The New A.P. U.S. History Exam: Providing Opportunities for Indoctrination

College Board dictates for the new Advanced Placement U.S. History exam have already garnered criticism. Jane Robbins and Larry Krieger charged that the new course of study “inculcates a consistently negative view of the nation’s past.” Units on colonial America stress “the development of a ‘rigid racial hierarchy’ and a ‘strong belief in British racial and cultural superiority.’” At the same time, the new Framework “ignores the United States’ founding principles and their influence in inspiring the spread of democracy and galvanizing the movement to abolish slavery.”

Advanced Placement (AP) teachers, of course, will need retraining for this; accordingly, Summer Institutes are being held across the country. I got a look at how teachers are pitched the new program at a session titled “Boundaries of Freedom: Teaching the Construction of Race and Slavery in the AP U.S. History Course” at the annual meeting of the Organization of American Historians (OAH), “the largest professional society dedicated to the teaching and study of American history,” in Atlanta this month. Identity politics and the assumption that conservatism is evil and backwards infused the conference. The AP session fit right into this year’s theme, “Crossing Borders,” highlighting the evils of the United States, in its past with slavery and segregation, and in its present in regards to “immigrants” (illegal aliens).

One of the AP panelists, Lawrence Charap, of the College Board, said that although there was no direct “coordination,” Common Core’s approach is being implemented in the AP and SAT exams by his boss, David Coleman, Common Core’s  architect and the new president of the College Board, which produces the AP and SAT exams. The new approach includes using the scholarly papers that one would find at this conference.

No More Facts, Ma’am
He told  high school teachers the new exams eliminate unnecessary memorization of facts and replace them with “historical thinking skills.” As examples of such irrelevant “facts,” Charap referred to Millard Fillmore and the Lend-Lease program.

The revisions to the exam began in 2006, at the request of college professors who said AP history tried to jam a college survey course, “a mile wide and an inch deep,” into a high school class, according to Charap. So the course has been redesigned to focus on skills, where students go in-depth and ask questions in an engaging way—traits AP shares with Common Core and the SAT. Accordingly, multiple-choice questions count for less of the score and have been reduced from 80 to 55, which Charap would like to reduce even further.

So what will replace facts about the thirteenth president or a controversial wartime program? Students will be tested for “skills,” in relating secondary (scholarly) sources back to the primary (historical) sources.

Dramatic Re-enactments
Such an exercise may sound good. But as I found out, it is a means by which teachers can impose their ideological views on students who do not yet have a foundation in history. The exercises showed that historically significant facts would be replaced with emotional exercises focused disproportionately on negative parts of American history. Two members of the AP development committee, UC-Irvine professor Jessica Millward and high school teacher James Sabathne, demonstrated how.

Millward said she brings her research on female slaves and their children in the Chesapeake Bay area of Maryland into the classroom. She claimed her students use “critical thinking skills” and focus on concepts, like “freedom” and “bondage.” Millward also recognizes students don’t do the assigned reading, so she breaks them into groups and has them read assignments on the spot. The exercises include a visual timeline and scenarios in which students imagine a way to “resist and rebel” against, for example, the whipping of a six-month pregnant slave face down, her belly in a hole (to protect the future “property”). Millward then play-acts the slave owner. She praised the new “interactive exam” for allowing the freedom to recreate such experiences. She offered a list of online resources, such as the University of North Carolina’s Documenting the American South, the African American Mosaic, and Depression-era Works Progress Administration interviews at the Library of Congress, as well as secondary sources, including her article, “‘That All Her Increase Shall Be Free’: Enslaved Women’s Bodies and the 1809 Maryland Law of Manumission” in Women’s History Review. No one can deny her contention that slavery involves “heartbreak,” but she seems intent on exploiting it.

After one teacher in the audience noted that the U.S.’s share of slave trade was only 5 percent, the panelists suggested that that fact and the one that some blacks owned slaves should be downplayed to students. Clearly, the aim is to give high school students a limited, emotional perspective of white-on-black racism, instead of the larger historical one.

Racist White People
The next panelist, James Sabanthe, who teaches at Hononegah High School in Rockton, Illinois, heralded the new focus on “historical interpretations.” It became apparent from his, Millward’s and other teachers’ comments that although high school students are treated as adults who “think like historians,” they do not do the reading that real historians do. Because students do not read all 20 to 30 pages of a typical scholarly article, Sabanthe distributes excerpts among groups of students. As an example of an exercise, students would be asked to use their “historical thinking skills” to demonstrate change while comparing revolutions in France, Russia, and China, a conversation launched by asking students about prior knowledge of labor systems, Indians, servants, and racism.

For the unit on slavery, Sabanthe provided hand-outs, with sample readings. Half of his groups would tackle excerpts from Edmund S. Morgan’s “Slavery and Freedom: The American Paradox,” in The Journal of American History (June 1972), and Kathleen M. Brown’s Good Wives, Nasty Wenches, & Anxious Patriarchs: Gender, Race, and Power in Colonial Virginia (1996). The other half would read excerpts from Many Thousands Gone: The First Two Centuries of Slavery in North America (1998) by Ira Berlin, former president of OAHand How Race Survived US History: From Settlement and Slavery to the Obama Phenomenon (2008) by David Roediger, who writes from a Marxist perspective. These groups would make “t charts” and Venn diagrams, and discuss similarities and differences between the excerpts.

But upon reading Sabanthe’s hand-out, it became clear the excerpts do not stand alone. Sometime surnames pop up, with prior references obviously in an omitted section. His assignment, to annotate the primary document, “’Decisions of the General Court’ regarding William Pierce’s Plantation, Virginia, 1640,” and relate it to Brown’s feminist tract, is bewildering. Students would need considerable direction. Instead of the full narrative of a textbook, history book, or full article that they could digest for themselves, students turn to their teacher for direction. Of course, this leaves wide open opportunities.

Trauma—From Whom?
This activity, according to the hand-out, fulfilled AP U.S. History Curriculum Framework, 2014, “Key Concepts,” pages 35-39, which focused on the especially racist qualities of the British system, for example: “Unlike Spanish, French, and Dutch colonies, which accepted intermarriage and cross-racial sexual unions with native peoples . . . , English colonies attracted both males and females who rarely intermarried with either native peoples or Africans, leading to the development of a rigid racial hierarchy” and “Reinforced by a strong belief in British racial and cultural superiority, the British system enslaved black people in perpetuity, altered African gender and kinship relationships in the colonies. . . ”

With all the attention on abuses of slavery, it’s no wonder that one of the teachers, who teaches in an Orthodox Jewish school, wondered how she should handle the only black student in her class. In response, Millward acknowledged that these topics bring up anger and white guilt. “I believe in educational affirmative action,” she said and suggested removing the black student from the class discussion to avoid “trauma.”

Quite obviously, the “trauma” is a problem of the teachers’ own making—now to be reinforced by the College Board.

The new AP exams, like Common Core, presumably are inspired by what “engages” students. From what I heard at this and other panels, the revisions come from what engages, and profits, teachers developing the exams.

Although Sabathne said he is getting away from textbooks, he also said he has been working with Charap and publishers on new AP-aligned history books and guides. Sabathne encouraged teachers to sign up for his upcoming week-long AP session in St. Petersburg. The huge publisher Bedford-St. Martins has been working with the College Board on new books and was a “platinum” (highest level) sponsor of the conference. Norton Publishing (silver sponsor) is also coming out with new books. Charap optimistically said that in three years there should be a good bank of materials to prepare students for the new AP exam.

No doubt there will be, at the expense of taxpayers who subsidize the indoctrination.

LA public school district, superintendent Mohammed Z. Islam, assigns students to debate veracity of Holocaust

The assignment asked students to write about whether the Holocaust was “merely a political scheme created to influence public emotion and gain.” Has any reporter had the guts to inquire as to whose idea this was? Was Superintendent Islam aware of the assignment before it aroused controversy?

And now police are saying that Islam received death threats because of the assignment, even though we’re also told in this article that no parents complained about it. Have police actually seen the threats received? Are they sure that the threats themselves weren’t fabricated to deflect unwelcome attention and claim victim status, as we have seen in so many cases?

In any case, they posted guards outside school district headquarters: threats or claimed threats to Muslims always get action, while death threats against counter-jihadists (I just got another yesterday) get scant law enforcement attention. They’re just business as usual.

“School District Officials Reportedly Threatened Over Holocaust Assignment,” CBS Los Angeles, May 5, 2014 (thanks to all who sent this in):

RIALTO ( — School district officials in Rialto have received death threats in connection to a class assignment instructing students to debate the veracity of the Holocaust, according to reports Monday.

Rialto Unified School District officials first responded last week to reports of the assignment, which asked students to compose a written debate over whether the Holocaust was “merely a political scheme created to influence public emotion and gain.”

The controversial question in the assignment read: “…write an argumentative essay, based upon cited textual evidence, in which you explain whether or not you believe this was an actual event in history or merely a political scheme created to influence public emotion and gain wealth…”

The district initially defended the eighth-grade assignment – which was one part of an 18-piece essay – as an exercise to help students “evaluate the quality of evidence made by advocates or opponents of an issue.”

Rialto Police Captain Randy De Anda told KCAL 9′s Tom Wait the school district’s interim superintendent, Mohammed Z. Islam, received death threats in connection with the assignment. A district spokesperson was also threatened, De Anda said.

Officers were seen Monday standing guard outside district headquarters in response to the reported threats.

“We do not know who the suspect is at this time,” De Anda said. “However we do have some leads to follow up on.”

District officials – who say they have not received any complaints from parents about the project – are now revising the assignment, admitting it was a mistake, Wait reported.

“We are striking the sentence that claims, ‘Did the Holocaust occur?’ Absolutely the Holocaust occurred,” Rialto District spokesperson Syeda Jafri. “It was an error and we have to correct it,” Jafri added.

Jafri also said that the Education Services department was behind the assignment, and will be required to undergo sensitivity training….


US Muslim prof says Boko Haram violates Qur’an — but omits sex-slavery verses
“They started shouting ‘Allahu akbar,’ and we knew”: Nigerian Islamic jihadists kidnap eight more girls, between ages of 12 and 15

Florida: Protest against Broward School Teacher for Religious Persecution

unnamed (1) - EditedIn an email Danita Kilcullen states, “I received a phone call from Jack at 1:15 p.m. saying to get dressed and get down to the court house by 2:00 for a press conference with this family.  I alerted a few people in my neighborhood, grabbed my TEA Party FL t-shirt and cap, USMC flag, and two U.S. flags and headed down.  Maryann met me there.  Surprisingly, there were 6 or 7 TV affiliates from the Press.  Funny, this has gone nation-wide, but not a word from the Sun Sentinel.

“When I left the conference my mind was racing:  This teacher should be fired, she should be required to take ‘sensitivity’ therapy and training, and should  be ordered to attend a class on the Constitution of the United States.  The attorney for Giovanni and his family stated over-and-over that she had clearly violated the U.S.Constitution.  Maryann and I were able to briefly speak with the attorney and the Rubeo family,” wrote Kilcullen.

This protest is being organized against a Broward County Florida school teacher who humiliated a 12-year-old boy in front of an entire class after she caught him reading the Bible during free reading time.


Swornia D. Thomas. Photo courtesy of Washington Times.

The teacher Swornia D. Thomas, at Park Lakes Elementary School in Fort Lauderdale, ordered Giovanni Rubeo to pick up the telephone on her desk and call his parents. As the other students watched, the teacher left a terse message on the family’s answering machine.

“I noticed that he has a book – a religious book – in the classroom,” she said on the recording. “He’s not permitted to read those books in my classroom.”

The Liberty Institute, a legal firm that specializes in religious liberty issues, is now representing the Rubeo family. They are demanding that Giovanni be allowed to read his Bible during free reading time. They also want the school to issue a written apology to the boy.

Read the full story at


What happens when Dad protests sexual smut assigned to his 9th grader will floor you
Teacher caught on video manhandling kindergartner will make your blood boil

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of Liberal Logic 101.

Study: Why Catholic schools have “switched” to charter schools


For a free copy of the Sector Switchers study click on the image.

For decades, Catholic schools, particularly inner-city Catholic schools, have seen declines in enrollment and an increasing need for subsidies from their dioceses. Many dioceses, however, have been unable to shoulder that burden, forcing schools to close. In response to difficult financial circumstances, the archdioceses of Indianapolis, Miami, and Washington, D.C., put a new twist on the typical story, “closing” a set of their inner-city schools, but allowing them to reopen as independently managed public charter schools.

That phenomenon raises interesting questions about the future of urban Catholic schooling. In this paper, we examine, both qualitatively and quantitatively, the effect of this conversion on the schools and communities involved.

By tracking enrollment information from before and after the conversion for both schools that switched as well as schools with similar demographics, we are able to conclude:

  1. Switching from private to charter significantly increased enrollment in affected schools.
  2. Switching from private to charter meaningfully increased the percentage of minority students in the schools.

Through interviews with key personnel in those school systems, we discovered several interesting implications from the decision to convert schools.

The question of what to do with struggling inner-city Catholic schools is still an open one. Evidence in the academic literature, confirmed by the lived experiences of the school leaders we interviewed, makes a strong case that private school choice programs can stem the tide of private school closures. But, as more communities consider school choice (both public and private) as a policy to give more options to low-income families, it is important to emphasize that how those programs are structured affects the schools that will be able to participate—and ultimately the set of choices available to families.

Florida’s In-State Tuition for Illegal Aliens Violates Federal Law

While I am a strong believer in states rights under the 10th Amendment, I also believe that states should follow existing federal laws. Following and enforcing immigration laws, for example, has been the rallying cry for Republicans and some Democrats. If Florida is harmed by  an immigration law then Governor Scott should work with the state congressional delegation to alter or abolish the law. The Florida legislature should not pass and Governor Scott sign a law that violates federal immigration law.

Case in point is the Florida legislature passing HB 851 giving illegal aliens in-state college tuition. This effort has been fully embraced by Governor Rick Scott, former Governors Jeb Bush and Bob Martinez  in the name of “lowering the cost of tuition for all Florida students.” The problem is HB 851 violates federal immigration law and requires Florida to provide the same in-state college tuition rate to all citizens of the United States.

According to  Hans A. von Spakovsky and Charles D. Stimson giving in-state college tuition to illegal aliens violates federal law. The following is the full text of their November 2011 column titled “Providing In-State Tuition for Illegal Aliens: A Violation of Federal Law“:

Federal law prohibits state colleges and universities from providing in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens “on the basis of residence within the State”—unless the same in-state rates are offered to all citizens of the United States. Today, 12 states are circumventing this federal law, and the legal arguments offered to justify such actions are untenable, no matter what other policy arguments are offered in their defense. Because at least one federal court of appeals has held that there is no private right of action under the specific statute in question—§ 1623 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996—the U.S. Department of Justice must enforce this statutory provision against states that have violated federal law. Yet even as it sues states like Arizona and Alabama for trying to assist the enforcement of federal immigration law, the U.S. government refuses to sue states that are incontrovertibly and brazenly violating an unambiguous federal immigration law. Such inaction is unacceptable: The President and the Attorney General have an obligation to enforce every provision of the United State’s comprehensive federal immigration regulations—including the federal law prohibiting state colleges and universities from providing in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens “on the basis of residence within the State.”

In 1996, Congress passed—and President Bill Clinton signed into law—the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA).[i] Section 1623 of this federal statute prohibits state colleges and universities from providing in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens “on the basis of residence within the State” unless the same in-state rates are offered to all citizens of the United States.[ii] Today, 12 states[iii] allow individuals who are in the United States illegally to pay the same in-state tuition rates as legal residents of the states[iv]—without providing the same rates to others. By circumventing the requirements of § 1623 these states are violating federal law, and the legal arguments offered to justify such actions are untenable, no matter what other policy arguments are offered in their defense.

A Nation of Laws, Not of Men

The United States is a country of immigrants—men and women who sought opportunity and freedom in an exceptional new land. Americans take pride in their heritage and this country’s generous policies regarding legal immigration. Yet, as citizens of a sovereign nation, Americans retain the right to decide who can and cannot enter this country—and what terms immigrants and visitors must accept as a condition of residing in the United States. As mandated by the U.S. Constitution, Congress sets America’s immigration policy. State officials have considerable influence in Congress over the crafting of immigration laws, and they may take steps to help enforce federal law.[v] However, state officials cannot act contrary to a congressional statute.

America is a “nation of laws, not of men,” and thus her citizens must abide by the rule of law. But even if the operation of the rule of law was not imbedded in the U.S. Constitution and legal system, every generation of Americans should re-affirm its virtue and security. These concepts, ancient as they are, and quaint as they may sound to some, provide the bedrock principles of this nation’s constitutional republic. To abandon them in individual cases—where, for example, it seems opportunistic or personally appealing—is to render them unavailable in the preservation of all other rights.

The Constitution, the States, and Immigration

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 of the United States Constitution provides that Congress has the power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” Over the decades, Congress has done just that, imposing a variety of conditions on those who wish to immigrate (e.g., such individuals must do so openly and in accordance with established legal process) and on those who might be visiting (e.g., such individuals must not overstay their authorized visit).

Unambiguous federal law regarding who may receive the benefit of in-state college tuition is part of these conditions. Specifically, § 1623 of IIRIRA provides that

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State (or a political subdivision) for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit (in no less an amount, duration, and scope) without regard to whether the citizens or national is such a resident.[vi]

Thus, it is obvious that Congress meant to prohibit state colleges and universities from offering in-state tuition to illegal aliens unless the state institutions also offer in-state tuition to all students, regardless of whether they live in the state or in another state. Congress may have assumed that state colleges and universities would not be able to “afford” offering in-state rates to everyone because these schools rely on the higher tuition from out-of-state students to help subsidize public colleges, and thus they would not offer in-state rates to illegal aliens.[vii] But the law itself provides a choice and only requires states to treat out-of-state citizens and illegal aliens equally.

IIRIRA, once signed into law by President Clinton, should have settled this issue. But some states have continued to offer lower tuition to illegal aliens without offering the same to all students—a direct violation of federal law. Specifically, 12 states have circumvented the express language and clear intent of the statute by erecting proxy legal justifications for offering in-state tuition to illegal aliens. These states have asserted these legal arguments in courts and forced others to waste time and resources in litigation to try to enforce federal law. Such state policies not only violate federal law; they also:

  • Encourage illegal immigration;
  • Are fundamentally unfair to students from out-of-state who are U.S. citizens; and
  • Force taxpayers to subsidize the education of illegal aliens.

Beyond these immediate concerns, there is another, larger issue at stake: the federal government’s preeminent power to regulate immigration. The Supreme Court has held that the “[p]ower to regulate immigration is unquestionably exclusively a federal power.”[viii] However, not every state action “which in any way deals with aliens is a regulation of immigration and thus per se pre-empted by this constitutional power, whether latent or exercised.”[ix] In order for a state statute affecting immigrants (legal or illegal) to be valid, it cannot be expressly preempted by federal immigration law and must “not otherwise conflict with federal law.”[x]

State laws that provide in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens are both expressly preempted by, and in conflict with, § 1623—unless the state also provides in-state tuition rates to all other American students regardless of their state of residence. However, none of the states that provide in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens have changed their state laws to provide such tuition rates to out-of-state students who are U.S. citizens.

Circumventing Federal Law 101

To avoid IIRIRA’s mandate that in-state tuition be determined “on the basis of residence within a State,” some state lawmakers have created alternative criteria through which students might qualify for in-state tuition. Such alternative criteria are intended to act as a substitute for actual residence, which, in turn, creates the patina of compliance with the federal statute: Since residence is not at issue, there is, so these states argue, no conflict between federal and state law. In reality, however, the states are targeting illegal aliens for in-state tuition.

Maryland’s Senate Bill 167, which was signed into law by Governor Martin O’Malley (D), is a typical example of such chicanery. This bill exempts individuals, including “undocumented immigrants,” from paying out-of-state tuition if the person attended a secondary school in the state for at least three years, graduated or received a GED in the state, proves that he or his parents have filed Maryland income tax returns annually for the three years the student attended school in Maryland, and states that they will file an application to become a permanent resident.[xi]

Maryland Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler provided a dubious legal opinion regarding Senate Bill 167 to Gov. O’Malley on May 9, 2011. Gansler concluded that federal law (in particular, 8 U.S.C. § 1623(a)) does not preempt Senate Bill 167. The opinion suggests that Senate Bill 167 is not subject to the preemptive effect of § 1623(a) because the former “looks to factors such as time of attendance in Maryland schools and graduation from Maryland schools to define an exemption from nonresident tuition” [xii] and not residence. There are at least two problems with that legal analysis.

First, federal law permits a state to grant in-state college tuition to an illegal alien only if the state affords the same benefit to non-Maryland residents. The purpose of that law is to allow a state to treat illegal aliens like nonresidents for college tuition purposes: If the state does not charge more to the latter than to in-state students, then it may charge the same amount to illegal aliens (who, in an abstract sense, are akin to non-Marylanders). But Maryland’s law does not use that formula; Gansler claims that the bill does not require “residence” in Maryland to attend college and receive in-state tuition since it looks to “time of attendance” in Maryland high schools.

However, the regulations of the Maryland Board of Education authorize local schools to require “proof of the residency of the child” for admission into public schools for kindergarten through high school.[xiii] In fact, the Web site for the Prince George’s County Public Schools says that “proof of residence shall be a prerequisite of admission to the public schools” and parents and guardians who are registering their children for school the first time must file an “Affidavit of Disclosure as required by law, verifying their legal residence in Maryland.”[xiv] Montgomery County also tells parents enrolling their children for the first time that “all students…must provide verification of age, identity, residency, and immunizations.”[xv]As the state’s attorney general, Gansler has constructive knowledge of this residency requirement. The fact that he ignores it throws into question the premise on which his entire legal opinion rests.

No one who lives in, and went to high school in, for example, Wyoming, could satisfy the eligibility requirements of Senate Bill 167; the new law does not apply to non-Marylanders. As such, because the Maryland bill does not put non-Maryland residents on a par with Marylanders, the bill cannot give illegal aliens a break on state tuition.

Second, Gansler’s letter states that “the entire purpose of the bill is to design a law that will enable the State to continue to provide services to young undocumented aliens.”[xvi] The purpose of the bill, therefore, is to achieve the result that Congress outlawed in 8 U.S.C. § 1623(a)—granting in-state college tuition to illegal aliens without also granting that benefit to non-Maryland residents.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly struck down state legislation enacted to evade federal statutory or constitutional requirements. Indeed, the Court has rejected such legislation even when state lawmakers do not reference a suspect or disfavored classification:

The states have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, burden, or in any manner control, the operations of the constitutional laws enacted by Congress to carry into execution the powers vested in the general government.[xvii]

For example, in 2000, the Court struck down a Hawaiian statute that limited voting in certain elections to individual descendants of those who lived in Hawaii prior to 1778.[xviii] The statute’s eligibility requirements made no mention of race but were an obvious pretext for Polynesian heritage.

These state statutes that are intended to provide in-state tuition to illegal aliens are similar pretextual attempts to evade the federal immigration statute.

The Martinez Legal Fig Leaf

The few federal cases on this issue filed by citizen university students and their parents against such state laws have not reached the substantive merits of the preemption issue because the courts have held that individuals do not have standing to sue under this statutory federal provision.

For example, in Day v Bond, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the lawsuit brought by nonresident citizen university students and their parents against the state of Kansas. Section 1623 does not create a private right of action and the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring an equal protection claim.[xix] The court held that the injuries claimed by the plaintiffs failed to satisfy “the requisite standing criteria.” These injuries included:

  1. The denial of equal treatment caused by the Kansas law that made it impossible for nonresident U.S. citizens to obtain the same in-state benefits;
  2. The increased tuition faced by the plaintiffs since the burden of subsidizing illegal alien beneficiaries is passed along to other students through tuition hikes;
  3. The harm that results from competition for scarce tuition resources; and
  4. The extra tuition paid by nonresident plaintiffs during the academic year over the in-state tuition paid by nonresident illegal aliens, as a consequence of the discriminatory law.

On the other hand, illegal aliens who have sued states for denying admission to post-secondary institutions as a violation of their constitutional rights have had their lawsuits thrown out on the merits. InEqual Access Education v. Merten,[xx] a Virginia federal district court held that, although illegal aliens had standing to bring suit, Virginia was under no obligation to allow illegal aliens to attend Virginia colleges and universities. Virginia’s law was not preempted by federal law and did not violate due process: “It defies logic to conclude that…Congress left states powerless to deny admission to illegal aliens.”[xxi] The court concluded that the “persuasive inference to draw from § 1623 is that public post-secondary institutions need not admit illegal aliens at all, but if they do, these aliens cannot receive in-state tuition unless out-of-state United States citizens receive this benefit.”[xxii]

As the National Conference of State Legislatures notes in a report on in-state tuition for illegal aliens, in order to try and “maneuver around the [§ 1623] requirements, the eleven states that have enacted laws granting in-state tuition rates to undocumented students have tried to word the legislation so that it is contingent on high school attendance and graduation, and not based on residency within the state.”[xxiii]But Texas bases its definition of residency for college admission on an individual (or his parent) establishing domicile in Texas not later than one year before the academic term in which the student is enrolled in college or graduating from a Texas high school who “maintained a residence” continuously for three years before graduation.[xxiv] Similarly, California bases residency on high school attendance in California for three or more years and graduation from a California high school.[xxv]

The California Supreme Court bought into this legally questionable argument in Martinez v. Regents of the University of California.[xxvi] The court recognized that the question of federal preemption of California’s residency law depended on whether the three-year high school attendance requirement is an “exemption based on residence within California.” However, the court held that the requirement that a student attend a California high school for three years and graduate was not a residency requirement. It overturned the California Court of Appeals, which had come to the legally straightforward conclusion that the California law was intended to benefit illegal aliens living in the state and the “wording of the California statute…creates a de facto residence requirement.”[xxvii] The court of appeals did not consider it relevant that the eligibility criteria did not correlate 100 percent with residency.

The California Supreme Court made the illogical claim that because § 1623 is not an “absolute ban” on illegal aliens receiving such tuition benefits, that section of federal law is not in accord with the expressed intention of Congress in its immigration legislation to “remove the incentive for illegal immigration provided by the availability of public benefits.”[xxviii] The court also ignored the fact that the state had adopted the law specifically to benefit illegal aliens living in California and that the overwhelming majority of those who qualified for the benefit were only illegal aliens.

While this legally erroneous decision may be the law in California (at least for the time being), it is not the law anywhere else in the country. Although the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition of certiorari filed by the plaintiffs, it is black letter law that such a denial has no precedential effect whatsoever;[xxix]this issue has not yet been decided on the merits by any federal court.

And yet, offending states continue to ignore the clear language provided by a federal court in the Mertendecision, and instead rely on the preferred outcome found in a state supreme court ruling—a shortsighted and legally specious approach to governing.

Unwise Public Policy

Giving illegal aliens a financial break at state colleges and universities is not only illegal; it is also immensely unpopular with American taxpayers. An August 2011 Rasmussen poll found that 81 percent of voters oppose providing in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens. Seventy-two (72) percent of voters believe parents should be required to prove their legal residency when registering their children for public school.[xxx]

These results, however, should hardly come as a surprise: In 2005, it was estimated that the cost to taxpayers of providing in-state tuition in California was between $222.6 million and $289.3 million, while the cost to Texas taxpayers was between $80.2 million and $104.4 million.[xxxi]

Granting financial preference to illegal aliens also discriminates against otherwise qualified citizen students from outside the state. Furthermore, states that offer in-state tuition to illegal aliens act as a magnet for more illegal aliens to come to the state. Arguments to the contrary are unpersuasive, and not supported by the facts.

An Obligation to Enforce Federal Law

States that offer in-state tuition for illegal aliens are in violation of federal law. In doing so, these states are also acting against the will of the American people.

The applicable statute and the case law are clear: If there is no private right of action under § 1623, the U.S. Department of Justice must enforce this statutory provision against states that have violated federal law. Yet even as it sues states like Arizona and Alabama for trying to assist the enforcement of federal immigration law, the U.S. government refuses to sue states that are incontrovertibly and brazenly violating an unambiguous federal immigration law.

The President and the Attorney General have an obligation to enforce the provisions of the United States’ comprehensive federal immigration regulations—including the federal law prohibiting state colleges and universities from providing in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens “on the basis of residence within the State.”


Hans A. von Spakovsky and Charles D. Stimson are both Senior Legal Fellows in the Center for Legal & Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation;  von Spakovsky served as Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the Justice Department (2002–2005) and Stimson was a federal prosecutor and later Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (2006–2007).

Florida: Education the Defining Issue in the 2014 Governor Race?

On Tuesday, November 4th Floridians will go to the polls to select their governor. Currently there are thirty-two active candidates running. The gubernatorial race is the only statewide race in Florida. So what will make one of these candidates standout from the crowded field? If a recent election is any indicator, the defining issue will be – education – specifically Common Core State Standards (CCSS). People are rising up in Florida and across the country to stop Common Core. As George Will wrote, “Viewed from Washington, opposition to the Common Core State Standards Initiative still seems as small as the biblical cloud that ariseth out of the sea, no larger than a man’s hand. Soon, however, this education policy will fill a significant portion of the political sky.”

Chris Quackenbush in her column Common Core: The Chain of Betrayal notes, “Political battles are now being won and lost on the education issue as in the Florida Congressional District 19, where an ‘outsider’ Curt Clawson, beat sitting State Senate Majority Leader Lizbeth Benaquisto by 12 points largely because of her duplicity on Common Core.  Her conservative base was not fooled by her superficial conversion after sponsoring a bill in 2013 to implement Common Core as she is allied with Jeb Bush.  His tentacles reach far in Florida where he is a major donor and supporter of many State Legislators including Governor Scott.”

Quackenbush states, “Common Core is the final nail in the coffin of American Exceptionalism.” That’s how heated the debate has become in Florida.

Associated Press reporter Thomas Beaumont wrote, “Raising U.S. educational expectations through national goals was a priority for Republican President George W. Bush. But many of his would-be successors in the GOP are calling for just the opposite of government-set rules, and it’s splitting the party as the GOP class of 2016 presidential hopefuls takes shape.” Common Core is splitting the party between those who support Jeb Bush and those who support parents, teachers, administrators, academics and citizens who favor keeping local control of education.

While Florida Democrats want to focus on income equality, the minimum wage, legalizing marijuana and abortion rights, and the Republican Party of Florida focused on the economy, jobs and tax reform, the defining issue remains public education.

Will the Florida race for governor in 2014 be a harbinger for the 2016 race for president? Those interested in a winning formula will, by all indications, be keeping a close eye on Florida on November 4th.

Candidates for Florida Governor

Candidate Status Primary General
GibsonKyle Chaderwick (NPA) Active
AdeshinaYinka Abosede (REP) Active
AllenJoe  (NPA) Active
AndersonRubin Lewis (NPA) Active
AngiolilloVincent Dominic (REP) Active
CristCharlie  (DEM) Active
Cuevas-NeunderElizabeth  (REP) Active
DevineTimothy Michael (REP) Active
FraleighJames Edward (INT) Active
GazetasVassilia  (NPA) Active
GigerHerman Lee (NPA) Active
GriffisMark D. (NPA) Active
HorwathJefferson L. (NPA) Active
KhavariFarid A (NPA) Active
LeeMonroe  (DEM) Active
LipnerRyan Adam (DEM) Active
MartellyMarcelle  (DEM) Active
McCoyRoland  (DEM) Active
MurrayPaul  (WRI) Active
ReedC. C. (NPA) Active
RichNan H. (DEM) Active
RolleLeonard  (NPA) Active
SamuelBerthram B. (REP) Active
ScottRichard L. (REP)  *Incumbent Active
SmithDr. Joe  (REP) Active
SmithJohn Wayne (LPF) Active
StewartJessica Lana (DEM) Active
TolbertCharles Frederick (NPA) Active
TrujilloLesther  (NPA) Active
WyllieAdrian  (LPF) Active
YarrowAtlee David (SPF) Active
ZapataRandy  (DEM) Active

Active candidate list courtesy of the Sarasota Supervisor of Elections.


The Dying of the Light: How Common Core Damages Poetry – by Esolen, Highfill, Stotsky
AP: Common Core a Defining Issue for GOP 2016 Hopefuls
Revolt: Common Core gets gored

Common Core: The Chain of Betrayal

Who have we always trusted as the voice of the parents and teachers?  The PTA of course.  Most parents have attended meetings and supported PTA, but times are changing.  Many of our other pillars of education have been destroyed as well.  No longer can we send little Johnny off to school trusting he will come home smarter and stronger from the experience.

The PTA has betrayed the children and its own mission statement by accepting large sums of money from the Gates Foundation and GE to name a few, to promote their takeover of education through Common Core for their financial gain.  Just examine the Gates Foundation web site on contributions to advocate common core.

Make no mistake, this is a massive sellout.  Instead of advocating for our children, PTA and others were paid to advocate for Common Core, a national education program providing billions of dollars to GE, Microsoft, Hewlett Packard, Pearson PLC (3rd largest shareholder is the Government of Libya) and other high tech companies.  In partnership with our Federal Government, these groups have wrested control of education from parents and teachers and put it into the hands of nameless and unaccountable bureaucrats.  They have copyrighted the standards and will control all aspects of education, hardware and software for schools, testing and training teachers, delivering inflexible curriculum and testing of children.  Parental control is ended and teachers have become class monitors with scripted lessons, monitored and controlled so they don’t deviate from the Government Planned indoctrination.

I was recently on the textbook adoption committee for Lee County Schools, the 34th largest district in the country.  We could choose any textbooks we’d like as long as they were all Common Core aligned.  Most textbook companies and testing companies are now owned by Pearson PLC, and all contain gross errors in history and massive UN propaganda.

These same companies and groups have compromised others who were supposed to advocate for the children, the parents and the voters as well.  In fact, the Gates Foundation report above shows at least 196 grants for the purpose of advocating for Common Core.  The State Boards of Education received money.  Foundation for Education in Excellence (Jeb Bush) took large sums and now is the platform for Jeb Bush’s presidential campaign.  It’s no wonder he sold the children down the river with the promise of support of the richest companies and the wealthiest people in the World in his pocket.  He used the same tactics before when he founded the Foundation for Florida’s Future to build a war chest for Florida’s gubernatorial race using ties to his father and his brother to get money from out of state donors under the radar.

Let’s look at the strange bedfellows involved:  George Soros (Center for American Progress), President Obama, Eli Broad, Jeb Bush, Mike Huckabee, The US Chamber of Commerce, PTA, Business Round Table, many governors including Rick Scott, all are advocating Common Core.  What do they have in common?  All share either a financial or political benefit or both.

Where do our children’s interests enter?  The children are called “human capital” by the creators of Common Core for good reason.  Business groups have bought the (untrue) line that Common Core will create better and more manageable employees to produce profit.  They cite the lamentable decline in performance of our public schools but wrongly adopt common core, more of the same, as the solution.  You see, the decline parallels the level of national/ international interference in the education process.  The US Department of Education now has over 230 programs costing over $200 Billion per year and yet graduation rates have fallen by about 10% since its inception and test results have significantly declined.  It’s not possible to know exactly how much damage has been caused by Federal interference because tests have been dumbed down and results are measured differently to disguise the failure.  The Cato Institute report on the USDOE is clear. 

Common Core is the final nail in the coffin of American Exceptionalism.  Here’s the startling history of education from noted historian, David Barton:  He shows that what used to be an 8th grade education in America is now equivalent to more than a high school diploma.


Every test and study has shown that parental involvement is the primary determinant of success in learning.   Meanwhile, Common Core removes parents, teachers, local districts, and states from any control of education whatsoever, by the linking of federal money (Title One, Race to the Top, No Child Left Behind Waivers) to adoption of Common Core’s uniform curriculum and National Testing.  Data collection on each little child is required and will follow the child from pre-K to work.  It will contain medical files, discipline records, family status, family religion, family political party, test scores, psychological profiles and more.  The advocates of Common Core are drooling over the marketing potential of this vast store of information as President Obama, through executive order, has reduced protection of data so that parental consent is no longer required.

Emphasis on collaborative learning reduces individual initiative and individual thought.  Forcing 70% of reading to be “informational” rather than classical works, dulls creativity and imagination.  The book, “Story-Killers” documents these effects in actual classrooms.  The author, Dr. Terrence Moore, speaks on this subject:


Common Core math standards have been likened to “new math” an experiment ended decades ago as a major debacle.  Instead of pilot testing programs, Common Core was rolled out nationwide with no back-up plan.  This one size fits all math education does not even offer learning math facts as we have for hundreds of years as an alternative.  Convoluted schemes which are age inappropriate, confuse and destroy the confidence of young learners.  It may never be regained.

This massive attack and infusion of propaganda on our children must be stopped now because it is an existential threat.  As Abe Lincoln said, “The philosophy of the schoolroom in one generation will be the philosophy of the Government in the next.”  We have powerful and wealthy people and organizations with resources beyond our imagination with the goal of taking control of education, our children and our future.  We have the truth, our voices and our votes.  This is NOT just an ISSUE for us.  This is our children and we will never let this happen on our watch.

People are rising up all over the country to stop Common Core as George Will writes, “Viewed from Washington, opposition to the Common Core State Standards Initiative still seems as small as the biblical cloud that ariseth out of the sea, no larger than a man’s hand. Soon, however, this education policy will fill a significant portion of the political sky.”

Political battles are now being won and lost on this issue as in the Florida Congressional District 19, where an “outsider” Curt Clawson, beat sitting State Senate Majority Leader, Lizbeth Benaquisto by 12 points largely because of her duplicity on Common Core.  Her conservative base was not fooled by her superficial conversion after sponsoring a bill in 2013 to implement Common Core as she is allied with Jeb Bush.  His tentacles reach far in Florida where he is a major donor and supporter of many State Legislators including Governor Scott.

Florida Governor, Rick Scott, should take this seriously as he has the identical problem.  He betrayed his base by pretending to listen while completely adopting Common Core under a new name.  He is already trailing his besmirched opponent, Charley Crist, and every vote is critical.  His advisors may believe that Republican votes will come home rather than vote for Crist but he forgets that there is a third option.  Voters will stay home, boiling mad and turned off to his betrayal of their children for the support of establishment presidential candidate, Jeb Bush.


The Dying of the Light: How Common Core Damages Poetry – by Esolen, Highfill, Stotsky
AP: Common Core a Defining Issue for GOP 2016 Hopefuls

Michelle Malkin Rips Into Jeb Bush And “Fed-Ed” Common Core Standards

Conservative blogger, FOX News contributor, and my fellow “brownie” amiga,  Michelle Malkin was recently in Florida doing what she does best, railing against progressives and squishy establishment Republicans.

Malkin was the keynote speaker at the 2014 Hernando County Lincoln Day dinner this past weekend, and did not pull punches with her disgust with the likes of former Common Core pied piper, Florida Governor Jeb Bush, and others who support the “Fed-Ed” education standards.

Common Core is a huge issue for Malkin, and has reached a fever pitch in Florida. State Representative Debbie Mayfield has recently introduced legislation keep Common Core out of the state’s school system.

Republican congressional candidate, Jorge Bonilla, who is challenging Democrat Alan Grayson, has recently called for a full defunding of Common Core, was also in attendance.

Even Senator Marco Rubio has put himself at odds with Jeb Bush by openly expressing his opposition to government-run socialized education.

Watch this video clip of Malkin’s rip on Bush and Common Core.



RELATED STORY: AP: Common Core a Defining Issue for GOP 2016 Hopefuls

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The Shark Tank. 

Florida: Public school 7th grade Civics worksheet portrays Republicans negatively, Democrats positively

Below is a worksheet from a 7th grade civics class currently being taught in Martin County Public Schools. It describes the Democratic and Republican parties to public school students. The handout appears, on the surface, to portray Democrats in a positive light and Republicans negatively. There are several factual errors and omissions in the worksheet, noted by a relative of the student. The highlighted text was done by the student’s relative.

The worksheet portrays the Democrat party supporting “the ideas of equal rights” when in fact the Republican party voted in higher numbers for the Civil Rights Act and is the party of Lincoln, who freed the slaves. It explains that “Many support Democrats legislation to protect gays and lesbians against discrimination.” It does not explain what the consequences are to traditional marriage, or a persons health (HIV/AIDS), well-being and the community.

The worksheet states “Democrats believe that the environment needs protecting… with the help of government laws that prevent pollution, even if it means penalizing businesses that cause pollution”. It does not mention that the Environmental Protection Agency was created under Republican President Richard M. Nixon based upon the findings of the Ash Council in April of 1970. It also states Democrats believe in “a strong military”. Currently, President Obama, a Democrat, has reduced the US military strength to pre-WW II levels. The military was reduced after WW II by President Harry Truman, and again after the end of the Cold War by President Bill Clinton, both Democrats.

Republicans are portrayed as supporting “the rights of business owners large and small”, “that the government should have a limited role in daily life”, “oppose the right to abortion”, “oppose same-sex marriage”, and in general “support gun ownership rights.” All are true but not for every Republican and conversely not for every Democrat. The handout states Republicans “favor a strong military”, “support school choice” “charter schools”. It states that Republicans “do not support a universal heath care system like those found in Europe and Canada.” No context is provided to explain how Europeans and Canadians fair under a universal health care system, nor does it explain the current issues with the Affordable Healthcare Act.

A request for comment has been sent to Martin County Superintendent Laurie Gaylord. Any reply will be published as an update to this column.

Martin County 7th grade civics class political parties

For a larger view click on the image.

RELATED STORY: AP: Common Core a Defining Issue for GOP 2016 Hopefuls

Seven Marijuana Myths Debunked

The legalization of marijuana is spreading across the nation. The effort to legalize the general use of marijuana begins with ballot initiatives to legalize medical marijuana. Florida is set to have such an initiative on the ballot in November 2014. It is important for voters to understand the truth and myths about the use of marijuana. Therefore this column by Kevin A. Sabet the author ofReefer Sanity: Seven Great Myths About Marijuanaand the Director of Project SAM (Smart Approaches to Marijuana)is provided for edification on the issue.

The following is Sabet’s analysis of marijuana myths originally published on The Foundry.

Don’t believe the hype: marijuana legalization poses too many risks to public health and public safety. Based on almost two decades of research, community-based work, and policy practice across three presidential administrations, my new book “Reefer Sanity” discusses some widely held myths about marijuana:

Myth No. 1: “Marijuana is harmless and non-addictive”

No, marijuana is not as dangerous as cocaine or heroin, but calling it harmless or non-addictive denies very clear science embraced by every major medical association that has studied the issue. Scientists now know that the average strength of today’s marijuana is some 5–6 times what it was in the 1960s and 1970s, and some strains are upwards of 1020 times stronger than in the past—especially if one extracts THC through a butane process. This increased potency has translated to more than 400,000 emergency room visits every year due to things like acute psychotic episodes and panic attacks.

Mental health researchers are also noting the significant marijuana connection with schizophrenia, and educators are seeing how persistent marijuana use can blunt academic motivation and significantly reduce IQ by up to eight points, according to a very large recent study in New Zealand. Add to these side-effects new research now finding that even casual marijuana use can result in observable differences in brain structure, specifically parts of the brain that regulate emotional processing, motivation and reward. Indeed, marijuana use hurts our ability to learn and compete in a competitive global workplace.

Additionally, marijuana users pose dangers on the road, despite popular myth. According to the British Medical Journal, marijuana intoxication doubles your risk of a car crash.

Myth No. 2: “Smoked or eaten marijuana is medicine.”

Just like we don’t smoke opium or inject heroin to get the benefits of morphine, we do not have to smoke marijuana to receive its medical effects. Currently, there is a pill based on marijuana’s active ingredient available at pharmacies, and almost two-dozen countries have approved a new mouth spray based on a marijuana extract. The spray, Sativex, does not get you high, and contains ingredients rarely found in street-grade marijuana. It is likely to be available in the U.S. soon, and today patients can enroll in clinical trials. While the marijuana plant has known medical value, that does not mean smoked or ingested whole marijuana is medicine. This position is in line with the American Medical Association, American Society of Addiction Medicine, American Glaucoma Foundation, National MS Society, and American Cancer Society.

Myth No. 3: “Countless people are behind bars simply for smoking marijuana.”

I wholeheartedly support reducing America’s incarceration rate. But legalizing marijuana will not make a significant dent in our imprisonment rates. That is because less than 0.3 percent of all state prison inmates are there for smoking marijuana. Moreover, most people arrested for marijuana use are cited with a ticket—very few serve time behind bars unless it is in the context of a probation or parole violation.

Myth No. 4: “The legality of alcohol and tobacco strengthen the case for legal marijuana.”

“Marijuana is safer than alcohol, so marijuana should be treated like alcohol” is a catchy, often-used mantra in the legalization debate. But this assumes that our alcohol policy is something worth modeling. In fact, because they are used at such high rate due to their wide availability, our two legal intoxicants cause more harm, are the cause of more arrests, and kill more people than all illegal drugs combined. Why add a third drug to our list of legal killers?

Moreover, marijuana legalization will usher in America’s new version of “Big Tobacco.”

Myth No. 5: “Legal marijuana will solve the government’s budgetary problems.”

Unfortunately, we can’t expect  societal financial gain from marijuana legalization. For every $1 in revenue the U.S. receives in alcohol and tobacco taxes, we spend more than $10 in social costs. Additionally, two major business lobbies—Big Tobacco and the Liquor Lobby—have emerged to keep taxes on these drugs low and promote use. The last thing we need is the “Marlboroization of Marijuana,” but that is exactly what we would get in this country with legalization.

Myth No. 6:  “Portugal and Holland provide successful models of legalization.”

Contrary to media reports, Portugal and Holland have not legalized drugs. In Portugal, someone caught with a small amount of drugs is sent to a three-person panel and given treatment, a fine, or a warning and release. The result of this policy is less clear. Treatment services were ramped up at the same time the new policy was implemented, and a decade later there are more young people using marijuana, but fewer people dying of opiate and cocaine overdoses. In the Netherlands, officials seem to be scaling back their marijuana non-enforcement policy (lived out in “coffee shops” across that country) after witnessing higher rates of marijuana use and treatment admissions there. The government now only allows residents to use coffee shops. What all of this tells us about how legalization would play out in the U.S. is another point entirely and even less clear.

Myth No. 7: “Prevention, intervention, and treatment are doomed to fail—So why try?”

Less than 8 percent of Americans smoke marijuana versus 52 percent who drink and 27 percent of people that smoke tobacco cigarettes. Coupled with its legal status, efforts to reduce demand for marijuana can work. Communities that implement local strategies implemented by area-wide coalitions of parents, schools, faith communities, businesses, and, yes, law enforcement, can significantly reduce marijuana use. Brief interventions and treatment for marijuana addiction (which affects about 1 in 6 kids who start using, according to the National Institutes of Health) can also work.

And one myth not found in the book: “Colorado and Washington are examples to follow.”

Experience from Colorado’s recent legalization of recreational marijuana is not promising. Since January, THC-positive test results in the workplace have risen, two recent deaths in Denver have been linked to recreational marijuana use, and the number of parents calling the poison control hotline because their kids consumed marijuana products has significantly risen. Additionally, tax revenues fall short of original projections and the black market for marijuana continues to thrive in Colorado. Though Washington State has not yet implemented its marijuana laws, the percentage of cases involving THC-positive drivers has significantly risen.

Marijuana policy is not straightforward. Any public policy has costs and benefits. It is true that a policy of saddling users with criminal records and imprisonment does not serve the nation’s best interests. But neither does legalization, which would create the 21st century version of Big Tobacco and reduce our ability to compete and learn. There is a better way to address the marijuana question—one that emphasizes brief interventions, prevention, and treatment, and would prove a far less costly alternative to either the status quo or legalization. That is the path America should be pursuing—call it “Reefer Sanity.”


It’s Legal to Sell Pot in Colorado, But Not If You’re in 4th Grade – ABC News
Marijuana may cause heart problems in young adults – Yahoo News UK
Study: Marijuana Use May Increase Risk of Nicotine Addiction | The Weekly Standard
Marijuana Edibles: You May Not Be Getting What You Think – CBS Denver
Students Find Way To Secretly Smoke Marijuana In Class – CBS Denver
Pocket hookahs proliferate with young marijuana users, sources say – The Denver Post
LA Times – Pot candy ‘geared toward children’ seized at San Clemente checkpoint
Marijuana may cause heart problems in young adults – Yahoo News UK

Florida: ACLU & Mosque President advocate Revolution via Child Indoctrination in Public Schools

Controversy in Volusia County over Islamic bias in the textbook “History Alive” sparked a lively debate at ACLU of FL Volusia/Flagler Chapter where ACT for America – Jacksonville Chapter captured ACLU advocating Sharia Finance, Child Indoctrination and the local Mosque president advocating a BLOODLESS REVOLUTION via public school indoctrination, as well as stating the US Law was based on Islamic Law as Thomas Jefferson used the Quran as his basis for the pursuit of happiness… or drafting the Constitution in essence.




HS Students Say Pledge In Arabic: ‘One Nation Under Allah’
UK: Leader of Muslim school takeover plot wrote detailed blueprint for Islamization of secular schools

Tampa, FL: Preventing Abuse Conference June 13-14th

A unique conference sponsored by the Preventing Abuse Foundation is set for June 13th-14th, 2014, at the Tampa Airport Marriott Hotel located at 4200 George J. Bean Parkway, Tampa, FL. The mission of the conference is to help protect women and children drawing attention to resources that fight human trafficking, child abduction, the threat of drug cartels, and Internet predators. jenniferkesseAwareness to help find Jennifer Kesse will be made at the conference.

There are 1,200,000 children reported missing in America annually with over 35,000 children reported missing in Florida in 2013. There are nearly 27,000,000 victims of human trafficking globally. Child pornography is the fastest growing on the Internet. Drug cartels have infiltrated the entire United States and Florida.

The two day conference includes guest speakers locally and from across the country. Experts, survivors, key law enforcement, and organizations, will present ways to help audience members become more aware of the prevalence and danger of human trafficking, drug cartels, child abduction and more. The goal is to educate, motivate and activate the attendees to be part of the solution in the fight to protect women and children.

Invited and confirmed guest speakers include:

Drew Kesse; U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (via video link); Attorney General Pam Bondi (confirmation pending); Lt. Mejia (drug cartel expert) law enforcement, rescued victims of predators and sex traffickers; Former C.I.A. doing deep cover rescue, Donna Rice Hughes Internet safety expert, Selah Foundation (Connie Rose); Tomas Laras (Florida Abolitionist), Parents Television Council, Noreen Gosch (mother of kidnap victim & instrumental in founding the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children) and more.

Participants will learn about the stunning world of human trafficking and take home information to help start protecting themselves and loved ones. Topics include (subject to change): Human Trafficking: Child Abduction and Safety Internet Safety Foster Care Importance of the Church Legislation Initiatives National Security Pornography: Experts “Expose” the Truth Moral collapse Entertainment industry involvement * What fuels the demand for victims & more.


Click on the logo to learn more about preventing abuse.

To register and for information on speakers and topics, please visit

Date: June 13, 14, 2014
Place: Tampa Airport Marriott Hotel 4200 George J. Bean Parkway, Tampa, FL
Time: 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. daily (subject to change)
Cost: $89.00 per person early bird rate includes two day conference and two lunches

A Teachers’ Union Speaks Power to Truth: Children suffer, but they aren’t the point by Wendy McElroy

On March 22, Joshua Pechthalt delivered a “state of the union” address at the 72nd convention of the California Federation of Teachers (CFT). Union Watch, an organization that monitors California’s unions, called it “refreshingly candid.” It bluntly revealed the union’s political and social goals without wrapping them in rhetoric about educating children. Pechthalt declared:

[The CFT is] a beacon of progressive, social justice unionism. . . . That’s why we have consistently supported single payer health care reform and progressive tax reform measures. . . . The CFT is committed to the vision articulated by the civil rights movement and efforts to ensure class, race and gender equity and the just demands for comprehensive immigration reform. We understand that central to the mission of public education is the need to advocate for a different kind of society.”

Could the teachers have been any clearer?

Pechthalt also pointed to “the Vergara lawsuit” as “the latest attack on public education.” On January 27, the non-jury trial of Vergara v. California began before Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Rolf Treu. In the suit, nine public school students and their parents accuse state statutes of protecting the jobs of grossly incompetent teachers, which amounts to an unconstitutional denial of education. In California, students have a constitutional right to “substantially equal opportunities for learning,” which the Vergara plaintiffs claim was abrogated.

The Washington Post explained, “In states such as California, there are so many legal and procedural hurdles before a tenured teacher can be fired, they say, that it’s difficult to shed even the worst teachers.” Moreover, California school districts have an unusually short time—about 18 months—before tenure is granted. “The complaint also attacks seniority rules and ‘last in, first out’ policies, which say the newest teachers are the first to be laid off when jobs are cut, regardless of performance.”

In short, the legislature and teachers’ unions are accused of putting the interests of their members above the educational interests of children as encoded in law.

Vergara has attracted national attention and passionate debate because the judge’s ruling could change the manner in which California educators are hired and fired. It could also set a precedent for other states.

The teachers’ unions have reason to fear the ruling, which explains why the two largest ones—the CFT and the California Teachers Association (CTA)—joined the suit as defendants. Many reporters believe Judge Treu has repeatedly signaled his sympathy toward the plaintiffs. In a March 31 article, “Vergara Time Bomb: Will a Judge Tear Down California Teacher Protection Laws?,” the LA Weekly stated, “One couldn’t help but notice how Treu repeatedly interrupted the defense attorneys representing the state and teachers’ unions who intervened in the case. He probed their reasoning, after having listened silently to the plaintiffs.” Pechthalt commented on the judge’s behavior, “Unfortunately, I think that may be quite telling about where he’s going.” The arguments closed on April 1 and the decision is expected in a matter of months.

One theme that binds Pechthalt’s speech and Vergara together is the high priority that teachers’ unions have given to their own interests rather than to the goal of quality education. But equally questionable is the priority they are giving to political and social causes rather than to quality education. Even though the plaintiffs are poor minority children and their parents, the unions are casting Vergara as a “class” conflict in which they are the underdog being persecuted by rich people and corporate interests (sound familiar?). In other words, the unions wish to appear as David against Goliath. Who is cast as Goliath? Billionaires David Welch and Eli Broad as well as the corporate-friendly law firm of Gibson Dunn and Crutcher—all of whom are backing Vergara.

In his speech, Pechthalt said,

The super wealthy and their swollen circle of reactionary think tanks and echo chamber conservative media are committed to eradicating what remains of the labor movement. . . . The egalitarian mission of public education that was given new life by the social movements a half century ago now stands as an obstacle to a corporate world committed to keeping wealth and education in the hands of a few. . . . The largest corporate interests use the media and the politicians they help elect to create a narrative that attacks hard earned pensions, worker rights—including the right to unionize—and the right to vote.

In newspaper statements, union officials have hurled similar accusations of class warfare.

It is difficult to give any credence to such accusations, flowing as they do from massive, state-privileged, taxpayer-funded organizations. California’s teachers’ unions are among the most powerful in America, representing some 400,000 educators. The state’s statutes are so favorable to the unions that it is next to impossible to dismiss even educators who behave egregiously; indeed, the legislature is sometimes referred to as “union controlled.”

The Washington Post (Dec. 15) cited the average yearly salary of teachers in California at $69,324—the third highest in America. The salary does not reflect other benefits such as healthcare and pensions. Estimates of those benefits vary widely, and predictably so; the unfunded mandate of teachers’ pensions may well be the most heated political conflict in California and statistics are weapons. The Los Angeles Times gave the low end: “The average retiree last year left his or her job at age 62 with a monthly pension of $3,980 after working 25 years.” The Voice of San Diego gave the high end: “Every district employee gets a guaranteed pension, which . . . will pay them 80–90 percent of their highest salary every year until they die . . . That teacher making $73,000 today will get 80–90 percent of their final salary number which will be as high as $95,000. They are eligible for retirement beginning at the age of 55.”

A standard counter to citing the plush union pensions is that teachers do not receive Social Security; of course, neither do they pay into it. The Voice of San Diego continued, “This retirement program is dramatically more generous than Social Security, which most Americans receive. Current middle-age working Social Security recipients are slated to receive only 76 cents for every dollar taken from their paycheck. However because teachers’ unions negotiated a guaranteed pension amount, they are receiving 10–20 times any contribution they make in future retirement payments.”

There is a more fundamental reason for tearing the cloak of David off the shoulders of the union, however. It has been almost a century since the labor movement had any claim to being an underdog or the voice of workers’ rights. The New Deal turned unions into state-sponsored organizations with such legal privileges as state certification (that is, a monopoly within specific industries) and the “right” to collective bargaining. Interestingly, the new unions were championed by leaders of industry such as Gerard Swope, then-president of General Electric. Big business may not have liked the “new union,” but it was vastly preferable to wildcat strikes, slowdowns and other disruptive tactics pursued by their grassroots counterparts.

Some put an earlier date on the death of the genuine labor movement. The libertarian Karl Hess said, “We used to have a labor movement in this country, until I.W.W. leaders were killed or imprisoned. You could tell labor unions had become captive when business and government began to praise them.”

There is no measure by which California teachers’ unions are an underdog; they are a politically privileged and legally protected class. It is not clear if the wealthy supporters of Vergara are politically objectionable. Nor does it need to be. The entire issue should be educating children.

Unfortunately for them, children do not vote, nor do they send lobbyists to the legislature. In their response to Vergara, the CFT and CTA have displayed a wanton disregard for children, preferring instead to argue for their own interests and to play “class” politics to smear opponents. By contrast, the Vergara supporters have focused on the children and the quality of education. If it were up to the unions, no one would know that it was children and parents suing them for an opportunity being denied by the unions—namely, the opportunity to learn.


Contributing editor Wendy McElroy is an author and the editor of

RELATED STORY: Common Core’s Validation: A Weak Foundation for a Crooked House

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of FEE and Shutterstock. 

What’s Taught to Young Students Today Used to Be Illegal

I had just stepped down from the podium after my lecture at an education conference in 1991 when an anxious youngster, about 14, approached me. “Dr. Reisman,” she whispered, “could I speak to you for a moment?”

Government-funded sex educators, that’s who. Sitting on my desk at home was a 1991 New York Centers for Disease Control brochure, “The Teenager’s Bill of Rights,” which, as Sandy had claimed, told children they had “the right to decide whether to have sex and who to have it with.” It was graced with graphic pictorial directions for the children. That 1991 brochure was for teenagers; today, middle-schoolers and even kindergartners are exposed to such things. It told youngsters: “Use a latex condom for . . . oral sex (. . . into the mouth) and anal sex (. . . into the butt).” Both of these acts of sodomy were, of course, illegal, and still are—at least for children.

The brochure pictorially demonstrated the acts. It advised, “Use a dental dam . . . an unrolled condom cut down one side or plastic wrap for oral sex . . . in your mouth.” Sandy had been right after all, except there was no product name, just “plastic wrap.” The pamphlet was produced and distributed by the Division of AIDS Services, under the auspices of the New York City Department of Health.

But they’re not alone.

Grooming Children In the years before most Salvo readers were born, much of today’s “sex education” would have been considered criminal. It would instantly have been called “depraved” and counted as seducing or grooming children into sex, or “contributing to the delinquency of a minor.”

Encouraging children to engage in any kind of sexual activity (alone or with others) was immoral, shameful, and criminal. Even talking about sex in front of underage children or showing them sexually charged or graphic images—who but a sex deviant would do that? Today, it is likely that a sex-ed or “health” teacher in grade school would.

My colleague, Liberty University attorney Matt Barber, wrote in an October 30, 2012 article for CNS online: “Graphic sexual images and explicit ‘values neutral’ talk of sex and sexuality are rampant throughout classrooms across America, effectively desensitizing children and numbing their natural inhibitions. These inhibitions help protect children from potential predators.”

Michael Heimbach of the Criminal Investigative Division, Crimes Against Children Unit, FBI, testified before a U.S. Senate committee on May 1, 2002, that child molesters:

  • Demonstrate sex acts to children. Offenders commonly use pornography to teach or give instructions to naïve children about how to masturbate, perform oral sex and/or engage in sexual intercourse.
  • Lower the sexual inhibitions of children. . . . Some offenders show pictures of other children engaging in sexual activities to overcome these fears, indicating to their intended victims that it is all right to have sex with an adult because lots of other boys and girls do the same thing.
  • Desensitize children to sex. Offenders commonly show child pornography to their intended victims to expose them to sexual acts before they are naturally curious about such activities.
  • Sexually arouse children. Offenders commonly use pornographic images of other children to arouse victims, particularly those in adolescence.

In other words, he said, molesters “groom them into a sexual relationship.”

Yet much of the above also describes what takes place in government-mandated sex-ed. Moreover, depictions of sex acts in cartoon form that imply the participants are or could be minors are arguably child pornography. Given Heimbach’s description of grooming, that 1991 “health” brochure groomed children for sodomy. Fully twelve years before the U.S. Supreme Court (Lawrence v. Texas) legalized sodomy for adults, plastic-wrap-prophylactics were recommended to children in New York, to commit oral sodomy.

More Sodomy

A few years after the Lawrence ruling, schoolhouse sodomy hit the news. In 2007 the headmistress of an exclusive Manhattan private school was convicted of sodomizing a 13-year-old boy student. Illinois Maine Township High School District 207 was the scene of the 2008 sodomy of a 14-year old boy by his baseball teammates, watched by their coach. In 2012, the same coach oversaw varsity soccer players sodomizing younger boys—dubbed “hazing.” Families filing lawsuits claimed that “sexual abuse has been occurring as part of rituals at the school for as long as six years.” In December 2011, a Salt Lake City Utah principal was arrested for the forcible sodomy of a young male student.

Where did these high-school lads and their adult coaches learn that sodomy was just acceptable macho behavior?

Thanks to widespread graphic sex-ed and pornography, even the youngest children now know about such acts before they reach high school. In June 2012, the Onalaska (Washington State) Elementary School principal delivered graphic oral and anal sodomy descriptions. The “11-year old students were being given a lesson on HIV-AIDS,” part of the “state-adopted curriculum.” This is nothing less than state-mandated
grooming of minors for sodomy.

Isn’t it also child abuse?

End Notes:

1. HHS ‘Grooming’ Children For Sex Using Tactics Mirroring FBI’s Pedophile Profile
2. Michael Heimbach Criminal Investigative Division, Crimes Against Children Unit, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Before the United States Senate, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, Washington, DC, May 01, 2002
3. Teacher at Exclusive Manhattan Private School Convicted of Sodomy
4. West Maine High School Hazing: Another Incident Involving Coach Michael DiVincenzo Reported
5. Parents sue Maine West over alleged hazing by soccer players
7. Wasatch County educator arrested, facing sodomy charges
8. Parents Furious After School Teaches Graphic Sex Class


Sex ed pics: ‘That’s something you can’t unsee’
Child porn charges filed against ex-Illinois State Rep. Farnham
Miami, FL: Language arts teacher simulates Orgasm, Masturbates and gives Massages to students
Florida high school teacher fakes orgasm in class — and keeps her job by Allen West
Hawaii: Teachers Paid $410 to Learn How to Make Teens Gay-Friendly

Should Florida take the Rifle or Shotgun Approach to Education?

What is this new program of instruction which is titled “Common Core (CC)” that is being pushed upon our children and grandchildren?  The goal of CC is a good goal.  No one will argue that point. The goal is to teach our students in the United States to become world class students and be able to compete in a very highly competitive world of business, government, scientific research and technology.  Just for an instance take this into consideration.  China graduates more outstanding scholastic students than we graduate students from high school.  Basically the CC advocates are trying to keep the US competitive with Europe and Asia.  If we don’t then China or other nations will be running our businesses, our governments and developing new technology resulting in the US being less competitive and costing us more to exist.  No one can disagree to this approach to saving America through education

One other thing which is testy to many citizens is the early assessment of the student.  The student is scored as to their ability to learn and other skill sets that they may have.  The Common Core State Standards will be designed to ensure that students graduating from high school are prepared to enter credit bearing entry courses in two or four year college programs or enter the workforce. The standards are clear and concise to ensure that parents, teachers, and students have a clear understanding of the expectations in reading, writing, speaking and listening, language and mathematics in school.  Understand that students will be shunted to higher learning levels or to areas where those with lesser talents will learn trades, etc.  Gone is choice, gone is the opportunity for the student who has to work harder to achieve success.  Our children will be identified as it was in the old Soviet Union…this type student will advance to university and this lesser ability student will go directly to the local job placement bureau.

What is the main concern with Common Core education?

Common Core is to improve education in America…to make us very competitive.  And, how is this to be done?  Teachers will instruct on those subjects and those items of subject matter that a student must know in order to excel in the nation and in the world.  Teachers will teach the exam subject and the answers to exam questions.  Education will be a rifle and target approach to education where there is a set of subject questions with a set of answers.  The student will sight in on what some higher up believes the student should learn and be tested to qualify as an educated person of high achievement in society at the time.   And, the question is who chooses the subjects to be taught?  Some government or university scholar who probably will never have the common sense needed to feed himself independent of government.  A person with poor work skills that have never competed in the real world for a job or is able to run a business, balance a business budget and excel as a business person or employee of a firm.  A person probably with a belief that they are the higher power.  We would pray this will not be the case.

Now compare this future scenario to how most of us were taught years ago.  I call it the shotgun approach to education where you were taught a huge amount of material…your class books were thorough and as modern as they could be at the time covering just about everything in the specific subject.  Basically you had to read it all, be familiar or very knowledgeable of the entire subject matter because you did not know exactly what question or how the question would be asked to assess your knowledge.  You had to be WELL-READ and try your best to score high on the exam.  When testing occurred the test was as thorough as they could be with random questions across the spectrum of what you were taught for the testing period.  You did not know the question to be tested but you were exposed to everything you should know in order to have the correct answer at hand to any question.  You were simply expected to recall the learned answer from all the vast material you were exposed to over the time period.

What was the product of what I call the shotgun approach to education?  The result was that your student ended up being a very well-read and broad minded person and much better educated as compared to where Common Core will leave us all.

Under Common Core a student will only learn what they are told to learn.  And, there lies the main problem.  What will they be taught?  Who decides what they are taught?  Will parents be able to demand specific subjects be taught in their school district and not what some university or government employee feels or believes is best.  I fear the socialist or Marxist creating the study guidelines.  We sure do not need this new stupid math and science or socialism being taught.  We want Capitalism, Algebra, Physics, the US Constitution, Economics, History and Religion being taught using the ageless methods of yesteryear as opposed to the programs that frustrate the student and drive them from learning.  Our programs of yesteryear were simple…not like the mind games played upon students and teacher of today.  You choose your future, but you better choose wisely or face what the world faced in middle-age Europe hundreds of years ago.


Common Core’s Validation: A Weak Foundation for a Crooked House
This Mom Obliterates Bizarre Common Core Math Question