Big Win for Fair Education Santa Barbara

 

After nearly five years of pitch battle, Fair Education Santa Barbara has won.   Just Communities Central Coast (JCCC),  the purveyor of school-sponsored bigotry and the skulduggery of Critical Race Theory,  has finally been dissolved.  In short, JCCC bites the dust.   While JCCC may shape shift, mutate, and re-emerge in a new form,  this is a moment to dance for joy!    For this brief moment of time,  good triumphed over evil, courage over fear, and love over hate.    In late 2018, a concerned group of parents and educators formed Fair Education Santa Barbara to advocate for children and parents and to challenge the hidden curriculum of JCCC, which has being funded to the tune of over $1.7 million by the Santa Barbara Unified School District.    At the time,  the Santa Barbara Unified School Board and JCCC said that JCCC's ironically named "anti-bias" training was  "intellectual property",  like Google's source code or Coca Cola's secret recipe, and could not possibly be shared with the public.   Fair Education Santa Barbara's only option to expose this scam was to sue JCCC and include their  bigoted curriculum as part of the lawsuit.  For example, one such curriculum document titled, Table of Oppression , segregates people, based on their race, into groups such as privileged oppressors or targeted victims.  From JCCC's once hidden documents, it is evident that JCCC took its cues from 1930’s Germany and Apartheid era South Africa as to the power and effect of dehumanizing and dividing specific groups of people.   Fair Education’s first-in-the-nation lawsuit against JCCC lit the spark for the prairie fire that has spread across America, to provide parents with the information and knowledge needed to fight the racially divisive, anti-American, sexually over-the-top indoctrination occurring daily in our schools beginning in Kindergarten.   Our lawsuit exposed the tip of a very toxic iceberg,  where tens of millions of dollars in public tax dollars were going to radical nonprofits like JCCC to indoctrinate school children.    Fair Education’s lawsuit would have succeeded even further if those who experienced the in-school hate first-hand had felt more secure several years back to go public with their experiences. Thanks to the Fair Education Santa Barbara pioneers in this fight, the reluctance of parents, children and educators to speak out publicly has begun to erode across America. While Fair Education Santa Barbara did not succeed in the Santa Barbara Superior Court,  we did eventually succeed in the court of public opinion.    After exposing JCCC for their vile bigotry and harmful tactics,  only the most radical and willfully blind partisans in Santa Barbara continued to support JCCC.    While a few local philanthropists, like the Hutton Parker Foundation, blindly gave tax exempt support to JCCC,  most philanthropists distanced themselves from JCCC as they came to realize how badly they had been duped.  Even the notoriously woke Santa Barbara Unified School District had moved on to bucketing money to other social justice grifters,  leaving JCCC befret of funding.   On August 31, 2022,  JCCC was dissolved. Fair Education Santa Barbara succeeded in its mission of educating the community on the actual Critical Race Theory curriculum pushed by JCCC     In this battle for openness, truthfulness and our children's future,  we learned a number of important lessons.  First, our local press coverage is highly partisan and deeply-biased.   Only one local paper had the courage to cover us without fear or favor.   Second, we learned  that our locally elected judges could be swayed by their social entanglements with the Progressive elite.   Thirdly, we learned how rabidly partisan and ideologically radical our local school boards have become and how far too many of the board members and top administrators fail to help or even protect students, parents or teachers.    But most of all,  we learned that no matter the barriers placed in front of us, MLK jr. was prescient:  it is always the right time to do that which it right.   And even in Santa Barbara, with enough outreach, determination and courage,  the blinders eventually come off.   Fair Education Santa Barbara and our courageous supporters succeeded in educating a reluctant and often hostile community on the dangers of JCCC.   Thank you to each of you who contributed,  spoke up at school board meetings,  wrote letters to the editors, and stood with us, shoulder to shoulder, against the destructive and now defunct JCCC.   We are the champions, my friends.   The Board of Fair Education Santa Barbara.  Please consider supporting Fair Education Santa Barbara financially by clicking the link below.   All contributions are greatly appreciated.  If you would prefer to make a donation by check, please make checks payable to: Fair Education Santa Barbara 1180 Eugenia Place, Suite 220 Carpinteria, CA 93013-2000   Fair Education Santa Barbara is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation formed by concerned citizens to advocate for Santa Barbara’s children, students, and teachers in the District’s government-funded schools and colleges. More information about Fair Education Santa Barbara can be found at www.faireducation.org.   Join us on our closed Facebook page at  https://www.facebook.com/groups/277208766250704   Brief Background of Fair Education In late 2018,  a group of Santa Barbara parents had become concerned that a divisive curriculum was being concealed from them.   Rather than engage in “show and tell” with this taxpayer funded curriculum, the District engaged in “hide and seek”.  Parents were told multiple times “NO”, when they requested documents describing the curriculum, and that it was simply too nuanced to be shared with the general public.   Santa Barbara’s parents were left with no choice.  They sued to bring this curriculum to light.  Joined by educators and community members, Fair Education Santa Barbara, a California non-profit, was formed.   Fair Education’s mission was and is to ensure that public education funds are spent so that each and every student receives the knowledge, critical thinking skills and character to succeed (www.faireducation.org).   Fair Education is comprised of old-school dreamers who believe in the content of character, not the color of skin.  Unlike the radical school District, Fair Education subscribes to:  Diversity of Thought, Equality of Opportunity, and Inclusivity for all. Fair Education believes that every child is important and that all children should be educated to their highest, not lowest, individual potential.  By their conduct, Fair Education’s adversaries in the lawsuit appear to believe just the opposite of all of the above.

More Dobbs Victories: Chemical Abortionist Drops Lawsuit

 

Dear Moral Outcry Signers and Justice Foundation Supporters:   There is more great news following the reversal of Roe v. Wade, which you helped to create by your prayers, testimonies and financial support.    CHEMICAL ABORTION MANUFACTURERS DROP LAWSUIT   Chemical abortion manufacturers recently dropped a lawsuit against the state of Mississippi to force them to allow the administration of chemical abortions, the abortion pill.  However, the state of Mississippi argued that federal distribution of abortion pills through the mail is currently prohibited by federal law. This is true no matter what the Biden Administration says it wants to do, current federal law prohibits the distribution of abortion-producing drugs through the U.S. mail.    Read the press release from Mississippi Attorney General here. God has given us a mighty victory by reversing Roe v. Wade, as He said He would do in the year 2000, when He gave us the promise of Isaiah 28:14-22. God is faithful! God is amazing!  God is on the move!

Unions Eating Out the State of California

 

Hi Arthur, Something to remember or realize today is unions steal money from rightful owners (either private owners or the People) and use it to majorly fund Democrat politicians, the New Communists ruining everything in sight. Documentation:  IRS union gives 100% of PAC spending to Democrats (2022) 'Education union spent more money on political activities than worker representation' (2022) National Education Association teachers union proposes resolution to change 'mother' to 'birthing parent' (2022) Test scores show how teacher’s union head Randi Weingarten damaged an entire generation of kids (2022) Teachers union donations to Democrats spiked during pandemic (2021) California school unions are ramping up campaign spending (2018) Confirmed: 99% of union donations go to liberal-leaning causes (2017) Robbing the treasury: Transparent California government "pay and pension database" Action: Learn how to keep your job and resign from the union (your constitutional right): Opt Out Today | National Right To Work "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship." Attributed to Alexander Fraser Tytler, Scottish judge and historian (1747-1813) SaveCalifornia.com is part of Campaign for Children and Families, a statewide 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization working, leading, and fighting for your rock-solid values and hard-won liberties since 1999. Your confidential, tax-deductible gift of any size empowers our work for your family and other families, and reaches Californians with important facts the Big Media won’t report. Thank you for standing with us! DONATE | SUBSCRIBE | ABOUT If a friend forwarded you this, and you don’t want it, ask them to remove you from their list. If you received this email directly from us, but don't want it, scroll to the end to unsubscribe. If you forward this to your friends, someone might unsubscribe you (re-subscribe here).

Texas Trans Widow and MassResistance Chapter Leader Featured in Epoch Times

 

‘Trans Widow’ Says Husband’s Transgendering Shattered Family

By Jackson Elliott

 

September 5, 2022 Updated: September 5, 2022

biggersmaller 

Print

0:009:32

Tracy Shannon married a man and divorced a “woman.”

She had no early indication that her husband and high school sweetheart had a desire to become a woman and the clues were slow in becoming apparent.

He started shaving his legs, saying that his physically demanding job made his jeans pull his leg hair out, she said. But at first, she didn’t think it was more than a personal quirk.

“I just thought that was so ridiculous because I’ve never heard of any guy’s jeans pulling their hair out on their legs,” she said.

Then she found out he secretly painted his nails through the sharp scent of acetone in the bathroom.

Shannon said she realized he had a problem.

But when she visited a counselor with him, the doctor told her she was crazy to oppose his desires.

A wedding photo of Tracy Shannon with her husband in 1994. (Courtesy of Tracy Shannon)

“The lady told me that I’m very closed-minded because I’m not down with the cross-dressing,” Shannon said. “She suggested that he could go and do this on weekends with a bunch of guys, and I would never have to see it.”

Shannon’s husband’s choice to indulge his fantasies of being a woman “shattered” his family and left his three children vulnerable, she said.

Today, she runs the Texas chapter of Mass Resistance.

Mass Resistance was founded in 1994 to “confront assaults on the traditional family, school children, and the moral foundation of society,” according to its website. Today, the group has chapters in more than 16 states.

Unlike many people who criticize the transgender movement, she doesn’t speak from anonymity. The stakes are too high, she said.

“There’s nothing more precious in our children that we could lose. A job is replaceable,” she said.

The Epoch Times attempted to contact Shannon’s husband, but was unable to find him.

Steeped in Manipulation

Shannon’s experience with transgenderism began in 1998 before the movement went mainstream, she said.

“They didn’t even use the word transgender back then,” she said.

But it was a foretaste of what many Americans would soon experience.

Shannon describes herself as a “trans widow.” Her husband chose to change himself so much that it was effectively like death.

Although society rarely sympathizes with men who break marriage vows to go after younger women, people often sympathize with men who break marriage vows to be “happy” as a transgender “woman,” Shannon said.

Often, strangers ask her if her husband is happy now.

“If my ex had simply just left for a younger, hotter edition, nobody would say something that cold to me. But I get that all the time,” she said.

“I think that is the most insulting thing because a commitment to marriage should mean something,” Shannon said. “Children mean something.”

Shannon isn’t the only trans widow. An increasing number of women have seen husbands vanish in quests to become “women.”

According to Shannon, her husband’s pursuit of “happiness” was steeped in manipulation from the beginning.

He only told her he liked to cross-dress after the birth of their first child, she said. But he added that he had known this fact from the beginning of their relationship.

He said he had considered telling her on previous occasions, but chose not to.

“I didn’t want to tell you, because I didn’t think you would marry me,” she recalled her husband saying.

For Shannon’s husband, the idea of becoming feminine was linked to sexual pleasure, she said.

One day, she found him sexually excited while shaving his legs in the bathroom, she recalled.

“Why do you get such a kick out of shaving your legs?” she recalls wondering.

On other occasions, he asked her if he could pretend to be a lesbian during sex, she said.

Later, Shannon learned her husband had autogynephilia, a form of sexual response in men characterized by sexual arousal over the idea of being or becoming female.

“In my gut, I knew it was a form of infidelity, like an elusive ‘other woman’… but until I learned what an autogynephile was, I had no word or explanation for what I witnessed,” Shannon said.

Counseling a Trap

When her husband admitted to these desires, Shannon agreed with him to visit a counselor, she said.

But it was a trap, she said. The counselor had already been meeting with her husband and supported him.

“I went there the first time, not knowing she was an LGBT counselor, and she was someone that they recommended to the community of crossdressers,” she said.

Moreover, the counselor suggested that Shannon was a lesbian, she added. If Shannon was attracted to a man who wanted to be a woman, it meant she wanted a romantic relationship with a woman.

“We have to take everybody else’s word for what they are,” Shannon said. “But if you say you’re straight and you know it, there’s ‘something wrong with you.’”

Instead of helping her husband to change his behavior, the counselor suggested that her husband keep secrets better, Shannon said.

If he bought his women’s underwear, took her underwear, shaved his legs, put on makeup, and went out to bars with other transgender people without Shannon’s knowledge, it would be fine.

“No, I don’t want my spouse to have a separate life from me. That sounds crazy,” Shannon recalls replying.

Finally, the counselor said her husband didn’t know if he was a man or a woman, she recalled. Shannon said she reacted by telling the counselor that if that was true, she needed a divorce.

Her husband responded to that by saying he didn’t actually want to be a woman, Shannon said. But behind her back, he took female hormones.

Hormone Therapy

In 1998, the therapist Shannon saw with her husband gave him a letter to let him begin gender transition, she said.

Shannon said she never got notified of this development throughout her husband’s 11 years of hormone use.

In the meantime, her husband lied about the symptoms of his hormone use, she said.

Demonstrators reach out to Los Angelenos about complications associated with gender reassignment surgeries in downtown Los Angeles on March 12, 2022. (John Fredricks/The Epoch Times)

He developed breast buds. He told Shannon that it was a side effect of the obsessive-compulsive disorder meds he took to manage his cross-dressing desires.

“When I learned he did this on purpose I felt violated by him and the doctors involved. I did not consent to this fantasy of ‘being lesbians.’ It is violating, unethical and cruel,” she said.

She said she found out he had been on hormones for a decade when she read chat messages between him and his lover.

“I still cannot believe a therapist or doctor will do this without a spouse knowing,” Shannon said.

One of her pregnancies during this time ended in miscarriage, and another of her children had a birth defect that would have been fatal without correction, said Shannon. She said she wonders if the hormone therapy was a factor.

In 2009, her husband took a woman’s name and started wearing women’s clothing, she said.

When Shannon divorced her husband, he had completely transitioned.

“When we went to court to divorce, I was divorcing a ‘woman’ with a name that was not even on my marriage license. It was all very bizarre,” Shannon said.

Children Involved

After about 12 years of attempting to deal with her husband’s transgenderism, Shannon divorced him, she said.

But her struggle had just begun. Some of the time, her husband had custody of their three children, she said.

He soon cohabited with his lover, a woman who wanted to be a man, Shannon said.

This woman was dangerous, she added. At times, the woman threatened to kill her husband and her children.

“She was abusive towards my kids,” Shannon said.

Tracy Shannon (R) with her former husband and children in 2005. (Courtesy of Tracy Shannon)

Furthermore, her husband and his lover tried to involve her children in celebrating sexually different behaviors, she added.

The pair tried to put Shannon’s children on a pro-BDSM gay pride parade float, she said. Her husband’s female lover walked around shirtless to display the scars that replaced her removed breasts.

They also made their home inappropriate for children, Shannon said. They left sex toys out, along with sexually explicit books.

“I always was prayerful for their protection, and I trusted God to bring them through it,” Shannon said. “They’re moving on from all that trauma, one step at a time.”

Today, Shannon’s children don’t see their dad, she said. But that doesn’t mean they don’t feel his loss. Since her divorce, Shannon has remarried.

“They just wanted their dad,” she said of her children.

Without their father, Shannon’s children have faced intense mental suffering, she added.

“Between three kids, there’s been six suicide attempts on different levels of how serious they were,” she said.

When a father decides to become a woman, children don’t understand, she said. Kids need a man in their life, and a “woman” doesn’t fill that need.

“Nature matters. And it matters to children. And they know when they’re missing out,” she said.

BREAKING: Expungement Was Valid, I Did Not Receive Proper Legal Advice, I Did Not Commit Perjury

On August 23, 2022, I was summarily disqualified from applying for the vacant Torrance City Council seat.

According to Torrance city attorney Patrick Sullivan, I had committed perjury because I had answered "No" on the city council application for the question "Have you ever been convicted of a crime?"

The initial concerns regarding this matter came to my attention on August 19th, 2022 when Councilman Asam Sheikh interviewed me for the position.

I explained to Councilman Sheikh that my record had been expunged, and furthermore the firm which obtained my expungement, Expunge America, explained to me that there were no conditions or situations in which I would still be required to declare the prior conviction.

I even shared the following email with the Torrance City Council, the City Attorney, and the City Clerk:

                       

I sent the above message to every concerned party over the weekend.

The law firm which obtained the expungement for me even told me that I did not have to disclose this conviction if I sought appointment to public office or if I wanted to obtain a concealed carry weapons permit. That is exactly what they told me!

Some people shared with the me the pertinent statute relating to this matter after the fact.

The full statute is quite revealing (and something else which I was not informed about when I first obtained the expungement):

The probationer may make the application and change of plea in person or by attorney, or by the probation officer authorized in writing. However, in any subsequent prosecution of the defendant for any other offense, the prior conviction may be pleaded and proved and shall have the same effect as if probation had not been granted or the accusation or information dismissed. The order shall state, and the probationer shall be informed, that the order does not relieve them of the obligation to disclose the conviction in response to any direct question contained in any questionnaire or application for public office, for licensure by any state or local agency, or for contracting with the California State Lottery Commission.

I want to focus on a key portion of this statute:

The probationer shall be informed, that the order does not relieve them of the obligation to disclose the conviction in response to any direct questions contained in any questionnaire or application for public office, for licensure by any state or local agency, or for contracting with the California State Lottery Commission.

As the probationer in question, I was NOT informed regarding the three exceptions listed above by the law firm or by the judge who granted the expungement.

The law firm which assisted me in obtaining my expungement NEVER informed me of those three exceptions. Furthermore, the statute explicitly declares that "the probationer shall be informed ..."

My lack of knowledge of this matter was not my fault, nor was it my responsibility to be so informed. I am not a lawyer, nor is there any outrageous standard which requires individuals to have a full knowledge of a legal matter ahead of time on their own. To repeat, I had hired a law firm to attain this expungement for me in the first place.

Further to the point, staffers at Expunge America affirmatively informed  me that I would never have to disclose. I asked if I had to disclose the conviction if I applied for city council. I asked if I had to disclose if I wanted to apply for a CCW. I was told in both instances "No."

Once again, I received bad legal advice. That is not my fault.

Yet the problems persist. On August 20, 2022, I informed the entire city council, the city clerk, and the city attorney that I had received the instructions above, i.e. that there was no circumstance in which I would have to disclose the conviction, regardless of the expungement. Again, I told the city council as whole my standing on this matter.

And yet the city attorney still accused me of perjury. I do not understand. Perjury, like any crime, requires an element of mens rea, the knowledge that one is committing a crime. I have an affirmative defense to this matter. Besides, when I had applied for the vacant city council seat last year, following Tim Goodrich's decision to resign his seat early, I did disclose the convinction on my record. (For the record, that conviction was a political fraud which should have never been perpetrated against me to begin with, and that was the statement from one of the deputy district attorneys supervising my case post-conviction).

For the record, I had no qualms sharing my conviction when I applied for the vacant city council seat in 2021. Why would the city attorney or anyone else think that I went to any length to deceive anyone it? It makes no sense.

For now, this is my full statement on the matter. I am at peace with the result, no matter how unfair it may be. So many people told me after the fact: "Arthur, you dodged a bullet. I don't think you would have been very happy as a city councilmember." True to point, when I considered that day how much time and effort goes into committees, meetings, conferences, and conventions, in addition to the city council meetings and the massive amounts of reading and research that goes into preparing for the meetings, it started dawning on me that maybe a city council seat would not be the best use of my time.

At any rate, this verse stands true for me now more than ever:

"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose." (Romans 8:28)

More Caving? Singapore Officials Unclear About Protection of Marriage

First, the Singapore government announces that they will repeal Section 377a, the section of the criminal code which sanctions indecent acts between men.

Then, in order to safeguard long-standing concerns about the protection of natural marriage, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced during the 2022 National Day Parade speech:

Hence even as we repeal s377A, we will uphold and safeguard the institution of marriage. Under the law, only marriages between one man and one woman are recognised in Singapore. Many national policies rely upon this definition of marriage – including public housing, education, adoption rules, advertising standards, film classification. The Government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage, nor these policies.

This measure does not inspire confidence. If homosexual conduct is acceptable, why shouldn't those individual actors agitate for the right to get married, to host a parade, and flaunt their gayness, as well? The notion that the Singapore government can "split the baby" so to speak, allowing for the repeal of Section 377a but at the same retain the natural definition of marriage, is asking for nothing but trouble.

However, as the law stands, this definition of marriage can be challenged on constitutional grounds in the courts, just like s377A has been challenged. This has indeed happened elsewhere. If one day such a challenge succeeds here, it could cause same sex marriages to become recognised in Singapore, and this would happen not because Parliament passed any such law, but as the result of a court judgement. Then, even if the majority of MPs opposed same sex marriage, Parliament may not be able to simply change the law to restore the status quo ante. Because to reverse the position, Parliament may have to amend the Constitution, and that would require a two-thirds majority.

It seems rather strange how judicial activism has become so prevalent throughout the Common Law, English-speaking world. Courts did not wield such outrageous authority in the past, yet jurisprudence in the Western World has stretched civil rights litigation to unfounded limits, and now judges are just creating new rights out of thin air.

The Singapore government should amend the Constitution to recognize marriage between one man and one woman, just as the Hungarian government had done a few years back.

But is that what the PAP-run government intends to do?

Minister of Law K Shanmugam appeared to throw cold water on that bold move:

In line with the move to repeal Section 377A (S377A) of the Penal Code, the law that criminalises gay sex, Singapore’s Constitution will be amended to ensure the right of Parliament to define marriage as being between a man and a woman, Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam said on Monday (22 August).

The Parliament will move not to ensure the natural definition of marriage, but rather to ensure that only parliament can define marriage. That is not the same thing at all.

The Prime Minister said that the government would move to protect the natural definition of marriage. The Minister of Law moves away from the measure right away. What do we see here? More caving. The slipperly slope to normalize sexual perversion is real. This whole LGBT agenda does not stop with the decriminalizing of gross indecent acts between men. Inevitably, they will demand false marriage, fake adoption, and sexualized propaganda onto students and adults alike. This move will not end will for the Republic of Singapore.

The move is to guard against challenges in court on the definition of marriage, and is different from enshrining it in the Constitution, said Shanmugam in an interview with The Straits Times and Lianhe Zaobao.

It's really distressing how the government went from announcing the repeal of Section 377a to backing away from a full-force definition protecting the institution of marriage. What a shame. I fear that false marriage will become the law of the land in two years time, should the people of Singapore not push back on the government's misguided, inappropriate measure to repeal 377a.