Have nothing to do with the [evil] things that people do, things that belong to the darkness. Instead, bring them out to the light... [For] when all things are brought out into the light, then their true nature is clearly revealed...

-Ephesians 5:11-13

Category Archives: Education

As Public-school Enrollments Drop, So Do School Budgets

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, May 2, 2022:  

Public schools are opening across the country but, as The New American has reported, many students aren’t returning. And that, as the Associated Press noted, is causing many public schools major budgetary difficulties.

In Houston, for example, 11,000 students haven’t returned, forcing the district to cut $60 million from next year’s budget.

In Olathe, Kansas, 800 students haven’t returned, forcing the district to cut 140 jobs.

In Albuquerque, so many students are being homeschooled that the school district is facing a budget shortfall of $25 million. In Minneapolis, the school district has lost more than 4,000 students, resulting in a budget deficit of $27 million.

In Lawrence, Kansas, school officials are being forced to deal with a $7 million shortfall, while in Des Moines, 1,600 students haven’t returned, causing a $9 million deficit.

Strategies for dealing with these shortfalls range from laying off substitute teachers and aides, merging upper and lower age classes, cutting athletic and other budgets, closing schools altogether, and some districts are even selling school buildings to raise revenue to cover the deficits.

The one exception is Florida, where the influx of young families has offset the loss to homeschooling. As Jazz Shaw, writing for Hot Air, noted:

School enrollment is actually up in the Sunshine State and school revenue has increased with it.


Could that be because of the state’s policies requiring schools to involve parents in decisions affecting their children? Could it be the fact that so many people fleeing failing cities in blue states are heading for Florida? It’s probably a combination of both.

Although many districts are blaming Covid shutdowns, that is likely only a partial answer. Many public schools have turned from education centers to indoctrination centers, and parents were shocked to learn just what their students were being subjected to. As Keri Ingraham noted in the Washington Examiner:

[Homeschooling] parents were especially delighted to have their children escape the far-left political indoctrination that dominates today’s K-12 public education classrooms (the daily promotion of the LGBT agenda, critical race theory divisiveness, and woke academics).


Their children have been freed from the political agenda of teachers’ unions and school personnel using them as pawns in their power plays.

In addition, as public schools attempt to implement “equity,” they have cancelled TAG (talented and gifted) programs and honors classes.

Those being homeschooled often get better educations. As homeschooling parents have learned, their youngsters become motivated to learn more as their learning styles are recognized and teaching strategies are tailored to fit them.

Instead of sitting at a desk for six hours a day, homeschoolers enjoy field trips, socialization with other homeschoolers, and an agenda more in line with what their parents believe is the best for them. The recovery of family time is a bonus.

In just one year, the percentage of students being homeschooled across the country jumped from three percent to nearly 12 percent. And as that option becomes more widely recognized as viable and financially attractive, its growth is likely to continue apace.

Parents who have enrolled their youngsters in Freedom Project Academy, an online classical education program affiliated with The John Birch Society, have been delighted with the change:

This is our first year with FPA and we’re extremely happy. You have a wonderful program and my children are learning more than they ever have in a public school setting.


We can’t wait to register for next year!


[Our son] is thrilled and oozing with confidence. As an FPA student, he has learned how to learn. He has been surrounded by teachers that care and willing to give him a second chance while expecting him to rise to the challenge.


Thank you, thank you, thank you!


This is our first year at FPA. We were a little anxious to move our kids to a private online school. As the school year started our anxiety was relieved quickly. FPA does an excellent job with the classroom environment.

As English King Henry VI said in the Shakespeare play Henry VI, “Ill blows the wind that profits nobody.”

Covid may have been a “ill wind” indeed, but it is resulting in the happy exit of millions of young students from public schools and into true learning experiences that can only bode well for the future.

Homeschooling Surge From Covid Is Permanent, Says AP

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Tuesday, April 19, 2022: 

Following what the Associated Press (AP) said is “the most rapid rise in homeschooling the U.S. has ever seen,” homeschool parents “continue directing their children’s educations themselves.”

Prior to Covid, about three percent, or two million, young people were being homeschooled, according to the Census Bureau. That number tripled during the 2020-2021 school year, said AP, and fell off only slightly the next year.

The media outlet blamed the initial increase on the Covid shutdowns but had trouble dealing with the reasons homeschool parents are staying with the program. It gave three reasons: “health concerns, disagreement with school policies, and a desire to keep what has worked for their children.”

But, as Jazz Shaw, writing for Hot Air, explained, there is much more behind the move than just a “disagreement with school policies.” Parents, once forced to see exactly what their children were being taught in public schools, were aghast. Wrote Shaw:

I would imagine that a much bigger factor is the realization by many parents that too many public schools simply don’t do a very good job, despite the endless amounts of money that state and local governments flush into them. This is particularly true in more economically disadvantaged neighborhoods, where graduation and college acceptance rates remain unacceptably low.


On top of that, there is obviously a growing realization among parents that the nation’s public schools have largely turned from being centers of education to centers of indoctrination.


Doing away with honors programs (because they are supposedly racist) and adding in highly sexualized “gender awareness” programs isn’t helping matters either.


For every parent who learns that the school told their children “don’t tell your parents,” there are probably a dozen more families pulling the plug on public schooling.


And as an added bonus, children being educated at home don’t need to put on a d**n mask.

AP learned from the Census Bureau that black families have benefited the most from the surge in homeschooling: “The proportion of Black families homeschooling their children increased by five times, from 3.3% to 16.1% … while the proportion about doubled across other groups.”

Parents with children in public schools are learning the real purpose of public schools: socialization and integration. Said the late Horace Mann, a 19th-century politician known for his support for public schools, “Public Education is the cornerstone of our community and our democracy.” He knew, of course, that the Founders never intended to establish a democracy but took pains to avoid one by instituting a constitutional republic instead.

John Dewey, another educational “reformer” living at the same time as Mann, was more blatant about the real purpose of public schooling: “A socialized mind … is the method of social control.”

As Briana Brockbank wrote in Family Today:

Home education allows parents to adapt the curriculum to the student’s needs. Also, parents have a say in how the student will learn and what they will learn.

David Harper, principal of Freedom Project Academy, an affiliate of The John Birch Society, took it to another level. In a conversation with The New American, he said, “We teach our students how to think, not what to think.” He went on to say that his online program teaches students critical-thinking skills, how to defend positions, and how to present ideas, all based on a classical education model.

One parent’s testimony reveals just how effective Freedom Project is:

I would like to thank the faculty and staff of Freedom Project Academy for equipping my children with strong academic courses taught from a Christian worldview by teachers who integrated their faith in their teaching and their rapport with their students.


My daughter, a former FPA student, just graduated from Eastern Nazarene with a BS in Business and a minor in Biology. My son will graduate FPA this year and head to Florida Polytechnic University.


My deepest appreciation to everyone at FPA!

In the past two years, according to Harper, online enrollment at FPA has doubled, and enrollment for the 2022-2023 school year, which opened just two weeks ago, is ahead of schedule. For more information, go to https://fpeusa.org.

Second-grader Chastised for Preaching the Gospel to her Classmates

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, March 9, 2022:  

A second-grade student attending North Hill Elementary School in Des Moines, Washington, has been sent to the principal’s office 10 times since the first of the year for witnessing to her classmates on the school’s playground.

When the parents contacted the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), the public-interest law firm sent a letter to the principal reminding him of the student’s First Amendment-protected rights, and suggesting that unless the harassment stopped they would be filing suit.

The principal responded by telling ACLJ that the student was scaring her classmates with talks of Satan and hell. She offered religious tracts which some of her classmates took home with them, resulting, as the public-relations officer for the school district told CBN News, in “Multiple parents complain[ing] about their children coming home with religious pamphlets.”

The PR officer filled in the blanks: During playtime the student would stand on a playground table and preach the Gospel. School officials told her she couldn’t “tell other children they’re going to hell and that [she] must stop distributing what the school considers to be unacceptable religious materials.”

The principal said she would be allowed to distribute religious materials but only if the staff decides they’re appropriate.

The ACLJ was astonished after learning from the parents that their daughter was being stopped at the schoolhouse door and having her backpack searched for those “unacceptable religious materials”:

We were astonished when we were first contacted by a second-grade student’s parents who said their little girl had been sent to the principal’s office at North Hill Elementary School no less than 10 times since January 1st for witnessing to classmates on the playground.


But it only gets worse. Not only were they scolding her for talking about Jesus to her classmates outside of instruction time, but they were stopping her at the entrance to the school every morning to inspect her backpack and remove any Christian tracts!


Her mother witnessed this exchange one morning when dropping her daughter off and immediately confronted the principal. The principal told her that her child is not allowed to pass out tracts or crosses to students because it is upsetting parents, and the school wanted her to confirm that there were no tracts in her daughter’s backpack every morning before dropping her off from now on.


Christian tracts were being treated as contraband, as if speaking about Jesus were an illicit drug.

The ACLJ is prepared to defend the student if the school doesn’t back down, declaring that Supreme Court precedent supports her right to share the Gospel with her classmates:

It is well-settled Supreme Court precedent that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969). [Under that ruling] students are free to express their religious views while at school, which includes sharing Bibles, Christian tracts, and crosses.

Since 1969, Tinker has often been cited in cases such as this one. Although the court at the time of the ruling was considered one of the most liberal in judicial history, the majority opinion, penned by Justice Abe Fortas, is comforting:

First Amendment rights … are available to teachers and students. It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.


This has been the unmistakable holding of this Court for almost 50 years.

In this constitutional republic, wrote Fortas, freedoms come with certain inevitable risks. The alternative is tyranny where no expression outside of what the state declares is allowed:

In our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression.


Any departure from absolute regimentation may cause trouble.


Any variation from the majority’s opinion may inspire fear.


Any word spoken, in class, in the lunchroom, or on the campus, that deviates from the views of another person may start an argument or cause a disturbance.


But our Constitution says we must take this risk … and our history says that it is this sort of hazardous freedom — this kind of openness — that is the basis of our national strength and of the independence and vigor of Americans who grow up and live in this relatively permissive, often disputatious, society.

If the Highline School District, where North Hill Elementary School is located, decides to accept ACLJ’s challenge, it will have to show that the student’s behavior “materially and substantially interfere[s] with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school,” according to the Tinker ruling.

ACLJ has given the school district until March 14 to respond. The New American will report on any developments in the case.

Former NBA Player Receives Human Rights Award for Calling Out NBA and IOC

This article was published by TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, February 23, 2022:  

Enes Kanter Freedom, a Swiss-born Turkish-American professional basketball player, received the “2022 Courage Award” from the Geneva Summit for Human Rights and Democracy (GSHRD) on Tuesday. The award came a week after he had been released by the Houston Rockets.

Freedom was pleased to receive the award and not surprised at the sudden ending of his successful 11-year professional basketball career. His pointed criticism of the NBA over its selling out to China, as well as his sharp disagreement with the International Olympic Committee (IOC) for the same reason, all but guaranteed his departure from professional basketball.

He told the GSHRD audience,

I want to say thank you to [the GSHRD] for its support and for shining a global spotlight on human rights abuses in China. I hope this encourages other athletes to stand up for what is right.


Despite China’s propaganda, the regime does not represent the Olympic values of respect and friendship. It’s a brutal dictatorship that oppresses its people.


Freedom has also been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts on shining his own spotlight on those abuses for at least the last 10 years.

As his professional career took him from teams such as the Houston Rockets to the Boston Celtics, he became more and more aware not only of those abuses, but also the complicit and deliberate support being given to China by the NBA in spite of those abuses.

Born in Switzerland in 1992, Enes Kantor (his name given by his Turkish parents) moved back to Turkey. When he became a naturalized U.S. citizen last November, he added “Freedom” to his name.

When Freedom addressed the Committee on Present Danger: China in Washington last week, he called out the NBA:

You can talk about all the social justice, all the injustices happening around the world. But when it comes to China, you cannot speak up.


If you do, then you have to face the consequences.

His move from innocence to awareness began in 2018 while hosting free summer basketball camps. It was at one of those camps when a mother approached him and challenged him “in front of everybody,” saying “You call yourself a human rights activist, when your Muslim brothers and sisters [the Uyghurs in Western China] are in concentration camps and getting tortured and raped every day.”

“I was shocked,” said Freedom. “I couldn’t say anything.” Then he made a promise to look into the atrocities. What he found changed his life and ultimately ended his professional basketball career: the China Tribunal, an NGO in London looking into forced organ harvesting in China, found that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) was committing ghastly crimes of harvesting organs from imprisoned Falun Gong practitioners — an atrocity that had been doing on for more than two decades — and harshly oppressing the minority Uyghur Muslim population in the Xinjiang province.

He began to speak out, quietly at first, using his shoes as billboards for his complaints: “Free Tibet” and “Save Uyghur” among them.

ESPN took note of Freedom’s campaign, televising a documentary on him in 2019 called Enemy of the State. A year later he took on Chinese Communist dictator Xi Jinping, calling him “a brutal dictator.” In retaliation the Chinese government stopped streaming all Boston Celtics games.

In November 2021, he was interviewed by Fox News and CNN where he advocated the boycott of the 2022 Winter Olympic Games.

Last week, just before being released by the Houston Rockets, Freedom was interviewed by The Dispatch, a conservative-leaning investigative journal. His host, Danielle Pletka, asked him about any pushback the NBA had been giving him due to the airing of his grievances against it:

I talk about Turkey and the problems are happening in Turkey for 10 years. I did not get one phone call.


I talk about China [and in] one day, my phone was ringing once every hour.


The first game I wore my Free Tibet shoes — I’m sure you guys know the shoes and designs that we come up with — in half time, my manager messaged me and said, “Every Celtics game is banned in China.”


It took them 24 minutes, because one half is 24 minutes, to ban every Celtics game in television over there in China.


I was shocked. I was like, that clearly shows one more time that there’s [a] dictatorship over there.

Pletka asked if money had anything to do with it. Freedom responded:

Yes, that’s the biggest part of it. I mean, I’ll give you an example from the NBA. There are more people watching the NBA last year in China than the American population. Over 400 million.


Every year, the revenue is $5 billion. I think people can be thinking, “First of all, that’s not my country that I’m going to talk about, and the stuff that I will talk about is not going to change anything. So why would I put myself in a situation like that?”

Why would he? He virtually guaranteed his sudden turning away from the spoon that was feeding him millions of dollars every year. He said:

All the gold medals in the world [speaking about the Winter Olympics] that you champion is not more important than your morals, your principles, and your values. It’s not worth it. It’s not worth selling your morals to a country like China.


I mean, especially when you say an athlete, right? [We] have a huge platform to inspire and affect so much, especially our young generation. Because everything now, social media and everything we do, becomes a conversation. They even follow what we eat, what we wear, what we do and stuff. So, I feel it’s a huge responsibility on our shoulders.

Pletka asked him about the Winter Olympics as pure propaganda. Freedom responded:

First off, people need to understand, the IOC, International Olympic Committee, is scared to talk about human rights because they know China is one of the worst in this regard. They will rather take China’s [money] than talk about values. The reality is, the people need to understand, the IOC is in bed … with the Chinese government. They do not care about human rights. They care about publicity and money.


I mean, they just organized [the Olympic] games in a country where there is press brutality, torture, mass arrest, execution, labor camps, religious suppression, and pretty much genocide. Pretty much genocide.


So, I feel like we should definitely call out the IOC because they are part of the problem, and they’re helping [the] Chinese government to spread their propaganda.

Does he have any regrets over his activism ending his career? Said Freedom:

I’m just going to go out there and just say it like it is and expose them any way I can.… this is bigger than NBA and basketball. If that is the reason that I am not going to be able to play basketball again, then you know what? Oh, well. I can look back at least and say I did the right thing.

Ousted San Francisco School Board President Blamed Her Loss on “White Supremacists”

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Friday, February 18, 2022:  

In a remarkable fit of outrage, Gabriela Lopez complained on Twitter on Thursday about being unceremoniously ousted as president of San Francisco’s Unified School District board earlier in the week:

So, if you fight for racial justice, this is the consequence. Don’t be mistaken, white supremacists are enjoying this. And the support of the recall is aligned with this.

A twitter follower called her out for her extraordinary lack of awareness as to the real reasons why she and her two compatriots was booted:

Your tweet reflects a major lack of awareness. Over 70% [73.86%] of the [146,432 who voted in the recall election, or 108,148] voters chose “yes” on the recall, in a city already extremely diverse.


They can’t have all been mass-duped. Isolating and labeling these people as bigots or enemies of racial justice won’t help you out.

Washington Post journalist David Weigel, who has been following the recall effort closely, agreed: “The ‘yes’ vote for recall was racially diverse … the ‘white supremacist’ charge just didn’t convince anyone.”

Even the editor-in-chief of the far-left Mother Jones chimed in, claiming that her ouster had nothing to do with any “white supremacy” conspiracy funded by Trump supporters or conservative billionaires. It had everything to do with her incompetency. Editor-in-Chief Clara Jeffrey reviewed the vast “array of irritants” that led to the ouster not only of Lopez but also board members Alison Collins (78 percent to 22 percent) and Faauuga Moliga (71 percent to 29 percent).

First, San Francisco schools stayed closed due to the pandemic far longer that most other school districts in the country. The board consequently spent little time planning on how to reopen them, dismaying parents with students being required to stay at home.

Second, rather than planning for reopening the schools, the board decided unanimously to rename 44 of them. Their ideological screen excluded any historical figure who had “engaged in the subjugation and enslavement of human beings; or who oppressed women, inhibiting societal progress; or whose actions led to genocide; or who otherwise significantly diminished the opportunities of those amongst us to the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Those figures included U.S. Presidents George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, Abraham Lincoln, and Theodore Roosevelt. Also included were two-time Secretary of State Daniel Webster, Paul Revere, and Francis Scott Key, the author of the “The Star-Spangled Banner.”

This move so outraged even the liberal parents living in San Francisco that the board was forced to cancel its plans. Lopez made half an apology, claiming that the board’s plans to rename the schools began in 2018 “with a timeline that didn’t anticipate a pandemic. I acknowledge and take responsibility that mistakes were made in the renaming process.”

And then there was the kerfuffle over painting over a mural done in 1930 in one of the schools depicting snippets of George Washington’s life experiences. The board considered them racist and voted to paint over the mural. This so alienated art historians, the local NAACP, and other liberal elites that the board at first backtracked and then decided that rather than paint over the mural it would order that the mural be covered instead. The cost was $815,000 when the board was running a deficit in excess of $125 million.

The board decided to intervene in the admissions process of Lowell High School, one of the highest-rated public schools in the country. As Jeffery noted: “Admission was determined by ‘merit,’ i.e., GPA. Lowell was also overwhelmingly Asian American (the biggest group) and white.”

This the board couldn’t abide and voted to change Lowell’s admission practice to a public lottery instead, in order to make the student body more “representative” of the community, regardless of ability. What really set off the parents was that the board “rammed through [the] change without allowing for public input, apparently violating state sunshine provisions and triggering … lawsuits,” according to Jeffrey.

Back in April of last year an enterprising individual uncovered some “anti-Asian” tweets issued by one of those ousted on Tuesday, Alison Collins. One of them read, “Where are the vocal Asians speaking up against Trump? Don’t Asian Americans know they are on his list as well?”

The board issued a vote of no confidence as a result, and Collins filed suit claiming that her First Amendment rights had been violated. The suit was for $87 million. Happily, a judge threw out her lawsuit but only after the board had spent $400,000 of taxpayer monies defending themselves against it.

In June 2020, the district’s school superintendent, Vincent Matthews, tried to intervene and asked the board to bring in an outside consultant to help them deal with some of the real issues. But the board declined after learning that the consultant had once worked for a charter school.

As Jeffrey concluded, Tuesday’s vote had nothing to do with “white supremacy” but “a vote against incompetence.” Voters, she wrote, “felt like the board was playing politics, very ineptly.”

Mayor London Breed now has the opportunity to put the board back on track when she installs her own candidates to replace those booted on Tuesday. As for the other four board members? They won’t be eligible for their own recall vote as they haven’t been on the board long enough.

Three San Francisco School-board Members Fired in Tuesday Recall Election

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, February 16. 2022:

The efforts of two frustrated San Francisco parents with students in the city’s Unified School District to recall three school board members were rewarded handsomely on Tuesday: All three members they targeted were unceremoniously and overwhelmingly bounced from the board on Tuesday.

Results announced two hours after the election was over led one of the three, Faauuga Moliga, to concede defeat immediately. Concessions by the other two, board member Alison Collins and board president Gabriela Lopez, are expected shortly.

Nearly 80 percent voted to recall Collins, 75 percent voted to recall Lopez, and 73 percent voted to recall Moliga.

One of the prime drivers behind the recall effort, single parent Siva Raj, rejoiced: “It’s the people rising up in revolt … saying it’s unacceptable to abandon your responsibility to educate your children.”

Instead of focusing on reopening the schools following the pandemic, the board last year went “woke.” It renamed a third of the schools in the district, removing names honoring historical figures such as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Patrick Henry, and John Muir, since those men “inhibited societal progress” during their lives.

The board ordered admissions policies at the high-performing Lowell High School to be replaced with a lottery to force the school’s student body to appear more diverse. The previous admissions policies were based on grades and test scores, which led to a high percentage of students from Asian ancestry attending Lowell.

The board, facing millions of dollars in cost overruns, spent $1 million on painting over an historic, 80-year-old mural at one of the schools that depicted the life of George Washington.

The ouster was helped along by support from the city’s mayor, London Breed, who also celebrated the removal of the three: “The voters of this city have delivered a clear message that the school board must focus on the essentials of delivering a well-run school system above all else.”

The recall effort was also aided by support from the San Francisco Chronicle (which claimed that the three “failed miserably” in their jobs) and the San Francisco Examiner (which said the board “put political grandstanding ahead of progress for children” and turned the actions of the board into a “national laughingstock”).

Mayor Breed will now, with the assistance of the two parents behind the recall effort, name three replacements.

The success sets the stage for another high-profile recall effort culminating in June: that of George Soros-backed District Attorney Chesa Boudin. Boudin’s administration has been a disaster thanks to his moves to end incarceration for minor crimes such as shoplifting and ending cash bail. So outrageous has been his performance that 59 attorneys in his office have either quit, have retired, or have been fired.

Voters have no excuse. They knew of his radical background — his parents were members of the domestic terrorist group Weather Underground and he worked closely with the late Venezuelan dictator Hugh Chávez as public defender and translator — but, with Soros’ funding, he was elected anyway.

Boudin has all but sealed his fate by first declaring that he would charge looters of Union Square retail shops with felonies and then letting them off after charging them with misdemeanors instead. As Monica Showalter noted at American Thinker: “He’s got the cops mad at him. He’s got the people in his office mad at him. He’s got the press mad at him. And he’s certainly got the voters mad at him.”

The momentum is all in voters’ favor. As Ballotpedia reported, in 2021 there were 529 elected officials who faced a recall effort. In 2022, as dissatisfaction mounts among voters, that record is likely to be broken.

San Francisco Voters Poised to Recall Three School Board Members Today

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Tuesday, February 15, 2022:  

Voters in the progressive vanguard city of San Francisco are voting today to oust three of the seven board members of the city’s Unified School District. All seven are far-left liberal Democrats, but only three are currently eligible for recall. The others haven’t served long enough to qualify for recall.

Otherwise, it’s likely that all seven would be replaced in the recall election taking place today in “The City by the Bay.” Those removed today will be replaced by other Democrats named by Democrat Mayor London Breed.

It’s not about ideology. Most of the 80,000 citizens who signed the petition putting Gabriella Lopez, Alison Collins, and Faauuga Moliga on the recall ballot are political liberals, proud that their city is in the vanguard of liberal, progressive policies being pushed by the far left. It’s that the board has just gone too far, even for San Francisco.

The rumblings of discontent began more than a year ago, following a nine-hour board meeting during which the board members all but ignored the issue of closed schools negatively affecting the learning and education of students. Instead, the meeting focused on the renaming of 44 schools in order to fit the agenda of the day: Any historical figure that ever once evinced any sort of “white supremacy,” “racism,” or “discrimination” was to be banished. Anyone whose name adorned a school that, in retrospect, “inhibited societal progress” was to be dropped down the memory hole.

They would include Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, and even Senator Dianne Feinstein!


Defenders of that insanity claimed that Washington owned slaves, that Lincoln facilitated the slaughter of Native Americans, and that Feinstein once replaced a Confederate flag that had been vandalized back in 1984.


Even far-left Matt Gonzalez, chief attorney for the city’s Public Defender’s Office, had enough of this foolishness. He expressed his support for the removal of the three members in The Epoch Times by explaining that their zeal to be politically correct had exceeded their understanding of history, including the case of Abraham Lincoln:

Abraham Lincoln’s name was deemed worthy of removal because his administration continued to implement discriminatory 19th-century policies against Native Americans.


He is also implicated in failing to intervene in the death sentences imposed by the U.S. Army against many Native Americans for hostilities against white settlers during the Dakota War in Minnesota in 1862.


Lincoln did assert his power to commute the sentences of 264 individuals, and one of the condemned captives was granted a full reprieve. However, 38 captured Native warriors were executed after Lincoln chose not to intervene.


While the criticism against Lincoln is grounded in fact, we should hesitate to require purity among anyone [who] might be honored with public recognition, otherwise we might be left without anyone who would qualify. In Lincoln’s case his Emancipation Proclamation freeing slaves and his role in preserving the Union is what we honor when we name a school after him.


I question whether this school board can fairly consider historical facts when making such decisions.

That’s a fair question. In the board’s desire to rewrite history by removing the names of many of its most famous and influential figures from schools, it has gone beyond what even liberal San Franciscans can stand.

The board excoriated the highly-regarded Lowell High School, one of the highest-performing schools in the district, over its admission standards. Those policies have resulted in nearly half the student population being of Asian descent. This is anathema to the liberals running the show as this is disproportionate to the district’s overall student population.

Naturally, the recall efforts are being funded by conservative “billionaires,” “right wingers,” “Big Tech,” and “Trump supporters,” claimed Frank Lara, vice president of the United Educators of San Francisco, which has opposed the recall efforts.

But even that is a lie. Supporters needed 51,325 signatures per board member in order to set up the recall election. Each received more than 80,000. As Gonzalez noted, “It is not reasonable to dismiss these San Franciscans as all Republicans or conservatives — or to use the spectre of the GOP to detract from the issue here.” It’s much more reasonable, he wrote, that the pending ouster stems from “the dissatisfaction of residents … with the performance and decision-making of these officials.”

The vote taking place today in San Francisco isn’t over ideology, per se. It’s over ideology run amok. As Jeremy White wrote in liberal Politico, today’s recall election is “a stark warning that public officials can veer too far left even for proudly progressive voters to tolerate.”

The results of today’s recall election are expected to be announced by the end of the week.

Top Virginia Officials Join Parents in Suing Loudoun School

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Friday, February 4, 2022:  

Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin, his Attorney General Jason Mirares, and the state’s Superintendent of Public Instruction Jilian Balow asked a court on Wednesday to allow them to join the parents suing the Loudoun County School Board.

The parents complain that their students attending Loudoun County public schools are still required to wear masks all day (including during sporting events). This, despite Youngkin’s executive order freeing them to allow their students to go maskless if they so desire.

On his first day as governor, Youngkin signed nine executive orders, one of them directly repealing an order issued by his predecessor, Governor Ralph Northam, commanding all students be masked as part of the protocol adopted by the state to mitigate transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

As Youngkin explained:

Recent government orders requiring virtually every child in Virginia wear masks virtually every moment they are in school have proven ineffective and impractical. They have also failed to keep up with rapidly changing scientific information….


[While a] universal masking requirement in schools has provided inconsistent health benefits, the universal requirement has also inflicted notable harm and proven to be impracticable. Masks inhibit the ability of children to communicate, delay language development, and impede the growth of emotional and social skills.

He reminded parents that they have the right, under the Code of Virginia, “to make decisions concerning the upbringing, education, and care of the parent’s child,” adding:

Permitting parents to make decisions on where and when to wear masks permits the Commonwealth’s parents to make the best decision for the circumstances confronting each child. Parents can assess the risks and benefits facing their child, consult their medical providers, and make the best decision for their children based on the most up to date health information available.

He then declared that the previous mask mandate was void, and that parents “may [now] elect for their children not to be subject to any mask mandate in effect at the child’s school or educational program.”


He further declared that school boards may not inflict special demands on parents requiring them to justify their decision not to have their children masked.


This so rankled the Loudoun County School Board that they decided, despite the evidence and the new order from Youngkin, to declare that any student violating the district’s commands for all-day, full-time masking would be suspended.

Here is an excerpt from the letter sent to parents from the Loudoun County School District:

Students who willfully continue to refuse to [wear a mask] as required by Loudoun County Public Schools will be suspended from school [and that] a student who is suspended because of non-compliance with [the mask mandate] may return to school only when they agree to [wear a mask] throughout the entire school day and at all indoor school-related events.

Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares explained why he supports the lawsuit filed by the parents:

Parents know what is best for their children and should be able to decide if their children wear a mask for eight hours a day. For this reason, the Attorney General, Governor, and Superintendent of Public Instruction are seeking a motion for temporary injunction and a motion for temporary restraining order.

What’s galling most to the tyrants running the public schools in Loudoun County, Virginia, is the whole idea that parents — supposedly uneducated and untrained in how children ought to be taught — now have the power to decide for themselves what’s best for their children.

The Circuit Court for Loudoun County will decide the matter.

Rasmussen: Majority of Americans See Mainstream Media as “Enemy of the People”

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, January 26, 2022:  

When Rasmussen Reports polled 1,000 likely U.S. voters earlier this month, it asked three questions:

  1. Do you trust the political news you are getting?
  2. How serious of a problem is “fake news” in the media?
  3. Do you agree or disagree with this statement: The media are “truly the enemy of the people”?

The results should be greatly comforting to those involved in the freedom fight: 580 of those polled agreed that the members of the mainstream media (i.e., The New York TimesThe Washington PostTime magazine, ABC News, CNN, etc.) are in fact enemies of the people.

Half the battle is knowing who the enemy is. Or, as Sun Tzu expressed it, “If ignorant both of your enemy and yourself, you are certain to be in peril.”

Noam Chomsky, a media researcher and a specialist in propaganda tactics used by media, provided insight into the enemy camp in his 1997 article “What Makes Mainstream Media Mainstream?”

He wrote:

The elite media set a framework within which others operate. If you are watching the Associated Press, who grind out a constant flow of news, in the mid-afternoon it breaks and there is something that comes along every day that says, “Notice to Editors: Tomorrow’s New York Times is going to have the following stories on the front page.”


The point of that is, if you’re an editor of a newspaper in Dayton, Ohio and you don’t have the resources to figure out what the news is, or you don’t want to think about it anyway, this tells you what the news is….


These are the stories that you put there because that’s what the New York Times tells us is what you’re supposed to care about tomorrow.

Just who are the “elite media”? Chomsky answers:

What are the elite media, the agenda-setting ones? The New York Times and CBS, for example.


Well, first of all, they are major, very profitable, corporations. Furthermore, most of them are either linked to, or outright owned by, much bigger corporations, like General Electric, Westinghouse, and so on.

Is every writer, every journalist, every news channel host in on the scam? Chomsky replies:

When you critique the media and you say, look, here is what Anthony Lewis [a former Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist for the New York Times] or somebody else is writing, they get very angry. They say, quite correctly, “Nobody ever tells me what to write. I write anything I like. All this business about pressures and constraints is nonsense because I’m never under any pressure.”


Which is completely true, but the point is that they wouldn’t be there unless they had already demonstrated that nobody has to tell them what to write because they are going say the right thing.

In his book, “Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda,” Chomsky describes how the public is deliberately and intentionally manipulated and controlled; how the mass media is the primary vehicle for delivering propaganda in the United States. He reveals how the mainstream media focuses on “controlling the public mind” and not on informing it.

He leaves open, however, the question of just who sets the agenda. One of the primary “agenda setters” in the United States has been the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

Established in 1921 following the failure of the League of Nations, the CFR’s purpose is to “awaken America to its worldwide responsibilities.” It has succeeded by infiltrating the mass media, think tanks, universities — every part of the culture that controls the conversation.

Richard Harwood, a former senior editor for the Washington Post, wrote back in 1993 that the CFR is “the nearest thing we have to a ruling establishment in the United States.” He explained:

The membership of these journalists in the Council, however they may think of themselves, is an acknowledgment of their active and important role in public affairs and of their ascension into the American ruling class.


They do not merely analyze and interpret foreign policy for the United States; they help make it. They are part of that establishment whether they like it or not, sharing most of its values and world views.

The tentacles of the CFR, and its sister groups the Bilderbergers and the Trilateral Commission, are exposed here. Members include Bill Moyers, Tom Brokaw, George Stephanopoulos, and Dianne Sawyer. Major newspapers infiltrated by the CFR include, in addition to the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the Boston Globe, the Associated Press, Reuters, and the L.A. Times.

Mainstream magazines also hawking the official line include TimeNewsweekU.S. News and World ReportReader’s DigestAtlantic Monthly, and Forbes. Publishing houses also caught in the CFR web include MacMillan, Random House, Simon & Shuster, and McGraw-Hill.

The CFR has also insinuated its members into the Brookings Institution, the RAND Corporation, the Foreign Policy Association, the Hudson Institute, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and the United Nations Association.

Nor is it surprising that the CFR has enormous influence of the nation’s banking system, including JPMorgan Chase & Co., Bank of America, Citigroup, and Goldman Sachs. It also has influence in the insurance industry as well, including the Equitable, New York Life, Metropolitan, and Prudential.

If, as Sun Tzu said, half the battle is knowing your enemy, the other half is enlisting in the fight. See jbs.org for details on joining the John Birch Society in its epic 60-year educational effort to expose the enemy, rout him, and then begin the process of restoring the American republic to its former glory.

After all, if Rasmussen is right, then more than half of likely voters are open to the invitation now that they have been awakened.

The Staggering Irony of the Launch of the James Webb Space Telescope on Christmas Morning

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, December 27, 2021:  

The launch of the James Webb Space Telescope from the European Space Agency’s (ESA’s) launch site in French Guiana on Christmas morning was breathtaking. A joint venture involving NASA, ESA, and the Canadian Space Agency (CSA), it was the culmination of decades of work and the investment of billions of dollars.

The irony of the launch on the day when Christians celebrated the birth of their Savior, Jesus Christ, was also breathtaking. But NASA and the media covering the launch missed the connection altogether.

Bill Nelson, NASA’s administrator exulted:

The James Webb Space Telescope represents the ambition that NASA and our partners maintain to propel us forward into the future.


The promise of Webb is not what we know we will discover; it’s what we don’t yet understand or can’t yet fathom about our universe….


It’s a time machine. It’s going to take us back to the very beginnings of the universe. We are going to discover incredible things we never imagined.

The telescope, riding on the Ariane 5 rocket, is headed nearly a million miles into space. Its destination is L2, the “second Lagrange Point,” which is described as “a wonderful accident of gravity and orbital mechanics … the perfect place to park the Webb telescope in space.” It’s one of six such known “accidents,” where gravity from the sun and the Earth will allow it to stay in a fixed position, requiring a minimal amount of energy to keep it stable for at least the next 10 years.

CBS News said the telescope “will attempt to capture starlight from the first galaxies to be born in the fiery crucible of the Big Bang.” It added:

The telescope is optimized to capture images of the first stars and galaxies to begin shining in the aftermath of the Big Bang, light that has been stretched into the infrared portion of the spectrum by the expansion of space itself over the past 13.8 billion years.


That light can’t be seen by the iconic Hubble, which Webb will eventually replace. Hubble was designed to study visible light wavelengths but even so, it has detected galaxies dating back to within a half billion years of the Big Bang.


Webb should be able to push several hundred million years beyond that, detecting light that began heading out when the universe was just 200 million years or so old. That’s the era when the cosmos first emerged from the hydrogen fog of birth and starlight began traveling freely through space.


The long hoped-for baby pictures of the universe are expected to shed revolutionary light on the formation and evolution of galaxies, the supermassive black holes that lurk at their hearts and the life cycles of stars, from birth to the titanic supernova blasts that cooked up most of the elements in the periodic table.

NASA itself described the mission:

  • To search for light from the first stars and galaxies that formed in the Universe after the Big Bang;
  • To study the formation and the evolution of galaxies;
  • To understand the formation of stars and planetary systems;
  • To study planetary systems and the origins of life.

Dr. Wernher von Braun, the chief architect for the Apollo Saturn V rocket for NASA, had a vastly different view of what the Webb telescope might find. In a letter he wrote to the California state Board of Education in 1972, he said:

In response to your inquiry about my personal views concerning the “Case for Design” as a viable scientific theory for the origin of the universe, life and man, I am pleased to make the following observations.


For me, the idea of creation is not conceivable without invoking the necessity of design. One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose behind it all.


In the world around us, we can behold the obvious manifestations of an ordered, structured plan or design. We can see the will of the species to live and propagate.


And we are humbled by the powerful forces at work on a galactic scale, and the purposeful orderliness of nature that endows a tiny and ungainly seed with the ability to develop into a beautiful flower.


The better we understand the intricacies of the universe and all its harbors, the more reason we have found to marvel at the inherent design upon which it is based.


While the admission of a design for the universe ultimately raises the question of a Designer (a subject outside of science), the scientific method does not allow us to exclude data which lead to the conclusion that the universe, life and man are based on design.


To be forced to believe only one conclusion – that everything in the universe happened by chance – would violate the very objectivity of science itself.


Certainly there are those who argue that the universe evolved out of a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of a man or the system of the human eye?

In his new book, The Biblical Structure of History, Dr. Gary North notes that humanists now rule the world of science:

They do not believe in the sovereignty of God. They have constructed a narrative of the history of the universe that explicitly denies any purpose whatsoever.


Cosmic evolution is purposeless. It has no design. Out of the cosmos came life about 4.5 billion years ago, we are assured. Then came mankind about 2.5 million years ago….


Humanists have substituted their doctrine of the sovereignty of man for the Bible’s doctrines of the sovereignty of God. This underlies all of their historical narratives.


There are major conflicting humanistic historical narratives, but they all agree on this point: man proposes, and man disposes.

They are without excuse, says the Apostle Paul. Writing to Christians in Rome, he said:

The wrath of God is being revealed from Heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.


For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – His eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

It will take six months for the Webb telescope to become fully operational, revealing more and more of the wonders of God’s creations that the Hubble telescope has already revealed. One wonders just how long it will take for the Bill Nelsons of NASA, ESA, and CSA to discover that while in the process of looking for the beginning of the universe, they are stumbling over it.

NYU Professor Exonerated After Being Charged With Teaching “Dangerous Misinformation”

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, December 13, 2021:  

Last week, officials at New York University relented and exonerated Professor Mark Crispin Miller over the school’s claims that he was teaching his students “dangerous misinformation” about the efficacy of masks during the COVID-10 pandemic.

The exoneration came with a warning, however: NYU suggested that he might need to “reconsider his teaching style” and perhaps to “even get some coaching.”

This for a man who has been with NYU since 1997 and, consequently, is a fully tenured professor there. He has been teaching a course on propaganda there for 20 years, which is one of the most popular classes on campus.

In September 2020, Professor Miller thought the issue of masking would make a great issue to study as there was so much conflicting information floating around about the efficacy of masks in reining in the spread of the virus. He told his students:

You would want to read all the scientific literature on masking.


It may interest you to know that all the randomized controlled trials on masking in hospitals have found that masks are not effective barriers against respiratory viruses. You would want to read all those studies.


And you would also then want to read the more recent studies finding otherwise.

He also advised his students to look for financial connections between the authors of those studies and the pharmaceutical industry as well as the Gates Foundation. He even provided Internet links to studies that had been censored for exposing information that didn’t fit the popular narrative.

That’s real teaching, and not indoctrination. He asked his students to do their research on both sides of the issue, to review and analyze what they found, and then to use their critical thinking skills to come to an educated and well-informed opinion on the matter. And then be prepared to defend their conclusions in class. He didn’t interpose his personal opinion, leaving the students to come to their own conclusions. This often led to lively discussions during his classes.

Julia, a student who hadn’t attended his first class, was outraged. She tweeted:

I hope NYUniversity/NYUSteinhardt agrees that this professor should not be trusted with educating and advising students, and I hope they take immediate stops to relieve him of these duties.

In response, Miller’s department head wrote: “Julia, thank you for reporting this issue. We as a department have made this a priority and are discussing next steps.”

The “next steps” included sending an e-mail to his students (while excluding Miller from the e-mail) suggesting that, said Miller, “I had given this class dangerous misinformation, and [then] included a list of links to studies recommended by the CDC, calling them authoritative, and then ending by warning them to wear their masks on campus, as if I had told them not to.”

This was followed by 25 of Miller’s colleagues writing a letter to the dean, who then ordered an investigation before even talking to Miller.

When he learned that the university had relented and concluded that he hadn’t violated any of the university’s rules, Miller said:

Here I was accused of bullying my students into agreeing with my crackpot views.


Well, several students who defended me actually said that my classes were unusually tolerant and open and that I do not punish anyone for disagreeing.


And I do not hold the party line on any issue, whereas other professors at NYU, specifically in my department, do precisely that.


They hold forth with all kinds of social justice pieties, and the students are intimidated, and [consequently] they censor themselves, and they are afraid to disagree.

Professor Miller has taken the next step: He is suing 19 of his “colleagues” who ganged up on him for libel.

Unrepentant School Board President Ousted Over Dossier on Opponents

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, November 17, 2021:  

During an emergency session on Monday evening the Scottsdale (Arizona) Unified School District’s governing board demanded that its president, Jann-Michael Greenburg, resign. When he refused, the board replaced him with another board member by a vote of 4-1. Greenburg’s was the only dissenting vote.

Accused of having access to a Google drive on his computer that the Scottsdale Independent (IN) called “The Greenburg Files” containing 160 pages of private background information on some 47 parents, Greenburg tried to distance himself from the impending vote by opening the meeting:

I am reassured [that] the Scottsdale Police Department is investigating this matter.


There appear to be bad actors involved and I am confident our law enforcement will quickly resolve these issues.

He added:

I strongly support the investigations that have been announced both publicly and privately, and I hope that, at the conclusion of those investigations, we will have all the facts so that we can make a decision that is in the best interest of our district on this matter.

His denial of any wrongdoing fell on deaf ears. Not only did the board vote to replace him with another board member to complete the balance of his term, the board also demanded his resignation. They also demanded the resignation of the school’s superintendent and two other board members who were alleged to have known about the Google drive but did nothing about it until a parent discovered and exposed it. They all refused to resign.

Following the meeting, school superintendent Scott Menzel also tried to distance himself from the inflammatory Google drive:

The focus of the Governing Board should remain solely on improving educational opportunities for each and every one of our District’s 22,000 students. The decision this evening ensures that with new leadership this will be the top priority….


The existence of these files is disturbing and unacceptable. The Board, in fulfilling its duty, has the obligation to be honest, fair, caring, and respectful.


Further, it must avoid conduct that creates the appearance of impropriety of conduct unbefitting a public official.

More than 100 parents attended the emergency meeting, most of whom likely were among the more than 1,500 parents who signed a petition demanding that Greenburg resign.

The petition concluded:

His [Jann-Michael’s] actions have made it unequivocally clear that he is unfit for public office.… We stand together in requesting the immediate termination of Jann-Michael Greenburg as SUSD Governing Board President, and we further demand his resignation as an SUSD Governing Board Member.

They got half of their wish on Monday night: Greenburg is no longer president, but remains on the board. The police are continuing their investigation into the matter. And Greenburg is likely, when all is said and done, to face legal sanctions. An attorney following the matter said that the former school board president likely violated numerous laws, including Arizona’s Parents’ Bill of Rights and other state and federal laws “prohibiting both intimidation generally and voter intimidation in particular.”

Amy Carney, a mother of six and a candidate for the governing board, said the file was retaliation over her objection to the board’s policies concerning masking and the teaching of Critical Race Theory:

I’d call this retaliation.… The list of parents targeted in the drive appears to be anyone who has spoken out about anything against our district, publicly or online.

School Board President Under Pressure to Resign Over His “Opposition Dossier” on Parents Protesting CRT

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Friday, November 12, 2021:  

Jann-Michael Greenburg, the 28-year-old president of the Scottsdale (Arizona) Unified School District (SUSD), is under pressure to resign and may already have done so by the time visitors are reading this.

Greenburg claims he had nothing to do with the Google Drive that appeared on his laptop computer containing personal and confidential information on an estimated 47 people, including parents in his district opposed to the district’s policies on masking and CRT.

On Tuesday, Greenburg denied having anything to do with the information stored on his computer: “I categorically deny having anything to do with any of this,” he told Arizona’s Independent Newsmedia (IN).

Since then, much information has surfaced that indicts Greenburg. Listening in on that conversation with IN was Greenburg’s father, Mark. Forensics on the drive have shown the owner to be Mark Greenburg. Mark and Jann-Michael live together and both have access to the computer.

The URL to the Google Drive was inadvertently sent by Jann-Michael to a parent who apparently said some critical things about George Soros with which Jann-Michael disagreed. The parent downloaded the information from the drive and was surprised to see its contents: photographs of some children in the district; personal information on their parents, including portions of their Social Security numbers, home addresses, records of mortgage payments, a divorce decree, and some bankruptcy filings.

The drive also contained folders with headings such as “Press Conference Psychos,” “Anti-Mask Lunatics,” and “SUSD Wackos.” 

When parent Amanda Wray discovered information about herself and her family on the drive, she went ballistic:


When I first saw the contents of the Google Drive and I saw my 8- and 10-year-olds’ photos, that was terrifying. I’m like, what’s he doing?


He has pictures of my vacation home, property records. I’m not a political opponent. I’m an involved parent and that is threatening to me and it makes me wonder why and what he was planning to do with those photos.

Wray is working with other parents in an effort to recall Greenburg over the district’s COVID policies. Said Wray, “We’re not anti-mask, we’re not anti-vaccines. [Our opponents, presumably including Greenburg] have painted us this way because it fits their inflammatory narrative. We’ll all for parent choice and really, transparency.”

She added:

Jann sent the screenshot [containing the URL to the Google Drive]. He has access to this drive, so I’m really interested to understand how he’s going to say he doesn’t know about it because he had the drive open on his computer.


You’ve got the school district saying, “Sorry. He’s elected. He’s allowed to abuse the community? He’s allowed to use student information and dox parents? Sorry?”

The school district sent out an e-mail to parents on Wednesday, claiming that it knew about the Google Drive situation but “such activities are not within the purview of the [SUSD’s] control.”

The letter further declared “in no uncertain terms that personal student information and educational records are private and protected … to which neither Board members nor the public have access.”

This is pure whitewash and distraction. That wasn’t the issue. The issue was whether the president of the district had access to private information on his opponents.

The letter ended, “SUSD is committed to conducting its mission of educating your students with the highest level of integrity and transparency, and will not be deterred from that focus.”


Amy Carney is a candidate for the board in upcoming elections and is calling for Greenburg’s immediate resignation:

I am calling for the immediate resignation of our board president Jann-Michael Greenburg.


We cannot allow anyone in a leadership position to secretly compile personal documents and information on moms and dads who have dared speak out publicly or on social media about their grievances with the district.


We request President Greenburg’s resignation from the Governing Board effective immediately for this and other recent embarrassments to our district.

If he resigns, which is highly likely as the pressure to do so continues to build, he may still face legal consequences. According to Alexander Kolodin of the Davillier Law Group, “These allegations are deeply troubling, especially as concerns the photography of a minor child without parental consent and the taking down of license plate numbers of parents who Mr. Greenburg supposedly perceived as political opponents.”

The story is gaining national attention. The New American will stay close to it and keep its readers informed.

House Republicans Demand to Know How U.S. Attorneys Will “Prosecute” Parents Speaking Out at School Board Meetings

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Tuesday, November 2, 2021:  

All 16 Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee sent a letter yesterday to 93 U.S. attorneys across the land demanding to know just “how they intend to execute Attorney General Merrick Garland’s recent directive to mobilize the FBI and other law enforcement against ‘concerned’ parents at school board meetings.”

The letter referred to Garland’s demand that each U.S. attorney draft a “partnership” strategy with state and local law enforcement to “identify” and “prosecute” what Garland said was a “disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff.”

The Republicans decried the “troubling attempts” by the Department of Justice and the White House to target parents expressing their strong opinions at board meetings on various topics, including especially the teaching of Critical Race Theory (CRT). After all, said the letter, “Parents have an undisputed right to direct the upbringing and education of their children … [and] we must not tolerate the use of the federal law enforcement apparatus to intimidate and silence parents using their Constitutional rights to advocate for their child’s future.”

The letter referred to the causative agent behind the move — the outrageous letter from the National School Boards Association (NSBA) declaring that “as these acts of malice, violence, and threats against public school officials have increased, the classification of these heinous actions could be the equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes.” The NSBA requested that “a joint collaboration among federal law enforcement agencies, state and local law enforcement, and with public school officials be undertaken to focus on these threats.”

The letter said it is time to “deal with” those parents:

As the threats grow and news of extremist hate organizations showing up at school board meetings as being reported, this is a critical time for a proactive approach to deal with this difficult issue.

Garland was only too happy to agree, sending his demand letter to his attorneys just four days after the NSBA letter was sent to the White House.

It didn’t matter that, on October 22, the NSBA sent a weak-kneed letter of apology, intoning, “We regret and apologize for the letter.… There was no justification for some of the language included in the letter.”

Assuming that the Republicans receive the information they requested from the 93 U.S. attorneys (by November 15, if you please), what then? The cat is out of the bag. The wheels have been set in motion. Parents will have their First Amendment rights to speak in public chilled and dampened out of fear that some federal agent is attending the board meeting, taking notes and surreptitious video of their comments, to result in a knock on their door later that night by law enforcement.

It’s long past time for parents to realize what has happened to public schools and to make the appropriate decision about keeping their children in them, or not. Back in 1981, reformed pastor David H. Chilton asked rhetorically, “What’s Really Wrong with Public Schools?”


He wrote:

The usual argument against public education is very convincing. And very wrong.


It runs something like this: Public schools have become breeding grounds for violence and sexual promiscuity; they often are outlets for socialist propaganda; they now constitute a formidable enemy of Christianity (by teaching evolution and prohibiting prayer and Bible reading) and of the family (by teaching sex education and deriding traditional authority structures).


And so on — which is not an unmitigated tragedy, since it is being used, under the providence of God, to lead more and more Christians to abandon the system of public education. No matter what the reason, that is certainly a good result.


Unfortunately, the argument above is not as principled as it looks. It is not an argument against state education, but only against certain perceived ills of public schools as they now exist.

The real problem with public schools, according to Chilton, is far deeper and more profound than concerns over sexual promiscuity or the teaching of CRT:

The real problem with public schools is that they exist in the first place.


They are an ungodly, unlawful, collectivist institution. The many evils now spewing out of them derive from the curse of God inflicted on all institutions that defy Him.


He has commanded parents to educate their children in terms of His law; that cannot be done in a public school. If we want our children to fear Him, to grow into diligent workers for His kingdom, we cannot afford to train them in an institution which has as its fundamental presupposition that I am entitled to as much money as I can vote out of my neighbor’s pocket.


Prayer doesn’t belong in a public school (Proverbs 28:9). Your money doesn’t belong in a public school. Most of all, your children don’t belong in a public school. Institutions premised on sin must not be redeemed, but abandoned.

Parent Pushback on Children’s Mask Mandates Goes Viral

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, October 18, 2021:  

Perhaps the most viewed video of outraged parents protesting school-board mask mandates for their kids came from Clark County School District in Nevada. In September, not only did a group of parents file a $200 million lawsuit against the school board, a copy of it was hand-delivered to each board member during a meeting.

The complaint stated that the board and the school superintendent “blatantly and maliciously” violated the Constitution by imposing the mask mandate on school children. It complained that any benefits masking might provide are greatly exceeded by the damage done to the educational process. “The ability to pursue an education without being subject to health risks … are not offset by any scientifically provable benefits,” said the complaint.

Said the parents, in announcing the lawsuit as copies of it were being handed out to each board member:

You have been officially served a $200 million lawsuit with six complaints and violations under multiple amendments. Your job is not to be concerned with children’s health. You are not nurses. You’re not doctors.


Your only focus is on our children’s education. If the education system here is 50th in the state and you make almost more money than anybody else, it is very clear that you have failed in doing that job.

Accordingly, the parents are not only seeking a repeal of the mask mandate on their children, but $200 million in damages. In addition, the complaint demands that “each defendant be held responsible for breaching the public’s trust to the maximum extent of the law … a category C felony.”

In Tom’s River, New Jersey, things got so heated over the mask mandates that the school board was forced to shut down a meeting. In an interview following the meeting, parent Christina Valenti said:

It’s almost like they can’t go after the adults [to enforce the mandate]. The adults won’t comply, so they’re going after our children.


They’re innocent. They’re [at] the lowest risk.


If you’re afraid, put it on. If you’re not, don’t. But it’s my choice. I should have that choice as a parent.


You’re an educator, educate! Let me parent!

Valenti revealed part of a letter she sent to New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy:

Our parents have had enough of state-mandated masks for our children under the guise of safety. They want the choice to decide what is best for their own children.


This country was founded on the principle of Liberty, and safety does not come before Freedom.

In Chino, California, dozens of parents gathered on a downtown sidewalk waving signs with slogans that said “Let them breathe,” and “Our children, Our choice.”

In Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, parents filed a lawsuit against the mask mandate, this one aimed at the state’s Acting Health Secretary Alison Beam. The suit claims she doesn’t have the authority to mandate masks in the schools and that her order to do so violates the state’s constitution.

In White Hall, Arkansas, parents of school children have sued the school district for mandating masks. Said parent Laura Golden:

I think it’s everybody’s individual choice. If you feel safe wearing a mask, wherever you go, then that’s great: wear a mask. If you don’t, there shouldn’t be an issue with that.


Just like with the flu shots. When the school sent out the flu shot it’s not mandatory. You choose what you think is best for your child. You sign it, your child gets a shot a school. If not, they don’t. There’s no issue around that.

In New York, the Massapequa and Locus Valley school boards took the position of the parents. They sued New York Governor Kathy Hochul, the head of the Department of Health, and the state’s health commissioner:

The lawsuit demonstrates that neither the Health Commissioner, nor the new Governor, Kathy Hochul, have the power to establish a statewide mandate policy as an emergency health measure, that such authority resides only with the Legislature; otherwise, it is a matter for local control.

And in Charleston County, South Carolina, parent Ashley Regan told Fox & Friends that if a student fails to wear a mask the school board will send him home:

Not only do you have bullying students, you are isolating them. You are segregating them. You are discriminating against students who just want to breathe fresh air….


I don’t think it’s fair for our students to have to wear a mask all day.

Parents in other states across the country have voiced, and continue to voice, their objections to board-mandated masks for their children. Many of those parents are now reconsidering their decisions to send them to public schools. This is reflected in the 300-percent increase in homeschooling just in the last two years.

Perhaps those mask mandates being imposed by public school boards are the best thing to happen to public education, forcing parents to rethink their decision to let the state educate their children.

Loudoun County School Board Member Resigns

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Sunday, October 17, 2021:  

arents with children in the Loudoun County, Virginia, school system have successfully ousted one of the five progressive members of the school board: Beth Barts. She offered her resignation on Friday. The petition drive, organized by Fight for Schools (FFS), continues against the other four progressive members.

Barts was one of the most vociferous, cantankerous, and ill-mannered members of the board. Andrea Widburg of American Thinker called her “a far-left” school board member who was “a fierce advocate for Critical Race Theory (CRT) and transgender madness.”

Her bad behavior so outraged even her progressive colleagues that they were forced first to reprimand her, then formally to censure her, and finally to remove her from school committees. All because she repeatedly violated school board rules and policies in her interactions with parents opposing her support for the quasi-Marxist critical race theory in the district.

The petition, filed in late August, focused on her violation of Virginia’s open-meetings laws. Ian Prior, founder of FFS, said Barts “has shown a complete inability to comply with the law, her own code of conduct, and [lack of] the basic decency that accompanies being an elected official in the United States of America.”

But the issue, according to Prior, isn’t just about Barts:

We have made known our displeasure with her actions as a school board member over the past several months, but today she has done the right thing.


Her former colleagues should take notice.


The community should know, however, that the problems at Loudoun County Public Schools and on the school board go well beyond one school board member.


We … will keep fighting until we have a school board of common sense, non-partisan members and a superintendent who is accountable to parents and tells the truth.

The tipping point for parents was Barts’ involvement with a radical Facebook group called “Anti-Racist Parents of Loudoun County.” At first she denied any involvement, but was later found to be a supporter. The group collected private information about parents who opposed CRT and doxed them online. Dox is short for “dropping dox (documents),” publicly exposing private information about an individual with the intent to defame, embarrass, or disparage them.

The degradation of the culture in the public schools of Loudoun County showed up in May when a boy, claiming “gender fluidity,” sexually assaulted a girl at Stone Bridge High School. The board vehemently denied knowing anything about the incident, claiming that they first became aware of it through the media. The girl’s father has initiated a lawsuit against the county and the board.

Barts had filed a motion to dismiss the petition against her, but a local judge tossed it, allowing the recall process to continue. The judge also removed Buta Biberaj, the radical Loudoun County Commonwealth’s attorney, from representing Barts, noting that her close relationship with Barts through the Facebook group disqualified her from representing Barts.

Laura Zoc of Freedom Works for America claimed that Barts’ resignation “is a victory for parents and students in Loudoun County.” She added:

It also serves as an example for the nation of what a parent-led movement can do.


Beth Barts not only doxed families across her own district, whom she claimed to be protecting, but also promoted a divisive, anti-American curriculum that teaches children to divide each other by immutable characteristics.

That “victory” may be short-lived, however. In her letter of resignation Barts declared, “I am absolutely certain a member of this wonderful community will step forward to be appointed [in my place].”

The New American has followed the cultural degradation taking place in the public schools, including Loudoun County, and concluded that

the government system is beyond reform. The answer for every moral, right-thinking parent in Loudon County — and in every other county, city, town, municipality, village, or community in America — is simple: Stop trying to reform a tyrannical system that is recalcitrant in its tyranny. Instead, dismantle it by starving it of the one thing it cannot do without — students.


If you mean to save your children, pull them out of a system that is designed to destroy them. Bring them home and teach them. Or place them in a private school that holds your values.


You and your kids can do without government schools; they cannot do without you.

Public Trust in Media Continues Sharp Decline

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Tuesday, October 12, 2021:  

The latest Gallup poll measuring “the public’s confidence in key U.S. institutions” showed further deterioration in citizens’ trust of the mainstream media.

Last month, Gallup’s annual Governance poll showed that just nine percent, or one out of every eleven Americans, trusted the mass media “a great deal,” while 31 percent, or about one out of three, said they trust them “a fair amount.” The latest poll showed a further drop in trust: Just seven percent — one out of every 14 Americans — told Gallup they trusted the media “a great deal” and 29 percent — a little more than one out of every four Americans — trust them “a fair amount.”

From the other side, the polls agreed on one thing: A third of Americans polled had no trust whatsoever in the mainstream media’s news offerings.

What’s remarkable is that this decline has been driven primarily by increasing distrust of the media among Republicans and Independents. Democrats, on the other hand, remain happy with the way the news is being served up by the media: Just 11 percent of Republicans trust the media, while 68 percent of Democrats give them credence. That’s a record 57-percent divergence, which some are saying proves the point: The media no longer reports the news, but is now serving as a propaganda transmission belt for socialist ideology.

As Media Research Center President Brent Bozell expressed it: “They [the mainstream media] are fully vested in socialism themselves.… This is not a news media anymore.”

If that is the case, where can readers find “true” news that can be relied upon for veracity and a minimum of political bias? Granting the point that every news source has its bias — as does The New American, favoring the Constitution of the United States as originally intended by its Founders and the wonders of the free enterprise system — this writer has found, over the last decade of offering his efforts at covering the news from a conservative political and free market perspective, the following sources to be fairly reliable:

The Epoch Times


The Washington Times

One America News

Just the News


The Daily Wire

World Net Daily

The Christian Post and

The Blaze


Other less reliable, but still helpful, sources include:

The Daily Caller

Lew Rockwell and

The American Conservative


For pure pleasure and diversity, this writer enjoys The American Thinker — especially articles by the very prolific and usually on-point Andrea Widburg.

And, of course, this writer’s favorite: The New American — which you are presently reading!

Pro Basketball Player: Government Threatening Our Freedom

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, October 6, 2021:  

Jonathan Isaac, starting forward for the Orlando Magic professional basketball team, appeared Monday night on “Fox News at Night,” hosted by Shannon Bream. He has recently gotten attention over his decisions not to wear a BLM shirt or kneel during the National Anthem.

But his decision not to get vaccinated has caused the mainstream media to focus on him once again.

When Bream asked him about his stance, his response was reasonable, well-balanced, and winsome:

I believe what I’m saying is rational…. We live in the land of the free and the home of the brave and [I] have the opportunity and the platform to say what it is that [I] feel is right.


I’m taking that right to do so, not just for me, but for all of those people who feel like they don’t have a voice.

His stance is reasonable: Individuals have the right to make their own decisions about what goes into their bodies. And government is threatening that right through mandates, while the media is hounding the unvaccinated by suggesting they are selfish — even (in some cases) “terrorists.”  Former NBA star Kareem Abdul-Jabbar promoted the lie that the unvaccinated are threatening the vaccinated. He suggests that Isaac and others who are refusing to get the jab are putting his teammates and their opponents at a greater risk of infection.

The fact that this is illogical — that those vaccinated allegedly have greater protection from the virus than do those unvaccinated — isn’t considered. MSN calls it a “debate” where there isn’t one, or shouldn’t be. In the land of the free, a citizen is free to determine whether or not the vaccine makes sense to him or her personally, based upon the best information available. Government shouldn’t be involved in the decision-making process at all, even in providing the information needed. That should all be provided by the free market.

But government has overstepped its bounds and is not only providing continuous and often contradictory advice, but is now, through the Oval Office, issuing executive orders and mandates that people must be vaccinated — that government knows best, and personal freedom of choice is expendable in face of the “crisis.”

Isaac told Bream:

I believe that we’re entering a period of time where the government is setting a precedent that in light of any emergency, your personal autonomy, your religious freedom, and your freedom as a whole becomes negotiable.

Isaac added:

I would just say [to those deciding not to be vaccinated and being pressured and hounded and abused as a result], stay encouraged. It may feel like hopelessness but there are people who are out there [who] are trying their best to hold the line.


And I believe that we’re going to see a great revival through this as well, as people begin to [open] their eyes.

One of those “holding the line” is Julius Ruechel, a Canadian libertarian writer who encourages his readers to stand firm in the face of such government threats. In July he wrote “The Emperor Has No Clothes: Finding the Courage to Break the Spell,” followed by his more recent “A Glimmer of Hope: Crisis Brewing in the Ranks as More Police Officers Stand up to say “NO” – Tyranny Collapses if Enough People Refuse to Participate.”

He makes the case in his first article that people are cowed into silence through the threat of peer pressure and the risk of being ridiculed for taking a stance that goes against the government position. He wrote:

The Ash Conformity Experiments of the 1950s showed how powerful peer pressure is. No one wants to stand up against the herd. Standing alone is psychologically painful.


That is why, in Hans Christian Andersen’s folktale, it was the innocent voice of a little boy and not the self-righteous adult townsfolk who broke the spell about the emperor’s new clothes.

In his more recent article, Ruechel expresses his hope that recent pushback by police officers in Canada and healthcare workers in the United States is perhaps the beginning of the end for these government mandates: “Momentum is building. Courage begets courage. Something big is brewing.”

Orlando Magic basketball player Jonathan Isaac may not know Julius Ruechel. But they are kindred spirits in the freedom fight against government tyranny. Both recognize the need for citizens not only to become informed and then exercise their personal responsibility, but to also take a stand when challenged by the powers-that-be who would encroach on and abrogate and override those rights.

Camp Constitution’s “Christian Flag” Lawsuit Will be Heard by the Supreme Court

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, October 4, 2021: 

Just days before the start of its fall term, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case that could set a precedent: that Boston’s denial of a group’s request to fly the Christian flag in front of City Hall is unconstitutional.

For years the three flagpoles in front of Boston’s City Hall have flown, on one pole the flag of the United States and (under it) the POW/MIA flag, on another pole the flag of the state of Massachusetts, and on the third pole the city’s flag — though often the city will allow outside groups to fly their own flags from it.

Groups wanting to fly their own flag from the third flagpole must apply to city for approval and from June 2005 through June 2017 Gregory Rooney, head of Boston’s property management division, has approved every one. Every single one — a total of 284 flag-raising events were approved, without exception.

But, in June 2017 three members of The John Birch Society applied for approval to fly the Christian flag (a white flag with a cross appearing on a blue background in the upper left corner) as part of an event to celebrate Constitution Day. The three — former JBS staffers Hal Shurtleff and Charlie Everett and JBS Chapter Leader Ruth Harper — founded Camp Constitution in 2009 to organize and operate summer camps to, as its website says, “enhance understanding of our Judeo-Christian moral heritage … [and] to find, develop, and train leaders in the freedom fight.”

Their application was denied.

In an interview with The New American, Shurtleff pointed out that the flagpole has flown the Chinese Communist flag, the Cuban Communist flag, the “gay” pride flag, and the transgender flag, as well as flags from numerous foreign countries. It flew the Vatican flag when the Pope held a religious service — Mass — on the Boston Commons.

It even flew the Turkish flag, which depicts the Islamic star and crescent.

But, said Shurtleff, “when our application was denied because we wanted to fly the Christian flag, we just simply could not let this go.” The discrimination against the group because it wanted to fly the Christian flag was so blatant and obvious that the group enlisted the assistance of Liberty Counsel, a non-profit legal group specializing in such assistance. “The city,” said Shurtleff, “would have approved our application if we had called it the Camp Constitution flag, according to Rooney, but the fact that we called it the Christian flag was anathema. And our application was denied, and we called off the celebration.”

Three non-profit law firms expressed interest in representing Shurtleff, and Liberty Counsel was chosen. Liberty Counsel filed a lawsuit on behalf of Boston resident Hal Shurtleff and his Christian civic organization, Camp Constitution, arguing that the city of Boston violated the First Amendment by censoring a private flag in a public forum merely because the application form referred to the flag as a “Christian flag.”

It added:

Under oath, the city official [Rooney] testified [that] the flag would have been approved if the application did not refer to it as a “Christian flag.” The word “Christian” on the application alone triggered the censorship…


His testimony revealed that if Camp Constitution had not referred to the flag on the application with the word “Christian,” it would not have been censored.

Liberty Counsel’s founder and chairman Mat Staver added:

We look forward to the U.S. Supreme Court hearing Boston’s unconstitutional discrimination against Camp Constitution’s Christian viewpoint. The city cannot deny the Christian flag because it is “Christian” and allow every other flag to fly on its flagpole.


There is a crucial difference between government endorsement of religion and private speech, which government is bound to respect.


Censoring religious viewpoints in a public forum where secular viewpoints are permitted is unconstitutional and this case will set a national precedent.

Prior to the Supreme Court agreeing to hear the case, the circuit court ruled against Shurtleff and Camp Constitution, claiming that the third flagpole belonged to the city and the city was therefore free to approve or deny its use. The appeals court affirmed, adding that the city was merely exercising its right to “government speech,” which was not subject to the First Amendment guarantee. Obama-appointee U.S. District Court Judge Denise Casper argued that the flagpole was city property, and flying a flag there was “government speech” and not private expression. Therefore, she held that flying a Christian flag was an unlawful endorsement of religion.

On appeal, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st District’s three-judge panel affirmed Casper’s decision. Judge Bruce Selya, a Reagan appointee, alleged that the display of all “three flags flying in close proximity communicates the symbolic unity of the three flags.”

Selya added:

The city has never before displayed such a flag and, as such, this pioneering elevation of an “important symbol” of the Christian heritage would come without [outside] the secular context [the city demands]….


The raising of the Christian flag thus would threaten to communicate and endorse a purely religious message on behalf of the city … therefore … the city’s establishment concerns are legitimate.

The high court will hear oral arguments after the first of the year and issue its opinion next June.

It must be noted that Hal Shurtleff is a former field staff member of The John Birch Society as well as a life member who credits The JBS for helping him have a knowledge and appreciated of the U.S. Constitution.

Is flying a Christian flag on government property unconstitutional? Hats off to the folks at Camp Constitution for getting such an important case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court!

U.S. Homeschooling Jumped 300 Percent During COVID

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Thursday, September 30, 2021:  

In “Homeschooling in Uncertain Times,” just published by the Pioneer Institute, authors William Donovan and William Heuer celebrate one unmistakable benefit from the COVID-related shutdown: Not only has the number of homeschooled children tripled, but most parents are deciding to keep their children in a homeschool environment even after the virus has dissipated.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the percentage of households with children being homeschooled has doubled in one year, from 5.4 percent during the 2019-20 school year to 11 percent in 2020-21. Among black families, it increased nearly five-fold, from 3.3 percent to 16.1 percent in just one year. In the past two years, homeschooling in the United States has more than tripled.

Said co-author Donovan, “For a lot of people who had been thinking about homeschooling, the pandemic made it a good time to make the change.” The authors added, “Traditional homeschooling was rapidly growing before the pandemic, and is likely to stick.”

The growth in homeschooling in black families was especially notable:

We point out the rise in homeschooling among Black and other minority families. While they too were influenced by health concerns, often they chose to homeschool because they believe their homes are a safer environment than the halls and grounds of public schools, especially in urban areas.

This no doubt is upsetting to liberal academics such as Harvard Law professor Elizabeth Bartholet. She claims that homeschooling is “a threat to children and society.” She co-authored “Parents’ Religion and Children’s Welfare: Debunking the Doctrine of Parents’ Rights” with James Dwyer. Dwyer, a law professor at the College of William and Mary, claimed that the fundamental civic relationship is not that between parents and their children but instead is between the individual and the state.

Bartholet is infamous for authoring “Homeschooling: Parent Rights Vs. Child Rights to Education & Protection” that appeared in the Arizona Law Review in 2020. She claims that

The rapidly growing homeschooling phenomenon [poses a] threat to children and society….


Many homeschool precisely because they want to isolate their children from ideas and values central to public education and our democracy.


Many promote racial segregation and female subservience.


Many question science.


Many are determined to keep their children from exposure to views that might enable autonomous choice about their future lives.

She then goes on to demand “a rethinking of child rights … and recommends a presumptive ban on homeschooling, with the burden on parents to demonstrate justification for permission to homeschool.”

Bartholet’s real target is Christians homeschooling their children. From her Arizona Law Review article:

A very large proportion of homeschooling parents are ideologically committed to isolating their children from the majority culture and indoctrinating them in views and values that are in serious conflict with that culture….


Many don’t believe in the scientific method, looking to the Bible instead as their source for understanding the world.

The state owns the children, according to Bartholet:

The legal claim made in defense of the current homeschooling regime is based on a dangerous idea about parent rights — that those with enormous physical and other power over infants and children should be subject to virtually no check on that power.


That parents should have monopoly control over children’s lives, development, and experience.


That parents who are committed to beliefs and values counter to those of the larger society are entitled to bring their children up in isolation, so as to help ensure that they will replicate the parents’ views and lifestyle choices….


The legal claim is also inconsistent with an idea that has been central since the beginning of compulsory education — that the state has a powerful interest in educating children in ways that enable positive participation in the larger society.

In an interview with the Harvard Gazette Bartholet expanded her attack on Christians educating their children at home:

Many homeschooling parents are extreme ideologues, committed to raising their children within their belief systems isolated from any societal influence….


The danger is both to these children and to society. The children may not have the chance to choose for themselves whether to exit these ideological communities; society may not have the chance to teach them values important to the larger community, such as tolerance of other people’s views and values.

Does Bartholet not see the irony in that last statement, about “tolerance of other people’s views and values”? Without realizing it, she makes a compelling case for homeschooling that reaches far beyond concerns over health and safety. Homeschooling may teach children that they are sovereign citizens, that God has given them certain unalienable rights, that the Constitution guarantees those rights, and that governments are instituted among men to protect those rights.

All of this is counter to the “culture” that Bartholet and other statists support and defend. It’s no wonder that those in the freedom fight celebrate the small bit of good news that government’s heavy-handed COVID response is bringing: Homeschooling is on the rise and its increase is likely to continue.

Many of the articles on Light from the Right first appeared on either The New American or the McAlvany Intelligence Advisor.
Copyright © 2021 Bob Adelmann