Liberals Love to Celebrate Motherhood — When It’s Glamorous

/0 Comments/in , /by

Fans everywhere raved about Beyoncé’s performance at the Grammy Awards Sunday night.

Just weeks ago, the singer had announced via Instagram that she is expecting twins with her husband Jay Z. Her first performance since the announcement was an obvious celebration of motherhood. She dressed as Oshun, the Yoruba goddess of fertility, her golden gown highlighting a sizable baby bump. Over the space of two songs, she honored her own mother Tina Knowles and her five-year-old daughter Blue Ivy.

Even though British singer Adele ultimately bested Beyoncé for album of the year, the Lemonade artist’s performance dominated the evening buzz.

Celebrities and Media Praise Pregnant Beyoncé

The Hollywood Reporter compiled a list of breathless Tweets from the famous:

Media outlets like USA Today and Mic praised Beyoncé’s performance. The New York Times called it a “jaw-dropping, multimedia homage to motherhood.” The Associated Press acknowledged the star’s celebration of “her femininity and motherhood,” saying she “invoked images of both a goddess and the Virgin Mary.” The Washington Post called the performance “an ode to womanhood.”

The “Single Ladies” singer even garnered praise from some pro-choice organizations, including the Women’s March, which unceremoniously shunned pro-life groups that applied to participate in last month’s historic march in Washington, D.C. NARAL, the organization dedicated to protecting and expanding “reproductive freedom for all,” shared Mic’s praise of Beyoncé’s “ode to black motherhood.”

The Sad Hypocrisy

Don’t get me wrong — Beyoncé definitely deserves kudos for pulling off yet another compelling performance, complete with complex multimedia choreography, dance moves and even chair stunts — all while visibly carrying twins.

It’s sad, however, that so many of the people, organizations and even media outlets gushing over Beyoncé and her pregnancy are so quick to defend abortion.

In fact, the reaction to Beyoncé’s performance underscores the very hypocrisy that plagues pro-choice advocates. When babies are wanted — like when they belong to cultural idol Queen Bey — those babies are adored. Fans can’t wait to see what she will name them. They’re eager to speculate whether the twins will be boys, girls, or one of each. They aren’t talking about Beyoncé’s “fetuses,” as several pro-life outlets have already pointed out. No, these are Beyoncé’s babies.

But what about babies who aren’t wanted? Who prove a hardship? Or when the circumstances of their conception are painful or unplanned? When that happens, the same people currently elated over Beyoncé’s pregnancy will march in the streets demanding unlimited access to abortion. All of a sudden, to equate pregnancy with womanhood is offensive. Saying “babies” instead of “fetuses” is backward. And anyone who dares to suggest that all unborn life should be protected is silenced.

When You’re Beyoncé

This hypocritical message from the Leftist elite is incredibly harmful to women — especially the everyday, underprivileged, and often minority women they profess to care so much about.

When you’re Beyoncé, motherhood is glamorous. You can post photos of your growing belly on Instagram and garner over 10 million likes. You can dress up as a golden, glowing goddess of fertility and perform for millions on live TV. You can slip into a sparkling red gown after a team of professionals has freshened up your pregnant body and still have paparazzi rave about how “smoking hot” you are. And when you’re Beyoncé, you have all the resources, support, care and advice that money and adoration can buy.

I’m not undermining anything about Beyoncé’s motherhood. I’m just being honest. When you’re Beyoncé, it’s easier.

Most women aren’t Beyoncé. Many who get pregnant are underprivileged, with little money, no one to offer loving advice, and no partner to share the load of raising another human.

For those women, motherhood is not as glamorous as it is for Beyoncé. But it’s every bit as meaningful. The Left must not see that though, because its organizations such as Planned Parenthood target those women with zealous sales pitches for abortion.

Those mothers and their unborn babies need all the love, care and assistance the rest of us can offer — not the tragic “way out” so often advocated by wealthy coastal elites.

If we as a culture reserve our celebration of motherhood for the rich and famous, then we’re sending a dishonest and harmful message to millions of everyday women and girls. Normal motherhood isn’t glittery, glamorous, or Insta-famous. But it’s every bit as good, valuable and worth it.

It’s nice to see celebrities so supportive of Beyoncé and her unborn children. If only they supported everyday expectant mothers with the same enthusiasm. (For more from “Liberals Love to Celebrate Motherhood — When It’s Glamorous” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Burlington Is the Latest Retailer to Drop Ivanka Trump’s Brand Online

/0 Comments/in , /by

The discount retailer Burlington Coat Factory no longer sells products from Ivanka Trump’s brand online.

As of Friday, the retailer’s website doesn’t show a stock of Ivanka Trump accessories and clothing. The change comes amid news of several retailers dropping the first daughter’s line in the last two weeks, including Nordstrom, Neiman Marcus, and Gilt.

Burlington was selling 13 items from Ivanka’s fashion line as of Tuesday, according to Shannon Coulter, the brand strategist who started the #GrabYourWallet boycott of Trump products.

Since October, Coulter has charted which retailers do business with the Trump family on the Grab Your Wallet website. People who oppose President Donald Trump’s actions and policies were encouraged to boycott these retailers.

Some retailers have said sales of Ivanka Trump products slumped. Sales of Ivanka’s line at Nordstrom fell 32% in 2016, with the worst decline in the second half of the year as the election heated up, The Wall Street Journal reported. (Read more from “Burlington Is the Latest Retailer to Drop Ivanka Trump’s Brand Online” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

On Valentine’s Day, Remember: The World Gets Love Half-Wrong

/0 Comments/in , /by

Valentine’s Day makes people think about love. What is it? How do I know it’s real? Can it last? Should it last? Here are a few secular definitions of love:

A purpose of human life, no matter who is controlling it, is to love whoever is around to be loved — novelist Kurt Vonnegut

What is love but acceptance of the other, whatever he is — French erotic writer Anaïs Nin

Love is like a fever which comes and goes quite independently of the will — French novelist Stendhal

Love is a fog that burns [away] with the first daylight of reality. — Hip poet Charles Bukowski

So, the world says, love is loving who you’re with, accepting others, fickle, fleeting and unrealistic. That’s not all wrong, but even when it’s true, it’s not the whole truth.

What is Love, Actually?

I’d like to propose a new definition of love. Well, it really isn’t a new definition at all — it’s thousands of years old! Those of us who are Christians are familiar with the Author of love, whose love is perfect and embraces us daily. John defines love, through the example of Christ, like this:

By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren — 1 John 3:16

Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends — John 15:13

Deuteronomy 7:9 gives us an another example of God’s love:

Know therefore that the Lord your God is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his commandments, to a thousand generations [my emphasis]

Love, as God defines it, is steadfast — enduring — to a thousand generations! God’s love has nothing to do with fickle or fleeting emotions. It is true, long-lasting and unconditional. Love is selfless, self-giving — even to the point of laying down our lives for another.

I’m not advocating throwing our lives away, but I am saying — and I believe God is saying — that we must live in such a way that others see Christ in us. His love was sacrificial — He chose to lay down His life for us.

On a Day Like Valentine’s Day

Jesus died on the cross to atone for our wrongdoing, then he rose from the grave and now sits at the right hand of the Father making intercession for us. That is the ultimate meaning of love: sacrificial, enduring and unconditional love poured out for others and to further our Kingdom purpose.

So when we think about a day like Valentine’s Day, let’s remember the definition of true love. It’s not flighty, fickle emotion, but a life that represents and reflects Christ through selfless giving toward others — a love that changes lives and lasts for all time. (For more from the author of “On Valentine’s Day, Remember: The World Gets Love Half-Wrong” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

When It Comes to the School Bathroom Debate, Trump Is Delivering on His Promises

/0 Comments/in , /by

At the Grammy Awards Sunday night transgender actor and activist Laverne Cox took the opportunity while introducing Lady Gaga to tell America “Google Gavin Grimm” and “Hashtag I Stand With Gavin.”

Who is Gavin Grimm? That would be the Grimm of Grimm v. Gloucester, a case headed to the Supreme Court in March involving one southern Virginia school district’s refusal to accept Obama’s broad new transgender directives to public schools.

Obama’s administration claimed Title IX’s ban on sex discrimination means Gavin (a girl who identifies as a boy) gets to use the boys’ bathroom. This is the case I flagged in a previous Stream column as an important early marker of the new Trump administration’s willingness to roll back Obama’s lawless legacy that threatens not only the privacy of girls, but the rights of traditional religious schools and charities to refuse to hire gay married teachers or workers.

Trump Leaves Bathroom Debates to the Schools, as Promised

Trump’s acceptance of Obama’s executive order banning discrimination based on gender identity raised real concerns, especially as Trump never promised to push substantive religious liberty protections that conflict with LGBT protections.

Well, Jeff Sessions wasn’t installed as attorney general for more than 24 hours before taking steps to deliver on a key promise Trump did make: to leave the transgender bathroom issue to local schools to handle.

The case is Texas (et al) v. the United States. A federal judge had granted a nationwide injunction preventing the federal government from reinterpreting Title IX’s sex discrimination ban to include sexual orientation and gender identity. The Obama administration then asked the judge to narrow his injunction to only the dozen or so states who were parties to the suit. Oral arguments were scheduled for Valentine’s Day. But the Justice department just withdrew that request to narrow the injunction, mooting that part of the case; the oral arguments are cancelled.

The federal judge’s nationwide injunction stands for now as the Justice Department considers next steps. (Complicating the decision: The defendants in this case are not only the Justice Department, and the Education Department, both of which are under the direct control of the Trump administration, but the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission which is now dominated by Obama appointees. The Trump administration could withdraw, leaving the EEOC as the lone defendant.)

Will Trump Withdraw Obama’s Absurd Guidance?

Both this case and Grimm v. Gloucester rest in part on the legality of the May 13, 2016 guidance letter the Obama administration sent to every public school in America warning them they may risk losing federal funds if they do not permit students who identify as transgender to use the bathroom and shower of their choice.

The Justice Department is not a direct party to this case, but the Obama administration did file an amicus brief supporting Grimm’s argument that a transgender person has a right to use the showers and bathrooms of his or her choice. Among the most absurd of many absurd arguments? The Obama administration claimed including gender “converts” under sex discrimination is like protecting religious converts against religious discrimination.

Look for the Trump administration to withdraw that brief, and write a new one defending the actual meaning of the law as passed in 1972, which clearly did not include broad new LGBT protections.

The next step is for the new Education secretary Betsy Devos to withdraw Obama’s guidelines on Title IX pronto.

Meanwhile on Day 2 of Jeff Session’s tenure as attorney general the verdict has to be: Trump delivered. (For more from the author of “When It Comes to the School Bathroom Debate, Trump Is Delivering on His Promises” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

She’s Taking What She Learned on Capitol Hill to a National Pro-Life Group

/0 Comments/in , /by

Autumn Christensen has spent over a decade on Capitol Hill working to advance the pro-life cause, something that has been important to her since she was a girl.

“I grew up in a pro-life family,” Christensen says in an interview with The Daily Signal. “My grandfather prayed outside of abortion clinics in the ’70s.”

“I remember going with my parents and my younger brother to maternity centers at the holidays, volunteering and spending time with women who were experiencing an unplanned pregnancy. So [it’s] sort of in my nature that it’s one of the most important issues.”

Now Christensen’s work in the movement has brought her to a new position as director of policy at the Susan B. Anthony List, or SBA List, a conservative, pro-life policy organization based in Washington. The job means advancing pro-life policies in cooperation with the White House as well as Congress.

Tommy Binion, director of policy outreach for The Heritage Foundation, says Christensen’s new role is a great gain for the pro-life movement.

“Autumn is the definition of a servant leader both on Capitol Hill and within the pro-life movement,” Binion says, adding:

She combines an unmistakable passion for the lives of unborn children with a shrewd understanding of the law and the legislative process … Her years of service will pay dividends as pro-life majorities in the House and Senate work together with a pro-life president for the first time in a long time.

Christensen, 38, was born Autumn Fredericks in Minnetonka, Minnesota, and grew up in Jackson, Mississippi. She graduated in 2001 from Covenant College in Lookout Mountain, Georgia, where she majored in business and history.

She moved to the Hill in 2002 as a staff assistant for Rep. Dave Weldon, R-Fla. She worked on pro-life issues for Weldon, who left office in 2009, and attended weekly staff meetings for the Values Action Team, an organization of pro-family lawmakers founded in the ’90s by Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Pa.

That involvement introduced her to the organization she would work for next—the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus, a coalition of pro-life lawmakers. The caucus is bipartisan but keeps its membership confidential.

She started work as caucus director in October 2005. Her predecessor, John Cusey, had urged her to apply as he prepared to leave for a job in the executive branch. It was “an easy yes,” she says, because she respected the work of the caucus and its chairman, Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J.

‘An Opportunity to Educate’

“When I first started with the caucus, we had Republican control across the board,” Christensen says. “President [George W.] Bush was in office. Then the Congress changed dramatically to Democratic control, and then President [Barack] Obama’s election and … during the Obama years we were certainly at the height of trying to prevent funding for abortion; we were concerned about the Hyde Amendment being eliminated.”

The Hyde Amendment is a provision, established in 1976 by the late Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., that prohibits use of federal funds for most elective abortions or related health coverage.

Patience is one of the most important virtues for pro-life work, Christensen says.

“We were really in a very on-defense role,” she says. “And then we had the Republican Congress come in [in 2011] and we had opportunities to start moving pro-life legislation. … It always takes time to enact incremental progress toward reversing the effects of Roe v. Wade.”

Roe v. Wade is the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion across the nation.

As director of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus, Christensen helped craft bills that would prohibit the use of federal funds for abortion and prohibit abortion of babies who are capable of feeling pain.

“They’re not law yet, but the first step is to get them moving through the Congress and have [lawmakers] first take votes on them,” she says. “They’re an opportunity to educate the public about the dangers of abortion [and] what abortion really is.”

Pushing Forward

Her faith informs her perspective, she says, but science influenced her pro-life beliefs.

“I’m an evangelical Christian and that has a big impact on my life and worldview,” Christensen says. “However, my conviction that the unborn are deserving of the same human rights afforded to the rest of us is rooted in biology. ”

Christensen’s husband, David, is vice president of government affairs at the Family Research Council, a conservative public policy organization in Washington, D.C. The couple, who met while working for Weldon, now have a 2-year-old son.

Christensen, who joined SBA List on Jan. 3, is familiar with the struggles that come with advancing the pro-life cause.

She recalls the challenges leading to the 2003 passage and enactment of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, which prohibits the aborting of a baby after it is partially delivered.

“I was in high school and college [in the mid-1990s] when the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was moving through the House and the Senate, and it was veto after veto from President [Bill] Clinton,” she says. “But even as an average American out there, I knew about partial-birth [abortion] and it was a topic of conversation with friends who had pro-choice views.”

Bills she worked on for the caucus face a similar path, Christensen says.

“You know, we have to continue to push forward and we have to get across that 60-vote hurdle, and we have to get them to a pro-life president’s desk,” she says, adding: “It takes a lot of patience, but each step along the way is both an opportunity to move things forward legislatively and also to educate the public about abortion.”

The Senate requires 60 votes to end debate and bring legislation to the floor for a final vote.

‘Made Such a Difference’

Marilyn Musgrave, a former member of Congress who represented Colorado’s 4th District and now is vice president of government affairs for the Susan B. Anthony List, said the organization is excited that Christensen is part of the team.

“Autumn has been one of the most knowledgeable people on the Hill in regards to … issues we care about,” Musgrave tells The Daily Signal in a phone interview. “She made such a difference on the Hill. We are fortunate to have her on board.”

Christensen says she is optimistic about the future of the pro-life movement, especially due to the large involvement of young people in events such as the March for Life, a yearly rally held in Washington to protest the legalization of abortion.

“We know that Americans are becoming more [pro-life],” Christensen says, pointing in particular to younger Americans “looking at those ultrasound images of their brothers and sisters and their cousins and children and family members.”

“I think that the more we see, the more we know, and the more likely we are to grow into a country that cherishes life and wants to protect all unborn lives,” she says. (For more from the author of “She’s Taking What She Learned on Capitol Hill to a National Pro-Life Group” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

5 Smart Reasons to Abolish the Department of Education

/0 Comments/in , /by

At the very moment of Betsy DeVos’ confirmation as secretary of Education, Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky. (A, 94%) pointedly introduced a bill calling for the elimination of the Department of Education.

This has been a long-held goal of conservative Republicans, and now that they control all three branches of government, there may never be a better opportunity to finally end the thing. One of the few policy areas in which President Trump has been consistent is his support for school choice and scorn for federal education policy.

Speaking on Fox News Sunday in 2015, Trump said, “I may cut the Department of Education,” and in his book “Crippled America,” released the same year, he wrote “A lot of people believe the Department of Education should just be eliminated. Get rid of it. If we don’t eliminate it completely, we certainly need to cut its power and reach. Education has to be run locally.” So there is opportunity if only Republicans in Congress are brave enough to seize it.

To help push them in the right direction, here are five reasons why the Department of Education should be eliminated.

1. It’s unconstitutional

The word “education” never occurs in the U.S. Constitution. Already, this should mean that the federal government has no business interfering with education policy, since the Constitution is a list of enumerated powers. In other words, the Constitution is a comprehensive list of things the federal government is allowed to do, and anything not included is de facto forbidden.

To make this doubly clear, the 10th Amendment in the Bill of Rights is explicit: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” There you have it. The power to set education policy is reserved to the states or the people. The federal government is not authorized to meddle.

2. It’s expensive

The Department of Education comprises more than 80 subagencies, employs more than 4,000 people, and has an annual budget of nearly $70 billion. When you include other federal spending like Head Start and the School Lunch Program, that number swells to more than $100 billion.

With a national debt rapidly hurtling toward $20 trillion, this may be a drop in the bucket, but as a wise man once said, a few billion here and there eventually adds up to real money. It’s insane to think we couldn’t find better, more productive uses for $100 billion a year. Just off the top of my head, how about giving it back to the taxpayers?

Of course, maybe the federal government could justify this expense if it produced positive results.

Unfortunately …

3. It doesn’t work

The Department of Education has been around since 1979, and in that time, with the huge amounts of money that have poured into it, a reasonable person would expect to see massive improvements in educational performance.

In fact, we’ve seen no such thing. The more money we spend, the less students benefit. The department itself recently admitted that education spending isn’t producing any measurable results — a finding, which conforms with previous analyses of programs like Head Start and the department in general.

It may seem like an obvious question, but why are we continuing a program which has proven, time and time again, not to work?

4. It hinders school choice and student freedom

Perhaps the most infamous of Department of Education initiatives was Common Core, foisted upon the states through a complex system of incentives and penalties with the goal of imposing standardization of testing and, to a certain extent, curricula across the whole country.

These wildly unpopular standards have been the source of outrage and confusion among parents and students alike, who found the math problems impossible, the history textbooks revisionist, and the constant testing oppressive.

But Common Core is far from the only soul-crushing program leveled at local schools from on high. The Department of Education also brought us the spectacular failures of No Child Left Behind, Race to the Top, Head Start, and most recently the Every Student Succeeds Act.

All of these share the goal of making schools everywhere the same, in spite of the fact that different states, different cities, and different children have diverse education requirements that cannot be met by a single top-down structure.

Like every other market, the market for education thrives only when innovation, competition, and experimentation are allowed to flourish. The Department of Education has devoted itself to stamping out all of that.

5. It’s really, really creepy

Like so many other pseudoscientific pursuits, the Department of Education has been moving increasingly toward data collection and analysis in what it claims is an effort to improve student performance. Barack Obama’s Education secretary, Arne Duncan, made the following statement about his ambitions:

Hopefully, some day, we can track children from preschool to high school and from high school to college and college to career.

It may come as a surprise to education bureaucrats, but many parents are not comfortable with their children being “tracked” by the federal government. In many cases, parents have no idea what type of data is being collected on their children, and it is not easy to find out even if you are aware of the practice and want to know.

Nor are we just talking about test scores. A surprisingly candid 2013 report from the Department of Education provides a wish list of data collection, including the desire to monitor students’ facial expressions and eye movements during class, and then using the data to diagnosis learning disabilities or other problems.

In fact, schools may already be doing this; they are notoriously tight-lipped about data collection. The idea that a computer algorithm might diagnose one’s child with mental illness because he made the wrong expression in class is chilling, and we can be sure that it’s only the beginning of where the department would like to go in the future.

Bearing all these points in mind, it’s baffling that the government continues to fund and defend the Department of Education, which, by its own admission, has not improved student outcomes yet interferes with the freedoms of America’s children on a daily basis. The time is now. Abolish the Department of Education once and for all. (For more from the author of “5 Smart Reasons to Abolish the Department of Education” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Buffalo Mom Busted for Homeschooling, Had Kids Taken Away

/0 Comments/in , /by

A single mother in New York was arrested and her children taken away in January after she decided to homeschool — and some are claiming it’s because the school system lost her paperwork. That doesn’t seem to be unusual in New York state, where bureaucratic incompetence often brings school systems and homeschooling parents into needless conflict.

CPS Inquires, Then Arrests

Kiarre Harris removed her children from the Buffalo Public School District in December. “I felt that the district was failing my children,” she told Buffalo’s WKBW.

In compliance with New York state’s regulations, she submitted a letter of intent to homeschool her children along with the other necessary paperwork. Harris showed copies of the documents, dated December 7, to WKBW.

“I spoke directly to the homeschool coordinator and she told me from this point on my children were officially un-enrolled from school,” Harris said.

But a week later she received a call from Child Protective Services (CPS) inquiring about her children’s absence from school. Within a month, CPS contacted Harris again, claiming they had a court order to remove her children. CPS had her arrested her for obstruction when she told them no, WKBW reported.

A Family Court judge ruled on Thursday — nearly four weeks after Harris was separated from her children — that she could visit them under supervision for two hours every week. Vanessa Guite, Harris’s attorney, said county workers are citing “baseless allegations” to keep her from regaining custody.

“A family was broken up because of someone’s negligence,” Ulysees O. Wingo, Sr., a Buffalo City Council member, said at a council meeting earlier this week. He alleged it was a paperwork issue that caused authorities to believe Harris’s children were truants.

The Buffalo Public School District told WKBW that it wasn’t a paperwork issue, and that CPS was notified before Harris’s letter of intent was submitted.

A Broken System

As of Thursday, Wingo continued to address the issue as a systematic failure between the school and the district, WKBW reported.

“If you in good faith put in your letter of intent, and at that point begin to homeschool your children and not send them to school, and at that point if the school is not communicating with the District, and the District is not communicating with the school, you are educationally neglecting your children,” Wingo said in a Facebook Live video.

If paperwork is indeed the issue behind Harris’s predicament, it wouldn’t be the first time homeschooling parents in New York state have been targeted by CPS due to internal failures. In December 2016, Parent Herald reported, the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) sued New York City for “systematic mistreatment.”

The lawsuit came after Tanya Acevedo received a visit from CPS one evening shortly after she began homeschooling her son. Even though she had filed the necessary paperwork, her son’s former school reported her for “too many absences,” Acevedo told HSLDA. CPS proceeded to conduct a 60-day investigation of the Acevedo family.

The New York Post reported last year that at least two dozen homeschooling families in New York City were accused of educational neglect in 2016, despite filing the required notices. New York is among five states HSLDA classifies as “high regulation” when it comes to homeschooling. The state requires that parents submit a notice of intent to homeschool and an Individualized Home Instruction Plan (IHIP) that includes syllabi and a list of curriculum materials. Families must also meet day, hour and subject requirements, file quarterly reports and complete annual assessments of their children.

The Paperwork Gets Lost Or Backlogged

In all, seven documents per homeschooled child must be submitted to the state each year, according to HSLDA’s New York attorney Tj Schmidt.

But the paperwork often gets lost or backlogged, meaning that weeks go by after parents submit the initial notice before officials unenroll their children from public school. This causes public school teachers to report families for educational neglect.

In New York City the problem is particularly bad, Schmidt said. All the paperwork of the between 3,500 and 4,000 homeschooled children in the city is funneled into one central office of homeschooling. Schmidt believes the office is understaffed.

Problems for homeschooling families around the state also arise when school officials mistakenly assume a parent’s IHIP must be approved before children can actually be removed from public school, Schmidt said. In reality, parents have 14 days after removing their children from public school before they are even required to submit the letter of intent.

“It appears that could be part of the concern or part of the issue of the Harris case,” Schmidt said, though he noted that he does not have direct knowledge of the situation. HSLDA isn’t currently involved with Harris’s case, but Schmidt has offered his assistance to Guite.

“It’s Time to Reevaluate New York State Regulations”

Eleven states require no notice from parents who intend to homeschool, while the majority of states require a notice of intent, and in many cases, test scores and student evaluations — though nothing like the seven documents a year required by New York.

“It just becomes unworkable for many of these state officials to actually follow the regulations,” Schmidt said, adding that New York’s homeschooling regulations date back to the late 1980s.

“At that time homeschooling was still somewhat new in the modern era,” he added, acknowledging the legitimate concern of many to ensure that homeschooled children received adequate education. Three decades later, it’s a different story.

“Clearly we’ve been able to identify over the past 30 years that parents can be successful, and [homeschooled students] are on average as or more successful than children educated in the public school system,” Schmidt said.

“It’s time to reevaluate New York state regulations.” (For more from the author of “Buffalo Mom Busted for Homeschooling, Had Kids Taken Away” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

5 Reasons Why Planned Parenthood Must Stop Receiving Our Tax Dollars

/0 Comments/in , /by

Planned Parenthood makes many lofty claims about its “services” critical to women’s health. But just digging a little deeper into its actual practices and history reveals something much less positive — and a lot more sinister.

As a pro-life blogger and speaker, who escaped abortion myself in Communist China, and chose life for my “imperfect” child, I feel called to expose abortion lies wherever I see them. This weekend, tens of thousands of people will protest Planned Parenthood nationwide; it’s a critical moment to raise awareness of the abortion giant and its misdeeds.

More than any organization in America, Planned Parenthood is responsible for perpetrating lies about abortion — and lies about its own “women’s health” services. There’s no doubt, the public relations strategy of the abortion giant is built on deception.

If the American public really knew the truth about Planned Parenthood, I truly believe most Americans would immediately stop supporting and defending it. That’s why my latest video gives five reasons why Planned Parenthood must stop receiving our tax funding — the entire $553 million dollars they currently receive annually.

In fact, Congress will soon begin debate over a budget reconciliation bill on this issue. We can expect mainstream media to go crazy over this bill, claiming it will harm women’s health. But the truth is, all it will do is halt abortion providers from receiving about 75 percent of their current taxpayer funding for one year. (Read more from “5 Reasons Why Planned Parenthood Must Stop Receiving Our Tax Dollars” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Data Suggests Unisex Bathrooms Are a Bonanza to Male Perverts

/0 Comments/in , /by

One year ago in February 2015, the Vancouver Province ran a story on the rise of voyeurism in British Columbia, my home province, with the headline “How can we get men to stop doing this?” The sober reality is that the crime of voyeurism, almost always by males, may be virtually impossible to stop. Voyeurism is an enormous monster that lives in the shadows of our culture, hidden to many, but continually nourished by advancing technology, pervasive pornography, and increasing opportunity.

Voyeurism has been seen as a minor crime historically, but recording technology and victim statements are beginning to change that. One of the voyeurism cases the Province article cited was that of Jonathan Stringer, who hid a video camera in a unisex public washroom in Whistler, BC. One of his victims shared the effect it has had on her: “I have post-traumatic stress disorder from it. I was off work for a couple months, I was having problems sleeping and having weird dreams about being watched. It definitely affected me and made me fear for my safety.” More and more, voyeurism is starting to be recognized for what it is: sexual assault against women.

Advancing technology is also changing how seriously we perceive this crime. Not only is miniaturization making it easier for men to record women, but the fact that pictures and video can be stored, shared, and viewed over and over again, has significantly changed the nature of the crime from the traditional “peeping tom.”

Inherent in the question “How can we get men to stop doing this?” is the question of prevalence. Is voyeurism widespread, or limited to a few scattered predators? A look at the literature and studies on voyeurism reveals surprisingly little. In a day and age where every topic has seemingly been studied in minute detail, there is a glaring paucity of good information on the subject.

But the data that does exist is eye-opening. Templeman (1991) found that no less than 42 percent of college men in a rural sample reported that they had engaged in voyeurism. Bradford et al. (1992) reported that “of 443 adult males studied, 115 admitted to voyeurism” (cited from Krueger, 2016). Rye & Meaney (2007) found that 61 percent of the men in their university sample would engage in voyeurism if the likelihood of getting caught was 25 percent (cited from Krueger, 2016). (Read more from “The Data Suggests Unisex Bathrooms Are a Bonanza to Male Perverts” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Rate of Babies Born Addicted to Opioids Is Skyrocketing

/0 Comments/in , /by

The rate of babies born addicted to opioids increased by 538 percent between 2006 and 2015 in Missouri, according to a disturbing new study warning the problem is rapidly getting worse.

At least eight in every 1,000 babies born will now suffer opioid withdrawals in the state, according to a report released by the Missouri Hospital Association Tuesday. Medical experts say the situation is rapidly deteriorating, driven by the national opioid epidemic and the continued over-prescribing of pain medication to expecting mothers, reports Fox 4.

Babies born with opioid dependence are more prone to seizures, will have trouble feeding and cry excessively in their first few days.

“I think it goes back to how we’ve been prescribing opioids to adults particularly to pregnant mothers,” Dr. Krishna Dummula, a neonatologist at the University of Kansas Hospital, told Fox 4. “The threshold to treat pain has dramatically gone down over the years, which is why you’ve seen a five-fold increase in the amount of expecting mothers being on opioid medications of some sort.”

Officials in some states are moving to place greater limits on the number of opioids doctors are allowed to prescribe and a stricter system for tracking patients, in an effort to limit doctor shopping. Republican Gov. Larry Hogan in Maryland is the latest to signal he will press the legislature for a bill placing limits on the number of opioid prescriptions a doctor can write. (Read more from “The Rate of Babies Born Addicted to Opioids Is Skyrocketing” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.