. Surterra Wellness employed 10 and contributed more than $100,000 to Georgia political candidates last year, including Gov. Brian Kemp and Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan. Trulieve hired 5, including Michael Ralston, son of House Speaker David Ralston. Ralston appointed Surterra’s former president, Susan McWhorter Driscoll, to a marijuana study commission, enabling her to help draft HB 324.

There’s even more to the AJC story. Surterra is a $100 million company founded in Atlanta in 2014 that has done no business in Georgia. Yet.

The Senate wrote a substitute bill that made companies contributing to Georgia elected officials ineligible to apply for a marijuana license for five years. It also prohibited elected officials and their families from participating in the marijuana industry.

By the end of session, conferees could not resolve differences between the House and Senate bills. Gov. Kemp told the AJC that he, Lt. Gov. Duncan, and Speaker Ralston met with them to get the bill passed. The prohibitions forbidding political contributors from applying for a marijuana license and preventing elected officials from becoming part of Big Marijuana disappeared.

The final bill creates a 7-member commission to implement HB 324. Gov. Kemp will appoint 3 members and name the chair. The other 4 members will be appointed by Lt. Gov. Duncan and Speaker Ralston, who also will appoint two members each to a 4-member oversight committee that will award the marijuana growing and processing licenses.

We used to call this kind of pay-to-play behavior “corruption.” Today, apparently, some of our elected officials see it as the cost of doing business.

Read the Atlanta Journal Constitution story here.


Denver decriminalizes “magic mushrooms” in historic vote

Last week The Marijuana Report summarized a USA Today story that said Denver had defeated a ballot initiative to decriminalize psilocybin mushrooms. It turns out that last-minute returns put the measure over the top, although absentee and military ballots had yet to be counted in the close race. Official are expected to certify the vote later this week.

Denver became the first city in the nation to de-prioritize enforcement of a hallucinogen. Not everyone is pleased.

The Daily Signal noted that the Denver action “marked a significant shift in the debate over legalizing illegal drugs—which up to this point revolved entirely around marijuana.”

Said Kevin Sabet, president of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, “I’m not surprised to see efforts to decriminalized other drugs. Mushrooms are the next easiest argument. It’s low-hanging fruit. They’re not going to call for legalizing crack cocaine now. But they are not going to stop with mushrooms in Denver.”

In an editorial titled “The slippery slope of looser drug policy,” the Boston Herald states, “Liberal policy ideas have a way of migrating to the Bay State. This is one the state needs to be ready for, and ready to say no to. Voters have already just said no many times over, but like a weed, efforts to expand the availability to use potentially dangerous drugs keep coming back.”

Read The Daily Signal story here.

Read the Boston Herald editorial here.
Read USA Today story here.

Hepatotoxicity of a cannabidiol-rich cannabis extract in the mouse model

A medically technical scientific study in mice finds that CBD can cause toxic damage to the liver and may interact negatively with medications. It notes that CBD has become nearly ubiquitous across the US, yet “there is a lack of comprehensive toxicological studies devoted to CBD safety that are critical for further marketing of CBD and CBD-containing products.”

The researchers conclude their results “demonstrate that, despite the beneficial effects of CBD [Epidiolex] in the treatment of certain therapy-resistant seizures, it poses a risk for liver injury. Furthermore, the probability of CBD-drug interactions appears quite high. Therefore, additional studies are needed to examine the toxicity of chronic low-dose CBD exposure as well as explore CBD’s potential to interact with other medications. Such studies will provide important information regarding the range of CBD doses that can be deemed safe for the purpose of regulatory decision-making.”

Read full text here.

Note: The executive editor holds stock in GW Pharmaceuticals, maker of Epidiolex.


Short Takes

Pot smuggling arrests at LAX have surged 166% since marijuana legalization

Last year, LAX had 503 reports of marijuana discovered in luggage compared to 400 reports in 2017 and 282 reports in 2016. The same phenomenon is occurring at other major California airports.

“We find it in about 50-pound quantities … the carry-on rate for luggage. I would imagine we’re only intercepting some of it, not all of it,” says Sgt. Ray Kelly of the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, which has jurisdiction over Oakland International Airport.

Read LA Times story here.

Florida’s Honors College Moves to “Cognitive Diversity”

Florida’s honors college for the state system may have twisted itself into a verbal knot because it does what apparently is common practice among colleges — adding a layer of review to applying students who had reported mental issues.

This makes eminent sense for college campuses who have been dealing with some tragic violence issues, not to mention the obvious academic reasons where mental issues could impact a student’s ability to be successful. Further, because colleges are legally required to treat students with mental issues, it seems almost imperative they have such policies.

However, in the hyper-diversosphere piloted by college campuses, even this cannot be tolerated.

So New College of Florida, the small, elite liberal honors college, got outed for this second layer of review, and accused of perhaps the worst possible charge for the PC community — discrimination. Once public, the college melted like an ice cream cone in Florida’s August heat and publicly committed to “cognitive diversity.” That phrase has been used to talk about how people think differently and solve problems differently. But that’s not what this seems to be.

Cognitive diversity seems like an awfully large loophole when it comes to admissions. By definition, an honors college is supposed to allow only the most cognitively advanced. It’s for really smart kids. And the kids at New College are really smart, at least book-smart. But with a phrase such as “cognitive diversity,” how fair is that to only have the more cognitively advanced?

New College is this idyllic college campus in Sarasota, Florida, near the Gulf of Mexico, that attracts some of the brightest students in the state for liberal arts education. It is well-known in the conservative region as a hotbed of liberal thinking, but only mild levels of activism — perhaps owing to its small size and academic rigors.

College leadership has generally been proud of the politically liberal students, but they also have a school to run and so the admissions office required students who disclose a mental health issue in their application essay to go through a second review — even if the students’ scores meet the criteria for automatic acceptance.

Some New College alumni thought this unfair and blew the whistle, which sparked the internal investigation. And then the whistleblowers went to the ideologically-friendly newspaper.

“It’s the definition of bias or discrimination to go through an extra barrier to get where someone else is,” Eugenia Quintanilla, one of the former admissions office staffers who exposed the practice, told the Sarasota Herald-Tribune.

Once the story went public, New College President Donal O’Shea issued a statement, in which he announced the college’s commitment to “cognitive diversity.”

“We are aware of complaints about the admissions process and the climate in the admissions office,” said O’Shea, who is generally considered a strong college president. “We take these VERY seriously,” he told the newspaper.

Here’s the catch. This is not only legal, it is apparently common practice at colleges.

That’s because universities are legally required to ensure they can provide mental health services to any students they admit. So it is just responsible to ensure they understand and can help with any potential student who discloses mental health issues.

It’s actually standard practice, according to Michael A. Olivas, a professor of higher education law at the University of Houston. He said he saw no discrimination in New College’s policies.

“This sounds to me like garden-variety decision making,” Olivas said.

But because of the rapid back-down, and turn to a potentially loaded phrase of “cognitive diversity,” this may portend problems for other colleges that also must provide mental health services and so further review the applications of students who have known mental issues.

EDITORS NOTE: This Revolutionary Act column is republished with permission.

California’s Sex Ed Guidelines Suggest Asking Kindergartners What Gender They Identify As

“It’s pornography.” That’s how one mom described California’s new guidelines for sex ed.

Patricia Reyes, who spoke up Wednesday during a hearing in Sacramento, can’t fathom sending her children to school to learn about things that would be embarrassing for most of us to say out loud—let alone teach to elementary students.

“If this continues, I’m not sending them to school,” she said.

And she won’t be the only one.

Hundreds of parents protested the new framework Wednesday—which includes everything from lessons in self-pleasure to transgenderism.

As CBN pointed out, the guidelines even go so far as to encourage kindergarteners to think about whether they might identify with another gender.

Are you kidding? At that age, they don’t even know what gender is. The goal, officials say, is to create “an environment that is inclusive and challenges binary concepts about gender.”

Of course, the state Board of Education wouldn’t admit that. Instead, President Linda Darling-Hammond said, “We’re on a careful trajectory here not to be introducing things as though they are endorsed in some way.”

That’s interesting, since LGBT activists are tripping over themselves to tell California what a wonderful job they’ve done. And, as we all know, their goal isn’t to just “introduce things.” So many want to indoctrinate and recruit—and nothing short of that will suffice.

At one point, CBN notes, the state was considering cartoon drawings of genitalia for 5-year-olds and material for the older kids on bondage and homosexual acts.

“An earlier draft of the guidelines also suggested high schoolers read the book: ‘S.E.X.: The All-You-Need-to-Know Sexuality Guide to Get You Through Your Teens and Twenties.’”

After enough protest, these requirements were dropped.

But there’s still more than enough content to outrage parents—like the opt-out policy, which is allowed for portions—but not the LGBT lessons. That, most families have argued at various meetings, is a direct attack on parental authority.

“Now we’re teaching kids how to have a robust sex life? Not everything under the sun needs to be taught to our kids, with no moral judgment,” California Family Council’s Greg Burt, told The Sacramento Bee.

And the anger over the state’s curriculum isn’t just anecdotal. Stephanie Yates, founder of Informed Parents of California, says 20,000 people have joined the group since she created it last year.

And what about the teachers? They don’t want to send these messages any more than parents want their kids to hear them.

“Teachers are afraid they will be forced to teach concepts that go against their conscience, and use non-binary terms or else they could lose their jobs,” said Brenda Lebsack, who works for Santa Ana Unified.

Some of you may roll your eyes and dismiss this as “just California.” Don’t be fooled. This same extremism is coming to a classroom near you—and parents need to be equipped and ready to mobilize like these families have.

This sex ed countermovement in California is a testament to the involvement of a lot of moms and dads, teachers, and churches. As bad as some of these guidelines are, they would have been a lot worse if Californians hadn’t been actively engaged.

Make sure you are. For advice, check out the Family Research Council’s “A Parent’s Guide to the Transgender Movement in Education.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

LGBT ‘equality’ laws lose their foundation: Evidence shows sexual orientation can change

Department of Defense on Why Those with “Gender Dysphoria” Are Disqualified from Military Service

The Sexual Revolution and sex abuse scandals: A Protestant take on Pope Benedict’s letter

EDITORS NOTE: This FRC column is republished with permission.

A Tale of Two Revolutions

Could a contrast between the American Revolution and the French Revolution be relevant to today’s conflicts? I think so. The attempt to demote historic icons, like George Washington, is a case in point.

George Washington grew up as a gentleman farmer in Virginia and was a fourth generation slave-owner. But by the end of his life, he had decided slavery was immoral and so at his death, he freed his slaves and made provision for them.

But in our day—where the alleged “right to not be offended” often seems to trump the constitutional right to free speech—some are calling for images of George Washington to be torn down, like statues of Confederates.

The DailyWire.com (5/2/19) reports on how “George Washington High School” in Northern California is contemplating tearing down two 1930’s panels featuring George Washington because the pair of murals allegedly “traumatizes students and community members.”

This is in San Francisco, so the outcome seems likely.

How long will our historical iconoclasm last? The cultural Marxists are working overtime to cut Americans off from our history.

I believe that despite his flaws, including being a slave-owner, there are many heroic aspects of our first president. Dr. Peter Lillback and I wrote, George Washington’s Sacred Fire, which puts all this in context. Recently we discussed Washington and slavery.

Our founders fought the American Revolution, led by Washington, so that we could enjoy our God-given rights. Though slow in coming, recognition of those God-given rights eventually gave the slaves their freedom. What is happening in the culture wars today is a revival of the French Revolution, which waged war against God.

France in 1789 fought against injustice, even in the church; but their godless “cure” ended up being worse than the disease. The French Revolution was anti-God and pro-tyranny—leading to death in the streets. The American Revolution was pro-God and pro-freedom.

America’s founders mentioned God four times in the Declaration of Independence. They identified King George III’s tyranny as illegitimate—because he was violating our God-given rights. The founders, with a firm reliance on the Lord, laid down “their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor” in support for their declaration as a new nation.

When George Washington first read the Declaration to his troops, one of his first acts was to hire Christian chaplains—systematically, throughout the army. He felt that if we were to win this war, it would only be with God’s help.

And he and the other colonists felt that God did help. To paraphrase Washington in his First Inaugural Address, no people should be more grateful to the Lord than we Americans because God aided us at every step to become an independent nation.

Consider a few further contrasts between the American Revolution and the French Revolution.

Our framers signed the Constitution in “the year of our Lord” 1787. The French Revolutionaries got rid of the Christian calendar; and so they declared 1791 as Year 1 of their new non-Christian calendar.

The French Revolutionaries desecrated Notre Dame Cathedral, disallowing Christian worship there and placed a half-naked woman on the altar, calling her “Reason,” whom they worshiped.

In contrast, our founders hired Christian chaplains for the military and also for the House and Senate. Since there weren’t enough church buildings in Washington, D. C., they held Christian worship services in the Capitol building. Presidents Jefferson and Madison attended those services.

The French Revolution eventually consumed its own. Since then, France has had 17 different governments, while the U.S. still lives under one—the Constitution.

I predict that today’s social justice warriors, who are consuming our past heroes, will one day be consumed themselves by future revolutionaries. Future generations could look back at us and say things like: “You had 4D sonograms documenting the humanity of the unborn and yet you allowed millions of abortions on demand?” or “Science has documented genuine differences between men and women, yet you allowed boys who claimed to be girls to compete and dominate in sports, winning valuable scholarships?”

Every generation has its flaws and blind spots. Our generation has yet to recognize its own.

Slavery was evil. Thank God for those strong Christians who defeated it. Thank God for William Wilberforce’s Christian anti-slavery crusade, which took him about five decades to complete. That crusade inspired abolition here in America. Interestingly, in his day, Wilberforce was sometimes called “the George Washington of Humanity.” Both men worked hard to liberate others.

Slavery has plagued humanity from the beginning of time and can even be found in some places today, places where the gospel of Christ has no sway.

Too bad the children of the French Revolution are rising up today to cut us off from our past heroes. There is a reason Washington continues to be a hero to millions. Enough with the historical revisionism.

Seattle Area Schools Urged to Bless Muslim Students during Ramadan

“A school district would never order teachers to ‘welcome’ Catholic students during Easter with ‘He is risen, alleluia!’ Singling out Muslim students for special treatment is blatantly unconstitutional.” – Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund

Sharia creep for sure!

And, it may be happening in your neighborhood too, but in the Seattle area at least a few parents and teachers said ‘no way’ to this special treatment for Muslim students, and a legal defense fund is threatening to sue the school district.

CAIR says the complaints are “Islamophobic.”

From Fox News (hat tip: Julia),

Washington school district wants teachers to bless Muslim students in Arabic during Ramadan, religious liberty group claims

A religious liberty advocacy group is threatening to slap a Seattle-area school district with a lawsuit claiming the district has urged teachers to bless Muslim students in Arabic during the holy month of Ramadan and give them preferential treatment, including skipping tests.

The Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund (FCDF) claims the Dieringer School District is officially endorsing Islam and is following a script by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) that urges schools to make special accommodations for Muslim students and to wish them “Ramadan Mubarak,” which means “Happy Ramadan,” or “Ramadan Kareem,” which means “Have a generous Ramadan.”

The CAIR guidelines also instruct teachers to monitor Muslim students fasting and suggests teachers not schedule any tests on the Islamic holidays of Eid Al-Fitr and Eid Al-Adha.

[….]

“By urging teachers to bless Muslim students in Arabic, the district is running roughshod over the First Amendment’s mandate of government neutrality toward religion,” said Daniel Piedra, FCDF’s executive director.“A school district would never order teachers to ‘welcome’ Catholic students during Easter with ‘He is risen, alleluia!’ Singling out Muslim students for special treatment is blatantly unconstitutional.”

The defense fund claims Dieringer Superintendent Judy Martinson blindly followed the recommendations of CAIR and “enacted the letter as official district policy.”The defense fund sent Martinson a letter stating their complaints after a teacher and parent complained about the new procedure.

The May 6 letter also warned Martinson about CAIR’s anti-semitic advocacy and alleged ties to radical Islamists, which the group has long denied.

[….]

Ibrahim Hooper, national communications director for CAIR, the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, told Fox News the pushback from FCDF was a “sign of the growing Islamophobia in our nation that showing respect for and accommodating the religious traditions of Muslim students could result in punitive legal action.”

More here.

See my post yesterday about Islamic “charities” like CAIR receiving federal grant dollars as they indoctrinate uninformed Americans.
All of you, especially those of you with children still in school, need to find out if such an edict has been sent out in your local school district.

RELATED ARTICLE: New Hampshire: ACLU Sues for Answers about Illegal Alien Somali Held in Detention

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission.

Elementary Schools Teaching Taliban Curriculum

A leaked government report says Islamic elementary schools across the UK operated by the Darul Uloom movement are teaching children using the same curriculum as the TalibanThe Daily Mail reported.

The schools, which are under the auspices of the Darul Uloom (House of Knowledge) network, follow the philosophy of the extremist Deobandi movement. The curriculum, known as Dars-E-Nizami, is used to teach the boys to be imams.

It involves a literal interpretation of the Quran, an ideology espoused by some of the some of the most radical clerics that move to the UK from Afghanistan and Pakistan, among others.

The government report found the boys were being taught intolerant and misogynistic ideas.

Four of the schools had previously been criticized by Ofsted, the government regulatory agency for education in the county. Ofsted found students were taught music and dancing comes from the devil and women do not have the right to refuse sex with their husbands.

One particular Darul Uloom school in Birmingham was investigated in 2011 by UK’s Channel 4, which found students were taught to hate Christians, Hindus and Jews.

Ofsted also investigated a girl’s schools connected to the movement. In 2006, Aliyah Saleem spilled all about her Darul Uloom school in Nottingham after she was kicked out for possessing a disposable camera, among other “behavioral” offenses.

Saleem said attending school was like being in prison and the girls were taught their husbands were allowed to beat and rape because it made “Allah happy.”

Darul Uloom operates schools in a number of cities across Britain, including London, Manchester, Glasgow, Birmingham, Nottingham and Leicester. The Mail on Sunday identified a total of 48 Darul Uloom schools which teach the extremist curriculum.

Check out the trailer for our upcoming film “Kids: Chasing Paradise” about the radicalization of children by clicking here

Find out what you can do to Prevent Violent Extremism by clicking here

RELATED STORIES:

Court Kicks CAIR Out of San Diego School District

Pro-Islam Indoctrination in Public Schools?

Shocking Statistics on Teaching Islam in American Schools

Dearborn Islamic School Linked to Iran, Hezbollah Propagandists

Campus Commandment: Thou Shalt Not Be Offensive

Question: If you believe in the traditional Judeo-Christian sex ethic—that no one should have sex apart from the bonds of holy matrimony (between a man and a woman)—should you be disqualified from making a presentation at a college campus?

Apparently, some key student leaders at Cornell University think so. Cornell is the only Ivy League school that was not explicitly founded as a Christian school.

Who would have agreed with the traditional Judeo-Christian sex ethic that intimacy is to be reserved for marriage?

  • Rev. John Harvard and the Puritans who founded Harvard University in 1636 and named it in his honor because of the books and money he donated for its establishment.
  • The Puritan businessman Elihu Yale and the Congregational ministers who founded Yale around 1700, likewise to train ministers of the Gospel.
  • The Presbyterian elders who founded the College of New Jersey, which later came to be called Princeton.

And on it goes.

In fact, most Americans subscribed, at least ostensibly, to the Christian view of sex until about a generation or so ago. The sexual revolution upended everything and has brought in its wake ravaging sexually-transmitted diseases, countless divorces and broken families, subsequent poverty, and untold misery.

But now, if you hold those traditional views and have voiced them at some time, you could possibly be censored from speaking at a public event.

That’s what happened to a friend of mine, Jannique Stewart. Jannique, an African-American woman who grew up in Europe, speaks at colleges, high schools, and churches all over the country and even other countries—-providing a traditional view on the pro-life issue, on abstinence, and on sex.

At our church in south Florida, we have had Jannique speak at a couple of our “Salt and Light” events. She’s always been very positive, factually based, and upbeat.

Jannique has her own organization, loveprotects.com. And recently, she has been doing a lot of speaking for Scott Klusendorf’s Life Training Institute, an organization that tries to equip people to defend the pro-life perspective using science and philosophy. She notes: “We’re able to debunk a lot of the common myths and misconceptions” surrounding abortion.

An executive board member of Cornell Political Union contacted the Life Training Institute in January of this year to inquire about Jannique’s availability to speak at one of their meetings. The topic was going to be pro-life versus pro-abortion. They ended up inviting her, securing the date, working out the details—but then later they disinvited her. They did that when they found out two things about her.

She told me on my radio show the views that got her barred from speaking at Cornell: “One, that sex should be reserved for marriage, and two, that I believe that marriage is defined by God, our Creator, as the union of one man and one woman.” Well, I believe that too. So do millions of Americans.

By this criterion, Barrack Obama could have been disinvited in 2011 because he publicly professed to believe marriage was between one man and one woman. In fact, former Supreme Court Justice Kennedy, who wrote the pro same-sex marriage decision in 2015, said that belief in heterosexual marriage has been widely held around the planet for “millennia.” So her views on this are not unique to Jannique.

Jannique told me of her reaction to being disinvited: “That’s a form of viewpoint discrimination, and that’s wrong of them to do that—especially at a university campus, which is supposed to be a bastion of higher learning where we’re supposed to have a free exchange of ideas and then be able to debate those ideas.”

She says, “They felt that the students would not be able to listen to my prolife speech because they would be so focused on my views. And I thought, ‘Now, that really is insulting to their intellect because what they’re saying is that [their fellow] students at this Ivy League school cannot possibly listen, simply because of my views on pre-marital sex and marriage.”

What disturbed Jannique the most was how they viewed her views as being on the same level as racist views. She was told, “having me on campus with the ideas that I hold is very similar to having a racist on campus with pro-slavery and pro-Holocaust views. The board felt that way or the board felt the students would perceive me in that manner, and that is offensive. It’s not only offensive—it’s flat out wrong to try and compare the Biblical standard (and that which is natural marriage) as bigoted.”

When people like Jannique get censored on our college campuses, the students only get exposed to politically correct ideas. And truths that have stood the test of time—for “millennia”—get silenced.

But there is no constitutional right to not be offended.

Elizabeth Warren’s Debt ‘Cancellation’ Plan Would Make College More Expensive, Not Less

Elizabeth Warren wants free college for every American. But what the Massachusetts senator doesn’t seem to realize is just how much more costly college would get if her “free” proposal passed.

Shortly after Valentine’s Day in 1987, Education Secretary William J. Bennett wrote a now-famous op-ed in The New York Times titled “Our Greedy Colleges.” In it, he suggested that “increases in financial aid in recent years have enabled colleges and universities blithely to raise their tuitions, confident that federal loan subsidies would help cushion the increase.”

This observation became known as the “Bennett Hypothesis.” As the years go by, it seems more apt to call it the Bennett truism.

In the last 20 years, the federal government’s total spending on student loans has skyrocketed, from $24.8 billion in the 1995-96 school year to $93 billion in 2017-18.

At the same time, the price of college tuition has soared. Between 1998 and the present, tuition at four-year institutions has roughly doubled, and at private four-year colleges tuition has gone up 58%.

The price increase is even more dramatic looking at the last 40 years. Since 1980, the cost of attending a four-year public university has increased 287%—an uptick rate surpassed only by increases in the cost of medical care.

Enter Warren.

On Monday, she published a proposal that includes the following:

  • Students with household incomes below $100,000 would have the first $50,000 of their student loan debt canceled.
  • For every additional $3 of income over $100,000, the amount of loan forgiveness offered would be cut by $1.
  • Borrowers from families earning more than $250,000 annually would receive zero debt cancellation.

On the whole, as Robert VerBruggen has pointed out, her proposal would cancel all loans for about 75% of borrowers and provide partial cancellation for 95% of borrowers.

This debt cancellation portion of the plan would cost taxpayers $640 billion, as Warren pointed out herself.

And that’s just the retroactive part of the proposal.

The plan would also provide “universal free college,” allowing students to attend a two- or four-year college “without paying a dime in tuition or fees,” as she says. The total tab? $1.25 trillion over just the next decade.

Warren suggests her “free” college and debt cancellation plan would be financed (again) by an “ultra-millionaire tax,” singling out the 75,000 families in America she estimates to have more than $50 million in assets.

This is a group she has already identified to finance her “free” childcare plan. Things are getting expensive in a hurry.

Her latest proposal is problematic for a host of reasons, not least of which is the exorbitant cost to taxpayers. But it would also fail to achieve the goal of greater equality in access to education. A similar proposal for “free” college was already tried in England, and it ended up benefiting the wealthy rather than the needy.

But beyond these failures, Warren’s proposal would likely expedite the rise in college tuition. It comes down to simply math: When colleges know the federal government is financing “free” tuition in perpetuity, they’ll have all the more reason to raise tuition and fees, which taxpayers will then absorb.

In fact, a growing body of literature has already shown that federal subsidies have this tendency to push tuition prices higher.

In one study, researchers Grey Gordon and Aaron Hedlund found that raising subsidized loan limits led to a 102% increase in tuition from 1987 to 2010. Absent that additional federal money, the authors estimate tuition would have only gone up by 16% on net.

Another study by David O. Lucca, Taylor Nadauld, and Karen Shen of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York found additional evidence of the Bennett Hypothesis at play. The authors found that credit expansion (increasing subsidized federal student loans) leads to a tuition increase of 60 cents for every additional dollar of subsidized federal loans. Their conclusion bluntly states:

… a credit expansion will raise tuition paid by all students and not only by those at the federal loan caps because of pecuniary demand externalities. Such pricing externalities are often conjectured in the context of the effects of expanded subprime borrowing on housing prices leading up to the financial crisis, and our study can be seen as complementary evidence in the student loan market.

As Carlo Salerno of CampusLogic points out, students choose to take on college loan debt, and are not assigned that debt. So loan forgiveness “unfairly rewards the person who borrows to get a Ferrari over the one who got a Kia.”

That inequity is underscored by the numbers. As Salerno calculated, a wealthy student who borrowed $100,000 a few years ago and has been delinquent on repayment would get more forgiveness than the low-income student who responsibly worked to pay down $40,000 in debt over the past 20 years and only has $10,000 remaining, which would be forgiven.

Some would clearly benefit from this scheme, but it would penalize students who choose to work while in college to minimize their debt, those who pursue an apprenticeship over an expensive degree, and those who take out debt, but live modestly post-graduation in order to fully pay back what they owe.

Moreover, as the Urban Institute found (in an analysis unrelated to the Warren plan), “the top 25% of American households by income hold nearly half of all student debt—and the bottom 25% holds just a tenth of it. Canceling all student loans would deliver $5 to rich Americans for every $1 given to poorer families.”

Proposals to make college “free” or to forgive vast amounts of student loan debt reward one entity more than any other: the universities.

Subsidizing the already-dysfunctional student loan system is not the solution. If we want to get serious about addressing the student loan issue, we must pursue structural changes to accreditation, along with innovation in financing through options like income share agreements. Making sure colleges have some “skin in the game” also holds promise.

But above all, Washington should get out of the student loan business. The federal government currently originates and services 90% of all student aid, leaving taxpayers greatly exposed when defaults occur or when loan forgiveness becomes more generous.

Getting the feds out of the student loan business would go a long way toward finally addressing the root causes of soaring tuition.

COMMENTARY BY

Lindsey Burke

Lindsey M. Burke researches and writes on federal and state education issues as the Will Skillman fellow in education policy at The Heritage Foundation. Read her research. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLE: Elizabeth Warren’s College Plan Is a Bailout for the Elite


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.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission.

BOOK REVIEW: The Terror of Existence — From Ecclesiastes to Theater of the Absurd

“Sincerity in literature may not always be a virtue, but insincerity is almost always a vice.” – Theodore Dalrymple

“A theater of the absurd is exactly that: absurd.” – Kenneth Frances


Theodore Dalrymple, a former prison doctor and psychiatrist, and Kenneth Frances, who holds an MA in Theology, joined together to produce a work that explains how we have fallen into the “theater of the absurd.”

I have written dozens of articles about uncontested absurdities that have now become public policies. Theodore Dalrymple and Kenneth Frances analyse how we have come to accept these uncontested absurdities via literary works. Frances writes this about a J.D. Salinger book read by millions of public education students:

I have often wondered whether the America novel, The Catcher in the Rye, is a literary hoax, a kind of Leftist propaganda manifesto, manufactured to discredit traditional family values.

Who are the culprits? Who set the cornerstone for the theater of the absurd?

The culprits are existentialists, led by Jean-Paul Sartre, who are a “conundrum of intellectuals” who have abandoned God and replaced him with man.

Existentialism is about “being”, not “believing.” We are in an age of “identity theory” that has morphed into “identity politics.” God has been taken out of the public square and replaced by me-myself- and I.

What could possibly go wrong?

The Believer vs. The Non-Believer

In their compelling book The Terror of Existence — From Ecclesiastes to Theater of the Absurd Dalrymple and Frances analyse the main existentialist works of the 20th century. Francis is a “believer” Dalrymple is not. However, both help us find meaning in a existentialist created meaningless universe.

This book is both literary criticism and spiritual and philosophical exploration. The authors try to answer some of the most compelling questions faced today including:

  • How can a life stripped of ultimate meaning be anything but absurd?
  • How is man to live?
  • How could man find direction in a world of no direction?
  • What would a father tell his children that could make their lives worthwhile?
  • What is the bed rock of morality?

Education Has Created a Nation of Idiots

In Chapter 13 Francis reveals how educators have been injecting our children with the heroin of existentialist ideals. Francis writes:

Theologian Peter Mullen, writing in the Salisbury Review in 2017, said: “Give me fifty years of comprehensive education and I will show you a nation of idiots.”

Francis goes on stating, “[E]ver since the widespread use of social media and the rise of political correctness, many institutions of education seem to have lowered their standards. Generation Selfie, particularly millennial college students, live in an era of sound bites, ‘micro-aggressions’, ‘safe spaces’ and shallow, trolling tweets.”

In the May 2017 edition of Taki’s Magazine, Dalrymple wrote the following on “Sovietization without a revolution”:

“For to force people to assent to propositions that are outrageously false, on pain of losing their livelihoods or worse, was to crush them morally and psychologically, and thus make them docile, easily manipulated, and complicit in their own enslavement.”

Without God Life is Meaningless

Francis writes, “Satanic temptation is real…Shielding our ears from the groans emanating from Western or Eastern holocausts in the pursuit of happiness is evil and satanic.”

Alexander Solzhenitsyn, during his Temple Address in London, England on May 10, 1983 said:

“If I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous [Communist] Revolution that swallowed up some sixty million of our people, I could not put it more accurately that to repeat: Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.”

In Chapter Six Francis does an analysis of Jean-Paul Sartre’s novel Nausea. Francis writes, “This book is about a writer who finds himself in the belly of the absurd.” Francis notes, “there’s a long list of factual infamous despots and psychos influenced by [Sartre’s] existentialism who exercised their authenticity with gusto.”

One of these “existentialist” tyrants was Pol Pot.

“Many years before the Year Zero slaughter of millions began in the mid-1970s in Cambodia, a well mannered, polite Mr. Pot left Cambodia and went to Paris to study radio technology. While there, he was deeply influenced by Sartre and Marxism.” notes Francis. “In testimony before a genocide tribunal in Cambodia, Pol Pot’s chief jailer, Kaing Guek Eav, said that children were executed to prevent them seeking revenge. In order to save bullets, executioners would hold the children by their legs or feet and smash their heads against tree trunks in the ‘killing fields’ on the edge of Phnom Penh.”

Conclusion

If you want to understand how we got to our current political system and the culture of identity politics then read The Terror of Existence — From Ecclesiastes to Theater of the Absurd.

Colorado Sex Ed Bill Would Force Kids to Learn LGBT Ideology, Ban Talk of Abstinence

Colorado’s wildly controversial, comprehensive sex ed legislation has ignited national discussions about how far Americans want to expose their children to a radical social agenda.

More than a few eyebrows were raised when Colorado passed its mandatory comprehensive sex education law in 2013, which required students undergo “culturally sensitive” lessons.

“Culturally sensitive” meant that sex ed lessons would incorporate minority perspectives on sex that had not previously been represented in sex-ed—including LGBT individuals, but also other groups. (In practice, this meant teaching and affirming more diverse kinds of sex.)

Though many parents were concerned, those concerns were appeased by the fact that students could discuss their moral, ethical, and religious beliefs on sex and sexuality in the classroom. It also allowed some schools to be excused from provisions of the law, if requested.

Yet, just five years later, Colorado’s Democrat-controlled General Assembly thinks the 2013 law is no longer good enough to address the sexual education of teens.

Enter HB 1032.

HB 1032 would do away with all the “concessions” included in the 2013 law and would specifically prohibit religious, moral, and ethical perspectives on sex from being discussed in the classroom.

The bill demands that schools teach about the relational and sexual experiences of LGBT teens. It would forbid any emphasis on abstinence and sexual-risk avoidance as the only foolproof method against pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, and even declares that saying so in the classroom is against the law.

HB 1032 would strip teachers, administrators, and school boards of the ability to choose the content of their comprehensive sex ed curriculums and would no longer allow schools to be excused from the requirements of the bill.

The bill is almost militant in its stringent requirements and prohibitions, thoroughly censoring the speech of teachers and crushing parental rights and religious freedom in the classroom.

Currently, only two states in the country (California and Louisiana) prohibit schools from speaking about religious beliefs regarding sex. The majority of states—including Colorado currently—allow abstinence to be stressed or emphasized to teens as the only foolproof method against sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy.

Yet, HB 1032 would flat-out ban speech that suggests abstinence is the best and healthiest choice. That’s despite the fact that the majority of American teens are choosing abstinence, and Colorado teens have a lower rate of sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted teen pregnancies than the national average.

HB 1032 would flat-out ban speech that suggests abstinence is the best and healthiest choice.

Prohibiting emphasis on abstinence isn’t the only instance of the Colorado Legislature attempting to place words into the mouths of teachers and ideology into the hearts of our children. HB 1032 would also require that teachers who discuss pregnancy outcomes, like adoption and parenting, also discuss abortion.

If passed, Colorado would become only the third state in the country to have that, after Vermont and California.

Clearly, the vast majority of American parents, teachers, and schools believe adoption and abortion are not morally or ethically equivalent options. The bill brazenly refers to teaching abortion as an example of “objective, unbiased” instruction, despite abortion being one of the most contentious issues of our time.

It probably comes as no surprise that Planned Parenthood lobbies across the nation for comprehensive sex education bills to be enacted, and Colorado was no exception.

It certainly isn’t coincidence that Planned Parenthood is one of the world’s largest providers of comprehensive sex education materials in the world, peddling radical content that even the most liberal among us might find too shocking for our taste.

Planned Parenthood’s ready-made sex education curriculum just happens to fit the exact requirements HB 1032 would impose on local school districts. Its materials often promote virtually any type of sexual exploration and experimentation as a “safe and healthy” part of any relationship, no matter the child’s age or biological sex, just as long as you “say yes.”

Planned Parenthood’s ready-made sex-education curriculum just happens to fit the exact requirements HB 1032 would impose on local school districts.

That last point is certainly the provision of Colorado’s sex education bill that garnered the most heartfelt protests from parents during the 20-odd hours of public testimony. Parents tend to take issue with the government mandating teaching elementary school students the definition of “consent.” They already know the answer.

In Colorado, as in most other states, the definition of consent for elementary students is: Illegal. Criminal. Unsafe.

Parents have been rightfully confused on how teaching young children about consent could possibly protect them from predators. How did decades of “No Means No!” education become upended to be “Yes Means Yes”?

Young children are certainly capable of voluntarily saying the word “yes” to acts that might feel good but are nonetheless deeply harmful and traumatic. It is a parent’s job to protect their children from an agenda that has shifted sex education dialogue from being one of protection to one of pleasure, from prevention to gratification.

Unfortunately, HB 1032’s sponsors and supporters have downplayed the tens of thousands of parents clamoring for the bill to die as well as the national dialogue the bill has ignited on how parents can guard their children’s hearts and minds in today’s schools.

HB 1032 has already been passed through a state House committee, the House floor, and its first state Senate committee, despite the overwhelming outcry. The bill is currently being considered in a Senate fiscal committee, which will soon vote on whether $1 million will be allocated from the general fund to schools to help them pay for implementing the burdensome legislative requirements.

If passed out of committee, the full Senate will vote on the bill, and then it will be off to the desk of Colorado’s openly gay governor, Jared Polis, for signature.

It is a parent’s job to protect their children from an agenda that has shifted sex-education dialogue from being one of protection to one of pleasure, from prevention to gratification.

Families in states such as Arizona, Massachusetts, and Texas are fighting controversial provisions similar to Colorado’s. Tennessee, Alaska, Idaho, and other states are taking proactive measures to ensure family values are respected in the classroom.

Washington state parents recently took a page from Colorado parents’ book and successfully stopped their own appalling comprehensive sex education bill, as did parents in New Mexico.

But the threat isn’t limited to state legislatures. The U.S. House of Representatives will be voting soon on the deceptively named “Equality Act,” which could lead to federal courts ordering schools to implement curriculums on sexual orientation and gender identity.

We hope the outcry in Colorado continues to encourage parents in other states around the country to stay informed about what’s being taught in their children’s classrooms—and to do everything they can to protect their children from harmful ideology.

COMMENTARY BY

Stephanie Curry is the policy manager for Family Policy Alliance.

RELATED ARTICLE: Bans on ‘Conversion Therapy’ Are Really About Locking Kids Into Transgenderism


Dear Readers:

Just two short years after the end of the Obama administration’s disastrous policies, America is once again thriving due to conservative solutions that have produced a historic surge in economic growth.

The Trump administration has embraced over 60 percent of The Heritage Foundation’s policy recommendations since his inauguration. But with the House now firmly within the grips of the progressive left, the victories may come to a screeching halt.

Why? Because they are determined more than ever to give the government more control over your lives. Restoring your liberty and embracing freedom is the best thing for you and the country.

President Donald Trump needs all of the allies he can find to push through the stone wall he now faces within this divided government. And the best way you can partner with him is by becoming a member of his greatest ally in Washington: The Heritage Foundation.

Will you activate your membership with a tax-deductible gift today?

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY


RELATED ARTICLE: California Parents Object to New Sex Ed Program in Public Schools

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission.

Pelosi Is Hijacking the Civil Rights Movement to Force LGBT Ideology on Kids

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”

Those aren’t just hollow words. Those words birthed a nation unlike any other and inspired its leaders and soldiers to give their very lives in the most sacred of blood oaths to uphold truth.

Those words sustained a country during its deepest sin and gave us the framework to begin anew. Those words are just as true today as they were when the great American experiment began.

Our nation has a rich history of fighting for equal rights for all.

One of the most intense examples of this is the story of racial desegregation in schools—because the pursuit of equal rights for all affected every family and every child. Even kindergartners experienced firsthand the rocky road to equality, and their parents were along for the ride whether they liked it or not.

Ultimately, in 1954, the Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Board of Education that segregation in public elementary and secondary schools was unconstitutional, violating equal rights. And the Civil Rights Act in 1964 added the full weight of the federal government to the process of desegregating schools—including federal funding and even military intervention in K-12 schools.

But the fight didn’t start with the famous Brown case. There were many cases centered in higher education leading up to Brown, but four in particular from 1938 to 1950 that laid the groundwork.

Along the way to full desegregation, civil rights leaders carefully constructed their legal strategy to prove first that black students needed to be offered the same educational opportunities as white students, even if in separate schools and programs.

Next, they were able to prove that it is very difficult for separate schools to be considered equal if black students do not get to interact and share ideas with white students, especially when the white students would be the majority of the population in their future career fields.

Finally, they proved that even when black students were admitted to the same schools, doctoral programs, and classrooms as white students—yet still subject to segregation—there was in fact no equality.

At the University of Oklahoma in 1950, for instance, black students attended the doctoral education program with white students, but they were forced to sit in designated rows in class or designated tables in the cafeteria.

Declaring that this treatment could never be equal, the Supreme Court stated that “[t]here is a vast difference—a constitutional difference—between restrictions imposed by the state which prohibit the intellectual commingling of students, and the refusal of individuals to commingle where the state presents no such bar. The removal of the state restrictions will not necessarily abate individual and group predilections, prejudices, and choices. But at the very least, the state will not be depriving appellant of the opportunity to secure acceptance by his fellow students on his own merits.”

In other words, the state cannot stop people from separating into their own groups, but neither can it require them to be separate.

This case was a critical turning point for black civil rights, and four years later, Brown turned the tide for K-12 schools—and the country.

Hijacking the Civil Rights Legacy

Flash forward several decades to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s Top 5 priority bill, H.R. 5—the so-called Equality Act. Now, the left, with Pelosi at the helm in the House, wants to use the blueprint that helped our nation desegregate schools to manipulate schoolchildren to carry water for the LGBT political agenda—whether their parents like it or not.

Their argument is that just as black children were literally and forcefully segregated from white children, so are LGBT children segregated from all other children in schools—creating an oppressed, unequal class of American children.

There are two obvious problems for these activists.

First, they claim to be advancing civil rights for LGBT-identifying individuals—who constantly change their own personal identities, with new categories constantly being added to the group as a whole. This makes it extremely difficult to advance civil rights, as the public can’t accurately identify the group that is receiving protection, and what type of protection is needed on a given day.

Second, unlike the days of racial segregation, LGBT-identifying children are not in fact being forced by the government to attend segregated schools or sit in separate sections of class.

LGBT activists are ignoring the first problem, and they attempt to fix the second problem by claiming something oddly similar to the 1950 University of Oklahoma case.

They claim that LGBT-identifying students are treated unequally in schools not because they are forced to sit in different areas, but because the nation as a whole does not permit transgender students to use the restrooms and locker rooms of the opposite sex, does not require featuring LGBT people and ideas in school, and doesn’t teach children about the social and experimental medical ways to “transition” to another sex.

In other words, they believe the state is complicit in “separating” LGBT students from the student body by not reinforcing their ideology in the classroom.

The racial desegregation of America’s schools was about upholding the truth: that all men are created equal and deserve to be treated equally.

H.R. 5 by its very nature is not about achieving equal educational opportunities for all. It’s about forcing every administrator, teacher, child, and parent involved in schools to give any person who identifies as LGBT a platform in our schools, and special rights above and beyond everyone else.

In short, H.R. 5 isn’t about actual equality. It picks “equality” winners and losers.

Serious Consequences

So if Pelosi succeeded in getting H.R. 5 through Congress (which recently held a hearing on the bill), and if the president were somehow to sign it, what would be the practical implications for public schools?

For starters, major changes in your child’s curriculum. Pelosi and the LGBT activists who fund her campaign want to ensure “equality” by requiring “LGBTQ sexual experiences” to be included in schools. Sex education class can’t truly be equal unless all types of sexual experiences are taught, so leftist groups say.

Colorado already requires that children as young as 9 years old learn about “LGBTQ sexual experiences.” And California sex ed guidelines even require teaching children about having multiple sexual partners, and warning children about “religion abuse” that would include “forcing others to adhere to rigid gender roles [or n]ot allowing a partner to do things they enjoy.”

Both of these states’ curricula came from policies requiring LGBT inclusion in sexual education.

Sex ed class used to be for the purpose of helping students understand human biology and reproduction, which by nature includes everyone. H.R. 5 elevates LGBT sexuality and gives it special emphasis in the classroom.

And the “equality losers”? Parents and teachers who don’t believe the material is appropriate for their children for health, moral, religious, or other reasons.

All-Pervasive Indoctrination

But the changes envisioned in H.R. 5 don’t stop at sex ed class. The idea is to weave LGBT-centric themes throughoutthe school’s entire curriculum.

Take, for example, New Jersey’s new “LGBT curriculum” policy. Imagine a literature or history class where students are not just taught the historic contributions of literary giants like Emily Dickinson or former U.S. presidents, but the curriculum also questions the sexual preferences of our historic figures.

One textbook example ponders the fact that President James Buchanan “never married and had a very good friend who was living with him. He may have been gay.” A former American president is reduced to the sort of suspect commentary found in newspaper tabloids and gossip magazines.

What’s worse, parents really would have no opportunity to opt-out their children from exposure to this type of teaching or the topic of gender transition, since it is woven into every aspect of the curriculum.

The “equality losers” are, once again, teachers and parents who object—but especially children whose precious academic time will be consumed by nonsense speculation over what kind of sexual exploits any given historical figure was having.

That’s not equal rights. That’s ideology masquerading under the guise of rights.

That’s not equal rights. That’s ideology masquerading under the guise of rights. It is special rights for some at the expense of many others.

The Death of Equality

H.R. 5 is vying for a spot in our nation’s Equality Hall of Fame, comparing a sexualized political agenda to the brave students who endured segregation and then crossed town, under great hardship, to achieve racial desegregation.

If “all men are created equal” now means ensuring young children are informed that “little boys can become little girls,” then the centuries of power contained in those words ends with H.R. 5.
COMMENTARY BY

Autumn Leva

Autumn Leva is vice president of strategy for the Family Policy Alliance. Twitter: .


Dear Readers:

Just two short years after the end of the Obama administration’s disastrous policies, America is once again thriving due to conservative solutions that have produced a historic surge in economic growth.

The Trump administration has embraced over 60 percent of The Heritage Foundation’s policy recommendations since his inauguration. But with the House now firmly within the grips of the progressive left, the victories may come to a screeching halt.

Why? Because they are determined more than ever to give the government more control over your lives. Restoring your liberty and embracing freedom is the best thing for you and the country.

President Donald Trump needs all of the allies he can find to push through the stone wall he now faces within this divided government. And the best way you can partner with him is by becoming a member of his greatest ally in Washington: The Heritage Foundation.

Will you activate your membership with a tax-deductible gift today?

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission.

The Cultural Failure Of Free College

Economist Ludwig von Mises observed the reality that virtually every government action creates unintended consequences that cause problems greater than the ones that were meant to be solved.

But the Democratic Party that is now apparently fully on board with free college for everyone is clearly unaware of this truism. That’s not too surprising as it has to do with economics, history and rational thought — all areas largely abandoned by the modern Democratic Party.

So here are the almost assured consequences that will stem from such a policy (beyond the $7 trillion price tag) and each ends up conflicting directly with the goals of free college for everyone.

  • Most people will not graduate. Right now, according the National Digest of Education Statistics, fewer than one in three enrollees in four-year institutions of higher learning with open enrollment policies graduate — even after six years. So even if it is free, statistically it is reasonable to predict that two-thirds of those who enter will not come out with a degree. That means it becomes both an enormous misallocation of resources and it squanders years in pursuit of a fruitless endeavor for most. Further, for all these young people, there will be no increase in salary because there is no college degree — only lost time and likely some college-related expenses.
  • It will create skyrocketing costs. Is everyone accepted who wants to go? If it is guaranteed tuition payment to universities without academic requirements — which has been the Bernie Sanders’ rhetoric — it will mean that these institutions will have even less incentive to control costs. Right now, only health care costs have soared as fast as college costs over the past 30 years. Not coincidentally, both markets are deeply impacted by government. In the case of colleges, it is easily obtainable student loans backed by the federal government, along with Pell grants and other fundings. This guaranteed flow of federal money and the ongoing cultural push for kids to go to college regardless of the need for them to, has driven up college costs and created the debt issue. Making it ”free” would make it much more expensive for taxpayers.
  • Government will further screw up the college market. The obvious hike in costs would force the political reality of having to control costs by limiting or even lowering tuition. (This is all very akin to the dynamics in the health care debate, except the option of rationing is the opposite of what free tuition is for, so that likely would not be an alternative.) How would universities hire more professors, instructors and add classroom buildings and dorms along with administrators if the government is capping or cutting tuition? Obviously the quality and value of a college degree would plummet.
  • It wouldn’t accomplish the goal of everyone making more money. Assuming, however, that it does increase the number of college graduates, what does that accomplish? In the big picture, it would mean that a Bachelor’s Degree becomes the equivalent of a high school degree within about a half of a generation, except that the B.A. comes with a lot of debt while a high school degree does not. So the result is that the American people generationally are saddled with trillions more in debt without a discernible increase in the actual value of what the new wave of college graduates have.

And finally, this is becoming even more of a big deal for Democrats at the very time that the labor market is historically tight. Right now, the unemployment rate is about 3.8 percent — below what economists consider full employment.

Further, there are about six million unemployed Americans, while there are seven million job openings — the majority of which do not require a college degree. In truth, the nation and the economy actually do not need more college graduates, particularly in all the wrong fields, i.e. the soft sciences, the arts, literature, ethnic and cultural studies, communications and media.

Evidence? There are 13 million Americans with at least a four-year college degree working in jobs that do not require any college degree.

The push for free college for everyone is much worse than just being a $7 trillion budget buster. It also destroys the value of a college degree, high school degree and years in a young person’s life, all while not accomplishing its primary goals.

EDITORS NOTE: This Revolutionary Act column is republished with permission.

The Future of Student Loan Debt in Today’s Political Climate

If you or someone close to you has student loans, you might think you know a lot about student debt. Still, it might surprise you that there are now over 45 million student loan borrowers who owe a collective $1.52 trillion in student loans in the United States.

This massive amount of student debt signals a mounting student loan crisis that’s greatly impacting the lives of graduates. With an average student loan payment of around $351 for borrowers between the ages of 20 and 30, many are struggling to make ends meet.

Borrowers often feel swamped by their debt owing an average of $26,828 if they graduated from a public college in 2016 and a whopping $30,281 if they graduated from a private college that same year. Did you get a graduate degree in 2016? Your debt is likely close to the average of $57,600 that graduate and professional program borrowers owe.

All that debt is taking a toll on borrowers. It’s not surprising that the average federal student loan default rate is 11.5%. But even borrowers who aren’t missing payments are still struggling. Student debt has huge impacts on stress, quality of life, and often results in delayed milestones.

A study by the Federal Reserve Board Division of Research & Statistics has shown a 9-percentage point drop in homeownership of young adults aged between 24 and 32 from 2005 to 2014. Although multiple factors could have influenced this drop, many believe one major factor is student loan debt. College graduates are now moving out later, not getting married, not buying cars or homes, and waiting to have kids because they’re struggling financially.

Given the impact of student debt on the population and economy, it’s only natural that politicians have taken notice. In the run up to the 2020 election, many are shaping their policies and campaign platforms to deal with the surge in student debt and the crisis it’s caused.

This isn’t the first time politicians have tried to fix the student debt problem. In fact, policies have changed over time on both private and federal student loans as administrations have changed. This has sometimes benefited borrowers, and other times made things more difficult for them in the name of cutting federal spending.

The 2020 campaign will bring a lot of discussion about student loan debt which has the potential to completely revolutionize how federal student loans are forgiven, paid for, and given out.

A History of Federal Student Loan Policies

In 2007, George W. Bush created two new programs to address the rising costs of college: the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program (PSLFP) and the Income-Based Repayment Plan (IBRP). The PSLFP gives federal loan borrowers a chance to have the balance of their loans forgiven if they make 120 qualifying loan payments over 10 years while working for a job that qualifies as a ‘public service job.’ These positions include jobs held for municipal, state, and federal government bodies, but also working for organizations like non-profits, labor unions, or AmeriCorps.

The IBRP allowed low-income borrowers of federal loans to pay just 15% of their discretionary income towards their loans each month with the promise that after 25 years the remainder of their student debt would be forgiven.

Both programs gave hope to student loan borrowers struggling to pay back large amounts of debt while earning low salaries. But the PSLFP has proven to be so complicated that the few people eligible for it have received the loan forgiveness promised. Meanwhile, some complained the IBRP wasn’t accessible to all borrowers who could benefit from it, and they were paying too much of their income toward their student debt.

Obama later addressed some of the problems with IBRP by opening it up to more borrowers and changing how much they were required to pay back, from 15% of the borrowers’ income to just 10%. He also made loan forgiveness possible after just 20 years of repayment. The program is now called the Income-Driven Repayment Program (IDRP).

Trump has taken steps to change these programs with the help of his Education Secretary Betsy DeVos. They want to end the PSLFP program in order to cut funding towards student loan forgiveness. They envision instead just one forgiveness program for all borrowers that require they pay 12.5% of their discretionary income towards their debt for 15 years if they have an undergraduate degree, and 30 years if they have a graduate degree.

This could be seen as an improvement for those previously enrolled in the IBRP or REPAY programs for since their debt would be forgiven sooner. But the hitch is they may have to put more of their income towards their debt – potentially causing problems for many. Also, getting rid of the PSLFP would eliminate its tax benefits since student debt forgiven through that program was non-taxable. The new Trump program would tax all forgiven student debt as though it were income, possibly creating huge tax bills for those who received forgiveness.

The Future of Student Loan Policies

Elizabeth Warren, one of the candidates for president in 2020, is already discussing her intentions to help student loan borrowers. She has proposed a program which would allow those with both private and federal student loans to refinance them at an interest rate of just 3.76 percent with the government. She would also allow graduate and parent borrowers to refinance student loans at a lower rate.

Currently, borrowers can only refinance student loans – both federal and private – with private lenders. This means federal student loans will be converted to private student loans and borrowers won’t be eligible for federal benefits and repayment plans.

In addition, Warren has talked about declaring college debt a national emergency and is a proponent of policies working toward debt-free college. In fact, she backed a 2017 proposal to use federal money to help states ensure students can attend college debt-free.

These policies would greatly help borrowers by reducing debt or reducing the cost of servicing that debt. However, there are concerns about the cost of these programs and their impact on the existing financial and student loan industry.

Meanwhile, Trump will continue to make changes to student loans, something he will talk about on the campaign trail and include in his platform. In addition to putting through the changes to forgiveness programs outlined above, Trump has also mentioned eliminating subsidized student loans, reducing Pell Grants, and introducing a risk-sharing policy that requires post-secondary institutions to bear some responsibility for the loans that students take on to attend school. These policies would likely affect low income borrowers and students greatly since it would increase the amount of debt they would need to take on given there are fewer grants available.

Trump might also eliminate interest deductions for student loans, tax graduate tuition waivers, and the Lifetime Learning Credit – all programs that offer tax incentives in order to make going to college and repaying your student loans easier for borrowers. In return, he would improve the American Opportunity Tax Credit by allowing student loan borrowers to claim up to $2,500 in an annual deduction for five years instead of four.

Impact on Student Loan Borrowers

At this point, it’s hard to say what the future of student loan policies will look like in this country since so much is still up in the air. As more candidates join the 2020 race, they will bring many different views on student loans and student loan forgiveness. Those views won’t be static. The policies of candidates might change and evolve during primaries and the general election based on debates, news about the impact of student loans, and the political climate.

If you are a student loan borrower, it’s important you know this election has the power to completely change the future of student loan policy in this country. Borrowers like you could be impacted positively or negatively.

For that reason, you should follow the race closely, ask questions of candidates, push parties to adopt better student debt policy platforms, and then vote for the candidate whose student loan policies are most compelling to you.

Even if you aren’t actively involved politically, it’s important you’re aware of how student loan policies might change so you’re prepared since it could directly impact you and your repayment.

Court Kicks CAIR Out of San Diego School District

In a landmark case, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has been forced out of the San Diego Unified School District.

lawsuit was brought against the district for partnering with CAIR and allowing the Islamist organization to run a discriminatory, unconstitutional propaganda program in its schools.

The court agreed with this assessment.

The program in question gave Muslim students special privileges and gave CAIR the power to change the district curriculum to make sure Islam was looked upon more favorably.

Students and parents were made to watch biased videos, CAIR officials were allowed to teach students and teachers about Islam and students were trained “how to become allies with Muslims students.”

The program, which began in April 2017, was based on false evidence that, in the wake of President Donald Trump’s electoral victory, Muslim students were subjected to “Islamophobic” bullying. However, state records indicated there was no evidence of such bullying in the district’s schools.

The court ruled that the program was unconstitutional because it violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause by favoring one religious group over another and mixing government with religion.

Under the terms of the ruling, the school district is required to permanently drop the program and prevented from allowing CAIR to be involved in school activities in the future.

Further, school officials must correct the pro-Muslim student bias and disproportionate emphasis on Islamic history in its curriculum, which were both instituted through the program.

The court further gave the following guidelines to the schools:

  • “Educators should treat each religion with equal respect, with the time and attention spent discussing each religion being proportionate to its impact on history.”
  • “Educational material on religious subjects must be neutral and may not be presented in a manner that promotes one religion over another.”
  • “Educators or other staff sponsoring guest speakers at District events must ask them not to use their position or influence on students to forward their own religious, political, economic or social views and shall take active steps to neutralize whatever bias has been presented.”
  • “Guest speakers from religious organizations are not permitted to present to students on religious topics.”

“This is a tremendous victory, because CAIR intended this plan to be a pilot program for a nationwide rollout,” said Daniel J. Piedra, executive director of the Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund (FCDF), the organization which brought the suit against the school district.

The FCDF said that other school districts similarly affected by CAIR are Seattle Public Schools, Minneapolis Public Schools, Cajon Valley Unified School District and Gilroy Unified School District.

“This settlement agreement will serve as a warning to politically correct school boards nationwide to think twice about partnering with CAIR,” said Charles LiMandri, chief counsel for FCDF.

LiMandri called the court’s decision a “victory against radical Islamic indoctrination in America’s schools.”

The FBI and the Justice Department have both banned CAIR as an outreach partner because of its Islamist agenda and ties to Hamas and terror funding.

In 2007, the U.S. government labeled CAIR an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation for financing the Hamas terrorist group.

In November 2014 CAIR was designated as a terrorist organization by the United Arab Emirates.

CAIR was listed by the U.S. government as being among “individuals/entities who are/were members of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee and/or its organizations.” The Palestine Committee was a secret body set up by the Brotherhood to advance the Brotherhood/Hamas agenda in America.

A secret meeting of the committee held in Philadelphia in 1993 was wiretapped by the FBI. Nihad Awad, co-founder and executive director of CAIR participated in that meeting where members agreed that a new “neutral” entity for influencing U.S. policy and opinion was agreed upon.

Awad founded CAIR the following year.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Judge Disallows References to CAIR-Hamas Ties in Suit 

Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR)

CAIR Is Suing Texas — You’ll Never Believe Why

16 Likely Democratic Presidential Candidates Endorse CAIR