“I just wish I could take all this fear on myself and go do this day for her!” she wailed.

I laughed. I knew how she felt. I knew what she meant. But in my head I wondered- if a magic genie suddenly offered me the chance to take on this nerve-wracking day in place of my daughter, would I actually do it?

I think it’s important to let our children face their fears. Overcoming fear, learning from fear, is a vital life lesson. It is better to let them discover those lessons in the relative safety of your own home and your own arms than to shelter them from discomfort and force them to learn those lessons under harsher, more adult circumstances in the future.

Peter Doocy asked White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki a great question: in regard to Gov. DeSantis defending parents’ rights to decide for their own children whether to have them in masks or not, does Joe Biden think that parents should have that kind of power, to opt out of mask policies?

Psaki didn’t actually answer the question. She said she thought public health experts should be making the decision instead of politicians. //

Her non-answer was basically an answer in itself. While she says public health experts should be making the decision, she refuses to say that parents should have that right for their own children. So in her mind that public health experts hold more weight than the parents, on the matter. //

The choice isn’t between masks or no school. That’s a false dichotomy. The choice is between a sane approach, giving the parents power over their own children vs. operating under unnecessary and/or even unwise state dictates. //

emptypockets
an hour ago edited
"That’s a false dichotomy."

That is one of their first go-to tactics, the false dichotomy or as Gutfeld terms it, "the prison of two ideas". Set it up as though there is ONLY this--what they say--or an extreme evil with nothing between the two, no other choices. That's when they don't just insult and try delegitimizing you with "racist" or whatever. That and setting up of false dichotomies and strawmen is their only effort at "persuasion" and yeah, they really suck at that, too. //

Robal
an hour ago
When democrats claim they care about the health and safety of our children, remember: its the same democrats who prefer we abort our children instead of giving birth to them.

In Troxel v Granville, 530 US 57 (2000), the Supreme Court declared, “The liberty interest at issue in this case—the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children—is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court.”
Parental Rights Demand Strict Scrutiny Protection

Because parental rights are fundamental, they cannot just be pushed aside at the whim of government actors. Rather, they must be accorded “strict judicial scrutiny.”

“Strict scrutiny” refers to the level of judicial review, the legal burden, placed on any law that would restrict a fundamental right. It is often defined as requiring that a law be “narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest by the least restrictive means.”

We expect this standard to apply, not only because of the Supreme Court’s (repeated) declaration that parental rights are fundamental, but also because it is called for in the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act and in the DC code.

In this case, the government failed to establish any compelling governmental interest, the law is not narrowly tailored, and it does not employ the least restrictive means to accomplish the government’s goals.

The law allows children as young as 11 to grant legally binding consent for any vaccination the government has approved, as long as the medical provider giving the shot decides the child is mature enough to make an “informed decision.” The law also requires that everyone involved in the act—the medical provider, the child’s school, and even the parent’s insurance carrier—keep this information away from the parent.

Far from being the least restrictive means, this limits the parent’s exercise of their fundamental rights in every possible way. This law will keep parents (and, not insignificantly, a lot of primary care physicians) completely in the dark regarding their child’s medical history. This will greatly increase the risk of physical, medical harm to the child now and into the future, as parents will not know their child’s full medical history.

Fortunately, this call for strict scrutiny is also firmly established. As recently as July 23, the Ninth Circuit declared, “Because California’s ban on in-person schooling abridges a fundamental liberty interest of these five Plaintiffs that is protected by the Due Process Clause, that prohibition can be upheld only if it withstands strict scrutiny.”

This DC law, though it covers a completely different area of decision-making, abridges the same liberty interest cited in that Ninth Circuit case.
Parental Rights Protect Children

Ultimately, parental rights protect children.

DC’s law places children at risk of manipulation or coercion, while those naturally placed in their lives to protect them from bad decisions—their parents—are taken out of the way.

Keeping parents in the dark will also make it impossible to properly monitor a child for a possible negative reaction. And it will put the child at risk of receiving other treatments that may be contra-indicated with the vaccine, because they do not know the child had the vaccine.

1. They praise the process
   When you praise the process (e.g., the kid putting effort into a math assignment), instead of the talent or outcome (e.g., the kid's natural ability to solve math problems quickly), kids are more likely to develop a positive attitude toward future challenges. //

2. They never make it a competition
   Parents love to compare — we can't help it! And sometimes, we'll even tell our kids that they're better than others ("You scored more goals than all your teammates combined!").

Often, it's done with good intentions. We want them to feel as proud as we do, and to be motivated to do even better the next time ... but for all the wrong reasons.

It's not healthy to be trapped in a vicious cycle of competition. Social comparisons can teach kids to always measure success based on the outcomes of other people. //

The better approach? Encourage them to compare their past efforts with their present efforts, rather than with other people. This gets them into the habit of shifting their goals away from being better than everyone else and toward self-improvement. //

3. They use observational language
   Instead of saying, "That's so good!", you may want to say, "I love the colors in your painting. Tell me more about why you chose them." (This is what it means to praise the process.)

Another example: Instead of saying, "You looked like a pro riding that bike!," parents of motivated kids might say something like, "You were so careful and focused while riding your bike. Even when you wobbled a bit and almost fell off, you kept going! That was cool to watch." //

Lastly, it's important to create an environment of emotional safety. If your child failed a spelling test, refrain from telling them they should have studied harder. Instead, ask them what they think they can do to improve next time.

Kids need to know that they can come to their parents not just when they've done something well, but also when they are struggling with a specific task or challenge.

I was reminded, though, how much I love being a mom and how incredibly blessed I am to have had the opportunity to grow three humans in my body and raise them to adulthood (my youngest turns 18 in just a few weeks). I love my career and am grateful for the success I’ve had, but no professional accomplishment compares to whatever I accomplish as a mother and grandmother. No professional accomplishment means a thing if I can’t share it with my children. Motherhood is the most challenging and physically demanding job there is, and it’s crazy how when one reflects on the journey it’s the good times that first come to mind, not the challenges.

The stage is being set for the legal marginalization of mothers, fathers, and families by force of law //

ents
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and her fellow gender-inclusive enthusiasts have taken a bold and much-disparaged move to erase language that expresses the reality of familial relationships.

In the name of inclusivity, words such as “father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, cousin, nephew, niece, husband, wife, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law” might be erased from House proceedings.

If pursued, this scrubbing of gendered words from public communications, in concert with other trans-inclusive initiatives, will prove seismic in its effect on society.

Pelosi and her associates are echoing the socialist-feminist ideology articulated by Shulamith Firestone in the 1970s: “It has become necessary to free humanity from the tyranny of its biology” and “eliminate the sex distinction itself [so that] genital differences between human beings would no longer matter culturally.”

At its core, that means that male and female manifestations of the human body should no longer be legally recognized or culturally valued. We have been marching down this road for decades and are now approaching the endgame: a genderless society. The vilification of gendered language in public settings is a significant leap toward “freeing humanity from the tyranny of its biology” and undoing the significance of biological sex.

Mothers on the Trash Heap of History
Firestone made a stunning prediction. She jubilantly declared that when biology was subdued and “transsexuality” became the legal and cultural norm, “the blood tie of the mother to the child would eventually be severed” and the triumphal “disappearance of motherhood” would follow. And she was right. Legal movements surrounding transgenderism are setting the stage for the legal marginalization of mothers, fathers, and families by force of law.

Experience the best way to read The Epoch Times online. Try our free app for a limited time.

While Firestone’s astute prediction has been largely overlooked in the debate about transgenderism, the fact remains that when women legally disappear, so do mothers because “mother” is a sex-specific designation. The same goes for fathers. If there aren’t two specific, perceivable sexes that can be definitively recognized by law, then it becomes difficult to define or defend mothers and fathers—along with their parental rights—in legal terms. Therefore, the belonging of children to their parents is increasingly thrown into question and the family stands on trembling legal legs—which is precisely the point. //

When parents’ ties to their children are obscured or weakened, it creates an environment hospitable to government intervention and socialist-communist revolution. That is why Marx’s Communist Manifesto openly called for the “abolition of the family.” Dethroning the family creates a void that can and must be filled—though it’s impossible to adequately fill it. If we are to avoid the destruction of the family and the domination of the state that necessarily follows, we must resist efforts to cancel biological sex. //

A recent article in the New England Journal of Medicine, arguably the world’s most prestigious medical journal, asserted that sex demarcations on birth certificates should be reconsidered because “assigning sex at birth perpetuates a view that sex, as defined by a binary variable, is natural, essential, and immutable.” //

what started out masquerading as a celebration of gender turns out to be an edict for the elimination of the sex distinction itself, which, in turn, erodes the family—the essential cradle of humanity. if we are to salvage the family and civilization with it, we must protect and defend the “gendered language” that is now on the chopping block.

Ocasio-Cortez is never shy about touting her feminist cred, but what is more anti-woman than taking hormonal contraception to suppress one’s natural fertility and then spending a fortune to try to conceive via invasive medical procedures with a high rate of failure? Even then, one might well be forced to use another woman’s eggs. The structure of the modern economy makes it difficult for women to start a family in their 20s and 30s, but that doesn’t mean women should simply give up on that idea and freeze their eggs instead. //

In the Vanity Fair interview, AOC cites Illinois Sen. Tammy Duckworth as a role model. Duckworth gave birth to her second child via IVF at age 50. In 2018, Duckworth told Marie Claire that she consciously prioritized working over having a family. “I made the choice early in my career that I don’t want other women to have to make. When I was in my 20s and trying to rise through the ranks of the military, I knew if I took time off to get pregnant and raise my children, it was going to affect my career.”

While Duckworth might say other women shouldn’t follow her example, the images of her entering the Senate floor for the first time with her newborn while other lawmakers applauded send a very different message. No wonder AOC looks up to her. In 2020, the women we lionize are freezing their eggs until they’re 50 and embracing “dog motherhood” in the meantime.

Many young women in America look up to AOC. It is tragic that she is giving them such incomplete and irresponsible advice, endorsing the fertility industry’s myths and presenting pet parenting as a serious alternative to actual motherhood.

“I don’t want to be a savior, I want to be a mirror,” Ocasio-Cortez told Vanity Fair, and she is getting her wish. She is no savior. Young women who listen to AOC on fertility might well end up facing enormous sadness and lifelong heartache.

She took a breather from calling out 'Mr. Wear Your Mask,' Gov. Cuomo.

A Texas Supreme Court ruling issued Friday constitutes a victory for parents everywhere, and especially for this father in Texas.

“We are beyond excited!” the father told us in a Facebook message on Monday. “It’s our 2020 bright spot.”

The case is In re C.J.C., Relator, and it’s one in which the Parental Rights Foundation submitted an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief last December. The legal question was whether a judge could substitute his/her own version of what’s in “the best interest of the child” for the parent’s decision if the parent has not first been found unfit.

That sounds like a no-brainer, and to us it was. But the details of the case are the sort that many could find confusing.
The Back Story

Abigail’s mother and father had split up, and had a custom mediated parenting agreement. The result was an agreement where each had custody for about 50 percent of the time. Dad had 1st, 3rd, 5th weekends with a few days during the week and mom had 2nd and 4th weekends with a few days during the week. It was a pretty standard arrangement.

In 2017, mom and daughter moved in with Jason. In the spring of 2018 mom and Jason got engaged. Over the course of roughly 10 or so months, Abigail lived with her mother and Jason approximately half the time. Then, tragically, her mother was killed in a car accident in July of 2018.

So here’s where it got complicated.

Another politicians makes a claim about video games with no evidence. //

numerous studies have shown that there is no connection between violence and video games, and even some shows that video games tend to reduce violent urges in people who play them. These studies include:

A study by sociologist Whitney DeCamp and psychologist Christopher Ferguson of Western Michigan University.
A study by Dr. Andy Przybylski, from Oxford University’s Oxford Internet Institute.
A study by Dr David Zendle at the University of York.
A study by Dr. Gregor Szycik of the Hannover Medical School
DeCamp’s study found that when it comes to gamers who do show violent tendencies, these tendencies were present before the person ever picked up a controller. According to DeCamp, the predisposition toward violence is usually a result of the condition of the home life. For instance, if the child witnesses violence within the home itself, then the child will resort to violence themselves more often.

“The parenting measures in my study were some of the bigger predictors,” DeCamp said. “The parental attachment between the youth and the parent, the monitoring activities of the parents—that is, whether the parents are aware of what the kids are doing—and parental enforcement of the rules were all strong predictors. Seeing or hearing violence in the home and experiencing violence in the home were also powerful predictors. So home life seems to matter more than just playing violent video games.”

Once again, we see that the real factor in a child’s behavior rests with the actions of the parents and not a third party. Once again, we see governmental figures dismissing that fact and seeking to elect themselves as the parent of, not just your child, but you.

Want to raise smart and successful kids? Teaching them how to stay focused and indistractable is a skill that will serve them well no matter what life path they pursue. Here's how to do it. //

Becoming indistractable is the most important skill for the 21st century — and it’s one that many parents fail to teach their kids. After years of studying the intersection of psychology, technology and how we engage with it, one of the biggest mistakes I see parents making is not empowering their kids with the autonomy to control their own time. //

Understanding that companies are motivated to keep kids spending time watching or playing is an important part of teaching media literacy. //

This type of pre-commitment can help us become indistractable. //

It’s only when kids can monitor their own behavior that they learn the skills they need to be indistractable — even when their parents aren’t around.

Marriage is the highest earthly calling for most people, so it is entirely appropriate for Christians to treat it as a normative aspiration. //

The problem here is with the presumption that marriage simply happens when the time and the romance are just right—creating a false dichotomy in which anything other than letting go and letting God comprises “force.”

Christians have taught that lie far too often, and the result has generally been loneliness and apostasy. The truth is rather that marriage needs to be deliberately pursued and prepared for. Those who are not called to celibacy need to make marriage a deliberate goal. They need to consider what skills would contribute to their future household and acquire them.

Prepare Kids for Marriage Like You Do for College