The Virginia senator appeared with Clinton at a rally Thursday in his home state. They were expected to have a private conversation en route to Annandale, after Clinton visited Democratic senators on Capitol Hill, but aides said they ultimately rode in separate vehicles in her motorcade because she had two interviews to do . . .
2. Sherrod Brown
The Ohio senator is said to be “incredibly intriguing” to Clinton. He could help carry Ohio, which is a battleground where she will need help. (Read more from “Hillary Clinton’s VP Pick: People to Watch” HERE)
Donald Trump abruptly postponed plans to announce his vice presidential pick following a day of rampant speculation, citing the “horrible attack” in Nice, France, that left scores dead.
Trump had planned to hold his first event with his yet-to-be-named running mate Friday morning in New York. He announced the change of plans Thursday evening on Twitter.
The stunning announcement raised questions about the status of Trump’s selection process. Indiana Gov. Mike Pence had emerged as a late favorite for the job, though Trump said he had not finalized the pick and advisers cautioned he could change his mind. (Read more from “Trump Postpones VP Announcement, Citing France Attacks” HERE)
A strong majority of likely voters are afraid of the results of the general election, according to an AP poll published Thursday.
Eighty-one percent of likely voters reported they are afraid of at least one of the candidates winning the election in November. Twenty-five percent admitted they were afraid of both candidates.
Individually, 56 percent of voters reported they feared a Trump presidency, while 48 percent reported a fear of a Clinton presidency. Only 26 percent of Trump and Clinton supporters stated they would be excited if their respective candidate won the general election.
“If Hillary Clinton won, I’d probably consider suicide. I’m definitely not a fan,” Dennis Fernandez of Arizona told the Associated Press. Lawrence James, a voter in North Carolina added, “If Trump wins, well, we’ve already checked out Malta and New Zealand. I’m just not comfortable that he’s not going to make rushed, uninformed decisions.”
Fourteen percent of supporters for both candidates said they didn’t like the candidate they would be voting for. “I really don’t love either of the candidates. What do they say? It’s a choice between hot and hell,” Annette Scott, a New Jersey resident told the Associated Press.
According to a national CBS poll published Thursday, both Clinton and Trump earned very high negative numbers. 67 percent of voters rated Clinton as “not honest or trustworthy.” 62 percent of voters said Trump was “not honest or trustworthy.” (For more from the author of “The Overwhelming Majority of Americans Are Terrified of This Year’s Election Results” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/maxresdefault-190.jpg10801920Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-07-15 01:48:492016-07-15 01:48:49The Overwhelming Majority of Americans Are Terrified of This Year’s Election Results
There has been a lot of speculation as to whom presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump will pick as his running mate. Indiana Gov. Mike Pence has been the most widely talked about candidate, with many reports Thursday that he indeed is Trump’s choice, over former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.
Gingrich posted a video to Facebook on Thursday in which he discussed his strengths and seemed to subtly play down Pence’s.
“I think my appeal is probably more national. I have some appeal in virtually every state,” he said. “I think Mike Pence would have a huge Midwest appeal. So, if you’re trying to compete for western Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Missouri, Illinois, there’s a certain value to an Indiana candidate, I think.”
Gingrich has reported that the Trump campaign has vetted him thoroughly, detailing an exhaustive process. The former House speaker referred to the other potential running mates as “pirates,” and credited himself as a more stable alternative.
Both Gingrich and Pence have the ability to unite the Republicans, especially conservatives, who are still somewhat iffy about Trump, but Gingrich sees it as a decision that ultimately must be framed through the real estate mogul’s point of view.
“Whether I could do that better or Mike Pence could do that better, that’s something Trump has to personally sort through as he sees it from his perspective,” Gingrich said.
During the video, one person asked the former speaker what he thought Trump’s most impressive characteristic was.
“I think he has courage,” Gingrich replied. (For more from the author of “Newt Gingrich Makes Unusual Pitch for Spot on Ticket With Trump” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/6058004085_44fe0c65cd_b.jpg6831024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-07-15 01:42:302016-07-15 01:42:30Newt Gingrich Makes Unusual Pitch for Spot on Ticket With Trump
Actor and staunch Obama supporter George Clooney and his wife, Amal, have been open in their criticism of the treatment of refugees in the United States.
Of course, the refugee situation is a problem worldwide, not just in America. In a serendipitous event currently taking place in Italy, Clooney may get his fill of refugees.
Lake Como is a luxurious Italian resort where celebrities such as Clooney and Madonna own multi-million dollar properties.
Celebrities come to Lake Como for its beauty and tranquil atmosphere.
Daily Mail reports the town, which is a preferred destination for many famous people, has recently become a stopping point for migrants fleeing to Britain.
The town’s train station is reportedly being used as a temporary camp for incoming migrants. Sources say tents are being added on an hourly basis, but the resulting crush of people is also causing problems with trash, discarded food and rats.
Why are so many people being forced to make camp in Lake Como? It seems that Switzerland has closed its border to the railway. This means an alternative means of entry must be found.
The Sun reports hundreds of people are currently camping at the railway station, with more people arriving daily.
Robert Bernasconi, who works with a local Catholic charity, said, “We are helping them with food, clothing and we are also mounting showers.”
He went on to say there are more than 2,000 migrants currently being housed in the Catholic facilities.
One migrant told the Daily Mail he and his friends have been traveling for four months and they refused to stop before they made it to England. He added, “I don’t have any family there but I know people there. They say that England is the best place for refugees.” (For more from the author of “George Clooney May Have More Refugees Than He Can Handle” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/24859167992_ed2c4381cf_b.jpg6841024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-07-15 01:35:382016-07-15 01:35:38George Clooney May Have More Refugees Than He Can Handle
It’s hard to be a proud Republican these days. The party of limited government has capitulated to a plethora of Obama’s big government demands, while achieving no conservative victories of their own.
Yet, it’s one thing to surrender to Obama. But it’s an entirely different thing when the Republican party actively seeks to promote their own big government, cronyist agenda.
Once again, the Republican establishment is up to its old antics.
Congressional Republicans are now attempting to strip any role Congress has in stymieing the operations of the big business, lobbyist-loving, taxpayer-funded Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im).
The Ex-Im Bank is an independent government agency that provides taxpayer-backed loans and insurance to foreign businesses that seek to purchase American products. Yet, most of the loans protect goods purchased from the largest, and wealthiest, U.S. businesses.
A Mercatus Center study finds that at least 76 percent of the billions of dollars in financial assistance ends up with companies like Boeing, General Electric, Applied Materials, and Caterpillar. These are multibillion dollar companies that should not be supported by the taxpayer.
Last year, conservatives were successful in temporarily allowing the bank’s charter to lapse. However, that victory was short-lived when five months later the Republican establishment renewed the charter by forcing it into the “must-pass” highway funding bill.
Still, conservatives had one more trick up their sleeve.
Although the bank returned to operations, it was able to do so only partially. It still faced another problem: the bank’s charter requires a quorum of at least three board members to vote on any deals in excess of $10 million. But the board currently only has two members; the third board member, an Obama nominee, is currently help up in the Senate.
Without the necessary board members, the Ex-Im Bank is seriously curtailed. According to the Financial Times, more than two-thirds of the loan money provided by the Bank cannot be spent without at least three members on the board; thus, the Bank can do very little.
The conservative hero responsible for delaying this nomination is Republican Senator Richard Shelby, R-Ala. (C, 70%). Shelby chairs the Senate Banking Committee, that has jurisdiction over the bank and the nomination process. So far, Shelby, who opposes the mission of the Ex-Im Bank, and refused to process the nomination to fill the third seat on its board, is the only one doing anything to attempt to stop this from going forward.
As usual, every battle fought by conservatives seems to be met with a more ruthless counterattack by the Republican establishment. That brings us to the latest attempt to crush this conservative cause …
Originally, I raised the concern that Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. (F, 44%) may attempt to bypass Shelby’s committee altogether and bring the nominee up for a vote on the Senate floor. While that hasn’t transpired (yet!), there is a more deceptive plan in the works.
On Tuesday, the House Appropriation Committee debated the annual State and Foreign Operations spending bill. In doing so, Republican amendments were considered. One amendment that was considered, and passed, was an amendment by Republican Charlie Dent, R-Pa. (F, 30%).
Dent’s amendment actually modifies the Ex-Im Bank’s charter by doing away with the need for a board to approve any financial transactions larger than $10 million, through September 2019. This effectively removes the important oversight and accountability at the Bank by simply scuttling the need for the board to be involved in the Bank’s actions.
That’s just how desperate Republicans are to re-instate their corporate cronyism. Why fight a nominee when you can just legislate his importance at the bank out of existence? This is cronyism on steroids.
That’s the pathetic nature of the Republican Party today. This is the party that we’ve become: a party that no longer believes in the spirit of political debate, or the adherence to their own process or principles. It’s a party that simply doesn’t recognize the voices of its own members, and would rather legislate away the tools and rights of those members than listen to them. This is the state of our party – and it’s certainly nothing to celebrate. (For more from the author of “Unreal: The GOP Establishment Resurrects Crony Ex-Im Bank” please click HERE)
While everyone is fixated on the drama in Cleveland and Trump’s choice of a running mate, our political class is still violating our sovereignty and security with endless migrants from the Middle East. We have so many emergencies within our national security apparatus and military that can and should be addressed within the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), yet the GOP-Senate chose to focus on more immigration as their final act before recess.
The Senate passed the Shaheen, D-N.H. (F, 2%) motion to instruct the conference committee negotiating the House-Senate differences in the NDAA to authorize a potentially unlimited amount Special Immigrant Visas (SIV) for Afghanis. Only 12 Republicans opposed the motion, which is non-binding, but makes it likely that an increase in SIVs will be in the final conference report:
SIVs are afforded to those foreign nationals who serve as interpreters or contractors for the U.S. military abroad. On the surface, this seems like a prudent and compassionate move, and proponents of this are certainly playing the emotional card. However, this specific plan and the broader goal of getting involved in Islamic civil wars and then bringing in individuals from those wars is completely backwards.
First, as it relates to the Afghan SIVs specifically, Congress already added an additional 3,000 visas for these individuals plus an unlimited number for family members in last year’s NDAA. Most of those visas have not even been issued yet. So why would members of the Senate open the floodgates for even more visas at a cost of $446 million (the cost of just 4,000 additional visas, which was the original objective of the Shaheen amendment)? Remember, SIV recipients are treated like refugees and are immediately eligible for all social entitlement and resettlement programs. They are also permitted to bring in an unlimited number of spouses and children. In recent years, the program has been expanded for other support members beyond interpreters or those helping our soldiers on the front lines – and this program is in addition to a separate visa program specifically for interpreters.
Moreover, with the endless flow of immigration from the Middle East, why wouldn’t they at least cut other areas of immigration, such as the Syrian refugees who are arriving in the hundreds every week? Senators Sessions, R-Ala. (B, 80%) and Grassley, R-Iowa (D, 68%) attempted to negotiate a deal to offset the visa increase by reducing the number of visas issued from the diversity lottery. Yet, McCain, R-Ariz. (F, 35%) and the Democrats balked at the plan because their solution to everything is more immigration across the board.
Which brings us to the broader point: why is immigration the solution to everything? Why should our national security be dependent on letting in more people from the volatile countries we fight in? This cuts to the core of our failure to identify the enemy. The enemy is not just Al Qaeda or ISIS. The enemy is Sharia-based Islam. Even if we could possibly vet these people for not being double agents for the Taliban, a dubious task given the endless “green on blue” attacks in Afghanistan, most of these people believe in Sharia. Heck, the Afghani Constitution and government, for which our special operators are dying, is a sharia-based system. While some of those who come here will be as loyal to us as they were when serving our military, there is no way to ensure that either some of them or certainly their children, who are reared in a house sheltered by Sharia adherence, will not become problematic over time. Just last year, Bilal Abood, an Iraqi SIV recipient, who has since become a naturalized citizen, was arrested in Texas for suspected ties to ISIS. On top of that, thanks to the refusal of Congress to bring up Senator Ted Cruz’sR, Texas (A, 97%) Expatriate Terror Act, Abood will keep his citizenship.
As I’ve noted before, our post-9/11 response has been intellectually dyslexic because we fail to understand what we are fighting. In response to the horrible terror attack that was rooted in imprudent immigration policies, our military was dispatched to engage in endless operations in Afghanistan and Iraq … only to bring in more security risks through immigration from some of the most dangerous parts of the world.
What is so sad is that Republicans could have used this must-pass bill to address a number of emergencies in our military. Obama is remaking our military with transgender mandates, anti-religious bigotry, women in infantry at all costs, and terribly myopic missions in Syria and elsewhere. In addition, as administration officials testified at the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee today, roughly 20,000 illegal aliens convicted of rape, robbery and murder (not including the tens of thousands charged with other crimes) were released by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) just last year. Why was there no sense of urgency to address any of these issues before breaking for summer recess? When will members of Congress put our sovereignty, security and society before other political interests?
Alas, Republicans can always be counted upon to act with alacrity to promote some of the most harmful policies of the Left. (For more from the author of “The Senate’s Final Act Before Recess? More Immigration From the Middle East!” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/Syrian_refugees_having_rest_at_the_floor_of_Keleti_railway_station._Refugee_crisis._Budapest_Hungary_Central_Europe_5_Sep-1.jpg26674000Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-07-14 23:13:482016-07-14 23:13:48The Senate’s Final Act Before Recess? More Immigration From the Middle East!
Politicians have a well-earned reputation for being sleazy, but a corrupt Florida congresswoman is in a class of her own for suggesting that federal agents could have prevented the Orlando terrorist attack if they weren’t preoccupied investigating her. Last week the veteran lawmaker, Democrat Corrine Brown, and her chief of staff were slapped with a 24-count federal indictment for using a phony education charity as a “personal slush fund.” The disgraced legislator, who is black, also played the race card by comparing her indictment to the recent fatal police shootings of two black men that have ignited nationwide civil unrest.
First elected to Congress in 1992, Brown represents Florida’s fifth district which spans from Jacksonville to Orlando. The 69-year-old lawmaker and her trusted assistant, Elias Simmons, used a fake charity that was supposed to give scholarships to poor, minority students to get hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash, according to the feds. Brown used her position as a congresswoman to solicit charitable donations from corporate entities that she “knew by virtue of her position in the U.S. House of Representatives,” according to federal authorities. The money was used to pay for lavish receptions, luxury boxes for a Beyonce concert and a professional football game, repairs to Brown’s car and several vacations. More than $735,000 of the charitable contributions went to pay a close family member for a job in Brown’s office that involved no work, the indictment states.
After getting slammed with charges of mail and wire fraud, conspiracy, obstruction and filing of false tax returns in Jacksonville, the disgraced congresswoman went on a tirade outside the federal courthouse that she proclaimed was built “without minority participation” as if that was relevant to her case. “I represent Orlando,” Brown said. “These are the same agents that was not able to do a thorough investigation of the agent and we ended up with 50 people dead and over 58 people injured,” she said referring to the massacre carried out by terrorist Omar Mateen in an Orlando nightclub. “Same district! Same Justice Department! Same agents!” Brown also said the prosecution is racially motivated and wrote this on her blog: “I’m not the first black elected official to be persecuted and, sad to say, I won’t be the last.”
A political columnist for the Orlando Sentinel countered Brown’s claim that she’s a victim of racism by pointing this out in a piece published this week: “The Justice Department — which happens to be run by a black attorney general who answers to a black president — targets shady politicians, not black ones.” The column also reveals that “Brown is notorious for getting fat wads of campaign cash from the industries she helps regulate.” For instance, Brown sits on the House Transportation Committee and transportation industries—railroads, trucking companies and transportation unions—account for three of her top four industry donors. Let’s not forget that back in 1998 the House Ethics Committee investigated Brown involving several issues, including a $10,000 check she got from a Baptist official in legal trouble and a pricey car her daughter got from one of the congresswoman’s millionaire Florida pals embroiled in a bribery scandal.
Another interesting tidbit is that the president of Brown’s phony nonprofit, Carla Wiley, pleaded guilty earlier this year to conspiracy to commit wire fraud surrounding the scam. As part of the plea she agreed to cooperate with investigators, so Brown is probably in a boatload of trouble. Under the deal Wiley admitted to conspiring with an unnamed public official—referred to as “Person A”—who used an “official position to solicit contributions to One Door for Education and to induce individuals and corporate entities to make donations to One Door for Education based on false and fraudulent representations that the funds would be used for charitable purposes.” Instead, federal investigators revealed at the time that the money went toward personal gain for the co-conspirators. (For more from the author of “REALLY, HON, IT’S CUZ YOUR LAST NAME AIN’T CLINTON: FL Dem Rips Feds for Investigating Her and Not ISIS” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/Clinton_Circle.png19941992Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-07-14 22:53:352016-07-14 22:53:35REALLY, HON, IT’S CUZ YOUR LAST NAME AIN’T CLINTON: FL Dem Rips Feds for Investigating Her and Not ISIS
Republican senators consistently accuse President Barack Obama of refusing to follow the law and exceeding his constitutional powers. Yet they’ve been unwilling to draw the line when it comes to giving Obama’s judicial nominees lifetime appointments to the federal bench.
So far in 2016, the Republican-led Senate has confirmed nine Obama judges. And that number could continue to climb when the Senate returns from recess in September as several GOP senators press for action on other Obama nominees.
The Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday approved three more Obama judicial nominees, moving them a step closer to lifetime appointments. That makes 27 judicial nominees awaiting action on the Senate floor.
While the most high-profile nomination—Obama’s pick of Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court—languishes without a hearing, the Senate did confirm two other nonjudicial, albeit controversial nominees this year: Carla Hayden won approval to lead the Library of Congress on Wednesday and John King was confirmed as education secretary in March.
Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., pushed for Hayden’s confirmation for a 10-year term at the Library of Congress despite her history of radical left-wing activism, which triggered opposition from Concerned Women for America and Heritage Action for America. She’ll hold the job for nearly a decade after Obama leaves office.
Ten years isn’t nearly as long as a lifetime, though. And because federal judges serve lifetime appointments, Obama’s judges are likely to leave their mark long after he departs the White House.
That concern—coupled with complaints about Obama’s disregard for the Constitution and rule of law—has prompted some Republican senators like Dan Sullivan of Alaska to oppose the president’s picks.
“With regards to judges, these are lifetime appointments, which Sen. Sullivan considers very carefully,” his spokesman told The Daily Signal. “He doesn’t want the courts packed with nominees from a president who does not understand the rule of law and regularly engages in executive branch overreach with no regard for the Constitution or the separation of powers.”
Only two of Obama’s nine judicial nominees have faced significant opposition from Republicans on the Senate floor this year. Wilhelmina Wright received 36 no votes in January and Paula Xinis had 34 no votes in May. Both are now U.S. district judges.
Even before Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s death triggered a fight over his vacancy, Heritage Action, a sister organization of The Heritage Foundation, urged the Senate in January to halt all confirmations of Obama judges.
“President Obama has repeatedly ignored the separation of powers over the past seven years,” Heritage Action CEO Michael A. Needham said at the time. “Given the administration’s disregard for Congress’s role in our constitutional system of government, the Senate should refuse to confirm any more of the president’s judicial nominees.”
While many Republicans agree, the Senate Judiciary Committee has slowly and methodically processed some nominees.
At a hearing for two Obama judicial nominees earlier this week, Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, boasted that he’s held more hearings on Obama nominees than the former Democrat chairman, Sen. Pat Leahy of Vermont, did for President George W. Bush’s nominees in the 110th Congress (49 compared to 47).
Grassley, who is facing re-election in Iowa this year, has fended off attacks from his Democrat opponent by stressing progress on Obama’s judges. “To say that President Obama hasn’t been treated fairly during his presidency isn’t based in reality,” a Judiciary Committee spokeswoman said in May.
Grassley’s decision to keep moving nominees through the Judiciary Committee runs counter to the senator’s complaints that “Obama has exceeded his constitutional powers and failed to uphold the law.” Despite this critique, Grassley has played an active role in cutting deals and keeping the Senate’s executive calendar stocked with nominations.
In December, Grassley brokered a deal between Republican and Democrat leaders for two Iowa judges to get Senate floor votes in exchange for three of Obama’s liberal judicial nominees. The Iowa nominees, Leonard Strand and Rebecca Ebinger, were unanimously confirmed in February. The three liberal nominees included Luis Restrepo of Pennsylvania, John Vazquez of New Jersey, and Wilhelmina Wright of Minnesota. They were confirmed in January, and only Wright faced notable GOP opposition.
Grassley’s spokeswoman did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment.
The other four Obama nominees to get votes in 2016 include Waverly Crenshaw Jr. of Tennessee, Paula Xinis of Maryland, Robert Rossiter Jr. of Nebraska, and Brian Martinotti of New Jersey.
Two of those judges (Crenshaw and Rossiter) had their home-state Republicans pushing for action. Facing pressure from his own conference, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., scheduled floor votes—despite his own misgivings about Obama. McConnell, for instance, led the Senate’s rebuke of Obama’s executive actions on immigration by citing his disregard for the Constitution.
“Whether we’re Republicans or Democrats, this kind of partisan overreach should worry all of us—no matter who is in the White House,” McConnell said in a Senate speech in April. “Because not only is the president’s blatant refusal to follow the law an extraordinary power grab, it’s a direct challenge to Congress’s constitutional authority—and a direct attack on our constitutional order.”
Since delivering those remarks, however, McConnell has allowed votes on four Obama judges who won confirmation to lifetime appointments. He’s also voted for all nine Obama judges, one of only three GOP senators to do so. (Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Orrin Hatch of Utah are the other two.)
According to a report in Politico, several more confirmation votes could follow if Sens. John Cornyn, R-Texas; Pat Toomey, R-Pa.; and Hatch are able to convince McConnell to schedule votes on their home-state nominees.
The one thing that could stop them is a longstanding Senate tradition of pausing on judicial confirmations as the president’s term nears its end. Known as the Thurmond-Leahy rule (after former South Carolina Sen. Strom Thurmond and Leahy), it is an unwritten rule that typically kicks in around summer recess. That starts Friday when the Senate adjourns until September.
If the Senate were to take no further action during the next six months of Obama’s presidency, he will have secured confirmation of 329 judges. By comparison, Bush had 312 confirmed at this point in his second term. (For more from the author of “How the GOP Senate Is Boosting Obama’s Judicial Legacy” please click HERE)
Parents in a Washington suburb say their school board has cut them out of the process of implementing new guidelines for accommodating transgender students.
The school board in Fairfax County, an affluent suburb in Northern Virginia, has scrapped a public forum on the gender identity policy and scheduled a work session in which parents aren’t allowed to participate. It isn’t clear when or if parents will have an opportunity to weigh in.
The Fairfax County School Board “released regulations with no parental input—nothing from the taxpayers—so I’m really upset,” said Bethany Kozma, a mother who is calling for greater transparency from her elected officials. “It’s a free-for-all.”
Pat Hynes, the school board chairman, gave members a copy of the gender identity and sexual orientation regulations on July 1, the Friday before the Fourth of July weekend. According to emails obtained by The Daily Signal, Hynes received the regulations from the school district’s division counsel.
The school district has not posted the guidelines online, nor formally notified parents.
However, a group called Fairfax County Public Schools Pride, which describes itself as “an allied and LGBT community” for employees of the school system, made the regulations public on its website and said “these are now in force.”
“The finalized version of the regulations about treating trans and gender nonconforming students with dignity and fairness were released July 1,” the FCPS Pride website says. “We have been told that these are now in force, although the [school board] will decide how it wants to review them (whether by email or in a work session).”
The Daily Signal obtained a copy of the new gender identity and sexual orientation guidelines from Elizabeth Schultz, one of three school board members who oppose them.
The regulations allow transgender students to use the bathrooms and locker rooms they say correspond to their gender identity, and to participate in school-sponsored sports, clubs, and other activities in accordance with their gender identity.
The rules also instruct teachers and staff to call students by their preferred name and pronoun. They offer any transgender or gender nonconforming student the option of convening a “support team” consisting of the student’s parents, classroom teachers, administrators, school counselors, school psychologists, school social workers, or other appropriate staff.
Schultz, whose children attend county schools, is not just critical of the regulations but of the process nine of her fellow school board members are employing to implement them.
“Parents, students, and employees have yet to see plans or be publicly heard regarding, at a minimum, the implications of opening access in student and employee restrooms, locker rooms, and showers in school and administrative facilities,” Schultz told The Daily Signal.
Fairfax County parents’ unhappiness with how their elected school board has implemented a gender identity and sexual orientation policy in the district’s 196 schools and centers is something of a cautionary tale for school districts across the nation grappling with the same issues. At schools in Minnesota, Illinois, and Washington state, similar debates are playing out.
When Hynes, the board chairman, emailed the regulations to the board July 1, she requested a “forum” be held July 14 to discuss how the board should proceed. Schultz said the board scheduled the forum, which is typically open to the public, in a classroom with limited space, although the board typically holds such meetings in an auditorium and streams them online.
Three days before the forum—and after parents widely circulated emails calling on others to attend to voice their opposition to the regulations—Hynes withdrew her request for a forum in an email to the board, Schultz said.
Instead, Hynes proposed to hold a work session July 21, which, according to Schultz, provides no opportunity for parents or others to participate or comment.
“The development and status of these crucial regulations has generated intense public interest but little public engagement,” Schultz told The Daily Signal, adding:
Notably, work sessions of the board involve no public participation or engagement, so a work session does not resolve the issue of public engagement on the imminent and practical implementation of the regulations. It is unfortunate that once again, there appears to be a less-than-transparent process as the board conducts business in such a way that the very public we are elected to serve feels authentically informed and educated.
The Daily Signal sought comment from Hynes by email, but she did not reply before publication of this article. In an interview last week with Fairfax County Times, the board chairman appeared to understand why some board members and parents called for transparency.
“There are people in the community, particularly parents, who have questions about what it might mean for their children,” Hynes said of implementing the policy, adding, “[We] have an obligation to answer those questions so that parents have the information they need to understand what’s going on in their kids’ schools.”
Robert Rigby, president of the FCPS Pride employee group and a teacher at West Potomac High School in Alexandria, told Fox 5 DC (WTTG-TV) in an interview that he expects the new guidelines to have a “tremendous impact” on making Fairfax County schools “more welcoming to all kids, especially trans kids.”
Some parents, however, are more concerned about how the new regulations will affect nontransgender students.
“When transgenders and gays and lesbians get up there and say, ‘I was bullied,’ that’s wrong,” Kozma, a Fairfax mother of three who also opposes similar policies at the national level, said. “They should not be bullied.”
Kozma said she doesn’t fear transgender students, but rather, people who might abuse policies that allow people of the opposite biological sex into her daughter’s restrooms and locker rooms.
“My child’s safety and security and privacy is also at stake here,” she said.
Rigby addressed some of those concerns in his television interview, saying, “Some friends of mine with daughters have expressed concern about what about the yahoos, what about the troublemakers, what about the bad actors, and what we find is that no one ever has pretended to be trans to have access.”
The issue arose in May 2015, when the Fairfax County School Board voted to add gender identity and sexual orientation as protected classes under the school system’s nondiscrimination policy.
At that point, the school board made no decisions regarding accommodations to carry out the policy, such as allowing students to use bathrooms and locker rooms that correspond to their gender identity instead of their biological sex. It did agree to review the resulting regulations.
Instead, the board hired an outside consultant to “assist in developing appropriate regulations that protect the rights of all students,” Tamara Derenack Kaufax, then board chairman, wrote last year in a public statement.
As a consultant, Schultz said, the school board picked Jeffrey M. Poirier, until January a principal researcher at American Institutes for Research, a Washington nonprofit that bills itself as a behavioral and social science research and evaluation organization.
Poirier’s work there included “supportive services for LGBTQ youth and families,” according to his résumé. LGBTQ stands for “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer.”
Schultz scolded fellow board members for going “straight to someone whose entire mission it is to get these practices deeply embedded” in schools. She said she doesn’t plan to back down in her attempt to better inform parents of what she considers shady school board practices.
A former board member, Elizabeth Torpey Bradsher, appeared to agree, writing in a scolding letter to The Connection Newspapers published July 12:
The board has hit a sensitive nerve with their constituents and parents on this issue and now prefers to shy away from additional media controversy and discussion. In fact many parents are unaware the transgender policy is being brought forth again at a school board forum on July 14, which proves excellent planning on the board’s part.
The month of July is a wonderful time for controversial issues, the timing takes advantage that a large majority of parents and residents are gone on vacation; therefore it is easier to pass motions and generate policies. After such, the board will go into recess and all controversies will seem to be forgotten due to a lack of media attention. Thus there is little vocal objection from the public or notice.
The forum Bradsher mentions is the one that was canceled.
Up until a few weeks ago, Kozma said, she was one of those parents who were unaware of the transgender policy debate playing out in her own backyard. In part, however, she faults herself.
“This whole thing has taught me that I have to stay engaged on things that I didn’t think were important,” Kozma said. “If I’m going to be a good mom, I need to be engaged and informed about what’s going on in all aspects.” (For more from the author of “As This School District Sets New Transgender Guidelines, Parents Fight for Transparency” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/15553723907_ef1c985ae6_b.jpg1024768Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-07-14 22:18:182016-07-14 22:18:18As This School District Sets New Transgender Guidelines, Parents Fight for Transparency
