Every school district that hosts Black Lives Matter at School (“BLM at School”) perpetuates discrimination while committing intellectual fraud against our youth. Parents and taxpayers should be outraged at the National Education Association for its endorsement and promotion of this race propaganda in public schools.
BLM at School’s parent organization, Black Lives Matter (“BLM”), is a civil rights hack with virtually no ties to the black community. At its core, BLM is anti-God, anti-America, anti-traditional family, anti-police, and anti-white people. Rather than confront overwhelming statistics of black-on-black homicide, BLM’s mission is to “eradicate white supremacy and build local power to intervene in violence inflicted on black communities by the state and vigilantes.” BLM claims police brutality is an existential threat to black people. Thus, when black criminals die at the hands of white cops, looting and rioting are perceived as morally justified.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice, there’s no significant difference in the amount of whites versus blacks who encounter police on an annual basis. Despite representing just 13.8% of our population, a 2019 FBI report shows individuals within the black community committed the highest numbers of robbery and murder. These perpetrators are not victims.
BLM at School advocates for racial equality in public education with four demands:
“End zero tolerance implement restorative justice”
“Hire and retain black teachers”
“Mandate black history and ethnic studies”
“Counselors not cops”
Anyone in their right mind knows this absurd call to action has nothing to do with K-12 instruction.
“Restorative justice” says, if someone is attacked (e.g. sexual assault, violence, bullying), the victim must engage in “peace circles” and “problem solve” with their abuser. That’s insane. “Hire black teachers” is a directive to practice racial discrimination on its face. If an applicant—who happens to be black—is not qualified to teach, don’t hire them. “Ethnic studies” is Critical Race Theory (CRT), which is Marxism. And last I checked it’s resource officers, not counselors, who keep children safe at school.
Race propaganda in the United States is intimately linked to the Civil Rights Movement and its most notable icon, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Because he was a powerful and effective orator, sincere conservatives and sincere leftists quote Dr. King when the need arises. His rhetoric fundamentally improved societal conditions for (black) Americans though he was an economic socialist who believed in reparations and the welfare state. Dr. King was also a supporter of affirmative action with close ties to the radical activist and communist sympathizer, Jesse Jackson. Judge for yourself whether these facts discredit Dr. King or simply provide a more grounded view of history.
Of course, less than a century ago, many parts of society were segregated and in need of civil rights reform. A hundred years prior to that, the deadliest war in our nation’s history served as the catalyst to abolish slavery. No doubt, the United States had problems and progress was slow. Still, these are not present-day issues. Full-blooded, black Americans living in 2024 are not slavery survivors, and no school-aged child has experienced legitimate, pre-1964 discrimination. It’s also important to grasp that serious threats of white supremacy and systemic oppression throughout history are primarily credited to the Democratic Party.
Rather than teach falsified history through a CRT lens, educators should give students all the facts and allow them to form their own opinions. Make sure they know that BLM was wholly inspired by a radical Marxist, racist, white male named Eric Mann. Talk about the Transatlantic Slave Trade that was facilitated by powerful Africans selling off their countrymen. Inform young minds that one of the earliest accounts of slave ownership in America is attributed to a freed black man named Anthony Johnson. Explain that black people make up a mere 14% of our population due to Margaret Sanger’s genocidal Negro Project (a.k.a. Planned Parenthood) that lives on under the guise of “reproductive rights.”
Much of our nation’s K-12 curriculum is polluted with “The 1619 Project”—a debunked, victimhood manifesto authored by Nikole Hannah-Jones. I listened to the entire podcast from The New York Times and found it to be a gaslighting falsehood that lacked intellectual prowess. Sure, I was gravely disheartened that America’s sinful past provided substance for her sadistic narrative. And yet, it never entered my mind to loot a Target or torch a police station. Thankfully, my emotions are not easily triggered by someone else’s perception of reality.
By Hannah-Jones’ account, every part of America—our Founders, the Constitution, capitalism, healthcare, education—is infected with white supremacy. Thus, black people will never succeed unless current systems of morality, economics, and government are overthrown by toxic anti-white legislation. “Diversity” and “equity” are now propagandist terms intended to make racism palatable and undetectable. You have to be deeply deceived or willfully ignorant to believe “The 1619 Project” or BLM created positive outcomes for black Americans.
In “Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black and White,” David Barton wrote:
“Today, black history is too often presented just from a southern viewpoint, describing only slavery and its atrocities as well as the numerous civil rights violations that continued well beyond the end of slavery. Yet there was also what may be called a northern viewpoint with many praiseworthy events; and to be completely accurate in the telling of black history, the story must be told not only of the martyrs but also of the heroes…”
Barton goes on to list William Nell, Carter Woodson, Benjamin Quarles, Joseph Wilson, Booker T. Washington, and Edward Johnson. To this esteemed lineup, I’ll add the brilliant and powerful contributions of Dr. Thomas Sowell, Col. Allen West, Dr. Carol Swain, Dr. Ben Carson, Winsome Earle-Sears, and the like. Acknowledging the achievements of prominent black Americans shouldn’t be relegated to the shortest month or reduced to skin color. Authentic diversity (of thought) should be celebrated by everyone year-round. Lastly, invoking the phrase “black lives matter,” even while attempting to dissociate from the organization, is an affront to this overwhelming fact:
All human lives—born and unborn—matter.
Educators with integrity, who care about future generations, will refuse to disseminate BLM at School’s segregationist propaganda. Tell students the truth.
Black History is American History.
Tiffany Benson is the Founder of Restore Parental Rights in Education, a grassroots advocate for families, educators, and school board members. For nearly two decades, Tiffany’s creative writing pursuits have surpassed most interests as she continues to contribute to her blogBigviewsmallwindow.com. She encourages everyday citizens to take an active role in defending and preserving American values for future generations.
The abortion lobby has made it clear. It wants to erase every pro-life law and enshrine abortion up to birth in the Arizona Constitution. If it’s successful, that would mean:
No more requirement to inform women of the risks of abortion.
No requirement to inform women of options other than abortion.
No requirement for ultrasounds prior to abortion.
No 24-hour waiting period.
No requirement for parental consent for minors.
That last one is particularly shocking. It would open the door for sex traffickers, sex abusers, and other sexual predators to force women and underage girls into abortions. This is the terrifying reality that could be facing our state.
Right now in Arizona, the abortion industry is hard at work to collect the 383,923 valid signatures they need to put this constitutional amendment on the General Election ballot next November. While this may seem like a daunting task, they are well organized and well-funded, receiving support from the likes of Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and NARAL. Perhaps you’ve seen them at libraries, coffee shops, or the dollar stores asking you to help “protect women’s healthcare” or “support the right for women to make their own decisions about healthcare.” But here’s an interesting fact. The initiative never mentions “women.” It only mentions “pregnant individuals.” So, what are they really pushing?
It’s important to make the distinction between the old abortion debate that’s been raging for the last 50 years and the fight we face today. In the old abortion debate, everyone had a place on the spectrum regarding when it’s ok to take the life of a baby during pregnancy—from the moment of conception all the way up to birth. Both sides were in a constant battle to determine the inflection point where their side had the most support.
But this fight is completely different.
In this ballot measure, Arizona for Abortion Access (the group seeking this constitutional amendment) has drawn the inflection point for allowable abortion right up to the child’s birthday. That means anyone who signs this measure is actively supporting the end of a baby’s life right up until the moment that he or she is born.
Based on polls across the country, a vast majority of the population is not okay with abortion up to the moment of birth and should reject this initiative. But that’s why it’s so important that the general public know what they are being asked to sign.
This initiative is written with intentionally vague language which will allow “healthcare professionals” to use loopholes to perform abortions right up to the moment of birth. But don’t just take it from me. Look at the initiative petition itself, which says that the state cannot act in a manner that:
DENIES, RESTRICTS OR INTERFERES WITH AN ABORTION AFTER FETAL VIABILITY THAT, IN THE GOOD FAITH JUDGMENT OF A TREATING HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONAL, IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE LIFE OR PHYSICAL OR MENTAL HEALTH OF THE PREGNANT INDIVIDUAL.
“…in the good faith judgment of a treating healthcare professional…”? Who gets to define “healthcare professional”?
“…is necessary to protect physical or mental health…”? What about pregnancy could be so dangerous to a mother’s mental health that it could be used to justify abortion up to birth? You can see where this is heading…
There once was a time when Planned Parenthood and the abortion lobby repeated the slogan that “abortion should be safe, legal, and rare”? But this is where they were always heading—abortion up to birth and for practically any reason.
Arizona, it’s time to wake up and show up. We need to educate our friends and relatives with the truth about the abortion initiative petition. We need to wake up our church communities, so that our congregations can be properly informed. And we need to stand up anytime we see abortion activists collecting signatures for this petition to let potential signers know that their signature could allow abortion up to birth. (To get an information packet about this effort to share with your pastor, you can email AZdeclinetosign@gmail.com.)
This is literally a matter of life and death. Which side will you choose?
Ed Steele is a husband, father, grandfather, and Mesa resident who is helping to lead the Decline to Sign – AZ Abortion Act Movement. You can find out the latest by following this movement on X (Twitter) @declineabortion.
The transition in Arizona’s statewide leadership party credentials continues to manifest itself in the fight to defend innocent life in the womb.
Last week, Democrat Governor Katie Hobbs announced that she had “filed an amicus brief in support of Planned Parenthood, opposing the reinstatement of a total abortion ban.” The legal filing was transmitted to the Arizona Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood v. Mayes. The case was previously initiated under the prior Attorney General’s, Republican Mark Brnovich, administration. Attorney General Kris Mayes, a Democrat, has made no secret of her opposition to the pro-life law in dispute, despite her office named as one of the defendants.
In the Hobbs’ amicus brief, she argues that “Abortion access is critical to the health, safety, and wellbeing of Arizonans, and implicates significant liberty interests,” that “failure to harmonize the Territorial Ban with Title 36 and returning to a near-total ban on abortion raises serious questions under the Arizona Constitution,” and that “the constitutional avoidance canon further supports affirming the Court of Appeals’ decision.”
The governor highlighted her battle “against extremists who want to jail doctors and bring an end to reproductive freedom in Arizona.” She noted the stories of two women in the state “who have relied on access to abortion care,” writing, “Erika who sought reproductive healthcare after a previous pregnancy threatened her life. She now lives happily with her daughter & husband in Sedona. And Jasmine, who struggled to provide for her two children when she discovered she was pregnant. Abortion access allowed her to graduate from college & pursue full-time work.”
One of Arizona’s premier pro-life organizations, the Center for Arizona Policy, also filed its own amicus brief at the state’s Supreme Court. The Center’s President, Cathi Herrod issued a statement about the brief and the importance of the case, writing, “The brief pushes back against claims from abortion activists suggesting that because Arizona lawmakers only passed pro-life laws within the constraints of Roe, that they never wanted to further restrict abortion. That is clearly false. In anticipation of the eventual fall of Roe, the Arizona Legislature consistently showed its dedication to preserving the rights of the unborn by keeping the pre-Roe law on the books, which reflects Arizona’s strong pro-life position.”
The brief from Center for Arizona Policy argues that the “Respondents’ focus on legislative inaction is incomplete and unavailing,” that “the legislature’s express instruction to retain 13-3603 and to interpret Arizona law to protect unborn children should be respected – especially given the unique circumstances here,” and that “overlap in laws protecting unborn children is a feature, not a flaw, where legal challenges are an ever-present threat.”
The case will be before the Arizona Supreme Court in December.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
We now live in an era in which mutilating surgeries are done routinely as part of the preferred treatment for gender dysphoria, the belief that the gender “assigned” to you at birth does not reflect your true self.
Modern science has developed solid evidence that gender is determined at conception, not birth, and is not assigned by anybody but is fixed for life. So, until recently, sufferers from gender dysphoria were thought to be confused and maybe need educational counseling while simply waiting for adulthood, when over 80% seamlessly settled into their “birth gender.”
But earlier in this century, a new “best available science” stealthily but comprehensively came to dominate the world of transsexual medicine. Suddenly, gender-confused patients, even adolescents and children, were deemed to be unerringly insightful regarding their true gender identity. They needed not mental health treatment but physical alteration. And they needed it now.
Few seemed to note that gender dysphoria, unlike most other conditions, had no specific manifestations, no test or objective evidence that could confirm or deny its existence. Thus, based simply on the “feeling” of a minor unable to drive, vote, or get a tattoo because of their manifest immaturity, irreversible therapies were initiated.
These included puberty blockers, followed by sex hormones of the desired sex and then both “top” and “bottom” surgeries. Planned Parenthood advertised puberty blockers (obviously to pre-pubescent patients) “as early as your first visit.” Parents who proved balky were excluded from decision-making about transition procedures and sometimes even lost custody of their children.
Another suspicious aspect of adolescent transgenderism is that it behaves very differently from other hardwired inborn conditions. Until recently, transgenderism had been confined mostly to young boys. Now, girls outnumber boys three to one. Researchers additionally note that girls especially often seemed vulnerable to “social contagion,” contracting this affliction in groups where gender switching is seen as the path to social approval. It’s what the cool kids do.
There are also regional variations which don’t fit a biological model. California has a rate of transgender identification well above the national average. For example, six percent of the students in Davis, California identify as transgender, compared with 1.7% nationally.
Yet the tsunami of children transitioning continues to sweep over the western world. In America, it is endorsed by mainstream professional societies of physicians, pediatricians, psychiatrists, and transgender health professionals. None of these organizations are inclined to counter the concerns of their critics, just to silence and shame them.
Because the U.S. doesn’t have a centralized database, accurate numbers of participation are hard to come by. We do know that, in a decade, we have gone from one to 60 “comprehensive gender clinics.”
In the UK, with an experience similar to ours, there were 72 referrals in 2010 to the NHS gender clinic. Ten years later there were 2,729.
But as we accumulate more experience, the tide may be turning. A growing wave of former patients who received the gender affirmation protocol now bitterly regret their experience. They typically recount being unhappy teenagers who believed from social media sources that transitioning could bring the social approval that they craved.
After a cursory evaluation, they were begun on hormones that permanently changed their body form and functions and finally surgery removing their now unwanted body parts. Eventually, they realized that by listening to trusted authorities, they had made an awful mistake.
As one lamented, “I am angry. I’m sad. I can’t have kids…I’ll never lose my virginity. I’m left with the scraps of the life I could’ve had.”
Because of cases like these and research questioning the basic premises of transition therapy, Britain recently closed down the famous Tavistock gender clinic. Sweden and Finland have switched to an approach that emphasizes counseling, with drugs rarely if ever used. New Zealand and others are also reconsidering the affirmation model.
But American medical authorities are soldiering on, oblivious to the yellow lights flashing furiously. When will they admit that their recommendations violate the principles of medicine (first do no harm) and common sense (don’t cause injury treating a condition that is likely to resolve spontaneously)? Misleading impressionnable adolescents into unnecessary, permanent life altering decisions to serve an ideology is despicable.
Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, is a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for 10 years in the 1990s, and as Majority Leader from 93-96. He is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.
What does abortion have to do with the transgender movement? Nothing. But leftist activists are trying to convince us that abortion includes so-called “gender-affirming care.” Planned Parenthood and others have been pushing the message over social media and elsewhere in an effort to get people used to the idea. Why? One reason is that Planned Parenthood admits it is the second largest provider of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones in the country. Read their own documentation here. And read these two reports that reveal the lucrative connection between the abortion giant and the transgender movement.
But it is also building their culture of death and destruction. I’m not saying they all see it that way, but pushing for abortion up to birth and the physical and psychological destruction of teens and even pre-teens in the name of “equality” is evil.
Polls show a large percentage of Americans do not support transitioning children with hormones or surgeries. So, leftists are hiding it in ballot measures and writing it into laws. In Ohio (potentially on the 2023 ballot) and Michigan (passed in 2022), the abortion ballot measures are so deceitfully written, it takes an attorney to figure out that both measures would allow abortion up to birth and include sex changes for children without parental consent. Read them here and here.
I will use italics below to indicate the language they use to underhandedly include sex changes, even for minors.
Ohio’s measure uses the term individual to covertly include children, and “reproductive decisions… not limited to … abortion” to covertly include sex-changes. If this was an abortion measure, it would just say that, and it wouldn’t include this kind of language that other states are defining as so-called “gender-affirming care” and courts will look to for direction.
Michigan’s constitutional amendment calls reproductive freedom a right and includes sterilization but is not limited to abortion. It, too, uses the term individual instead of woman or adult to ensure even children can get abortions or sex changes without parental consent.
Ohio’s and Michigan’s measures read a bit like Oregon’s proposed law and Colorado’s recently signed laws. Read here and here to see how the news media are using the Left’s language, and how the definition of reproductive freedom/decisions are being defined to include so-called “gender-affirming care.”
In very progressive states like New York, the abortion industry can get away with spelling it out in plain language, “… rights to an individual based on their ‘pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy.” It includes ethnicity, disability, age, and sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy.” The key words here say it all and will be used to set a standard for defining “reproductive healthcare/freedom” or “reproductive decision” throughout the country.
Maryland, same thing. The measure uses “reproductive freedom” instead of abortion, not just to make it sound better to voters, but so they can include sex changes. It calls “reproductive freedom” a fundamental right and says that right includes ending a pregnancy but is not limited to abortion. It goes on to ensure individuals (not just adults) have a right to reproductive liberty. So, although Maryland didn’t write it out as blatantly as New York, the language it did use allows the same thing: abortion to birth and sex changes, even for children.
Also, in states that are moderate or conservative, the abortion industry includes a limitation to abortion, but then takes it all back with near universal exemptions. More on that below.
So, when you see “reproductive healthcare/freedom/liberty,” “autonomy,” “reproductive decisions,” or “not limited to…” think sex-change drugs and surgeries. Because that’s how the courts will read it.
If the language uses “individual” or “person,” think no age limit; it includes children at any age for both abortion and sex changes.
If the abortion language sets a limit at viability or some other gestational age, check the exceptions! These ballot measures include exceptions for the “health of the mother.” Courts have interpreted that phrase to include emotional or mental health, and thereby allow abortions at any stage if the woman simply feels distressed. This has always been understood to mean no limits up to birth if the woman wants it, and the abortionist (self-servingly) signs off.
It’s there, but it takes a skilled attorney to connect the dots. The abortion industry knows most Americans do not support sex-change surgeries in state law, especially for children. And most Americans also do not support abortion up to birth. The industry knows these facts—that is exactly why they use crafty language to hide such extreme policies under vague wording and then redefine that language elsewhere.
One more thing: They will always cloak the measure in the nicest title:
“The Right to Reproductive Freedom with Protections for Health and Safety”
“Equal Protection of Law Amendment”
“Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment”
Cathi Herrod is the president of Center for Arizona Policy (CAP), a nonprofit advocacy organization committed to promoting and defending the foundational principles of life, marriage and family, and religious freedom.