Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us

News

Georgia Elementary School Principal Enforced Sick Replacement For Pledge Of Allegiance

Do you agree with this?

Published

on

Patriotism. Pride in your country. These are just some of the characteristics that make America great. Former President Calvin Coolidge once stated – “We identify the flag with almost everything we hold dear on earth, peace, security, liberty, our family, our friends, our home. But when we look at our flag and behold it emblazoned with all our rights we must remember that it is equally a symbol of our duties. Every glory that we associate with it is the result of duty done.”

Yet apparently an elementary school in Atlanta, Georgia believes it is never too early to instill a love of globalism over patriotic allegiance in school children. The Atlanta Neighborhood Charter School, funded by the American taxpayers, chose to nix the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance from the agenda of its morning meeting. The morning meeting is a schoolwide gathering where parents & students all meet together. Instead, the school replaced the Pledge with the Wolf Pack Chant in the name of inclusion.

Principal Lara Zelski announced in a recent press release that it has become “increasingly obvious” that the Pledge of Allegiance has become far too divisive for her students and parents, and it would no longer be recited during the students’ morning assembly meeting. The decision was made “in an effort to begin our day as a fully inclusive and connected community,” Zelski said. Instead, she continues – “Students will continue to lead the meeting by asking our community to stand to participate in our Wolf Pack Chant together.”

Trending: In Historic 9-0 Decision, Supreme Court Just Shredded Democrats – YUGE!!!!

In a letter to “ANCS Families and Friends,” Zelski, attempted to justify and further explain the reason for the decision –

‘One change that we made to our morning meeting agenda this year is that we will not be including the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance each morning. Students will continue to lead the meeting by asking our community to stand to participate in our Wolf Pack Chant together. Students will also be given the opportunity to say the pledge at another point during the school day within their classroom. This decision was made in an effort to begin our day as a fully inclusive and connected community.

Over the past couple of years, it has become increasingly obvious that more and more of our community were choosing to not stand and/or recite the pledge. There are many emotions around this and we want everyone in our school family to start their day in a positive manner. After all, that is the whole purpose of our morning meeting.”

Zelski continued – “This decision was made in an effort to begin our day as a fully inclusive and connected community. There are many emotions around the Pledge and we want everyone in our school family to start their day in a positive manner.”

The “Wolf Pack Chant” was apparently a new pledge created by the students and teachers. Zelski said the pledge, most likely named after the school’s wolf mascot, will “focus on students’ civic responsibility to their school family, community, country and our global society.”

The Atlanta Neighborhood Charter School uses the wolf as a mascot and has been in operation in Grant Park since 2002 serving kindergarten through fifth grade in the community.

After facing public backlash to the decision, leaders at the school changed the policy back, though. WSB-TV 2 reports:

“Leaders at Atlanta Neighborhood Charter School on Grant Street said students would no longer say the pledge in the morning meeting where students gather in a large group. But on Thursday, the school sent a press release saying it was a miscommunication.

The statement said:

‘Atlanta Neighborhood Charter School has and will continue to provide students with an opportunity to recite the Pledge of Allegiance each school day. In the past, the Pledge of Allegiance was recited during our all-school morning meeting, but at the start of the school year, the daily practice was moved to classrooms. This change was done in compliance with state law [O.C.G.A. 20-2-310 (c)(1)] and aligned Atlanta Neighborhood Charter School with most other schools in the state who also say the Pledge of Allegiance in individual classrooms. However, it appears there was some miscommunication and inconsistency in the rollout. Starting next week, we will return to our original format and provide our students with the opportunity to recite the Pledge during the all-school morning meeting.'”

The controversy surrounding the Pledge, the National Anthem, the flag, and other patriotic symbols have been rampant in the last couple of years since former San Fransisco Forty-Niners Quarterback Colin Kaepernick and several other NFL players chose to take a knee on the field during the National Anthem.

Protesting the Pledge, the National Anthem, or other patriotic symbols is a sign of anger and not one of positive action in any manner. Would it be too much to ask that the staff entrusted to teach small impressionable children put aside their OWN political views for a short time to simply teach young children about the various symbols of patriotism that show pride in America and how to show respect for traditions?

It defies comprehension that the politics of the staff were allowed to rule an elementary school that is intended to be an institution to facilitate learning. Yet rather than learning about what an amazing country America is, school children were being fed some drivel about “inclusiveness” and the adults that purport to be in charge simply accept the loss of an opportunity to teach the students patriotism, historical context, and perhaps even a civics lesson. No, instead the school leadership made up a chant, allowing opportunities for learning to continue to pass them by.

Good leadership leads by example. Children learn by imitating that example and what you allow will continue. After all, if school leadership simply blames the NFL and professional athletes and their protests, why not, in turn, allow it to flow down to school children and the Pledge of Allegiance as well? Is no one at the Atlanta Neighborhood Charter School willing to step up to set a right example? How sad.

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

News

Dem Lawmaker Wants To Make Criminals Out Of People By Making A New ‘Hate Crime’

There seems to be some Constitutional issues with this

Right Wing News

Published

on

As the most reliable and balanced news aggregation service in the world, RWN offers the following information published by DownTrend

Well, I guess this is one way to cut down on the number of black people in jail. A New York State lawmaker is proposing making it a hate crime to call the police on black people. If you think I’m making this up or overreacting to something, check out this headline from The Patch, which says the same:

Calling 911 On Black People May Be Hate Crime Under Proposed Law

And the article backs that headline up:

New Yorkers who call 911 on law-abiding people of color are committing hate crimes and should be prosecuted, according to a state senator who was recently reported to police for campaigning in his own district.

State Senator Jesse Hamilton, who represents Brownsville, Crown Heights and Flatbush, proposed new legislation a week after a self-described Trump fan called police to report him for speaking to constituents in public. It would criminalize 911 calls against people of color without evidence of malice.

“That’s gonna be a hate crime. This pattern of calling the police on black people going about their business and participating in the life of our country has to stop,” said Hamilton.

Try to guess the race and political party of this guy. If you said white and Republican you were way off.

The deal is, there have been a handful of incidents in which white or non-black people have called the police on black people for doing things that were determined not to be a crime. The natural knee-jerk reaction is to make a law for something that isn’t even remotely a problem.

The law however would be a huge problem. If people know they could get slapped with a hate crime charge, they would be reluctant to ever call the police on a black person no matter what kind of heinous crime they appear to be committing. The onus should not be on average citizens to determine the guilt of a person they think is committing a crime. The easiest solution is for 911 operators to weed out the silly calls and not send police when someone reports something that very clearly is not a crime.

I have more than a few questions about this proposed law: Would it still be okay to call the police on white people. I’m assuming yes. Could black people call the police on other black people? How do Asians and Hispanics figure into this law? Oh, and what about illegal aliens who have sanctuary in NY and are above the law? Can they call the police on black people?

There also seems to be some Constitutional issues with this proposed law because it specifically makes it a hate crime to call the police on black people. It would still be a dumb law if it included all people of all races, but making it race-specific like this is a clear violation of equal protection under the law.

The clarification the news gave on this proposed law doesn’t make it seem any less terrible:

Hamilton’s proposal would strengthen current legislation that outlaws false reports by designating racially-motivated 911 calls as hate crimes, especially in instances where the call results in police responding with the preconception that the person might cause a threat. Read More

Continue Reading

News

Man Found Contracts Showing Obama Was Paying Trump Spy – Obama Tried To Shut Him Up By Stripping Security Clearance

Obama-appointed officials cleaned house

Published

on

A man named Adam Lovinger lost his security clearances after complaining about the questionable government contract that was awarded to Stefan Halper, who is being touted as an FBI informant whose job was to keep an eye on President Trump’s campaign. Who stripped the clearances, you might ask? It’s being reported that it was Obama-appointed officials who cleaned house and ripped Lovinger’s clearances away, presenting to us quite a concern that involves contracts and clashing forces within the government who either supported Obama then or support Trump now. Either way, it’s a mess.

Lovinger was reportedly complaining about Halper’s contracts back in 2016. He then lost his clearances on May 1, 2017. Lovinger’s lawyer, Sean M. Bigley, then complained to the Pentagon’s senior ethics official, mad that Lovinger’s “higher ups” were basically punishing him with the whole security clearance thing – punishing him for complaining about the deals that were given to Mr. Halper and apparently a “best friend” of Chelsea Clinton, as per the Washington Times.

The Washington Times called this out, as well as numerous other sites who wanted the public to be notified about what was going on behind closed doors. Since John Brennan just lost his security clearances, it was probably just another relative topic to bring up someone else who lost their clearances as well. However the big problem is why they lost their clearances and how it ties back to Obama’s administration, and perhaps even Hillary Clinton on a long stretch. Rather than point fingers at two particular names, it might just be the entire Democratic Party. However it goes, it’s up to the public to absorb the information and make their own decisions.

Anytime these news stories are breaking the headlines, it’s always important to take in all the information and figure out what’s going on. Then share the story with people who would enjoy it. If you’re up for a good bit of government drama, then this is right up your political alley!

Here’s a brief summary that details most of what happened:

“As it turns out, one of the two contractors Mr. Lovinger explicitly warned his ONA superiors about misusing in 2016 was none other than Mr. Halper,” Mr. Bigley wrote in his ethics complaint, which called the contracts “cronyism and corruption.”

Mr. Lovinger filed a whistleblower reprisal complaint in May with the Defense Department inspector general against James Baker, director of the Office of Net Assessment. The complaint also singles out Washington Headquarters Services, a Pentagon support agency that awarded the Halper contracts totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars.

In an internal October 2016 email to higher-ups, Mr. Lovinger wrote of “the moral hazard associated with the Washington Headquarters Services contracting with Stefan Halper,” the complaint said. It said Mr. Baker hired Mr. Halper to “conduct foreign relations,” a job that should be confined to government officials.

“It was a topic of conversation within the office,” Mr. Bigley told The Times. “What is Halper doing, and why is he being paid astronomically more than others similarly situated?”

The Office of Net Assessment conducts analyses of future threats and ways to defeat them.

“Nobody in the office seemed to know what Halper was doing for his money,” Mr. Bigley said. “Adam said Jim Baker, the director, kept Halper’s contracts very close to the vest. And nobody seemed to have any idea what he was doing at the time. He subcontracted out a good chunk of it to other academics. He would compile them all and then collect the balance as his fee as a middleman. That was very unusual.”

Mr. Bigley told The Times that the inspector general’s criminal investigative division has interviewed Mr. Lovinger about Office of Net Assessment contracting.

In all, Mr. Lovinger has four cases pending: whistleblower reprisal, criminal division, an ethics complaint and an appeal on his security clearance revocation.

A spokesman told The Times that the Pentagon would not comment on the case’s merits.

The spokesman said the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudicaitons Facility reviewed Mr. Lovinger’s clearance.

It then “issued a statement of reasons stating why, under [federal guidelines] it would not be clearly consistent with the national interest to continue Mr. Lovinger’s security clearance, and he was provided with the opportunity to respond to the security concerns,” the spokesman said. “After considering all available information, the CAF issued an unfavorable clearance determination and Mr. Lovinger’s clearance was revoked.”

Mr. Bigley said the conflict is that the consolidated authority resides within the Washington Headquarters Services, which is the target of Mr. Lovinger’s complaint.

“The CAF’s entire ‘adjudication’ of this case was orchestrated by corrupt officials at WHS, which was demonstrated numerous times throughout the process,” he said.

To conservatives, Mr. Lovinger is a victim of the “deep state” — Obama loyalists out to harm the Trump administration.

Press reports identified Mr. Halper as a paid FBI confidential human source, whose mission was to make contacts with Trump campaign workers. The FBI was investigating any Trump ties to Moscow at a time when its intelligence officers were hacking Democratic Party computers.”

After lodging his complaints about the Office of Net Assessment’s outside research in general and Mr. Halper specifically, Mr. Lovinger sought an assignment to the Trump White House national security staff in January 2017. He was soon confronted with allegations from Mr. Baker that he failed to follow security rules. Mr. Lovinger denies any wrongdoing.

Mr. Baker was appointed chief of the Office of Net Assessment in 2015 by Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, Mr. Obama’s appointee.

The Washington Headquarters Services, which revoked Mr. Lovinger’s clearance, is headed by Barbara Westgate, who was appointed in 2016.

Perhaps the most intriguing narrative in the Lovinger story is the appearance of Mr. Halper, a national security consultant in the U.S. and Britain who is tied to that country’s MI6 spy agency through his business partner.”

Continue Reading

Thanks for sharing!

We'd like to invite you to become a RWN insider. Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Send this to a friend