Was Buffalo mom jailed over homeschooling decision?
February 6, 2017
BUFFALO, N.Y. (WKBW) – Single mother Kiarre Harris started researching homeschooling last November. She says her two elementary school aged children weren’t excelling at their failing Buffalo Public Schools.
“I felt that the district was failing my children and that’s when I made the decision to homeschool,” she said.
Harris says she filed documents at Buffalo City Hall, following all the steps, informing the district of her intent to homeschool her children. According to documents she provided to 7 Eyewitness News, they’re dated December 7th and the district says it received her paperwork.
“I spoke directly to the homeschool coordinator and she told me from this point on my children were officially un-enrolled from school.”
Things took a turn when she says a week later, Child Protective Services called, wondering why her kids weren’t in school.
“I told them that my kids were homeschooled now and that I could furnish the documents if they need to see them.”
Thinking everything was fine, Harris says she went on with her homeschooling, but then, less than a month later she says she was confronted by CPS workers and police. According to Harris, they told her they had a court order to take her children and when she told them no, she was arrested for obstruction.
She says she hasn’t seen her kids in three weeks, and they’ve been in a foster institution.
The Buffalo Public School District says it cannot comment on this case due to Federal Laws but says in order for a parent to file for homeschooling, they must have full custody of the children.
Harris says she’s a single parent and has always had full custody until her kids were taken away.
This case is far from finished. The Buffalo Common Council will be addressing it tomorrow.
UC Berkeley says the Obama administration might force it to remove 13,800 hours of free educational videos from YouTube
This is the YouTube channel for University of California, Berkeley: https://www.youtube.com/user/UCBerkeley/videos
It has 13,800 hours of free educational content.
Recently, the Department of Justice sent this letter to the school, which criticized the videos for not being closed captioned, and for not having audio descriptions of content that was visible on chalkboards.
The school responded by issuing a statement which said it might have to remove the videos because of this. Specifically, the school’s statement said:
“… we might not be able to continue to provide free public content under the conditions laid out by the Department of Justice to the extent we have in the past.”
“In many cases the requirements proposed by the department would require the university to implement extremely expensive measures to continue to make these resources available to the public for free…”
The same letter from the Justicte Department also ordered the school to pay “compensatory damages” to deaf people because these free educational videos were not closed captioned.
However, the Justice Department did not explain how it was possible for the school to pay “compensatory damages” for something that the school had given away for free.
The population of Morocco is 99% Muslim.
Geert Wilders guilty of ‘insulting a group’ after hate speech trial
December 9, 2016
The Dutch far-right opposition leader Geert Wilders was convicted Friday of inciting discrimination and “insulting a group” after a trial over statements he made about Moroccans.
But the court found him not guilty of incitement to hatred and handed down no punishment.
Wilders, the leader of the Party for Freedom (PVV), was charged after inciting supporters into a chant calling for fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands in 2014.
According to a court statement, Wilders asked his audience: “Do you want more or less Moroccans in this city and in the Netherlands?”
The audience repeatedly chanted “less.”
The court said that Wilders “singled out an entire group of citizens” and that the message “came through loud and clear.” It convicted him of insulting a group and incitement to discrimination.
But the court found insufficient evidence to find him guilty of incitement to hatred.
The court, which could have fined Wilders, decided that verdicts were sufficient punishment and imposed no further penalty.
The 53-year-old far-right leader has campaigned against “Islamic immigration.”
“Three PVV-hating judges just declared Moroccans a race and convicted me, as well as half of the Dutch population,” Wilders tweeted shortly after the ruling.
Wilders said in a Twitter post ahead of the verdict Friday morning that he will “continue to speak the truth about the Moroccan problem.”
“No judge, politician or terrorist will stop me,” he added.
Wilders has previously called Islamic immigration “an invasion” that will “replace our people” and “erase our culture.”
Among his other policies, Wilders has called for a referendum on the Netherlands’ membership in the European Union, and a full burqa ban.
Wilders, 53, came to international attention in 2008 with the provocative online film “Fitna,” which juxtaposed the aftermath of terrorist attacks with verses from the Quran.
Known as much for his anti-Muslim views as his bleached hair, Wilders has been called “Europe’s Donald Trump” — with his party gaining popularity in recent years.
It’s not the first time Wilders has appeared in court on hate speech charges.
In 2011 he was acquitted of inciting hatred against Muslims, after calling for the Quran to be banned in the Netherlands.
Friday’s verdict comes three months ahead of the country’s parliamentary election in March, when Wilders will be vying for the top job of prime minister.
The opposition party leader will face current prime minister Mark Rutte, whose conservative People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) rules in a coalition with the the Labour Party (PvdA).
Rutte said at a press conference Friday that neither he nor his party would be willing to govern with Wilders unless he retracted his comments about Moroccans.
Wilders has run on a party manifesto focused on a so-called “de-Islamification” of the Netherlands, in which he lays out an 11-point plan pledging, among other things, to shut down all the country’s Islamic schools and close the borders to migrants from Islamic nations.
France banned this TV commercial that shows smiling children with Down Syndrome, so here it is for you to watch
The Sensitivity Police Strike Again
The court has ruled that the video is — wait for it — “inappropriate” for French television.
December 3, 2016
The word “inappropriate” is increasingly used inappropriately. It is useful to describe departures from good manners or other social norms, such as wearing white after Labor Day or using the salad fork with the entree. But the adjective has become a splatter of verbal fudge, a weasel word falsely suggesting measured seriousness. Its misty imprecision does not disguise, it advertises, the user’s moral obtuseness.
A French court has demonstrated how “inappropriate” can be an all-purpose device of intellectual evasion and moral cowardice. The court said it is inappropriate to do something that might disturb people who killed their unborn babies for reasons that were, shall we say, inappropriate.
Prenatal genetic testing enables pregnant women to be apprised of a variety of problems with their unborn babies, including Down syndrome. It is a congenital condition resulting from a chromosomal defect that causes varying degrees of mental disability and some physical abnormalities, such as low muscle tone, small stature, flatness of the back of the head and an upward slant to the eyes. Within living memory, Down syndrome people were called Mongoloids.
Now they are included in the category called “special needs” people. What they most need is nothing special. It is for people to understand their aptitudes, and to therefore quit killing them in utero.
Down syndrome, although not common, is among the most common congenital anomalies at 49.7 per 100,000 births. In approximately 90 percent of instances when prenatal genetic testing reveals Down syndrome, the baby is aborted. Cleft lips or palates, which occur in 72.6 per 100,000 births, also can be diagnosed in utero and sometimes are the reason a baby is aborted.
In 2014, in conjunction with World Down Syndrome Day (March 21), the Global Down Syndrome Foundation prepared a two-minute video titled “Dear Future Mom” to assuage the anxieties of pregnant women who have learned that they are carrying a Down syndrome baby. More than 7 million people have seen the video online in which one such woman says, “I’m scared: what kind of life will my child have?” Down syndrome children from many nations tell the woman that her child will hug, speak, go to school, tell you he loves you and “can be happy, just like I am — and you’ll be happy, too.”
The French state is not happy about this. The court has ruled that the video is — wait for it — “inappropriate” for French television. The court upheld a ruling in which the French Broadcasting Council banned the video as a commercial. The court said the video’s depiction of happy Down syndrome children is “likely to disturb the conscience of women who had lawfully made different personal life choices.”
So, what happens on campuses does not stay on campuses. There, in many nations, sensitivity bureaucracies have been enforcing the relatively new entitlement to be shielded from whatever might disturb, even inappropriate jokes. And now this rapidly metastasizing right has come to this: A video that accurately communicates a truthful proposition — that Down syndrome people can be happy and give happiness — should be suppressed because some people might become ambivalent, or morally queasy, about having chosen to extinguish such lives because . . .
This is why the video giving facts about Down syndrome people is so subversive of the flaccid consensus among those who say aborting a baby is of no more moral significance than removing a tumor from a stomach. Pictures persuade. Today’s improved prenatal sonograms make graphic the fact that the moving fingers and beating heart are not mere “fetal material.” They are a baby. Toymaker Fisher-Price, children’s apparel manufacturer OshKosh, McDonald’s, and Target have featured Down syndrome children in ads that the French court would probably ban from television.
The court has said, in effect, that the lives of Down syndrome people — and by inescapable implication, the lives of many other disabled people — matter less than the serenity of people who have acted on one or more of three vicious principles: That the lives of the disabled are not worth living. Or that the lives of the disabled are of negligible value next to the desire of parents to have a child who has no special — meaning inconvenient – needs. Or that government should suppress the voices of Down syndrome children in order to guarantee other people’s right not to be disturbed by reminders that they have made lethal choices on the basis of one or both of the first two inappropriate principles.
Europe tells British press NOT to reveal if terrorists are Muslims
October 6, 2016
Meddling Brussels has said the British press should not report when terrorists are Muslims in a slew of demands to the Government to crack down on the media.
A report from the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) found there was an increase in hate speech and racist violence in the UK from 2009 to March 2016.
Blaming the press, ECRI Chair Christian Ahlund, said: “It is no coincidence that racist violence is on the rise in the UK at the same time as we see worrying examples of intolerance and hate speech in the newspapers, online and even among politicians.”
The report makes a whopping 23 recommendations to Theresa May’s Government for changes to criminal law, the freedom of the press, crime reporting and equality law.
And despite the report not analysing coverage of the historic Brexit vote, Mr Ahlund saw fit to comment on the UK’s decision to leave the EU.
In a sweeping statement, he said: “The Brexit referendum seems to have led to a further rise in ‘anti-foreigner’ sentiment, making it even more important that the British authorities take the steps outlined in our report as a matter of priority.”
The report lays into the British press and urges the government to “give more rigorous training” to reporters.
In the 83-page report, the Commission said: “ECRI considers that, in light of the fact that Muslims are increasingly under the spotlight as a result of recent ISIS-related terrorist acts around the world, fuelling prejudice against Muslims shows a reckless disregard, not only for the dignity of the great majority of Muslims in the United Kingdom, but also for their safety.
“In this context, it draws attention to a recent study by Teeside University suggesting that where the media stress the Muslim background of perpetrators of terrorist acts, and devote significant coverage to it, the violent backlash against Muslims is likely to be greater than in cases where the perpetrators’ motivation is downplayed or rejected in favour of alternative explanations.”
Despite the creation of the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) in 2014 as an independent regulator for newspapers and magazines, the “ECRI strongly recommends that the authorities find a way to establish an independent press regulator according to the recommendations set out in the Leveson Report. It recommends more rigorous training for journalists to ensure better compliance with ethical standards.”
But as Britain prepares to leave the crumbling bloc, the Government waded in to defend freedom of expression.
In a written statement to the ECRI, the Government said: “The Government is committed to a free and open press and does not interfere with what the press does and does not publish, as long as the press abides by the law.”
ECRI is a human rights body of the Council of Europe, composed of independent experts, which monitors problems of racism, xenophobia, antisemitism, intolerance and racial discrimination.
The group writes reports on every member state every five years and says the documents are “analyses based on a great deal of information gathered from a wide variety of sources.
ECRI visited the UK in November 2015 as it gathered evidence for the report.
In a statement, ECRI said: “ECRI welcomed, among other things, the entry into force of the Equality Act 2010 and the generally strong legislation against racism and racial discrimination in the country, as well as the government’s new hate crime action plan and substantial efforts to promote LGBT rights in the UK which have led to a significant change in attitudes.
“At the same time, the commission noted considerable intolerant political discourse in the UK, particularly focusing on immigration. It said that hate speech continues to be a serious problem in tabloid newspapers, and that online hate speech targeting Muslims in particular has soared since 2013.”
George Orwell asked me to show this to you.
The video, which was originally posted at the White House website, goes silent for two seconds, beginning at 1:31.
The White House website has censored a video of French Pres. Francois Hollande saying that “Islamist terrorism” is at the “roots of terrorism.”
The White House briefly pulled video of a press event on terrorism with Pres. Obama, and when it reappeared on the WhiteHouse.gov website and YouTube, the audio of Hollande’s translator goes silent, beginning with the words “Islamist terrorism,” then begins again at the end of his sentence.
Even the audio of Hollande saying the words “Islamist terrorism” in French have, apparently, been edited from the video.
According to the official White House transcript of Hollande’s remarks, Hollande refers to “Islamist terrorism.” The audio of the text in brackets is missing from the video – the only point in the video were the audio is absent:
“We are also making sure that between Europe and the United States there can be a very high level coordination.
“But we’re also well aware that the roots of terrorism, [Islamist terrorism, is in Syria and in Iraq. We therefore have to act both in Syria and in Iraq, and this is what we’re doing within the framework of the coalition.] And we note that Daesh is losing ground thanks to the strikes we’ve been able to launch with the coalition.”
Watch the video of Hollande’s censored comment:
Obama administration said it “would welcome” an Islamic dictatorship onto the United Nations’ Human Rights Council
In 2010, Freedom House included Saudi Arabia on its list of “the world’s most repressive societies.”
On page 17 of this PDF, Freedom House wrote the following about Saudi Arabia:
Saudi Arabia is not an electoral democracy.
The country’s 1992 Basic Law declares that the Koran and the Sunna (the guidance set by the deeds and sayings of the prophet Muhammad) are the country’s constitution.
Political parties are forbidden, and organized political opposition exists only outside of the country.
The government tightly controls the content of domestic media and dominates regional print and satellite television coverage. Government officials have banned journalists and editors who publish articles deemed offensive to the ruling authorities or the country’s powerful religious establishment. The regime has blocked access to over 400,000 websites that are considered immoral or politically sensitive.
Religious freedom does not exist in Saudi Arabia. All Saudis are required by law to be Muslims, and the government prohibits the public practice of any religions other than Islam.
Women are not treated as equal members of society, and many laws discriminate against them. They may not legally drive cars, their use of public facilities is restricted when men are present, and they cannot travel within or outside of the country without a male relative.
However, in September 2015, after Saudi Arabia was put onto the United Nations’ Human Rights Council, U.S. State Department spokesman Mark Toner said
“… we would welcome it.”
My concern here is not about whether or not the tweet is offensive, as that is a matter of opinion.
My concern is that he was arrested even though the tweet did not contain any threats of violence. The fact that someone could be arrested for this non-violent tweet is absolutely horrible.
The Guy Behind the Viral ‘Mealy Mouthed’ Tweet Has Been Arrested in London
The allegedly anti-Muslim tweet spawned a wave of parodies
March 25, 2016
A British man who posted an allegedly anti-Muslim message on Twitter following Tuesday’s terror attacks in Brussels has been arrested on suspicion of inciting racial hatred.
Matthew Doyle was apprehended by police on Wednesday in the south London suburb of Croydon, the BBC reported. He subsequently “expressed concerns for his health” and was taken to a nearby hospital, according to authorities.
Doyle’s tweet, which has since been deleted, read: “I confronted a Muslim woman yesterday in Croydon. I asked her to explain Brussels. She said ‘Nothing to do with me’. A mealy mouthed reply.”
Tuesday’s attacks, which targeted Brussels Airport and a major subway station, claimed at least 31 lives and injured more than 100 others.
The tweet went viral and prompted several parodies on a variety of topics, ranging from Bono to muesli.
I confronted an Irish women yesterday in Camden. I asked her to explain Bono. She said “Nothing to do with me”. A mealy mouthed reply.
— Rob Manuel (@robmanuel) March 23, 2016
I confronted a man who was eating a bowl of muesli yesterday in Croydon. He said “mmfflfffmufflrgh”. A mealy mouthed reply.
— Robbie Collin (@robbiereviews) March 23, 2016
I confronted Shaggy yesterday in Croydon. Asked him to explain creeping with the girl next door. He said “wasn’t me”. A mealy mouthed reply.
— Zan Phee (@zanPHEE) March 23, 2016
@MatthewDoyle31 I confronted Pingu yesterday in Croydon. I asked him to explain climate change. He said “MEEP MEEP”. A mealy mouthed reply.
— Joe Slack (@WhyHeeeyImJoe) March 23, 2016
I confronted a dog today & asked him about that time when I was 4 and a dog bit me. “woof” he said. A mealy mouthed reply.
— TechnicallyRon (@TechnicallyRon) March 23, 2016
Doyle’s account, meanwhile, continued to tweet apparently racist messages and even retweeted a lot of the parodies insulting him.
Who cares if I insulted some towelhead ?? Really.
— Matthew P Doyle (@MatthewDoyle31) March 23, 2016
Holy Fuck ! The Towel head in my local kebab shop speaks no English? Has no NI number and was on his mobile to Syria #help
— Matthew P Doyle (@MatthewDoyle31) March 23, 2016
The 46-year-old public relations executive told the Telegraph on Wednesday that Twitter’s 140-character limit made the encounter sound far more confrontational than it was. He also said his controversial tweets were meant as a joke.
“That’s absolutely not who I am,” he said. “I’m not some far-right merchant, I’m not a mouthpiece for any kind of racism or radicalism.”
However, he did add that he feels Muslims are not being vocal enough in denouncing terrorism.
“The horror that happened in Brussels could happen here,” he added, “and you’re naive if you think London isn’t on some terror shortlist.”
Obama administration sexually assaults 10-year-old girl, and says anyone who objects is a “domestic extremist”
Meanwhile, the Obama administration has treated non-terrorists in a very different way.
In March 2012, the Obama administration gave a very invasive patdown to a three-year-old boy in a wheelchair, which caused him to tremble in fear.
In April 2012, the Obama administration gave an aggressive patdown to a seven-year-old girl with cerebral palsy, and caused her to miss her flight.
Also in April 2012, the Obama administration said that a four-year-old girl was a “high security threat.”
In May 2012, an 18-month-old girl was forced to get off a plane because the Obama administration had placed her on its no fly list.
Also in May 2012, the Obama administration gave a patdown to Henry Kissinger.
In July 2011, the Obama administration forced a 95-year-old cancer patient to remove her adult diaper and fly without it.
In March 2011, the Obama administration ripped open the urostomy bag of a 61-year-old bladder cancer survivor, and forced him to fly covered in his own urine.
In October 2013, the Obama administration harassed a sick 3-year-old boy, and caused him to miss his flight.
And now we have the latest outrage: in the video below, which was filmed on December 30, 2015, the Obama administration sexually assaults a 10 year-old-girl. In this video, the security guard repeatedly touches the girl, over and over, again and again, in the same private areas. And the guard uses her palms and fingers, instead of the backs of her hands.
How this is security guard not acting like a pedophile?
Why is this behavior not being prosecuted as sexual assault?
And why did they make the girl remove her shoes, when they never actually checked to see if there were any explosives inside the shoes?
This has nothing to do with security, or with looking for explosives. Instead, it has everything to do with power and control, and with making people feel helpless, and with making people feel frightened of their own government. The government is trying to condition people into being blindly obedient, and into accepting anything that it does to them, no matter how awful.
I am 100% certain that Obama’s own daughters will never have to go through this.
In 2015, testing showed that the TSA failed to find “fake explosives, weapons and other contraband” 95% of the time.
And to top it all off – the final insult – the Obama administration labels anyone who objects to this sexual assault as a “domestic extremist.”
Here’s the video:
Live Leak reports:
TSA Pat down and groping of 10 year old girl
January 1, 2015
Maybe I’m over reacting ? I would have no problem submitting myself for a pat down, I support a high level of security, but I feel invasive touching of Children crosses the line, unless credible evidence exists.
On 12/30/15 TSA ordered a full Pat Down of my 10 year old daughter & detained us for over an hour.
TSA policy states PAT Downs of children under 12 should be method of last resort.
In my 10 yr old daughter’s case, after clearing metal detector, a forgotten Capri Sun juice pack was found in her hand bag by x-ray & agent swabbed bag resulting in a false positive.
Rather than retesting bag or alternate screening methods, my daughter was immediately ordered to submit to a full body Pat Down, and I was told I could not record the process. Luckily I knew the law regarding video recording and agent subsequently allowed me to record.
TSA policy states children under 12 will receive a “Modified Pat Down” yet my 10 year old received a full adult pat down. I feel it was intrusive, invasive, and unnecessary.
TSA made it clear I would be arrested if I resisted the search of my daughter.
TSA attempted to persuade me to allow my daughter into a private room, I felt safer with the general public surrounding us and refused several efforts to whisk us away.
TSA agent repeatedly touched my daughters buttocks and other sensitive areas with her palm & fingers not back of hand.
I agree with the law professor who said this could be troubling for free speech. I worry about the precedent that it creates, and about the possibility of it eventually being expanded to any kind of political speech that anyone makes on the internet.
USA Today reports:
Judge: School’s Facebook post a campaign contribution
DENVER — A Colorado judge has ruled that a charter school’s Facebook post amounts to an illegal campaign contribution to a school board candidate.
In August, Liberty Common School in Fort Collins, Colo., shared a newspaper article about a student’s parent running for a board seat in a neighboring school district. Liberty Common’s principal, former Colorado GOP Rep. Bob Schaffer, then shared the post and called candidate Tomi Grundvig an “excellent education leader” who would provide “sensible stewardship” of Thompson School District.
An administrative law judge, Matthew E. Norwood, called the violation “minor,” and ruled that “no government money of any significant amount was spent to make the contribution.” He also focused on the post to the school’s specific page, not Schaffer’s personal page.
“The school’s action was the giving of a thing of value to the candidate, namely favorable publicity,” Norwood wrote in his Oct. 14 ruling, which became public Wednesday. “It was given indirectly to her for the purpose of promoting her election.”
Law professor Scott Moss of the University of Colorado called that point troubling for its implications on political speech.
“I don’t buy that under the First Amendment speech about a candidate can be deemed a contribution,” Moss said after reading the ruling. “Is speech valuable? Yes. But that’s not a basis for restricting core political speech.”
In May 2013, the Washington Post reported that the IRS had illegally targeted conservative groups for additional reviews. Organizations with the words “tea party” or “patriot” were singled out for harassment, such as requiring them to provide a list of donors, details about their internet postings on social networking websites, and information about their family members.
Kalief Browder, an innocent black male teenager who spent three years in prison without a trial, during which time he was repeatedly beaten and tortured, has committed suicide.
This is a very, very sad article.
As is this earlier article about him.
Rand Paul Slams Establishment Republicans, Declares Victory Over NSA, Thanks Matt Drudge As Bulk Collection Shuts Down
I’m against political dynasties, and that includes the Paul dynasty. Before today, I thought the most notable thing about Rand Paul was his last name.
Hillary Clinton is a polarizing, calculating, disingenuous, insincere, ambitious, inevitable, entitled, over confident, secretive, out of touch candidate who represents the past, and will do anything to win.
Hillary Clinton is a polarizing, calculating, disingenuous, insincere, ambitious, inevitable, entitled, over confident, secretive, out of touch candidate who represents the past, and will do anything to win.
And if you are wondering why I would say such a thing, here is the reason.
The “most transparent administration in history” has just “set a new record again for more often than ever censoring government files or outright denying access to them”
U.S. Sets New Record For Denying, Censoring Government Files
March 18, 2015
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration set a new record again for more often than ever censoring government files or outright denying access to them last year under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act, according to a new analysis of federal data by The Associated Press.
The Hill recently reported:
… the president is proposing a new $500 second-earner credit to help cover the additional costs, such as commuting, of families with two working spouses. That plan is expected to benefit 24 million couples, the White House said.
Another proposal would streamline and expand childcare tax benefits, providing up to $3,000 per child under age 5, helping 5.1 million families that make up to $210,000 a year and cover costs for 6.7 million children.
A real tax cut means that marginal tax rates are cut, and people can spend that money however they want.
But that’s not what Obama wants.
Instead, Obama wants to use the tax code to reward people who put their children into day care, and to punish families with a stay-at-home parent.
If you want this tax cut, you will have to behave in the specific way that Obama wants you to behave.
If your lifestyle is different than the way that Obama wants you to live, then you will not get a tax cut.
Emails prove that the Obama administration pressured CBS News to stop airing reports by Sharyl Attkisson
On October 3, 2011, CBS News aired a story by Sharyl Attkisson which showed that Attorney General Eric Holder had lied under oath regarding Fast and Furious. Here is that report:
On October 4, 2011, Holder’s top press aide, Tracy Schmaler, wrote the following in an email to White House Deputy Press Sectary Eric Schultz:
“I’m also calling Sharryl’s [sic] editor and reaching out to Scheiffer. She’s out of control.”
“Good. Her piece was really bad for the AG.”
New Jersey public school forces student to get psychological evaluation, blood test, urine test, and to strip, because he twirled a pencil. The state threatened to take him away from his father.
Ethan Chaplin, Student, Says He Was Suspended For Twirling Pencil
April 7, 2014
Was it a twirling pencil or something more sinister?
That’s the question that hovers over the story of Ethan Chaplin, a Vernon, N.J. seventh-grader who, last week, was told he could return to Glen Meadow Middle School only after he received a psychological evaluation.
According to News 12, Chaplin said he was sitting in class, spinning a pencil with a pen cap on top when a fellow student told his teacher, “He’s making gun motions, send him to juvie.”
After the incident, Chaplin’s dad, Michael, said his son was effectively suspended pending a psychological examination, which the middle schooler passed.
The school tells a different story.
Vernon Schools Superintendent Charles Maranzano told HuffPost he couldn’t discuss the specific incident because of privacy laws, but he did say “no school in the state of New Jersey or nationally would leap to a school suspension for twirling a pencil. That’s not what the basis of our actions are.”
Instead, Maranzano said the student was not suspended, but was told he could return as soon as a doctor completed a psychological evaluation and determined the student posed no threat to himself or others.
“Our actions are always based on what’s best for the health safety and welfare of all the students,” Maranzano said. “We’re responsible for their mental and physical health and safety and security. When a student misbehaves or displays actions that are non-conforming or don’t meet our expectations, it causes us some concerns.”
Maranzano also said, in the wake of several deadly shootings, schools are being especially careful.
“I don’t want to be the one who failed to act when there were warning signs being demonstrated or displayed,” Maranzano said.
Michael Chaplin told InfoWars about what his son had to undergo during the psychological evaluation.
“The child was stripped, had to give blood samples (which caused him to pass out) and urine samples for of all things drug testing,” Michael Chaplin said. “Then four hours later a social worker spoke to him for five minutes and cleared him. Then an actual doctor came in and said the state was 100 percent incorrect in their procedure and this would not get him back in school.”
Maranzano said Chaplin is back in school.
Dad: NJ threatens to take away son after pencil-twirling incident
June 10, 2014
VERNON, N.J. (PIX11) – A 13-year-old boy was the most famous kid in school for a few weeks.
A simple pencil-twirling incident landed Ethan Chaplin in hot water with his school, which threatened to suspend him after a classmate claimed he was spinning the writing utensil like a gun.
After media attention from PIX11 and around the world, school officials backed off — but child protection agencies did not.
Letters to Ethan’s father, Michael, show the school found his son did nothing wrong at all, and that there would be no disciplinary action. The superintendent was even confident the issue would be behind all of them.
And that’s exactly what happened, until Ethan’s father received startling communication from New Jersey’s Department of Child Protection and Permanency and Department of Children and Families.
“I received a letter from them saying they had found an incident of abuse or neglect regarding Ethan because I refused to take him for psychological evaluation,” Michael said.
In an effort to play along and clear his name, Michael agreed to take his son for an evaluation.
Ethan was seen by a social worker, and had his blood drawn and urine taken. In the end, no behavioral problem was found.
The state, it seems, is ignoring that set of testing, demanding further evaluation and threatening that if Michael doesn’t comply, they are will terminate his parental rights and free Ethan up for adoption.
“All I can do is keep fighting, keep telling the truth and (keep) presenting the evidence. That is all I can do and hopefully the state does the right thing,” Michael said.
He has even reached out to Governor Chris Christie’s office, who replied they would contact the Dept. of Children and Families to investigate.
“…I’m scared because they have a habit of running away with things unchecked and that’s exactly what’s going on,” Michael said.
PIX11 tried to get a comment from DCPP and NJ Department of Children and Families but received no answers.
The agency told PIX11 they can’t discuss the allegations or even acknowledge they have involvement with the family.
Attention Dr. Blake Armstrong of South Texas College: here’s why your comparison of the Tea Party to the Nazis is inaccurate
The Blaze recently reported:
Prof. Tells Students Not to ‘Tell Anybody’ About His Vexed Tea Party ‘Analogy’ — He Didn’t Know It Was Already Caught on Video
Dec. 8, 2014
A psychology professor at South Texas College in Weslaco, Texas, was seemingly caught on video last month comparing the tea party to the Nazis of the 1930s in Germany.
He then told his students not to “tell anybody” about his remarks — but one of his students had already started filming after he allegedly called Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) a “bastard” for using the name “Cruz” to win his election.
“In 1931, which was really interesting, the Nazis — people were kind of tired of them. They’ve been around since 1920, 11 years now. They’ve won seats — they’re like the tea party! That’s such a good example,” the professor said. “Don’t tell anybody I said that though.”
He continued: “But in the sense of how they politically came to power, there’s a good analogy there. That eventually people realized, ‘Oh, these Nazis are a bunch of nuts,’ ‘These tea party people are a bunch of nuts.’ I mean, the analogy really is a good analogy.”
The student responsible for recording the comments, who asked to remain anonymous, identified the professor as Dr. Blake Armstrong. The video was recorded during a Nov. 17 class and uploaded on YouTube the same day.
The student told TheBlaze he recorded his professor because he feels strongly that “it’s wrong for him to use his position as a soap box for his beliefs, especially with young, impressionable students.”
“This semester, [Dr. Armstrong] insulted Republicans about three times before this video was recorded,” he added. On this day, he called Sen. Ted Cruz a bastard for using the last name Cruz to win his election. I didn’t know exactly what he meant, but I decided to start recording.”
While the student said Armstrong’s Nazi-tea party reference is the most “severe” rhetoric he’s heard in the class so far, he argued “it’s very easy to see that he has a vendetta against Republicans and religion with an emphasis on Christianity.”
Here’s the video:
Dr. Armstrong, if you are reading this, I would like to explain why your comparison of the Tea Party to the Nazi is inaccurate.
In the 1920s and 1930s, Germany was considered to be one of the most civilized and most advanced countries in the world. At the time, no one thought that a genocide could have been possible in Germany.
But then in 1938, Adolf Hitler confiscated all the guns from the Jews.
Hitler explained his action with the following:
“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.”
By comparison, the Tea Party believes that everyone – including Jews – has the right to own guns.
The Nazis supported bigger government in every area of life. They supported wage and price controls. They supported having the government tell businesses what to produce and how much of it to produce. They supported strong federal involvement in health care and education.
By comparison, the Tea Party is against all of these things.
In 2004, when Barack Obama was an Illinois state Senator, he voted against allowing people in their own homes to use guns to protect themselves and their families from rapists and murderers. Hitler agreed with Obama on this issue, at least as far as Jews are concerned. Dr. Armstrong, did you vote for Obama when he ran for President?
Here are some other things that Obama has done, which Hitler would have been proud of, and which the Tea Party is against:
* Obama had four U.S. citizens killed without judicial process.
* In May 2011, Obama signed a renewal of the Patriot Act.
* In December 2011, Obama signed a bill that gave the U.S. government the power to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens without any charges being filed or any trial taking place.
* President Obama has defended warrantless wiretapping.
* In Germany in 1938, Adolf Hitler outlawed homeschooling. He said “Give me a child when he’s seven and he’s mine forever.” Hitler’s ban on homeschooling is still in effect today. In 2006, Katharina Plett was arrested for homeschooling her own children. Her husband and their children fled the country. In 2008, Juergen and Rosemary Dudek were sentenced to 90 days in jail for homeschooling their own children. Uwe and Hannelore Romeike and their homeschooled children fled Germany after the police showed up at their house to enforce Germany’s ban on homeschooling. They came to the United States in 2010 and were granted political asylum, which gave them legal permission to live in the U.S. as political refugees However, in March 2013, the Obama administration argued in federal court in favor of deporting them and sending them back to Germany. This means that Obama does not consider them to be political refugees, and that he does not consider Germany’s policy of jailing homeschooling parents to be a form of persecution.
Dr. Armstrong, the Nazis supported bigger government. The Tea Party supports smaller government. The two philosophies have absolutely nothing in common.
For the record, in the 2008 United States election, I wrote in Ron Paul for President. In the 2012 election, I voted for Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson.
Dr. Armstrong, did you vote for Obama? If so, besides having done the horrible things that I mentioned above, I also would like to draw your attention to these hundreds of other horrible things that Obama has done.
Anyway, if there is any one thing that I hope you get out of this, it is the following: the Nazis supported BIGGER government – the Tea Party supports SMALLER government.