Teacher Suspended After ‘Morality Test’ Goes Awry With Incest, Puppy-Killing Questions

by Jack Davis


After an Ohio parent blew the whistle on a morality test given to a high school class, the Hilliard City School District sent the teacher who gave the test to time out.

Students were given a 36-question test about various ethical situations in which they were asked to choose what actions were OK and which were not.

But the questions, given to a 10th-grade language arts class at Hilliard Bradley High School, crossed a line as far as parent Todd Sandberg was concerned, The Columbus Dispatch reported.

Sandberg said the test was graded in a way that it would tell students their “moral foundation” and their political leanings.

“What does the teacher need to know that information for?” he asked. “The questions are so out of line for high school language arts.”

Some questions asked about typical conflicts and dilemmas, but some were more disturbing and involved sex and violence.

One question talked about a scenario in which “A man kills a baby rabbit with a knife” on a live TV show. As with all the questions, students had to grade the comment on a scale from “Not OK” to “OK.”

In another instance, according to Fox News, students were asked to respond to this statement: “Using both a condom and a pill, a brother and a sister decide that they want to sleep with each other — just once, to see what it would be like.”

“Sarah’s dog has four puppies,” another scenario read, according to Fox News. “She can only find a home for two of them, so she kills the other two with a stone to the head.”

Sandberg pointed out the questions on a Facebook site for parents.

“My job was to point it out,” Sandberg said. “It is clearly evident that it’s out there in the public. The public eye is aware of it. I knew it was going to cause a firestorm.”

The teacher was placed on administrative leave while the district sorts out what to do next, WTTE reported.

The school district then issued a public apology, according to WTTE.

“Last night, we were made aware of a classroom activity that should never have taken place,” the district stated. “We absolutely share the outrage of our parents and community.”

The statement called the test “an isolated incident, and an activity of this nature would never be considered acceptable.”

Sandberg said the underlying issue is that parents need to talk with their children about what’s going on in school.

“Hey, parents, be on the lookout,” he said. “I love the district. This is an isolated case.”

According to the Canton Repository, documents released by the district said the teacher who gave the test is named Sarah Gillam and she has taught at the school since 2007.


Kansas Voters Do Not Want Tax Hike to Satisfy Judge's Ruling for more School Money


{And so we will shortly enter 2019 or phase infinity of the worthless Kansas legislature still having no concept of the separation of powers, a band of Beau Brummels and thespian lawyers. The public education system is a complete failure, a white elephant but the ruling judicial junta has commanded more money.  Thus the courts dictate to the erstwhile state assembly how much of the people's money must be allocated for public schools. But why stop there? Shouldn't the courts handle the whole budget and legislative process themselves? After all, they have decades of experience legislating from the bench so just deep six the legislature, it's a pathetic joke anyway. - ED}

by  Kansas Policy Institute


Legislators heading to Topeka are going to have to find a way to address a 3 billion-dollar shortfall due to a massive school funding increase brought about by the Kansas Supreme Court. However, a newly released poll, conducted on behalf of Kansas Policy Institute by SurveyUSA, found that 51% of Kansas voters do not want their legislators to add another $365 million dollars to comply with the court’s demand; only 39 percent said funding should be further increased.

James Franko, vice president, and policy director of Kansas Policy Institute remarked, “Low-income kids are more than two years’ worth of learning behind their more affluent peers and overall achievement in Kansas is depressingly stagnant. These achievement trends are especially discouraging because the Department of Education says we’re on track to soon spend over $15,000 per pupil on education. Voters clearly want that level of investment to improve achievement with accountable and efficient schools.”


Kansas voters are growing increasingly concerned about high education administration costs at the local level. A survey last year found that 78 percent of voters believe spending on out-of-the-classroom costs (administration, building operations, transportation, etc.) should be provided more efficiently on a regionalized basis, with the savings put into the classroom.  In the poll released today, the number jumped to 89 percent of Kansas voters who would like to see more efficiency within their school system. 

Franko observed, “The more voters seem to understand the reality of our achievement crisis and the increasing costs of education in Kansas the more they seem to rethink how education decisions are made.”

Calculations by Kansas Legislative Research Department show $3.7 billion revenue shortfall exists over the next four years to pay for approved and proposed school funding increases. [emphasis mine] With many assurances being made throughout the campaign cycle about school funding being met without raising taxes, legislators will be forced to specifically identify how this massive shortfall will be met. According to the newly released data, only 37% of Kansas voters are willing to pay higher taxes to close the $3 billion shortfall caused by school funding.

The latest polling data revealed that a startling number of Kansans voters are in the dark about education spending trends in Kansas. According to the SurveyUSA data, only 10% of Kansas voters understand what our Kansas school districts currently receive from taxpayer sources per student, and that has a major impact on their opinions.  For example, 93 percent of those who oppose a constitutional amendment to prevent courts from setting funding levels either don’t know how much schools receive or they believe it’s less than $10,000 per-pupil; only 7 percent of the opposition comes from voters who think funding is over $10,000 per-pupil. Similar disparities exist within voters' willingness to pay higher taxes and whether additional funding should be provided. [Why is this a surprise to anyone? A majority of college students can't name one Supreme Court justice, can't formulate a simple sentence where subject does action through a verb to an object and have no knowledge of the Constitution or it's bill of rights. What passes for education in Kansas is nothing but a PAC that gives its votes to the candidate(s) delivering the most largess. - ED}

Franko concludes, “Just like last year, roughly 60% of Kansas voters say they want to revisit how education funding decisions are made in the state. The Kansas Constitution vests all political power in citizens and those citizens seemingly understand that they, and their elected representatives, are best-suited to decide state spending priorities.”

School District Under Fire From Parents After Banning Fast Food

By Cillian Zeal


Parents of children at a Missouri school are fighting back after the school district announced it was banning fast food from being eaten on campus during school hours.

A terse announcement on the Facebook page of Dear Elementary in the Richmond School District in Richmond, Missouri, stated that “(n)ew board policy states that no fast food is allowed at lunch or during school hours for students.”

One would assume that there isn’t a Carl’s Jr. anywhere inside Dear Elementary or any of the other schools in Richmond. However, this means that parents can’t even make choices regarding what their own children bring to school.

It didn’t take long after the Aug. 15 announcement for the district to start receiving significant backlash.

“At the end of the day, we want to be able to decide on our own,” Chris Swafford, who has five kids in the district and two at Dear Elementary, told WDAF-TV.

“I thought it was overstepping at its finest,” he said. “It’s up to parents what their children eat.”

Swafford also contended that fast food was being made a popular scapegoat, claiming that there wasn’t a whole lot of nutritional difference between some of the bagged lunches that parents give their children and the fast food lunches the school was banning.

“Just because I don’t personally bring fast food to my children at school doesn’t mean other parents shouldn’t be able to do,” Swafford said.

“Parents’ lives are busy. They sometimes have things going on, and sometimes, grabbing a 10-piece nugget from McDonald’s and taking it to their child shouldn’t be an issue.”

Richmond School District Superintendent Mike Aytes told WDAF that district personnel were too busy to comment on the issue. Parents on Facebook, however, weren’t. School lunches, as those who remember Michelle Obama’s tenure as first lady know, are a hot-button issue.

“I don’t agree with this. At all,” one parent wrote.

“I’m the parent. It is my job to parent my child and make those decisions. What she eats, how much she eats, what she wears, how she does her hair, if I keep her home because she is sick, those are MY decisions The schools sole responsibility is to provide a safe, positive learning environment for my children to get an education. They are not, and will not be making parenting decisions for my children.”

“They don’t get money from students that bring a lunch from home. Why can’t they have a burger with family on special occasions?!” another wrote. “This is stupid as can be!”

One of the more common arguments for the policy wasn’t health outcomes, however, but the fact that fast food represents privilege.

“My kids take their lunch,” parent Karen Williams said. While she opposed the policy, she said she understood fast food might make other kids feel bad. “Kids have been getting their birthday lunch brought to them since they were in kindergarten. I think it’s kind of silly, but I could see how other kids would feel sad if they didn’t have anything ever.”

“Oddly I support this,” another Facebook commenter wrote, according to Fox News. “I would hope they are doing this for the right reasons though. That being it’s simply not right for kids who do not ever get these things to watch the other classmates eat it in front of them. Some parents can’t afford to bring child fast food.”

“So what about all of the other kids that are going to be complaining that your kid got a happy meal and they didn’t? What about the kids who parents can’t afford to bring their children lunch or something like that? Are you really gonna let your kid eat their happy meal in front of all these other kids? They’re avoiding those issues all together with this policy,” another person defending the plan wrote.

Head, meet hand.

I can marginally understand the concept behind banning fast food in schools for health reasons, although I’d point out that school-provided or home-cooked lunches aren’t necessarily any healthier. However, since when did fast food become a status symbol? Maybe it’s just me, but I was under the impression it was the other way around.

Here’s a novel idea: Let’s go further in eliminating outward vestiges of privileges. Why stop at burgers and fries?

Let’s put all these kids in school uniforms so nobody has to worry about being clothes-conscious. Students can’t be bused to school, since those buses might stop in front of their houses and other students would see how rich their families are. All kids will be henceforth driven to class in school-issued 2003 Kia Rios so that nobody will seem any richer than anyone else. Trained dogs will be stationed at all entrances, sniffing out any students that may try to smuggle in a Whopper or a Frosty.

Busybody educators of the world, unite and take over!

Yes, this is wholly ridiculous — just as ridiculous as banning fast food from schools that happily serve pigswill, all in the name of health consciousness and privilege-checking.

Attorney Explains how to Protect Against America’s Epidemic of Senior Medical Kidnappings

Introduced by Brian Shilhavy


As we have previously reported here at Health Impact News, the medical kidnapping of America’s elderly is a $273 BILLION industry.

Medical kidnapping of senior citizens occurs when a doctor, usually a psychiatrist, deems that the senior can no longer take care of themselves, and gets a judge to sign an order of “guardianship” or “conservatorship” to someone working for the State.

This state-appointed guardian then comes in and seizes all of their assets, and keeps them a prisoner locked up in a mental facility, most of the time against the wishes of their family members.

This epidemic in the U.S. is even a larger problem than child medical kidnapping, as state-appointed guardians currently have 1.3 million elderly people nationwide under their control. See:


Adults-Seniors-Medical-Kidnappingjpg
Images of adults who were medically kidnapped that Health Impact News has covered.

The few stories we have covered here at Health Impact News regarding seniors medically kidnapped represent just a tiny fraction of what is going on all across the U.S. every single day. (List of links below.)

Attorney Mark Nestmann has written an article that was published on LewRockwell.com giving people practical advice on how to oppose these adult medical kidnappings:

Attorney Explains how to Protect Against America’s Epidemic of Senior Medical Kidnappings

Portrait of Sad Senior couple
Protect Yourself from America’s Corrupt Guardianship System

by Mark Nestmann
LewRockwell.com

John Oliver is hardly a libertarian, but his Last Week Tonight show on HBO regularly highlights how US citizens are royally screwed by Uncle Sam and his minions. Over the years, he’s tackled subjects ranging from civil forfeiture to abuses in forensic science.

Recently, Oliver turned his attention to the guardianship system and how it can abuse senior citizens. Nearly 50 million Americans are 65 or older, and more than one million of them are under guardianship. Nearly 500,000 other disabled adults are part of the guardianship system as well.

State courts appoint guardians to make personal and financial decisions on behalf of adults found to be legally incompetent. A guardian is supposed to ensure that their “wards” have safe housing and help them negotiate a legal and medical system they may be incapable of dealing with on their own. According to an auditor for the Palm Beach County (Florida) guardianship fraud program, guardians control assets valued at $273 billion.

A ward loses nearly all civil rights once a judge approves a guardianship. The guardian has complete control over the ward’s personal and financial affairs. All of a ward’s money can be transferred to a guardian’s own account. A ward can also be forcibly relocated to any residential facility the guardian sees fit. Family members may lose the right to obtain information about the ward’s finances or medical conditions. Indeed, family members may even lose the right to visit the ward, because the guardian can forbid it.

As Judge Steve King of Tarrant County, Texas said on Oliver’s program: “Guardianship is a massive intrusion into a person’s life… they lose more rights than someone who goes to prison.

The powers that guardians wield are rife with abuse. In a series of cases from Las Vegas described last year in The New Yorker, a guardian in Las Vegas named April Parks targeted elderly individuals with substantial assets. Parks persuaded doctors to declare these individuals incompetent and place them under her guardianship. She would then acquire control over their assets and charge outrageously high fees to arrange for their care. When her wards’ estates were depleted to the point where they qualified for Medicaid, she would place them in nursing homes at government expense. In virtually all cases, this happened without a formal cognitive assessment to determine if the ward could continue living independently.

In the meantime, Parks, her lawyer, and her office manager were indicted for racketeering, theft, perjury, and exploitation of their wards. Their trial is scheduled to begin in September.

The horror story surrounding the North guardianship is not an isolated case. I’ve come across abusive guardianship cases in many other states, including Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, and Washington. And while I suspect the vast majority of guardians exercise their authority ethically and with discretion, if only 1% of guardianship cases are abusive, that means 15,000 Americans are victims of this system.

Since it’s extremely difficult to escape from a guardianship once you’re in the system, plan ahead to avoid it. Getting your legal documents in order is the best way to avoid becoming the next victim. We insist that all Nestmann clients execute durable powers of attorney and health care proxies and record them in public records.

These documents should name someone you trust – generally your children or grandchildren – to step in if you become incapacitated. Whomever you name should not be someone in financial difficulty who might use your assets to satisfy their own financial obligations. The document should also be revocable unless a formal cognitive assessment performed by a licensed physician (ideally two licensed physicians) determines you are incompetent.

Another precaution is to build a safety mechanism into your planning. If the agent you name steps in to assist you if you’re incapacitated, your documents should require the agent meet periodically with an independent party – your accountant, for instance – to ensure your assets truly are being used for your benefit.

The guardianship system is one of the biggest rackets in the US today. Don’t be the next victim of this corrupt system.


Original source: Nestmann.com



About the Author Mark Nestmann is a journalist with more than 20 years of investigative experience and is a charter member of he Sovereign Society Council of Experts. He has authored over a dozen books and many additional reports on wealth preservation, privacy and offshore investing. Mark serves as president of his own international consulting firm, The Nestmann Group, Ltd.

The Nestmann Group provides international wealth preservation services for high-net worth individuals. Mark is an Associate Member of the American Bar Association (member of subcommittee on Foreign Activities of U.S. Taxpayers, Committee on Taxation) and member of the Society of Professional Journalists. In 2005, he was awarded a Masters of Laws (LL.M) degree in international tax law at the Vienna (Austria) University of Economics and Business Administration.




$3.7 billion tax increase set up by courts and schools

{The Kansas school funding issue comes back again and again to punish citizens because of the illegal 2005 Montoy v Kansas  decision which forever enshrined the lawless Kansas Supreme Court as the 'ultimate authority' (not the people)  dictating the amount of money that must be spent to satisfy a clause in the Kansas Constitution defining "a suitable education.' There is no school funding formula that can ever be devised to prevent the endless lawsuits against the state legislature from Alan L. Rupe and company which will eventually bankrupt Kansas citizens thanks to the worthless Kansas Legislature who has failed to prevent the Court's usurpation of power. -  ED}

by Kansas Policy Institute

This calculation is produced by the Kansas Legislative Research Department (KLRD) and presents a long-term picture of the tax revenue needed to pay for the increased school funding.

Aug. 2 - Wichita - Kansas taxpayers are being set up for a $3.7 billion tax increase over the next four years unless the majority of elected officials reduce costs and stop taking orders from a runaway judiciary.  That’s what it would take to have a structurally balanced budget, with each year’s spending not exceeding that year’s tax collections.  

The calculation is based on having a legally-required ending balance[i] without transfers from the highway fund and making all scheduled KPERS pension payments through FY 2023.  The only spending increases included are those related to approved school funding, the Department of Education’s (KSDE) calculation of complying with the latest Supreme Court ruling and KLRD’s caseload estimate for existing Medicaid coverage.

About $624 million of the tax increase is already in place, noted as ‘Federal Tax Adjustment’ in the table linked here.  Federal tax reform eliminates personal exemptions, caps itemized deductions for some people and imposes higher taxes on many businesses.  The Kansas Senate voted to prevent this backdoor state income tax hike but too many House members wanted more money to spend.

Paying for approved school funding without gimmicks (transfers, KPERS delays, ignoring the ending balance law, etc.) will cost another $2.1 billion and if elected officials decide to meet KSDE’s $365 million estimate of the latest court demand, another $940 million tax hike will be needed.

The tax impact of paying for the new school funding is much greater than the simple total of the funding approved because of the cumulative impact of adding more money each year.  The estimate of meeting the court’s latest demand is a good example.

KSDE says funding would have to increase a little over $91 million each year and would, therefore, be $365 million higher in the fourth year; but that amounts to $912.3 million more being spent over the four-year period.

KSDE calculates the total amount approved thus far for FY 2018 through FY 2023 at just over $1 billion dollars.  Total aid as calculated by KSDE would slightly exceed $8 billion in FY 2023 even if federal aid remains flat and local revenue is only nominally increased.  If legislators provide the additional aid KSDE says is needed to satisfy the court with enrollment increases as KSDE anticipates, per-pupil funding would be $16,520 in FY 2023.
__________________
[i] State law requires an ending balance equal to 7.5 percent of expenditures.  Legislators and governors have often ignored that legal requirement over the last couple of decades by periodically changing the law to effectively say, ‘except this year.’