Category: Could

A Homeschool Law That Could Criminalize Parents and Threaten Jail Time

Illinois bureaucrats are here to protect your kids... from you.

 by 

[Want even more content from FPM? Sign up for FP+ to unlock exclusive series, virtual town-halls with our authors, and more—now for just $3.99/month. Click here to sign up.]

People can’t get out of Illinois fast enough. Only two other states lost more residents between 2023–24, and the state has lost population for 10 years in a row. The tax burden, weather, heavy regulation, and crime levels all contribute to its residents seeking an exit. So, taking this mass exodus into account, you’d think the state would try to appeal to the families that remain. Well, think again. The Cubs (and maybe even the White Sox) are more likely to win another World Series before Illinois considers the plight of the family.

In an alarming move that should concern every freedom-loving American, Illinois lawmakers are advancing House Bill 2827, known as the “Homeschool Act.” It’s an ill-conceived piece of legislation that should be renamed “The Illinois Family Exit Act” because, no doubt, many families will be looking for an exit if this monstrosity is signed into law.

It appears Illinois officials are feeling the pressure, as they have turned out amendments over the last 24 hours in an attempt to make this bill appear more palatable. Please keep up the pressure and add your name to our petition: Stop Indoctrinating Our Kids. This bill is riddled with so many issues that it must be defeated. Here's what we know at this point.

This legislation directly threatens the rights of parents to educate their children, particularly those who choose homeschooling for religious or moral reasons. When the bill was introduced, it garnered a massive negative response among Illinois citizens. Homeschool families valuing their educational freedom signed witness slips in opposition to the tune of over 50,000 in 24 hours.

Advancing out of committee on an 8-4 vote, with one vote present, this bill is deceptively framed as a measure to ensure “safety” and “accountability” but would require all homeschooling families in Illinois to register with the State Board of Education or face automatic criminal penalties. Because the bill also contains a provision for “school inspections,” it opens the door to unprecedented state intrusion into the private decisions of families – most of whom are providing their children with a quality, values-based education out of deep and sincere convictions. Imagine surprise home inspections conducted against homeschool families at the whim of the state.

There is no credible evidence of widespread issues in the homeschooling community that would justify such sweeping government intervention. Yet that hasn’t stopped this legislation from moving forward. In fact, in big-government fashion, the bill’s sponsor, State House Representative Terra Costa Howard (IL-48), and other supporters are more concerned with government regulation than religious and educational freedom, justifying this overreach for Illinois by saying, “38 other states also have regulations.” My response: As with any legislation, the devil is in the details. Regulation is one thing; onerous burdens intended to drive out conservative homeschool families or imprison them – jail time for those who don’t timely comply – is quite another.

According to Focus on the Family’s Daily Citizen, “While 38 other states do require parents to sign a declaration to educate in their homes, none of them have criminalized those who do not. Illinois would be the first.” Overall, Rep. Howard’s arguments are uncompelling at best. And apparently, Rep. Howard wants to make sure home school families are keeping their children alive, proudly declaring in an interview that the bill is necessary to make sure “we know that kids are alive, where they are, we want to make sure that they are okay.”

Hear that, parents? Illinois bureaucrats are here to protect your kids. . . from you.

Legal experts and education advocates are raising concerns that this legislation creates a direct pipeline from the home to the criminal justice system. Families who fail to comply – whether intentionally or simply due to bureaucratic confusion – could face investigations, fines, or worse. This is not about improving education; it’s about treating parents like criminals.

Rather than comporting with public school regulations, parents choosing to homeschool their children would be subjected to unimaginable government intrusion. The Homeschool Act carves out a potential criminal penalty for parents for missing the filing deadline or the associated 10-day grace period. This sets up a two-tiered system of prosecution, as public school truants are not prosecuted to the extent Illinois would prosecute homeschool families under this law.

Section 60 outlines a process for triggering investigations and enforcement actions when a parent fails to file the required form, which results in the student being presumed truant. It grants regional education offices the authority to review a homeschooler’s file and refer findings of “educational neglect” or inadequate education to the State Attorney’s Office, Department of Education, or local law enforcement.

Page 40 of Amendment 002 contains an extremely problematic addition that would require a state official to interview a child, stating:

(b) The truant officer or county truant officer notified of a homeschool in violation of Section 30 of the Homeschool Act, shall meet with the child or children complained of and make an initial determination of whether there is cause to start a truancy investigation.

(c) The truant officer or county truant officer who determines there is no cause to start a truancy investigation shall report the reasons for the determination to their respective office, and shall assist the homeschool in submitting the homeschool notification form in whatever way practicable. (Emphasis mine.)

The language used here is “shall.” The verb choice is powerful in this context as it is a mandatory action, and there is no flexibility. If it were optional, the language would be “may” or “may as seemed/deemed fit or appropriate.” This is critically important.

The response from the public has been swift and unmistakable. Thousands of concerned citizens rallied at the Illinois Capitol in protest on the day of the committee hearing. Families, educators, and advocates stood together to defend their rights and their children’s futures – sending a loud and clear message: We will not be silent while the government attempts to take control of our homes. Many were turned away by law enforcement as there was no room left inside the Capitol.

This bill is not about safety. It’s about power – undermining parental authority and stripping away religious liberty under the cover of regulation. It sets a dangerous precedent that other states could follow if it succeeds. It’s a direct affront to parental rights and school choice and smacks of the worst kind of governmental paternalism – believing that the government and not the citizenry knows best how to conduct their lives.

At the ACLJ, we stand ready to engage in this fight. We’ve defended the rights of parents and homeschoolers for decades, and we won’t stop now. The Constitution is on our side. Parental rights are not negotiable. Religious liberty is not optional. Join us in this fight and add your name to our petition: Stop Sexualizing and Indoctrinating Our Kids.

Tariffs Could Still Go Up From Here: Commerce Secretary Lutnick

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said foreign nations will need to address a host of regulatory and other policies limiting imports of American products in order to secure relief from President Donald Trump’s new reciprocal levies. “These non-tariff trade barriers, they are the monster that needs to be slayed,” Lutnick said in an interview on Bloomberg Television and Radio. “Our teams are talking to all our great trading partners today,” he said. “It is time for them to do some deep soul searching on how they treat us poorly and how to make it right.” Offering specific examples of non-tariff barriers, the Commerce chief said that in the European Union some countries use the region’s 20% value-added tax to subsidize their own manufacturers’ production. Economists at the Council of Economic Advisers and staff at the U.S. Trade Representative’s office have pored over foreign nations’ trade barriers for decades, and that analysis formed the basis for the levies Trump announced Wednesday, Lutnick said. He also offered the example of a 2012 trade deal with South Korea, which involved the US letting Korean cars into its market, with Seoul agreeing to import American agricultural products. Nevertheless, McDonald’s Corp. was unable to bring in french fries because it was deemed to have shown the origin of the potatoes, he said. “You don’t understand the scale and depth of how they keep our products out,” Lutnick said. Asked about the sell-off in equities since Trump unveiled the reciprocal tariffs Wednesday afternoon, Lutnick said the president’s focus is on addressing “the economic pain that the United States of America suffered over decades.” S&P 500 futures were down 3.6% as of 8:52 a.m. in New York, while the Bloomberg Dollar Spot Index fell 1.8% — to the lowest level since October. The Commerce chief also confirmed that the new 34% surtax on China stacks on top of previous levies, including the 20% Trump imposed earlier this year over alleged Chinese production of precursors for illegal fentanyl. “All they have to have is a phone call from President Xi to Trump saying we’re going to stop fentanyl production,” Lutnick said, putting the onus on President Xi Jinping. “And it would drop to 20%,” he said of the tariff rate.

Victor Davis Hanson: The Left Couldn’t Throw Trump in Jail. Marine Le Pen Wasn’t So Lucky

While the radical Left in America failed to imprison President Donald Trump, their Europeans counterparts are having a successful time prosecuting their political enemies, argues Victor Davis Hanson on today’s edition of “Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words:” “Europe is copying the lawfare of the United States. Remember that Letitia James, Alvin Bragg, Fani Willis, Jack Smith, and E. Jean Carroll, in civil and criminal suits, for four years tried to destroy Donald Trump. And they had over $400 million in fines that were leveled at one point. And there were 91 felony indictments… “Ms. Le Pen, the head of the most conservative party in France, who has got enormous momentum. Enormous momentum, because, of the violence of radical Islamic groups, inside France. The open borders, the dissatisfaction with the blank check, given Ukraine, etc., I could go on and on… “[The high court] said that she had expropriate funds, campaign funds. In other words, that she was blending—does this sounds familiar—blending her own campaign with funds allotted from the European Union, for other purposes. In other words, there was a difference—a distinction without a difference.

‘Critical’ Epstein docs could shed light on ‘very sinister scheme,’ attorney says

Attorney for Epstein survivors Sigrid McCawley reveals what information she is hoping to see and highlights details of Epstein's flight log on 'The Will Cain Show.'

The Epstein Files: Are Rogue FBI Agents HIDING the Real Details?

BlazeTV Host Liz Wheeler breaks down what the real story is behind the release of declassified files related to Jeffrey Epstein, and why the FBI lied to Attorney General Pam Bondi and Kash Patel. The Trump administration is fighting for transparency, but Deep State actors at the FBI and Southern District of New York are attempting to stymie his plan. In this shocking episode, Liz Wheeler reveals the true bombshell of the Epstein Files Phase 1 release.

MARK DICE: Conservative Influencers Duped Into Helping Cover-Up For Him & Bogus “Release” of Files Embarrassing

Bondi Demands To See All Epstein-Related Intelligence, Accuses FBI Of Withholding Docs

Political commentator Rogan O'Handley, aka DC Draino, and other unidentified people carrying binders bearing the seal of the US Justice Department reading "The Epstein Files: Phase 1" walk out of the West Wing of the White House in Washington, DC, on February 27, 2025. The Trump administration has said it would release documents on late tycoon and convicted sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein who was found dead in his prison cell in 2019. (Photo by SAUL LOEB / AFP) (Photo by SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images)
Political commentator Rogan O’Handley, aka DC Draino, and other unidentified people carrying binders bearing the seal of the US Justice Department reading “The Epstein Files: Phase 1” walk out of the West Wing of the White House in Washington, DC, on February 27, 2025. The Trump administration has said it would release documents on late tycoon and convicted sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, who was found dead in his prison cell in 2019. (Photo by SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images)

OAN Staff Sophia Flores and Brooke Mallory
6:07 PM – Thursday, February 27, 2025

The release of the full set of documents that was promised to be revealed to the public on Thursday by Attorney General Pam Bondi has been “delayed” due to the last-minute discovery that the FBI is allegedly hiding thousands of documents relating to the infamous Epstein files.

“Late yesterday, I learned from a source that the FBI Field Office in New York was in possession of thousands of pages of documents related to the investigation and indictment of Epstein,” Bondi wrote in a letter to FBI Director Kash Patel.

Bondi claims that she was only given 200 pages relating to the Epstein files, when she had asked for all of the investigation files. The U.S. AG was expected to receive every single document pertaining to the late pedophile sex trafficker, especially his client list.

Bondi first became suspicious after looking over the handed-over documents, noting that, after examining them, there was “nothing juicy” or of substance included in the papers — paraphrasing her comments.

“By 8:00 a.m. tomorrow, February 28, the FBI will deliver the full and complete Epstein files to my office, including all records, documents, audio and video recordings, and materials related to Jeffrey Epstein and his clients, regardless of how such information was obtained,” Bondi stated.

On Thursday, Bondi also gave a select handful of right-wing influencers a binder, titled “The Epstein Files: Phase 1.”

The contents of the binder, which were released to the public later in the day, largely featured redacted information that had already been released to the public prior.

The majority of online users were not happy with how the documents were released.

Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), the chairwoman of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability, took to X to share her frustration.

She maintained that she, nor anyone else on her team, was made aware that Epstein documents were being released on Thursday.

One of the lead prosecutors in Ghislaine Maxwell’s criminal case was Maureen Comey, James Comey’s daughter.

Former FBI Director James Comey had previously launched a “honey pot” operation in order to infiltrate the 2016 Trump administration, according to recent reports.

A “honey pot operation” refers to a deceptive tactic, often used in espionage or cybersecurity, where an appealing target is set up to lure in a potential “adversary,” allowing operators to monitor their actions and gather more intelligence without revealing their surveillance. It is essentially a trap designed to attract and capture the target by making them believe they have found something valuable, like a “honey pot” attracting bees.

In most cases, intelligence agencies will hire extremely attractive women to immerse themselves in a certain environment of a target — in order to get close to the target and gain information on them.

She has also brought charges against Natalie Edwards, a whistleblower for the Treasury Department.

Mr. Comey was still one of the lead prosecutors in the case against Jeffrey Epstein before he allegedly killed himself in August 2019, while awaiting trial.

Stay informed! Receive breaking news blasts directly to your inbox for free. Subscribe here. https://www.oann.com/alerts

Supreme Court Will Hear Case That Could Bankrupt the Palestinian Authority

“Pay-For-Slay” in the Limelight

 by 

[Craving even more FPM content? Sign up for FPM+ to unlock exclusive series, virtual town-halls with our authors, and more. Click here to sign up.]

Two cases, to be heard jointly by the Supreme Court, which could potentially bankrupt the Palestinian Authority and the PLO, will be decided in the next few months. More on the cases, and their possible devastating effect on the Palestinian Authority’s finances, can be found here: “Supreme Court to hear case on Palestinian Authority’s ‘martyr’ payments,” by Marc Rod, Jewish Insider, February 10, 2025:

The Supreme Court is set to hear a case in the coming months to decide whether American victims of Palestinian terror attacks can sue the Palestine Liberation Organization and Palestinian Authority for damages based on support for such attacks through the “pay for slay” program that compensates individuals who have carried out attacks as well as their families.These cases raise the question of whether a 2019 act of Congress, asserting jurisdiction over the PA and PLO, is constitutional.

The Supreme Court cases — Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization and United States v. Palestine Liberation Organization, which the court will hear jointly — pertain to a decades-long series of litigation efforts by American terror victims and their families to sue the PLO and the PA.

In one case in 2015, a lower court awarded a group of victims more than $650 million. But the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals has repeatedly ruled as unconstitutional multiple pieces of legislation passed by Congress to assert U.S. jurisdiction over the PLO and PA and enable such lawsuits….

Mark Pinkert, an attorney at Holtzman Vogel who filed the brief on behalf of the groups, told Jewish Insider that, through repeated legislation, Congress has made its intentions clear.

Congress said, ‘We want to make sure victims get access to justice, and we think that civil liability is a really important tool for fighting foreign terrorism,’” Pinkert explained, adding that creating such civil liability is part of Congress’ efforts to end the PA’s payment program….

Pinkert said that the justices’ decision will likely ultimately revolve around questions of whether the Fifth Amendment limits Congress’ ability to pass such legislation; the victims argue that it does not.

Pinkert said that given the court’s current originalist bent, it may favor that interpretation of the intent of the Fifth Amendment, though Supreme Court decisions are often difficult to predict.

He added that, although the Supreme Court is independent, it will be “hard for them to ignore” the strong bipartisan support for PSJVTA and efforts to hold the PA and PLO civilly liable.

“It’s a big deal to strike down a federal statute, and not just any federal statute, but one that has been passed over and over again with bipartisan support and with so many amicus groups supporting the petitioners,” Pinkert said. “On a practical level, I think that’s going to be in the back of the Supreme Court justices’ minds.”

If the Supreme Court decides that the Fifth Amendment does not limit Congress’ ability to pass such legislation, so that the 2019 law, the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (PSJVTA), is declared constitutional, the effect will be to allow lawsuits by relatives of victims of Palestinian terrorism against the PA and the PLO, first for supporting terrorism with its “Pay-For-Slay” program and second for being a designated terrorist organization, which would likely bankrupt both. The Court’s conservative majority is almost certain to declare the legislation constitutional.

Could the Feds Have Been Involved in the New Orleans Jihad Massacre?

Would they do such a thing?

 by 

[Want even more content from FPM? Sign up for FP+ to unlock exclusive series, virtual town-halls with our authors, and more—now for just $3.99/month. Click here to sign up.]

Trust in our government has lowered to the point that some people are suggesting that the New Orleans jihad massacre was aided and abetted, or even concocted, by the feds in order to stir up unrest as Trump prepares to return to the presidency, or to create a pretext for some other action. Some of those who are making suggestions of this kind, such as Candace Owens, just want to find some plausible way to blame Jews, or to claim that it’s all in the service of trying to get the U.S. involved in a war in the Middle East on behalf of Israel. These types, including Owens herself, tend to downplay or deny outright the reality of Islamic jihad, preferring to see virtually all the workings of the wider world as a puppet show of the all-powerful and ever-unseen Zionists. Still, would the feds really get involved in a jihad plot to kill Americans? Sure.

No one really knows for sure, except the conspirators, if there are any, and whether or not the feds are involved. And jihad is real, as the news out of Africa, Asia and Europe shows daily. Still, the question must be asked: would the feds really aid and abet a jihad terror attack? Have they really become that corrupt and compromised? And the answer is: yes. Of course they would, and yes, they’re that corrupt. The evidence for this fact lies in their behavior at the Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest that Pamela Geller and I organized in May 2015.

The Daily Beast wrote in August 2016 about how this undercover FBI agent encouraged the jihadis. The Beast’s Katie Zavadski wrote: “Days before an ISIS sympathizer attacked a cartoon contest in Garland, Texas, he received a text from an undercover FBI agent. ‘Tear up Texas,’ the agent messaged Elton Simpson days before he opened fire at the Draw Muhammad event, according to an affidavit (pdf) filed in federal court Thursday.”

This was not entrapment. Simpson and his partner Nadir Soofiwere determined jihadis who had scouted out other targets. Simpson, along with Soofi and another jihadi, Abdul Malik Abdul Kareem, who supplied weapons to the pair and helped train them, sought information about pipe bombs and plotted to attack the Super Bowl, and planned to go to Syria to join the Islamic State (ISIS), long before anyone told him to “tear up Texas.”

But what was the FBI’s game in telling them to do that? Why didn’t they have a phalanx of agents in place, ready to stop the attack? Or did they want the attack to succeed, so that Barack Obama’s vow that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam” would be vividly illustrated, and intimidate any other Americans who might be contemplating defending freedom of speech into silence?

We have twice asked the FBI to conduct an investigation into this matter. They ignored us, of course. On Thursday in The Federalist, that publication’s elections correspondent, Brianna Lyman, recalled some of the curiosities of the Garland attack, about which the feds have maintained their silence for nine years now. Lyman wrote: “Radical Islamist terrorist Shamsud-Din Jabbar plowed his truck through a crowd in New Orleans in the wee hours of New Year’s Day, murdering 15 and injuring dozens. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is now leading the investigation — the same agency in which an agent once encouraged a radical Islamist terrorist to ‘tear up Texas.’”

Lyman noted that “in 2015, local Texas police thwarted what would have been a massive terrorist attack in Garland, Texas. The saga began when the Islamic State recruited Erick Jamal Hendricks, a North Carolina man who later befriended an undercover FBI agent. Hendricks connected the FBI agent to radical Islamist terrorist Elton Simpson.”

Lyman also pointed out that “during initial discussions between Simpson and the undercover FBI agent — who has never been named in government documents — the agent told Simpson to ‘tear up Texas’ after Simpson made the agent aware of an alleged blasphemous Muhammad cartoon contest to be held at the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland.” Simpson and Soofi then drove eight hours from Phoenix, Arizona to Garland and opened fire in the parking lot outside our event just as it was ending.

Lyman states: “The FBI agent was present at the attack and later told Hendricks — who was not present at the attack — that he was Hendricks’ ‘eyes’ that day.” Also: “Trenton Roberts, a lawyer for security guard Bruce Joiner (who was injured in the attack), reportedly said he was ‘convinced that there is much more to this story than the FBI has admitted.’”

Oh yeah. No doubt about that. And now the same agency is going to tell us the full truth about what happened in New Orleans. How reassuring.

Trump: US Could Withdraw From NATO

Trump: US Could Withdraw From NATO

Sunday, 08 December 2024 10:55 AM EST

In his first formal television interview -- and just six weeks before he takes office -- Trump again signaled that US support for Ukraine will scale back, saying he will "probably" cut the aid helping Kyiv repel the Russian invasion.

Trump also said he would "very quickly" look at pardons for supporters jailed for storming the US Capitol after his 2020 election defeat to Joe Biden.

The interview on NBC's "Meet the Press with Kristen Welker" was taped Friday but aired Sunday, following Trump's meetings with the presidents of France and Ukraine over the weekend -- his first foreign trip since winning the November election against Biden.

Trump reiterated his familiar threat to leave NATO, the cornerstone of security in Europe since World War II, saying that US allies do not pay enough for their defense.

"If they're paying their bills, and if I think they're treating us fairly, the answer is absolutely I'd stay with NATO," said.

But there is also "absolutely" the possibility of America's departure, he said.

He also stressed that his campaign promises of huge tariffs -- including against top US trading partners Canada, Mexico and China -- would be enacted.

"We're subsidizing Mexico and we're subsidizing Canada and we're subsidizing many countries all over the world," he said.

Vowing that "properly used" tariffs are "a very powerful tool," Trump added that he would not only wield them economically, "but also for getting other things outside of economics."

As to whether Americans would see higher prices as a result of those tariffs, Trump said that "I can't guarantee anything. I can't guarantee tomorrow."

- Domestic pledges -

Trump has a history of breaking with precedent to undermine the independence of the US Federal Reserve, but he promised not to replace Chairman Jerome Powell.

However, Trump said he would go ahead with what economists say could be the hugely disruptive mass deportation of undocumented immigrants in the United States.

"I think you have to do it, and it's a hard -- it's a very tough thing to do. But you have to have rules, regulations, laws. They came in illegally," he said.

He said he would end the constitutionally protected right to US citizenship for anyone born in the country, calling it "ridiculous." It is unclear how Trump would be able to do this but he suggested, "if we can, through executive action."

"We're going to have to get it changed. We'll maybe have to go back to the people. But we have to end it," Trump said.

GLENN BECK: Could Trump BOOST the economy by raising tariffs and abolishing the income tax?

During his appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience, Donald Trump floated the idea of abolishing the income tax. This would go hand-in-hand with his plan to raise tariffs, especially on China. Glenn, who has historically been against heavy tariffs, may have been won over by Trump’s explanation. But he wanted to speak with an economics expert to see if the math added up. Heritage Foundation Visiting Fellow Peter St. Onge joins the program to break down how tariffs work, whether Trump’s plan would boost the economy, and what he must do if he wants to raise enough support to repeal the 16th Amendment.