In a calamitous capper to its most recent term, the Roberts Court blessed birthright citizenship for the hundreds of thousands of children born annually in the U.S. to illegal aliens and “birth tourists.” Would that same Court be willing to abide by the removal of the birthright babies’ parents, along with millions of fellow illegal aliens, from the census figures used to apportion House seats, redistrict, and distribute trillions in federal funds?

Trump v. Barbara begs that question. Given several notable parallels between immigration-related exclusions to birthright citizenship and cases poised to arise concerning immigration-status-related exclusions to the apportionment base, it is fair to examine what a future case may hold based on the Court’s ruling in Barbara.

If the Supreme Court were to take a similar tack, it would prove disastrous for our country. It would legitimize the further twisting of the Constitution and a Reconstruction-era amendment to grant millions of non-citizens representation in our political system—a prospect never contemplated by the 14th Amendment’s drafters. It would distort the American political map, dilute Americans’ voting power, and incentivize still more illegal immigration and sanctuary policies.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution directs that representatives be “apportioned among the several States…according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons…and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.” Section 2 of the 14th Amendment did away with the three-fifths compromise, instructing that “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed.”

Congress empowered the Commerce Department to conduct the count via a census every ten years and to report the figures to the president, who would then transmit a statement to Congress detailing the population totals in each state and the number of representatives allocated to each state. This is a process that the Trump Administration asserted—and that the Supreme Court has suggested and some scholars have argued—gives the president discretion over the apportionment base, including to modify it to reflect “the whole number of persons in each state” as the president understands it.

As a matter of practice, chief executives have “affirmatively” included illegal aliens in the apportionment base since at least the Carter Administration—which took explicit measures to count this population. The rules and regulations have dictated that the Census Bureau count citizens and non-citizens alike based on their place of “usual residence,” or where they primarily live and sleep.

This has disproportionately increased the Democrats’ political power and has directed largesse toward those states and areas harboring substantial non-citizen populations, namely sanctuary jurisdictions. This corrupting of representation impacts not only the balance of power in Congress, but also presidential elections through the distribution of Electoral College votes. Permitting such foreign influence in the apportionment base is an affront to our republican system.

The first Trump Administration tried but failed to remedy these issues by cross-referencing administrative records with the census to identify and remove the illegal alien population from the apportionment base. But it was stymied by litigation and slowed by COVID-19-related delays. The Biden Administration then revoked that policy and transmitted the illegal alien-inclusive apportionment figures to Congress.

At the conclusion of Biden’s presidency, however, several states filed related suits that challenged, on various grounds, including constitutional ones, the administration’s inclusion of illegal aliens and temporary visa holders in the census and apportionment base. In ongoing litigation, the Trump Administration has suggested that it is devising Census Bureau regulations that may address the states’ concerns. President Trump has said directly that “People who are in our Country illegally WILL NOT BE COUNTED IN THE CENSUS.”

Given Congress’s inability even to pass the SAVE Act, if the president is to make good on his word, his administration will almost certainly have to act as it did during his first term. Such efforts to ameliorate the corrosive effect of mass illegal immigration via modifying the census apportionment base will almost assuredly be challenged in the courts.

If Trump v. Barbara is any guide, that could make for an uphill battle.

A Disastrous Precedent

Start with the fact that the majority opinion in Barbara ignored the fundamental relationship between the Constitution and the 14th Amendment. The Constitution was established with the consent of a distinct political community: “We the people of the United States.” It was not established for the benefit of Mexicans, Chinese, Somalis, or any other people.

The 14th Amendment aimed to provide the full protections of our Constitution to former slaves, making citizens and full members of the American political community of those brought to the U.S. under duress, forced into often backbreaking labor, and otherwise subjugated as property. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, the crux of the birthright case, recognized that the freed slaves had the same rights and protections as all Americans. Section 2 of the amendment, the crux of any apportionment case alongside the Constitution’s Enumeration Clause, not only rectified that clause to reflect the freed slaves’ status as citizens but also created a deterrent for those states that would seek to disenfranchise them.

Yet despite this history, the Court found in Trump v. Barbara that the 14th Amendment applied to the newborn children of those outside our political community who arrived on our shores by the millions, often from hostile nations, without our consent. It seems questionable whether the Court will take a narrower view when it comes to counting illegal alien parents of birthright citizens for apportionment.

Also consider the Roberts Court’s expansive textual analysis of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment. It interpreted those born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States to encompass the children of parents here illegally or temporarily. In so doing, the majority ignored the fact that the clause’s drafters were referring to “full and complete jurisdiction,” in the words of Senator Jacob Howard, who introduced the text. As Justice Thomas noted in his dissent, jurisdiction flows from parents’ domicile, which “meant [a] legal home” where one intends “to permanently remain.”

The Court’s elastic interpretation of “jurisdiction” will likely prove relevant when it comes to its understanding of Section 2 of the 14th Amendment, which requires defining what a “person” is, as in the “whole number of persons in each State.” Historically, again, administrations have counted as “persons” those primarily residing in the U.S., irrespective of their immigration status, while omitting temporary visitors. As I previously reported, plaintiffs challenging the “usual residence” standard, including Missouri, have presented

a compelling case, based on an extensive review of legal precedent and history, that the “whole number of persons” in each state refers to a state’s “inhabitants;” that a state’s inhabitants consist of those “legally domiciled” therein; and that to be so domiciled, a person must have a “lawful intent to permanently remain” in a state, and an ability under the law to do so. Illegal aliens and temporary visa holders therefore may not be counted for purposes of apportionment.

And as detailed in a report at RealClearInvestigations that anticipated the second Trump Administration’s effort to exclude illegal aliens from the apportionment base, I recounted that the first Trump Administration likewise argued in a 2020 memorandum that

the “persons in each State” that the 14th Amendment refers to had long been interpreted to mean “inhabitants.” Inhabitants, it asserted, do not include “every individual physically present within a State’s boundaries at the time of the census,” noting that past administrations had excluded temporary aliens and foreign diplomatic personnel for apportionment.

Is a Supreme Court that dismissed the connection between jurisdiction and domicile going to accept the connection between “persons,” inhabitants, and legal domicile?

Another parallel raises further doubts. In Trump v. Barbara, the Court acknowledged several exceptions to the Citizenship Clause—for example, those born to foreign leaders on U.S. soil. But it claimed that these represented a “closed set.” Similarly, there have been historical exceptions (namely, temporary visitors) regarding who qualifies as a “person” for purposes of the census count and apportionment. Administrations have also used their authority to include or exclude cohorts such as overseas federal personnel from the population counts of their home states. Would the Court rule that these exceptions are a “closed set” too?

The vehicle by which the issue of excluding illegal aliens comes before the Supreme Court would naturally dictate the contours of any ruling. Timing would play a role too, as illustrated by Trump v. New York, in which the Court declined to hear a late first-term challenge to the administration’s ultimately shelved apportionment policy, deeming the case unripe and declining to rule on the merits.

If and when the Court does rule on the merits, it may do so more narrowly than in the birthright citizenship case. It could avoid constitutional issues by focusing on statutory or procedural questions—for example, who may determine whether a population ought to be omitted from the apportionment base and how, rather than whether a president or Congress may exclude an immigrant population from that base.

And it may be that, given the political impact of non-citizens on the apportionment base, the Court will have to deviate from its analysis in Trump v. Barbara to account for the implications for voting rights and the political representation of citizens more broadly. Plaintiffs have challenged the inclusion of illegal aliens and temporary visa holders in the apportionment base on grounds that it violates Americans’ right to equal representation—a powerful argument that distinguishes the apportionment base from the Court’s findings in Barbara.

But it is hard to have faith in the Roberts Court. And that is not only because it rendered such a disastrous opinion in the birthright citizenship case.

In Commerce Department v. New York, a ruling on a directly related matter, Chief Justice Roberts fashioned what Justice Thomas called an “administration-specific standard” that prevented the first Trump Administration from merely reinstating the question “Is this person a citizen of the United States?” on the census. While finding that presidents may pose such a question, the Roberts Court surmised that the administration’s stated rationale for reinstating the query was disingenuous, and therefore rendered the policy legally deficient.

That “unprecedented” ruling—again in Justice Thomas’s words—came amid hysteria from the Left, which claimed that such a question would chill large percentages of people from participating in the census, leading to an alleged unconstitutional undercount. The Left’s anger over the purported “6-to-3 conservative Court,” as well as threats to Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, has grown exponentially since that time.

Were the Trump Administration to pursue the far more consequential effort to exclude the illegal alien population from the next apportionment base, one could expect Dobbs-level political heat. Successful execution could significantly alter the political map, likely to the detriment of the blue jurisdictions where illegals are concentrated; Republican states with large illegal alien populations such as Texas and Florida would also be affected. Migration flows out of blue states and into red ones, and the redrawing of political maps to remedy racial gerrymanders would further magnify the political implications—to say nothing of state efforts to exclude illegal aliens from the population figures used in redistricting. The cumulative shift in political power could therefore prove seismic.

A Roberts Court that’s acutely sensitive to its political standing may prove no friend in this fight.

The post After Barbara: Illegal Aliens and the Census, Part I appeared first on The American Mind.

The Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, a Los Angeles-based immigration nonprofit that receives millions in government funding, is accused of establishing an immigration-to-elections pipeline across three entities, according to one state watchdog. CHIRLA maintains the entities are separate.

A CHIRLA organization in Mexico trains migrants planning to come to the U.S., while CHIRLA provides legal and naturalization services to immigrants in California, and its action arm endorses Democrat candidates. Meanwhile, CHIRLA and its action arm, CHIRLA Action Fund, partner on an “Immigrant Political Power Project” that seeks to build a voter base.

According to its website, the Immigrant Political Power Project “targets new citizens, Latinos, and English learners to build a voter base from scratch, with enough power to sway state politics.” The project, staffed by “five immigrant women of color,” utilizes “teams of paid/volunteer canvassers/phone bankers, ranging in status from undocumented to legal permanent residents.” The project spreads the message that “immigrants must participate in EVERY election.”

All the while, CHIRLA received more than two-thirds of its revenue from government grants in a four-year period from June 2021 through June 2025.

Jenny Rae Le Roux, director of the CAL DOGE project established by Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton, cried foul.

“It defies common sense that taxpayers would fund an organization that converts taxpayer funds into a political activist network for California Democrats, for the explicit benefit of [Los Angeles Mayor] Karen Bass and [Democrat governor nominee] Xavier Becerra,” Le Roux, who is also a Republican candidate for Congress in California’s 47th Congressional District, told the Daily Signal in a statement Tuesday.

“The millions of dollars in public funding should be cut off, and a full investigation into the blurred 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) lines as well as the use of undocumented workers for political organizing is in order,” she added.

A spokesperson for CHIRLA said that the various entities are separate.

“CHIRLA Action Fund, CHIRLA, and CHIRLA Mexico are all distinct legal entities,” Jorge-Mario Cabrera, CHIRLA’s director of communications, told the Daily Signal in a statement Tuesday. “While they share a mission of a just, inclusive society where immigrants are fully embraced, they are legally distinct entities with separate funding sources and activities. These different entities are fully compliant with rules set by the Internal Revenue Service and relevant election laws.”

What Is CHIRLA?

CHIRLA, an immigration group founded in 1986, aims to “advance the human and civil rights of immigrants and refugees.” Cabrera said CHIRLA, which is exempt from taxes under Section 501(c)(3) of the IRS code, “does not engage in partisan political or electoral activities.”

CHIRLA Action Fund, a separate 501(c)(4) entity, can engage in partisan electoral activity, and Cabrera said it endorses candidates and legislation that aim to “create a just society, fully inclusive of immigrants.”

CHIRLA and CHIRLA Action Fund launched a “joint initiative” called the Immigrant Political Power Project, which Cabrera said aims “to educate voters and promote democratic civic participation.”

CHIRLA’s website also has a page dedicated to efforts in Mexico. Cabrera told the Daily Signal that CHIRLA Mexico “is a nonprofit, non-governmental organization established in Mexico operating under Mexican law.” The web page for CHIRLA Mexico mentions offices in Tapachula, Mexico City, and Tijuana. It states that the group’s effort involves organizing seminars to prepare migrants for an opportunity to enter the U.S. legally.

California DOGE claims this involves a “civic pipeline” from immigration legal services to naturalization to voter registration to political mobilization.

Cabrera told the Daily Signal that “CHIRLA does not assist non-citizens in voting in state or federal elections as they are prohibited from participating by law.”

“CHIRLA does provide resources and support to all immigrants, regardless of their legal status, ensuring they have access to necessary information, legal assistance, and community support,” he added.

Taxpayer Funding

CHIRLA has received more than two-thirds of its revenue from government grants, according to IRS filings covering the period from July 1, 2021, to June 30, 2025. The $80.7 million it reported receiving from taxpayers amounted to 67.9% of its $118.8 million in revenue for those four years.

CHIRLA’s website states that Gov. Gavin Newsom designated CHIRLA as one of 12 organizations to administer a program designating $175 million in COVID-19 relief aid for “undocumented immigrants.”

The Department of Homeland Security awarded CHIRLA $950,000 across three grants under President Joe Biden. Two of the grants, awarded in October 2022 and October 2023, involved “citizenship education and training.”

The Los Angeles City Council District 13 Public Benefit Trust gave CHIRLA $195,626 on May 5 for “supplies & other services.”

Hugo Soto-Martínez, who represents District 13 in the Los Angeles City Council and who has been endorsed by CHIRLA Action Fund, told the Daily Signal he is “proud” to support CHIRLA.

“Our office is proud to support CHIRLA’s work assisting Los Angeles families being torn apart by inhumane federal immigration policies, and any suggestion that supporting those families constitutes anything other than representing the interests of our constituents is false and unsupported by any facts or evidence,” Councilmember Soto-Martínez said in a statement Tuesday.

“CHIRLA undergoes regular, independent audits of our private and public funding,” Cabrera, the organization’s communications director, told the Daily Signal.

He mentioned that CHIRLA received California grants to fund naturalization services, renewals of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, visa services, family reunification services, and more. He also mentioned funding for “education and outreach programs on anti-hate campaigns, water and heat advisories, and COVID-19 vaccine access and education.”

“Most of the funds that CHIRLA has received were subcontracted to 88 nonprofit organizations in LA County,” Cabrera added.

Becerra Endorsement

CHIRLA Action Fund endorsed Xavier Becerra, the Democrat candidate for governor, on April 13, and it endorsed Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass for reelection six days later.

CHIRLA Action Fund endorsed Gavin Newsom for governor in 2018 and 2022. Newsom oversaw the state government, which awarded CHIRLA millions.

Diana Crofts-Pelayo, deputy director of communications for the governor’s office, told the Daily Signal that any suggestion that CHIRLA Action Fund’s endorsement of Newsom had any connection to the grants later awarded to CHIRLA is “false.”

“California awards grants to qualified organizations to provide specific public services—not to support political activity or campaign work,” Crofts-Pelayo said. “Organizations that receive state funded grants must comply with all applicable federal and state laws, and the terms of their grants.”

The campaigns for Becerra and Bass did not respond to a request for comment by publication time.

U.S. — The U.S. National Park Service issued a reminder to avoid approaching the bison inside national parks, but if you do, to please be sure that someone captures a hilarious video of it.

When the Trump administration’s rule prohibiting federally funded hospitals from performing child transgender procedures was found missing from the regulatory agenda, conservatives worried the president was backtracking on a key promise.

The Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions for 2026 was initially posted without the rule included, but it was added to the agenda on Wednesday afternoon, the Daily Signal has learned. The inclusion of the rule signals that the administration stands by its efforts to prohibit taxpayer funding of child sex changes. 

In December, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued two draft notices of proposed rulemaking that work together to prevent taxpayers from funding transgender procedures at Medicare- and Medicaid-certified hospitals.

Several hospitals, including the Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles, have closed their child sex change units as a result of the Trump administration’s pressure. More than 40 pediatric gender clinics in blue states stopped or paused offering transgender procedures and services between January 2025 and 2026, according to STAT.

“The threat of these rules has induced behavior by clinics and hospitals even before they go into effect,” said Rachel Morrison, director of the Ethics and Public Policy Center’s Administrative State Accountability Project. “And so, they’ve given cover for hospitals to cut their gender clinics if they wanted to, but there was still political pressure to keep them.”

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ “conditions of participation” rule for hospitals is now on the agenda, with an anticipated publishing date of December 2026 for the final rule. It would prohibit all hospitals participating in Medicare and Medicaid from performing gender-transitioning procedures.

CMS’ other rule, which blocked federal Medicaid dollars and Children’s Health Insurance Program funds from directly covering transgender procedures for children, was already on the agenda. However, while the latter rule is significant, the former rule might be even more so.

“The condition of participation is more far-reaching because it doesn’t just prohibit the funding for the procedures; it prohibits providing the procedures if you want to receive any federal funding under Medicaid,” Morrison said. 

Morrison said it’s likely both rules will be challenged in court after they are finalized.

On Tuesday, NPR reported that the Department of Health and Human Services “likely will not be finalizing” its rule blocking Medicaid funding of hospitals performing child transgender procedures. 

HHS quickly released a statement saying the report was “completely inaccurate and unfounded.”

“HHS and CMS continue to follow statutory requirements by reviewing comments, and we intend to issue a final rule,” the X post said. “HHS remains committed to protecting children from potentially lifelong, irreversible, and harmful sex‑rejecting interventions.”

Morrison said the rule is currently in a waiting period as CMS reviews comments. 

“They’re reviewing comments and working on finalizing the rule, and then they would publish it in the Federal Register,” she said. “Before it gets published in the Federal Register, it would show up at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as being under review by the Office of Management and Budget, and so that would be the next step of knowing that the rule is moving forward and would be finalized in the near future.”

A former senior adviser for the Federal Reserve Board of Governors (FRB) has been sentenced for sharing sensitive economic information with Chinese spies.

The post Ex-Adviser for FRB Sentenced to Prison for Lying About Sharing Info with Chinese Spies: ‘He Sold Out His Country’ appeared first on Breitbart.

Using our airwaves, Disney has turned ABC into a pro-Democrat super PAC, and it is long past time for this outrage to end.

The post Nolte–FCC Sets Sights on ‘The View’ and Disney Licenses: Report appeared first on Breitbart.

U.S. — In the latest in a long line of historic achievements by the former leader, Joe Biden was heralded as the first president to author his memoir posthumously.

A request for the Department of Justice (DOJ) to investigate New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani's administration for potential violations of the Logan Act has been filed by House Republicans, led by Rep. Addison McDowell (R-NC).

The post Exclusive: House Republicans Request Federal Investigation into Mamdani Admin for Potential Logan Act Violation appeared first on Breitbart.

Modern training, competition, and high-volume shooting are pushing suppressors harder than ever. Here's how to keep your can running cool.

The post Suppressor Heat Management for High Volume Fire appeared first on The Truth About Guns.

Rep. Brandon Gill (R-TX) introduced legislation Thursday to ensure naturalized American citizens can speak the same language as their countrymen.

The post Exclusive: Rep. Brandon Gill Files Bill Requiring Naturalized Citizens Speak English appeared first on Breitbart.

The animal rights group Humane World for Animals has treated hundreds of animals in Venezuela following the deadly June 24 twin earthquakes that struck the South American nation, the group told Breitbart News this week.

The post Exclusive: Animal Rights Volunteers Treat Hundreds of Pet Earthquake Victims in Venezuela appeared first on Breitbart.

A national professors union has sued the Texas Tech University System’s chancellor and Board of Regents over policies that restrict professors from teaching about LGBTQ identity, gender, and race.

The lawsuit, filed last week by the American Association of University of Professors–American Federation of Teachers and its Texas chapter, names the system’s chancellor, Brandon Creighton, and the Texas Tech System Board of Regents as defendants. The union alleges Creighton issued two memorandums that violate professors’ First and 14th Amendment rights.

Creighton’s move as chancellor is not a new one. Before being appointed to his current position, he served as a Texas state representative and authored Senate Bill 17, which bans diversity, equity, and inclusion offices at Texas public universities. Gov. Greg Abbott signed it into law in 2023, and it took effect in January 2024.

The first memorandum, issued in December 2025, stated that the system would immediately remove course content that conflicts with the university’s standards. The memo specifically cited content promoting the ideas that one race or sex is inherently superior to another; that an individual is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive by virtue of race or sex; and that individuals bear responsibility or guilt for actions of others of the same race or sex.

The memo also stated that faculty should not teach or submit course content related to gender identity, citing Texas state law and federal policies that recognize only two sexes, male and female.

Creighton released a second memorandum in April 2026, stating that the system would phase out all sexual orientation and gender identity coursework. The memo also prohibited teaching that gender identity is a fluid spectrum, that there are more than two genders, or that gender can be decoupled “from biological sex as a factual or scientific baseline.”

The professors union argues the memorandums have created “an educational environment replete with fear and confusion, rather than the academic excellence and free exchange of ideas that all universities endeavor to achieve.”

The lawsuit also claims Creighton and the Board of Regents’ memoranda suppress constitutionally protected speech across the university system.

“Plaintiffs’ members have First Amendment rights in the public university setting. The Creighton Memoranda run roughshod over them: entire viewpoints relating to race, sexual orientation, and gender identity are forbidden from being taught in the classroom or included in student coursework,” the lawsuit states. “The Creighton Memoranda violate not only the U.S. Constitution, but also the fundamental idea of what it means to be a public university in America: an institution of higher learning that promotes free expression and the rigorous exchange of ideas in service of the people and more importantly, the nation.”

Although the lawsuit claims Creighton’s memoranda infringe on professors’ academic freedom, Thomas Lindsay, policy director of higher education at Next Generation Texas at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, recently wrote an article explaining the limits of academic freedom.

Lindsay explains that academic freedom does not mean “a blank check for individual professors to redesign public university curricula at will.” Instead, he wrote that it gives professors the right to pursue research, publish scholarship, and speak as citizens without institutional retaliation.

“It [academic freedom] also safeguards the university’s institutional autonomy to determine its educational mission. But it does not grant individual faculty a constitutional right to override the state’s authority over the general education curriculum in taxpayer-funded classrooms,” Lindsay wrote.

Lindsay also references Senate Bill 37, authored by Creighton during his time in the Texas Legislature. The law took effect in September 2025 and requires governing boards to review general curricula, restore classical liberal principles, and spend taxpayer dollars responsibly.

“The legislation does not ban the teaching of history, slavery, civil rights, or cultural debates. It simply restores classical liberal principles, according to which higher education must prioritize intellectual clarity and student outcomes over conformity,” Lindsay wrote.

Lindsay told the Daily Signal that the union’s lawsuit is a “sham.”

“Both of Creighton’s memos and SB 37 explicitly preserve factual teaching of history, civil rights, biology, literature, and professional content,” Lindsay said. ” … Rightly, it targets only advocacy or promotion of divisive concepts such as the inherent superiority or collective guilt in core courses.”

“It doesn’t touch the upper division courses because the constitutional precedents have all established that state legislators have not only the right but the duty, as do boards, to be much more prescriptive when it comes to general education and core curriculum,” he added.

Mandy Drogin, a senior fellow for the Government Reform and Oversight Coalition at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, also told the Daily Signal that she commends Creighton for taking a stand for taxpayers and refusing to allow them to fund a political ideology.

“It’s important that we recognize that when a public institution, that is funded by the taxpayers of Texas [who] have voted and supported laws that eliminate the promotion of DEI and racist Marxist ideology, that we recognize that it is absolutely the responsibility of the leadership to say we can teach all about all different viewpoints, but we cannot be promoting and actually having entire classes that promote this oppressed-versus-oppressor ideology that we keep seeing throughout our university systems,” she said.

Drogin also addressed the lawsuit, saying the professors’ complaints about First Amendment restrictions are “fundamentally false.”

“Broad structural requirements on general education courses cannot promote these radical theories as being a standard for Texas students. And so, it doesn’t limit free speech. They are allowed to say whatever they want in their free time. They are allowed to study whatever they want in their free time,” Drogin said.

“But when they’re being funded by the taxpayers of Texas, and when they are breaking the laws of the land, it’s important that we support the leaders like Chancellor Creighton, who says we’re not pushing this propaganda into our schools.”