Faced with the general craziness stemming from voters’ decisions to nominate far-left radical DSA candidates to represent the party in congressional races in half a dozen states now, Democrats are working overtime to mask their party’s true agenda from the general public. The fear that the party’s increasing radicalism will alienate independent voters in the November mid-term elections has party officials worried it could cost them the chance to win majorities in the House and/or the Senate.
The issues of prominent concern are obvious: Abolishing prisons without a viable alternative; de-funding police and ICE simultaneously; reopening the borders a la the Biden autopen presidency; Medicare for all; packing the supreme court; ending the filibuster; abolishing the electoral college and even the U.S. Senate. Taken together it’s an agenda so nutty that it has Axios speculating whether even Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is just too “moderate” now to sign onto it all.
If you saw that coming as 2026 dawned, you should quit your day job and play the betting markets.
Now, we find out that AOC’s original pet issue during her first few months in congress — the climate change narrative — is among the agenda items the Democrat party’s leaders want candidates to mask. Readers may remember that, in just her 2nd month of serving in the U.S. House of Representatives, Ocasio-Cortez teamed with leftwing Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey to sponsor the massive, $90 trillion reorganization of the U.S. economy they called the Green New Deal.
It was a monstrosity of Soviet-style command-and-control regulation and central government planning which would relegate all Americans to give up their cars, abandon vacation travel, eliminate personal airline usage, build a fantasy network of high-speed rail lines, and relegate the masses to living tiny, immobile lives in 15-minute cities while their central government elites lived the high life as if nothing had changed.
The proposed legislation went nowhere, of course, being laughed out of the room by Republicans and independents alike, but the seed had been planted. Joe Biden was installed into the White House in January 2021 and, aided by a massive propaganda campaign free of charge in the legacy media, embarked on a set of energy and climate policies designed to at least get the camel’s nose under the tent to stake the ground for a form of Green New Deal to come.
But my, what a difference five years makes. Democrat candidates are being advised now to avoid the climate change topic at all costs in this year’s midterms. Sen. Markey himself barely mentions the topic in his primary campaign against Seth Moulton, preferring to focus on other more mainstream topics.
“Six years ago, Green New Deal was every phrase out of Ed Markey’s mouth every chance he got. That is not the case now,” Mary Anne Marsh, a veteran Democratic strategist in Massachusetts, told PBS. Aru Shiney-Ajay, executive director at the far-left climate alarm group the Sunrise Movement, says in the same piece that, “It has felt less like people care less about climate and more like people are increasingly freaked out about other issues.”
That makes sense, given that freaking out about all manner of things is a core competency of leftwing activists and politicians. But the party’s vow of omerta about climate change doesn’t sit well with every Democrat. One dissenter, Democratic Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, believes the party’s tactic of hiding its climate agenda amounts to a strategic blunder.
“Climate change has moved from the science department into the economics department,” he said. “It’s now battering people’s home insurance, property values, pocketbook concerns. So I think it’s a very powerful argument.”
The problem, of course, is that climate change does not poll well — it never has. It always ranks at or near the bottom of issues voters most care about in poll after poll. Politicians interested in winning elections naturally tend to want to focus on issues people do care about. In this year’s Democrat party primaries, the voters heavily tilt towards leftwingers who are freaking out about anything President Donald Trump is in favor of.
For Democrats, masking their real agenda on climate change makes sense until the election season ends. After that, all bets will be off.
David Blackmon is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, an energy writer, and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
Craig Harris of Channel 12 is out with another story cunningly designed to make Arizona’s Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program look like a runaway subsidy for private schools. Regular readers will recognize the pattern: take real numbers, arrange them to imply a conclusion the numbers don’t support, and omit every fact that would undercut that conclusion.
We’ve documented this pattern before. For example, Harris’s fabricated 20% fraud claim that the Arizona Department of Education directly refuted, or the misread auditor general sample Harris falsely presented as a program-wide “34% misspending,” despite the auditor general specifically saying it was not a random sample and hence “not intended to be projected to the entire population.”
Most damning, Harris was caught coordinating by text message with anti-school choice activists at the Capitol — advising them where to position themselves for “maximum political impact” on the very legislation he was supposedly covering neutrally.
Channel 12 has never corrected the record on any of it.
Harris’s latest piece continues the tradition. Among numerous falsehoods in the piece, three stand out.
1. Big Numbers With No Denominator
Harris tells readers that $719 million in ESA funds flowed to “just” 190 private schools since 2022, and that Gilbert Christian Schools alone received $34 million – letting the insinuation behind the word “just” do a lot of work.
What Harris doesn’t tell readers is what any of that means in context.
Arizona’s public school system — district and charter combined — spends roughly $14,673 per pupil, a record high, according to the nonpartisan Joint Legislative Budget Committee. The ESA program, by contrast, reports that three-quarters of scholarships fall between $7,000 and $9,000 a year — roughly half what a district or charter school spends on the same child.
Total annualized ESA spending as of the most recent quarterly report is about $1.1 billion — against total Arizona K-12 public school spending of roughly $15.9 billion. ESAs represent about 7% of what Arizona spends educating children, despite educating 9% of Arizona’s K–12 students. That’s not the runaway spending Harris implies.
The Gilbert Christian figure is even more telling once you run it against the alternative. Gilbert Christian’s enrollment grew from roughly 1,377 students in 2022 to 2,300 in 2026. Had those same students attended a district school instead, at Arizona’s average per-pupil cost, taxpayers would have spent well over $100 million educating them over that period — versus the $34 million ESAs actually paid out.
Harris presents the $34 million as an alarming number. He never mentions the number it’s replacing. Again: the context that undercuts his narrative is conspicuously absent.
2. Omitting ESA Data on Special-Needs Students
For his next two attacks on the ESA program, Craig Harris quotes Tulane economist Douglas Harris (no relation) of Tulane University. For those unfamiliar with the latter’s work, Douglas Harris is the Craig Harris of school-choice research.
For example, in a brazen attempt to smear school-choice philanthropist Betsy DeVos during her confirmation hearings for U.S. Secretary of Education, Douglas Harris wrote an op-ed in the New York Times claiming that that charter-school sector in Detroit (which DeVos supported) was a “disaster.” As proof, he relied on a study by Stanford University’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO). The only problem was that the study showed that Detroit’s charter schools consistently outperformed Detroit’s traditional public schools, and CREDO called Detroit’s charter school sector a “model to other communities.”
In the latest Channel 12 salvo against ESAs, Douglas Harris is cited claiming that school choice programs nationwide serve students who “typically have fewer needs” than public school students.
Arizona’s own data say the opposite.
The most recent Arizona Department of Education (ADE) quarterly report shows 21% of ESA students have a disability, compared to 15% in Arizona’s district schools. That’s not a program skimming the easiest kids to serve. It’s a program serving a higher share of students with disabilities than the district school system.
Of course, those data don’t appear in the Channel 12 story. That would undercut Harris’s crooked narrative.
3. Omitting ESA Data on Sector Switchers
Douglas Harris also claims choice programs nationally serve students who were “already attending” private schools before receiving public support. That’s not true nationwide, and it certainly isn’t true in Arizona today.
ADE’s most recent quarterly report shows 58.6% of new ESA students newly enrolling this year came directly from a public school the year before — up from 57.3% last year and 47.6% the year before. Moreover, these figures undercount the number of switchers because they don’t factor in students moving from out of state or students who would have attended a public school in the absence of an ESA program.
Those figures are harder to calculate, but at the very least, an objective reporter would give readers ADE’s published data on this very question.
But yet again, Craig Harris chose to omit any data that would undermine his anti-ESA narrative.
A Pattern of Omissions and Distortions
None of these are subtle errors a careful reporter might miss once. They are the same style of omissions and distortions that have become the hallmark of Craig Harris’s career—anti-school choice advocacy wearing a press badge.
Arizona families deserve real reporting that provides the context necessary to understand what the numbers actually mean. Until Channel 12 starts doing that, Arizonans should get their news elsewhere.
Jason Bedrick is a Senior Research Fellow at The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Education Policy.
At the June 23rd meeting, the three-member progressive majority of the Scottsdale Unified School District (SUDSD) Governing Board approved a $20,000 raise and contract extension for Dr. Menzel. His annual salary, not including stipends, bonuses, or other benefits, is now $245,000.
Member Amy Carney voted no. Explaining her vote, she said:
“My vote for extending the superintendent’s contract through 2029 is based on performance, accountability, and the financial realities facing our district. Scottsdale Unified School District continues to face significant challenges. Enrollments declined by approximately 6,000 students over the past decade, resulting in ongoing budget pressures and difficult decisions about closing and consolidating neighborhood schools. And at the same time, district academic performance indicators, including ACT scores, are still declining. This year, the superintendent received a lower evaluation score from the board than he received in previous years. Despite that decline, the board majority has approved both a salary increase and a three-year contract extension. I believe contract extensions should be earned through demonstrated results. When academic goals have not been met over a long span of time and a district is operating in a season of budget deficits, extending a contract is wrong. In most organizations, declining performance would not earn you additional compensation or a lengthened contract. Given those realities, I don’t believe giving our superintendent a raise or long-term contract extension is appropriate. My responsibility is to exercise sound stewardship of taxpayer dollars and hold district leadership accountable for results. So, for those reasons, my vote is a no.”
With this statement, Member Carney again showed the principled leadership she has brought to the Board throughout her four years serving SUSD students and parents.
For those who have been paying attention, this is not surprising.
Over the years, Member Carney has consistently challenged Menzel’s radical and destructive policies. For the past four years, she and outgoing Member Werner were the only voices of reason and common sense on the Board. Despite attacks and ridicule from progressive members who backed Menzel, they refused to serve as rubber stamps and would not be silenced.
Now let’s compare what the Menzel-aligned board members said about his new contract.
Menzel’s Followers on His Leadership
Explaining his vote to approve Menzel’s raise and contract extension, Member Pittinsky said in part:
“I think under Dr. Menzel’s leadership, we’re in the midst of several critical initiatives, all of which are multi-year, and he deserves the opportunity and we need his leadership and his expertise to see them through.”
According to Pittinsky, SUSD needs Menzel’s “leadership and expertise” to carry out “several critical initiatives,” including closing and consolidating schools. Yet those initiatives stem from actions Menzel took, with support from the Board majority, as part of his effort to disrupt and dismantle SUSD.
Then came comments from Governing Board President Dr. Lewis, another public education expert and former superintendent of the year.
Explaining her yes vote, Dr. Lewis said:
“Menzel’s asked frequently to serve and guide other superintendents around the state and that’s a compliment and a badge of honor for this district.”
She conveniently left out that Menzel is paid for his involvement in the Superintendents Collaborative Network with Grand Canyon University.
Dr. Lewis went on to say:
“I appreciate that he symbolizes who we are and what we’re about and is very in touch with some of the points of disagreement. And that takes a sophistication and complexity to weather while leaning in and taking the risk of leading.”
I’m not sure exactly what this means, especially the last sentence. But since Lewis and the other Menzel supporters on the Board routinely approve what Menzel wants, one interpretation is that, if Menzel “symbolizes who we are and what we’re about,” they also support his effort to “disrupt and dismantle” SUSD.
Menzel’s Followers on Enrollment
Pittinsky continued:
“I would point out that if you look at retention, which is the number of students who are in our schools that continue in our schools, every single year that Dr. Menzel has been superintendent, our enrollment has grown. We’ve had more than 100% of our students renew, which means we are attracting more students. Our enrollment trends are a function of starting kindergarten classes that are much smaller than graduating senior classes and that is largely a function of demographics. That is simple math.”
To try and understand Pittinskys’ statements about retention and enrollment trends, I went to the various presentations used by Menzel at the Board meetings.
Member Pittinsky’s statement that enrollment has grown under Menzel is proven wrong by Menzel’s own chart. Go to the 4/29/25 Enrollment Planning Study Session, slide #10, and see for yourself. From 2021 (21,455) to 2024 (20,930) enrollment has declined every year for a total of 525 (-2.4%) students. If you extend it to include 2025 (19,722) (from District Financial & Enrollment Overview 10/28/2025, slide #4) during period 2021-2025 the total drop in enrollment is 1,733, with 1,208 of that reduction happening between 2024 and 2025 alone. During Menzel’s tenure as superintendent the 1,733 enrollment reduction represents 29% of the total 6,032 between 2010 and 2025.
Again, using Menzel’s numbers, while SUSD enrollment was declining by 2.4% from 2021 to 2024, Great Hearts enrollment increased 5.6%. Must be demographics.
Pittinsky is arguing that Menzel should not be blamed for declining enrollment because kindergarten classes are smaller than graduation senior classes, due in large part to demographics. Yes, the math is simple, but it has followed the same pattern since 2010, with kindergarten enrollment lower than the number of graduating seniors every year by an average of over 500 students. But in the last five years under Menzel, we have graduated an average of over 700 more seniors than kindergarten students.
Explain again how we are attracting more students.
Menzel’s Followers on Capture Rate
During the February 11, 2025, board meeting, where the 2025-2026 budget was reviewed, Member Pittinsky commented that, due in part to demographics and the SUSD capture rate (currently 55%), the district would be “doing the same thing again in 12 months” without rethinking its expense structure.
At the February 2025 meeting, Pittinsky viewed the district low capture rate as a problem, but apparently now he views it as a positive while trying to defend his vote to give Menzel a raise and contract extension, he says:
“…if you look at our capture rate under Dr. Menzel, our capture rate has declined at the lowest rate of any of the recent superintendents.”
So, according to Pittinsky, while the SUSD capture rate under Menzel is bad and is declining, it is not as bad as other SUSD superintendents. This is the same logic Menzel uses when he says SUSD academic performance may be bad, but we still lead the state, a state where overall academic performance is a disaster.
I think this kind of logic is what they call spin.
Menzel’s Followers on Academic Goals
Pittinsky also notes that in this contract extension, the Board has set multi-year academic achievement goals for Menzel. But in his five years at SUSD, Menzel has not met a single academic goal. Why should this time be different? Goals may sound meaningful, but if they are repeatedly missed without consequences, they become little more than wasted time.
Menzel’s Followers on the State of the District
Pittinsky claims that according to surveys SUSD is a well-run district. Perhaps Pittinsky needs to review slides 30 and 31 from the 4/29/25 Enrollment Planning Study Session. Those exit surveys identified parents’ concerns about academic rigor, technology overuse, discipline and policy enforcement, bullying and safety, and dissatisfaction with school leadership.
According to Arizona Auditor General, a “review of the District’s data indicates that the District may be moving toward the highest-risk category.” The Auditor cites five areas at SUSD as high risk, including the change in weighted student count (-7.19% in 4 years), and four critical financial measures. You can review the details here Scottsdale Unified School District Approaching Highest Risk.
This story from March 2024 talks about the poor performance of 8th graders on the math testing with only 54% being proficient on the standardized math test. Look at the FY2025 8th grade math test scores on the Arizona Department of Education website here. You will see that only 49% of all 8th graders are proficient in math.
Does this sound like a well-run district?
Here is the bottom-line.
This November we have a choice. We need principled leadership on the SUSD Governing Board. We can’t afford to elect another member with no ties to the district other than being a Menzel supporter. Do your homework.
Mike Bengert is a husband, father, grandfather, and Scottsdale resident advocating for quality education in SUSD for over 30 years.
For anyone who has lived in Yuma, the sound of military aircraft overhead isn’t unusual. It’s part of daily life.
So perhaps it is fitting that an effort to significantly expand property tax relief for Arizona’s disabled veterans has roots here.
The reforms, championed by Rep. Michael Carbone, whose Legislative District 25 includes portions of Yuma and Maricopa counties, have unfolded over multiple legislative sessions. They significantly expand Arizona’s property tax benefits for disabled veterans, with additional changes taking effect in tax year 2027.
But the story didn’t begin at the Capitol. It began with his constituents.
Yuma resident and military veteran Josh Pembleton wrote the original constituent proposal and brought it to Carbone about two years ago. Fellow veteran Josh Wright also provided his thoughts and perspective as the idea developed.
“That makes me so proud, because it came from our citizens,” Carbone said.
Pembleton said the idea grew from conversations with veterans frustrated by Arizona’s existing property tax exemption system. Income restrictions and other requirements meant too few veterans were benefiting from the policies already in place.
He began looking at what other states were doing and saw an opportunity for Arizona to do better.
“I think it is more than fair to provide a benefit to those that have sustained lifelong injuries while providing service to our great country,” Pembleton said. “If the VA recognizes these veterans in reference to disability rating, we should too.”
Barry Todd, also a veteran, was part of the effort, listening to disabled veterans across Arizona about where the system was falling short.
“Our goal was never political,” Todd said. “We simply wanted the law to reflect the sacrifices veterans made and remove barriers that kept them from receiving benefits they had earned.”
That persistence eventually paid off.
Arizona now provides a full property tax exemption on the primary residence of qualifying veterans with a 100% service-connected disability. Veterans with service-connected disability ratings from 10% through 90% can receive property tax relief prorated proportionally according to their disability rating.
The reforms also removed the previous property-assessment ceiling for disabled veterans and provide protections for qualifying surviving spouses. Beginning in tax year 2027, disabled veterans and their surviving spouses will no longer be subject to the household income limits that previously prevented many from qualifying.
For Carbone, the changes represent a dramatic improvement in Arizona’s treatment of veterans.
“The thing that makes me the happiest is going from one of the worst to one of the best now,” Carbone said. “We want you to stay here in Arizona. And it is the right thing to do.”
House Republicans describe the resulting program as one of the most generous veteran property tax benefits in the nation. For those who helped push the reforms forward, the goal is to lead from the front while honoring veterans and making Arizona a place where they can afford to put down roots after their military careers.
Passing legislation, however, is only part of the job. Arizona’s county assessors now have to make it work.
Yuma County Assessor Stevie Seale said his office will be prepared to help local veterans navigate the new benefit when implementation begins.
“Starting in January 2027, Yuma County will be ready to implement this new law and make the process as clear and straightforward as possible for our veterans,” Seale said. “The Legislature got this right. This was an issue I advocated for while running for assessor, and it’s rewarding to see it become a reality and provide this benefit to those who have served our country.”
Veterans seeking the exemption will work through their local county assessor, putting those offices on the front line of turning the statewide reform into a tangible benefit for veterans and their families.
For Yuma Mayor Douglas Nicholls, the effort fits a community where supporting military families and veterans is part of its identity.
“Yuma is a community that takes a lot of pride in our military and veteran presence,” Nicholls said. “We want Arizona to serve as our veterans’ home after they retire. We welcome them here in Arizona and in Yuma.”
That commitment has earned national recognition. Yuma was named a 2025 Great American Defense Community, one of only three communities nationwide selected that year.
As a Yuma resident of eight years and the wife of an active-duty Marine now in his 21st year of service, I’ve seen that relationship firsthand. Here, military service isn’t something observed from a distance. It is woven into everyday life.
That’s also why this story is about more than property taxes.
Veterans who choose Arizona after leaving the military become our community members. Helping them build their next chapter here honors their service while strengthening the communities they join.
And maybe that is the best part of this story.
A Yuma veteran saw a problem and wrote a proposal. Other veterans lent their voices. Their state representative listened and carried the issue to the Capitol. Lawmakers acted. Now local officials will help deliver the benefit.
Years from now, most Arizonans probably won’t remember the bill numbers.
But disabled veterans and their families may remember something far more important: Arizona made it easier for them to remain in the place they chose to call home.
And behind that statewide change is a story with roots in a community where military service has never been an abstract idea.
“I’m Katie Hobbs, and the rules don’t apply to me.” That might as well run at the end of the next campaign ad featuring Arizona’s governor. Since taking office in 2023, Hobbs has been building a rap sheet of scandals that would make Minnesota Governor Tim Walz blush.
From one of the largest Medicaid fraud scandals in Arizona history to a pay-to-play scheme that has put her administration under active criminal investigation, Hobbs has taken corruption to new heights in our state. But now, her latest campaign-finance reports are raising even more troubling questions: How did more than $1 million in small-dollar contributions disappear? And why are over 46,000 of her contributors listed as unemployed?
A Million-Dollar Campaign-Finance Mystery
How many times can a campaign-finance report be amended before it starts to raise red flags? For the 2026 Quarter 2 report, the Hobbs campaign has managed to amend it 10 times so far. But why? Were there some typos or decimals in the wrong spot? Nope. Many of these amendments repeatedly changed the amount of money the Hobbs campaign reported receiving.
The biggest mystery involves more than $1.4 million in small-dollar contributions. In its original filing, Elect Katie Hobbs reported $1.426 million in exempt small contributions—donations under $100 that can be reported in aggregate. The campaign reported the same amount in its first amended filing.
But something happened in its second and third amended filings. All of a sudden, that $1.426 million dropped to $0. And then, in the fourth amended filing, nearly $400,000 suddenly reappeared.
The campaign’s total receipts also followed a similarly bizarre path, jumping from $2.64 million to $3.1 million, falling below $1.7 million, and then climbing back above $2.6 million through various amendments.
So, where did the money go?
That’s a great question. And Hobbs has yet to answer. But it’s not the only anomaly in her campaign-finance reports…
Sophie Cunningham seemed to have it all. As a guard for the Indiana Fever in the Women’s National Basketball Association (WNBA), Cunningham’s star power was on the rise. She boasts 5 million Instagram followers, countless brand partnerships, and appeared as a Sports Illustrated swimsuit model.
Then in a July interview with ESPN, Cunningham said that biological men shouldn’t be in women and girls’ sports or private spaces. She is now receiving the backlash from far-left activists we’ve come to expect. Despite it, she hasn’t backed down.
“I said what I said,” she told reporters questioning her position. “I think it’s kind of common sense … it’s really important to protect children, and that’s little girls who are also involved in that category.” She later doubled down on her stance saying, “That’s why you have Title IX. That’s why you have some of the greats in women’s sports. If Title IX and women’s sports weren’t protected, then you wouldn’t hear about any type of women in sport. And so, I think in the future, it’s just really important to protect.”
Most people agree. A majority of Americans believe biological males should not be permitted in female private spaces like locker rooms, dorm rooms, or bathrooms. And nearly 80% of Americans oppose biological males competing on women’s sports teams.
Those numbers reflect something people understand intuitively: biological males have physical advantages over their female peers. In fact, the United Nations, American Parents Coalition (APC), and He Cheated, have each documented countless incidents in which biological males competing in female sports have cost female athletes of trophies, podium spots, and even championship titles. In some cases, the consequences have gone beyond lost opportunities and resulted in physical injuries.
But you’d never know that from looking at the mainstream coverage of Cunningham’s remarks. Instead, the WNBA, the public, and the mainstream media, are allowing a small but loud segment of the population to bully Cunningham for speaking the truth.
The aggression of Cunningham’s opponents has made recent WNBA games look more like violent brawls than professional basketball. Just last week, Cunningham was flagrantly fouled and could have been seriously injured. Some responded by calling it “karma.” She has also been protested and booed at games and even branded as a “MAGA Barbie.” Despite this, the physical, personal, and political attacks have failed to diminish Cunningham’s courage.
“I think that I am here to extend love,” Cunningham has said. “But I also think that with love is truth, being honest. And I want to protect young girls in a locker room, or young girls in a sport who shouldn’t have to go against biological men.”
These words from a professional athlete like Cunningham, or a former top collegiate athlete like Riley Gaines, carry enormous weight. But Cunningham and Gaines should be amplifiers for what we already know the public overwhelmingly supports, not the only ones willing to speak up.
It’s our duty as parents to support their courage, not leave them to stand as the sole advocates for our daughters. We must defend the future of women’s sports as well as the safety, privacy, and opportunities of girls in our own communities. Whether in youth sports leagues, high schools, or even at the collegiate level, parents have an obligation to speak truth, stand up for our daughters, and hold the line. We cannot be afraid of or intimidated by pushback within our community and social circles and idly stand by expecting others to fight these battles for our daughters. We cannot afford to be the silent majority any longer.
That anyone would attack a woman for defending women’s sports, Title IX, and the safety and privacy of female athletes is an outrage. That so few have come to her defense is equally appalling, especially when we know where the public stands. Parents should ask themselves why they are letting her hang out to dry. If more of us were willing to speak up, would Cunningham’s words even seem so remarkable?
As a former athlete and coach, I know firsthand how important being on a sports team can be to the development of young girls. The benefits extend far beyond their athletic careers, giving girls the confidence and skills to thrive later in life. If a boy takes a spot on the team that could have gone to a girl, that girl misses out on crucial opportunities during a formative period of her life. She loses opportunities to develop teamwork, build healthy eating and exercise habits, form friendships, benefit from mentorship, and learn how to win and lose with grace. Allowing boys into female sports threatens the very opportunities those teams were created to provide.
Cunningham stuck her neck out for your daughters. We need parents, coaches, and our community to stand up too.
