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

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

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

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

The Charles County Public Schools also taught the following:

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

Read the two exhibits containing Student worksheets here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read entire Federal Complaint here.

There Is No Way to “Cancel” Student Loan Debt

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


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

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

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

As Kowalski writes,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COLUMN BY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RELATED VIDEOS:

Radical Islam’s Children

Hamas TV show has Gaza children sing praises of suicide bombing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This new finding contradicts ongoing public perception.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

SUPPORT CAMPUS REFORM NOW


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

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

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

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

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

Mason Daugherty: Thank you for having us, Virginia.

Eli Scott: Yeah, thanks for having us on.

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

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

Daugherty: Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Everyone took something away from it. Even the peers.

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

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

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

Scott: Yeah.

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

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

What do you think, Eli?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Daugherty: Thank you.

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

COLUMN BY

Virginia Allen

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


Dear Readers:

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

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

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

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

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

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY


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

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

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

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

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

Comparing Public And Charter Schools

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which School Type Is Better?

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

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

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

Which School Is Better For Your Kid?

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

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

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

The initial exposure

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s examine what’s behind these claims.

The values beneath the veneer

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

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

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

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

The role models beneath the makeup

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

So what is a drag queen?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kijesky explains:

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

Who is responsible then?

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

The answer is all of the above.

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

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

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

Are DQSHs harmless?

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

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

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

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

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

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

But that is precisely the point.

What about the parents?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What can be done?

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

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

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

For more information on how to get involved in your state, find a Personhood Alliance affiliate or contact info@personhood.org.

RELATED ARTICLES:

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

Should you bother reading privacy policies? Yes, and here’s why

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

This Summer Camp Teaches Kids to Burn the American Flag

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

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

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

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

Watch:

RELATED STORIES

Spend a Summer of Jihad With Hamas

UN Agency Funds ‘Camp Jihad’ for Palestinian Children

Five Child-Incitement Hot Spots

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

Do not Destroy History, Teach and Learn from It

Over the last few days, the decision of San Francisco School Board to destroy the mural at the George Washington High School on one hand, and the objection of a group of university professors, artists and writers on the other, have reminded me of stories from my motherland, Iran.  For the last forty years, a fanatical and oppressive government has been on a campaign of destroying art, history and culture which is not Islamic and/or is from pre-Islamic times in Iran.  The Islamic regime while celebrating their brand of Islam, has attempted to destroy anything that is not religious and/or belongs to a different religion in different ways; destroying some while deliberately abandoning others and allowing them to be destroyed by nature. Many times in a state of disrepair and exposed to wind and rain resulting in their destruction over time.

As advocates of preservation of cultural heritage, historical sites and art, my colleagues and I regularly make declarations and protest, and send letters to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) asking them not to let the history of Iran to be destroyed.  Through a not-for-profit organization, World Cultural Heritage Voices, which I founded, we work on maintaining a cultural heritage record and focus on preservation of world heritage sites, especially in the areas of the world suffering from war, poverty and conflict and mainly in the hands of negligent governments.

I am an Iranian-American, who strongly believes in non-discrimination based on race, religion, and cultural background, I strongly object to the upcoming destruction of the George Washington mural by the San Francisco Education Board.  According to the basic text of the 1972 World Heritage Convention, “Considering that deterioration or disappearance of any item of the cultural or natural heritage constitutes a harmful impoverishment of the heritage of all the nations of the world,” therefore, cultural heritage of anywhere (any location) in the world is considered a universal heritage of all humans living on Earth, and destruction of any one heritage site or item would have universal adverse impact.

While I understand, and recognize the suffering and anguish that African slaves (and ancestors of many today’s African Americans) and Native Americans experienced in our common history, I have to also acknowledge that history is not just full of positive and good experiences.  We cannot just focus on preservation of “good” cultural heritage.  If that was the case, then we should destroy half of our museums and many historical monuments of the world.  Over the last few decades we have seen how the so-called Islamic State destroyed “un-Islamic” monuments and world heritage sites in Syria and Iraq. We saw how the Taliban destroyed the world heritage designated Buddha carved on the side of mountain in Afghanistan. We have seen how the Islamic government in Iran has even destroyed the cemeteries of people from other religions in addition to several thousands of Zoroastrian temples.  While the founding fathers of our nation including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson lived during times that many land owners were also slave owners, we should not forget the sacrifices they made in order to create and build our country.  Let’s remember history and learn from it.

Even if we were so naïve to think that our 21st century children are so gullible and impressionable that seeing a mural on the wall could have a long-lasting impact on their lives, would it not be better if these murals could be used as a way of teaching them about history, our country and the world?  And suppose that instead of destroying the mural, we could add a large panel with the following text inscribed on it:

“We Americans are proud that in the last two centuries we have made major progress towards equality that today, people of any color and background has equal rights under our Constitution. And we will keep these paintings to be reminded every day of the courage and sacrifice that many have had to make so that we could live as free citizens of this country.”

Can You Keep a Secret? So Can Your Daughter’s School.

Imagine sending your daughter off to school only to find out that she was headed for an abortion appointment instead. Then imagine this: her teachers knew and never told you. In California, parents don’t have to imagine it. Thanks to a new undercover video, they know — it’s already happening.

It’s unreal footage, even by the ACLU’s standards. When the meeting between state teachers and the far-Left group was leaked, most people had a hard time believing it. And that, the team at Our Watch said, was the point. “[We] know what it’s like to say, ‘Okay, well, I heard somebody said this is happening, but I want to see it for myself.'” So the organization sent someone into a training session and pushed “record.” What they caught was a coordinated effort to keep parents in the dark about one of the most dangerous decisions a teenager could ever make.

“Regardless of how old the student is,” ACLU attorney Ruth Dawson starts off (at 21:08 of this video), “they can walk into a doctor’s office and consent to services without their parental consent. Those services are pregnancy and prenatal care, contraception and emergency contraception, abortion — and for these there is no parental notification.” As school officials, Dawson goes on, “I think a good way to think about this is that these are services that California has decided are so important that… students really need to be able to access them.” So no matter what, she said, “Young people have the right to leave school and seek confidential medical services without the consent or notification of their parents and guardians.”

But Dawson didn’t stop there. Every school, she argued, has a responsibility to keep these secrets — at all costs. “The key thing to remember here is about Confidential Medical Release. The right belongs to the young person. It doesn’t belong to the parent. It doesn’t belong to the school. The right lies with the young person. The most important piece of this is that schools cannot share this information with parents or guardians. Also no parent calls. So a teacher or attendance office can’t call home and say, ‘So-and-so was out at the doctor’s office receiving [whatever procedure]. Did you know about this?’ You cannot do that.” In fact, Dawson goes on, California schools should be in the habit of covering up these appointments on the district record.

Teacher: “So are they considered absent?”

ACLU: “I think it qualifies as, like, an excused absence.”

Teacher: “But once they’re absent, the school calls automatically.”

ACLU: “Right, so I think what has to happen is that the school must develop a policy so that doesn’t happen. When it comes to online attendance tracking, it gets a little trickier, because schools — as everyone in this room knows — have to report attendance.”

Administrator: “Because attendance is financial…”

ACLU: “Right. But if you say [it’s] medical, that’s actually a violation of the student’s privacy rights. If you say ‘unexcused absence’ and penalize them, that’s a violation of state law. So what the heck are you supposed to do? Some districts do things, like, they’ll say the student was with an administrator… and they won’t answer further questions. It’s a little tricky though, which is why it’s more of an art than a science… But saying it was an ‘excused absence’ does not, like, directly violate the law.”

Since when has falsifying state records not violated the law? What if there’s a medical emergency while a girl is off getting her excused-absence abortion? Can you imagine the liability issues if a parent found out the school not only knew about the appointment but covered it up? “No, it turns out, she wasn’t ‘with an administrator.’ She was taking the life of your future grandchild.” This is a world where giving a teenager a Tylenol without asking could launch a thousand lawsuits. Yet somehow, it’s okay to send them on a deadly field trip that destroys one life and forever alters the other without ever calling home?

Amazingly, the video doesn’t stop there. Dawson’s encore for the free lesson in abortion deception is a dose of radical sex ed. She goes through the state’s controversial new guidelines, taking great pains to remind teachers that even when it comes to the most extreme material (which one parent insists is so graphic, he could be brought up on charges for showing it to a child), it’s illegal for parents to opt students out. “In grades K-12, no matter where you teach sex ed… no matter whether you’re teaching fifth graders or twelfth graders, all of that has to be inclusive of LGBTQ…” Schools, she insists, “may not facilitate a selective opt-out just of the queer stuff. We’ve heard, unfortunately, from a lot of parents who say, ‘I want my kid to learn sex ed — it’s important. However, none of the gay stuff. They can’t do that. Practically, it should be impossible.”

By now, you shouldn’t need convincing that your involvement in the local school district matters. If you do, this video is more than enough proof that the Left is targeting your children. But if there’s one thing the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, and every other liberal is afraid of, it’s engaged parents. There’s a reason they’re hosting these hush-hush trainings and passing laws to keep moms and dads in the dark. They understand that the more you know, the harder you’ll fight. And in a world where the other side will do anything to get to our children, that’s exactly what we need — fighters.


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


RELATED ARTICLES:

Planned Parenthood Lives Up to Its Bloodthirsty and Racist Reputation

Hollywood Tries to Mainstream Abortion. 21 TV and Movie Characters Have Aborted Babies This Year

California Public Schools Promote Polyamory for Preteens

Trump Admin: No Greater Friend than Israel

We Fought the Transgender Activists, and Lost. Here Are 5 Lessons for Every Parent.

Our defeat was all but inevitable, yet the transgender activists still showed up in matching shirts and waved multicolored flags. Their speakers outnumbered ours 4 to 1, but they still hissed and muttered ugly names at our side while we spoke.

We had gathered for the Arlington County School Board’s meeting on June 18. For four months, the Arlington Parent Coalition had worked tirelessly to get our liberal school board and administrators to reconsider or delay the implementation of policies that would expand accommodations for transgender-identified students.

Those policies were passed four years ago during the summer, when nobody was paying attention. Their timing was not unintentional.

The steady and focused efforts of transgender activists over the last 20-30 years are now bearing fruit. Some of the policy changes coming to Arlington County include biological boys and girls being allowed into each others’ bathrooms and locker rooms, girls having to compete against transgender boys in sports, and schools compelling speech in favor of transgender pronouns.

Parents are seen as a potential threat to transgender students, and any opposition to transgender accommodations is perceived as hateful bigotry.

Gary McCaleb, senior counsel for the Alliance for Defending Freedom, estimates that hundreds of school systems across the country are now fighting the roll out of transgender ideology.

Communities are woefully unprepared for the impact this will have on our children. There is no road map for grassroots groups to follow as they fight this radical agenda and cultural shift.

However, several lessons emerged from our efforts that might be helpful to other grassroots groups.

1. Courage is contagious.

While some hesitate to engage for fear of being called a “hater” or “bigot,” we must push back on those who want to reshape our children’s understanding of biology, personhood, privacy, and the primary role of parents.

Often, people have an intuitive discomfort with transgender ideology, but need direction on how to act. Give people specific ways they can take one small risk (e.g. write a letter, meet with officials, have a hard conversation), then nudge them to take another risk. Celebrate every act of engagement and resistance. It puts school officials on notice and slows down the rate at which the system accommodates the transgender agenda.

2. Put together a diverse coalition.

The transgender movement divides—the child against him or herself, children against parents, and neighbor against neighbor.

Use the power of common interest across the lines of faith, culture, and politics to create alliances. Christians and Muslims must coordinate. Immigrant parents need to be involved. Liberals and conservatives must find points on which they agree.

People must get out of their social and ideological comfort zones and present a united front on this issue affecting all children.

3. The gatekeepers have failed parents.

Despite significant internal disagreement, professional organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and the National School Board Association succumbed to pressure from the transgender advocates to endorse affirmation ideology.

Those entrusted with the job of vetting the research and best practices for treating kids with gender dysphoria have folded under financial or peer influence.

Pressure needs to be brought on these professional groups to retract and/or modify their positions, as local educators and elected officials are deferring to these groups’ statements of support.

However, local doctors and mental health professionals have a powerful voice when speaking about the dangers of affirming transgender children. Get them involved.

4. Spread the truth about gender-affirming therapy.

Educating people is essential, and information about the dangers of affirming gender dysphoria is being suppressed.

For instance, a simple internet search on “transgender children” provides lists of references from transgender advocacy groups like the Human Rights Campaign. It’s much harder to find the alternative point of view.

Parents should prepare talking points and source citations to use with school administrators, their school board, and other parents.

Much more research is needed, but ask school administrators if the scientific studies they use to justify new policies are peer reviewed, have a large sample size, and have tracked children for many years.

In some cases, the studies themselves have been underwritten by gender clinics or transgender advocates.

5. There are no opt outs for our kids.

Parents must understand that we now exist in a “post-opt out” world. You are misled if you believe pulling your children out of certain course units will protect them.

Transgender ideology is coming from the “bottom up” through social media and massive cultural changes.

Public school children are being indoctrinated in transgender ideology by posters on the wall, speakers in the library, books on the shelves, after-school clubs, school-wide celebrations, and politicized teachers. Vigilance and consistent engagement with principals and classroom teachers are critical.

Concerned parents are, to borrow from the musical “Hamilton?,” “out-gunned, out-manned, out-numbered, out-planned.” If you already are stretched in terms of time and attention, the situation can feel too big, too scary, and too inevitable.

At one point, I found myself looking for an exit from the fight when an activist from neighboring Fairfax County gave me a steely look and said, “It is far worse than you understand, and don’t you dare walk away.”

Only parents can demand accountability from school systems and set boundaries around their children. We can’t walk away.

COMMENTARY BY

Kristen Allen is a member of the Arlington Parent Coalition.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The NEA Works To Indoctrinate Children With Transgender Ideology

The Empire State’s New Clothes

Has the LGBT movement overplayed its hand?

Here Are The Details On California’s Sex Education

Why Military Families Overwhelmingly Support Education Choice

RELATED VIDEO: Katie Hopkins video on the conflict between weaponized sexual identities, made in UK schools, and Muslim parents.


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. All rights reserved.

VIDEO: What Does It Mean to be a Citizen of the United States?

Have you ever watched a naturalization ceremony? This is where people from different countries around the world apply for citizenship, learn English and pass a test, renounce their homeland, and swear loyalty to their new country, the United States of America. You occasionally see it on television, but Youtube! maintains a library of such services.

All U.S. citizens are descended from someone who took the same oath years earlier. With me, it was both sets of grandparents following World War I.

After a ceremony, someone typically speaks on behalf of the group. They talk about why becoming an American citizen is so important to them, such as the ability to vote; they talk about true freedom, and living in the land of opportunity, and their eyes swell with tears, as does their relatives and friends. It is all rather moving.

They come to America because we have so much to offer, and it’s not just public education, health care or other entitlements they seek, these are mere peripherals. They primarily come for freedom and the opportunity to better themselves. They do not want to feel oppression from a word said out of turn, and they desperately want to innovate, invent and earn knowing their work is their own and not the state’s. They come for the protection of the U.S. Constitution, a document which has stood the test of time.

The legal immigrants understand the importance of the country, and are willing to fight for it. Quite often, they know more about the country than those born here. It is not unusual for such natives to be ignorant of our history and government, thereby taking it for granted, and opening the door for others to undermine it. They do not comprehend the blood, sweat, tears of those who worked and fought for such a country to exist.

The United States is not a homogeneous society consisting of the same race, the same religion, and the same tongue. It is a melting pot, which ultimately is our strength, not a weakness, where the knowledge and talents of all countries on earth meet and become one, American. Not surprising, our national character changes over time, e.g.; one moment we prefer isolationism, the next we’re a world power; we sympathize with the oppressed and have come to the aid of others on multiple occasions, thereby becoming a beacon of hope.

Americans are competitive, they appreciate a level playing field, but will rise to the challenge when one is not provided. They work hard and they play hard. They are fascinated by technology, the world around them, and the desire to be the best.

Americans are proud of our past. Sure we’ve made mistakes along the way. We even fought a horrific war among ourselves to settle a principle. However, when you realize this country started with nothing and evolved into a dominant world power, not because of autocratic rule, but because of a Constitutional Republic, our achievements are truly remarkable. Aside from the past, Americans aspire for the future.

There are a three things you should remember about the American character; first, they like to squabble among themselves much like a family, and as such, do not attempt to interfere; second, our weakness is we tend to react as opposed to plan (as evidenced by such things as Pearl Harbor, 911, Hurricane Katrina, etc.); even with this said, third, do not provoke them or underestimate their determination. They will rise to the occasion as they have proven numerous times. The story of America is incredible, and so are the American people.

Happy Independence Day.

Keep the Faith!

P.S. – Don’t forget my new book, “Tim’s Senior Moments” now available in Printed and eBook form.

RELATED ARTICLES:

America’s Long History of Military Parades

It’s Actually OK to Be Proud of the Military on Independence Day

Podcast: A July Fourth Show Like No Other

A Fallen Warrior and the Unfading Flag

The Most Problematic Women in American History

A Nation Worth Lauding

Happy Fourth of July: Nike Nixes American Flag

EDITORS NOTE: This Bryce is Right column is republished with permission. All rights reserved and all trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

College Debt Forgiveness Is Immoral

The college debt “crisis” is a moral question, but it is the opposite of what Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, AOC, and most of the Democratic presidential field are claiming.

An individual forgiving a debt they voluntarily entered into with a friend or family is noble and Christian and laudable. This sort of debt forgiveness happens routinely. I’ve done it. I’ve had it done.

Government eliminating debt is immoral. Here’s why.

If I loan someone money, and for whatever reason I choose to forgive that debt, that is my right and it is supported in the Bible. It is certainly part of American tradition, and actually may be far broader than that. It is a good and noble act, if I judge it is not enabling bad behavior. It is my choice because it is both my money and I voluntarily made the loan to the person.

But that is not at all what is being contemplated in this debate over forgiveness of student debt by Democratic politicians. First, of course, there is the need to label it a “crisis.” That is always step one for the next terrible government intervention idea.

What causes the confusion, however, is that the language is misleading when politicians say “we” should forgive this huge student debt issue. If they meant themselves as individuals, then terrific. But they most certainly do not. In truth, they intend to benefit and perhaps profit off this, not sacrifice.

Of course the concept is alluring if you are a college student with a lot of debt and know very little of the real world. Most all of us have debt and at times struggle with it. Who would not like their debt wiped out?

But when the “we” is the government, it means that the government will forcibly take one person’s money, to pay off the debt of another person. This is egregious behavior. The person whose money is being taken did not make the loan, consent to the loan, or necessarily even think the loan was a good idea.

The students and their parents voluntarily entered into those debts in return for the college degrees they obtained. They signed on the bottom line to take money to pay for something of value to them, and promised to pay it back. They knew at each step the cost they were incurring.

They were then loaned the money — with the promise they would pay it back — obtained the thing of value with that money, and now they and some politicians want Americans unrelated to the decision to take out the loan and getting value from the product to pay off the debt…while the students keep the thing of value.

This is egregious. But all the media will ever do is interview students with high debt loads and low-paying jobs. That paints a distorted picture, which of course is what it is intended to do.

I have sons who are plumbers. These young men chose not to go to college and take on debt. They work very hard, often in the Florida heat, and they actually make pretty decent money. They have no debt. I have another son working up the management ranks at Publix grocery stores, and he works long and odd hours. And another son who went to college and has nearly paid off his debt, again with a lot of hard work and now runs his own company — as one of my plumber sons does.

They have friends who are working to get nursing degrees and law enforcement training without taking on debt.

Now the politicians looking to make political hay on college debt forgiveness need to explain how it is moral that these people, and the millions like them, should be forced to pay off the debts of those who voluntarily went to college, and voluntarily took on the debt and now have a degree.

They need to explain the morality that nurses, police, firefighters, plumbers, electricians, A/C repairers, roadworkers, carpenters, roofers, block-layers, secretaries, etc. should be forced to pay off strangers’ college debts that they have no association with.

They need to explain how it is moral to force all who went to college ahead of this current crop, who all either paid off their loans or are getting close, to be forced to also pay off the loans of someone else. My wife and I paid off our loans. Sure the debts were smaller, as were the incomes. But it took a few years — while both my wife and I worked nearly full-time during college to keep them low.

If individuals want to forgive loans, that is their right and it is laudable. If banks and creditors want to, that is their right and their choice. But for the government to step in and do it — meaning all working Americans have to chip in — then we have a very different but clear-cut moral issue.

It’s wrong.

RELATED ARTICLE: Bernie Sanders’ Student Debt Forgiveness Plan Ignores Reality, Much Like Elizabeth Warren’s Similar Plan

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

Top 6 Issues Facing Education For 2019

Although the universal learning model has undergone some major changes in the past decades, there is still lots of room for enhancement. Even in 2019, issues related to different spheres of education remain relevant and actively discussed all around the world.

Relevant Educational Issues In 2019

What are the biggest challenges that modern educational facilities are facing today? There are much more issues than any of you could imagine. However, in this article, we are going to discuss the top six that seem to be the most acute of them.

  • Lack of funding

Unfortunately, this major problem is still unsolved, though we are facing it every single year. In 2019, many schools, colleges, and universities are still lacking equal funding, which leads to a number of additional problems. Tuition fees keep going up with so little opportunities for getting an affordable and high-quality education. This increases the number of students who give up on continuing education.

  • Program irrelevance

Another major challenge that stands on the way of education today is the irrelevancy of the existing educational programs in terms of a long-term perspective. Let’s look at an example to clarify this point. Let’s say a student enrolled in a university a few years ago and majors in business. Keeping in mind the rapid progress and change that takes place in all spheres of our lives, by the time he graduates, his knowledge will become irrelevant. The old business models given him three years ago will not work in the modern world. And that’s only one example of the irrelevance of educational programs.

  • Poor career advice

In order to make a real change in the way we obtain education and in its quality, schools and colleges should finally incorporate a big share of career advice into the students’ curriculum. At this point, most students lack relevant career advice and guiding, and this is a big problem.

  • Standardized testing

For a few past decades, there’ve been too many discussions and controversial opinions regarding this matter. Yet, the problem remains unsolved. Many people have already realized that measuring all students’ knowledge based on the same set of standards can’t do any good, and there are several reasons for that. First of all, because of such testing, every school and college seems to be focusing solely on teaching students to pass their exams, while it should be giving in-depth knowledge and understanding of the subject. Let’s look at a vivid example of the detrimental effect of such an approach. Teachers provide the knowledge needed to pass an exam and make a main focus on this. As a result, school pupils successfully score on tests but don’t have any real theoretical or practical knowledge. Then these students enroll in a university or college with a very unstable knowledge base, so they struggle to get the work done. Eventually, they start seeking the help of classmates, tutors, and services like EssayPro to get their assignments done. However, they still manage to pass exams since they were taught for them. As a result, we have a big pile of “specialists” who lack actual knowledge. As you can see, the issue is real!

  • Lack of personalization

The pros of integrating a more personalized approach into the educational process are quite clear. Such an approach ensures better understanding and perception of the material by all groups of students, considering their natural skills and initial knowledge base. Unfortunately, we still have a huge gap here. Although there are some promising attempts made by different learning facilities, personalization is still missed out by most facilities.

  • Resistance to change

It sounds odd, but even in 2019, despite numerous positive changes that took place in the 21st century, there are still quite many people who are not willing to adopt innovations. Unfortunately, this year, we can observe lots of school authorities showing resistance to change, and this seems to be a real issue. On the one hand, we have a reliable, familiar, and time-tested model of education that brings results. However, on the other hand, we have plenty of space for improvement and integration of new approaches that can bring numerous benefits.

Integrating technology in the educational process will allow us to deliver more precise, interactive, and personalized knowledge that can only do good. However, schools are still not ready to initiate change. Most teachers and school leaders just see this kind of experimentation to be outside the scope of their duties. Besides, adjusting the outdated but proven effective learning methods is difficult and risky, when done on an individual basis. Thus, for successful change, we need to encourage a global acceptation of new models.

Final Words

Although there are still so many issues that require solutions and so much resistance from the schools, global education seems to be changing step by step. This is a good tendency, and it gives us hope that somewhere in the future educational programs will finally develop to be more relevant, personalized, and effective. However, now, all we can do is to encourage and initiate change!

RELATED ARTICLES:

College Costs Are Out of Control. Here’s What Can Be Done.

Blaming the Wrong Culprit for Rising College Costs

Colorado kids and teens are dying at a rate higher than U.S. average – and suicide is to blame

Suicide is the leading cause of death in Colorado among children and young adults ages 10 to 24. This comes to light with the release of the Annie E. Casey Foundation’s 2019 Kids Count Data Book, which compares children’s well-being across all 50 states.

In 2017, the state’s teen suicide rate rose to 21 deaths per 100,000 from 12 deaths per 100,000 in 2014 [coincidentally the year marijuana legalization took effect]. The 2017 rate is the highest since Colorado began tracking suicide deaths by age group in 1980.

The Kids Count report puts Colorado 20th overall in child well-being but 41st among states for children’s health. “The poor heath rating is a result of Colorado’s high death rate among kids and teens, lower-than-average birth weight for babies, and above-average use of alcohol and drugs among teens,” notes the Colorado Sun.

The number of low-birth-weight babies increased to 9.1 percent in 2017, up from 8.8 percent in 2010. The 2017 national average was 8.3 percent.

On the educational front the report ranked Colorado as 44th in on-time high-school graduation rates. One-fifth of the state’s high-school students do not graduate in four years.

Read the Colorado Sun report here.
Read the Annie E. Casey Foundation’s 2019 Kids Count Data Book here.
Access Kids Count Colorado data sheet here.
Access Kids Count data sheets for other states here.


Potent pot, vulnerable teens trigger concerns in first states to legalize marijuana

“The first two states to legalize recreational marijuana,” writes the Washington Post,“are starting to grapple with teenagers’ growing use of highly potent pot, even as both boost the industry and reap huge tax windfalls from its sales.”

The legal purchase age of 21 is about as effective deterring adolescent marijuana use as it is deterring adolescent alcohol use. Parents, educators, and doctors say kids can easily access edibles and concentrates with levels of THC that can average 68 percent.

Calls to poison control centers and visits to ERs have risen. Denver’s Children’s Hospital Colorado has treated 777 problems such as cyclic vomiting, paranoia, psychosis, and other marijuana-related symptoms in kids, up from 161 in 2005, a few years before the state commercialized marijuana for medical use.

Seattle’s Children’s Hospital also is seeing a jump in marijuana-related emergencies. “I hope we don’t lose a generation of people before we become clear we need to protect our kids’ brains,” says Leslie Walker-Harding, who chairs the hospital’s pediatrics department.

Colorado leads 37 states in adolescent vaping. Some school officials say half their students vape during school hours, using marijuana as well as nicotine.

Legislators in both states passed laws this year to encourage marijuana industry expansion and loosen regulations, including a law allowing marijuana home delivery in Colorado.

Read Washington Post story here.


Marijuana use among pregnant women doubles

A new study released yesterday finds that marijuana use doubled among pregnant women between 2002 and 2017 and is most common in the first trimester.

Past-month marijuana use increased from 3.4 percent to 7 percent among pregnant women overall.

The data came from an analysis of the National Survey on Drug Use and Health between 2002 and 2017, which involved nearly half a million women.

Read Journal of the American Medical Association research letter here.


Pure cannabis cigarettes to be introduced to Canadian cannabis market

THC BioMed, a Canadian licensed marijuana producer, announced this week that it will automate the pre-rolling of 100 percent cannabis cigarettes – with filters.

The company says it believes this will change the game in the same way automation changed the tobacco industry and will “bring meaningful changes to the current cannabis industry and its bottom line.” The cigarettes will contain no tobacco.

In addition to retail use, the cigarettes will be marketed for medical use, marking a new first in which doctors will tell patients to smoke to treat their health problems.

THC BioMed’s automation plant can produce up to 5,000 cigarettes per minute.

Read PR Announcement here.