Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘parental rights’

Left-Wing Teachers Ditch Teaching to Indoctrinate Kids About Sex Against Parents’ Will


REPORTED BY: CHAD FELIX GREENE | MAY 13, 2022

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2022/05/13/left-wing-activist-teachers-are-ditching-curriculum-for-indoctrination-against-the-will-of-parents/

teacher wearing rainbow suspenders

Activist teachers and school administrators have lost sight of their fundamental purpose and their obligation to parents.

Author Chad Felix Greene profile

CHAD FELIX GREENE

VISIT ON TWITTER@CHADFELIXG

MORE ARTICLES

Examples of LGBT activist teachers seem to be pouring in weekly. One gaining attention comes from Cape Coral, Florida where, as LGBTQ Nation describes it, “Pansexual art teacher fired after allowing students to draw Pride flags.

Casey Scott, a middle school art teacher, described the incident as simply a discussion that happened in class in which students volunteered details about their sexuality and gender identity. Initial reporting indicated she decided to take the opportunity to provide details about her own sexuality and then asked her students to draw pictures.

In another state, teachers in San Francisco held a Zoom meeting in which the question came up as to how to handle a parent who asks teachers to use her child’s given name and biologically correct pronouns. One teacher answered by conveying an experience in which a parent stated to them, “I know you were using a different name than my child’s given name at birth and the pronouns we gave them, and I’m respectfully asking that you use the name and the pronouns that we gave them.”

The teacher proudly described their defiance saying in return, “So, in my classroom, I will refer to your child by whatever name and pronouns that they’ve told me they feel most comfortable with.”

When I was outed in high school in 1998, I attempted to talk to a sympathetic teacher, who firmly explained this was simply not something she could discuss with me. I even decided to force the issue by bringing it up in class and she, again, firmly instructed me to stop, recognizing that the classroom was not an open forum for me to express my personal issues.

Yet another example, shared by Libs of Tiktok, displays a teacher excitedly announcing the teacher came out to peers, supervisors, and students, showing the teacher dressed up as a woman with a full beard.

Keeping Parents in the Dark

Many teachers now seem to feel an obligation and certainly a sense of entitlement to use their classroom as a group therapy session, viewing students as peers they can share secrets with. Unfortunately, this has grown into its own culture in which teachers position themselves as the sole source of safety for vulnerable students, who are assumed to have no one else to turn to. Many in this generation of teachers see themselves as an underground railroad of sorts to ensure students can freely express their “true selves” without the judgment or restrictions of their parents.

This has been demonstrated by the growing discovery of Transition Closets,” where schools offer students the opportunity to change into opposite-sex clothing once out of the watchful eye of their parents. The entire system seems to be designed to hide children from their parents and teach them to rely on teachers or other administrators for protection and validation.

The motivation behind all of this can be seen in my own generation’s experience with coming out in the late ’90s and how we felt isolated, abandoned, and stigmatized, often by the adults who were supposed to be teaching us about life. We grew up to become teachers ourselves or professors educating a new generation of teachers, and we wanted to make sure students never experienced that again.

The problem that manifests is the teachers behave as activists rather than educators, seeing their defiance of school policy, parental requests, and even the law as a righteous battle for the greater good. Either arrogantly entitled or defiant, activist teachers seem to believe they have free reign in the classroom.

Casey Scott, for example, argued she was not made aware of any restrictions on topics of discussion with the students, saying, “Not once did anyone from my administration ever explain to me any topic that I was not to allow or discuss … as a first-year art teacher in a reinstated class with zero art teaching experience it is reasonable to expect … a mentor to help oversee and give me guidance but, none was offered?”

But why would she think it would possibly be appropriate to discuss complex ideas of sexuality and gender identity with students aged 13 and under? The pictures drawn by the students were of pride flags, which Scott took a picture of for the news. These photos show a lesbian pride flag, an asexual pride flag, a genderfluid flag, and a rainbow flag, among upwards of 10 crumpled pieces of paper. She herself boasted of going into details of what being pansexual meant for her as an educational exercise.

In the San Francisco school Zoom discussion, a teacher argued, “in my school district, LGBTQ+ students have a bill of rights — and the fourth one is that they have the right to be referred to by their gender pronouns and a name that fits their gender identity.” She went on to brag that when a parent complained about the policy, the school responded saying, “No, sorry. Like, our district-wide rule is that the student determines that, not you.”

When Activism Overruns Curriculum

Teachers and many school administrators have lost sight of their fundamental purpose and their obligation to parents. There was no reason for a teacher to explain that she is pansexual and what that means for her. There is no reason for a teacher to “come out” as though he is a teenager, in order to gain approval and validation from students.

Students are being taught to explicitly lie to their parents, with full school administrative support. Non-LGBT students also feel the impact of this, as they are made to feel excluded from these special activities.

Think for a moment of the situation in which the teacher allegedly encouraged her students to draw pride flags. There are hundreds of flag variations representing the full extent of gender and sexuality, except for 95 percent of the population who are heterosexual and accept their physical sex as fact. Imagine being a middle school student with a teacher who announces she is queer and begins encouraging queer classmates to draw pictures of how special and celebrated they are. Imagine the pressure they must feel to find something, anything, to fit in and be a part of the activity.

Sadly, LGBT organizations support the efforts of these teacher activists and the overwhelming message that all students should explore their potential sexuality and gender identity. GLAAD, for example, explicitly encourages teachers to change their language, ask their students for pronouns, provide LGBT resource materials and openly defend student identities.

The answer to all of this is more transparency for parents and for those parents to be active in their children’s schools. There is no justification for keeping school projects, discussions, or curricula from parents. Parental rights, especially in education, must continue to be a top priority for Republican leaders. The more examples like this that are discovered, the more active we all must become in ensuring children are learning appropriately in school rather than being indoctrinated by left-wing ideologies.


Chad Felix Greene is a senior contributor to The Federalist. He is the author of the “Reasonably Gay: Essays and Arguments” series and is a social writer focusing on truth in media, conservative ideas and goals, and true equality under the law. You can follow him on Twitter @chadfelixg.

Gov. DeSantis Is Right To Attack Disney. Republicans Everywhere Should Follow His Lead


WRITTEN BY: JOHN DANIEL DAVIDSON | APRIL 21, 2022

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2022/04/21/gov-desantis-is-right-to-attack-disney-republicans-everywhere-should-follow-his-lead/

Gov. Ron DeSantis

Woke corporations that wage war on families and target children should expect to be targeted in turn by GOP lawmakers.

Author John Daniel Davidson profile

JOHN DANIEL DAVIDSON

VISIT ON TWITTER@JOHNDDAVIDSON

MORE ARTICLES

News broke Wednesday the Florida Senate had passed a bill to dismantle Walt Disney World’s half-century-old “independent special district” status, an arrangement whereby Disney has been allowed, since 1968, essentially to govern itself. Gov. Ron DeSantis says Disney’s self-governing status should be subject to review, to ensure that it is still “appropriately serving the public interest.”

Good. Disney is reaping its just reward for inserting itself into the political debate about Florida’s parental rights bill, which Disney lost in spectacular fashion. Republican governors and lawmakers across the country should be taking notes. This is how you deal with big corporations that try to throw around their weight and force woke policies on voters and families. You punish them, not just because they deserve it, but also, as Voltaire famously put it, pour encourager les autres.

Disney was no doubt betting that DeSantis and Florida Republicans would do what Republicans have almost always done in the face of woke corporate pressure: simply back down. That’s what South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem did last year when at the behest of the NCAA she vetoed a bill that would have protected girls’ sports from trans ideologues.

Same with Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson, who vetoed a measure banning genital mutilation and hormone treatments for minors (he was subsequently overridden by the state legislature). Same goes for then-Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, who in 2015 infamously caved to corporate pressure and gutted his state’s religious freedom law.

Indeed, at any other time and place, with almost any other Republican governor and legislature, Disney would almost certainly not have faced any consequences for wading into the debate over the parental rights bill. After all, since when do Republicans actually wield power against the enemies of their voters and defend ordinary families from powerful woke corporations? Almost never.

By breaking that mold, DeSantis has set a clear example that other GOP governors and state lawmakers should follow. If a corporation like Disney wants to insert itself in a political battle that has nothing to do with its business — in this case, a fight over whether to prohibit classroom instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity to children in kindergarten through the third grade — then it should be prepared to pay a heavy cost. Simply put, corporations that do what Disney did, publicly lobbying against the rights of parents to have a say in whether their young children are exposed to sexually explicit subject matter, have marked themselves out as enemies of a free people and should be treated as such. If Disney wants to make war on families in Florida, then the proper role of a democratically elected government is to go after Disney with every power at its disposal. Maybe that means they lose tax breaks that were once justified for purely economic reasons. Same for the special status Walt Disney World has enjoyed all these years, governing a 40-square-mile area in central Florida as it sees fit.

This isn’t about the economic arguments, not anymore. Whatever merit there was to the notion that Disney “serves the public interest” before the fight over parental rights has completely vanished. Now that Disney has taken a stand against families and parents, there can be no doubt: Disney does not serve the public interest in Florida, and Floridians owe it nothing.

Conservatives should understand this, but not all of them do. Over at National Review, Charles Cooke has decided to stand athwart history, as it were, and yell: “Independent special district status is complicated!” His complaint with DeSantis is that there was no need to punish Disney over its opposition to the parental rights bill because the bill passed. Disney lost, DeSantis and Republicans won. Moreover, he adds, until a month ago, “Walt Disney World’s legal status was not even a blip on the GOP’s radar. No Republicans were calling for it to be revisited, nor did they have any reason to.”

Did they not? What changed in the last month that might have prompted them to revisit the issue? Could it be that Disney came out publicly as a very real threat to Florida parents who don’t want their second-graders instructed about sexual orientation and gender identity? Could it be that the fight over the parental rights bill revealed Disney as something other than an entertainment brand and Walt Disney World as something other than a beloved family theme park? Could it be, in fact, that this entire affair has exposed Disney as a malign force in Florida’s civic life?

That Cooke can’t grasp this, and instead attacks DeSantis by tediously explicating the particulars of Florida’s independent special districts, shows the naiveté of conservatives in general and Republican politicians in particular on woke corporations pushing extremist agendas. Cooke argues there are lots of independent special districts in Florida, and that Walt Disney World “is unique not in its type but only in its particulars.” Orlando International Airport and the Daytona International Speedway, he notes, have a similar independent status. Why single out Disney?

To ask is to answer. Did the Orlando International Airport or the Daytona International Speedway wage a public campaign against the parental rights bill, and while doing so commit to pushing a “queer” agenda on children? No, they didn’t. Disney did. That makes all the difference.

If the airport and the speedway had behaved the way Disney did then yes, Florida lawmakers should have absolutely punished them. (Thanks to the impending revocation of Walt Disney World’s special status, it’s unlikely the airport or speedway or any other entity in Florida with a similar status will decide to follow in Disney’s footsteps, which is part of the point.)

Cooke further laments that singling out Disney is a mistake because, “Walt Disney World is deeply rooted in Florida’s soil, as a result of agreements the Florida legislature made with it in good faith. To poison that soil over a temporary spat would be absurd.”

But here again Cooke — and really, it’s not about Cooke, it’s about the accommodationist strain on the right that he and NR represent — misunderstands the nature of the fight. This is not a “temporary spat,” as Disney itself has made clear. It’s an ideological and cultural war that corporations like Disney will never stop waging.

For many years now, only one side in this war has been crying “no quarter” before every battle. The other side has pretended not to believe it and surrendered time and again, with predictable results. Finally, DeSantis and Florida Republicans have taken the enemy at their word and responded in kind. Republicans everywhere should go and do likewise.


John Daniel Davidson is a senior editor at The Federalist. His writing has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the Claremont Review of Books, The New York Post, and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter, @johnddavidson.

3 Reasons Parents Are Absolutely Right To Demand Informed Consent To What Schools Do To Their Kids


REPORTED BY: EMILIE KAO | MARCH 10, 2022

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2022/03/10/3-reasons-parents-are-absolutely-right-to-demand-informed-consent-to-what-schools-do-to-their-kids/

kids

A parent can look at the label on a juice box to decide what ingredients to allow into her child’s body. He should also be able to decide what ingredients a teacher puts into his child’s mind, but that isn’t the case in a growing number of public schools.

When Covid-19 brought the classroom into the kitchen, parents’ eyes were opened to some unsettling revelations, including that their children are being indoctrinated into critical race theory, and that some schools are secretly treating girls as boys and vice-versa.

Food labeling helps parents make informed decisions about what their children eat. In the same way, transparency helps parents make informed decisions about what their children learn. Yet some schools are resisting calls for transparency. Corporate media and teachers’ unions have inaccurately disparaged parents, but these critics are wrong. Here are three reasons why.

1. Children belong to their parents, not to the ‘community’ or the state.

Former MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry infamously called on her viewers to “break through our kind of private idea that ‘kids belong to their parents,’. . . and recognize that kids belong to whole communities.” Her pitch was strikingly similar to that of Terry McAuliffe, former Virginia governor and chair of the Democratic National Committee, who said parents shouldn’t be telling schools what to teach.

This view of parental rights is at odds with parents’ fundamental right to direct the education and upbringing of their children. The U.S. Supreme Court recognized this in 1925 in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, stating, “The child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.”

As Professor Melissa Moschella writes, parental rights stem from the uniquely intimate relationship between parents and children. Children belong to their families, which are headed by their parents. Therefore, parents have the most direct obligation and authority to care for children until they are mature enough to direct their own lives. Until then, parents mediate a child’s relationship to the larger political community.

The failure to recognize that the family is distinct and relatively independent from the political community, and that parental rights are pre-political and natural rights, is not just wrong, but dangerous. Moschella notes Hannah Arendt’s observation that eliminating the intermediary structures between the individual and the state — namely the family and the church — is the essence of totalitarianism.

2. More schools are crossing the boundary line between education and indoctrination.

If schools just taught the “three Rs” (reading, writing, and arithmetic), parents would not suspect schools were undermining their values, beliefs, and authority. But, as parents in Albemarle County, Virginia, recently learned, some schools are indoctrinating students with so-called “anti-racism” ideology.

Instead of condemning all racism, “anti-racism” replaces one form of racism with another. Following “anti-racist” logic, Albemarle County schools used race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, and gender identity to label students as “dominate” or “subordinate.”

Parents from five families of diverse ethnic and religious backgrounds challenged the policy. The school undermined what these parents believe and teach their children — that all people are created equal and should be treated as such. The school even threatened to punish students for not supporting the policy.

Yet, as Judge James C. Ho of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit wrote in Oliver v. Arnold, “Schools should educate—not indoctrinate. Teachers can teach. And teachers can test. But teachers cannot require students to endorse a particular political viewpoint.”

Parental rights don’t end at the schoolhouse gate. Parents must be able to protect their children from policies that place burdens and privileges on them according to their immutable characteristics.

3. Backed by the Biden administration, schools are even engaging in unauthorized treatment of students’ mental health.

The U.S. Department of Education has promoted “gender support plans.” An official fact sheet instructs schools to maintain “confidentiality” for students who identify as transgender at school by not using the student’s birth name or “sex assigned at birth if the student wishes to keep this information private.” But there is no mention of notifying, much less involving, parents in such a consequential decision to adopt a new name and pronouns that correspond to the opposite sex.

The agency tells schools to support a student’s gender transition by using “a checklist of issues to discuss with the student or their family” (emphasis added). Without an explicit requirement that schools inform and obtain parental consent to treat the child as a member of the opposite sex, it is reasonable to assume that notification to parents is optional. The schools may also perceive parental notification as a matter that depends on whether the child views their parents as “affirming” of gender transition.

Schools’ use of “gender support plans,” like those recommended by the Biden administration, have shocked parents around the country. After learning that schools sought to hide their children’s emotional distress from them, they challenged these policies in WisconsinFlorida, and California courts.

Alliance Defending Freedom recently informed Virginia’s Harrisonburg City School District that its policy of using different names and pronouns amounts to “a psychosocial treatment that will increase the odds of long-term persistence,” according to Dr. Kenneth Zucker, an expert in treating gender dysphoria in children. Up to 90 percent of children with gender dysphoria eventually become comfortable with their bodies if they aren’t encouraged to live as the opposite sex. Schools should not endanger students by hiding information from parents about their mental health or engage in unauthorized treatment of gender dysphoria.

Lockdowns allowed many parents to see the ingredients inside their children’s education. That prompted them to support laws that provide more transparency into curriculum and policies. Parents should be able to decide on the education that best suits their child and their family’s beliefs.

Too many schools are hiding crucial information. They must be held accountable through policies that require transparency, so parents won’t receive more nasty surprises.


Emilie Kao is senior counsel and vice president of advocacy strategy with Alliance Defending Freedom.

Wisconsin School District: Parents Are Not ‘Entitled to Know’ If Their Kids Are Trans


REPORTED BY: M.D. KITTLE | MARCH 08, 2022

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2022/03/08/wisconsin-school-district-parents-are-not-entitled-to-know-if-their-kids-are-trans/

Eau Claire, Wisconsin street

Madison, Wis. — Parents are “not entitled” to know their kids’ gender identity, according to a recent training session in Wisconsin’s Eau Claire Area School District.

Empower Wisconsin obtained a copy of a training slide from a late February staff development session. The 2021-22 Equity session on Safe Spaces reminds teachers that “parents are not entitled to know their kids’ identities. That knowledge must be earned.”

“Teachers are often straddling this complex situation. In ECASD, our priority is supporting the student,” the professional development facilitator guide states. Teachers were encouraged to “Talk amongst yourselves!”

The lesson — that teachers know better than parents about what is best for their kids — is not sitting well with some community members.

“We are appalled that ECASD would display such blatant disregard for the parents and guardians of our community’s children. We are equally dismayed that current school district leadership would pressure teachers into breaking a social contract that we all know and understand—that parents and guardians hold primary responsibility and decision making for the welfare and care of their children,” said parents and school board candidates Nicole Everson, Corey Cronrath, and Melissa Winter in a joint statement.

The district’s training session is also legally suspect. A district court in 2020 issued a partial injunction against Madison Metropolitan School District’s policy allowing children of any age to transition to a different gender identity at school — without parental consent. The full case is now before the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL) and the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) filed the lawsuit on behalf of a group of parents challenging the gender identity policy “that violates the rights of parents to make important healthcare decisions on their children’s behalf.” The policy includes the following provisions:

  • Children of any age can transition to a different gender identity at school, by changing their name and pronouns, without parental notice or consent.
  • District employees are prohibited from notifying parents, without the child’s consent, that their child has or wants to change gender identity at school, or that their child may be dealing with gender dysphoria.
  • District employees are even instructed to deceive parents by using the child’s legal name and pronouns with family, while using the different name and pronouns adopted by the child in the school setting.

It’s not clear whether the Eau Claire Area School District has a similar policy.

The school board candidates are demanding district administrators issue an apology to teachers for “placing them at odds with families and also to parents and guardians for breaking the trust and partnership that is critical for thriving students and a stellar school district.”

An apology doesn’t appear to be forthcoming. ECASD Superintendent Michael Johnson issued a statement to Empower Wisconsin asserting the district is upholding its responsibility to maintain an educational environment that is “equitable, safe and inclusive for all students.”

“Our staff often find themselves in positions of trust with our students. The staff development presentation shared extensive data and information to assist our staff members in our ongoing efforts to create a safe and supportive learning environment for all students,” Johnson said in the statement. “The ECASD prides itself on being a school district that makes all students feel welcome and safe in our schools.”

The superintendent said the staff training focused on data showing students who identify as non-heterosexual have a higher incidence rate of mental health issues than heterosexual students. But critics say a school’s commitment to “equity and inclusiveness” does not give license to educators to hide important information from parents and guardians.

Cronrath, Everson, and Winter are among seven candidates, including two incumbents, running for three open seats on the school board next month. The three jumped into the race because they were concerned about the eroding of parental rights in the district. They say Eau Claire schools’ “blatant disregard for parental rights and responsibilities” has been creeping into the district’s classrooms. The latest training session sends three very dangerous messages to parents and the wider community, the candidates assert.

1. Schools are in control of children, not parents and families—When you entrust your child into the walls of ECASD, you no longer have the right as a parent to be informed of major developments in your child’s school life. In fact, you must ‘earn it.’

2. Current Leadership is willing to pit teachers against parents—Open communication between the classroom and home has always been critical to healthy school communities and student development. ECASD is putting teachers in a difficult and dishonest position by instructing them to actively withhold information from parents.

3. What goes on in the walls of ECASD is privileged information—By indicating that information about your child is ‘knowledge that must be earned,’ ECASD is setting a dangerous precedent. If identity questions for your child can be hidden from you, is diet, curriculum, healthcare, inappropriate relationships, mental health concerns, etc. also no longer the business of parents? Just what are parents and guardians allowed to know and when?

The Republican-led state legislature passed a Parental Bill of Rights that would prohibit school policies that infringe on a parent’s or guardian’s role as the primary caregiver of their child. Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat and the former state superintendent, is likely to veto the bill.

Eau Claire Area School District has a history of overreach. Last fall, school officials worked with the local health czar in removing a 14-year-old girl from school after someone in her class tested positive for Covid-19. The girl and her mom resisted, accusing authorities of abusing their powers. The county health director then sought a court order to have the girl forcibly removed from school.

Wallace B. Henley Op-ed: Who is the real ‘enemy of the people’?


Commentary By Wallace B. Henley, Exclusive Columnist| Wednesday, October 27, 2021

Read more at https://www.christianpost.com/news/who-is-the-real-enemy-of-the-people.html/

Scott Smith
Scott Smith, whose daughter was raped by a male wearing a skirt in a girls’ bathroom at her high school in Loudoun County, Virginia, appears on Fox News’ “The Ingraham Angle,” Oct. 12, 2021. | Screenshot: Fox News

When the Quisha Kings and Scott Smiths in a nation are considered by the regime in power to be the enemy, it says more about the danger of the regime than those the rulers consider as threats.

Quisha King is a Florida mother and a leader of Moms for Liberty, a group seeking to inform and inspire mothers and fathers to assert their parental rights in the face of a ravenous government and its allies, lackeys, parasites, and sycophants.  

The regime now consists of the elite establishments of Big Entertainment, Big Information, Big Academia, Big Government, Big Corporations. The leviathan is bloated with the muscle of all those entities and seems to grow steadily in its capacities of repression. Together, they become the consensus establishment, the regime that determines what is permissible and what is not so a compliant culture can cash in its liberty and acquiesce to the demands of the regime.

Within that cluster is the National School Boards Association (NSBA).

Moms for Liberty, among other things, resists the mandated teaching of critical race theory (CRT), forced mask-wearing and other incursions against parental rights in the public schools their children attend. NSBA sent a letter to President Biden suggesting that, in accord with the Patriot Act, such people and their ilk should be handled like domestic terrorists because they demand their school boards be accountable to parents.

Scott Smith’s daughter was assaulted in a school bathroom by a transgender boy, and was also labeled a “domestic terrorist” because he rushed into a school board meeting and demanded that the board take responsibility for what had happened to his daughter.

As Smith was being pulled down to the floor and arrested his wife cried out, “My child was raped at school, and this is what happens!”

Apparently, all citizens so concerned about the direction of public education in America that they challenge the authority of their school boards, suddenly become, in the eyes of the leviathan government and elitist establishments, enemies of the state—itself increasingly the enemy of the freedoms established in the constitutional system.

The Biden White House sent the NSBA letter to the Department of Justice. Attorney General Merrick Garland instructed the FBI to get involved, exacerbating, and strengthening the resolve of the parents whose response shook the political barometers at the White House.

The outcome was an apology from NSBA, regretting their letter, and acknowledging that “there was no justification for some of the language included in the letter.”[1]

Quisha King believed that if NSBA’s apology was genuine, instead of “calling us domestic terrorists, they would have investigated and questioned these school boards to see if there was any validity to any of what the parents are actually saying.”

There is something chilling here: NSBA’s suggestion that people like King are domestic terrorists who need to be reeled in under the Patriots Act calls to mind other regimes that have regarded the people of their nation as the enemy of the state.

For example, the Soviet Union under Stalin.

In 1956, Nikita Khrushchev (who would later prove himself as a totalitarian), then new leader of the Communist regime in the Soviet Union, shocked his fellow Marxists with a speech that revealed the monstrous nature of Stalinism. In doing so he exposed characteristics of any regime that sees its own people as the enemy.

“Stalin originated the concept ‘enemy of the people,’” said Khrushchev. Actually, the wording could have been, “the people are the enemy.” That term, Khrushchev continued in the Communist Party Congress speech, “made possible the usage of the most cruel repression, violating all norms of revolutionary legality, against anyone who in any way disagreed with Stalin, against those who were only suspected of hostile intent, against those who had bad reputations…”

Khrushchev went on to say that “this concept, enemy of the people, actually eliminated the possibility of any kind of ideological fight.” Thus, the bottom line is that anyone labeled an enemy of the people or of the state were judged as guilty and pushed out of the public square where they might have defended their views.

Today’s regime in the United States has also pushed those considered as public enemies out of the public square, and, as much as possible, cut off their voice. Consider, for example censorship by Big Tech sites of groups deemed not worthy of public exposure because of their religious, political, or social views.

Silencing the enemies of the regimes is also the aim of the Cancel culture and Wokeism. Men and women who violate the value system and worldview specified by the high priests of Wokeism are ridiculed and banished. The regime cluster even turns on its own, like JK Rowling, who once helped build the Woke culture. She was cancelled for giving public support to Maya Forstater who said, “men cannot change into women.”

In an eyeblink, Rowling became the enemy in the eyes of the cultural regime.

However, when the regime considers the people as the enemy, then it is the regime that is itself the enemy of the people. That means action must be taken.

Throughout the history of civilization, the “public square” has been the locus of revolutionary resistance. So, the public square has to be the place of resistance in this current battle. Presently, however, that “square” has come under the censorship of authoritarian regimes. Under this repression the church and the home must be the primary places of resistance… forming worldview that will awaken a slumbering mass who at times seem not to want to be disturbed.

Churches must wake up to what is happening and recover the prophetic voice. Discipleship ministries must teach the biblical revelation concerning nations and cultures, and dare address the spiritual foundations of the nation. Parents must make their homes centers of worldview teaching and formation for their children.

Without this, we face a Stalinized future with the elite consensus establishment imposing its will upon us and our posterity.


[1] Florida mother says she does not accept NSBA’s apology for letter that likened parents to domestic terrorists | Fox News

Wallace B. Henley, a former White House and Congressional aide, is the author or co-author of more than 20 books. His latest is Who Will Rule the Coming ‘Gods’: The Looming Spiritual Crisis of Artificial Intelligencejust released by Vide Press.

For media inquiries, contact:  ChristianPost@pinkston.co

Judge reportedly stripped mother of parental rights because she’s not vaccinated: ‘I miss my son more than anything’


Reported by PAUL SACCA | August 28, 2021

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/news/mother-parental-rights-custody-vaccination/

A mother in Chicago claims that a judge stripped her of parental rights because she was not vaccinated against COVID-19.

“In what all parties agree is a very unusual and perhaps unprecedented step, a judge at Chicago’s Daley Center has stripped Rebecca Firlit of custody because she refuses to get a vaccination shot,” WFLD-TV reported.

Firlit says that she has not seen her 11-year-old son since Aug. 10, which is when she appeared in court via Zoom for a child support hearing along with her ex-husband. During the hearing, Cook County Judge James Shapiro allegedly asked Firlit if she had been vaccinated for COVID-19. She reportedly replied that she had not been vaccinated because she suffered bad reactions to other vaccines in the past.

Shapiro, a Democrat, then reportedly ordered Firlit be stripped of her parenting time until she gets vaccinated.

Since the ruling, Firlit said she hasn’t seen her son in person for over two weeks. She has purportedly only been able to speak to her son on the phone and on video calls.about:blank

“I miss my son more than anything,” Firlit told WFLD. “It’s been very difficult.”

“I think that it’s wrong. I think that it’s dividing families,” Firlit added. “And I think it’s not in my son’s best interest to be away from his mother.”

“It had nothing to do with what we were talking about. He was placing his views on me. And taking my son away from me,” Firlit said.

Annette Fernholz, Firlit’s attorney, said the judge overstepped his authority and noted that the boy’s father never brought up the concern about his ex-wife’s vaccination status during the hearing.

“In this case you have a judge, without any matter before him regarding the parenting time with the child deciding, ‘Oh, you’re not vaccinated. You don’t get to see your child until you are vaccinated.’ That kind of exceeds his jurisdiction,” Fernholz told the outlet.

“You have to understand the father did not even bring this issue before the court,” Fernholz added. “So it’s the judge on his own and making this decision that you can’t see your child until you’re vaccinated.”

Jeffrey Leving, the attorney for the boy’s father, reportedly admitted he was surprised by the judge’s decision, but supports the ruling.

“There are children who have died because of COVID. I think every child should be safe,” Leving told WFLD. “And I agree that the mother should be vaccinated.”

Firlit, who has been divorced for seven years, is appealing the court order. There is no timetable on when the appellate court will make its decision.

A spokesperson for Judge Shapiro told WFLD that they could not provide a comment at this time because of the ongoing nature of the case.

Transgender Rights: Judge Warns Girls Have No Right to ‘Visual Bodily Privacy’


Reported by DR. SUSAN BERRY |

In Lebanon, Russia uses softer touch to win influence / AFP JOSEPH EID
 

A federal judge is allowing a lawsuit against transgender facilities in a school district to proceed, but warned the student-plaintiffs that, if the government allows boys who claim to be female to use the girls’ bathrooms and locker rooms, then the girls have no right to “visual bodily privacy.”

Judge Jorge Alonso of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division is allowing a lawsuit to proceed against the school district that adopted the Obama-era transgender policy permitting boys claiming to be female to use the girls’ bathrooms, showers, and locker rooms.

However, the judge informed the girls, represented by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), that, “[s]o far, the right not to be seen unclothed by the opposite sex is not on the Supreme Court’s list.”

The judge wrote:

The crux of this suit is that defendants seek to affirm the claimed genders of students by allowing male students who claim female gender to use privacy facilities (i.e., bathrooms and locker rooms) designated for use by the female sex and female students who claim male gender to use privacy facilities designated for the male sex … District 211 adopted the policy solely to affirm the claimed genders of those students claiming a gender different from their sex at birth.

Alonso continued, saying the school district has adopted the policy of allowing all transgender students to use the restrooms, locker rooms, and showers of their choice, while it insists all other students “must use the restrooms and locker rooms designated for their sex.”

“Before adopting the policy, District 211 did not investigate the reliability of the science underlying gender-affirmation treatments,” the judge wrote. “Nor did it make any effort to understand the impacts such a policy would have on students exposed to opposite-sex, same-gendered students in locker rooms and restrooms.”

The judge acknowledged the school district’s enforcement of the transgender policy has caused the students “embarrassment, humiliation, anxiety, fear, apprehension, stress, degradation and loss of dignity.”

The students “are at continual risk of encountering (and sometimes do encounter), without their consent, members of the opposite sex while disrobing, showering, urinating, defecating and while changing tampons and feminine napkins,” he added.

Christiana Holcomb, ADF legal counsel, said, “a compassionate approach to protecting students’ privacy” is needed.

“We welcome the court’s decision to allow key claims to move forward,” she added in a statement. “The district officially authorizes opposite-sex use of school privacy facilities, and that violates Title IX. Letting boys into girls’ showers, restrooms, and locker rooms is sexual harassment. Students should be confident that their school will protect their privacy and dignity. So far, this school district has failed to do so.”

Alonso did not allow all the claims of the plaintiffs to move forward. He threw out the students’ argument made in the case that they have the right to “bodily privacy,” saying that right refers to physically being touched by others, “not visual bodily privacy.”

Additionally, the judge dismissed the students’ claim that parents’ right to direct their children’s education applies in this case. Alonso said that right refers only to parents’ choice of type of education or schooling.

As Breitbart News reported in 2016, the district opened its schools’ bathrooms to boys claiming to be female without informing parents. Later, it allowed a boy claiming to be transgender into the girls’ locker room after the Obama administration’s Department of Education threatened the district’s federal funding in the amount of $6 million. Initially, the school district arranged for a private dressing area in the girls’ locker room for the boy, but federal officials complained the arrangement stigmatized the student. Consequently, the district allowed the boy to use the girls’ locker room openly as if he were a biological girl.

The Trump administration has rescinded the Obama administration’s policy and restored Title IX to the understanding that “sex” means biological sex – male or female – rather than perceptions or beliefs about one’s gender.

Since Donald Trump won the 2016 presidential election, former President Barack Obama admitted his unpopular transgender policy helped to defeat Trump’s rival, Hillary Clinton.

As the College Fix reported, Tom Petersen, director of community relations for the school district, said, “The District will continue to defend our practices that affirm and support the identity of all our students.”

In a “backgrounder” on the case, ADF wrote, “If our government is powerful enough to command innocent school children to disrobe in the presence of opposite-sex classmates, then there will be little it will not be powerful enough to do.”

“The restroom policy and locker room agreement thus threaten our very liberty to live our lives in accordance with the most basic expectations of common decency, dignity, and privacy in our bodies,” the law firm added.

The case is Students and Parents for Privacy v. School Directors of Township High School District 211, No. 16 C 4945, in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: