Betsy DeVos’ First Order Should Be to Eliminate Her Own Position

Earlier this week, Betsy DeVos was officially confirmed as the next Secretary of Education in a historic tie-breaking vote by Vice President Pence. Republicans everywhere are rejoicing in the glory that another one of President Trump’s nominees has been cleared. I, on the other hand, am not.

I have been one of the most vocal and avid supporters of the Trump Campaign, and now, the Trump Administration but I refuse to be a yes woman to the administration. The accountability of the Trump Administration takes precedence over my support for them. Betsy DeVos is a poor choice for the Secretary of Education and I feel it imperative to explain why.

First and foremost, DeVos is a poor choice to lead the Department of Education because there should be no Department of Education. Under the constitution, there is no legal basis for a Department of Education at the federal level. Ever since 1979, when the department was established, it has been unconstitutional in the eyes of those who fight for the liberty of the American people. To give the federal government power over our schools and our children is the antithesis of what we believe as conservatives and constitutionalists. It is an unnecessary as well as an illegal federal bureaucratic intrusion into local affairs.

The 10th amendment gives control of education, amongst other things, to the state and local governments. In direct violation of that, the federal government is currently unconstitutionally involved in education and has been since the Carter Administration. The first step to solving education is to eliminate the unlawful department altogether.

According to the Department of Education’s website, their purpose is to “establish policy for, administer and coordinate most federal assistance to education, collect data on US schools, and to enforce federal educational laws regarding privacy and civil rights.” Donald Trump, during his campaign, promised to cut the Department of Education in its entirety. The only good appointment to head the Department of Education is someone who is prepared to work him or herself out of a job.

The appointment of DeVos is a broken promise to the American people. DeVos clearly stated in her confirmation hearings she plans to enforce the mandates from ESSA making it evident she has no intention of eliminating the Department of Education. Betsy DeVos believes strongly in school choice, but school choice is no choice. When it comes to school choice, students receive vouchers, also referred to as opportunity scholarships, which are state-funded scholarships parents can use to send their child to a charter or private school, for rather than public school. Private schools must meet minimum standards established by legislatures in order to accept voucher recipients. This means when the federal money follows the child through vouchers, the liberty is taken from that school, and given right back to the federal government. Most traditional public schools are run by a school board, which is made up of duly elected members from the community. The school board is accountable to the community it serves because locally elected school boards are the voice of the people they serve. Without locally elected school boards, the taxpayers are no longer represented. It is truly taxation without representation.

This is not the case for voucher or charter schools. Charter schools are run by appointed boards and committees that are not accountable to the taxpayers. When parents are unhappy with their public school, they can organize, vote for new leadership or even take a leadership role, themselves. When parents are unhappy with their charter or voucher school, they are essentially silenced. They have no elected representation.

Pundits and profiteers love to spout rhetoric about how well charter schools teach kids. But there is zero evidence to back up that claim. That is a marketing tactic. It’s like when you’re in a bad neighborhood and walk past a dive that claims to have the best cup of coffee in the city. Will you actually get the best cup of coffee? Maybe… But probably not. Surely, some charter schools do exceptionally well. However, most charters and almost all cyber charters do perform below that of their public school counterparts.

We have real problems. Over half of public school students are living below the poverty line. They are already several grade levels behind their non-impoverished peers before they even enter kindergarten. We need to invest our time, energy, and resources into things that combat this – tutoring, counseling, wraparound services, proper nutrition, etc. The predicament is even more complicated by the way schools receive funding. Throughout the country, poor districts get less money than the wealthy and even middle class ones. The students who go to these schools are systematically being cheated out of resources and opportunities. And instead of helping them, we are playing a shell game with charter and voucher schools.

School choice is not supported by grassroots movements, it is supported by billionaires. The idea of school choice a lot like socialism — it sounds good in theory, but it doesn’t work. By granting certain students admission into “better” schools, we are ignoring the bigger problem and it’s a zero sum game. This is very simple to understand. Usually when something seems too good to be true, it probably is.

If we really want to ensure every child in this country gets an excellent education, the answer isn’t school choice. Instead, we need to commit to supporting our public school system. We all need to be in this together. Yes, our schools should look at the needs of each child and tailor education to fit appropriately. But that shouldn’t be done in parallel school systems. It should be done under the same umbrella. That way, you can’t defund and defraud one without hurting all. It can’t just be about your child. It has to be about all children. That’s the only choice worth making.

 

School choice is no choice when the money follows the child.

Why Christians Should Support The Immigration Ban

This morning someone asked me, “What you think of the latest executive order? I have a hard time as a Christian accepting what he [Trump] did. Can you give me some reasons why I should support it?”
I feel compelled to share the response that I shared with this person because I am finding it very frustrating to keep seeing people say that, “Anyone who supports the ban shouldn’t call themselves Christians.”
Here is the deal…
This ban should have happened a very long time ago. It’s been a long time coming. The countries included in the ban not only give a home to terrorism but they train and then send them to the west to wage their “holy” war upon us. How can a leader keep allowing this threat to be imposed upon the people he is supposed to protect? His aim is to secure and protect this nation before he can even think about helping anyone else. I understand there are still Christians left in these countries, and let me get one thing straight — my heart goes out to them. However, let’s remember that this ban is not permanent. It is a 120 day ban in order to give the administration a head start and then following those 120 days, will be “extreme vetting” of those who want to enter our country.
Is it more or less Christ-like to be concerned for the treatment of humans abroad rather than our native and domestic citizens? Ultimately, we are being told that we are choosing one over the other but really what we are doing is preserving the safety of the majority rather than sacrificing them for the sake of the threatened minority. Not only do we run the risk of admitting muslims that have already been radicalized, but with the admission of Muslims in general, they are exponentially more likely to be radicalized and execute brutal and barbaric “honor” killings in order to serve Muhammad and earn their place in paradise.
As Christians, it is detrimental to the preservation of or faith and our morality to NOT support and defend the ban. There is no biblical command to accept those who pose a threat to our American life, liberty, freedom. Radical islam is not a faith or an ideology that can be met with compromise or who we can find common ground with. Its sole enemy is Christianity and its goal to take over the west, “through immigration” (see the Quran). American Christians, with respect to recent events and the rise of radical Islamic terror, are worried for their families.
Recently, Bill O’Keefe, the VP of the Catholic Relief Service said, “The Christian religion is about love and fear is the opposite of love. As Christians, we need to overcome our fear and act on the basis of love.” This is completely tailored to his own personal agenda and beliefs. Fear is not the opposite of love, it’s its unfortunate counterpart. We fear becausewe love. If we didn’t love our country, we wouldn’t fear it’s demise. If we didn’t love our western ideals and way of life, we wouldn’t fear it’s downfall. If we didn’t love our lives, we wouldn’t fear death. If we didn’t love our faith and our Creator, we wouldn’t fear its subversion.
If we don’t do something to stop this now, Christianity will not only cease to be a force of good in the world, but it will cease to exist at all. We, not only as Americans but as Christians, are responsible for preserving the ideals that this country was built upon. We must also protect our people as to maintain the hegemony of the United States and not only continue to be but also flourish as the truest and most powerful force of good that the world has ever seen.

Meryl Streep: Why Women Shouldn’t Vote

Last night’s Golden Globe Awards were an absolute embarrassment. They were an embarrassment not just for the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, but for liberals everywhere.

The heroes and heroines of tolerance and acceptance displayed widespread intolerance and ignorance through the stage medium they were given last night. However, there were none so ignorant as Meryl Streep. She was awarded the Cecil B. DeMille Award for lifetime achievement last night. She took the stage gracefully, as only Meryl Streep could do and then spoke to the world in the poor, unrefined way that only a Hollywood feminist would.

Before she used her airtime to exploit a journalist’s disability, she pushed multiculturalism as a means to subvert the danger that globalization poses to the sovereignty of this nation. She went around the room and revealed which actors were born abroad as well as where they were born. Leave it to Hollywood to try and humanize the evil that is globalization and make anyone who opposes it into an intolerant monster.    Many nefarious aims have been imposed under the banners of multiculturalism and associated slogans such as “equality” and “human rights.” Like the word “democracy,” used to justify the bombing of sundry states in recent history, these slogans often serve as rhetoric to beguile the well-intentioned while hiding the aims of those motivated by little if anything other than power and greed. Power and greed are what fuel Streep’s desperate appeal to the emotions of the American people who feel as though they have very much in common with her, yet unfortunately have nothing in common with her.

This is the danger in voting with our emotions instead of our intellect. Streep is the epitome of that danger. She shows how the rejection of the facts can damage her stance and then eventually, the country as a whole. It is largely the reason that the Clinton campaign underestimated the American people so. They assumed that the people of this country were much more emotional, meaning they could have been more easily swayed by their rhetoric — they weren’t.

Women are more emotional than men. Plain and simple. To deny this would be to deny biology, to deny facts. Again, many people will criticize this because it hurts their feelings or offends them, but it makes it no less true. Male and female brains are, in fact, wired differently. This is why it is imperative that women consciously make the effort not to be swayed on appeals to their emotions and to stay vigilant and true to the facts.

Case Contradiction: Should Partial-Birth Abortion Technically Be Legal?

In 1973, the Supreme Court of the United States changed the face of the nation when Chief Justice, Warren E. Berger, voted to legalize murder so long as the victim had yet to exit its mother’s womb. On the same day its sister case, Doe v. Bolton was decided, Roe v. Wade ruled that denying a woman an abortion was unconstitutional because it denied her 14th amendment right to privacy under the due process clause of that amendment. In the constitution, there are due process clauses in both the fifth as well as the 14th amendments. Due process clauses were included in our Constitution in order to protect citizens from the subjective denial of life, liberty and/or property by the government, outside of its own authority and power.

In this ruling, the Supreme Court immediately contradicts itself by citing the reason for the ruling as, “protecting [the people] from the governmental denial of life,” while simultaneously taking the right to life away from millions of unborn children. Furthermore, the decision is void of any legal standing, otherwise known as the ability of Jane Roe [Norma McCorvey] to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party’s participation in the case. When Norma McCorvey became pregnant with her third child, she went to Dallas to receive an abortion after she was ill advised, by close friends, to lie about being raped in order to receive a legal abortion in that state. However, her request was denied due to the fact that there was no police report authenticating McCorvey’s rape claim. Following her failure to falsify the means by which her child was conceived, she sought an illegal abortion at a facility that had since been shut down. She was then referred to two local lawyers, who brought the case to the Supreme Court of Texas and, later, the Supreme Court of the United States. Therefore, by the time the Supreme Court ruled in her case, she had already given birth, thus proving that she did not have legal standing in order to assert the rights (or lack thereof) of other women. Additionally, McCorvey never actually presented the Supreme Court with a legitimate grievance and a plea for liberation from said grievance. Justice Byron White was the senior dissenting justice at the time and, subsequently, stated that he could, “see no constitutional warrant for imposing such an order of priorities on the people and legislatures of the States.”

Although it seems as though Roe v. Wade could not possibly be contradicted more than it has already been by itself, let us fast forward 34 years later to 2007 and the case of Gonzales v. Carhart. This case upheld the ruling against the use of partial-birth abortion in the United States unless the mother’s health presented to be in danger. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was implemented in 2003 by then president Bush who deemed partial-birth abortion unconstitutional in the United States of America. Justice Anthony Kennedy voted to uphold the ban stating that partial-birth abortion still was unconstitutional.

Ironically, just a few decades earlier, the legality of abortion was affirmed and did not specify when a child could be legally murdered. Until the ruling of Roe v. wade is overturned because of how unconstitutional it is, then the ruling of Gonzales v. Carhart makes little to no sense whatsoever and directly contradicts the 1973 ruling—plain and simple. If a woman can have an abortion at 8 weeks, what is the difference if she has one at 8 months? Constitutionally, scientifically, and morally speaking, it is the same child inside of her—both at the second it is conceived up until the second it is born. Therefore, if the government is willing to rule that it is legal for the child to be murdered inside the safest place it will ever know, then who’s to say when the mother can do so? After all, it is, in fact, her body both at the time of conception and at the time of birth. It is a contradiction of one case to another to say that at an indiscriminate point in the pregnancy the baby becomes its own person and no longer is part of the mother’s body. The admission that partial birth abortion is unconstitutional is the admission that a baby in the womb is a person with rights just as the rest of us.