Harris has kept voters in the dark about her plans for America. Democrats say her secrecy is a good thing.



Kamala Harris has been less than forthcoming about what she would do if elected president. Democrats and her boosters in the liberal media apparently believe that when it comes to cluing Americans in on what exactly they might be voting for, less is more — and have now said so publicly.

Although it has been several weeks since President Joe Biden was unceremoniously retired from the race, his replacement's campaign website remains devoid of a policy agenda. Rather than detail what Harris stands for, the site merely notes where she has stood, adding only, "She will make sure the doors of opportunity are wide open for all to follow."

While the Harris campaign has highlighted the vice president's record, that record effectively belongs to a candidate who no longer exists. After all, the New York Post noted that Harris has reversed her stances on health care and energy issues in recent weeks and has gone so far as to re-imagine herself as tough on the border, abandoning her pledge to decriminalize illegal border crossing.

It is difficult to discern amid her many flip-flops what she still stands for apart from expanding abortion access, adopting President Donald Trump's policy of eliminating federal income taxes on tips, giving $25,000 taxpayer-funded handouts to first-time homeowners, and slapping Americans with various new taxes, including a tax on unrealized gains.

Michigan Rep. Dan Kildee (D) recently let the cat out of the bag, intimating to CNN that policy is irrelevant and that the election is ultimately just a personality contest.

'I don't think there's a real, strong reason for her to try and weed out any points of view.'

"I actually think the way the American people think about this choice is less about the minutiae of policy and more about the direction of the country, number one, and secondly, about the person. Character, it does matter," said Kildee.

"If it turns on character, this election is over. That's what people are looking for," added Kildee.

"This election will clearly be won or lost on vibes, and Democrats right now are winning in the vibes department after the DNC," claimed a Democratic aide. "We don't need to focus on the nitty gritty. Right now we just need to focus on winning."

Rep. Annie Kuster (D-N.H.), the chairwoman of the New Democrat Coalition, told CNN that Harris "doesn't need to negotiate against herself."

"You know, we've got the biggest possible tent right now," said Kuster. "I don't think there's a real strong reason for her to try and weed out any points of view right now."

Georgia Rep. Nikema Williams (D) said, "What I'm hearing from voters is they're looking for that candidate to bring us together. I haven't heard from many voters looking for white papers and policy papers."

Techno Fog indicated in a recent op-ed for Align that:

She is known, weighed down by the policies and mistakes of the Biden administration: inflation, lagging wages and a slowing labor market, the Afghanistan withdrawal, illegal immigration, the wars in Ukraine and Israel. She has zero significant achievements as vice president.

It may be a losing game to distinguish herself from her shared failures with Biden. By instead remaining silent on questions of policy, Techno Fog indicated Harris can instead "campaign on platitudes: diversity and liberalism, freedom, democracy, whatever."

By conveying "joy" and good "vibes" rather than detailing possible shifts in policy, Paul Gottfried indicated last month Harris also avoids alienating "her radical left, woke base, which adores those positions she's held over the years."

According to Politico, Harris' ambiguity on policy prescriptions is part of her "secret power" — namely that "she is whatever you want her to be."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

'There can be ZERO dissent': Parental rights advocate blasts Newsom's law forcing schools to keep kids' transitions secret



California Democrats and the LGBT activists among them have ramped up their years-long campaign to drive a wedge between parents and their children.

Alvin Lui, president of the parental rights advocacy group Courage Is a Habit, told Blaze News that the state has long sought to keep parents in the dark about their kids' manifestations of gender dysphoria and efforts to transition at school. However, some school districts have in recent months bucked the trend of secrecy and grooming at school and have instead clued in parents.

The Chino Valley Unified School District under the leadership of Sonja Shaw, for instance, became the first district in the state to embrace a policy last year whereby school officials must inform parents if their kids request to use the bathroom intended for members of the opposite sex as well as if their confused children ask to use names and pronouns that don't correspond with reality or their official documents.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta took legal action against Shaw's district on Aug. 28, 2023, claiming it violated privacy laws regarding transvestite students. In October, a San Bernardino County Superior Court judge blocked the district from enforcing some of the related policies until the case was resolved.

On Monday, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) went a step further, ratifying Assembly Bill 1955, which forbids districts like the CVUSD from engaging in such transparency.

Lui, who moved his family out of California upon observing how similarly radical policies were transforming the state, indicated, "AB 1955 was passed solely in response to several school boards being flipped because parents were waking up and in order to discourage good teachers and counselors who still respect parental rights."

The law, first introduced by gay Assemblyman Christopher Ward (D) and championed by the California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus, prohibits school districts, county offices of education, charter schools, and state special schools from introducing or enforcing rules, regulations, or policies that require employees to disclose to parents "any information related to a pupil's sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression."

'The children must be the state's at all costs.'

Contrary to the spin from Newsom's office, educators in all districts must now effectively keep parents in California in the dark about their child's sexual confusion and gender dysphoria unless the mentally compromised minor in question consents to looping them in. School employees in the meantime can hook the child up with possibly pro-transitioning counselors and activist resources.

AB 1955 — which Elon Musk has cited as cause to move two of his major companies out of the state — also shields employees from consequence if they have worked to conceal a child's confusion from their parents.

Courtesy of Courage is a Habit

Assemblyman Ward affirmed Lui's characterization of the law this week, indicating that it will force compliance from those school districts that have tried to keep parents clued in to what's happening with their children at school.

"Politically motivated attacks on the rights, safety, and dignity of transgender, nonbinary, and other LGBTQ+ youth are on the rise nationwide, including in California," Ward said in a statement. "While some school districts have adopted policies to forcibly out students, the SAFETY Act ensures that discussions about gender identity remain a private matter within the family."

"This is what communism is," said Lui. "There can be ZERO dissent. The children must be the state's at all costs."

Lui is not alone in his understanding of the threats AB 1955 poses.

Journalist Michael Shellenberger, whose think tank Environmental Progress published the damning WPATH Files, noted Tuesday that the new Democratic law "makes children vulnerable to irreversible and lifelong medical abuse and mistreatment. And it is all based on the pseudoscientific idea that some children are born into the wrong bodies and that we can change a person's sex through drugs and surgery."

In pushing through AB 1955, it is clear that Democrats chose to ignore the ever-growing mountain of evidence indicating so-called "gender-affirming care" is not as advertised.

England's National Health Service appointed Dr. Hilary Cass in 2020 to lead an independent investigation into the U.K.'s sex-change regime and its youth-facing services. Following a penetrating, multi-year investigation, Cass — an esteemed British medical doctor who previously served as president of the Royal College of Pediatrics and Child Health — revealed that so-called gender science was effectively rooted in pseudoscience.

Blaze News previously reported that among the many damning revelations about the sex-change regime in the Cass review was its finding that there was "no clear evidence that social transition in childhood has any positive or negative mental health outcomes, and relatively weak evidence for any effect in adolescence."

While "social transition" of the kind Newsom and California Democrats want to hide from parents apparently had no discernible impact on mental health, the Cass review further revealed that those children so groomed were much more likely to undergo sex-change medical interventions at a later stage.

Contrary to the core claim of sex-change activists, such medical interventions do not lessen the risk of suicide. A peer-reviewed study in BMJ Mental Health revealed in February that "medical gender reassignment does not have an impact on suicide risk."

Besides underscoring the "weak" and unreliable nature of the evidence in support of "gender-affirming care," the Cass review also indicated that clinicians "are unable to determine with any certainty which children and young people will go on to have an enduring trans identity."

California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus Chair Susan Eggman, evidently immune to the scientific insights raised in the Cass review, BMJ Mental Health, and elsewhere, said AB 1955 was "life-saving legislation."

"Safe and supportive schools for all our children should be our top priority. And at the end of the day that's what this bill does, ensures our K-12 campuses remain safe and affirming places for our youth no matter how they identify," stated Eggman.

Those cognizant of the fallout of so-called "gender-affirming care" and supportive of parental rights aren't buying what Eggman and other California Democrats are selling.

'Moms and dads have both a constitutional and divine mandate to guide and protect their kids.'

Shellenberger stressed on X, "What Gavin Newsom has done is actively prevented schools from informing parents that their children have been put on a medical pathway."

"This is an outrageous attack on the rights of children and parents. Children have a right to go through puberty. No adult should be able to block their puberty. And parents have a right to know if their child thinks that they are the opposite sex or were born into the wrong body," continued Shellenberger. "The new law creates the grave risk that activist teachers, students, and outside groups will convince their children that they were born into the wrong body, and hide their 'social transition' from parents, which will lead to harmful medical mistreatment."

Jonathan Keller, president of the California Family Council, denounced AB 1955, noting, "Moms and dads have both a constitutional and divine mandate to guide and protect their kids, and AB 1955 egregiously violates this sacred trust."

California Assemblyman Bill Essayli (R), who unsuccessfully attempted to advance legislation requiring parental notification in schools, said in a statement, "Today, Governor Gavin Newsom defied parents' constitutional and God-given right to raise their children by signing AB 1955, which codifies the government's authority to keep secrets from parents."

Essayli noted that the bill's ratification is "immoral and unconstitutional" and promised to challenge it in court.

Already, the Liberty Justice Center filed a lawsuit challenging AB 1955 on behalf of the Chino Valley Unified School District and several Californian parents with children in the system.

Blaze News previously reported that Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares (R) and 15 other attorneys general recently filed an amicus brief on behalf of their respective states asking that the U.S. Supreme Court take up a case regarding schools' covert efforts to transition children into sexually confused transvestites behind their parents' backs.

If the Parents Protecting Our Children, UA v. Eau Claire Area School District is taken up by the high court and the plaintiffs succeed, then there is a strong likelihood that AB 1955 and comparable laws across the nation will fall.

Human rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali also condemned AB 1955, writing, "It is truly terrible news for children and for many Americans a key reason not only to flee California but also the Democratic Party. The madness and mass child abuse really has to stop."

Lui emphasized that while children are now at greater risk in California, particularly in those districts that once resisted the preferred policies of the sex-change regime, the problem is not limited to the Golden State.

"Parents must understand that public K-12 have already been keeping transgender secrets from parents in ALL 50 states through school counselors and 'mental health' Trojan horses," said Lui. "This isn't just a California or New York thing. Moving to another state doesn't get you away from it any longer. That is the fallacy that gives parents a false sense of security."

"I certainly advocate for all Americans to leave California, but whichever state you land in, you will still have to fight for and protect your children," added Lui.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

16 state AGs press SCOTUS to take up case about schools covertly transitioning children



Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares (R) and 15 other attorneys general have filed an amicus brief on behalf of their respective states asking that the U.S. Supreme Court take up a case regarding schools' covert efforts to transition children into sexually-confused transvestites behind their parents' backs.

"Parents have the right to be involved in major decisions affecting their children's lives. This case presents an opportunity for the U.S. Supreme Court to provide much-needed clarity and reaffirm that government officials cannot override parents' fundamental rights simply because they believe they know better," Miyares said in a statement.

Background

A group of parents in Wisconsin sued the Eau Claire Area School District in 2022 over the guidance it provided to schools and employees regarding how to handle students suffering from delusions about their gender.

The guidance, which wasconfirmed by a district spokesperson at the time, noted that some "transgender, non-binary, and/or gender-nonconforming students are not 'open' at home for reasons that may include safety concerns or lack of acceptance."

Accordingly, school personnel were instructed to first discuss the matter with the student before considering discussing the matter with the student's parents.

The parents' complaint claimed that the policy "mandates that schools and teachers hide critical information regarding a child's health from his or her parents and to take action specifically designed to alter the child's mental and physical well-being. Specifically, the Policy allows and requires District staff to treat a child as if he or she is the opposite sex, by changing the child's name, pronouns, and intimate facility use, all without the parents' knowledge or consent."

Teachers were apparently further instructed that "parents are not entitled to know their kids' identities" and that such "knowledge must be earned."

Educators in the district evidently took the guidance to heart, in one case textually informing students, "If your parents aren't accepting of your identity, I'm your mom now."

"The obvious purpose of such secrecy is to prevent parents from making critical decisions for their own minor children, from interfering with the school's ideologically-driven activities, from caring for their children, or from freely practicing their religion," read the parents' complaint. "The insidious invasion of parental rights at issue in this case cannot be tolerated by a free people who value liberty."

The plaintiffs, represented by the firms America First Legal and the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, claimed the district had violated their fundamental parental rights both under the 14th Amendment and under Article 1, Section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution, along with their constitutionally-protected religious freedom.

Stephen Miller, president of America First Legal, stressed at the outset "Eau Claire schools have adopted a monstrous plan to secretly 'change' the genders of children as young as 5 — without parental consent — effectively subjecting them to unnatural ideological experiments contrary to their health and biology."

Setback

The case, Parents Protecting Our Children, UA v. Eau Claire Area School District, was kicked up through the courts to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

The appellate court ruled on March 7 that the district court was right to dismiss the parents' complaint "for lack of subject matter jurisdiction."

The court wrote that "Parents Protecting is clear that their members harbor genuine concerns about possible applications of the School District's policy. Unless that policy operates to impose an injury or to create an imminent risk of injury, however — a worry that may never come to pass — the association's concerns do not establish standing to sue and thus do not create a Case or Controversy. The district court had no choice but to dismiss the challenge for lack of Article III subject matter jurisdiction."

To the high court

Last month, the AFL and WILL filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court, stressing that the plaintiff and petitioner in the case — an association of parents who have children in the district — are both subject to the offending policy and directly harmed by it, contrary the conclusion reached by the district and appellate courts.

The petition posed the following question: "When a school district adopts an explicit policy to usurp parental decision- making authority over a major health-related decision — and to conceal this from the parents — do parents who are subject to such a policy have standing to challenge it?"

'Government officials cannot interfere with this right — 'perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by' this Court — just because the government officials believe that they know better.'

According to the petition, parents are injured in multiple ways, including by the loss of their exclusive decision-making authority over whether a sex-change transition is in their kid's best interest; by their inability to obtain information to which they are entitled, which is a "cognizable 'injury in fact' for purposes of Article III standing"; and by the strain placed on the parent-child relationship introduced by the policy's student-facing invitation to keep secrets from their parents.

It indicates also that the "policy facially deprives Petitioner's members of their statutory rights, which presently harms them by making it impossible for them to withhold consent from the application of the Gender Support Plan process to their children. The denial of this right to information, protected by the Constitution and by statute, constitutes concrete harm under Spokeo, Public Citizen, and Akins."

The amicus brief

The attorneys general for Virginia, Florida, Georgia, Texas, and a dozen other states filed an amicus brief in support of the parents in the case, stressing they too have a "compelling interest in protecting parents' fundamental right to make decisions about 'the care, custody, and control of their children.'"

"This case presents the opportunity for this Court to reiterate that government officials cannot interfere with this right — 'perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by' this Court — just because the government officials believe that they know better," said the brief.

The brief noted that Article III's standing requirement comes down to answering the basic question, "What's it to you?" and that the "answer in this case is plain": Parents have an interest in making decisions about their children and the interference by school officials clearly amounts to injury.

It further emphasized that "[s]chool districts have no interest, compelling or otherwise, in wholesale concealment of children's gender transitions from parents, absent any evidence of abuse or neglect. 'Simply because the decision of a parent is not agreeable to a child or because it involves risks does not automatically transfer the power to make that decision from the parents to some agency or officer of the state.'"

Virginia AG Miyares added in a statement, "It is essential that schools work with parents, not against them, to support a child's wellbeing."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Lawsuit: Fulton County Election Board Wrongfully Withholding Records From GOP Member

Board member Julie Adams alleged Fulton County's elections director is denying her 'access to essential election materials and processes.'