'Nothing is worth taking your own life'

The path ahead has challenges and threats and we cannot afford to rest until babies and mothers all across America are safe.

'will be a champion for our America First Agenda'

'The last thing you expect to happen is a 48-foot sport fishing boat barreling toward the shore'

Respect to Indianapolis for pulling a power move

UNRWA 'knowingly provided material support to Hamas in Gaza'

Site has no Description

Site has no Description

The San Francisco public schools allow students to change their preferred name and pronouns at school without the knowledge or consent of their parents.  San Francisco United School District’s LGBTQ Student Services department offers guidance on “Changing Your Name and/or Gender” in the district’s systems. The document offers a note “for students to think about,” recommending they wait to change their in the school records if they are not ready for their parents to find out their gender identity.  “Remember that your caregivers have the right to check out some of your school files, Google Classroom, or may end up on a Zoom call or meeting with you and staff at your school, and may see/hear that you are using a different name or pronoun,” the note reads. “If you are concerned about your caregiver’s response, you may not be ready to complete any of the above processes.” It’s unclear why the district refers to parents as “caregivers.” How-to-Update-Student-Name-and-Gender-Marker-in-SFUSD-SystemsDownload The San Francisco district says students have the right for peers and staff to use their preferred name and pronouns at school “without having to sign any forms or get your caregivers permission.”  Policies like San Francisco’s could be mandated statewide in California, as a bill that would prohibit school districts from telling parents about a child’s gender expression without the child’s permission is moving forward in the state Legislature. Students in San Francisco also are entitled to ask school staff to use their preferred name and pronouns only in certain places or around certain people, including or excluding their “caregivers.”  That falls under the “right to be safe and respected at school,” the school district maintains.  San Francisco grants students the “right” to come out and transition at their own pace and in their own way, as well to file a report if someone purposely refers to them by pronouns they don’t prefer. The district encourages students to tell school staff if they want to hide their gender identity from their parents so that a staff member doesn’t accidentally reveal it.  “We cannot guarantee that people will always remember which name and pronoun to use for you or when,” the document says. “There is always a risk that someone might slip up.” “If you are not planning to change the name or pronouns you go by at home, make sure to let your teacher and school administrator know so that they can support you,” the district advises.  The San Francisco United School District did not respond to The Daily Signal’s question about whether its policy violates parental rights.  A nonbinary-identifying biology teacher named River Suh has his own method of determining whether his students’ parents support their gender identity.  Suh passes out a form for his eyes only determining the student’s name in the school record, what the student wants to be called in class, and what name and pronouns he should use when contacting the student’s parents.  The teacher posted the confidential “Name and Pronoun Onboarding Form” on his blog so other teachers can use it.  “Sometimes our students use different names and pronouns at home, in our classroom, and at school,” Suh wrote in 2020. “Welcome a student with this form and make them feel safe about their self-expression.” Suh teaches at Abraham Lincoln High School in San Francisco and is a writer for “Gender-Inclusive Biology,” a website with biology lesson plans that aim to “embed” so-called gender inclusion as a “recurring part of the curriculum, not a one-time lesson, an extension, or a reaction to an interaction.” Onboarding-Do-NowDownload Suh did not respond to a request for comment.  The San Francisco United School District has a history of pushing gender ideology on children. The public school system posted a guide on how to teach elementary school students about “LGBTQ Family and Gender Diversity.”  It offers a “Gender Inclusive Language” guidance form instructing teachers to avoid words like “mom and dad” and “boys and girls” in favor of “guardian,” “adults,” and “grown-ups,” and “y’all,” “learners,” and “they/their.”  The San Francisco LGBTQ Student Services office refers students to a number of local “gender-affirming care” clinics, including abortion giant Planned Parenthood and the University of California at San Francisco’s gender clinic, which accepts children starting at age 3.  Recommended clinics provide sterilizing hormone-replacement therapy treatments as well as referrals for irreversible transgender surgery.  San Francisco’s LGBTQ policies are misaligned from what children actually need, Michele Exner, senior adviser for Parents Defending Education, told The Daily Signal. “This anti-parent policy is continuing to grow the erosion and gap that exists between parents and school districts,” she said. “That’s not where we should be. Parents should have good relationships with teachers and schools. This is teachers, staff, and administrators with an agenda trying to push it on children.” Exner said San Francisco should be focusing on science, math, and reading, rather than transitioning kids. The district’s reading proficiency declined from 57% to 55% and math proficiency dropped from 51% to 46% between 2019 and 2022, according to the San Francisco Parent Coalition. “This is wrong,” she said, “and I hope parents are speaking out.” The post San Francisco Schools Let Students Change Name, Pronouns Minus Parents’ Knowledge or Consent appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The House of Representatives recently held Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt for failing to turn over audio recordings of special counsel Robert Hur’s interviews with President Joe Biden. Garland, appointed by Biden, refused to provide the recordings. So the House adopted a resolution June 12 holding him in criminal contempt (making him only the third attorney general to be subjected to such a finding), and referred Garland for prosecution by … Garland.  Of course, the Justice Department refused to prosecute the case—even though it recently prosecuted former Trump aides Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro for committing the same offense, with both being sentenced to prison as a result. Setting aside the apparent double standard of justice, this scenario highlights a deeper issue related to how Congress may enforce its own institutional prerogatives.  Often, executive branch officials who refuse to provide documents or information invoke executive privilege and, as a result, congressional contempt resolutions go nowhere.  Other than relying on the Justice Department to prosecute criminal contempt of Congress, either the House or the Senate may file a civil suit to enforce its subpoenas. House Speaker Mike Johnson has said the House will pursue this option against Garland, although such suits often move quite slowly because of the complex issues involved. And there’s virtually no possibility that this standoff will be resolved before the next election, nor even a guarantee Garland still will be the attorney general when it is resolved. And that’s assuming the courts agree to enforce the subpoena.  If they do and Garland still refuses to turn over the recordings of Biden, the offense would become contempt of court rather than contempt of Congress. It seems odd for Congress to have to rely on—and be frustrated by—the other co-equal branches of the federal government to vindicate its own institutional interests and to enforce its own contempt findings. Because many members of Congress—and the general public—have expressed frustration with this seeming inability of Congress to enforce its demands for documents and its concomitant inability to perform oversight and other legislative functions, some are seeking to revive Congress’ long-dormant “inherent contempt” powers. After all, the criminal contempt statute used today didn’t exist until 1857, and the civil suit mechanism didn’t come into existence until the Watergate era. It might sound odd to modern ears for the House or the Senate to order its sergeant-at-arms to take someone into custody physically and bring them before the bar of the respective chamber. But historically (at least until the 1930s), that’s how Congress primarily enforced its contempt findings—even after the criminal contempt statute became law.  And the Supreme Court repeatedly has recognized the constitutionality and appropriateness of this approach. Still, practical problems may persist. Although some high-ranking executive branch officials voluntarily have gone with the sergeant-at-arms after being held in contempt (then-Ambassador William Seward did so in the 1870s), it’s not hard to imagine a scenario where the law enforcement personnel charged with protecting high-ranking executive branch officials—such as the attorney general—refuse to let the sergeant-at-arms anywhere near such an official. Some have floated a fine as a potential mechanism to enforce findings of contempt of Congress—though this method previously hasn’t been tested and questions remain about whether it would be constitutionally appropriate. At the end of the day, the best way to give teeth to congressional findings of contempt may be to use the tools the Constitution provides, such as the power of the purse, and to engage in a bare-knuckles political brawl if the sought-after information is important enough and the official’s conduct odious enough. The main question will be whether Congress has the will, and the fortitude, to see these fights through.  It should. After all, many on the Left and the Right have complained about Congress abdicating its duties and taking a backseat to the executive branch in important areas.  A more robust willingness to enforce Congress’ findings of contempt might go a long way toward restoring an appropriate balance of power among the co-equal branches of the federal government. The post Giving Teeth to a Finding of Contempt of Congress appeared first on The Daily Signal.