Home Blog Page 5

Opting Your Children Out of Clown World

Raeann Hofkin
-
0
Opting Your Children Out of Clown World

School districts do not want parents to know their rights, especially the right to opt children out of state testing, vaccinations, and gender theory curriculum. They don’t willingly disclose these rights, and when parents try to exercise them, the districts often create obstacles, requiring them to jump through hoops.

While I was serving on a local school board, a parent contacted me. She submitted a written request to opt her children out of any Social Emotional Learning (SEL) or second-step education, gender orientation, or gender affirmation teaching, as well as all school surveys. She clarified, “I do not consent for any data to be collected from or about my children for any program related to behavior or mental health.” Additionally, she explicitly stated, “Please do not talk to my child about their vaccination status at any time. UPSD does not have my permission to perform any physical exams or vaccinations on my child.”

PA school board policies use a predetermined numbering system that is consistent across all districts. If you have the policy number, you can search and find similar policies from other districts in the state. The Pennsylvania School Board Association (PSBA) plays a role in this by providing standardized policies, and most of the 500 PA school districts are members of PSBA. School administrators sometimes use policy as an excuse, claiming they are merely following it. But the school board directors didn’t create these policies; some may not even thoroughly read them before approval. Yet, when the staff chooses not to follow a policy, they simply ignore it. In this context, policy 105.2 has been in place since 2005.

School Board Policy 105.2 recognizes that parents have the right to excuse their children from certain instruction conflicting with their ‘religious beliefs.’ Initially presented to the school board to allow students to avoid activities harming animals. Now it’s used as an obstacle for parents seeking to opt their children out of the clown world curriculum.

The standard PSBA 105.2 policy states “The District shall excuse any student from specific instruction, subject to the following conditions:

  1. To assist the School District in ensuring that the student is excused from the correct specific instruction, the request must be made in writing and must detail the specific instruction from which the student is to be excused.
    • We can all agree the parents’ email was specific enough.
  2. The written request to be excused shall be sent by the parent/guardian or student to the building principal.
  3. It shall NOT be the responsibility of the district or any of its employees to ensure that the student exercises his/her (only two pronouns!) right to be excused in accordance with a parental request. It shall be the responsibility of the student to request permission to leave class when the specific instruction objected to is presented. When the student seeks to be excused, the teacher shall excuse the student if the teacher or principal has a copy of the written request, and the written request adequately describes the specific instruction.
    • Two of the children are in elementary school (K-3rd grade). I don’t see them requesting to be excused, do you? Even high school students may lack the courage to excuse themselves due to peer pressure.
  4. The written request must contain a statement that the specific instruction described conflicts with the religious beliefs of the student or of the parents/guardians.
    • Where is this a law? The students are not the district’s children; they are the parents’ children. If the instruction conflicts with parental values and morals, the parent has the right to protect their children’s innocence. No justification for a religious belief is needed. This policy is not a law; it’s a school policy that the district can choose to follow or ignore.
  5. The parent/guardian and/or student may request suggested replacement educational activities. The only permissible educational activity for this purpose shall be replacement instruction that is consistent with the learning objectives set for the course and does not require the provision of any extra resources by the district.
    • Now, the parent must locate suitable district-approved replacement educational activities. It seems like another obstacle.
  6. The building principal shall determine where the student shall report during the time the student is excused.
    • Isolated from other students, made to feel ‘different,’ ‘odd,’ ‘special,’ and discriminated against—this is a subtle form of child intimidation.
  7. All students excused from specific instruction shall be required to achieve the academic standards established by the district as necessary for graduation.
    • There’s the threat. Do it our way or your child won’t graduate.

The email reply to the parent from the district goes on to say:

“The emails provided to the district, satisfy the second guideline; however, the district will need additional information from you in order to meet guidelines 1 and 3. If you are in need of reviewing curricular materials please review policy 105.1 which provides you with the steps to review the curriculum, which may be necessary to complete the aforementioned guidelines contained within policy 105.2. Upon notification of the request for your review, the district will work with you to coordinate a date, time, and location for the review to occur.”

Surprise! Another roadblock for parents to navigate.

As it relates to surveys, please ensure that when the district sends out parent consent for participation in surveys, you complete those to document your objection. The principals will note your objection to your children’s participation in any district survey. – Interestingly, the district claims they send out parent consent forms, yet the parent with five children in the district from K through 10th grade has NEVER seen one. They don’t send an email; they don’t communicate it at all to the parents. When the parents question it, they claim there was a form sent home and blame the children for not giving the form to the parent. — As a parent, ask to see the consent forms. Ask the dates of when the surveys are to be given. Talk to your children and tell them not to complete ANY surveys even if pressured to do so by the teachers. Above all, have your children notify you when they are asked to complete a survey of any kind.

The letter goes on to throw more roadblocks in the form of school policy at the parent:

As for physicals, the district operates in accordance with school Policy 209 Health Examinations/Screenings. Please take note of the prescribed guidelines within the policy:

  • A private health and/or dental examination conducted at the parents’/guardians’ request and expense shall be accepted in lieu of the school examination. The district shall accept reports of privately conducted physical and dental examinations completed within one (1) year prior to a student’s entry into the grade where an exam is required.
  • The school nurse or medical technician shall administer to each student vision tests, hearing tests, tuberculosis tests, other tests deemed advisable, and height and weight measurements, at intervals established by the district. Height and weight measurements shall be used to calculate the student’s weight-for-height ratio. I am clarifying that these are what you are referencing.
  • A student who presents a statement signed by the parent/guardian that a medical examination is contrary to his/her religious beliefs shall be examined only when the Secretary of Health determines that the student presents a substantial menace to the health of others.
    • Once again, with the “religious beliefs.” The district isn’t raising your children. Why isn’t this a ‘opt-in’ health screening? What relevance do these screenings have to the child’s education? What’s the educational value? Why should parents need to justify their objections? The student is their child, not the district’s child.

In alignment with this policy, school nurses will be informed of your objection to school-based examinations and screenings. If you are securing a physical from a private provider, that may be submitted in lieu of an examination. Again, whose children are we talking about?

And yet, another roadblock, um, I mean policy.

Related to your vaccination concern. The UPSD does not provide vaccinations (yet they held TWO covid vaccine clinics last year). Additionally, per the law and in accordance with Policy 203 Immunizations and Communicable Diseases, “A student shall be exempt from immunization requirements whose parent/guardian objects in writing to such immunization on religious grounds or whose physician certifies that the student’s physical condition contraindicates immunization.”

However, PA State law – § 23.84. Exemption from immunization.

 (a)  Medical exemption. Children need not be immunized if a physician or the physician’s designee provides a written statement that immunization may be detrimental to the health of the child. When the physician determines that immunization is no longer detrimental to the health of the child, the child shall be immunized according to this subchapter.

 (b)  Religious exemption. Children need not be immunized if the parent, guardian, or emancipated child objects in writing to the immunization on religious grounds or based on a strong moral or ethical conviction similar to a religious belief.

You do NOT need to prove you are religious to exempt the children from immunizations. You just need to provide your objection in writing. The district may even have an exemption form. Ask for it.

Parents are expected to accept the district’s rules just because it’s ‘policy.’ It’s crucial for parents to push back. The districts attempt to conceal their agenda by making the minor child inform the teacher when they present material objected to by the parent. Keep in mind, two of her children are in kindergarten and first grade.

This school year, parents need to stand against the clown world curriculum. To comply with policies, parents should insist that teachers provide the annual “Pandora’s Box” teaching plan ahead of the school year (or marking period). This way, parents can arrange which days their child will not attend and avoid subscribing to this indoctrination.

The districts set the table, and parents need to bring their place settings into an environment where their child will be educated. Districts are pushing parents away and shouldn’t be surprised if parents seek alternative educational settings to prepare their children for standardized testing or life in general. They are indoctrinating our children while using our tax dollars to oppose parental values. They must understand that our children are not THEIR children, period.

They are pushing against the will of the parents and using school policy to slap the parents into compliance. Unify and don’t comply.

Appreciate what you’re reading? Be sure to share it!

Have a story? Break it at LibertyLens.News! Become a Contributor.

To Support The Liberty Lens, Donate here.

Shell Game: State Bureaucracy Torpedos Transparency; Enabling School Boards to Abandon Fiduciary Trust?

Raeann Hofkin
-
0
Shell Game: State Bureaucracy Torpedos Transparency; Enabling School Boards to Abandon Fiduciary Trust?

The overall results of the Pennsylvania Performance Audit for the School Districts’ General Fund Balances, completed in January 2023, should raise concerns over these common yet questionable practices that are placing an excess burden on taxpayers across Pennsylvania.  This was a small sampling of districts across the state: only 12 of 500.  Hopefully, this audit will be used by legislators to review Act 1 of 2006 and close the loophole. (See the full report).

According to the Pennsylvania Public School Code (PSC), a district may raise taxes if the estimated ending unreserved, undesignated fund balance, as reported in the annual General Fund budget, is below 8% of the estimated budgeted expenditures. If the district meets this threshold, then it may raise taxes to the limits set by the annual inflationary index as calculated by the Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE). If a district wants to increase taxes beyond the limit, the law allows the district to either seek voter approval through referendum or go directly to the PDE for an exception to increase taxes without voter approval. Strangely, the districts never consider seeking voter approval through a referendum.  Beyond this, the PDE approves most exceptions allowing districts to accumulate millions of dollars for multiple years in the General Fund while giving the perception in their preliminary and final adopted budgets that the district needed tax revenue to balance the budget. Applying for the exception was used as a budgeting tool, rather than a rare attempt to meet a fiscal shortfall.

Act 1 was intended to give voters more control when a school district needed to raise property taxes beyond limits set by law. The intention was to avoid increasing taxes if the district has available funds. Yet, school districts were raising taxes through exceptions granted by the state, while continuing to have sufficient funds in the General Fund to cover any budget shortfalls. The common school district budgeting practices include adopting policies and/or procedures to reduce the unassigned General Fund balance to have the ability to increase taxes every year. In addition, the districts do this by designating and/or transferring funds in advance of budgeting season. This is the equivalent of moving funds from a checking account to a savings account.  The money is still there, but it is out of sight.

Eight of the 12 districts that were audited had adopted policy 620.  In most districts, policies are not written by school board members.  Policies are most likely written by the Pennsylvania School Board Association (PSBA), then customized by the school administration and solicitor, then presented to the board policy committee to review, make minor changes, then recommended to the full board for a first and second reading. Once on the agenda for a first/second read, the board rarely makes any changes to the policy as presented. Policy 620 for the 12 districts and other districts shows they are almost identical because they most likely used the PSBA template.  Which begs the questions: Who wrote Policy 620 that showed the districts how to circumvent Act 1? Why did it take 17 years to figure it out?  How long will it take to be corrected?  All 12 districts that were audited had sufficient unused funds that should have negated any need for a tax increase.

In the Summer 2022 edition of the Lehigh Valley Commentator, I wrote that Act 1 of 2006 was supposed to be the ‘cap’, yet unintended consequences made Act 1 the starting point for the tax increases. Increased special education costs, pension expenditures, and construction costs are exceptions to Act 1 allowing districts to raise taxes higher than the index. What school district doesn’t have out-of-control pension costs? Most exception requests are granted by the State which is why this makes the Act 1 index the starting point, not the cap. The Average Act 1, for the state, ten years ago was 2.2%, and steadily increased to 4.4% last year (Source).  For 2023, the average increase for the state is 5.3%.

This practice was the basis for the lawsuit against Lower Merion School District.  I stated in the Summer 2022 edition that if you dig into your school district, you will find the same.  Now I’m asking does your district have policy 620 titled “Fund Balance”?

The audit period covers July 2017 through June 2021 and goes on to state that it was common practice for school boards to transfer “surplus” funds in the General Fund to other Capital Funds that were not budgeted to be transferred.  Some districts budget these transfers as if they were expenses that needed to be budgeted, then raise taxes. Transferring excess surplus funds from the General Fund to other Capital Funds, whether budgeted or not budgeted, the practice is lawful if the Board approves the transfer. Despite holding millions of dollars in reserves, the districts want the flexibility to raise taxes annually by keeping the unreserved, undesignated, or unassigned fund balance below the legal threshold.

Absent legislative revision to the law, or at least stricter criteria when applying for referendum exceptions, school districts will continue the practice of committing, assigning, and transferring millions of surplus dollars while routinely increasing taxes. The districts indicated in their audit responses that they referred to the law and noted these were prudent legal business practices. Does that sound like the districts are open to changing their practices without an update to the law?

The findings include – Abington SD and Allegheny SD audits revealed that District policy 620 allows it to increase taxes while retaining millions of dollars of unspent funds for several years in its General Fund.

Bethlehem Area SD, Canon-McMillian SD, Hempfield SD, Lancaster SD, Lower Merion SD, Neshaminy SD, North Penn SD, and Northampton SD, all had sufficient funding and did not have to apply for referendum exceptions. The process of applying for unnecessary referendum exceptions wastes time and resources for the district and PDE. They presented preliminary budgets to taxpayers and PDE that suggested the districts had insufficient funds to balance the budgets while holding millions of dollars for anticipated expenses.

Not only did West Chester SD, North Penn SD, Penn Manor SD and North Allegheny SD present preliminary budgets to taxpayers and PDE that suggested the districts had insufficient funds to balance the budgets, but the districts also applied for referendum exceptions, raise taxes above the index unnecessarily, and the excess tax burden was compounded because the Board did not reverse the unneeded tax increase. Now that we know that Act 1 of 2006 needs to be updated, contact your state representative, and ask them when they plan on closing the loophole.  Silence is consent. If you say nothing, nothing will get done.  It’s time to make some noise.

Appreciate what you’re reading? Be sure to share it!

Have a story? Break it at LibertyLens.News! Become a Contributor.

To Support The Liberty Lens, Donate here.

Election Infection, Part 2: The Only Sure Vote Is The In-Person Vote

Susanna DeJeet
-
0
Election Infection, Part 2: The Only Sure Vote Is The In-Person Vote

In preparation for the upcoming 2024 presidential election, GOP leaders and activist Scott Pressler are persuading Republicans to accept and embrace the mail-in ballot system However, just a year ago, the Republican officials sued to disqualify thousands  of mail ballots, while urging citizens to vote in person on Election Day because it was safer than mail-in voting. Today, many people are asking, what changed in 2023 that suddenly made mail-in voting safer than in-person voting? It appears that the answer to this question is “Nothing”.

Convenience voting Universal Vote by Mail (UMV) is driven by Democrats nationwide. Its agenda is to make mail-in ballot voting permanent in every state. If that happens, mail-in ballots and the built-in fraud at unconstitutional satellite offices will permanently wipe out fair elections forever.

The Risks Taken with Mail-in Ballots

Scenario One: There were Republican voters, who, to avoid voting in person, registered for a mail-in ballot on the government’s website but never received one. Ironically, the only option for them to have their vote count on Election Day was to go to their local precinct to vote in person. However, they only were allowed to vote on a provisional ballot. Unfortunately for many, their provisional ballots never counted or were only partially counted at the Election Bureau. In 2020, nearly 1,000 provisional ballots were not counted in one county alone. Imagine what the other 66 counties experienced.

Scenario Two: In-person voters arrived at their voting precinct ready to vote on Election Day. Unfortunately, they were informed they were listed in the voter register as a mail-in ballot voter. Shocked and dismayed, the voters protested saying they never requested a ballot or received one, but that did not matter. Their only option was to vote on a provisional ballot. Voters were outraged that a nefarious “someone” was able to register them for a ballot without their knowledge or consent. Yet, no investigation or appeal was offered on behalf of the disenfranchised voters—they just had to move on without any resolve.

Scenario Three: Voting by mail means you are trusting the PA government to process your ballot registration properly, timely and ethically. Likewise, you are trusting the US Postal Service to operate smoothly and on time during the election period. In 2020, 15 million ballots were unaccounted for due to no fault of the voters. 

Those Pushing for Mail-in Ballots are Lacking Full Disclosure

The narrative from the GOP and Pressler implies that your mail-in ballot   vote will help defeat the Democrat’s stronghold on mail-in ballots; therefore, mail ballots will help the Party to win again. However, that is not possible nor true. They failed to tell you about satellite offices and how they were established strictly for mail-in voting. They are designed to operate completely differently from traditional voting precincts. They are “one-stop shops,” where a person can register to vote, register for a ballot, receive a ballot, vote on the ballot and place it in the drop box. From there, it gets delivered to the election bureau and counted. No poll watchers are permitted in the area. Even if you vote by mail in the next election, the satellite offices will outnumber your single mail-in ballot by hundreds or more, simply because they can. Read carefully and do your own research.

Satellite offices are in predominantly Democrat areas. Each office can open fifty days before the election, seven days a week for seven to eight hours a day. In 2020, six predominately Democrat counties had multiple “offices.” Philadelphia had seventeen locations. Together, Philadelphia’s offices averaged approximately 430 days and 3,000 hours of voting operations. Compare that to seventeen traditional voting precincts which would average 221 hours of voting on one day. Philadelphia was just one of the six heavy hitters. Allegheny, Bucks, Chester, Delaware and Montgomery also opened “offices,” and each had multiple drop boxes, as well. By the way, no poll watchers were permitted in satellite offices, where they cured ballots and assisted in voting without filling out proper “assistance forms.” Interestingly, Biden took the lead in the counties with satellite offices.

The numbers don’t lie. It will be impossible for legitimate voters to outnumber the massive, unchallenged election systems happening in the satellite offices. There are four risks that you take by voting with a mail-in ballot. Compare that to the security of your vote when you show up in person, sign in the book, cast your vote and watch your vote get counted on Election Day.

Convenience voting is a deceptive tactic used to lure all voters into a permanent mail-in ballot voting system. Participating in the mail-in ballot initiative will strengthen the Democrat agenda and diminish voting integrity. Voters who have received a mail-in ballot can bring their ballot into their precinct to be “spoiled” and cast an in-person ballot. Those who wish to do so must bring all of the contents that were mailed, including the internal and external envelopes.

There was a time, not so long ago, when America’s citizens took pride in going to their polling location and doing their civic duty by voting. People voted with honor and acknowledged the privilege passed down to them by statesmen, soldiers and patriots who were grateful for a nation that developed a free and fair election system. People chose commitment over convenience, and they were proud to do so. Voting in person has always represented good citizenship, Unfortunately, convenience may be the course that restricts choices in the very near future. The voters will decide.

“The people who cast the votes don’t decide and election, the people who count the votes do.” Joseph Stalin, Communist Party of the Soviet Union

Appreciate what you’re reading? Be sure to share it!

Have a story? Break it at LibertyLens.News! Become a Contributor.

To Support The Liberty Lens, Donate here.

Book Banning or Grooming? You Decide.

Dr. Stephanie Coxon
-
0
Book Banning or Grooming? You Decide.

When officials cannot justify a stance, they may resort to creating “word salads” to trick their constituents into denial and blindness. This is precisely the case with democrats and their infamous book banning campaign to trick parents into thinking children should have access to all literature. But have they (the democrats) told you what they would like to protect? Let me help you out. It is pornographic material that outside of the school and library system, any adult would be arrested for sharing with minors; in short it is called corruption of a minor. You read that correctly and I’ll state it again. It is material that could be used by groomers to create hyper-sexualized children, and THAT is illegal at the federal level. Yet, if you survey your local school library systems, these books are available to your children in middle school and high school. From a psychological perspective, everything a child is exposed to is neurologically implanted and becomes permanent thought. The younger the child, the larger the impact.

A child sexually abused at age three to 12, changes their thought patterns and behaviors forever. If you go back through the stages of psychosexual identity development, a child’s sexual identity if formed though early experiences, kept in the psyche, long before the child can talk or express any logic. According to Freud, sexual identity is most focused between the ages of three and five. According to psychcentral, in childhood, our brains are very plastic (meaning higher neuroplasticity). The connections made between different parts of the brain change in strength and are based on experiences of the world and who they are within it. When a child experiences trauma, it activates the amygdala, or the pathway to emotional regulation.

The next portion of the brain to activate is the hypothalamus, or the place responsible for what most people would regularly identify as the fight or flight response. This means that a child will detect threats more easily which leads to higher level of stress, anxiety, and depression. From various studies, you can easily extrapolate that all experiences affect brain development. So anything a child is exposed to becomes part of their long term functioning… and that means until the age of 25 where your brain becomes an adult; thinking and reason shifts to adulthood.

Activation of the sympathetic nervous system also means immune system dysregulation and increased inflammatory responses. So essentially, we are talking about a lifetime of multiple medical issues. Of course, what is trauma? Reading the books that everyone from librarians to legislators are hell bent to keep in school and available to children made me physically ill. Have you actually seen the images and read the material? If not and you are one of these parents that thinks no book should be banned, this is your moment to go to the source and become informed. Your representatives are lying to you. Under the guise of “equitable access to books” and claims that conservatives are against black and LGBTQ authors, they are allowing images that permanently affect the brain and create the power of suggestion to a bunch of hormonal preteens and teenagers. Sounds like an intelligent stance to me. What is more confusing is how the democrats do not think that LGBTQ or black authors have the ability to write books that are not pornographic. Apparently, they missed that isle in the library or local books store.

Pennsylvania seems to be leading the cause in some ways but lagging in others. The democrats are fighting hard to take the power out of the local school districts and put them into bigger organizations like the PSLA or Pennsylvania School Library Association (see PA SB 926). Finding limited testifiers and being in a room with more objectors than people receptive to their concepts, you think they’d get the hint. In fact, during the recent hearing regarding these “literary works,” democrat committee leaders prohibited public comment and prevented alternative voices from having props (through threat of police) while their own testifiers were more than welcome to bring their props. If there is no problem or issue with the books in question, why wouldn’t you want EVERYONE to see them? Dear voters… you are being set up.

My favorite quote of the hearing came from democrat Senator Muth who confidently stated that the only reason the Bible is still in school libraries is because it was written by white men.  I guess she is unaware that there are females like Esther or that the majority of the authors were actually middle eastern with Paul being assumed as most probably black. Perhaps if they had correct facts, they could make better decisions. She also apologized to the white man testifier for not being provided a “safe space” while he promoted having sexual content in the classroom.  Um no, school is not for sexuality, it is for education of reading, writing, arithmetic, and history if the schools could get that right.

These democrats are continuing the same antics as always. According to them, if you love your child and believe that the parent should be the parent, then you must be racist or a bigot.  They have no clear argument.  Even the lawyer from the educational law center who testified reverts back to the first amendment.  But the First Amendment is not a blanket statement (and I strongly believe in the first amendment).  It provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peacefully to assemble, and to petition the Government a redress of grievances.”  In once sense, yes, the First Amendment protects pornography, aka erotic material.  However, the Supreme Court has held that it does not protect two types; obscenity (which has its own subset of conditions) and child pornography.

The Miller test is used to determine obscenity. This test stems from Miller v. California (1973) and is outlined by the Free Speech Center; “ (1) whether the average person applying contemporary community standards would find the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (2) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (3) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.” But, of course, there again, it was directed towards adults.

Even pornography that is not considered obscene (yes, that exists by definition) and therefore not banned goes out of its way to prevent it from being put into the hands of a child by regulating the time, place, and manner of distribution.  I guess the pictures from the books that keep getting banned from the television, news, legislative hearings, and any other outlet are okay for your children.

In short, we were at a book banning hearing where they banned the book images from the books they wanted kept from banning… did you catch that? These people are groomers. It is like the psyche of a serial killer. They are screwed up, they know it, but they can’t help themselves.

Appreciate what you’re reading? Be sure to share it!

Have a story? Break it at LibertyLens.News! Become a Contributor.

To Support The Liberty Lens, Donate here.

PA Freedom Caucus Member Unveils Tool in Fight against Obscenity in School Libraries

PA Freedom Caucus
-
0
PA Freedom Caucus Member Unveils Tool in Fight against Obscenity in School Libraries

The Pennsylvania Freedom Caucus announced today that Rep. Tom Jones (R-Lancaster, Lebanon) will be hosting a press conference on Wednesday at 10am in the Ryan House Office Building to discuss protecting children from obscene material. The press conference comes after calls by the Pennsylvania Freedom Caucus for the Commonwealth to cut all ties with the American Library Association (ALA) and its obsession with promoting the hyper-sexualization of children, the indoctrination of youth, and the expansion of children’s access to these obscene materials.

“I will be joining fellow members of the PA Freedom Caucus and General Assembly to provide a tool to help protect children from sexually explicit material and highlight some of the books currently known to be in school libraries”, stated Jones. “So often simply asking the question “What is in my child’s school library?” can bring ridicule and accusations of being an enemy of free speech. This type of name-calling is only meant to bully and intimidate reasonable parents into remaining silent.”, Jones continued. “Parents are our students most valuable advocates and they deserve to be informed in order to make the best choice for their children.”

PAFC member Rep. Barb Gleim (R-Cumberland), who will be making the opening statement the conference, urges parents to check with their local school district to see if these types of books are in your child’s library. “The false narrative being pushed by the radical left is that taking sexually explicit books, paid for by the taxpayers, out of school libraries is a book ban. Completely ignoring that it is unlawful to expose sexually explicit materials to minors under all circumstances.”

Below are just some of the books and content being celebrated and promoted:

Click here to view the contents of books that are available to our children.

Appreciate what you’re reading? Be sure to share it!

Have a story? Break it at LibertyLens.News! Become a Contributor.

To Support The Liberty Lens, Donate here.

Election Infection, Part 1: Satellite Offices Unconstitutional?

Susanna DeJeet
-
0
Election Infection, Part 1: Satellite Offices Unconstitutional?

Seven election cycles have concluded since PA Republican and Democrat legislators bypassed their constituents to pass ACT 77 (later amended as ACT 12), upending an 82-year old election system right before a critical presidential race. The implementation of the law caused statewide confusion and disenfranchisement for voters and election workers. Election officials from various counties have declared 2020 as the most frustrating and expensive election year ever. Yet, it continues.

The government is charged to protect and secure elections; they are not permitted to disenfranchise legal voters. Disenfranchising can be result of practices that are either unfair or illegal. Throughout Pennsylvania, millions of legal voters were disenfranchised due to unusual incidents that compromised their votes. Citizens who requested a mail-in ballot never received one. The others complained about receiving a ballot they never requested. That is unlawful. They were denied their right to vote in person on Election Day and were forced to vote provisionally. Pennsylvania’s election results prove that hundreds of thousands of electors were forced to vote a provisional ballot in 2020. After the election, votes received a formal letter stating their vote did not count at all or were only partially counted. The damage occurred, but no remedy was offered, except to vote provisionally. Election officials and the legislators who created the law, defended the election code instead of addressing the irregularities that surfaced in every county. Disenfranchised Pennsylvanians remain resolved to force their legislators to restore a safe election process. It’s the law! It’s their right!

A second and vital protection for disenfranchised citizens against an unjust law is found in our Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment stating “…no law can create unequal protection under the law.” Yet, specific election provisions in Act 77 empowered county boards of elections to establish satellite offices known as “one stop shops,” which created an unequal election system to protect mail-in ballots. Nothing like this ever existed until Act 77. Satellite offices operated under loose rules diabolically opposed to traditional voting precincts. There are at least five distinct election provisions that denied Pennsylvania’s voters equal protection under the law due to satellite offices. Voters throughout the state have formed teams to unite in the fight to secure and restore integrity to future elections. They are not giving up on eliminating the five election provisions that weakened and stole their voices in every election that followed.

1. Satellite offices opened fifty days prior to Election Day, seven days a week, seven to eight hours a day for voting. Drop boxes were available twenty four hours a day.

In addition, drop-boxes were available for twenty-four hours a day. Traditional voting precincts operated on one election day for thirteen hours during each election. At the end of a thirteen-hour day, the voting stopped. The doors were locked, voting machines were closed and election materials were securely delivered to the County Board of Elections for processing. The chain of custody at satellite offices are not clear.

Philadelphia’s 17 satellite offices tallied 102 voting days, or approximately 2,940 additional hours for in-person voting.  It would take approximately 226 precincts, opened for thirteen hours on Election Day, to match the number of Philadelphia’s satellite offices. That could cover an entire county. The hours provided for voting in satellite offices are drastically unequal.

2. Satellite offices disproportionately favor Democrats.

Thirty-nine satellite offices were only opened in predominately Democrat voting areas such as Philadelphia and Allegheny County. In 2020, Philadelphia opened seventeen offices, Allegheny opened eight offices. Bucks, Chester, Delaware and Montgomery County also opened satellite offices.

3. Satellite office workers were “curing ballots” at the drop box locations.

Witnesses observed an employee at a satellite office asking certain voters if they placed their ballot in the “privacy ballot” envelope before sealing the outer declaration envelope and signing it. If a voter was uncertain, the employee asked the voter to open the outer declaration envelope to see if the ballot was in secured in the small “BALLOT” envelope. That action enabled the employee to see how the individual had voted. After the voter removed the ballot from the original signed declaration envelope (with a Sure ID#), he was offered a  privacy “BALLOT” envelope and a new declaration envelope that did not appear to have a SURE ID barcode on it for tracking purposes. Later, the satellite office coordinator stated they did not put SURE ID barcodes on the envelopes. This procedure does not comply with the government’s purpose for issuing Sure IDs to voters. Traditional voting precincts do not cure ballot envelopes. Likewise, the election workers at the County Board of Elections workers do not see an opened ballot until 7:00 a.m. on Election Day.

4. Satellite offices, referred to as “one stop” shops, provided an individual the ability to register to vote and immediately register for a mail-in ballot and submit their ballot.

The voter could receive a ballot and vote straightaway. There is noted concern that such provisions make it quick and easy for non-citizens to vote. A person can register to vote with a driver’s license or with the last four digits of a social security ID. Under Obama’s Amnesty package, millions of illegal immigrants were given a driver’s license. Likewise, Foreign exchange students working in the USA are issued social security cards in order to get paid for working. Therefore, it is possible for an illegal or foreign exchange students to vote at satellite offices.

Contrary to voting at satellite offices, traditional voting precincts present a voter register book, which contains the name and signature of all registered residents for that precinct.  The voter is required to sign his/her name next to the signature in the register book. The signature helps the poll worker to verify the voter. Voters wanting a fair election are not offended but are supportive of this type of careful voter verification system. It provides accuracy and prevents fraudulent votes. This type of  voting security measure is ignored at satellite offices.

5. Satellite Offices do not permit poll watchers.

Poll workers at satellite offices can ignore legitimate election rules without being challenged by a trained poll watcher. For example, an observer at a satellite office noticed a voter standing at a high-top table with a privacy cardboard trifold on it. An election worker remained next to him while he was voting. Twice, she tapped her pen on the ballot, prompting him to bend over and begin marking where she tapped. The observer asked the worker if she and the voter had filled out the proper “assistance form” since he was getting assistance. The employee protested, saying she wasn’t “assisting” him. The observer suggested for her to step away from the voter to ensure privacy, according to the law. An election supervisor entered the area and told the observer she could not challenge the action of the worker because that was a “satellite office” of the County Board of Elections, not a polling place.  However, the challenger stated it was a voting area since he was voting on an official ballot and was submitting his ballot in the drop box to be counted at the County Board of Elections.  A policeman was asked by the supervisor to remove the “challenger.” 

At a traditional voting precinct, the judge of elections would have responded by following the election code and  having the voter and assistant sign a white “assistance” form. A voter’s unwillingness to sign the form insinuates there is something to hide that should be revealed in a fair and transparent election. Why wouldn’t satellite offices permit trained poll watchers into the voting area? This is the most disturbing concern of disenfranchised voters.

The changes in ACT 12 eliminated five critical security provisions for voters, and voters want them back. Their electoral voice was bypassed and discounted by legislators paid to represent them. Fair elections are gone from sight due to the unequal protections under the law, a violation of the Constitution, that led to unlawful actions and voter disenfranchisement. The voices of this disenfranchised electorate simply want their secure and fair elections back, and that requires eliminating satellite offices

Third World Countries are accustomed to operating under unequal voting procedures that corrupt the outcomes of an election. This is America, and unequal protections under the law cannot continue because the Constitution forbids it, regardless if politicians passed it without reading it.

For every illegal vote counted, a legal vote is discounted.  “The people who cast the votes don’t decide the election, the people who count the votes do.” Joseph Stalin.

Stay tuned for Election Infection, Parts 2 & 3.

Appreciate what you’re reading? Be sure to share it!

Have a story? Break it at LibertyLens.News! Become a Contributor.

To Support The Liberty Lens, Donate here.

Non-Verified Applicants: An Overwhelming Burden On Our Elections

Carol Stoyack
-
0
Non-Verified Applicants: An Overwhelming Burden On Our Elections

In a report from Verity Vote, The Pennsylvania Voter-Not-Verified Vulnerability, from October 2022, reference is made to the Hope America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) that requires voter applicants present identification of either a driver’s license number or the last four digits of a social security number in order to vote in a federal election. To comply with HAVA, the Pennsylvania Department of State (DoS) requires the applicant fill out the application requesting a mail-in ballot. The DoS compares the records of PennDOT or the Social Security Administration databases. If there is not a match, a mail-in ballot is sent with a non-verified (NV) designation. It is then the responsibility of county election officials to set aside the ballot until the voter provides adequate identification. Some counties forego the HAVA requirements which results in the acceptance of illegitimate ballots that are inadvertently counted illegally.

At a State Government hearing held on March 13, 2021, Deputy Secretary Jonathan Marks testified that if an applicant’s driver’s license or last four digits of an SSN cannot be matched in either database, the petitioner will be mailed a NV ballot. Marks stated that the ballot would not be counted until the applicant provides identification outlined in the Pennsylvania Election Code. The applicant has six days after the election to provide specified information for the vote to be counted. This puts the burden on county election workers to hold the ballots while waiting for the applicants’ information.  When Representative Clint Owlett questioned Marks about the efficiency of having the responsibility of county election officials flagging UV mail-in ballots versus Pennsylvania DoS requiring the missing applicant information ahead of the elections, Marks stated that it was a small percentage of applicants who received the NV ballots. Later in the hearing, when Owlett asked Marks if he knew how many NV ballots had been mailed during the 2020 election, Marks stated that he did not know.

Another Government Committee Hearing took place on 3/25/21.  Patricia Nace, a former Election Director from Snyder County and Election Consultant for Northumberland and Snyder Counties testified that she was unfamiliar with the unverified designation. Nace stated, “I’m not sure why they (applicants) would get an absentee ballot to begin with if there was something missing that they really should have continued to try and find the information on that voter before the absentee ballot would go out.” Other counties were familiar with the process of retaining the UV ballots. Ed Allison, a Lawrence County Election Director, testified that their county had a process in place to hold these ballots until election officials received the proper identification from applicants to verify. It is apparent that there is confusion among the counites on how to handle the UV ballots.

Eighteen months later, another Committee Hearing took place on September 14, 2022. Representative Ryan asked Deputy Secretary Marks why the Commonwealth had over 425,000 verifications sent through the Social Security Administration Help America Vote Verification (HAVV) system from January to April of 2022. Deputy Secretary Marks responded that HAVV is used to verify information by new voters as well as absentee and mail ballots. He went on to testify, “If when you apply your PennDOT ID cannot be verified, the county can still issue the ballot, but the ballot doesn’t count unless the voter provides a valid form of ID – either a PennDOT ID or the last four of SSN that can be verified or one of the other forms of identification provided for in the statute.”

Less than two weeks after the Committee Hearing, a DoS Directive issued September 26, 2022, contradicted Marks’ testimony notifying the counties that identifications are verified before sending mail-in ballots to applicants. The directive states, “Before sending the ballot to the applicant the county board of elections confirms the qualifications of the applicant by verifying the proof of identification and comparing the information provided on the application with the information contained in the voter record. If the county is satisfied that the applicant is qualified, the application must be approved.”

The DoS has created inconsistencies among the counties. County officials have access to the results of PennDOT and SSN4 (HAVV) system but no major role in the matching process. If a correction or proof of ID is not received, some of the county election officials report that they count the ballots. Other officials state that they correct the invalid ID in the system and accept the ballot. No action is taken by the voters who should assume the responsibility of correcting their own information.

Some transactions that were reviewed from Verity Vote confirmed that from July 3 through October 15, 2022, Pennsylvania counties processed over 58,000 applications through the HAVV system that did not match the records of the Social Security Administration. Despite these inaccuracies, ballots were sent to the applicants. Verity Vote also compared data from five states that are similar in size to Pennsylvania. Unlike Pennsylvania, these states require mandatory ID for all elections. The states reviewed were Georgia, North Carolina, Ohio, Michigan, and Florida. The transactions reviewed were from the week of November 17, 2020, through the week of April 4, 2022. All five of these states averaged less than 12,000 non-matched ballots. Alarmingly, Pennsylvania had over 152,000 non-matches in the same period.

The Pennsylvania Department of State has put a tremendous burden on county election offices by having these officials correct inaccurate information by applicants in order to comply with the law. Many negative consequences can arise during the elections. For example, thousands of ballots being rejected, thousands of UV ballots being accepted illegally, long lines of voters waiting to correct information before the election deadline, and legal battles that cause delays in election results. This adversely affects our local and state elections that are determined, in many cases, by a narrow margin of votes.

The full report from Verity Vote can be viewed at: Pennsylvania Voter-Not-Verified Vulnerability (verityvote.us)

Appreciate what you’re reading? Be sure to share it!

Have a story? Break it at LibertyLens.News! Become a Contributor.

To Support The Liberty Lens, Donate here.

Penn State University is Being Sued for Alleged Anti-Christian Discrimination

Brian Shelley
-
0
Penn State University is Being Sued for Alleged Anti-Christian Discrimination

Leftist individuals and organizations are discriminating against Christians and denying them their rights. Zack Rackovan says that was his experience Penn State. Penn State allegedly fired him because of his Christian beliefs, and he is preparing to sue them. Mr. Rackovan, a father of four young children, worked remotely for Penn State from 2014 to 2022… in Tyrone, Pennsylvania, 26 miles from the campus. He had no personal contact with students, faculty, or staff at the university.

Penn State decided to enforce their COVID policies, allegedly in an unlawful manner. Even though he did not work on or visit campus, the university required him to take the COVID vaccine, wear a facemask, and submit to weekly Covid testing. After notifying his supervisors that their requests violated his religious beliefs, the university threatened to fire him.

Mr. Rackovan sent Penn State notice of his constitutional right to refuse an Emergency Use Authorization vaccine. He claims to have received no response from the university. He then informed Penn State of his need for a religious exemption under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Penn State receives government funding, and cannot deny a lawful Title VII accommodation request. Yet the university did ultimately deny his request and warned, again, that he would be terminated if he did not comply.

Based on his Christian convictions and constitutional rights, Zack refused to comply and was fired in March of 2022, as he explains on his GiveSendGo campaign page. Zack said “God was protecting” his family, however. He added, “I was offered another job on a Friday, and the following Monday, Penn State fired me.” Following his firing, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission investigated Zack’s case and found that Penn State failed to provide him a religious accommodation, and fired him based on his religious beliefs and in retaliation for disobeying their demands.

Mr. Rackovan has hired an attorney to file suit against Penn State and to bring awareness of discriminatory practices at the school. “I want to bring awareness of this happening to Christians at other universities, too”, he said, adding, “I want them to understand that what they did to me, and what they’re doing to others is wrong. I want them to acknowledge their anti-Christian bias and take steps to remediate the unlawful policies and actions that make for a hostile workplace for Christians. Last week, in a similar case, the New York Supreme Court ruled in favor of a nurse who was wrongfully terminated from her job at The Roswell Park Comprehensive Care Center.

The legal costs will exceed what a private school teacher has the ability to pay, so Zack started a GiveSendGo campaign. His goal is to raise $7,500. When asking for prayer support, Zack said, “The Lord hears us when we cry out against wickedness, and there is power in prayer. Please pray for provision for my family and persevering strength in this situation we find ourselves in. But even more importantly, please join me in praying that through this battle that hearts would be softened and eyes would be opened to the truth of the gospel at Penn State.”

The campaign web address also includes Romans 12:21, “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” Visit his campaign page if you can help Zack and his family overcome this evil with good, financially or with prayers, or both.

Today, Mr. Rackovan teaches Bible and Art classes at Tyrone Christian Academy, a K-12 private school.

Appreciate what you’re reading? Be sure to share it!

Have a story? Break it at LibertyLens.News! Become a Contributor.

To Support The Liberty Lens, Donate here.

 

 

Examining ‘What is A Woman?’ – Part 2

Chuck Mason
-
0
Examining ‘What is A Woman?’ – Part 2

Postmodernity in 60 seconds

The postmodern movement argued that America is a failed nation because it was built on the false belief that people could rely on logic, rational thought, truth, and Biblical principles to create a fair and just society. They pointed to the horrible injustice of slavery, income inequality, and the oppression of indigenous people and the LGBTQ community throughout America’s history as irrefutable proof that rational thought and the Bible provide the pathway for using power that gave people the ability to cause terrible injustice and exploitation. Postmodernity argued that traditional America used logic, science, and biblical myths to force a false narrative about God, morality, and truth upon the world. This narrative gave power, privilege, and wealth to some as they exploited minority and marginalized communities. Every aspect of traditional American society was corrupt because it was built upon failed intellectual assumptions and needed to be deconstructed and rebuilt into one that’s inclusive, fair, and tolerant.

The Left bought into these arguments and began to imagine a vision of a progressive American society free from the bigotry of Christianity and the domination of logic and rational thought. This vision embraced radical concepts of gender that are a complete departure from the Judeo-Christian influence of traditional America’s binary, heterosexually dominated culture. They want to purge society of traditional concepts of male or female and create one that’s open, tolerant, and accepting of radical new views of a non-binary gender-fluid world.

This may be unthinkable to traditional Americans, but intellectual revolutions are a part of the human experience.

Intellectual revolutions happen throughout human history, and when they do, they question the philosophical foundations of society, causing people to reject their core beliefs and adopt new visions. When core principles change, society changes with them; people reconstruct society to conform to their unique vision. This is precisely what’s happening in America today. The Left bought into the postmodern movement’s challenge of Western civilization, rejected traditional America’s intellectual foundations, embraced a radically new vision, and began a crusade to transform America. The chaos surrounding gender is a product of the Left’s attempts to create a tolerant gender-affirming society.

These transformations are almost impossible for traditional Americans to comprehend. That’s why answering Matt’s questions is nearly impossible until we understand what changed in the mind of the Progressive Left.

What changed?

The Progressive Left embraced the emerging post-truth era and blank-slate social conditioning as the foundational ideas determining gender. These concepts became essential pillars of their worldview when they rejected logic, rational thought, and the Judeo-Christian influence that God created men and women as distinct identities. They consider the binary of male or female an oppressive Judeo-Christian myth created when science, rational thought, and Christianity were given the unwarranted privilege to become the dominant factors people used to define what it means to be a woman. In their eyes, binary gender was an invented idea forced upon humanity by intolerant religious bigots who favored logic, protected patriarchy, and oppressed the LGBTQ community by imposing their unsubstantiated religious views upon the world.

Today the Left relies on the post-truth use of feelings and emotions coupled with the theory of social conditioning to define gender. This new paradigm, post-truth social conditioning, is antithetical to rational thought and science, creating concepts of gender that are wholly incompatible with traditional America. Progressives want to make this the norm for America as they reconstruct our institutions to conform to their vision. Here’s how this works.

Post-truth

The Progressive Left has become post-truth, replacing logic and critical thinking with the use of feelings, emotions, and preferences to determine what is “real.” They reject using facts, logic, science, and rational thought as the primary sources to gain reliable information and reach accurate conclusions about the world. They see facts as nothing more than subjective interpretations of experiences. People use these interpretations to defend agendas that give them the power to oppress marginalized and LGBTQ communities. The Left relies on feelings as the ultimate measure to determine reality. They became post-truth after they accepted the criticisms the postmodern philosophers argued in their attempt to discredit the reliance on logic and rational thought.

The postmodern movement said science, data, facts, and critical thinking are all simply opinions about the world that are the product of an oppressive era of Judeo-Christian dominance. Facts aren’t truth claims that determine reality because truth is an illusion. There is no single truth, only opinions and interpretations of the world that people use to gain and protect power. Since there is no truth that everyone agrees on, there are no facts, only subjective interpretations that people use to protect their agendas.

If facts were corrupt, logic was corrupt because it relied on these so-called “facts” to arrive at conclusions. Postmodernity declared that logic and rational thought were dishonest intellectual tools because they were based on the false assumption that facts were truth statements that conveyed reliable information about the world. Believing these arguments, the Left rejected facts, data, science, logic, and rational thought as the primary intellectual tools people use to determine what is real and accurate about the world, which left them in need of another method to determine their reality.

Rejecting facts and rational thought, the Left became post-truth, relying on their feelings, emotions, and preferences as the primary tools to determine what’s “real” and “accurate” about the world. People rely on their feelings and emotions to confirm their beliefs and decide what’s real for them, you, and society. “Reality” for the Left is that which conforms to their feelings and is confirmed by their emotions, regardless of whether facts, science, and rational thought demonstrate otherwise. They believe something is accurate based on their feelings, not whether it’s been proven or verified by another method of analysis. The post-truth approach to determining “reality’ is becoming the method more and more people rely on to confirm their interpretations of the world.

Read Part 1| Stay tuned for part 3

Appreciate what you’re reading? Be sure to share it!

Have a story? Break it at LibertyLens.News! Become a Contributor.

To Support The Liberty Lens, Donate here.

Pole Shift: A Retrospective and A Prospective on National Values

John DeSantis
-
0
Pole Shift: A Retrospective and A Prospective on National Values

Several years ago, I read several books and articles about pole shift. Pole shift is the phenomenon that occurs every twenty thousand years or so in which the actual magnetic poles of the earth shift. This shift may be gradual and slight, or it may be sudden and dramatic, resulting in a complete shifting of north to south. A sudden profound shift would result in cataclysmic earth changes; much of earth’s land life would be lost, subdued under violent ocean changes, massive tidal waves that would encroach far inland upon all the major land masses of our planet. Some scientists have said that such a pole shift is long overdue, but no one really knows for sure.

Since March of 2020 a metaphorical pole shift has taken place. A pole shift not of physical proportions but nonetheless dramatic to be sure. It seems to me that the shift that has occurred is a shift in the thinking of people all across the United States. Its adherents found in all levels of government, and it is embraced by many citizens endorsing the shift of the political machines.

Following COVID-19, the world began to shift in many ways. There are some scientists that believe that the dramatic pole shift may be preceded by several minor shifts. Prior to 2020, it had been becoming increasingly apparent that there were significant elements in the country that did not want a president who stood up proudly for America. These elements were apparently dissatisfied with a president who, unlike his predecessors, had not been a career politician, did not want to apologize for the nation, wanted to work to restore America’s preeminence in the world; one who wished to preserve her sovereignty, preserve her borders and bring back self-sufficiency to her shores.

Instead of rallying behind the president in a show of national unity, forces within and without the media, began to malign his efforts. Forces, I think, that viewed his efforts as a subterfuge of their own parochial interests. Many people, believing the daily harangues of The New York Times, the Washington Post, the Daily News, CNN, MSNBC, among others, which sought to undermine his presidency at every turn, began to turn against him. Many, without seeming provocation, voiced their hatred of the man.

Then came the pandemic. Upon the heels of an attempt to remove him from office, the president, still reeling from this debacle, had to deal with the encroaching disease. In a timely fashion, he closed borders, suspended air flights to and from China, then Europe, to no avail, it seemed to his detractors. Admittedly, this disease, which was termed novel by the scientists themselves, had not been seen before. Mistakes would be made in dealing with it. Yet, when errors were made due to a lack of common sense, such as the gross mishandling of the nursing home patients in New York State by Governor Andrew Cuomo, who urged COVID patients to return to their residences thereby infecting thousands of at-risk elderly, resulting in thousands of needless deaths, the president was blamed. When former President Trump, who under the Constitution was clearly within his rights to act for the nation during a national emergency, ceded his authority to the states, he was blamed for their errors nonetheless.  The Navy hospital ship, the Javits Center in Manhattan, and the Franklin Graham make-shift hospital in New York’s Central Park, were virtually unused, when they could have been made to serve patients from the five boroughs and indeed from the state at large, quarantining patients until they would no longer be able to spread the virus.

The lockdown and near-complete closing of the economy of the United States, decimated the country in ways that are only now being made manifest. Throughout most of the world, countries closed down in similar fashion. When the president ventured dates for beginning to reopen the economy, he was again maligned by the press. Nobody, not even the supposed experts like Dr Anthony Fauci knew for sure what to do, when to reopen, whether to wear masks or not, whether to resume national sports, whether to open schools. Even now, there is vast uncertainty about many of these questions. And yet President Trump, who is not a scientist, was chastised when he offered his opinion about matters of national importance, such as reopening the economy.

And then there was the death of George Floyd at the hands of an apparently unbalanced Minneapolis police officer. The reactions that followed were totally out of proportion, given what had happened. Alleged protests became the most horrible riots, with destruction on a nationwide scale that had not been heretofore witnessed. Property worth billions of dollars was destroyed, New York City’s midtown was reduced to what looked like a war zone, people were attacked, and even killed, and gross mayhem ensued. Areas of cities in New York, Portend, Oregon, and Seattle, Washington, were illegally occupied. Statues, representing heroes of the Civil War, on both sides of that conflict, of Columbus, Grant, and others, were wantonly torn down and destroyed, buildings were set fire to, police vehicles were fire-bombed, fires were set, and massive looting occurred as well.

And yet, the reactions of the stewards of these cities, mayors like most notably Bill deBlasio in New York, Laurie Lightfoot of Chicago, Jenny Durkin of Seattle, instead of doing everything they could to prevent further mayhem, in the name of calling these actions “peaceful  protests,” actually encouraged them. With all the destruction and flagrant disregard of private property that was ensuing, police were told to stand-down, not perform arrests, departments were not called upon and actually defunded, crime task-forces were disbanded, as in New York City, with the result that even today, neighborhoods that were once considered safe, are seeing increases in crime of well over 100%, police are being murdered and molested, the elderly are being randomly assaulted, and all manner of minor crimes are increasing. New York State’s and several other states’ removal of cash-bail from all but the most serious of crimes has resulted in a turn-key system of justice, where, if there should be arrests for misdemeanors  (some of which, as in the case of some assaults, were once considered felonies), the perpetrators are booked and released even on the same day. Many minor criminals were released from Rikers Island under the pretext of their contracting COVID-19.

Many of the horrors that are occurring appear to be sanctioned, in the name of Black Lives Matter. The awful miscarriage of justice that occurred at that time, as one St Louis couple, their gate to their property having been broken by an angry mob, who were visibly menacing them, threatening to occupy their house as well as their premises, attempted to defend themselves by brandishing legally held weapons, is ongoing. Several police, doing their jobs lawfully in pursuing the arrest of a perpetrator clearly threatening them with bodily harm, even to the point of taking the police weapon from them, have endured felony arrests or at best, deprived of their livelihood.

And as all this insanity ensues, the country, if not the world, continues in this metaphorical pole shift of values. Statistical polls declare that the former president could lose again to aa candidate who exemplifies the corruption that President Trump himself was wrongly accused of, and who, at best, is showing clear signs of early-onset dementia. Perpetrators of wanton destruction remain at large, are not arrested, and in the name of attacking police brutality by eliminating police, crime is skyrocketing throughout the nation.

When the president offered help in the name of national troops, the national guard (employed by the state governors), and national troops sent to protect Federal properties, such aid was declined by the mayors of the respective cities, even to the point of declaring that such help would have represented an expression of totalitarianism.

The disharmony that had been artificially fomented between the races, the vitriol against the police, most of whom are good and decent people doing a thankless and dangerous job, because of a precious few bad apples, the unwillingness to open certain businesses, and the restrictions imposed which were so severe as to virtually ensure they would never be able to recover, the imposition of harsh penalties on those at parties or in stores, should they have  failed  to wear masks or maintain social distancing, while simultaneously declaring that  “protests” would not fall under the same umbrella,  the restrictions against large populations in churches while not imposing like ones on gambling casinos, the jeopardizing of children by adamantly refusing to open schools, the failure thereby to take into consideration the rights and responsibilities of parents needing  to work, the assumption that poorer or less-educated parents would be  able to structure learning at home whether they possessed  the technological equipment or expertise to do so or not, the willful endangerment of the populace at large, be they middle-class whites or poor blacks in the several neighborhoods of the city, the refusal to reopen mental health clinics despite the increased necessity for their services in light of the pandemic and the lockdown, these and many other ills that have occurred and continue every day in a world that is seeing its values turn upside down, must give us pause.

I have already expressed my view that I believe that there are forces afoot that are working toward insurrection and the imposition of a communist overthrow of the government. The lessons of history, the desire to “cancel culture,” the revision of history through destruction of historical artifacts, the wanton destruction of property, and the terrorism that is ensuing, have all occurred before, many times in the past century, in the name of Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, among others. Whether you agree with me or not, however old or young you may be, you need to see that nothing like this has ever happened in the United States. This is something vastly different. If you care about your country, if you care about liberty, you must reject the notion of “the new normal.” There will be a real choice in November of 2024. The 2024 election will not be about Donald Trump versus Joe Biden. It will be about socialist totalitarianism versus freedom. A vote for the Democrat ticket is a vote for mob control, oppression of all in the name of equality, and the end of the world as we knew and know it; a vote for Trump is a vote for the Republic, a vote for free enterprise, for the rights of the individual, a vote for freedom. Let us discard our fears, vote in person, reject lock-down, unmask the guilty, and restore the poles when we go to the polls.

Appreciate what you’re reading? Be sure to share it!

Have a story? Break it at LibertyLens.News! Become a Contributor.

To Support The Liberty Lens, Donate here.

 

1...456...9Page 5 of 9
- Advertisement -
Google search engine