Go See ‘Sound of Freedom’ for the Truth on Millions of Trafficked Children thumbnail

Go See ‘Sound of Freedom’ for the Truth on Millions of Trafficked Children

By Catherine Salgado

The movie Sound of Freedom will finally come to theaters the week of July 4, based on the stories of real-life heroes and their work to free children from the hellish and lucrative world of child trafficking.

Toward the end of the trailer above, actor Jim Caviezel (who played Jesus in the magnificent Passion of the Christ) says that “an estimated 2 million children are trafficked” every single year. These children are raped, abused, tortured (and many of them later killed by having their organs harvested). The fact that anyone could do such horrific things to any other human being is unimaginable, but to do it to innocent children is a truly Satanic level of evil.

As Caviezel said, the movie is “heartbreaking” but tremendously important, because these children’s stories need to be known as a first step toward justice and help for them. Caviezel said he hopes for 2 million attendees at the movie’s opening, one for every precious child trafficked annually. It has taken Caviezel and the others behind Sound of Freedom years to bring this movie to the public, because they’ve been canceled and delayed. The powers-that-be don’t want you to know about this trafficking, but you need to know.

Sound of Freedom will be in theaters for the week of July 4, Independence Day. In honor of our Founders who were willing to sacrifice everything to secure freedom to themselves and others, make the small sacrifice to go see Sound of Freedom and learn about the most innocent victims in need of liberty.

Search for locations and buy tickets HERE. You can also pay for someone else’s ticket as a donation to help spread the word and ensure as many people as possible attend. As Caviezel urged, let’s start a movement to ensure that “God’s children are no longer for sale.”

*****

This article was published by Pro Deo et Libertate and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Taking Back America’s Colleges and Universities thumbnail

Taking Back America’s Colleges and Universities

By Jim Banks

The Fairness in Higher Education Accreditation Act attacks wokeness at its core.

I started the House Anti-Woke Caucus in January to build a coalition that identifies and roots out wokeness from the federal government and American public life. Our first task has been to identify areas where a small action could have an outsized effect. The university system is a target-rich environment for our caucus, and the higher education accreditation cartel has helped make colleges a source and stronghold of wokeness.

Federal law requires Institutions of Higher Education (IHE) to receive accreditation from an agency or association recognized by the U.S. Department of Education. Congress regulates federal regulators, federal regulators regulate accreditation agencies, accreditation agencies regulate colleges, and colleges teach your children.

Accreditation agencies act as pseudo-governmental entities, creating and enforcing the rules by which a college operates. By itself, regulating higher education isn’t a bad thing, as long as regulators incentivize patriotism and excellence. But under the current arrangement, accreditors are forcing schools into line with the woke revolutionary agenda. Congress must instead push accreditors and universities to inculcate American principles and practices.

In recent years, woke revolutionaries weaponized the accreditation cartel to impose Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) and affirmative action mandates on schools. Schools that reject wokeness are rejected by accreditors. Universities that don’t implement DEI and affirmative action policies are being strong-armed by woke revolutionaries into doing so. And there’s no way out—federal regulations make it nearly impossible for schools to switch to a non-woke accreditor.

That’s why Senator Marco Rubio and I introduced the Fairness in Higher Education Accreditation Act. Our bill would reform the standards used to accredit universities. Instead of enforcing wokeism, accreditors would be prohibited from considering schools’ DEI and affirmative action policies and required to consider schools’ adherence to safeguarding First Amendment rights.

My bill would hold colleges accountable when they punish students or faculty for conservative beliefs. Last month, Northwestern University froze the funds of the College Republicans. The group’s alleged crime was publishing a flier for a speaking event that featured a rainbow flag with a skull and crossbones. Similar examples abound, but attacks on political speech should never be tolerated.

But it is not enough just to oppose DEI—we must be positively pro-American.

Institutions critical to forming our national character shouldn’t be allowed to suppress speech. Congress must hold Institutions of Higher Education to the same high speech standard we are all held to by guaranteeing First Amendment protections for students and faculty alike.

Speech suppression is anti-American and contributes to the overwhelmingly leftist tilt of our higher education system. Madera Community College recently suspended Professor David Richardson for passing out chocolate bars that satirize the Left’s pronoun obsession. It shouldn’t be surprising that among college professors, Democrats outnumber Republicans nine to one. Professors like Mr. Richardson are silenced or forced out. To break the leftist monopoly on the university system, we need to reassert our founding principles on campuses. Before universities consider discriminating against right-of-center faculty, they will remember that their accreditation depends on tolerating all political speech.

The Fairness in Higher Education Accreditation Act is just the beginning of what I hope will be a concerted campaign to reform or replace the accreditation cartel. Fixing our broken system of higher education will take ingenuity and work, but it’s a hard job that’s worth doing.

*****

This article was published by The American Mind and is reproduced with permission.

 is a U.S. Congressman representing Indiana’s 3rd district.

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Supreme Court Says You Can’t Fight Racism with Racism thumbnail

Supreme Court Says You Can’t Fight Racism with Racism

By Family Research Council

“Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it.” That was the conclusion of the majority in the Supreme Court case Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard. The court concluded that it violates the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law for colleges and universities to consider a student’s race in their admissions process.

For many, this is common sense. Earlier in our battle against racism, the Supreme Court clarified that segregated schools were illegal because “separate but equal” was not actually equal. In doing so, the court established that it is inappropriate to reward and punish people based on the color of their skin. But more recently, some have decided it’s not merely acceptable to treat people differently based on the color of their skin, it’s good provided we do so for the right reasons.

That’s one of the reasons why, in recent years, colleges of been creating “safe spaces” where white students are not allowed. It is also the reason a Colorado elementary school hosted a “Families of Color Playground Night” and put it on the sign in front of their school. They weren’t ashamed to be engaging in racial discrimination, they were proud of it because they were doing it for the right reasons. They were protecting racial minorities, not harming them. Similar sentiments motivate those who want to use race as a determining factor in the college admissions process. They don’t believe racial discrimination is always bad, it’s only bad if it’s done for the wrong reason.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor voiced her belief that race-based evaluations are constitutional if done for the right reasons. “The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment enshrines a guarantee of racial equality” she said. “The Court long ago concluded that this guarantee can be enforced through race-conscious means in a society that is not, and has never been, colorblind.”

Good intentions aside, there are unavoidable problems with the effort to rebrand racial discrimination as “race-consciousness” because anytime the law favors one group on account of their race, they necessarily disfavor other groups because of their race. This was illustrated in Harvard’s own admissions data. While the goal was to help Hispanic and black students gain opportunities they otherwise might not have, the result was that Asian students were required to score, on average, 22 points higher than white students and 63 points higher than black students in order to be admitted. Creating opportunities for one group means handicapping another.

Obviously, that’s not fair, but you’re also not supposed to care that it’s not fair.

The Left has divided the world into “oppressors” and “oppressed,” and often those categories are defined by our skin color. The bad kind of racism punishes those who they see as “oppressed” and should be stopped. The good kind of racism punishes those they see as “oppressors” and should be tolerated or even celebrated as a race-conscious effort to “level the playing field.”

You don’t need to be concerned that the poor Vietnamese kid from a broken home and better test scores was rejected for a black kid with billionaire parents, because the individual circumstances of their lives matter less than the identity politics we’re all supposed to be focused on. This is Critical Race Theory 101, and this is the world the political Left wants us all to live in. But the Supreme Court just said you can’t do that. “Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it.”

It has never made sense that we would be able to solve the problem of racism with more racism, but the Supreme Court just went a step further and clarified that fighting racism with racism isn’t just a bad idea, it’s also illegal.

AUTHOR

Joseph Backholm

Joseph Backholm is Senior Fellow for Biblical Worldview and Strategic Engagement at Family Research Council.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2023 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Protests at Moms for Liberty Summit Fueled by SPLC ‘Hate Map’ thumbnail

Protests at Moms for Liberty Summit Fueled by SPLC ‘Hate Map’

By Family Research Council

Moms from across the country have gathered in Philadelphia this weekend for a jam packed Moms for Liberty Joyful Warriors National Summit. The event will be headlined by former President Donald Trump, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (R), and other political luminaries — but the real stars are the moms in attendance.

They are the moms who chaperone school field trips and wait with and for kids at the school bus stop. They are the moms who volunteer to run school fundraisers, wipe down lunch tables, tie shoes, read stories, and drive carpool. They are the moms who object to dirty and divisive books in the school library. They are the moms who donate backpacks full of food for the kids who might not get a good meal at home over the weekend. They are the moms you know from your neighborhood, your church, and your school.

They are the moms Southern Poverty Law Center put on their “Hate Map” this year, putting a target on the backs of all moms across the country.

They are the moms who endure being threatened by government officials who demanded that the Museum of the American Revolution kick moms out of the venue. Naturally, Young Communist League, ACT UP Philly, and other radicals heard the dog whistle and sprang into action.

Moms for Liberty attendees must walk through a gauntlet of threats and vile chants just to gather in fellowship at a national summit. This is the real reason for their inclusion on SPLC’s Hate Map. This designation is a signal to radical activists to target their fellow Americans. And don’t forget the SPLC’s radical protest insurance policy: Learning for Justice. Just in case the Hate Map is not enough, SPLC seeks to infiltrate schools across the country with polarizing radical sexual and social justice messages in an attempt to warp the minds of the nation’s children. Moms at the Joyful Warriors Summit are onto them, and insist: we don’t co-parent with the government or progressive political groups.

The rights to speak, to gather, and to protest are basic rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Polarized politics in America today means citizens don’t protest the government’s abuse of our rights as often as we protest our fellow citizens. This kind of division is dangerous when it is based on hate fueled by groups like SPLC and the shock troops they activate. I mean, what national parents conference is complete without protestors tearing up a Bible?

When we see social media posts about this event, they are likely to capture the antics of protestors outside or the much-admired speakers addressing the summit. But I want to make sure you hear from the moms who are there to be together in solidarity. Because at this event, as in life, the moms making things happen in your corner of the world are not necessarily the ones in front of the camera.

A great example of this is my friend Amy Snead, the Moms for Liberty chapter chair from Bedford, Virginia. She shared pictures and described the energy. “The interactions inside this building are joyful and positive. People are networking, getting to know each other, and there is a lot of excitement. There is a unified effort among people who believe the United States is the greatest country in the world and want to work to maintain that. We are laser focused on our mission to defend parental rights at all levels of government. This is truly a nationwide movement with moms leading the charge.”

Meanwhile, outside, there is blaring music and Bible shredding — to “defend democracy.”

California mom Kelly Schenkoske, a presenter at the conference, said, “Being at the Moms for Liberty conference is an honor and an encouragement. I have met wonderful people who care about families and children. What an honor to meet people from all over the country who, despite the hostility they face, continue to stand and lovingly speak up for the protection of children and teens. Outside the conference, I was met with screaming and hostility. These individuals do not know us, and they do not know me. But I was taught to love them and so … despite their words, I have nothing but compassion for the protestors. I am grateful that we live in a nation where we get to speak freely. They have a right to protest, and we have a right to gather and speak as well. What a beautiful gift it is to have freedom.”

Rhode Island mom and Education Center Fellow Nicole Solas shared this: “Don’t be fooled by the woke mob raging outside the Moms For Liberty Summit 2023. Inside the Moms For Liberty Summit the atmosphere is rejuvenating. Mothers like myself eagerly share our stories about advocating for our children’s education and the retaliation that invariably followed. We offer advice and support, laughs and hugs. We don’t all know each other but we know we are all fighting the same war on children and that makes us the same. We stand bravely in front of bright lights and cameras knowing the media will spin our straightforward words into a web of lies. We sit somberly in breakout rooms learning the horrific extent to which our children are sexualized by comprehensive sex education, dehumanized by racialized curriculum, and propagandized to hate America. And then we brainstorm ways to collaborate and defend the liberty of our children and our country. At the end of the day, the hate mob outside is just noise. Inside the summit, we hear very clearly what we have to do, and we remain steadfast.”

America owes a debt of gratitude to Moms for Liberty founders Tiffany Justice and Tina Descovich and they moms they lead. We pray for your safety, the success of this event, and the continued faith-filled work of the Moms for Liberty convening this weekend in Philadelphia. Next week moms will be back at work in our schools, churches, and neighborhoods, doing the things moms do best, with love, faith, and determination.

AUTHOR

Meg Kilgannon

Meg Kilgannon is Senior Fellow for Education Studies at Family Research Council.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Supreme Court Strikes Down Student Loan Forgiveness Scheme

Supreme Court Issues Landmark Religious Liberty Ruling

Congressman: Biden Is ‘Hijacking’ AIDS Relief Program to Push Abortion on Africa

RELATED VIDEO: Donald J. Trump Speaks At Moms For Liberty summit in Philadelphia | US News

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2023 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Martha Washington: Remembering America’s 1st First Lady thumbnail

Martha Washington: Remembering America’s 1st First Lady

By Virginia Allen

On Independence Day, Americans rightly honor our Founding Fathers for their courage and sacrifice. George Washington is arguably the most important figure in U.S. history, and his wife, Martha Washington, was a constant support during his career.

Martha Washington didn’t have an easy life. Her first husband, Daniel Parke Custis, died after the couple had been married for just over seven years. They had four children together, all of whom died before Martha Washington did. Her first two children died before age 5. Her third child, John Parke Custis, died in his 20s; her fourth, Martha Parke Custis, died as a teen.

Her marriage to George Washington in 1759 was joyful, since the “attraction was mutual, powerful, and immediate,” according to Mount Vernon’s historical records.

But as was the case with her first marriage, life with the man who would become a new nation’s first president likely wasn’t what Martha expected.

George Washington left Mount Vernon in 1775 to lead the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War. Though he would not return home to Mount Vernon for six years, Martha traveled to her husband’s encampment each winter to stay with him while fighting was at a standstill.

When her husband was elected president after the Revolutionary War, Mrs. Washington was not pleased to see her husband again leave home and be drawn back to public life. Despite a likely longing for a quiet life with her husband after years of war and extended separation, she set a powerful precedent for the critical role of the nation’s first lady.

Martha Washington played a critical role in forming the schedule for official entertaining. Every Friday, she held a reception, giving the president the opportunity to speak with guests in a more private setting.

A portrait of Martha Washington as first lady. (Photo: Stock Montage/Getty Images)

A grandson “remembered that veterans of the Revolutionary War stopped by the executive mansion on an almost daily basis to pay their respects to the Washingtons,” according to Mount Vernon’s historical accounts. “It was Martha Washington who talked with these, gave them something to eat, and sometimes even a small token of remembrance.”

Mrs. Washington’s faithfulness to her husband, visiting him during the war and supporting him as president, serves as a beautiful reminder of the sacrifices, large and small, that so many men and women made nearly 250 years ago to form a government that would ensure “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” for all Americans.

In today’s edition of the “Problematic Women” podcast, we discuss the legacy of Martha Washington. Also on today’s show, drag queens say they’re “coming for” your children, but parents have something to say about that. Plus, two major Supreme Court cases will be decided as soon as today. We explain why those decisions will affect young people in particular.

Listen to the podcast below:

*****

This article was published by Daily Signal and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

D.E.I. Curricula versus Catholic Education thumbnail

D.E.I. Curricula versus Catholic Education

By The Catholic Thing

David G. Bonagura, Jr.: If Catholic schools want to end racism, they don’t need more diverse authors and perspectives. They need more theology faithful to the Magisterium – this is the essence of Catholic education.


Afriend – a professor at a leading Catholic university – was one of only two members of the faculty senate not to vote for adopting anti-racist measures to shape the school’s curriculum. The senate consists of thirty-two members.

These overwhelming numbers showcase the trend that has enveloped many Catholic universities and schools: promoting D.E.I. (diversity, equity, inclusion) and its more aggressive counterpart, anti-racism, have become the overarching goal of academic curricula.

In their most benign forms, D.E.I. curricula seek to introduce students to “diverse perspectives” by means of being “more inclusive” of “diverse authors.” “Diverse” and “inclusive” sound harmless, but are code words for authors who are racial or sexual minorities. Their perspectives are taught to increase empathy for these groups and, in some cases, to point students toward political action to benefit them, not only in secular politics but the Church.

The more contentious anti-racism pedagogy, as clearly explained, for example, in this frightening video from another leading Catholic university, “seeks to acknowledge and confront: The fundamentally racist underpinnings of our society and educational systems.” The narrator continues:

The necessary starting place in our thoughtful use of anti-racist pedagogy is a deep appreciation for how racism and white supremacy have informed and built all components of our social lives. From there we can turn to reckoning with this reality through deliberate action to dismantle racism in our institution and our classrooms.

As if these declarations have not wandered far enough afield from the essence of Catholic education, the video includes a slide: “Jesuit Values necessitate Anti-Racist Pedagogy.” (Emphasis in original.)

In truth, neither the thinly veiled political posturing of anti-racist pedagogy nor the gentler D.E.I. curricula that promote racial and sexual diversity measure up to Catholic curricula steeped in the liberal arts. In fact, if we wish to end racism – an authentic goal that all Catholics should support – the best way to do that is through traditional Catholic education.

For a liberal arts education to be effective, its overarching goal has to be transcendent rather than temporal. “Ending racism” or “promoting diversity” are temporal goals that reduce liberal arts education to vocational training, as in the teaching of a trade such as accounting or plumbing. Of course, trades have their place for individuals so inclined. But as ends in themselves, temporal goals for education close students off to the “big picture” that the liberal arts exist to convey.

Temporally driven curricula have another limitation: they turn teachers and students into naval gazers who subject the wisdom of the past – including revelation and Church teaching – to the Inquisitors of the Present who confirm their superiority by pronouncing anathema any former idea or practice in conflict with current orthodoxies. This approach not only eschews intellectual humility for a narcissistic Presentism, but, with the speed at which intellectual fashions change, sets students up to be rudderless in an ever-shifting world. As the saying goes, “He who marries the Zeitgeist (the spirit of the age) is soon to become a widow.”

So lessons and books on temporal topics of any kind are not, and cannot be, ends in themselves. They are most effective when they are set within a broader, transcendent vision of God, Creation, and truth. Catholic education exists to convey this vision.

One of Vatican II’s most famous sentences declares that everything temporal takes its starting point and end from Christ, the eternal Word: “The Lord is the goal of human history, the focal point of the longings of history and of civilization, the center of the human race, the joy of every heart and the answer to all its yearnings.” (Gaudium et Spes 45) Catholic school curricula, therefore, also take shape from Christ. If we desire peace and justice, then our curricula and programming must be shaped by, and lead students to, the Prince of Peace who “loved justice and hated wickedness.” (Hebrews 1:9)

Whether we teach science, mathematics, history, languages, or literature, the particulars of each should have one eye on God from whom all these things come. Particular lessons on, say, World War I or botany can highlight the destructive nature of pride or the wonder of God’s creation. They should not be used to contradict Catholic teachings, as a determinist historicism or atheistic theory of evolution would.

The same goes for teaching about racism and the experiences of minority groups. These have their place along with other topics and should be chosen because they emanate from the Church’s teachings on God and the human person. Books should not be read merely because an author is a racial minority; students are keen to notice this and will belittle the book if they perceive it is being forced on them for ideological reasons.

Obviously, books should not contain graphic sexual content, and an author’s minority status cannot justify including such material in courses, especially secondary school courses – Toni Morrison’s The Bluest Eye and Beloved are the two most frequently chosen offenders here.

Lastly, Catholic curricula should never showcase authors who try to normalize abnormal sexual desires, such as James Baldwin, Alice Walker, and George M. Johnson. Catholic schools must present God’s plan for human sexuality while both identifying aberrations as sinful and teaching charity toward all those who struggle with irregular sexual desires.

If Catholic schools want to end racism and incorporate students of all backgrounds into their communities, they don’t need more diverse authors and perspectives. They need more theology faithful to the Magisterium, more sacramental opportunities, more prayer, more grace – this is the essence of Catholic education. For it is only Christ, and not any human creation or program, that can make all things new.

You may also enjoy:

Francis J. Beckwith’s The Diversity Paradox

+James V. Schall, S.J.’s Diversity

AUTHOR

David G Bonagura, Jr.

David G. Bonagura Jr. an adjunct professor at St. Joseph’s Seminary, New York. He is the author of Steadfast in Faith: Catholicism and the Challenges of Secularism and Staying with the Catholic Church: Trusting God’s Plan of Salvation.

RELATED TWEET:

As of July 1st, DEI is over in the state of Florida. pic.twitter.com/yhZWOQlSCM

— Ron DeSantis (@GovRonDeSantis) July 2, 2023

EDITORS NOTE: This Catholic Thing column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. © 2023 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.org. The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

No Quarter For Wrongthink: ASU Shuts Down Free Speech Center, Fires Faculty thumbnail

No Quarter For Wrongthink: ASU Shuts Down Free Speech Center, Fires Faculty

By Corinne Murdock

Arizona State University (ASU) has shut down a prominent free speech center and fired several faculty members following the protest of the faculty who opposed its existence.

The university decided to shut down the T.W. Lewis Center for Personal Development within the Barrett Honors College following a controversial event featuring conservative speakers hosted earlier this year.

The contested speakers were nationally-acclaimed conservative pundits Charlie Kirk, founder and president of activist group Turning Point USA; Dennis Prager, radio talk show host and founder of PragerU; and Robert Kiyosaki, author of a bestseller personal finance book and PragerU presenter. As AZ Free News reported in February, a group of 37 left-leaning ASU Barrett Honors College faculty led a campaign to prevent the event from happening, which included recruiting students to protest the event.

The two faculty members to lose their jobs following the controversial event were the executive director of the Lewis Center, Ann Atkinson, and the events operator for the Gammage Theater where the event was held, Lin Blake.

AZ Free News spoke with both Atkinson and Blake about their ordeal. Earlier this week, Atkinson came forward in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece criticizing ASU for caving to leftist restrictions on free speech.

“I wasn’t trying to do anything but my job: to do it well, and to keep people safe.”

For ASU’s Gammage Theater, Blake handled the arrangements for events such as calendaring, contracting, and client meetings. Throughout her career, Blake said she always offered the same respect and professionalism to clients, regardless of who or what was behind an event.

“Over the years I have booked and managed many types of events. Every one of them received the same level of professionalism,” said Blake.

Yet, it was Blake’s commitment to equal treatment in a venue designed for free expression that ultimately cost her the job — even though her superiors signed off on the event.

“Basically, I was sacrificed because Gammage executive staff had to do something to satisfy or appease the staff of Barrett Honors College. I was a scapegoat, and was let go at the beginning of April,” said Blake.

Blake recounted that her superior initially praised her for handling the controversial event. A bulk of essential personnel — security officers, backstage crew, and front of house — all called out, and police availability was limited severely due to ongoing staffing shortages and the Super Bowl occurring that same week. It was up to Blake to fill the gaps to provide a safe and successful event. By all accounts, she said she did — even her boss reportedly told her so, using a favorite phrase of his to describe her: “rockstar.”

By the next Monday, however, sentiments shifted. Blake said she walked into work facing a line of questioning. She was reportedly asked by her superior, ASU Gammage executive director Colleen Jennings-Roggensack, why she booked a “white supremacist,” an accusation leveled against the event speakers by opposing faculty. Blake was then required to get pre-approval from both Jennings-Roggensack and management prior to booking any future events.

Blake said the pre-approval amounted to a micromanaging that ultimately served to filter out who could and couldn’t host an event at Gammage.

According to Blake, Jennings-Roggensack had a habit of telling staff that they were aligned in beliefs, that they all had voted for President Joe Biden and Gov. Katie Hobbs — even if they hadn’t.

At a faculty and leadership meeting following the upbraiding from Jennings-Roggensack, Blake said she was singled out to explain Gammage’s core values.

After that, Blake described her remaining months at ASU as a “slow decline.” She was let go in April for “not being a good fit.”

Blake says she’s applied and interviewed for three other ASU positions. Each time, HR has sent her letters that they’re no longer hiring for the position — even though the positions remained posted as available.

“[This is] what happens to those who don’t conform to the prevailing orthodoxy on campus.”

Atkinson retained her position several months longer than Blake did. It was at the end of May that Atkinson learned from Barrett Honors College Dean Tara Williams that her position would end, and that the Lewis Center would be no more.

In an official statement shared widely by the press following Atkinson’s Wall Street Journal piece, an ASU spokesman claimed that the primary donor behind the Lewis Center, the T.W. Lewis Foundation, would no longer be funding the program. ASU also praised the controversial event as a success.

“Ms. Atkinson’s current job at the university will no longer exist after June 30 because the donor who created and funded the Lewis Center decided to terminate his donation. ASU is working to determine how we can support the most impactful elements of the center without that external funding,” stated the spokesman. “Arizona State University remains committed to, in practice, not just rhetoric, all things that support free speech and all of its components. The event in question was held and was a success.”

It appears that demonization by the vast majority of Barrett Honors College faculty over the Lewis Center event was the breaking point for T.W. Lewis Foundation’s founder, T.W. Lewis. He told The Arizona Republic that ASU’s environment is hostile to conservative thinkers.

“The long story short is that conservative viewpoints are not welcome at ASU. Or, at most public universities in America,” said Lewis.

The T.W. Lewis Foundation funds a number of other major conservative organizations and enterprises, such as GreatHearts Academies, Museum of the Bible, The American Conservative, Alliance Defending Freedom, Conservative Partnership Institute, Young America’s Foundation, Foundation for Economic Education, and the Heritage Foundation. They also fund the organizations from which the controversial speakers hailed: Turning Point USA and PragerU.

However, the foundation wasn’t the only funding source possible as ASU implied. Atkinson offered a diversified group of donors to offset the lost funding; she reported that Williams wasn’t interested. Atkinson also collected 18 pages of testimonials from students, families, and past guest speakers. That wasn’t enough to persuade, either.

“What ASU did not say is that the Barrett dean expressed no interest in continuing the Lewis Center,” said Atkinson.

AZ Free News reached out to Williams about the alternative funding. She didn’t respond by press time.

Atkinson believes that, ultimately, ASU policies have allowed this stifling of free speech to take place. Come fall, there will be one less place for free thought on campus.

“I want the right to free speech to our universities to apply to all people. What happened appears to be within the policies of the university,” said Atkinson. “The students lose. I’m devastated for the students. For so many of them, the 7,000 students in Barrett, this has been their home. Now it’s gone.”

As for next steps, Atkinson said she is taking everything one day at a time.

“I’m hoping to show the world what happens to those who don’t conform to the prevailing orthodoxy on campus.”

*****

This article was published by AZ Free News and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

‘We’re Here, We’re Queer, We’re Coming for Your Children’: 6 Scenes From NYC Pride Events thumbnail

‘We’re Here, We’re Queer, We’re Coming for Your Children’: 6 Scenes From NYC Pride Events

By Gigi De La Torre

Editors’ Note: There are uncomfortable scenes that we must share with you. If not, you might not know the extent to which sexual extremists are taking their argument. Otherwise, you might think we are mean and against gay people. Earlier, we had written about this subject (see Get Your Bedroom Out of My Government) and made the point that a proper concept of liberty suggests that you are free to do what you want to do as long as you do not harm others or use force or coercion. Society has reached its level of tolerance with “pride.” What consenting people do in private should be respected, but this invasion of our schools, and ghastly public displays deserves strong condemnation and resistance. Further, some 21 Federal Agencies and numerous local authorities have sanctioned “pride events” and the flying of pride flags on government buildings. We need to get the “bedroom” of the LGBTQ crowd out of our government and especially out of our schools. Their movement now is using coercion by hijacking the government and is doing harm to our children and to society at large. Enough.

New York City held its 53rd Pride parade Sunday.

Here are some of the scenes from that parade and related events shared on social media.

1. ‘We’re Here, We’re Queer, We’re Coming for Your Children.’

In a clip that has gone viral on Twitter, marchers at the New York City Drag March, which was held Friday, chanted, “We’re here, we’re queer, we’re coming for your children.”

One holds a sign that says, “Drag isn’t for CISsies.”

2. Twerking

Men wearing almost nothing but Speedos twerked and danced on a parade float sponsored by the Chinese Rainbow Network, an organization that claims to be the “largest Mandarin speaking LGBTQ+ network in North America.”

The float also featured a woman wearing a red dress and boot stilettos pole dancing.

At the end of the float, one woman fully dressed stood in the corner and filmed the others sexually dancing on her phone.

3. ‘Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Don’t Assume Your Kids Are Straight!’

Some marchers shouted, “One, two, three, four, open up the closet door! Five, six, seven, eight, don’t assume your kids are straight!”

Kids wearing pink shirts and rainbow gear marched along with the adults.

One little girl on a man’s shoulders wore a transgender pink, white, and blue flag as a cape.

4. ‘Stop Touching Me!’

K. Yang, an activist advocating for female rights, was verbally harassed and assaulted while protesting in the middle of a Pride gathering.

The video shows ralliers closely shouting in Yang’s face, swatting her signs down and stomping on them, and grabbing and pushing Yang. Yang repeatedly shouted, “Stop touching me.”

5. ‘Clothing Optional’ Water Party

A massive reportedly “clothing optional” water party took place in Washington Square Park. Attendees are seen wading in one of the park’s fountains.

6. We’ll Love Our Son Even If He’s Straight.’

A couple paraded their child down the street, holding a sign saying, “We’ll love our son even if he’s straight.”

They were followed by a group of men clad in leather underwear.

*****

This article was published by DailySignal and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

University Erases ‘L’ in LGBTQ, Redefining Lesbians as ‘Non-Men’ thumbnail

University Erases ‘L’ in LGBTQ, Redefining Lesbians as ‘Non-Men’

By Jarrett Stepman

The woke well is bottomless.

Johns Hopkins University recently updated the “LGBTQ Glossary” in its so-called inclusive language guide with a new definition for “lesbian.”

A lesbian, according to the famed Baltimore university’s guide, should be referred to as a “non-man attracted to non-men.” A broad definition, right?

The guide states that “while past definitions refer to ‘lesbian’ as a woman who is emotionally, romantically, and/or sexually attracted to other women, this updated definition includes non-binary people who may also identify with the label.”

No more “women” or “womyn” or any of that. Just complete erasure of the “L” in “LGBTQ.”

In the war on women, isn’t it ironic that the latest shots are being fired by that fanatical campus Left? One wonders how much longer the “G” has to keep its place in the gender ideology pantheon before the new letters come for the old.

The move by Johns Hopkins University was mocked by “Harry Potter” author J.K. Rowling, a liberal feminist who has become “she who must not be named” to many of her once-adoring fans (or is that “not-he who must not be named?” It’s hard to keep track).

It’s important at a modern university to know what counts as blasphemy, you see. Saying “lesbian” isn’t nearly inclusive enough. Somebody, somewhere might be offended. And that somebody is likely to be a transgender man, who is in the upper echelons of intersectional hierarchy.

Wouldn’t you know it, the program director of “LGBTQ+ equity and education” at Johns Hopkins University is Paula Neira, a transgender man. That is, Neira was born a man, but now says he identifies as a woman.

I’d say this is an example of how an institution is returning to the Dark Ages, but that’s really an insult to the Dark Ages. We now live in the age of diversity, equity, and inclusion, when all common sense is abandoned for fanatical ideological commitment.

Johns Hopkins removed the LGBTQ Glossary after it gained online attention. As usual, when left-wing media picked up on the story, it became about how Johns Hopkins backed down to the backlash rather than the obvious absurdity of the university’s message.

The glossary page has been updated.

“While the glossary is a resource posted on the website of the Johns Hopkins University Office of Diversity and Inclusion (ODI); the definitions were not reviewed or approved by ODI leadership and the language in question has been removed pending review,” the page now reads.

This wasn’t even the only campus absurdity at Johns Hopkins in the past month.

On May 30, the New York Post reported that employees of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine “have been issued a new guidebook with a list of 50 different pronouns—including ‘aerself’ and ‘faerself’—that staff may use after a new ID badge policy was implemented.”

Among other pronouns in the guidebook were “xe, ve, per, and ae,” and it gives recommendations for using such a pronoun in a sentence, like “I gave faer the key.”

We’ve clearly hit the Newspeak stage of the revolution.

American higher education is consuming itself with absurdities and contradictions. Unfortunately, our ideologically compromised higher education establishment shapes and feeds into all other elite institutions.

This is the established, secular church of the modern West.

But maybe it’s time we disestablish this church. Once the power of the woke gatekeepers is broken—in universities, corporate America, and government—maybe then we can begin to restore our free society.

*****

This article was published by The Daily Signal and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

The Creativity Crisis: Are Schools Killing Creativity? thumbnail

The Creativity Crisis: Are Schools Killing Creativity?

By Karen Schoen

A Sign is an object, action, or event which, when put together, creates a pattern. It is the ability to connect signs and create patterns that enable people to anticipate, prepare and become self-reliant, enabling people to make fewer mistakes. In business, we are taught the one who makes the least mistakes wins.

The purpose of education is to show the individual how to recognize signs and put them together so they can anticipate and prepare. These skills are often called common sense, predictions, and anticipations, and they enable people to gain confidence in their decisions while preparing for the future.

Education today altered and erased history because the Globalists know that those who know history will not repeat it; they will not be doomed to follow the mistakes of the past. If history is not altered the Globalists know they can not win. If Globalists/Progressives lie and change history:

  • Americans will not know that in the Constitution, i.e., ALL means ALL. NO Class distinctions. Our founders realized that class distinctions cause division.
  • Your children will not know their rights and power. Students are taught division under the name of diversity.
  • Your children will believe that Stalin, Mao, and Che were great patriots.
  • Your children will believe that humans, not the sun, are the cause of climate problems and will gladly pay taxes to protect the planet.
  • Your children will not know that practicing communism means certain death to all opposition while mass genocide becomes the norm as people are coached to turn on each other for minor absurd infractions like a finger gun or statue.
  • Your children believe using aborted babies is OK if you use them for the good of the collective.
  • Your children will not know land, resources, and America belongs to We the People and is not the property of any government official to sell to a foreign company or country.
  • Your children will not know that equal opportunity provides the greatest wealth, not social justice (which they can not define) or Diversity, Inclusion, or Equity (DIE).
  • Your children will not know that each person has their own special skill and not all skills are the same: building computer programs, cutting hair, or running a mile in under 10 minutes.
  • Your children will not know that each of us has different skills, not equal skills, and free choice enables us to develop those skills. Our children no longer have choices as the school now only trains them to work in a government-approved corporate job under a school-to-work program.
  • Your children will not know America was greatest when immersed in freedom, communication, and liberty for all. Not like today, as were are divided into government-inflicted classes in order to keep us from talking.
  • Your children will not know that through its dark past, there was always a sign of change toward a bright future for all Americans. There is no country today that gives all the opportunities America offers
  • Your children are Your children
  • When school is no longer the incubator of innovation, creation, common sense, and self-reliance, America slips into mediocrity. (The true goal of the Globalists). Mediocre people expect less and have fewer needs and wants. More money for them.

When exceptional people stop doing exceptional things, America fails. When was the last time you heard, “Think outside the box?”

Educated people demand more freedom from their government. Therefore, education today must be changed from learning how to think to learning what to think. You are OK as long as you think the government-approved way. Education has become training. We train pets, not people. Why training? Training is one of the most expensive pieces of a corporate budget. If training is on the backs of the taxpayer, think of the record profits a corporation can show.

What are Americans missing? Understanding the Constitution! Look at section 2 for a sampling of the rights and freedom you are losing due to the deliberate American deception. You will be surprised. Not Infringed means not infringed. Regulations, licenses, statutes, fees, and taxes ARE forms of INFRINGMENT.

What is the solution? Let’s examine the following:

You are being told we must have a Convention of the States (COS). We must change the Constitution. Is the Constitution the problem? NO, so then why fix it? The problem is that most people have NEVER read or understood the Constitution. Would it not be smarter to read, follow and enforce this constitution before we change anything? Ah! Common sense is needed. Are we so ignorant that we believe the people in charge who do not know the Constitution and do not follow the Constitution will actually “FIX” anything? Can they be trusted? I think not.

The sign portrayed by the RINOS, who will do anything to stop Trump, says legislators no longer look out for and protect the People. Refusing to impeach, refusing to censure, and refusing to stop mutilating our children are the clearest sign of FAILURE one can imagine.

The sign says legislators protect special interests and those that donate to keep them in power. The sign says time to make a change.

Today’s guests are two Americans who took it upon themselves to do something to help save this great republic through education. The sign says education is not taking place. Simple skills like reading, writing, math, creativity, and innovation are missing. The object of school is to promote mediocrity. Do you see the signs?

America…Great people doing great things. What will you do? Doing nothing is affirmation. Is America worth saving?

Chad Robert Stewart is an international award-winning and bestselling author, educator, and global strategist. Through his National School Tours, Stewart traveled 9,000 miles through 23 states, presenting at over 180 schools to more than 40,000 students.

The Britfield Institute is committed to bringing creativity into the classroom, promoting literacy, and fostering a child’s imagination. Impacting all demographics, we provide students, teachers, educators, and schools the opportunity to read and write with passion while inspiring critical thinking, communication, and collaboration. The Britfield Institute provides underprivileged schools and children resources, workshops, and opportunities.

Barbie Rivera, A mother whose son was deemed “mentally handicapped” for not thriving under a rigid confusing public curriculum, took matters into her own hands. She decided to homeschool him, and after finding a method that helped her son become his best self, she opened her own school to help others.

Remember: Everything is connected. Nothing is random. Everyone follows the same plan. ALL PLANS ARE BASED ON LIES. Globalists must control opposition. Globalists must take away our voices.

Globalists only care about MONEY, POWER, and CONTROL. Don’t give them yours. Boycotts work. Stop using their services and products. Vote the RINOS out. Vote with your fingers and with your wallet. There is a lot you can do.

©2023. Karen Schoen, The Prism of America’s Education. All rights reserved.

Supreme Court Strikes Down Biden’s Student Loan ‘Forgiveness’ Plan thumbnail

Supreme Court Strikes Down Biden’s Student Loan ‘Forgiveness’ Plan

By The Daily Signal

The Supreme Court struck down President Joe Biden’s student loan “forgiveness” plan Friday.

The nation’s highest court heard arguments in February in two cases: Biden v. Nebraska and Department of Education v. Brown.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion in Biden v. Nebraska, 6-3, striking down Biden’s plan. The court unanimously denied standing in the Brown case.

Biden announced plans last August to cancel $10,000 of debt for individual student loan borrowers who make less than $125,000 per year ($250,000 for households) and to forgive $20,000 of debt for borrowers who received a Pell Grant.

Biden’s Education Department relied on a post-9/11 law known as the HEROES Act of 2003 that grants the U.S. secretary of education the authority to allow military troops to delay their student debt obligations during national emergencies. (HEROES is an acronym for the Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions.)

Roberts ruled that “the HEROES Act provides no authorization for the Secretary’s plan even when examined using the ordinary tools of statutory interpretation—let alone ‘clear congressional authorization’ for such a program.”

“The Supreme Court justices halted President Biden’s abuse of executive authority by holding that his plan to cancel student loan debt for 40 million borrowers was unlawful,” Jack Fitzhenry, a Heritage Foundation legal fellow, and Lindsey Burke, director of The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Education Policy, said in a statement Friday. “They rightly found that this was an issue for Congress, not the administrative bureaucracy, to decide.” (The Daily Signal is The Heritage Foundation’s news outlet.)

“The astronomical cost to American taxpayers of this ill-conceived program was only surpassed by its unfairness—since it would have punished millions of Americans who dutifully paid off their student loans as well as those who never took out loans in the first place,” Fitzhenry and Burke added. “If we want to help students deal with the increasing cost of getting a degree, giving a bailout to the very colleges and universities that hike prices is not the answer.”

“Breaking up the monopoly of college accreditors and offering students more higher education options, while simultaneously cutting off the open spigot of federal higher education subsidies, is a start,” the Heritage experts added. “Ultimately, students should be equipped with the knowledge and certainty that the student loans they take out can be repaid in future employment.”

“In the [Biden v. Nebraska] case, several states argue that they have standing primarily because if Biden cancels student loan debts, state agencies that the federal government pays to service those loans will lose revenue because they are paid on a per-loan basis,” GianCarlo Canaparo and Fitzhenry of The Heritage Foundation’s Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies wrote in a commentary for The Daily Signal, adding:

That loss of revenue, in turn, could diminish funds available for scholarships and other education programs meant to benefit citizens of those states. In response, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, representing the Biden administration, argued that those state entities are not really arms of the states that they serve, and thus, the states cannot sue on behalf of the agencies.

Canaparo and Fitzhenry also wrote:

In the [Department of Education v. Brown] case, two borrowers who did not qualify for debt cancellation argued that by creating this program in secret and pursuant to emergency powers, the administration denied them the procedural right to participate in the decision-making process.

In response, Prelogar argued that the law did not require the government to involve anyone in this process.

EJ Antoni, a research fellow for regional economics in Heritage’s Center for Data Analysis, weighed in on the implications of canceling student loan debt, especially the cost.

“The Biden administration’s estimated cost for student loan ‘forgiveness,’ which is actually transference, is laughably low. More reliable estimates, including dynamic estimates which account for incentive effects and behavioral changes, have a price tag north of $1 trillion,” Antoni told The Daily Signal in a written statement. “Not only is there an upfront cost to taxpayers of assuming current student loans, but there are future costs as well.”

“Debt transference incentivizes futures students to borrow more, in anticipation of future transference,” Antoni added. “Additionally, people who wouldn’t have borrowed at all will take out loans for the same reason. That will lead to tuition increases and higher costs of attendance, as has happened every time student loan programs were expanded and borrowing increased.”

Elaine Parker, president of the Job Creators Network Foundation, reacted to Friday’s ruling.

“JCNF’s lawsuit played an integral role in today’s victory. Our case, brought in Texas, blocked the entire program at the district level and stopped the application process, allowing the legal challenge to go to the Supreme Court,” Parker said in a written statement.

“We are all winners today now that this illegal program has been struck down. JCNF looks forward to driving the conversation around meaningful higher education reform to address the root cause of this crisis and make college affordable,” Parker added.

AUTHOR

Samantha Aschieris

Samantha Aschieris is a senior news producer for The Daily Signal. Twitter.

This is a breaking story and may be updated.

The Daily Signal’s Virginia Allen and Fred Lucas contributed to this report.

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email letters@DailySignal.com and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the url or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.


The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now


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

Weekend Read: The Other July 4th thumbnail

Weekend Read: The Other July 4th

By Neland Nobel

We are all familiar with July 4, 1776, but did you know American Independence might have been quite different were it not for events on July 4, 1754?

It was on that date that a 21-year-old Colonel in the Virginia Militia led his men on a retreat out of Fort Necessity after tangling with a French force more than twice what he had under his command.  That young military man was George Washington.  He took casualties 10:1 to his adversary.

A brief historical backdrop is necessary to make sense of this.

The British and French were vying for control over North America.  American Indians were playing the two sides off against each other for their own strategic purposes.  Some would ally with the British, some with the French, and some played both sides.

Prominent families in Virginia made claims to western territories and Washington’s family were big investors in the Virginia company.  Young George at 19 both surveyed and was an active investor in these western lands which are now part of Southwestern Pennsylvania.

Washington and others reported that the French were making attempts to wrest control of this area and were building a fort to control the major rivers, which served as the most important commercial highways and communications nodes in the area.  The most important was Fort Duquesne, present-day Pittsburgh, where several rivers converge to form the mighty Ohio River, the key to controlling the western frontier.

Washington volunteered to go back into the area and deliver a message to the French from the British Crown in essence to tell the French to kindly vacate the area.  Ironically, similar French units were looking for British authorities to deliver the same message.

Events remain shrouded even today as to what happened next, but basically, the two sides met near what is now Uniontown, Pennsylvania, high up on Chestnut Ridge in a place appropriately called Gloomy Hollow (now Jumonville Glen).

Most renditions have Washington’s forces surprising the French, a firefight broke out with Washington reportedly firing the first shot, with casualties on both sides.  After the French surrendered to Washington, Washington “lost control” of one of his Indian allies (Mingo chief Tanacharison). The French commander was murdered by a tomahawk attack, and the Indian washed his hands in the Frenchman’s brains which spilled from his split skull.

This was the cold-blooded murder of a French officer and diplomat named Jumonville.

It was an act of war.

At least one Frenchman escaped and made his way back to Fort Duquesne to tell of the dastardly attack.  A large force of over 800 men was dispatched to find Washington’s “raiders”.

Washington retreated to the Great Meadow not far away and threw up a crude temporary stockade and breastworks for his 293 men.  He called in Fort Necessity, a very apt name.

On July 3, they were attacked and took heavy casualties.  In a twist of history, the leader of the French retaliatory force was led by none other than the brother of the slain French officer, Jumonville.  He was not in a good mood.

Washington was forced to surrender and basically sign a document saying he and his forces were responsible for the murder of a French officer. Washington would later claim the translation was garbled and he admitted to no such thing. But otherwise, after 30 or so casualties, they were allowed to leave the area.

But grave implications were to follow.  The next time, the British would come back with substantial force.

Thus, a 21-year-old Virginia militia commander fired the shots that started the French and Indian War, or what is more broadly called the Seven Years War, considered by most historians as the first world war in history.  It was fought in North America, in the Caribbean, and even in India.

From the standpoint of the North American theatre of the conflict, the British would come back the next year with a very large force for the time under the command of Major General Edward Braddock.  Despite his logistical and road-building success (cutting hundreds of miles through a virgin forest), he would suffer a disastrous defeat attempting to take Fort Duquesne, mostly at the hand of Indians, the best light infantry in North America.

While much now lies on private property, portions of the famed Braddock road from the coast of Virginia to western Pennsylvania remain today.  Braddock was buried in the road, succumbing to his wounds suffered at Monongahela. Some of this road became Route 1, or the National Pike, the first real “interstate” road in America.  It was by far the largest engineering project in the colonies.

The defeat of Braddock at the Battle of Monongahela lead to a second successful attempt to take Fort Duquesne under General John Forbes, who then built Fort Pitt, hence Pittsburgh.

Almost all of the British officers were killed during the Battle of Monongahela and the retreat was largely commanded by a young George Washington, who seemed always in the mix of things.  His leadership was exemplary and his stamina was extraordinary (he had been gravely ill). After having musket balls go through his hat, through his coat, and having two horses shot out from underneath him, it seemed as if Providence had placed a hand on his shoulder.

Many at the time remarked on this, as did Washington himself in his personal writings.  That hand would remain on the man for the duration of the war, and the next big war, that for American Independence.  And it would seem, for even greater challenges ahead.

Who would have thought this young colonel, who hit the trip wire to start a world conflagration between great empires, would wind up becoming the first President of a nation that would become the most powerful on earth and the world’s longest-running democratic enterprise?

The implications of the French and Indian War are extensive, but here a just a few brief historical observations.

The war determined who would rule North America.  That is why we inherited the English language, English common law, and English notions of liberty.

American colonists developed a sense they were their own people as civilians were abused by British troops and officers who treated militiamen as inferiors. Yet, by fighting alongside the British, we discovered we were as good at warfare, or better, as they were.  All this would come in handy just 20 years later when upstart revolutionaries would take on the most powerful empire on earth.

Many Americans who fought at the Battle of Monongahela and other battles, learned warfare and about each other, and formed a cadre of experience for the coming Revolutionary War.  The American style of fighting, learned from combat with Native Americans, would serve them well at Lexington and Concord, and especially the British retreat back to Boston.

This would also come into play in subsequent battles with Native Americans over the control of the territory west of Pittsburgh.

Indian depredations of the frontier settlements, which exploded during both the French and Indian War, and the subsequent War of Independence, set hardened attitudes on both sides about the nature of their conflict that would extend for many years, but ultimately end in the conquering of native peoples.

Not long after Washington would become President, the Native Americans would hand the New Americans their worst defeat ever at the Battle of the Wabash, defeating American General St. Clair. Almost the entire Army of the new United States was lost(an astounding 97% casualty rate), allowing the Indian Confederacy and their British allies to continue control of the West in violation of the peace treaty that ended the Revolutionary War.

Afterward, Washington wanted a permanent professional army, and he got it.  While he understood the anti-Federalist view, he had seen the deficiencies of the militia system firsthand.

This would lead to the founding of the United States Army, a professional military, long found objectionable by anti-Federalists who felt standing armies were a threat to liberty.  But such a professional army was needed and under “Mad” Anthony Wayne, he would initiate a long string of defeats for Native Americans.

The tremendous cost of the Seven Years’ War would destabilize the treasuries of both Britain and France.  After the war, the British wanted the colonies to help pay for the struggle and started to tax the colonies, while tightening political control over them without much consent from those governed.  The concept of “taxation without representation” was born.

As a result of this effort to raise money, and the colonial reaction to it, the British would eventually lose her American colonies and a new nation would be formed.

France limped along financially and then decided to aid the American Revolution, another drain on their treasury.  Subsequent financial pressures and inflation were economically and socially destabilizing and were factors leading to the French Revolution.  This revolution had its American sympathizers but it took a decidedly different course than the American one.  We got Washington, and the French got Napoleon.

The French Revolution echoes in our own “woke” politics even today and shaped much subsequent European history.

All this seems to have been set in motion in a heavily wooded glen just outside a small town in Pennsylvania. It occurred high up on Chestnut Ridge in the Laurel Highlands, in the mountains just south of Uniontown. This town, once a thriving center for coal and steel, was ironically founded on July 4, 1776, quite independently of the gathering taking place across the state in Philadelphia.

In the misty hollows on Chestnut Ridge, there was a giant of a man there, both in form and spirit.  Some 6 feet four inches at a time when most men barely made it over five feet, he also displayed a spine of steel with a commanding demeanor.  Even as a youth, he had an air of confidence and competence about him. Native American leaders at the time opined he would become a great leader of his people. But in these events, he lost control of his men, and subsequent developments led to the murder of a French officer.  That in turn led to the humiliating defeat at Fort Necessity on July 4, 1754.

Washington had no way of knowing he literally would start a world war, and all these subsequent events would forever change both American and world history.

Without all these strange happenings, would we have had George Washington, who would literally become “the indispensable” man? Without him, it is arguable that we would have never gotten to July 4, 1776.  Would not the world as we know it be vastly different?

And what can explain his many remarkable and frequent escapes from death?  Almost all of them simply defy rational explanations.

History, it would seem, reverberates in strange and significant ways, from the dark forests and quiet glens of Western Pennsylvania.

*****

Photos are courtesy of the author and were taken at Fort Necessity National Battlefield.

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Don’t Say Gay, Say Groomer Instead thumbnail

Don’t Say Gay, Say Groomer Instead

By Family Research Council

It’s easy for conservatives to think of the LGBT activist crowd as constantly crying wolf over pronouns and “deadnames,” but when self-described “queer” people try to describe who they are and what they do, pay attention. A prime example of this principle occurred just this week: participants in New York City’s annual Pride Parade chanted, “We’re coming for your children.” Others shouted, “Five, six, seven, eight, don’t assume your kids are straight.” Other scenes included nude adult men exposing themselves to children — both in New York City and in Seattle.

None of this is a novelty. Back in 2021, the San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus faced backlash for writing and performing a song entitled, “A Message From the Gay Community,” which repeats the phrase, “We’ll convert your children.” Another startling line goes, “You think that we’ll corrupt your children if our agenda goes unchecked / Funny, just this once, you’re correct.” Yet another says, “Just like you worried, they’ll change their group of friends / You won’t approve of where they go at night.” And another exclaims, “Oh, you’ll be disgusted when they start finding things online that you’ve kept far from their sight.” The singers initially took the song off YouTube in the face of criticism, but restored it days later, announcing they stand by the message.

Although LGBT activists once went into hysterics at the suggestion of homosexuality inevitably being pushed on children, now that the movement is firmly entrenched in American society, they retroactively admit they were always coming for your children — they just don’t want parents to be up in arms over the fact. A recent spate of bills passed in Florida — and, more importantly, the alphabet mafia’s reaction to those bills — revealed this facet of LGBT ideology well before this past week, and confirmed the connection conservative Christians have long noticed between homosexuality and child-predation.

Grooming is the act of deceptively building a relationship of trust with a child, most often utilizing a position of authority, in order to take advantage of a child sexually. The LGBT ideology is predicated upon grooming. But don’t take my word for it, take theirs.

The first half of the grooming process involves building a relationship of trust with a child, most often utilizing a position of authority (such as the role of a teacher), and progressively pushing the child to the point where sexual acts are accepted. When Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (R) signed into law a bill last year forbidding teachers from telling elementary school students about gay sex, oral sex, gender fluidity, and a host of other homosexual propaganda, pro-gay activists were up in arms, labelling the legislation the “Don’t Say Gay Bill.” LGBT groups claimed that their very existence was being threatened simply because they weren’t allowed to talk to kids about anal sex. That law was recently expanded to ban all classroom promotion of the LGBT agenda, sparking further rainbow-colored outrage and claims that the ban on telling children about anal and oral sex is an attempt to “erase” the LGBT “community.”

We all know a man can’t impregnate another man, nor can a woman impregnate another woman. In other words, LGBT activists cannot reproduce — instead, they recruit. They groom. Children are taught that being gay or lesbian or bi or trans is not only acceptable but even cool, and, being but children, they believe it. This is grooming. The previous generation of LGBT activists were told (by the previous generation of groomers) that being gay or bi or trans isn’t acceptable but is cool and should be made acceptable. Now that same generation has taken up the groomer mantle and is telling children it is now acceptable, thanks to the hard work of previous generations, to be gay or lesbian or bi or trans — and it’s still cool.

Teaching children about sex is not the teacher’s role, ever. Although the teacher is, in theory, endowed with the parents’ authority to educate their children, there are certain things that only parents have the authority or right to discuss with their children: sex is chief among those things. A teacher violating that boundary and having those discussions with children usurps the role of parent, the ultimate physical manifestation of a trusted authority figure in that child’s life. In other words, by violating that boundary, an LGBT activist claims a child as his own. Remember, it’s not reproducing, it’s recruiting.

Banning LGBT activists from using the classroom to promote sexual abnormalities to children cuts them off from their most easily-accessible recruiting pool and makes grooming children more difficult; no longer are groomers put in a position of practically-unquestioned authority and given the role of mentor. When their capacity to groom children is taken from them, LGBT activists claim it’s an attack on their very existence. Why? Because they groom children. It’s how they carry on their lineage. Believe them when they say these things.

The LGBT activist reaction to Florida authorizing use of the death penalty for child rapists is even more disconcerting and even more revealing. This seemingly commonsense and surprisingly bipartisan piece of legislation is also, according to the activists, an attack on “LGBT rights.” The definition of grooming culminates in taking advantage of a child sexually. Raping a child would fit that definition. Yet LGBT activists are boo-hooing that legislation threatening child rapists with death “literally spells death” for them.

This time, the LGBT claim is backed up by studies. A 2013 study published by the Department of Health and Human Services stated, “Epidemiological studies find a positive association between physical and sexual abuse … in childhood and same-sex sexuality in adulthood …” A study last year by Vanderbilt University Medical Center found that adults identifying as homosexual reported childhood sexual abuse at more than twice the rate of their heterosexual peers. A 2001 report conducted by Judith Reisman of the Institute for Media Education estimated that adults identifying as homosexual are 40 times more likely to abuse a child than their heterosexual peers. While none of these studies prove causality, they do demonstrate a correlation that cannot be ignored.

Without grooming, the LGBT ranks are, if not generationally decimated, at least significantly diminished. Their own proclamations (“We’re coming for your children”) and actions, as well as their vehement responses to legislation limiting grooming tells us who they are. If we accept their own definition of themselves, we can only conclude that the LGBT “community” are, by their own admission, groomers.

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2023 Family Research Council.

Reparations thumbnail

Reparations

By Bruce Bialosky

Anyone who has previously read my columns will quickly conclude that I believe reparations (as being currently discussed) are a tragically stupid idea. You have probably read a multitude of opinions telling you why that is so. You are about to get a significantly different take on the issue.

The first aspect comes from my reading of a novel years back which I believe is The Winner by David Baldacci. It is combined with my personal and concurrent experience. Remember a good novel often has a significant basis in fact.

The premise concerns a genius criminal who figured out how to fix the Powerball lottery. He realizes that if he fixed it for himself, he would soon get caught. He also realized that the vast majority of people who buy lottery tickets are financial underachievers, so to speak. He would hand-pick someone from that underachieving population and create a deal with them. He would rig the lottery so the person would win and then the person would turn the money over to him to manage, ultimately splitting the monies 50/50. That is basically how the story goes until a smart detective comes on the scene.

The smart detective noticed a pattern that there were these people who would win the lottery and retain their wealth many years later. Here is the true part: that just does not happen. Nearly all people who win these sums — unless it is the mega multi-million-dollar winners — have little winnings left in just a few years or less.

Every friend and relative comes out of every sinkhole to gladhand for money. Every con artist in the world surrounds them to separate them from their money. These “winners” are generally people who do not have a trusted financial advisor to protect them from the wolves and they have no means of determining who they should turn to as a trusted advisor. I have experienced people with money not knowing who to turn to. This part of the plot line was so true to me.

I had someone who was referred to me who had won $350,000 in the lottery. He came too late. By the time he came to me, he had invested almost all the monies: He bought public pay phones. This was right after I had gone to my annual continuing education class at the usual location. They always had an alcove packed with wall pay phones. When I arrived that year, I found the pay phones were all gone as no one was using them any longer. My thought was what a sucker this person was to put his money into this investment and why had he not come to me six months earlier so I could save him from himself.

For my money, the same likely outcome applies to reparations. You drop the kind of dough the reparations people are proposing for some Californians; and, considering their background in financial affairs, five years later for most of them it will all have gone poof.

If the recipients of reparations are not financial underachievers, then why would they be recipients of funds; obviously they have not been harmed by the perceived grievances. They have systems in place to protect their wealth with qualified and reliable personnel.

The amounts that are being talked about are just numbers that are being thrown around for attention. They are stalking horses for the real numbers which will be significantly reduced. Politicians can then say, “See how good we are? We cut those crazy numbers in half, a third or whatever.” The real answer should be “No, we are not committing taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars to this travesty.” That will not happen.

In addition, I believe this will just be the beginning. Different groups will come from all over fully sold on their rationale that they should be recompensed. A group is already stating they deserve money for the land that sits under Dodger Stadium. Without the building of Dodger Stadium on that site the land would be of little value.

Members of Congress led by Cori Bush have proposed $14 trillion for reparations as if it were a trivial amount.

For my money, there are three simple solutions to the conditions plaguing blacks in California as there are across the country:

1. Stop having 80% of children outside of marriage. Put a premium on fathers.

2. Rid the black community of the racist public school systems controlled by the racist teachers’ unions. Give them universal school choice.

3. Stop telling them they are victims. I grew up in a disadvantaged household and my mother never told us or permitted us to have a victim mentality. If you keep telling people they should believe they are victims, they will ultimately believe it.

Reparations will only reinforce in their minds that victim mentality. That is what the proposers of these plans want so as to achieve perpetual power over them. These proposals are as bad as they get for the reasons above, and a good deal more.

*****

This article was published by Flash Report and is reproduced with permission from the author.

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Supreme Court Strikes Down Affirmative Action Admissions thumbnail

Supreme Court Strikes Down Affirmative Action Admissions

By The Daily Caller

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday to block affirmative action in two closely watched lawsuits against Harvard and the University of North Carolina (UNC).

The cases, initially brought by a coalition of students, prospective applicants and their parents in 2014, challenged the universities’ use of racial preferences during the admissions process.

“Harvard’s and UNC’s admissions programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,” the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision in the UNC case and a 6-2 decision in the Harvard case, which Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson recused herself from.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

“A benefit to a student who overcame racial discrimination, for example, must be tied to that student’s courage and determination,” Roberts wrote. “In otherwords, the student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual—not on the basis of race.”

“Many universities have for too long done just the opposite,” he continued. “And in doing so, they have concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.”

The court overruled its 2003 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, which held that race could be a factor in the admissions process.

Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented.

“Gulf-sized race-based gaps exist with respect to the health, wealth, and well-being of American citizens,” Jackson wrote. “They were created in the distant past, but have indisputably been passed down to the present day through the generations.”

Both lawsuits were brought by Students for Fair Admissions Inc. (SFFA), a coalition of over 20,000 prospective higher education students and parents, including one Asian American member who applied for Harvard and six other top schools but was denied admission in 2014, despite his academic record.

SFFA argued that Harvard violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by penalizing Asian American applicants, engaging in racial balancing, overemphasiz­ing race and rejecting race-neutral alter­natives. Similarly, SFFA argued UNC violated Title VI by rejecting alternative race-neutral criteria that could also ensure diversity in the admissions process.

The Supreme Court heard both cases in October. Schools have been anticipating the decision for months, searching for ways to maintain racial quotas without explicitly using racial preferences, such as eliminating standardized testing requirements and recruiting based on geographic region.

AUTHOR

KATELYNN RICHARDSON

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLE: Here’s How Universities Plan To Skirt The Supreme Court’s Likely Ban On Race-Based Admissions

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Supreme Court Bans Racial Preferences in College Admissions thumbnail

Supreme Court Bans Racial Preferences in College Admissions

By Jonathan Butcher

On May 17, 1954, The New York Times reported that the U.S. Supreme Court “set aside” the “separate but equal” doctrine in education in its Brown v. Board of Education ruling. Racial segregation would no longer be permitted in K-12 public schools. On June 29, 2023, the court finally buried the doctrine once and for all, along with the prejudice that has haunted college admissions for more than 50 years.

The justices banned the use of racial preferences in college and university admissions programs. Students for Fair Admissions, an advocacy group representing Asian-American students, brought two lawsuits—one against Harvard University and another against the University of North Carolina—charging that the schools used racial bias in their admissions practices and discriminated against these students.

The Supreme Court agreed and ruled 6-2 in the Harvard case and 6-3 in the University of North Carolina case that the schools violated the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Since Title VI of the Civil Rights Act reflects the 14th Amendment within schools that receive federal taxpayer spending, the ruling applies to federal law as well as the Constitution.

The majority wrote, “Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it.” 

Americans have long supported the ideas in the court’s majority opinion. Surveys find broad opposition to the use of racial preferences.

Results from a Pew Research survey released earlier this month found that 82% of respondents do not think that race or ethnicity should be a factor in college admissions. Seventy-one percent of black respondents and 81% of Hispanic respondents agree.

State voters have also rejected racial preferences at the ballot box. Californians have twice rejected preferences, first with the passage of a measure known as Proposition 209 in 1996 and then again with the defeat of Proposition 16 (which would have overturned Proposition 209) in 2020. In 2006, Michigan voters also voted to ban racial preferences.

Now the high court has said university programs “may never use race as a stereotype or negative, and—at some point—they must end.” While citizens and taxpayers have been waiting for this court ruling, many college administrators have been devising ways to continue using race in admissions.

For example, research from law professor and well-known critic of racial preferences Richard Sander and others has documented how administrators in the University of California system defied Proposition 209 after its passage. More than a decade ago, the American Bar Association attempted to change its policies to require law schools to defy state and federal legislation if lawmakers chose to ban racial preferences (the ABA toned down the policy after some resistance, but only slightly).

Meanwhile, college administrators have helped so-called “diversity, equity, and inclusion” departments to spread across campuses nationwide. These offices serve as political outposts that rally support for racial preferences in university hiring, campus speakers, and other school activities.

The court’s ruling allows Americans to ask what, exactly, DEI intends, if not to continue the racial discrimination the justices just ruled illegal. Lawmakers in Florida and Texas have already adopted policies that defund these offices, recognizing the prejudice that has been in plain sight for years.

WATCH:

Yet if activists really want to help minority students, they should be interested in what racial preferences hath wrought. For example, the “mismatch” problem that the preferences cause is a notable one that critical race theorists and other radical activists do not care to discuss.

By putting a finger on the scales for or against students who are racial or ethnic minorities, racial preferences have caused black and Hispanic students, in particular, to be admitted to competitive institutions even if those students were unprepared for their academic rigor. A mismatch is created between students and schools, and these students earn lower grades, are more likely to drop out, and are less likely to be able to use their college experience to succeed in the workplace.

High-performing black and brown students succeeded at competitive colleges and graduate schools before and after California’s Proposition 209 and other bans on preferences—and will still do so after the Supreme Court’s ruling. But students across the nation who would have been mismatched at postsecondary and graduate institutions due to preferences are now more likely to enroll and succeed at colleges aligned with their skills.

Woke actors can no longer claim that discrimination has a place in college admissions. School officials must maintain high standards and make school admissions policies transparent so families and students know how they are being evaluated. Lawmakers should use the court’s opinion as justification to replace DEI programs with merit-based, colorblind departments and activities that work with students according to their academic abilities and needs.

This is the American Dream—one in which public officials cannot judge you based on the color of your skin. The Supreme Court has given all Americans, of all skin colors, more reasons to dream again.

*****

This article was published by Daily Signal and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Arizona State University Sees Scrutiny Over Conservative Event Backlash thumbnail

Arizona State University Sees Scrutiny Over Conservative Event Backlash

By Carly Moran

An Arizona lawmaker wants the state’s collegiate governing body to investigate why an Arizona State University employee lost her job shortly after organizing an event featuring conservative speakers.

Rep. Austin Smith, R-Surprise, wrote to the Arizona Board of Regents on June 21 following the decision by ASU to terminate the employment of administrator Ann Atkinson.

Atkinson worked as the executive director of the T.W. Lewis Center for Personal Development at ASU’s Barrett Honors College, where she hosted an event in Feb. 2023 titled “Health, Wealth and Happiness,” with conservative speakers Dennis Prager and Charlie Kirk. By June 30, she will be terminated from ASU.

“ASU claims to value freedom of expression,” Atkinson said in a Wall St. Journal op-ed. “But in the end, the faculty mob always wins against institutional protections for free speech.”

Atkinson argued that the move was politically motivated, but ASU argued differently, saying it was due to the Lewis Center’s loss of funding.

“Arizona State University is committed to, in practice, not just rhetoric, all things that support free speech and all of its components,” the university’s news release reads. “ASU employee Ann Atkinson has lost the distinction between feelings and fact in her recent comments about what prompted her loss of employment at the T.W. Lewis Center at Arizona State University.”

The T.W. Lewis Foundation, led by prominent home developer Tom Lewis, did cancel its funding of the development center. However, Lewis’ revokement of funds may be a response to Atkinson’s treatment, and not the cause. Lewis is known for funding conservative groups, including Prager University and Turning Point USA. He even issued a statement to the Arizona Republic in response to Atkinson’s job loss.

“The long story short is that conservative viewpoints are not welcome at ASU, or at most public universities in America,” Lewis said.

Atkinson detailed ways she believes the administration sought to censor the event without outright banning it. Nevertheless, the event was successful, with a total turnout of 1,500 attending in person, and 24,000 online.

“The university administration’s position on the event was no secret,” Atkinson said. “All advertising about ‘Health, Wealth, and Happiness’ was scrubbed from campus walls and digital flyers. Behind closed doors, deans pressured me to postpone the event indefinitely.”

The clearest form of opposition was a letter signed by 36 honors college faculty members. Though the letter condemned the event, it did not explicitly call for its cancelation.

“Dennis Prager and Charlie Kirk are purveyors of hate who have publicly attacked women, people of color, the LGBTQ community, as well as the institutions of our democracy, including our public institutions of higher education,” the letter read. “By platforming and legitimating their extreme anti-intellectual and antidemocratic views, Barrett will not be furthering the cause of democratic exchange at ASU, but undermining it in ways that could further marginalize the most vulnerable members of our community.”

The letter cited examples of Prager and Kirk’s positions in which they disagreed.

According to some, Atkinson is not the only to suffer repercussions for expressing conservative beliefs at ASU. In the letter to the Arizona Board of Regents, Smith cites the previous arrest of student Tim Tizon for handing out pocket constitutions, as well as the firing of ASU Gammage Theater employee Kin Blake for hosting Atkinson’s event that “did not align with Gammage’s values.”

“Free speech is paramount to the future of our Republic,” Smith said, “Higher education taxpayer-funded universities must be held to a higher standard regarding the First Amendment. I am disturbed that this trend continues to happen at Arizona State University. I have asked the Regents to do their job and seek answers immediately from Arizona State administrators.”

In addition to Smith’s investigation, ASU is currently being watched by the campus free speech group Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.

“FIRE sees no #1A problem with such a closure, provided there are genuine funding concerns,” FIRE tweeted. “But, because schools often point to viewpoint-neutral reasons to justify viewpoint-based censorship, we’ll continue to monitor closely.”

FIRE had previously given ASU their “green” rating regarding the freedom of expression and speech on campus.

*****

This article was published by The Center Square and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Children’s Hospital Charges Schools Thousands For Trainings On How To Teach About Gender Identity, Anal Sex thumbnail

Children’s Hospital Charges Schools Thousands For Trainings On How To Teach About Gender Identity, Anal Sex

By The Daily Caller

An Illinois children’s hospital is charging school districts thousands of dollars for a sex education workshop that features lessons on how to teach kids about anal sex and gender identity, according to documents obtained through a public records request by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

The Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago is charging school districts up to $1,500 for a presentation to educators on “inclusive sexual health ed practices” that promotes the National Sexuality Education Standards (NSES), a K-12 sexual education curriculum, according to a copy of the presentation obtained by the DCNF through a public records request. The presentation recommends that fifth graders should learn several different sexual orientations, while eighth graders should be taught about anal and oral sex.

The NSES, which the presentation notes is in line with Illinois law if schools choose to adopt it, was created by a coalition of organizations part of the Future of Sex Education (FoSE) Initiative, including several LGBTQ activist groups and Planned Parenthood.

The Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago charges public schools for several services, including a “student facing” presentation for $150, a question-and-answer workshop for $750 and an “inclusive sexual health ed practices” seminar that can either be “$1500 for one 90 minute workshop or $1000 per 90 minute workshop for a series,” according to a November 2022 email from a hospital official to an administrator with Kildeer Countryside Community Consolidated School District 96.

The Community Consolidated Illinois School District 15 paid the Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago $3,150 in January 2023 for three “inclusive sexual health ed practices” professional development sessions, according to documents.

The hospital allows schools to customize its sample workshop for its “inclusive sexual health ed practices,” which includes different grade-level standards of the NSES, the hospital’s sexuality education program coordinator said in the November 2022 email. The workshop aims to provide school districts with “an overview of updated policy and resources” on sexual education curriculums while helping educators practice the use of “gender & LGBTQ+ inclusive communication for personal health & sexual health education,” according to the presentation obtained by the DCNF.

Under the NSES, by eighth grade, students should be able to define anal, oral and vaginal sex as well as explain several sexual orientation definitions including “heterosexual, bisexual, lesbian, gay, queer, two-spirit, asexual [and] pansexual,” the presentation states. The hospital presentation notes that the standards require fifth graders to be able to distinguish the difference between sex assigned at birth and gender identity.

The NSES notes that fifth graders should also be able to explain that “gender expression and gender identity exist along a spectrum,” as well as be able to evaluate how gender stereotypes may impact themselves and others, the presentation states.

Through the eighth-grade curriculum of the NSES, students should be able to analyze how their family and peers may “influence” their attitudes toward “gender, gender identity, gender roles and gender expression,” the presentation explains. Students should also be able to “access medically accurate sources of information about gender, gender identity and gender expression” by the end of eighth grade, the presentation states.

When talking about puberty with fifth and sixth graders, the presentation advises educators to use gender-neutral language such as “people who menstruate,” “people with penises,” “people with testicles” and “people with vulvas.” The presentation offers sample slides for fifth and sixth-grade sexual education lessons on testicle and vulva anatomy.

Another sample slide for fifth and sixth graders explains “wet dreams,” ejaculation and semen, the documents show.

The hospital’s “inclusive sexual health ed practices” workshop also includes a lesson on gender-neutral language, noting that individuals should avoid using phrases such as “ladies” and “gentlemen,” and instead use “friends” and “folks” in order to be more inclusive.

The Illinois legislature is considering a bill that would mandate K-12 school districts to adopt sexual education lessons in accordance with the NSES. Under current law, Illinois schools districts can voluntarily adopt NSES standards.

Representatives from left-wing organizations are listed as “creators and reviewers” of the NSES, including Planned Parenthood; the Human Rights Campaign, an LGBTQ activist group; Gender Spectrum, an activist organization for gender diverse teens; and GLSEN, a nationally known LGBTQ activist organization that pushes policies to keep a child’s gender transition from their parents, the presentation shows.

“NSES come to us from a diverse group of professionals with expertise in sexuality, public education, public health, social justices, psychology, child & adolescent medicine,” the Lurie Children’s presentation says.

The hospital also recommends its “favorite books” for eight-year-olds including “Sex Is A Funny Word,” a comic book for kids about sexual orientation and gender identity, and “You Know, Sex” for 12-year-olds, a book that discusses sex education grounded in social justice, the presentation states.

The Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago recently came under scrutiny for a series of videos it created that feature adults talking to children about transgenderism and sexual orientation. In September 2022, it was revealed that the hospital was partnering with local school districts to promote sex toys and gender-affirming items.

The Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, Kildeer Countryside Community Consolidated School District 96 and the Community Consolidated School District 15 did not immediately respond to the DCNF’s request for comment.

AUTHORS

REAGAN REESE AND MEGAN BROCK

Contributors.

RELATED ARTICLE: Washington School Gave Elementary School Kids Sex Ed Lesson Pushing Puberty Blockers: REPORT

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

New York City LGBT Activists Chant ‘We’re Coming For Your Kids’ thumbnail

New York City LGBT Activists Chant ‘We’re Coming For Your Kids’

By The Daily Caller

Activists at a New York City drag march Friday can be heard chanting, “We’re coming for your children,” in videos of the event.

“We’re here, we’re queer, we’re coming for your children,” the activists shouted as they marched. The marchers convened at Tompkins Square Park and made their way through the East Village before stopping at Stonewall Inn. Stonewall Inn, a gay bar, was the site of a police raid which sparked violent protests known as the Stonewall Riots in 1969.

NYC Drag Marchers chant “we’re here, we’re queer, we’re coming for your children” https://t.co/ucK1qM4fv5 pic.twitter.com/OhBguhWwZY

— Timcast News (@TimcastNews) June 24, 2023

NYC Drag March takes to the streets towards Stonewall Inn https://t.co/XDeS8hX7Oh pic.twitter.com/N0NHoOGxbZ

— Timcast News (@TimcastNews) June 24, 2023

Other video taken of the event shows protestors with signs reading, “Groom Cissies” and “Drag isn’t for Cissies.”

As concerns rise over explicit drag events marketed to and performed for children, some states are taking action to prohibit underage kids from attending these shows. In May, Montana became the first state to ban drag shows from public spaces and being performing in front of children.

“Fortunately, here in Montana, we have a governor who recognizes that drag performers shouldn’t be reading books and grooming children at locations and facilities that receive public funding,” the bill’s Republican sponsor, state Rep. Mitchel Braxton, said.

Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a bill in May which would punish businesses for hosting drag shows with children present. The “Protection Of Children” law authorized government to impose fines, suspensions or revoke the licenses of violating businesses.

The Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR) filed a complaint about reports that children were spotted at an explicit Orlando Christmas-themed drag show in December. The Florida governor’s administration is moving to revoke the venue’s liquor license over the alleged violation.

AUTHOR

SARAH WEAVER

Social issues reporter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘Tons Of Children Present’: Transgender Person Chases Reporter At Pride Parade With Breasts ‘Completely Exposed’

BETSY MCCAUGHEY: America’s Silent Majority Is Turning Up The Heat On LGBTQ Activism — The Results Speak For Themselves

Bud Light Sponsors Raunchy Pride Show After Desperately Trying To Salvage Its Image

RELATED TWEET:

Children and adults are playing together at a clothing-optional #Pride event water party in Washington Square Park in New York City. pic.twitter.com/2biJJnni4U

— Andy Ngô 🏳️‍🌈 (@MrAndyNgo) June 25, 2023

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Texas College Professor FIRED After Explaining a Person’s Sex is Determined by Their Chromosomes thumbnail

Texas College Professor FIRED After Explaining a Person’s Sex is Determined by Their Chromosomes

By The Geller Report

he destruction of the American mind. America has entered an age of terror and lies. Big lies. Huge lies. Objective reality is now the enemy.

College accused of firing professor for saying chromosomes determine sex

By Michael Gryboski, Mainline Church Editor

A Texas college has been accused of firing a biology professor because some students took issue with his teaching that the sex of a human being is determined by their chromosomes.

St. Philip’s College, which is part of the Alamo Colleges District, reportedly fired professor Johnson Varkey in January after teaching at the academic institution for around 20 years.

Kristi Wyatt, associate vice chancellor of Communications & Engagement at the Alamo Colleges District, emailed The Christian Post on Thursday evening to say that “the Alamo Colleges District does not comment on personnel matters or pending or threatened litigation.”

The First Liberty Institute, a law firm based in Plano, Texas, that often handles religious freedom issues, sent a complaint letter on Tuesday to officials with St. Philip’s and Alamo Colleges.

“St. Philip’s College fired Dr. Varkey for teaching human biology just as he did in his previous twenty-year career as a professor. His statements are not only supported by his extensive education and experience, but they also reflect his sincerely held religious beliefs,” read the letter, in part.

“We write to request that St. Philip’s College reinstate Dr. Varkey to his position as Adjunct Professor and acknowledge that his termination was not for cause, but that it violated federal and state law, including the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”

Read more.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLE: Texas Biology Professor Says He Was Fired After Teaching About Sex Differences

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.