If you’re outraged and don’t know why, but, since your BFFs are, you are too, then this column is for you.

Trigger warning: If you’re one of those precious little snowflakes who #StandWithMizzou and support the #MillionStudentMarch, be warned: the following contains potentially “hurtful” microaggressions that may invade the reality-free sanctuary of your Safe Space™ and leave you cowering in the fetal position.

If this is you, then read at your own risk.

For everyone else, let’s define the terms:

• Trigger: noun, 1. potentially distressful words or learning materials likely to cause PTSD in Millennials who’ve been helicopter-parented into a frozen state of perpetual dysfunction (e.g., Twain’s “Tom Sawyer,” the U.S. Constitution or any lecture by Ann Coulter). Paradoxically the word “trigger” is, itself, a trigger, as it is likely to evoke images of scary-loud bang-bangs.

• Trigger warning: noun, 1. the self-wrought burden bohemian professors now face to pre-emptively pamper and advise the little monsters of their own making that they’re about to say something that might send them into a fear-driven and jaw-droppingly disrespectful frenzy of utterly irrational self-righteous indignation (see schadenfreude).

• Microaggressions: noun, 1. any innocuous word or phrase that, whether intentional or not, gives a liberal an excuse to feign offense (e.g., “America is exceptional;” “When it comes to race, I’m colorblind;” or, “You microaggress like a girl.”

• Safe Space: noun, 1. progressive circle of self-entitled, “everyone-gets-a-trophy” pansies free of critical thinking, differing opinions, reality and oxygen.

At the heart of all this is rebellion for the sake of rebellion. It was bad in the ’60s, but it’s far worse now. At least in the ’60s the misguided revolutionaries had the courage of their convictions and would face-down the National Guard. Today, they flee, arms in the air, for their Safe Space™ vacuum chamber.

Ayn Rand once wrote, “You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality.”

Those consequences are on display now.

It’s been said – by whom I don’t recall – that, to conservatives, George Orwell’s “1984″ was a cautionary tale. To “progressives,” it’s a how-to manual.

You thought last week’s outburst of faux outrage on America’s liberal college campuses was something new. It’s not. While it looks a bit like the counter-cultural hippie revolution of the 1960s (that’s the esthetic they’re going for), today’s “Million Student March” and the other race-baiting, “white privilege,” hissy-fit “protests” at Mizzou, Yale and elsewhere, don’t characterize the counter-culture at all. They are the culture. Conservative truth-tellers now represent the counter-culture.

Indeed, the neophyte Millennials raising their arms in the clenched fist salute (also known as the “Red Salute” by cultural Marxists such as the Soviet Bolsheviks during the Russian Civil War and Mao Tse-tung during the Chinese Civil War) are, unwittingly, conforming, en masse, to the empty romance of “progressive” non-conformity. Freethinkers? Hardly. These kiddos need an instruction manual for toilet paper. Cute as the little buggers may be, they’re but a gaggle of self-entitled, uber-naïve, malleable Marxist robots.

It’s eerily reminiscent of Chairman Mao’s youthful Chinese “Red Guard” (1966-76). As Encyclopedia Britannica notes, under Mao’s Communist regime, “groups of militant university and high school students [were] formed into paramilitary units as part of the Cultural Revolution.” These easily manipulated young people (sound familiar?) who responded “to his summons fancied themselves as new revolutionary rebels pledged to eliminating all remnants of the old culture in China, as well as purging all supposedly bourgeois elements within the government.” Mao sought to abolish what he called the “Four Olds”: old customs, old culture, old habits and old ideas.

How “progressive” of him.

Like the Chinese Red Guard, today’s American equivalent wants lots of free stuff – say, like free college – and likewise seeks to undermine, if not completely destroy, all traditional values. Mao’s platform shared the hallmarks of modern “progressivism”: entitlement, redistribution, moral relativism, atheism and tyranny.

“While engaging in marches, meetings, and frenzied propagandizing,” concludes Britannica, “Red Guard units attacked and persecuted local party leaders as well as schoolteachers and school officials, other intellectuals, and persons of traditional views. Several hundred thousand people died in the course of these persecutions.”

America’s Red Guard is just warming up. These “progressive” puppets protest everything at once and nothing at all. They demand – hey, hey, ho, ho – that their liberal mentors move with them from the leftward fringes, straight off the cliff’s edge.

Or resign.

And so the grown-ups bow to the babes and resign, cower, coddle and apologize, feeding this suckling Bratzilla with the mother’s milk of weakness. Rather than placating these already overindulged beasts, it only makes them stronger and encourages them to issue additional, and increasingly absurd, demands.

As long as we allow business as usual in this collegiate shop of horrors, these cultural Marxist change agents will keep manufacturing fake racial incidents, anti-LGBT “hate crimes” and any number of similarly ridiculous, yet equally effective, pretexts for remaining perpetually POed.

Winston Churchill famously observed, “If you’re not a liberal at 20, you have no heart; if you’re not a conservative at 40, you have no brain.”

Until the adults put the children in time-out, this destructive astroturf movement, with it’s delicate, yet blindly determined little flowers, will continue to blossom.

“Feed me, Seymour!”

We need you now more than ever!  Please partner with IFI
as we stand on the front lines for marriage, family, life and liberty.

By now everyone except off-the-grid cave-dwellers has heard about the student protest at University of Missouri which began when thirty black football players and other teammates, supported by the coaching staff, threatened to boycott practices and games until the university president resigned, which he did, along with the chancellor. The reason for the threatened boycott and subsequent campus protest is the belief on the parts of student protestors that the administration had not adequately addressed campus racism. I suppose the team is busy now interviewing candidates to fill those positions.

Shortly thereafter, a student journalist attempting to exercise his First Amendment rights by reporting on the campus tent city “triggered” a marauding horde of anti-microaggression protestors to commence (to quote Richard Scarry) “pushing and shoving, shrieking and shouting.” Methinks the response of the delicate orchids, deeply traumatized by a reporter reporting, veered dangerously close to ordinary run-of-the-mill aggression.

The events at Mizzou followed close on the heels of another campus brouhaha, this one at Yale where some Ivy League hackles were raised when university lecturer Erika Christakis in a carefully worded, politically correct-ish email challenged a silly administrative warning against insensitive Halloween costumes. Following Christakis’ email, her husband, Yale professor Nicholas Christakis, was accosted on campus, where a young woman of color shrieked and swore at him saying among other things, “Who the f*** hired you?” Now scores of socially-just Yalies are seeking the Christakis family’s removal from their positions and home in a Yale residential college.

All this because Christakis dared to suggest that perhaps college students should have the freedom to choose to be a bit provocative or even “transgressive” on Halloween. And by provocative she means costumes that social justice fanatics may view as “appropriative”—not inappropriate—appropriative. So, for example, no non-indigenous female should wear a Pocahontas costume because that would suggest she’s attempting to “appropriate” Native American culture. The merest hint that these hothouse flowers may see an image that sets off their finely-tuned, offense-o-meters sends them into fits of infantile pique.

The seeds for these cultural weed patches were sown years ago when campus radicals, heavily influenced by Brazilian Marxist and educator Paulo Freire, took over academia and began propagating their doctrinaire ideology about oppression. Proponents of Freire’s critical pedagogy—sometimes referred to as “teaching for social justice”—have imposed on all of society their obsession with the notion of systemic oppression, dividing society into two groups (i.e., oppressor and oppressed) and imputing guilt or victimhood respectively.

For example, colorless people, males (more precisely “cismales”), and heterosexuals are automatically oppressors regardless of whether they have engaged in any acts of oppression. “Progressives” rail against members of the purported oppressor group, telling them that the only way to expiate their imputed sins is to engage in endless self-flagellation.

Conversely, people of color, females, trans-everyone, and homosexuals belong to the oppressed group and, therefore, cannot be found guilty of, well anything, no matter how nasty and oppressive their actions. This is the ideology promoted at the annual White Privilege Conference that many educators attend.

To get a sense of how silly and doctrinaire this oppression ideology has become, look no further than Jonathan Butler, the black Mizzou student whose hunger-strike and demand that the university president “acknowledge his white male privilege” played a pivotal role in this burlesque of a civil rights protest. Jonathan Butler is the son of Eric L. Butler, an executive vice president for sales and marketing for the Union Pacific Railroad, whose 2014 compensation was $8.4 million and whose total net worth is upwards of $20 million. Clearly, Jonathan is systemically oppressed.

“Progressives” have added another layer of ideological slime to their unstable foundation. They have for decades disseminated propaganda via accommodating government schools, academia, the mainstream press, and Hollywood, brainwashing our young’uns into believing that among the gravest social injustices that plague patriarchal, colonialist America is the presence of unpleasant ideas. Oppressed peoples are entitled to be free of exposure to ideas and images they don’t like

Devotees of diversity tacitly teach children and teens that they have a right not to be offended—well, “progressives” have a right not to be offended.

Exalters of emotion extol the supreme value of subjective feelings—well, the subjective feelings of those who belong to the designated oppressed groups. It is their feelings that dictate what may or may not be seen or heard.

Teachers of tolerance tolerate only that which they approve and affirm.

Masters of moral relativism proclaim that there exist ideas so absolutely evil that they must not be spoken or heard. And they alone are the arbiters of truth. Violating their commandment to speak no evil requires prior trigger warnings to prevent oppressed victims and their genuflecting allies from being reduced to puddles of tears, or, as at Mizzou and Yale, rivers of rage.

In the service of their cultural mission to cleanse the university and universe of ideas that offend liberals, teachers help students grow tissue-paper skin in their school laboratories, which they can don whenever they may encounter a “microaggression”—you know like Romans 1:26.

Agents of change have taught their malleable changelings how to feign macro-umbrage to get their way. Now they are stupid-drunk with the power they’ve gained from the supposed “right” to be free from micro-ickiness. Students at once possess oh-so-delicate sensibilities and an incongruent lust for the freedom of others. At Mizzou and Yale, we witnessed the macro-tantrum of a macro-monster with a micro-brain.

The monster created by the Left is now a rapacious, oppressive beast, mindlessly trampling the First Amendment, intellectual diversity, and intellectual freedom. Feeding at the slop trough of narcissism and solipsism, the oppressed have become the oppressors.

We need you now more than ever!  Please partner with IFI
as we stand on the front lines for marriage, family, life and liberty.

Written by Bob Kellogg

An attorney says evidence indicates a teacher’s instructions in class were clearly a violation of students’ freedom of religious expression.

A seventh-grader in Texas has told officials her teacher gave her an assignment requiring her to say God is a myth – or receive a failing grade. Jordan Wooley told her story before the West Memorial Junior High School Board (see video below). She said students in the class who argued in favor of saying God is real were threatened with punishment.

Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute contends Jordan’s and the other students’ free-speech rights were violated.

“For any teacher in any public school to require a seventh-grader to disavow their belief in God is a clear violation of not only the First Amendment, the Establishment Clause, the Exercise Clause, and the Free Speech clause – but it’s a clear breech of public trust,” he states.

School officials contend they couldn’t find anyone to back up Jordan’s story, but parents say that’s because they weren’t trying hard enough. As Dacus notes, Jordan wasn’t alone in her accusation.

“The school district reportedly is denying that this took place, yet there was more than one student in the classroom. There were other students – and another girl went home crying to her parents,” the attorney explains.

“The school district can pretend it didn’t happen and they can pretend the exam didn’t exist, but the evidence is compelling to the contrary.”

Superintendent Alton Frailey has since apologized to Jordan. Governor Greg Abbott has invited her to the governor’s mansion this Saturday to share her story.

This article was originally posted at OneNewsNow.com

The controversy over locker room policy for gender-confused students in Township High School District 211 here in Illinois has erupted nationally. The Office for Civil Rights, a division of the intrusive Department of Education, has decided that the district violates federal legislation by not allowing a gender-dysphoric high school boy unrestricted access to all areas of the girls’ locker room. Since the highly politicized Office for Civil Rights is publicly lying pretending that District 211 in Illinois is violating Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, it might be helpful to read the relevant parts of Title IX:

[T]itle IX of the Education Amendments of 1972…is designed to eliminate (with certain exceptions) discrimination on the basis of sex in any education program….A recipient [of federal funds] may provide separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex, but such facilities provided for students of one sex shall be comparable to such facilities provided for students of the other sex.

In 2014, unelected employees with no legislative authority in the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) unilaterally proclaimed that the term “sex” in Title IX includes “gender identity” and “gender expression.” They sent their astonishingly arrogant proclamation—referred to as “Dear Colleague” letter—to all public schools.

Even though the OCR is lying through its rainbow-tinted teeth, let’s conduct a thought experiment, which is another way of saying let’s explore the logical outworking of another flaky and destructive Leftist assumption.

Since “LBTQQIAP” activists are nothing if not dogged in their pursuit of unfettered sexual anarchy, and since far too many conservatives, especially political leaders, are largely ill-informed cowards, let’s imagine that Lefties win the day and are permitted to determine what the meaning of “sex” is. “Sex” in our thought experiment now means objective biological sex, and “gender identity,” and “gender expression.”

In a disturbing segment on the FOX News show The Kelly File last night, host Megyn Kelly interviewed Dr. Daniel Cates, superintendent of District 211. In her interview Kelly stated that District 211 has not only set up a private changing area in the locker room for the gender-dysphoric boy but also agreed to allow his friends—that is to say, girls—to change with him. This decision, along with allowing the boy to use the girls’ restrooms, necessarily means that the district no longer has an absolute prohibition against boys and girls sharing restrooms or changing areas. If, as the superintendent said in a recent statement, “boys and girls are in separate locker rooms for a reason” related to anatomical differences, why allow this boy in the girls’ locker room or restrooms at all? And why allow girls to voluntarily change with him?

Moreover, if objectively male students are permitted to use girls’ restrooms and enter girls’ locker rooms, and if girls may voluntarily choose to change clothes with an objectively male student, why is such mixing of sexes permitted only for those students who wish they were the opposite sex? Wouldn’t allowing only gender-dysphoric students to use opposite-sex restrooms and locker rooms constitute discrimination based on “gender identity”?

Presto change-o, the Left will effectively efface another essential boundary. In the twinkling of a winking eye, all boys will be able to use girls’ restrooms and locker rooms, and vice versa. The ancient heresy of Gnosticism that devalues physical embodiment and the pagan worldview of “oneism” that seeks to merge opposing binaries rear their ugly heads again, obliterating any cultural recognition of the meaning of sexual differentiation. As theologian and pastor Doug Wilson said in a recent (and soon to be released) IFI interview, “All idolatries have contradictions built into them.”

Let me be clear: The logical and inevitable conclusion of these restroom/locker room policies, which are embedded with non-factual assumptions about the nature of physical embodiment, is to eradicate all distinctions in language, law, and social institutions between male and female.

Chew on that for a moment, then gather those dust-collecting spines from the attic, and do something courageous with the doggedness of the Left.

Partner with Illinois Family Institute as we continue to stand
on the front lines for marriage, family, life and liberty.

By Bill Bumpas

A pro-family organization says it was surprised to learn that “American Girl Magazine” has decided to step into the culture war in favor of homosexuality.

“American Girl,” owned by toy manufacturer Mattel, featured a picture of a family with two dads in an article about adoption.

One Million Moms, a ministry of the American Family Association, says it supports adoption but “glorifying sin” is not how to bring attention to it.

By praising the homosexuals’ adoption, says OMM director Monica Cole, Mattel has decided it will force a conversation between parents and children, even though that’s a topic that “parents may not feel that their child is ready to have yet.”

The website for “American Girl” states that the bi-monthly magazine reaches more than 400,000 girls. The magazine is targeted at girls ages eight and up.

On its website, OMM features a photo of the magazine story on its website, describing how “Daddy” and “Dada” adopted children from foster care.

The picture was published in the magazine’s November/December issue, which could end up affecting Mattel’s bottom line.

“I believe the retailer is shooting themselves in the foot,” says Cole, “because conservative and traditional families will not be able to purchase their products in good conscience this Christmas season.”

One Million Moms is asking its members and others who are concerned to contact “American Girl” and Mattel, and urge the company to remain neutral in the culture war. Contact information is on the OMM website.

This article was originally posted here

Bremerton High School in Washington state just suspended beloved football coach Joe Kennedy for praying on the football field after games, while gender-dysphoric, cross-dressing teachers like “Karen” Topham at Lake Forest High School in Lake Forest, Illinois or “Dane” Fox at Glenbrook North High School in Northbrook, Illinois get to keep their jobs.

So in public schools today, the voluntary post-game prayers of a Christian coach are wholly unacceptable, while the cross-dressing and cross-sex hormone-doping of gender-rejecting teachers is acceptable.

Princeton University law professor Robert P. George posted an alarming warning on his Facebook page recently about a Christian family who received a letter from the administration of their children’s private “classical” school in which parents were told the school would be accommodating the unbiblical desires of a gender-dysphoric student. Further, the school would be inculcating all students with those unbiblical ideas through compulsory exposure to picture books that depict, espouse, and affirm Leftist beliefs. Here is Professor George’s post, which includes the letter he recommends that the parents send to the school:

A Catholic family whose children attend a private “classical” school received a letter from the school principal informing them of steps the school would be taking to accommodate a “gender non-conforming” child and to prevent bullying. The letter made clear that the school’s official policy would be to embrace a “gender” ideology according to which children would be encouraged to explore and affirm “feelings” and “identities” that did not fit “traditional expectations” for the sex “assigned” to the child “at birth.” (As a matter of scientific fact, sex is “assigned” at conception, but lay that aside for now.) All students would be made to “listen” to books, including “My Princess Boy,” which celebrate the beauty of “being who you are.” Then there would be teacher led “conversations” that would “focus on acceptance and inclusion.”

Of course, as a private school, the school is entitled to adopt any policies its board wants on these matters. Parents who do not wish their children to be subjected to catechism classes in liberal sexual ideology can send them elsewhere. Still, the principal seemed to suggest that she wanted faithful Catholic families and members of other traditional faiths to send their children to her school, so I suggested to the parents the following response:

We are the parents of ____________. We are writing to inform you that our son [daughter] is an ideology non-conforming student. He [she] believes in being kind to everyone and we, as parents, strongly reinforce that belief; but as a Catholic and a member of our family he [she] does not accept expressive individualist dogmas concerning sexuality and “gender identity.” We strongly object to any program in which he [she] would be subjected to indoctrination into the belief that a biological male can be a girl or woman or that a biological female can be a boy or man. Our family and our faith reject the neo-gnostic dualism presupposed by this idea. Any attempt to impose it on our child is an assault on our values and his [her] identity.

Ideological indoctrination by school officials or others under the guise of preventing bullying is itself a form of bullying. Because we oppose all bullying, we are instructing our son [daughter] not to yield to it. We respectfully request that he [she] not be subjected to programs designed to cause her to accept “transgenderism” or other dogmas of contemporary liberal secularist ideology. We particularly request that he [she] not be made part of a captive audience that is forced to listen to one side, and one side only, on questions of sexuality and “gender.”

Although we do not want our child to be subjected to indoctrination or “thought reform,” we do want him [her] to be educated. We therefore do not object to him [her] being required to hear moral opinions that differ from his [hers] or ours, so long as the matters at issue are addressed objectively and so long as there is a full and fair presentation of the competing point[s] of view. So, for example, where liberal ideas are presented concerning sexuality and “gender,” we have no objection to our son’s [daughter’s] participating so long as perspectives that are critical of liberal ideology on these subjects are also fully and fairly presented.

If someone were to suggest that children are too young to hear competing points of view or that the presentation of competing points of view would confuse them, our reply is that if they are old and mature enough to be subjected to school-cased instruction concerning sexuality and “gender,” then they are old and mature enough to hear both or all sides, not just one.

Yours sincerely,

I wholeheartedly affirm everything Professor George has said with one exception. I have long urged parents to express this same idea to their school administrations and teachers with regard to middle and high school students. I do not, however, believe that young children should be exposed to any presentations or materials that affirm Leftist assumptions about gender dysphoria (or homosexuality).

That said, I suspect Professor George doesn’t either. When he suggests that it would be acceptable for children to be exposed to objective, full, and fair presentations of both sides of the issue—which would necessarily exclude picture books like My Princess Boy—I suspect he’s calling the administration’s bluff. Professor George surely knows that this school will never present fully, fairly, and objectively both sides of the issue. Further, he anticipates the objection that children are too young to hear competing views and refutes it (otherwise known as “prolepsis”).

Keep this letter to send to your own school administrations if necessary.

Now that churches and younger Christians are abandoning orthodoxy on sexuality, parents must be vigilant and pro-active about what their children’s teachers and school administrators believe and endorse regarding homosexuality, gender dysphoria, and marriage, even if their children attend private Christians schools.

Please support IFI as we fight for liberty and
work to advance the truth in the public square!

By James Arlandson

The number of marijuana users among teens is increasing. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration reported in 2013:

Marijuana use rose to 7.5% of users aged 12 or older in 2013. This is up from 6.2% of users in 2002.

Additional NSDUH findings on marijuana include:

• 19.8 million (7.5%) people were current (past month) users of marijuana in 2013, making it the most used illicit drug.
• Marijuana use was most prevalent among people age 18 to 25 (with 19.1% using it in the past month).
•  7.1% of people aged 12 to 17 reported using marijuana.
•  A higher percentage of males (9.7%) used marijuana in the past month than females (5.6%).

These numbers will not decrease when more states legalize the drug, because of the widespread availability.

Marijuana is not a harmless drug, as many of the people I talk to believe.

     1. Risk of addiction

Not everyone who smokes marijuana will get addicted, but does a reasonable person want to risk it? A team of medical professionals published their study of cannabis in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), concluding: “Despite some contentious discussions regarding the addictiveness of marijuana, the evidence clearly indicates that long-term marijuana use can lead to addiction.”

     2. Risk of cardiovascular (heart) disease

Summarizing a French study, the LA Times reports:

“There is now compelling evidence on the growing risk of marijuana-associated adverse cardiovascular effects, especially in young people,” said Emilie Jouanjus, lead author of the French study, which was also published in the Journal of the American Heart Assn. That evidence, Jouanjus added, should prompt cardiologists to consider marijuana use a potential cause of cardiovascular disease in patients they see.

(See also here.)

     3. Risk of using harder drugs

Marijuana could be a gateway drug. The authors of the marijuana study reported in the NEJM say: “Epidemiologic and preclinical data suggest that the use of marijuana in adolescence could influence multiple addictive behaviors in adulthood.”

William J. Bennett and Robert A. White insightfully observe that not everyone who smokes marijuana will go on to a harder drug, but nearly everyone on a harder drug began with marijuana (p. 114)

     4. Risk of lung damage

The American Lung Association reports:

Smoking marijuana clearly damages the human lung. Research shows that smoking marijuana causes chronic bronchitis and marijuana smoke has been shown to injure the cell linings of the large airways, which could explain why smoking marijuana leads to symptoms such as chronic cough, phlegm production, wheeze and acute bronchitis.

     5. Risk of brain chemistry damage

A study by the Society of Nuclear Medicine and reported in Sciencedaily concludes:

Definitive proof of an adverse effect of chronic marijuana use revealed at SNM’s 58th Annual Meeting could lead to potential drug treatments and aid other research involved in cannabinoid receptors, a neurotransmission system receiving a lot of attention. Scientists used molecular imaging to visualize changes in the brains of heavy marijuana smokers versus non-smokers and found that abuse of the drug led to a decreased number of cannabinoid CB1 receptors, which are involved in not just pleasure, appetite and pain tolerance but a host of other psychological and physiological functions of the body.

     6. Risk of brain structure damage and memory loss

A study conducted by the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and reported in the Bulletin of Schizophrenia and a Northwestern news release concludes:

“The study links the chronic use of marijuana to these concerning brain abnormalities that appear to last for at least a few years after people stop using it,” said lead study author Matthew Smith, an assistant research professor in psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine. “With the movement to decriminalize marijuana, we need more research to understand its effect on the brain.”

It should also be noted in that excerpt that the authors of the study urge caution about decriminalizing marijuana.

     7. Risk of schizophrenia

The same study by Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine observes:

Chronic use of marijuana may contribute to changes in brain structure that are associated with having schizophrenia, the Northwestern research shows. Of the 15 marijuana smokers who had schizophrenia in the study, 90 percent started heavily using the drug before they developed the mental disorder. Marijuana abuse has been linked to developing schizophrenia in prior research.

     8. Risk of an IQ drop among adolescents

The lead IQ study investigator Madeline H. Meier says:

“Our results suggest that adolescents are particularly vulnerable to develop cognitive impairment from cannabis and that the drug, far from being harmless, as many teens and even adults are coming to believe, can have severe neurotoxic effects on the adolescent brain.”

This study was attacked for not considering other factors, like socio-economic class. So a year later Dr. Nora Volkow of the National Institute of Drug Abuse says marijuana use is at least one contributory factor in the IQ drop:

“The message inherent in these and in multiple supporting studies is clear. Regular marijuana use in adolescence is known to be part of a cluster of behaviors that can produce enduring detrimental effects and alter the trajectory of a young person’s life — thwarting his or her potential. Beyond potentially lowering IQ, teen marijuana use is linked to school dropout, other drug use, mental health problems, etc. Given the current number of regular marijuana users (about 1 in 15 high school seniors) and the possibility of this number increasing with marijuana legalization, we cannot afford to divert our focus from the central point: regular marijuana use stands to jeopardize a young person’s chances of success — in school and in life.”

     9. Risk of car crashes

Marijuana slows the motor or movement skills in users, so not surprisingly there is an increase in the incidents of car crashes. USA Today reports the findings:

As more states are poised to legalize medicinal marijuana, it’s looking like dope is playing a larger role as a cause of fatal traffic accidents.

Columbia University researchers performing a toxicology examination of nearly 24,000 driving fatalities concluded that marijuana contributed to 12% of traffic deaths in 2010, tripled from a decade earlier.

NHTSA studies have found drugged driving to be particularly prevalent among younger motorists. One in eight high school seniors responding to a 2010 survey admitted to driving after smoking marijuana. Nearly a quarter of drivers killed in drug-related car crashes were younger than 25. Likewise, nearly half of fatally injured drivers who tested positive for marijuana were younger than 25.

Since legalizing marijuana, Colorado has seen an increase:

Colorado has seen a spike in driving fatalities in which marijuana alone was involved, according to Insurance.com. The trend started in 2009 — the year medical marijuana dispensaries were effectively legalized at the state level.

     10. Summary of the risks of altered behavior and diminished achievement

This last point summarizes the general health risks.

The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry issued this statement:

Use of marijuana can lead to:

• School difficulties
• Problems with memory and concentration
• Increased aggression
• Car accidents
• Use of other drugs or alcohol
• Risky sexual behaviors
• Increased risk of suicide
• Increased risk of psychosis

Long-term use of marijuana can lead to:

• The same breathing problems as smoking cigarettes (coughing, wheezing, trouble
• with physical activity, and lung cancer)
• Decreased motivation or interest
• Lower intelligence
• Mental health problems, such as depression, anxiety, anger, moodiness, and
• psychosis
• Decreased or lack of response to mental health medication
• increased risk of side effects from mental health medication

Sometimes these studies are contested because they are supposedly sponsored by big corporations or skewed by political pressure put on government institutes. However, the marijuana legalization advocates are also motivated by politics and money. The more users they get, the more money flows their way. It’s a commercial enterprise.

So can we break the deadlock?

Common sense combined with science is just about all we got. Inhaling smoke of a chemical-laden and brain-tweaking drug defies both.

More importantly, behind these policy statements and scientific findings and hyperskepticism about motives and science are human lives.

Think before you take up this drug. Your quality of life will be negatively affected. If you currently take it, be persuadable and stop.

Given these health risks, states must no longer vote to legalize recreational marijuana — and states that have legalized recreational use must reconsider and reverse their unwise decision.

James Arlandson, Ph.D. (1994), has taught college and university for years. His website is Live as Free People.

This article was originally posted at AmericanThinker.com

By Charles Butts & Jody Brown

The public is being cautioned not to place a great deal of faith in a new study that suggests the existence of a “gay gene.” Observers may also want to consider the source: a researcher who himself is gay.

Dr. Tuck Ngun reported to the annual meeting of the American Society of Human Genetics last week that his research has resulted in the ability to predict sexual orientation of males. “Epigenetic Algorithm Accurately Predicts Male Sexual Orientation” reads the Society’s press release, adding “with up to 70 percent accuracy” in the first paragraph.

Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality points out that Ngun conducts research for the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA – and suggests why observers should be cautious of this particular study.

“David Geffen, a homosexual activist, gave a donation – probably a very, very large one – to UCLA, and they end up studying the gay gene, looking for the gay gene,” he tells OneNewsNow. “And now they say they’ve found something with 70-percent accuracy that could predict it.”

Fox News reports that genetics experts are warning the research has important limitations, notably the small sample size: 47 sets of identical male twins – 37 of which consisted of one homosexual and one heterosexual, and 10 of two homosexuals.

LaBarbera says it’s another in a string of studies claiming to prove the existence of a homosexual gene – but he says homosexual activists shouldn’t get excited.

“You know, there’s a really strong desire of the homosexual lobby to say that this is not a moral issue, that people are not responsible, that homosexual behavior is not a sin. There’s a strong, strong need to justify their immoral lifestyle,” he states. “I think that’s what these studies are all about.”

The UCLA study has not been replicated and proven. When other studies claiming a homosexual gene have gone through that process, they have been debunked. In addition, Ngun presented only an abstract at the conference – not a published paper.

According to New Scientist, Ngun abandoned his research the week before the conference, fearing his findings could be used to identify and punish individuals for being homosexual. “I don’t believe in the censoring of knowledge,” he is quoted as saying, “but given the potential for misuse of the information, it just didn’t sit well with me.”

Ngun identifies himself as “Big gay nerd” on the Google+ social network. The data researcher also has posted numerous photos and videos from various “gay pride” events on Google+.

This article was originally posted at OneNewsNow.com

WARNING: In this article about a gender-dysphoric boy’s pursuit of unfettered access to the girls’ locker room in an Illinois high school, I will be using the male pronoun because pronouns correspond to and denote objective biological sex. Politically-correct readers may want to stop reading now.

~~~

Eighteen months ago a high school student in Palatine-Schaumburg District 211 who wishes he were a girl and his parents filed a complaint with the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to force the district to treat him in all contexts as if he were objectively female. The OCR—an intrusive, dictatorial, de facto bastion of “LGBTQ” activism—has ordered the district to allow this boy full, unrestricted access to the girls’ locker rooms “for changing during physical education classes and after-school activities.” The district is rightly refusing to comply, which will likely result in expensive litigation and the potential loss of millions of dollars of federal funds.

Superintendent Daniel Cates, other school officials, and school board members offered a compromise solution that would have given “the transgender student use of the locker room but asked that the student change and shower in private.” The OCR rejected this overly generous compromise as “inadequate and discriminatory.”

In a district newsletter released on Monday, Cates explained that the “goal of the District in this matter is to protect the privacy rights of all students when changing clothes or showering before or after physical education and after-school activities.” This boy—and he is and always will be male—is demanding to be allowed unrestricted freedom to change clothes and shower with girls.

Already the school has made pernicious concessions to “progressive” ideologues and their chuckleheaded notions about the meaning of physical embodiment. On school forms, gender-dysphoric students in District 211 may identify themselves as the sex they wish they were. They may play on opposite sex sports teams. And even more outrageous, they may use opposite-sex restrooms since “there are private stalls available.”

None of this, however, is enough for the gender-rejecting boy, his parents, the OCR, or “LGBTQ” activists. They need every cultural signifier that affirms that objective biological sex is immutable and profoundly meaningful to be eradicated, and they will use the implacable force of the federal government to achieve that end.

John Knight of the ACLU Illinois’ LGBT program claims that in refusing to comply, District 211 is “knowingly breaking the law.” Well, the purported lawfulness of the order is in question.

In 2014, the OCR unilaterally reinterpreted Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972—federal civil rights legislation that addressed sexual discrimination, not gender dysphoria—and then commanded that all school districts comply with their fanciful reinterpretation. Here is an excerpt from their imperious proclamation to schools:

The Department’s Title IX regulations permit schools to provide sex-segregated restrooms, locker rooms, shower facilities, housing, athletic teams, and single-sex classes under certain circumstances. When a school elects to separate or treat students differently on the basis of sex in those situations, a school generally must treat transgender students consistent with their gender identity.

The OCR imposed their radical reinterpretation on schools without the actual law ever changing. A court case (G. G. v. Gloucester County Public Schools) is currently pending in which the Department of Justice is attempting to change the law in accordance with the OCR’s desires, but as of now, there exists no federal or state law that requires Illinois schools to allow students of one sex to use restrooms or locker rooms designated for opposite-sex students.

Knight also makes the comical claim that by prohibiting a high school boy from showering with his female classmates, the school is telling him that he “can’t be with her [sic] friends at school, but has to be regulated [sic] to a separate place to dress. That’s just a horrible thing to do.” I kid you not. An attorney actually said that.

Those who support “transgender” bathroom and locker room policies should answer these questions:

• If gender-confused teens should not have to use restrooms and locker rooms with those whose “gender identity” they don’t share, then why should other teens have to use restrooms and locker rooms with those whose objective biological sex they don’t share?

• If there are two distinct phenomenon, biological sex (constituted by objective DNA/anatomy) and “gender identity” (constituted by subjective feelings), why should locker rooms and restrooms be separated according to “gender identity” rather than objective biological sex? What justification is there for subordinating objective biological sex to “gender identity”?

• Supporters of “transgender” school policies argue that they’re needed in order to be “inclusive” of gender-confused students. To be intellectually consistent then, wouldn’t supporters of the policy have to agree that those who are not comfortable sharing a bathroom or locker room with someone of the opposite sex because of their beliefs about sexual differentiation, modesty, and privacy would be “excluded” if the school refuses to honor their beliefs, feelings, values, and identity—which, by the way, has a basis in objective reality?

Symbolic and teaching effect of school policy

Many community members who do not like either the policy sought by this student or the existing policy regarding sports participation and restroom use may dismiss it as unimportant since there are so few gender-dysphoric students. But if it’s unimportant, why does the Left care so much about it? They care about it in part because of its symbolic effect. The Left knows that passing this policy necessarily means the school has formally embraced the Left’s unproven, non-factual beliefs about sex and gender.

Here are some of the ideas that “transgender” policies teach all students:

• These policies teach that the subjective feelings of teens who wish they had been born the opposite sex trump objective biological and anatomical reality.

• Such policies falsely teach that what gender-confused teens feel is their true sex is, indeed, their true sex. Such policies teach students that “gender” has no inherent connection to DNA and its manifestation in biology and anatomy but, rather, that it is determined by subjective feelings. They also teach that everyone must accept their unproven belief that “gender identity” is more objectively real and more important than objective biological and anatomical reality.

• Supporters of these kinds of policies argue that the majority should not be allowed to deny the rights of the minority, but such a statement presumes that gender-confused students have a right to use the restrooms and locker rooms designated for those of the opposite sex. And it ignores the rights of those who don’t want to be compelled to use facilities intended for private acts in the presence of those of the opposite sex. Boys have no right to use girls’ restrooms, and girls have no right to use boys’ restrooms.

• Policies that allow students to use opposite-sex restrooms and locker rooms ignore the proper, healthy, and normal feelings of students who do not feel comfortable sharing locker rooms and restrooms with those of the opposite sex. Boys, who should leave a bathroom if a girl enters, and girls who should leave a bathroom if a boy enters would be taught either implicitly or explicitly that those natural and good feelings are wrong. They would be taught that their natural and good feelings of modesty are exclusionary, lacking in compassion, ignorant, and biased.

• Conversely, such policies falsely teach students that in order to be kind, compassionate, and inclusive of those who experience gender dysphoria, they have to affirm those peers’ feelings and ideas. In reality, neither love, nor compassion, nor wisdom, nor inclusivity requires affirmation and accommodation of every feeling, belief, or behavioral choice of every student in a school. And they certainly don’t require students to affirm confusion as soundness or lies as truth. Real love as well as commitments to morality, objective reality, and public order put limits on what individuals and schools should affirm and accommodate. And real love depends first on knowing what is true.

• Such policies teach students that cross-dressing (as well as hormone-doping and elective amputations of healthy body parts) is morally acceptable and good.

The proponents of tolerance and diversity demand nothing less than total ideological surrender and compulsory compliance with policies that reflect their doctrinaire assumptions. Taxpayers in District 211 should protest with boldness and tenacity not just this decision but the policy changes that already exist in District 211. Sympathy for this boy’s confusion should not lead community members to affirm destructive policies that embody lies. If Americans don’t oppose such stupid, harmful, tyrannical policies, such policies will come to all government schools, undermining truth, parental rights, children’s rights, and teachers’ rights.

Please support IFI as we fight for liberty and
work to advance the truth in the public square!

Those parents whose children are enrolled in public schools have a moral obligation to protect the hearts and minds of their children from the propaganda to which increasing numbers of public school pseudo-educators are exposing children on the interrelated issues of homosexuality and gender confusion.

Parents should be bold and unequivocal advocates for their children, demanding (respectfully, of course) that their young children not be exposed to any material or activities that embody Leftist assumptions about homosexuality or gender confusion and that their older children either be exposed equally to all views on these topics or none.

Below are sample letters that parents can email to their children’s teachers, school administrators, and school board members. One letter is for use by parents of elementary and middle school students, and one is for use by parents of high school students. These letters can be sent as is or modified:

Suggested Template for Letters to Elementary  and Middle Schools:
(Click HERE to download as MSWord Doc.)

Dear (teacher or administrator name),

In light of relatively recent and radical cultural changes regarding homosexuality and gender confusion and in light of the fact that there are many educators using public education to transform the philosophical, moral, and political views of other people’s minor children on these issues, we are notifying you that under no circumstance is our (son or daughter) (child’s name) to be exposed to any curricular resources, supplementary resources, activities, or discussions that address homosexuality or gender confusion. This would include but not be limited to picture books, nonfiction books, novels, plays, essays, newspaper or magazine articles, movies, speakers, and anti-bullying programs.

Many public school teachers are engaging in de facto censorship, presenting only resources that embody progressive assumptions about homosexuality and gender confusion, thus undermining  sound pedagogy by transforming education into indoctrination. This advocacy is especially troubling in elementary schools where children are neither intellectually nor emotionally equipped to identify or understand the complexities of these issues. For example, progressives defend picture books that portray homosexual relationships positively by asserting that they’re just about “love.” What they fail to address is the type of love positively portrayed in such picture books: homoerotic love. The underlying assumption embodied and promoted in such books–which is that homoerotic love is by nature equivalent to male-female erotic love–is highly controversial and a-historical. If the distinction between sexually complementary and homoerotic love and the controversy about homoeroticism are age-inappropriate for elementary school students, then so too are picture books that implicitly introduce them.

To protect our child from this troubling political and philosophical advocacy, (he or she) is not to be exposed to resources that espouse or embody progressive assumptions.

Finally, under no circumstance is our child permitted to use restrooms or locker rooms with students, faculty, staff, or administrators of the opposite sex.

Please let us know whether you will honor our requests.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

(Parent or parents’ names)

Suggested Template for Letter to High Schools:
(Click HERE to download as MSWord Doc.)

Dear ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­(teacher or administrator name),

In light of relatively recent and radical cultural changes regarding homosexuality and gender confusion and in light of the fact that there are many educators using public education to transform the philosophical, moral, and political views of other people’s minor children on these issues, we are notifying you that our (son or daughter) (child’s name) is not to be exposed to any curricular resources, supplementary resources, activities, or discussions that address homosexuality or gender confusion unless they are exposed to resources from both sides of the debate.

Many public high school teachers are engaging in de facto censorship, presenting resources that embody or advocate for progressive assumptions about homosexuality and gender confusion, thus undermining sound pedagogy by transforming education into indoctrination.

To protect our child from this troubling political and philosophical advocacy, (he or she) is not to be exposed to resources that espouse or embody progressive assumptions unless equal time is spent studying resources that challenge, critique, and/or dissent from progressive assumptions. This would include but not be limited to nonfiction books, novels, plays, essays, newspaper or magazine articles, movies, speakers, field trips, and anti-bullying programs. Our request pertains to all classes, including but not limited to English, social studies, health/sex ed, theater, world language, and science classes.

Finally, under no circumstance is our child permitted to use restrooms or locker rooms with students, faculty, staff, or administrators of the opposite sex.

Please let us know whether you will honor our requests.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

(Parent or parents’ names)

Illinois Family Institute
Faith, Family and Freedom Banquet

Friday, September 18 , 2015
The Stonegate Banquet & Conference Center (Map)
Click HERE for a banquet flyer.

Secure your tickets now – click here or call (708) 781-9328.

Program advertisements & banquet sponsorships available.

From Gateways to Better Education

With the new school year beginning, here are some tips to help parents and their children in the months ahead. . . .

1. Inform your children of their freedom of religious expression at school.

Your children can express their faith in their homework and share about their faith with classmates. For a list of their religious liberties, click here.

2. Teach your children discernment.

Help your children learn to think critically about what they are learning instead of merely absorbing it. Predict what they may learn and pre-teach your perspective on the topic. You can do this by reading their textbooks and talking to them about any questions you may have about the author’s bias. This will help them become active listeners and discerning thinkers. Over dinner, ask them if they detected any bias in how the topic was taught that day.

3. Pray regularly for your children’s teachers.

Praying for your children’s teachers may sound like a standard piece of advice, but I recommend that you be very intentional in your prayers. Make a list of your children’s teachers, school principals, and other adults in their lives. Put this list in a place where you will be reminded daily to pray for them. Here’s the key: Ask God how He wants to use you to be a godly influence in their lives this school year. Then, watch for the doors He opens!

4. Bless the teacher with an encouraging note.

Even within the first few days or weeks of the school year you can find something the teachers are doing that you appreciate. It may be something your children enjoyed learning, it may be the way the teachers decorated their rooms, it may be a classroom activity that you think is a great idea. Let them know by writing a brief note of appreciation and encouragement.

5. Encourage your children to pray each morning at school.

In 34 states, schools can, and in about half are required to, start the day with a moment of silence. Even if your state doesn’t have a moment of silence law, you can download a beautiful prayer and give it to your children to pray each day. Click here for a list of all the states with laws regarding moments of silence.

6. Be an encouragement to Christian teachers at school.

If you know a teacher at your children’s school who is a Christian, get a map of the campus from the school office, and meet with that teacher. On the map, ask the teacher to circle the names of other Christian teachers he or she knows. During the school year look for opportunities to connect with those teachers and give them encouraging information about how they can address religious holidays, their students’ religious liberties, and helpful articles from the Gateways to Better Education website.

May you and your children be used by God to bless others this year at school.

Originally posted here

By John Fund

It’s hard to keep up with the Gods of Political Correctness. I grew up in the San Francisco Bay Area and have been familiar with sexual-diversity issues from an early age. But just when I had mastered the need to respect LGBT rights, I was told the proper acronym was LGBTH. The “H” stood for hermaphrodite, a person born with sexual characteristics of both males and females. Then I learned from the National Gay and Lesbian Journalists Association that the term hermaphrodite was “outdated,” and that Intersex was the preferred term.

Now comes word from the University of California at Irvine that students there will be able to choose their gender from six different choices starting this fall.

The new form will ask students to pick one gender from six different choices. Prospective students will be asked to choose between male, female, trans male, trans female, gender queer/gender non-conforming and different identity.

CBS Los Angeles spoke to students at UC Irvine about the change . . . Beyond the political or social reasons, some saw the financial reasons too.

“A lot of those questions when you’re applying to graduate school or any sort of school are important for financial aid opportunities you can have,” said Joanna Laird to CBS Los Angeles.

In a statement, Janet Napolitano, the president of the UC system (and President Obama’s former Secretary of Homeland Security) said: “UC is working hard to ensure our campuses model inclusiveness and understanding. I’m proud of the work we’ve done so far, but it doesn’t stop there. We must continue to look at where we can improve so everyone at UC feels respected and supported.”

Now that we’ve gotten the memo, look for many other campuses to fall in line. Until the choice of six genders proves to be too confining or is deemed “outdated” or discriminatory.

As I said, you can’t keep up.

Originally posted on nationalreview.com

Those parents whose children are enrolled in public schools have a moral obligation to protect the hearts and minds of their children from the propaganda to which increasing numbers of public school pseudo-educators are exposing children on the interrelated issues of homosexuality and gender confusion.

Parents should be bold and unequivocal advocates for their children, demanding (respectfully, of course) that their young children not be exposed to any material or activities that embody Leftist assumptions about homosexuality or gender confusion and that their older children either be exposed equally to all views on these topics or none.

Below are sample letters that parents can email to their children’s teachers, school administrators, and school board members. One letter is for use by parents of elementary and middle school students, and one is for use by parents of high school students. These letters can be sent as is or modified:

Suggested Template for Letters to Elementary  and Middle Schools:
(Click HERE to download as MSWord Doc.)

Dear (teacher or administrator name),

In light of relatively recent and radical cultural changes regarding homosexuality and gender confusion and in light of the fact that there are many educators using public education to transform the philosophical, moral, and political views of other people’s minor children on these issues, we are notifying you that under no circumstance is our (son or daughter) (child’s name) to be exposed to any curricular resources, supplementary resources, activities, or discussions that address homosexuality or gender confusion. This would include but not be limited to picture books, nonfiction books, novels, plays, essays, newspaper or magazine articles, movies, speakers, and anti-bullying programs.

Many public school teachers are engaging in de facto censorship, presenting only resources that embody progressive assumptions about homosexuality and gender confusion, thus undermining  sound pedagogy by transforming education into indoctrination. This advocacy is especially troubling in elementary schools where children are neither intellectually nor emotionally equipped to identify or understand the complexities of these issues. For example, progressives defend picture books that portray homosexual relationships positively by asserting that they’re just about “love.” What they fail to address is the type of love positively portrayed in such picture books: homoerotic love. The underlying assumption embodied and promoted in such books–which is that homoerotic love is by nature equivalent to male-female erotic love–is highly controversial and a-historical. If the distinction between sexually complementary and homoerotic love and the controversy about homoeroticism are age-inappropriate for elementary school students, then so too are picture books that implicitly introduce them.

To protect our child from this troubling political and philosophical advocacy, (he or she) is not to be exposed to resources that espouse or embody progressive assumptions.

Finally, under no circumstance is our child permitted to use restrooms or locker rooms with students, faculty, staff, or administrators of the opposite sex.

Please let us know whether you will honor our requests.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

(Parent or parents’ names)

Suggested Template for Letter to High Schools:
(Click HERE to download as MSWord Doc.)

Dear ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­(teacher or administrator name),

In light of relatively recent and radical cultural changes regarding homosexuality and gender confusion and in light of the fact that there are many educators using public education to transform the philosophical, moral, and political views of other people’s minor children on these issues, we are notifying you that our (son or daughter) (child’s name) is not to be exposed to any curricular resources, supplementary resources, activities, or discussions that address homosexuality or gender confusion unless they are exposed to resources from both sides of the debate.

Many public high school teachers are engaging in de facto censorship, presenting resources that embody or advocate for progressive assumptions about homosexuality and gender confusion, thus undermining sound pedagogy by transforming education into indoctrination.

To protect our child from this troubling political and philosophical advocacy, (he or she) is not to be exposed to resources that espouse or embody progressive assumptions unless equal time is spent studying resources that challenge, critique, and/or dissent from progressive assumptions. This would include but not be limited to nonfiction books, novels, plays, essays, newspaper or magazine articles, movies, speakers, field trips, and anti-bullying programs. Our request pertains to all classes, including but not limited to English, social studies, health/sex ed, theater, world language, and science classes.

Finally, under no circumstance is our child permitted to use restrooms or locker rooms with students, faculty, staff, or administrators of the opposite sex.

Please let us know whether you will honor our requests.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

(Parent or parents’ names)

Written by Bob Kellogg

At their annual meeting this month in Florida, the nation’s largest teachers’ union voted on a policy to oppose religious freedom restoration acts – or RFRAs.

In Orlando, Florida, the National Education Association delegates passed a policy whereby they will officially oppose RFRAs because they see such acts as providing individuals and corporations a “license to discriminate” against homosexuals. Linda Harvey of Mission America says the organization isn’t stopping with just passing a policy

“They’ll be using the force of their millions of dollars in dues and their contributions to political candidates for political action to oppose RFRAs in the state legislatures,” Harvey says. “So, this isn’t just something they communicate in schools.”

She says the argument that the acts are a license to discriminate against “gay” individuals is inaccurate, but it’s one the union keeps repeating.

“That’s the talking point that’s been distributed by GLAAD [and] by the Human Rights Campaign,” she tells OneNewsNow. “They’re just picking right up on it, and its all pro-homosexual and pro-transgender policymaking. And they’re encouraging their state affiliates and schools to adopt those policies as well.”

Harvey describes the action against RFRAs as “just the latest in radical leftist political action” by the NEA.

Rather than sitting on the sidelines, she urges parents to call their schools and to tell them to disassociate themselves from the NEA.

In late June, the NEA applauded the Supreme Court’s ruling imposing same-sex “marriage” in all 50 states. In similar fashion, the union stated the high court’s ruling will end “discrimination” against same-sex couples.

This article was originally posted at the OneNewsNow.com website.