In his November 1 op-ed for The Hill, Fox News Analyst Juan Williams claimed that the “parents’ rights’ mantra in the Virginia gubernatorial elections is simply “a code for white race politics.” To the contrary, this really is about parents’ rights and about what is best for all children. To inject charges of white supremacy and racism is to miss the whole point of why so many parents are so upset. In all candor and with due respect, I would have expected better from Mr. Williams.

The fact is that these parents are concerned with the injection of racism into every phase of their children’s education, not to mention the injection of an extreme LGBTQ agenda. Williams should be standing with these parents, not against them. With reference to campaigning strategies in the 2018 elections, he wrote,

“Virginia Republicans are back with a new and improved ‘Culture Wars’ campaign for 2021. The closing argument is once again full of racial division — but this time it is dressed up as a defense of little children.”

Specifically, he claimed that,

“It is a campaign to stop classroom discussion of Black Lives Matter protests or slavery because it could upset some children, especially white children who might feel guilt.”

To the contrary, every white Christian parent with whom I have interacted wants their children to know the truth about slavery, segregation, and the lasting effects of those sinful institutions. And they want to see equal opportunities for all.

But they do not want their children thinking they are evil because they are white (this is actually happening). And they do not want their children to feel guilty for having a nice home or good educational opportunities, as if all success of all white Americans was built on the shoulders of slaves. In the words of former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice,

“The way we’re talking about race is that it either seems so big that somehow white people now have to feel guilty for everything that happened in the past.”

Most of all, these parents do not want everything to be about race, to the point that math can be seen as racist. Or that famous European poets and historians are cancelled because of their whiteness.

Remarkably, to make his case, Williams repeats the “very fine people” lie, writing, “Recall, it was Trump who famously said there were ‘very fine people’ on both sides of the violence sparked by ‘Unite the Right,’ the 2017 rally of white supremacists in Charlottesville, Va.”

Surely Williams must know that this has been debunked time and time again. But why let a good lie die? He also claims that,

“Critical race theory — broadly, a focus on racial disparities as a fact of American life — is not explicitly taught in Virginia’s public schools or anywhere in American public schools. But Republicans nationwide have made it a boogeyman to excite racial divisions and get their base to the polls.”

To be sure, there are different ways to define CRT. For some, it is healthy, positive, and objective. For others, it is unhealthy, negative, and biased. So, before we debate CRT, it’s important to ask, “What, exactly, do you mean by the term?”

And clearly, CRT in its full-blown, academic form, is not being taught to kids in Virginia (and elsewhere). But are classes taught through the lens of CRT? Without question.

As a Daily Wire headline announced on October 31, “Terry McAuliffe Claims CRT Has ‘Never Been’ In Virginia Schools. His Administration Pushed It, Documents Show.” The documentation is clear and undeniable.

Yet Williams approvingly cites McAuliffe, who said, “[Gubernatorial candidate Glenn] Youngkin’s closing message of book banning and silencing esteemed Black authors is a racist dog whistle designed to gin up support from the most extreme elements of his party — mainly his top endorser and surrogate, Donald Trump.”

To the contrary, it is authors with extremist views that are under scrutiny, or, at the least, authors whose views are being exploited by educators with extremist agendas, while contrary views are rejected and banned. (As an aside, but for the record, Youngkin largely campaigned as himself and for himself, not as an extension of Trump, as other political commentators have noted.)

To be clear, I would not deny that white racism remains an issue for some (perhaps many?) families in Virginia. Nor would I deny that some of them would prefer that the full truth about slavery and its legacy not be taught in schools. May they have a change of heart, may they face the facts, and may they enlighten their children. There is no place for white supremacy anywhere and at any time.

Unfortunately, Williams is guilty of a reverse racism, one that projects all kind of nefarious motives on to parents who really do care and who really want their kids to get a solid education rather than cultural brainwashing. In that spirit, I recently tweeted,

“The solution to anti-black racism is not anti-white racism (or anti-Asian racism, etc.). Instead, it is cultivating mutual understanding, respect, and love, with a real desire to see others thrive and enjoy the best of what America has to offer.”

Mr. Williams, I invite you to step higher with me so that, together, we could advance that mutual understanding, respect, and love – based on truth – rather than engage in an endless game of biased and racially charged sniping.

Surely America in 2021 deserves better.

This article was originally posted at AskDrBrown.org.

I am not an anti-vaxxer, and plenty of my friends and colleagues have been vaccinated. And, from the perspective of those who believe that the COVID-19 vaccinations are safe and effective and even life-saving, I can understand the desire to see everyone vaccinated. But what I cannot possibly understand is the threatening, vindictive, heavy-handed bullying in conjunction with the mandates. Not only are these unfair and even cruel, but they give fuel to the fire of those who view the mandates as nothing less than dangerous governmental overreach.

Consider this October 18 story on The Hill which states that, “Chicago police officers could face repercussions, including losing retirement benefits, if they choose to not comply with the city’s vaccine mandate, according to a memo from the Chicago Police Department.

“The memo states that anyone who chooses to disobey the city’s vaccination policy will become the subject of a disciplinary investigation that could result in a penalty up to and including separation from the Chicago Police Department,’ according to CNN.

“‘Furthermore, sworn members who retire while under disciplinary investigations may be denied retirement credentials,’ it continues.”

How can this possibly be justified?

We’re talking about people who, in good conscience, will not be vaccinated, be it for medical reasons or religious reasons or something else (including having natural immunity after having COVID). They are even willing to lose their jobs rather than get vaccinated.

But, as if that was not bad enough, according to this report, the city of Chicago may actually strip away their retirement benefits. Is this anything less than outrageous?

A few weeks ago on my radio broadcast, a caller asked for counsel regarding the vaccine. He had served in the military for years but had serious reservations about getting vaccinated. Yet, if he chose not to get vaccinated, not only would he be dismissed, but, he explained, he would lose all the military benefits he had accrued over the years.

I was shocked to hear this, searching online for confirmation after the show (although the caller seemed quite sure that this was the case).

Although there are varied reports circulating online, early last month, U.S. House legislators openly challenged the announcement that those who refused vaccination would receive a dishonorable discharge. (For the record, and as noted on a military transition website, “A Dishonorable Discharge is the harshest discharge status a military service member can receive, as it is given via court-martial and not by military administration. Service members who receive this standing are accused of felonies involving homicide, fraud, desertion, and crimes that would put any person, service member or not, in hot water. If you receive a Dishonorable Discharge, it is not possible to reenlist with the military.”)

But was this charge true? Were military members being threatened with a dishonorable discharge? Some fact-checkers have said plainly that this is not correct and that the Biden administration does not have the authority to do this.

Yet this does beg the question of why the Military.com website reported on September 2 that, “House lawmakers have backed legislation prohibiting dishonorable discharges for troops who refuse the COVID-19 vaccine.” It also begs the question of how and why news outlets were reporting this very thing. Was it manufactured out of thin air?

Even if this was being reported erroneously and dishonorable discharges were never being considered, we do know that on October 15, it was reported that, “The US Navy said Thursday that personnel who refuse to be vaccinated against COVID-19 will be expelled from the force, ahead of the November 28 deadline for the injection.”

And this: “People expelled for refusing the vaccine will receive a general honorable discharge, but could lose certain benefits or be forced to repay the cost of training and education in some cases, the statement said.”

Note carefully those words: “lose certain benefits.” And all because, in good conscience, they will not be vaccinated. How can this be justified?

The article also stated that, “Navy personnel who can claim an exemption from mandatory vaccines, for health or other reasons, can be reassigned from their current duties.”

And, it explained, “The navy has been particularly sensitive to the pandemic, because of the risk that a single COVID case could infect an entire ship or submarine at sea, forcing it out of action.”

But what about natural immunity for all those who have had COVID? Since this is far more effective than a vaccine, why must those people be vaccinated? As reported on Medical News Today, a major study from Israel “indicated that people who had never had the infection and received a vaccine in January or February of 2021 were up to 13 times more likely to contract the virus than people who had already had the infection.”

Yet these people face the choice of vaccination or else – and that “or else” is quite ominous. How can this be justified?

When it comes to those serving in the military, we’re talking about people who, for the most part, are in one of the lowest demographics for Covid fatalities. And we’re talking about people who have chosen to serve in the military, some for many years of their lives. And in some cases, we’re talking about people who have risked their lives and disrupted their families and perhaps even been wounded in the field of duty.

Yet, if for reasons that are valid in their eyes, they cannot receive the vaccination, not only do they lose their current jobs. Not only do they lose their military career trajectories (where that applies). But they also lose all the benefits they have accrued over the years.

What an outrage, especially when you consider that it is for those very benefits, such as college tuition aid, that some of them enrolled in the first place.

Again, I am not an anti-vaxxer. And, as much as I very strongly differ with the vaccine mandates, I can understand some of the thinking behind the mandates. But these vindictive and punitive measures are outrageous and completely unjustifiable. In the end, they will do more harm than good, hurting lives more than saving lives while increasing our general mistrust of authority.

May those in government (along with others enforcing these mandates) think long and hard. There is still time to reconsider, retract, and reverse course. That would be the honorable thing to do.

This article was originally published by AskDr.Brown.org.

Yesterday I commented under an article on The Hill on Merriam-Webster Dictionary adding “they” as a pronoun for “gender nonbinary” persons, an article that also referred to British singer Sam Smith‘s announcement that he’s “nonbinary.” Like Merriam-Webster, the Chicago Tribune has bought hook, line, and sinker the “trans” language rules. Writing about the singular man Sam Smith, the Trib wrote this embarrassing sentence:

Smith said they were excited and privileged for the support, adding that they’ve been “very nervous” about the announcement because they ”care too much about what people think.”

Someone responded to my Hill comment, and here’s the short confab I had with “NukeNado” about this nonsense:

Laurie: The “trans” community doesn’t have the right to unilaterally restructure English grammar in the service of their science-denying ideology. While “trans”-identifying persons may believe that each person creates his or her own “reality,” others believe real material phenomena exist, can be known, and matter. My reality includes the real phenomena in the world, like the fact that Sam Smith is a singular person and a man. And my reality excludes lying.