Friday, July 29, 2016

Impeach Terry McAullife

The citizens of Virginia must, through their representatives, impeach and remove Governor Terry McAullife as soon as possible. Here's why:

Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe announced recently that he would bypass the Virginia Supreme Court and illegally sign 12,000 separate clemency petitions (without individually reviewing the circumstances of each petition) in order to allow felons to vote in Virginia. This move is obviously politically motivated, coming less than 4 months before a major presidential election -- in which Virginia is a major swing state. 

Terry McAullife has repeatedly admitted that he is a personal friend of Hillary Clinton. It is definitely reasonable to believe that Terry McAullife made these decisions as a political favor -- or, possibly, because a little money changed hands.

Terry McAuliffe and Hillary Clinton kiss at a campaign event in Virginia (Getty Images)
Donald Trump advertises himself as "the law and order candidate", a message obviously not attractive to felons. This move would definitely favor Hillary Clinton in 2016, and probably result in a Clinton victory in Virginia. 

In addition, Terry McAullife vetoed a bill which would allow parents to block schools from providing their children with sexually explicit books. This proved that he is a totalitarian elitist. 

ResistanceMedia urges the General Assembly and Virginia Senate to consider beginning impeachment proceedings against Terry McAullife for his collusion with Hillary Clinton, and his disregard for the rights of Virginia parents. 

We also urge readers to use this tool to discover the name and contact information of "their" state legislator and repeatedly contact them about this issue. 

Clinton-Kaine Education Views Might Make You Rethink Public Schools

We know what Hillary Clinton wants for public K-12 education. She wants universal government preschool, despite the well-documented failure of government preschool to deliver even a fraction of what the Hillaryites promise. She wants federal “education SWAT teams” to “help” struggling schools (that idea creates interesting visuals). She wants more federal control over school discipline to enforce “school climates” of which she approves. And all education should be geared toward a sweeping, centralized, government-controlled system of workforce-development.

The centerpiece of his proposals on education when he ran for governor was to install universal government preschool for all Virginia four-year-olds.


- See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/07/clinton-kaine-education-views-might-make-you-rethink-public-school#sthash.TE0dfmGK.WZLhFBEh.dpuf

Wednesday, July 27, 2016

FCPS Deceiving Parents About School Lunches

Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS) has an article on their official website entitled "Why Buy a School Lunch." The article contains elitist snobbery, misrepresentations, and outright lies, as well as the famous "straw man" fallacy. 

This is the full text of the article:


Lunches are planned by registered dietitians and chef to reflect the latest nutrition science by the Institute of Medicine and Dietary Guidelines of Americans. School lunches provide nutrient rich meals at a great price.

A study has shown that students who buy school lunches are more likely to consume fruit, vegetables, and dairy foods than those who have lunches from home.  Lunches from home are also more likely to have snacks high in sugar and/or fat and non-100% fruit juice. 


In this period of rising food costs, a comparison of a lunch brought from home with school lunch prices shows the school lunch is a nutritious bargain. 


First of all, the elitists at FCPS apparently believe that a nutritionist degree is necessary to plan a child's school lunch. That claim is absolutely ridiculous. Any parent can pack a sandwich with some fruit or vegetables, a drink, and maybe some pretzels or chips. There is no need for a nutritionist's degree to pack a lunch. 

Secondly, FCPS misrepresents reality by claiming that the statistics gathered in a study (which may not even exist -- FCPS did not provide a citation) allow them to give individual parents advice to buy a school lunch. Statistics refer to a general population, not to specific individuals. Even if the claim that lunches from home are, ON AVERAGE, less nutritious, is true, it does not follow that the solution is to buy a school lunch. There could be other solutions that parents could implement. 

Lastly, FCPS openly lies about "rising food costs." According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, "food inflation", the rate that food prices rise, is at the lowest level since 2009. In fact, food prices, when adjusted for inflation, are falling. While the overall inflation rate is allegedly around 1 percent, the food inflation rate is only 0.3 percent. This is a graph which shows the food inflation rate over the past 5 years. 


Contrary to the claims of FCPS, food prices are at their lowest level since 2009. 

On their page, FCPS has two different charts which purport to show that school lunches are less expensive and healthier than lunches from home. There are serious problems with both of them. 

The first false chart featured on the FCPS website.
The second false chart on the FCPS website.

While FCPS claims that school lunches are less expensive in the first chart, their prices on many items are absolutely ridiculous. Below is my own estimate of prices for the items that FCPS mentioned:

1. Two slices of bread -- $.15 or less (an entire loaf of bread is available at the dollar store)

2. Two ounces of turkey or ham -- $.46 (1 pound of sliced ham or turkey is $3.75 at Aldi or Giant)

3. One slice of cheese -- $.16 (The FCPS estimate was quite reasonable for this one)

4. Apple slices -- $.49 (using a price of $1.50 per pound for apples)

5. Carrots with dip -- $.35 (using a price of $1.00 per pound for carrots)

6. Bag of chips -- $.39 (One of only two estimates where FCPS did not ridiculously exaggerate the prices of food)

7. Bag and napkin -- $.05 (or not even necessary because parents can pack their children's lunch in reusable insulated bags instead of using paper bags)

TOTAL PRICE: $2.05 per meal

FCPS PRICE EXAGGERATION: 95.6%

As you can see, in fact, it is cheaper to bring a lunch from home than it is to buy a school lunch. FCPS exaggerated grocery prices by 95.6 percent in order to convince parents to buy a school lunch for their children. 

What about the claims in the second chart? 

The FCPS staffer who wrote this article is making a false comparison by comparing a "pre-packaged" lunch to the school lunch. This is a version of the "straw man" logical fallacy, which is when a debater mischaracterizes an opponent's argument, and then refutes the mischaracterization of the opponent's argument, rather than the actual argument. 

Lunches from home have "limited choices"?  Really? Lunches from home have unlimited choices. And who dictates that parents pack a "fruit drink" for their children? How do FCPS bureaucrats determine that home lunches contain "higher saturated fat" and "limited fresh fruit"? 

The heading of the chart compares school lunches to "lunches from home", but the actual columns of the chart are titled "Elementary School Lunches" and "Prepackaged Lunches." Instead of comparing lunches that parents pack for their children to school lunches, FCPS compares prepackaged lunches to school lunches. Basically, when calculating the price, FCPS has parents shopping at Whole Foods and buying the most high-end, expensive food (such as an $8 loaf of bread), but when calculating the health benefits, FCPS has parents stopping at 7-11 and picking up a Lunchable and "fruit drink." CLASSIC straw man debate. 

Fairfax County Public Schools must remove or correct this dishonest article and stop misleading parents about school lunches! This is just another example of FCPS' elitism and dishonesty as well as their disdain for parents. 



Saturday, July 23, 2016

Common Sense Reform for FCPS -- the Citizens' Petition

What can we do to reform Fairfax County Public Schools? There is certainly a lot to do! This is a list of 11 reforms which would decimate the entrenched FCPS Mafia, promote greater parent involvement, and protect Constitutional principles. 


---

All readers of ResistanceMedia are IMPLORED to contact the FCPS school board and send them a link to this article with a message about how these reforms are needed. A referendum on these reforms is needed, and we will be considering a campaign to put some of these reforms on the ballot in an upcoming referendum. 

By clicking this link, you will be able to fill out the form to contact the school board. Please select "School Board All", or the member of your choice. 

----

We are also creating a petition on thepetitionsite.com about this issue. This is the link: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/999/876/940/demand-reform-in-fairfax-county-public-schools-fcps-now/#updated

---
1. Drastically shorten the length of terms for school board members, and institute term limits for school board members. From now on, school board elections should be held yearly, or at the very least, every two years. Limit school board members to two terms for a total of four years or less on the school board. 

2. Set aside three to five slots on the school board for parents who currently enroll their children in FCPS. This could be accomplished by adding members, reducing or eliminating the number of at-large members, consolidating districts, or any combination of the three. 

3. Stop promoting lifestyles which are antithetical to the values that most parents hold and try to instill in their children. This includes homosexuality and transgenderism. We do not hate individuals who engage in those lifestyles, but it is not the role of the government schools to indoctrinate children to accept such lifestyles. 

4. Protect free speech both inside and outside of school. As the courts have recognized repeatedly, students have a right to engage in political speech during non-educational time at school. This includes speech critical of the school administration, or speech critical of the latest social justice movement. Immediately rescind any policies which unjustifiably limit free speech, such as the policy approved June 9, 2016 that authorizes suspension or expulsion for students who criticize transgender ideology, inside or outside of school. 

5. Increase recess times in elementary and middle schools without increasing the length of the school day. Many elementary school students are crammed into windowless classrooms for hours on end without even a breath of fresh air. When they are understandably restless and irritable, the public school establishment's solution is, in many cases, psychiatric drugs! That is ridiculous! Public schools waste endless hours on "sustained stamina" reading programs which view families as a "distraction", worthless school counseling, and pointless assemblies and announcements. If recess was increased, discipline issues would become less frequent, and therefore the remaining "educational" time would be more productive. 

6. Abolish non-educational school counseling, at least without written parental consent. The "default setting", so to speak, for students should be NO SCHOOL COUNSELING. School counselors often undermine parents, promote harmful lifestyles, and are co-belligerents in the so-called "war on boys" by operating ridiculous "feelings circles" obviously aimed at females. 

7. Fully recognize the legal and moral right of self-defense from violent bullies, including the Stand Your Ground doctrine. Victims of violent bullying should not be required by out-of-touch school administrators to passively submit to their tormentors or face punishment. In fact, such policies are unconstitutional, violations of the 5th, 9th, and 14th Amendments to the Constitution, as well as hundreds of years of common law tradition. 

8. Remove all sexually explicit, gratuitously violent, or religiously blasphemous books from school libraries. Any "literary" or "artistic" value that these books supposedly have is outweighed by the negative material in them. School computers are programmed to filter sexual or violent content, yet in school libraries, inappropriate (a VERY mild term) materials run rampant. 

9. Make ALL sexual education lessons "opt-in" ONLY. Require parents to return a signed form in order for their children to be allowed to participate in sexual education. If parents do not return the form, students should be allowed to return to their normal classes, not warehoused in a library filling out endless worksheets. 

10. Reform biology textbooks and other class materials to present a far more balanced perspective on the topic of evolution. Require class materials to include all major theories about the origin of life, and require that they cover each theory in an unbiased, factual way.

11. Rescind all policies currently in existence which allow individuals to access private facilities based on their "gender identity." Biological males should use boys' facilities. Biological females should use girls' facilities. If a student's parents provide the school a notarized letter in which the student affirms that entering private facilities consistent with his or her biological gender has led to repeated, serious, bullying (not occasional taunts or jokes, which are not acceptable, by the way), the student should be allowed to use a private, single-stall facility such as a restroom designated for teachers. 


Monday, July 18, 2016

"Cyberbullying" -- The Path to School Tyranny


"Any society that would give up essential liberty to gain a little temporary safety deserves neither and lose both."

-- Benjamin Franklin (paraphrased)



Schools demand control over students' social media postings in order to prevent "cyberbullying" - students bullying others online. The problem of "cyberbullying" is certainly a very real problem - and a symptom of a larger cultural collapse in public schools. However, the problem of "cyberbullying" (and other forms of bullying) was largely created by the public schools through the evolutionist curriculum (read more about evolution here) and other factors. How can we expect the same people who created a problem to ride in on a white horse and solve it?

Legitimate "cyberbullying" is already forbidden by every major social network in operation. Why do we need the government to censor online communications to stop "cyberbullying?" For example, this is from Facebook's official policies:

"Facebook offers these tools to help you deal with bullying and harassment. Depending on the seriousness of the situation:

Unfriend the person. Only your Facebook friends can contact you through Facebook chat or post on your Timeline.

Block the person. This will prevent the person from adding you as a friend and viewing things you share on your Timeline.

Report the person or any abusive things they post."

 It is very likely that individuals who wish to use the power of the state to curb "cyberbullying" actually have more nefarious motives in mind. For example, a Microsoft official recently proposed a plan which would force individuals who wish to use the internet to apply for government "internet licenses" in order to curb online "extremism" - a code word commonly used among political elites to describe any dissenting opinions such as conservative, constitutionalist, or anti-globalist sentiment. 


"Craig Mundie, chief research and strategy officer for Microsoft, told globalists at the summit that the Internet needed to be policed by means of introducing licenses similar to drivers licenses—in other words government permission to use the web, Infowars reported on February 1, 2010.



Governments love to use licenses, fees, taxes, penalties, surcharges, etc, to control the masses, and the United Nations, a world government organization, is no exception. “If you want to drive a car you have to have a license to say that you are capable of driving a car, the car has to pass a test to say it is fit to drive and you have to have insurance,” said Mundie, making an argument for an internet licensing system.



The DMV would not issue a license to a person deemed by the state to be dangerous on the highway and, likewise, a licensing bureau established by the UN will not issue one to a person determined to be an “extremist” by its member states."




Schools recently have been involved in increasing levels of censorship of dissenting political opinion - such as support for Donald Trump or opposition to same-gender "marriage" or the rest of the "LGBT" agenda. 

In May 2015, Booker T. Washington High School in Oklahoma suspended eleven students -- over their social media speech. The school had posted a propaganda poster which promoted homosexuality and transgenderism, so one student decided to vandalize the poster and post a video, captured by another student, on social media. Nine other students liked the post, and were suspended along with the two perpetrators. 

Of course, the person who "vandalized" the poster should be given a fair punishment (not necessarily a suspension) for his actions, but the act that should be punished is the "vandalism", not the social media post (which is constitutionally protected free speech.)

But regardless of what should happen to the actual perpetrator, and even regardless of what should happen to his friend who recorded the incident, when a school takes it upon themselves to suspend people for simply "liking" a post on social media, the school takes a giant leap outside of their proper realm of authority and into "thought-police mode."

The idea that a school can punish individuals for, on their own personal computers, clicking "like" on a post that disagrees with the administrators' political beliefs, is simply totalitarianism.

But as we have explained recently, in a May 9 post, schools have no legal right to restrict social media posts made outside of school. Schools often trample on students' rights and restrict social media anyway, but that is becoming more and more risky because courts have grown more favorable towards student lawsuits alleging that their free speech is violated by school restrictions on social media posts. The legal trend may be reversing, however, because of Barack Obama's court appointees, who are more favorable towards government censorship of unpopular speech.

Another occasion of tyrannical school censorship of online activity in the name of "bullying prevention" occurred in Ohio in April of this year when an Ohio Ku Klux Klan group made up of students from a high school distributed a video which contained racial slurs and threats, combined with a visual of a member pumping a shotgun. A student featured the video on his social media profile to support his view that racism still existed at his school. The school decided to suspend him for distributing the video, even though he clearly expressed opposition to the messages in the video. 

The people who created the video committed a crime by claiming that they were going "n***** hunting", especially while brandishing a weapon. They should be prosecuted and convicted of "inducing panic", which is defined as "threatening to commit a crime of violence."

However, by suspending this individual, who was only trying to EXPOSE this racist group and support his view that racism still existed at this school, the school clearly showed that their motive was to protect their "reputation" as an "inclusive school," rather than suppressing the violent, hateful speech contained in the KKK video. 

These are just two occasions where schools used their alleged responsibility to prevent so-called "cyberbullying" to censor constitutionally protected speech and investigative journalism. While "cyberbullying" is definitely not a positive thing, allowing public schools to censor student online speech under the guise of preventing "cyberbullying" will create more problems than it can solve.