Sunday, October 23, 2016

Hillary Clinton's Forgotten Scandal

In the third presidential debate, in reference to the issue of illegal immigration, Hillary Clinton claimed that "I don't want to rip families apart." But as First Lady, she was responsible for a law that has done exactly that. 

Most recent media attention regarding Hillary Clinton's many corrupt activities, even from conservative sources, has focused on Hillary's criminal misconduct related to her illegal deletion of government emails, her corrupt Clinton Foundation "charity", and the massive corruption revealed in emails published by WikiLeaks. But there is another scandal that is arguably worse than any of the other ones - as the victims of this forgotten scandal are tens of thousands of American families. 

In 1997, Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed the Adoption and Safe Families Act, an Orwellian misnomer if you've ever seen one. This law ostensibly enabled children languishing in foster care an opportunity to be adopted, however, it has resulted - most likely on purpose - in a massive system of legal kidnapping and human trafficking, all paid for by the federal government. 
Because of a string of unconstitutional federal laws that started in 1974 and culminated in the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, local "child protection" agencies are paid a $4,000 subsidy by the federal government every time they remove a child from a home. However, the actual foster "family" only ends up with around $750 for their "care" - which by the way is 7-8 times more likely to involve physical or sexual abuse, and 6 times more likely to result in the death of a child.

Hillary's law also resulted in unprecedented numbers of foster children ending up - whether they needed it or not - diagnosed with psychiatric conditions and placed on psychotropic medication. Federal law states that if a child is "special needs", the subsidy increases to $6,000. That has resulted in the massive pathologization and drugging of children in foster care. A study found that children taken by local "child protection" agencies and placed in foster "homes" are up to 4 times more likely to be prescribed mind-altering drugs, even as infants.  

In addition to the foster care subsidies, ASFA instituted $10,000 "bounties" - paid by the federal government - for each adoption performed over a "baseline number." These funds are not paid to adoptive families; on the contrary, families usually have to pay a fee of up to $2,500 to the local CPS agency in order to adopt a child. This is the very definition of human trafficking - which is the "transfer of persons [by] threat or use of force, coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or vulnerability, or giving payments or benefits to a person in control of the victim." The first six criteria could not more accurately describe the tactics used by corrupt "child protective services" agencies in removing children from from their families, and the last criterion fits the Adoption and Safe Families Act perfectly. 

The profit motivation caused by ASFA has resulted in a system of legal child trafficking whereby children are ripped out of loving homes based on little or no evidence, and bounced from foster care facility to foster care facility and then sold for profit to adoptive families. It is an indisputable fact that children with blond hair and blue eyes are most likely to be removed from their families - not more likely to be adopted, but more likely to be removed from their families. Meanwhile, not to be racist in any way, but simply as a statement of fact, government data states that child abuse rates are much higher among races whose members do not have blond hair and blue eyes. So why are children with those traits
 more likely to be removed from their families?

Because they are considered more adoptable.

"Child Protection" in America has become a "corrupt business," and as I have stated, the incentives for corruption did exist before Hillary's Adoption and Safe Families Act was passed. However, ASFA resulted in an exponential increase of corruption in the system. These are just some of the destructive impacts of this anti-family law.

  • Increased the previously mentioned  subsidies, including for "special needs" children. That additional subsidy for "special needs" children has catalyzed a massive increase in psychotropic drugging of children taken by social services agencies - at the expense of those children's welfare. 
  • Provided financial incentives (i.e. bribes) to states who increased adoption rates - which means that states often railroad parents through kangaroo "child protection courts", often little more than social workers' offices. 
  • Required states to terminate parental rights of parents whose children are in foster care for 15 of the past 22 months. That means that "child protection" agencies can snatch children and then delay proceedings until they "have no choice" but to terminate parental rights. 

But all of this is irrelevant if children are saved from legitimately abusive parents, right? Some readers may not even be upset about the financial corruption if it sincerely results in children's protection. 

However, the facts are clear - the majority of children (approximately 60%) who are removed from their homes and placed in foster care were removed based on spurious and unreliable evidence, and should never have been removed in the first place. This is verified by statistics straight out of the federal government.  

The vast majority of families harassed by social services agencies, media-fueled sob stories notwithstanding, are innocent. Nonetheless, Hillary believes that their children should be kidnapped, shuffled around in foster care, and then sold for profit to an adoptive family. 

Hillary Clinton's evil Adoption and Safe Families Act has undoubtedly resulted in the wrongful removal and eventual adoption of untold thousands of American children. These children were deprived of their parents and siblings, forever - when their parents did nothing wrong. Likewise, their parents were deprived of the opportunity to raise their children. Hillary has repeatedly stated that she believes "it takes a village" to raise a child, and even wrote a book with that name. It is clear that Crooked Hillary does not believe in family rights - or in the most basic constitutional legal principle of innocence until guilt is proven.  Consequently, families should not vote for her - even if she's a woman. After all, that's the only reason why the most corrupt candidate ever is even anywhere close to winning the election. 

Where Hillary belongs as a result of what she's done to so many innocent children. 

Thursday, October 20, 2016

Judge Maintains Nationwide Injunction Against Obama Transgender 'Directive'

In May of this year, Barack Obama's Education Department wrote a "friendly letter" (also known as immutable supreme law according to Our Dear Leader Ryan McElveen) to school systems across America demanding that they open up restrooms, locker rooms, and shower facilities to anyone regardless of biological sex, as long as they "identify" as the gender that the facility serves. 13 states sued the federal government, and a judge granted a preliminary, nationwide injunction preventing any attempts at enforcement of this letter. Yesterday, a federal judge upheld and extended the injunction.

Ryan McElveen is looking pretty silly right now ... after all, he was the one who claimed that a letter from DOE bureaucrats is "law" that "required" FCPS to adopt a transgender policy.

From Politico:

A federal judge in Texas has largely rejected the Obama administration's request to narrow a nationwide injunction banning enforcement of an Education Department policy requiring public schools to allow transgender students to use bathrooms and locker rooms corresponding to their gender identity.
In an order issued late Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge Reed O'Connor made some changes to the ruling he issued in August at the request of 13 states opposed to the policy, but he left the Education Department unable to bring new cases enforcing transgender students' access to access to what he termed "intimate facilities" across the nation.
Justice Department lawyers had asked O'Connor to limit the injunction's effect to the 13 states who brought the suit, filed in federal court in Wichita Falls, Texas, about 140 miles northwest of Dallas. However, the judge maintained he had the legal authority to halt the policy nationwide.

Wednesday, October 19, 2016

Ryan McElveen: Academic Honor is "White-Centric"

In an article published in the University of Virginia's student newspaper, The Cavalier Daily, current Fairfax school board member Ryan McElveen railed against UVA's "honor system", whereby students are trusted to maintain academic integrity, but are punished very severely if they betray the university's trust. This system, according to the University's website, has been a fixture of UVA life for over 160 years.

However, according to McElveen, the honor system is racist, sexist, and "Western-centric."

"In general, knowledge of the system is even less important when the system itself is theoretically debased and unrepresentative of our post-modern world. Based on its origins, the concept of honor is West-centric, male-centric and, dare I say it, white-centric. Like all organs of student self-governance at the University, the honor system is a historically white organization that fails to incorporate diverse value and belief systems." 

The honor system is simply a one-sentence pledge, "I will not lie, cheat, or steal." That's racist? Is McElveen implying that minorities are more likely to lie, cheat, or steal, or that they should not be expected to abide by the same standards of conduct as whites?

To me, the idea that not lying, cheating, or stealing represents "white-centric" culture seems like a perfect advertisement for the Ku Klux Klan.

Diverse value and belief systems? What "belief system" excuses lying, cheating, and stealing? Radical atheism? Satanism? As for myself, I do not want those "belief systems" "incorporated" into university honor systems. Does Ryan McElveen?

It is very clear from this article that Ryan McElveen is a moral relativist. In other words, he believes that all morality and ethics are subjective social constructs - a belief shared by many other historical individuals.

While McElveen espouses moral relativism in some areas of life, his entire transgender crusade has been focused around "doing the right thing." According to McElveen, schools must throw student privacy rights - as well as the constitutional rights to freedom of speech and association - out the window, all for the sake of a few dozen FCPS students' sexual preferences. McElveen characterizes this absurd policy as "doing the right thing."

But when it comes to lying, cheating, or stealing, Ryan McElveen believes that it is "subjective" whether or not those activities are ethical. So, Ryan, let me get this straight: it's OK to lie, cheat, and steal because diversity, but a moral code that you don't believe in requires schools to enact leftist social policies? Right...

Please continue to check for updates - including about Ryan McElveen. I am investigating another article that McElveen wrote for the same newspaper - which should call into question why McElveen is on the Fairfax school board, in a position that involves children. You can also follow on Twitter if you haven't already.

Friday, October 14, 2016

"People's Republic of Fairfax" - Parents' Group Slams Fairfax Democratic Leader

In a scathing press release, Concerned Parents and Educators of Fairfax County hammered Sue Langley, the chair of the Fairfax Democratic Committee for her disregard for freedom of thought.  

By the way, Langley has blocked ResistanceMedia on Twitter. 

(Fairfax, VA) Concerned Parents and Educators of Fairfax County (CPEFC) released a statement today calling for the resignation of Sue Langley in response to the Fairfax County Democratic Committee Chair’s disrespectful call for the resignation of Fairfax County School Board member Elizabeth Schultz.

“To demonize an American citizen for supporting the nominee of her party for President of the United States is simply unacceptable. Are we now living in the People’s Republic of Fairfax? Do all thoughts and ideas have to be approved by Sue Langley? How dare she make disparaging comments that trivialize the legitimate concerns of parents who disagree with her?” asked Meg Kilgannon, Executive Director of Concerned Parents and Educators of Fairfax County.

Earlier in the day, Ms. Langley put out a statement cataloguing Ms. Schultz’s defense of parents and students regarding FCPS’s transgender Policy 1450, which allows males to access to school facilities including bathrooms, lockers and hotel rooms on school trips, previously reserved for female students, and vice versa. She went on to call Ms. Schultz an extremist bigot.

“Ms. Langley’s inability to have a civil conversation on issues of importance to the parents of Fairfax County sets a poor example. Since she cannot defend the nine school board members who voted with reckless disregard to fling wide the doors of bathrooms, locker rooms and hotel rooms at the risk of the safety of our school children, she must instead attack one of the few defenders of parents and children on the Fairfax County School Board, Elizabeth Schultz,” Kilgannon continued.

“Under former Fairfax County School Board Chair Pat Hynes, parent voices were ignored and no consideration was allowed for opposing viewpoints or rational debate of Policy 1450. If the Public Comment segment of recent school board meetings is any indication, Fairfax County parents have plenty to say on this controversial topic,” she said.

“It’s interesting that even in victory for her point of view, Ms. Langley will not be satisfied until those opposed to her views are eliminated.  She will bully and threaten public servants in an attempt to destroy. Ms. Langley represents partisan politics at its worst. If anyone here is an extremist bigot, it’s Ms. Langley. She should apologize to Ms. Schultz and resign immediately to minimize embarrassment for Democrats in Fairfax County,” Kilgannon concluded.

Thursday, October 13, 2016

Sue Langley and Red China

Sue Langley, the leader of the Fairfax County Democratic Party, recently demanded the resignation of Elizabeth Schultz, Springfield District school board member and relentless advocate for family rights and citizen involvement. has discovered an interview conducted during the 2016 Democratic National Convention which could potentially end her career in politics. On July 25, 2016, Langley was featured in a segment on CCTV News, a Chinese state-funded television network that even the New York Times characterizes as China's "propaganda tool." In fact, there is a special telephone in CCTV offices reserved solely for communications with the Central Propaganda Office (yes, that is the real name) of the Communist Party of China.

In fact, the president of CCTV has publicly stated that its journalists are not actually journalists, but "propaganda workers." Why is the Fairfax Democratic Chairwoman associating herself with this network?

In my view, there are two possibilities; either Langley knew about this network, and decided to do the interview anyway to promote herself, or she actually supports Communist China. It is preposterous that she was unaware of what channel she was consenting to an interview with - even the Wikipedia page for CCTV states, right at the top, that CCTV is a state-owned "mouthpiece of the Communist Party of China." Are we really supposed to believe that she would not conduct a simple Google search for the network she was to be interviewed by?

In any case, Sue Langley is unfit to serve as a public official in any capacity. 

If readers dismiss this as conspiracy-mongering from an unknown, obscure website, here are excerpts from well-known mainstream news sources regarding this channel.
  • "... high-level Communist Party leaders directly control the mixture of news and propaganda that the station produces" - Epoch Times, Oct. 11, 2011
  • "... Chinese Communist Party officials sign off on every line to make sure it fits the government’s pro-regime message." - The Diplomat, Feb. 9, 2016
  • "China-related stories must comply with the dictates of the CCP’s Office for Foreign Propaganda." - The Wilson Center For International Scholars, Oct. 26, 2015
  • "The leaders of CCTV are Chinese Communist Party officials from the propaganda apparatus." - PBS News, Mar. 23, 2012
The interview was what journalists call a puff piece - an article that contains exaggerated praise and does not include any opposing views. It appears to have been written to promote Langley's career, rather than for its news value, although ResistanceMedia has no proof of that assertion.

ResistanceMedia is calling for Sue Langley's immediate resignation for her association with a foreign propaganda network which broadcasts anti-American and pro-Communist material on a daily basis.

Please share this post - especially on Twitter (please 'tag' @SueLangley as ResistanceMedia is blocked) - and call into local news and talk stations such as WMAL to demand that Langley be held accountable for her actions!