Federal Courts Rule California Can't Force Churches to Pay for Abortions - LifeNews.com

Federal Courts Rule California Can't Force Churches to Pay for Abortions - LifeNews.com: Resolving lawsuits brought by four churches, two federal courts in California have ruled that the First Amendment protects the churches’ right to decline elective abortion coverage in their health insurance plans. Given the courts’ rulings in these multi-year lawsuits, state officials have agreed to pay $1,400,000 toward the churches’ attorneys’ fees. Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys […]

This week on Faith On Trial

Listen now, this week’s podcast already posted: https://iowacatholicradio.com/faith-on-trial/

Are You A Passive Parent?

By Deacon Mike Manno 

(The Wanderer) – I remember as a kid how I would wait for my dad to come home from work. Sometimes I would run up to the corner where dad would turn onto our street, and he would stop and let me in the car to ride half a block to our house. That was a thrill for a kid my age.  

My parents would discuss the news, have dinner, then, if there was nothing else scheduled for the evening, we would settle down with the TV. On fight night, dad would get a pizza and the two of us would watch some of the best pugilists of the day on the old black ’n white.

I often think about that and I wonder if my parents ever faced the challenges parents face now. I doubt it. Now we have lost our moorings, something that never happened in my parents’ day. Then most people had similar values and ideas and our political differences involved issues on the fringe. I’m not sure there was much attention paid to gay folks and the issue of transgenderism was not even considered.

There were problems, of course, but none raised to the level of what we are discussing now. Then, we kept things to ourselves, our small band of friends, it wasn’t shared with the world as social media allows kids to do today.

Now all those little childhood “secrets” get splashed across social media, and with the encouragement of perverted school administrators and a wacked-out teachers’ union they are dangled in front of our little ones as if they are candy treats. And the little ones, curious about things, will begin to look for themselves and will find a treasure trove of information on social media; more than enough to keep the kiddies’ interests.

And the more exploration on social media the more the algorithms bring kids back, so much so that they now think those secrets are a normal part of life. Such as gender fluidity, which makes them susceptible to the suggestion that they, themselves, might be confused about their identity and could even be in the wrong body.

Is it any wonder now how so many of our children — who might have been naturally somewhat confused by sex roles in an earlier generation — are now ready to believe that some kids can or should change their gender?

And yet this goes on out in the open. And what are parents to do? And why aren’t they raising holy hell about what is going on with their own children?
Just an example that came across my desk today:

In California the Escondido Union School District (EUSD) has issued a directive to all teachers and staff to hide from parents the status of their children who are being socially transitioned during school hours. Two teachers from the district are suing over the policy; note the litigants are teachers, not parents.

According to the suit: “Once a child’s social transitioning has begun, EUSD elementary and middle school teachers must ensure that parents do not find out. EUSD’s policies state that ‘revealing a student’s transgender status to individuals who do not have a legitimate need for the information, without the student’s consent’ is prohibited, and ‘parents or caretakers’ are, according to EUSD, individuals who ‘do not have a legitimate need for the information,’ irrespective of the age of the student or the specific facts of the situation.”

Notice how the policy relegates “parents and caretakers” to the status of someone who has no legitimate interest in the status of the child. This isn’t the only school doing this; these facts keep repeating themselves across the land. Some have even gone further by providing a secret change of clothing for students to wear during the day, which then are changed back when school is over and a parent comes to pick them up.

These policies are being implemented by people who have been elected to their office, and many of them have been re-elected several times. So why haven’t the parents caught on? Perhaps because if they raise their voices Merrick Garland will send in his henchmen from the upper levels of the FBI to investigate them for being white supremacists and domestic terrorists.

In a companion pro-trans scenario, a licensed marriage and family counselor is petitioning the Supreme Court to give him relief from a Washington State law that prevents him from plying his trade honestly by requiring that he follow certain norms when dealing with a minor. Thus, the counselor, when dealing with a gender confused child must reinforce the child’s self-identity and does not allow the counselor to fully probe into the depth of the child’s sexual confusion.

According to the attorney representing the counselor, “Significantly, the law only prohibits counsel in one direction: For example, it allows counseling conversations that aim to steer a young person toward a transgender identity but prohibits conversations that aim to help that same person return to comfort with his or her sex if that’s what the individual may want. The law threatens fines of $5,000 per violation, suspension from practice, and even permanent revocation of a counselor’s license.” 

This idea too has been replicated across the nation.

Unfortunately, around the nation federal courts are being inundated with such cases all brought because somewhere someone has made the decision that biological facts are out of step with today’s society. And, of course, somewhere parents wouldn’t look, or refused to see, and they allowed this to happen in their communities.

Anyone who has a child or loves a child should get a backbone and go to the mat with these politicians and school administrators. Relying on someone else to make a legal challenge is passive parenting. Your child is entitled to better.

That’s a long way from my dad’s day. He knew how to keep us safe all the while eating pizza and watching Carmen Basilio out-box Sugar Ray Robinson for a 15-round split-decision and a world title.

(You can reach Mike at: DeaconMike@q.com and listen to him every weekend on Faith On Trial or podcast at https://iowacatholicradio.com/faith-on-trial/)

This weekend on Faith On Trial -- The Iowa Catholic Radio network

Faith On Trial this weekend: podcasts posted you can listen now at: https://iowacatholicradio.com/faith-on-trial/ where you can listen to all of our programs.

Cultural Corruption Marks Silicon Valley

By Catholic League president Bill Donohue

Silicon Valley has more than banking problems: the high tech industry is culturally corrupt. To be specific, all the talk about diversity and inclusion that the left-wing elites speak about is nothing but claptrap. In fact, it is one of the most bigoted places in America to work.

The left-wing obsession with anatomy and ancestry as markers of diversity and inclusion allows its proponents to completely exclude people whose ideas they loathe. That means conservatives and Christians.

Lincoln Network, a community of free-market tech professionals, conducted a survey in late 2017 and early 2018 of tech professionals in Silicon Valley. The focus was on ideology and workplace norms. The findings remove any doubt about the extent of cultural corruption that exists. Here are six of the conclusions.

• A large majority consider their workplace liberal or very liberal.
• Most feel their views are at odds with the cultural norms in their workplace.
• Most do not feel comfortable sharing their views on political or cultural issues….
• A significant number cannot do their best work because their ideological views are at odds with their workplace norms.
• A large majority cannot bring their whole selves to work.
• Some know someone who did not pursue or left a career in tech because of perceived conflicts in viewpoints.

Tim Ferriss is an investor and an author who describes himself as “very socially liberal.” He moved from Silicon Valley to Austin, Texas because “Silicon Valley […] has an insidious infection that is spreading—a peculiar form of McCarthyism […] masquerading as liberal open-mindedness.” Sam Altman, a venture capitalist, concurs, saying he “felt more comfortable discussing controversial ideas in Beijing than in San Francisco.”

“I have been retaliated against, bullied, verbally intimidated and subject to ridicule for my own opinions that are not accepted by corporate majority rule.” Those are the reflections of a middle-age tech libertarian woman whose experience in Silicon Valley is commonplace.

A male Google employee said he moved from very liberal to conservative after undergoing a “reign of terror” by senior left-wing staff. One of his co-workers admitted that “I have lost multiple talented colleagues who resigned rather than continue in the face of increasingly extreme, narrowminded, and regressive environment here at Google.”

Roughly half (48 percent) of those who work in Silicon Valley are self-described atheists or agnostics. Many don’t like Christians.

Those who are religious attribute the animus to a “postmodern secularist Silicon Valley viewpoint.” Others note that the “quietest” employees are “conservative Christians that don’t want to risk the perceived ire of an obviously non-Christian non-conservative majority.” Another worker confessed, “I would definitely be worried about professional repercussions if people knew my political and religious views.”

Religious employees are careful about wearing their religion on their sleeve. Here’s how one worker put it. “People in my workplace certainly can’t know who I really am.” He said, “a lot of people have this mindset that intellectually capable, smart people are atheist and rational.”

Similarly, a tech employee at LinkedIn opined, “When colleagues go off on jeremiads about how terrible Christians are, I infer that if they knew I was a Christian, they would not like it.” A software developer who is gay, Christian and a lifelong Democrat said he avoids sharing his views because “any sort of disagreement would make them wonder if I’m a secret Trump supporter.”

There is plenty of evidence beyond the Lincoln Network survey that shows how things work in Silicon Valley. In a piece posted on Vox, the reporter said, “Silicon Valley is a young atheist’s world,” but quickly noted, “that’s becoming a problem.” Specifically, it’s a problem for older employees who “belong to a traditional religion.”

It’s wise for such people to keep their mouth shut. As one woman put it, her colleagues are shocked to learn she is religious. “What, really?” is a typical response. That is why she avoids mentioning her religion. When she does, “she feels the need to explain her faith to reassure previously skeptical parties that she is ‘rational.’”

HBO’s “Silicon Valley” satirized the intolerant tech sector. In one episode, it depicted a gay man who is religious. They were “shocked to learn that he goes to church.” Another character admitted that Christianity “freaks people out in the Valley.”

Peter Rex, a CEO who worked there, said there is truth to the satire. He said, “I’ve experienced a combination of hesitation and hostility toward my Catholic faith.” He flatly says, “There is discrimination against Christians in Silicon Valley.”

Is it any surprise that Daniel Dennett is one of Silicon Valley’s most popular guest speakers? He is one of America’s most influential atheist writers.

Why is it that everywhere the left-wing elite exist—the university, the foundations, Silicon Valley, the media, the entertainment industry—the last thing they prize is diversity of thought? Are they that insecure of their own convictions that they must trample on freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of religion? Must be so.

Judicial Decisions, Not Judicial Ethics, Are the Real Target

Calls for a “formal” or “enforceable” code of ethics for the Supreme Court imply that no ethics rules or guidelines already exist, that Congress has the authority to impose such a code, and that a genuine concern about ethics is the real motivation. None of these is true. Heritage Expert: Tom Jipping. Join us for the next edition of Faith On Trial when Tom will be our guest to discuss this matter. 

Speaking Truth To Power… Where Has It Gone?

By Deacon Mike Manno 

(The Wanderer) – Those who know me well know that long before I became a lawyer and long before I became a deacon, I was a newspaper editor and reporter. Journalism was the profession I chose. I majored in it at college and many of the lessons learned there have stuck with me over the years.

Journalism in the United States has a long and, until recently, honorable history. It is a big part of the story of how liberty was nurtured through Colonial times to the present, and the men and women who have etched their names in its historic canons are truly patriotic heroes in their own right. But alas, if things don’t turn around, all of this, like much of our civilization, may just be points in a distant past.

But there was a time….

In 1693 a man named William Bradford picked up his printing business in Philadelphia and moved it to New York where he became the Royal Printer and ultimately established a newspaper there, The New York Gazette, in 1725. He also hired a young impoverished German immigrant boy as an apprentice, John Peter Zenger.

Ultimately, after his apprenticeship had ended, Zenger bought his own printing machine and started his own paper, The New York Weekly Journal.
Things started getting a little rocky on the local political scene. The tyrannical royal governor, William Cosby, fired Chief Justice Lewis Morris. Zenger supported the faction that objected to Morris’ termination and said so, oftentimes in critical word-fables that unmistakably referred to Cosby and Morris’ successor, James DeLancey. The war of words continued to grow, so much so that Cosby and DeLancey sought to silence Zenger.

Twice the grand jury refused to indict Zenger on charges of seditious libel against the crown. Finally, Cosby issued a warrant for Zenger’s arrest on the seditious libel charges. He was immediately arrested and thrown in jail. The two lawyers who were assisting Zenger were disbarred by Cosby.

Zenger, while in jail, refused bail and continued to publish his paper and talk to his readers through a little “hole in the door” of his cell.

Trial for Zenger opened on August 4, 1735. Zenger’s friends had persuaded the most eminent attorney of the colonies, Andrew Hamilton of Philadelphia, to come to New York to defend him. He did and surprised the court by admitting that the statements made against the governor were made by Zenger and the Weekly Journal, but that they were true.

Under British law at the time, truth was no defense to a charge of libel. In fact, if truth was presented it was considered to be an aggravating factor. Several times Hamilton raised the issue only to be told by DeLancey that he could not make that argument: “You cannot be admitted, Mr. Hamilton, to give the truth of a libel in evidence. . . . You are not to be permitted to argue against the opinion of the Court.”

Hamilton then turned his back to the chief judge and argued directly to the jury: “Gentlemen of the jury, it is to you we must now appeal.” He appealed to the jurors’ own witness to the statements made, he denounced the tyranny of the governor’s power.

After he finished, DeLancey instructed the jury and turned the case over to it. Ten minutes later the jury returned: Not guilty. A powerful statement for truth, liberty, and freedom of the press.

John Peter Zenger lived and ran the Weekly Journal until his death in 1746, and his wife and his son continued the paper until it closed in 1757.

So why do I tell you this story today? It’s simple. In today’s society there are too many Governor Cosbys and two few John Peter Zengers. We only need to look back a few weeks to see an independent journalist taking heat for the things he reported.

Matt Taibbi was one of several journalists Elon Musk invited to review Twitter files and report on what he found, and he and his colleagues found a lot: government involvement in stifling press freedom. He got a lot of criticism for that and was asked to testify before a House committee. Naturally, what he was going to testify to was — to those in charge — as unwanted as the drunk uncle at the Christmas party.

Taibbi did testify. On the same day his home was visited by an IRS agent, and after his testimony the ranking Democrat member of the committee, Stacey Plaskett, suggested that Taibbi should be jailed for a minor mistake he made in confusing a governmental agency, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), with the Center for Internet Security (CIS), a mistake he quickly corrected. Others chimed in: He should be charged with contempt and perjury.

The problem I have with the treatment of Taibbi isn’t so much the tyrannical scare tactics of the woefully deluded Democrats, but the reaction of his own colleagues. You would think that legitimate journalists and their outlets would have come to Taibbi’s aid. Almost none did.

I know it was once my chosen profession, but I’m ashamed to say there’s hardly a John Peter Zenger among us today. They have no backbone, no loyalty to the truth, and no honesty among them.

Today this nation is a ship floundering. The big question for our time is whether or not we have taken passage on a modern Titanic; has the ship sunk too low to save? Or is it time to call out the life boats? Hopefully the ship will ultimately right itself, but if it doesn’t, as we listen to the band play “Nearer, My God to Thee” we can start to count on all the things that caused our failure: Socialism, weak politicians interested only in power, an encouraged loss of morality among the people, the breakup of the family, as well as a complete indifference to true education because it does not serve the pleasure of the ruling elites.

But on the top of my list will be those who allowed it all to happen: Journalists who failed to warn us and speak truth to power about the approaching iceberg.

(You can reach Mike at: DeaconMike@q.com and listen to him every weekend on Faith On Trial or podcast at https://iowacatholicradio.com/faith-on-trial/)

 

This week on Faith On Trial

Listen Now: https://iowacatholicradio.com/faith-on-trial/

Pro-life center sues Colorado

Bella Health & Wellness is suing to block enforcement of a Colorado law targeting pro-life caregivers, and state officials are offering an unusual defense: they don’t actually intend to enforce the law against Bella, at least for now. “But they don’t actually defend it," said attorney Mark Rienzi, "because the truth is there’s no very good defense for what Colorado did here.”  READ

District forced to reinstate Christian teacher

A Georgia school district has apologized and agreed to reinstate Lindsey Barr, a Christian substitute teacher who was fired from her job after requesting that her children be excused from a read-aloud program with books depicting same-sex relationships. The district also agreed to pay Barr $181,000 as part of a settlement in response to the teacher filing a lawsuit last October.  READ

Oregon mom fights back

“Oregon does not allow Christians to adopt children, apparently, but Jessica Bates is doing something about it,” writes Amira Abuzeid for CatholicVote. “Bates, a Christian ultrasound technician and widowed mother of five, recently filed a lawsuit against the Oregon Department of Human Services to end this unjust and discriminatory practice.”  READ

Where Is The Nashville Manifesto?

By Catholic League president Bill Donohue

One month ago today, Audrey Hale, a 28-year-old female (who misidentified herself as a male), shot and killed six innocent people in Nashville, Tennessee. The local police said she was planning the attack “over a period of months,” and that she had studied other mass murderers. They emphasized that the attack was “calculated and planned.” Importantly, they found a manifesto that laid bare her thinking.

The Nashville police said they would make public the manifesto as soon as their investigation was completed. They have not done so. All they have said is that the Christian school, Covenant School, and the church, were targeted; she once attended Covenant. “There’s some belief that there was some resentment for having to go to that school,” said Police Chief John Drake.

So where’s the manifesto? Who’s holding it back? What’s driving this decision?

According to Rep. Tim Burchett, a Republican from Tennessee, it’s not the cops who are balking—it’s the FBI. Furthermore, Nashville Council member Courtney Johnston has said the FBI has already said it would not authorize the release of the manifesto in its entirety.

This smacks of politics. It stinks to high heaven.

We know that media outlets, such as NBC, have tried to evade any mention of the transgender status of the mass murderer. We know that Jordan Budd, who runs Children of Lesbians and Gays Everywhere, has said, “It [the manifesto] should not be published.” We know that some transgender activists have threatened violence. Is this what the FBI is giving in to?

Criminal justice professor Joseph Giacalone opines that the FBI is afraid that “there is something in there [the manifesto] that is truly damaging for the transgender community,” and that “they are hesitant to do it because they are afraid of a violent backlash against that protected class of people.”

He’s right. But that does not justify censoring the manifesto.

The public has a right to know what motivated Hale. If she indeed was an anti-Christian bigot, as many sexually confused people are, then we need to know it. Quite frankly, there is a violent element in transgender circles, and Christians need to know if others are also targeting them. Hale may have operated alone, but was she inspired by hate speech voiced by transgender activists?

If the manifesto were made public, and innocent transgender persons were threatened or attacked, the guilty should to be arrested and punished. But this is no excuse for not being transparent.

Unfortunately, Christians, especially Catholics, have reason to worry about the top brass in the FBI. After first monitoring traditional Catholics who prefer the Latin Mass, we recently learned that the agency was spying on mainline Catholics.

We also have to ask tough questions. Given this situation, are we to believe that if a crazed Catholic were to blow up an abortion clinic, killing six people, and law enforcement found a manifesto detailing his motive, that the FBI would censor its release? Or would it be more likely to make it public?

The ruling class is increasingly becoming the enemy of the people. We need one standard of justice for everyone. And that means, among other things, that Hale’s manifesto must be made public in its entirety, and with dispatch.

It Matters What They Do… Not What They Say

By Deacon Mike Manno

(The Wanderer) – One of my earliest lessons in dealing with people came from my Dad. He told me to watch what people do, not what they say. Thus, I have grown with the belief that the true test of a man is whether he does what he says he will.

We in this country are blessed with freedoms not found in many countries around the world; but freedom is only an abstract term unless society establishes and supports measures to ensure that concept applies to all persons equally.

But that is not being done today. Despite official condemnation of violence against churches, people of faith, and attacks on pro-life centers, nothing (next to, anyway) is being done to apprehend those responsible.

Since May of 2021 some 64 incidents of vandalism against pro-life organizations have been recorded, and during that same period Catholic churches have been subjected to burnings and other forms of vandalism.

Yet there is one place where the vandal was caught. In Bellevue, Wash., a 32-year-old trans man — not sure which way he was going — was caught in the act. He was using spray paint to vandalize the St. Louise Parish church, painting such things as “F. . . the Catholic Church.”

He knocked over several statues, desecrated the altar, broke windows, smashed two doors, spray-painted someone’s face, resisted arrest, and broke windows in the squad car. He claimed it was in retaliation for the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

The Biden Administration had no way to excuse not acting. Here is the recommendation of the DOJ: No jail, three years’ probation. Well done Justice Department! You have proved my point: You will enforce only the rights of the people with whom you agree.

We can take this further, but only two matters need to be mentioned. Just before Holy Week, Walter Reed Military Hospital abruptly canceled a contract with a group of Franciscan Friars to provide religious services for the hospitalized. When the friars showed up, they were served with a “cease and desist order.”

It was announced later that the hospital had contracted with a for-profit concern to provide spiritual services in place of the friars.

Then there was the tragic shooting of three children and three adults at the Covenant Christian School in Nashville. The response by the local police was near-perfect. Brave officers, ignoring the risks to their own lives, rushed into the school and took out the shooter before more harm could be done.

At first the local authorities were good about providing information about the shooter and her actions. They reported that the shooter was a man who was transitioning to female. Then there was the report that the shooter had left a manifesto which was taken into police custody.

The FBI was on the scene and they saw the manifesto written by a trans individual who had just shot up a Christian school. No one has heard anything about that manifesto since. Why? Could it provide a link between some in the trans community and attacks on churches and pro-life facilities? Apparently, we’re not allowed to know, but the theory of an alleged link between violent wacked-out Christians and attendees at a Latin Mass, as proposed by the goofy Southern Poverty Law Center, warranted a full report.

Don’t believe the words; their actions tell you all you need to know.

Now something a little closer to home.

The Young Lawyers Division of the Iowa State Bar Association has developed a DEI program and is asking members to take a pledge to support DEI activities.

Now I’m not a big fan of DEI, which you know stands for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. The concept is misunderstood by most people and, I believe, is kept alive by hundreds of equity warriors, many of whom are charlatans, who teach their own version of DEI. However, it seems that everywhere a DEI program is adopted, racial and other problems follow.

So, I have some advice for my colleagues who are jumping in on this folderol: Know what it is you are talking about. Words have meanings and you should understand what DEI means.

I taught my poly-sci students that on the first day. I would ask how many were in favor of freedom and equality. They would all raise their hands. Then I would ask which one did they favor. That produced puzzled faces; after all, were these not synonyms?

No, I would reply and point out that there was an inherent conflict within those words: Total freedom cannot exist with total equality — think of a property owner and a tenant. Thus, there must be a balance between the concepts to achieve the correct result. That is what is needed with DEI: a balance in the terms which is often missed.

Diversity is not just counting heads and checking boxes. It is embracing Jesus’ teaching about who is your brother. Unfortunately, it is too often used to push blame on some and create victims with others. That’s not the message of the Good Samaritan.

And another disturbing fault of diversity is that the head counters, the box checkers, now count Asians as white. Think about that. The Supreme Court and Harvard are thinking about that right now.

Equity does not mean equality. Equality is giving all an equal chance at whatever prize they are seeking. Equity is putting a thumb on the scale to provide a desired result. One of the problems with this concept is that it relegates the concept of meritocracy to an afterthought. If you pick your NBA team using equity, you might build a diverse team, but it wouldn’t win too many games.

And inclusion. We’d all like to be included — most places. I might love to be included in the greatest law firm in the state, but if I am included but don’t have the temperament to fit in with the work ethic of the firm, I won’t succeed — regardless of the assistance the firm gives me. Perhaps I fit better in a smaller firm, or solo practice. The point is I’m not destined to be included just everywhere.

So, the lesson here is this: People’s actions speak louder than their words, but words are still important; use them wisely. 

(You can reach Mike at: DeaconMike@q.com and listen to him every weekend on Faith On Trial or podcast at https://iowacatholicradio.com/faith-on-trial/)

This week on FOT

Listen to all Podcast posted at: https://iowacatholicradio.com/faith-on-trial/. Current podcast us usually posted by noon Saturday.

Democrats Continue To War On School Choice

By Catholic League president Bill Donohue

There are 13 states that are most known for their school choice initiatives: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, New Hampshire, Texas, Utah and West Virginia. Republican lawmakers are the dominant party in all 13 states; and all have a Republican governor, save for Kansas and Louisiana. 

We looked at 13 of the most prominent states (including the District of Columbia) that are run by Democrats to see how they handle school choice. Compared to states run by Republicans, they don’t fare too well. 

Twelve of them provide for limited school choice options: New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, D.C., Maryland, Rhode Island, Vermont, Maine, California, Oregon and Washington. One of them—California—provides no financial assistance, either in the form of vouchers or tax credits; it also has no private school choice plan. 

The Democrats say they are the party that best represents the interests of “people of color.” Yet they are the ones who oppose the very school choice programs that are overwhelmingly favored by African Americans, Asians and Hispanics. 

The following section is taken from my new book, War on Virtue.

• Rev. Jesse Jackson opposes school choice. But he sent his children to the best private schools.
• Senator Ted Kennedy was ready to conduct a filibuster over a bill that would have given D.C. parents school choice. He sent his children to private schools.
• Hillary Clinton is an ardent foe of school choice. She made sure her daughter went to the prestigious Sidwell Friends School in D.C.
• President Obama, another anti-school choice politician, also sent his daughters to Sidwell Friends.
• President Biden sent his children to private schools. But he opposes school choice for others.
• Vice President Kamala Harris, an enemy of school choice, sent her stepchildren to private schools.
• Rep. Nancy Pelosi spent a small fortune sending her children to the most expensive private schools. But she argues that “private school vouchers are a bad idea.”
• Former New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio sent his kids to elite public schools (which he later tried to crush) and to private schools. He went so far as to say, “I am angry about the state of public education in America. I am angry at the privatizers. I am sick and tired of these efforts to privatize a precious things\ we need—public education.” 

San Francisco has earned a reputation as a left-wing city. Though the city is 48 percent white, only 15 percent of white children go to public schools. “For all its vaunted progressivism,” the New York Times says, “it has some of the highest private school enrollment numbers in the country—and many of those private schools have remained open.” 

Harvard education professor Paul E. Peterson wryly notes that “a fifth of all school teachers with school-age children has placed a child in a private school, and nearly three out of ten have used one or more of the main alternatives to the traditional public school.” In fact, “school teachers are much more likely to use a private school than are other parents.” 

This is worse than hypocrisy. 

The welfare of children is being sabotaged by the public school establishment. If the schools that public school teachers work at aren’t good enough for their own children, why are they good enough for those who can’t afford to escape them? To top things off, it is the teachers’ unions—the ones who fund the Democratic party—who are out to destroy charter schools and who oppose school choice. 

As I’ve said before, it is typically those who scream the loudest about helping blacks who are their biggest enemy. Blacks don’t need the help of patronizing white liberals—they need access to the same kinds of schools that the elites can afford.