Yet California has spent a record $24 billion fighting homelessness over the past five years, according to����published last month. In other words, the homeless population and homelessness spending have grown in tandem. How is this even possible?

The sad reality is that the current homelessness policy, known as Housing First, virtually guarantees an ever-ballooning homelessness budget, regardless of how effective it is in reducing the homeless population. This is because the measure of success under Housing First is not independent self-sufficiency, but in homeless persons becoming��de facto��wards of the state.

In 2013, the federal government adopted Housing First as its approach to homelessness, and California followed in 2016. This means that both state and federal homelessness grants are reserved exclusively for providers who comply with Housing First principles.

The Housing First philosophy contends that the most effective way to address homelessness is to offer people immediate, no-strings-attached housing. Service providers forfeit their grants if they make housing conditional on, say, sobriety or participation in treatment programs. In theory, supportive services are voluntary, but in practice they are almost non-existent.

Instead, California’s approach to Housing First entails little more than warehousing people in permanent-supportive housing (PSH) units. PSH residents are not classified as “homeless” for official counts, but they remain dependent on taxpayer support, which is paid out of the homelessness budget.

We did not always treat permanent dependency as the best-case scenario for homeless individuals. When the Clinton administration first established the continuum of care system for homelessness services in 1994, the Department of Housing and Urban Development����that “the goal of the comprehensive homeless service system is to ensure that homeless individuals and families move from homelessness to self-sufficiency, housing, and independent living.”

When Sam Tsemberis, a clinical psychologist, conducted the first Housing First experiment in New York City, he altered the measure of success to “housing stability,” achieved not through self-sufficiency, but through perpetual subsidies.����that 88% of his clients remained stably housed, compared to 47% of patients in treatment-oriented programs. However, Tsemberis worked exclusively with people suffering from severe mental illnesses—those who would have been institutionalized in an earlier era—so it is reasonable that perpetually subsidized housing may have been the best possible outcome for this particular subset of the homeless population.

But should permanent dependency be the goal for����������homeless persons? In FY 2022-2023,����on permanent-supportive housing for homeless��youth. A policy that functionally treats homeless and at-risk children as lost causes is not only financially unsustainable, it’s downright inhumane.

We can accept that there will always be people who require permanent assistance, but state policy should not treat this assumption as universal. Even if we could end homelessness by permanently warehousing people, we should strive to do better.

But after following the Housing First playbook for nearly a decade, the results are clear: the more money we spend on this strategy, the faster the homelessness crisis grows.

Christopher Calton, Ph.D,��is the research fellow in housing and homelessness with the����in Oakland, Calif.

What sounds like some sort of academic tongue twister is actually a huge challenge right now for many states, including California.����

With the nation’s literacy crisis front and center, lawmakers from coast to coast are passing policies to ensure kids are learning to read from educators who are using proven methods—based on the science of reading—that yield positive outcomes.����

Until recently, California seemed ready to join this national movement toward high-quality literacy instruction.����

With support from more than 50 organizations, including the California PTA and NAACP, and training for teachers.����

It should have had a clear path to victory.��

Instead, it died without ever receiving a hearing.����

That’s because the California Teachers Association—among the most powerful special interest groups in the state—claimed it might give teachers less say over reading curricula.����

Here’s the problem: We know some methods of reading instruction should be tossed in the trash bin of history and never used again, because they don’t align with the science of reading.����

The science of reading is about understanding how students learn to read effectively and identifying the best methods for teaching children to decode words, build vocabulary and comprehend text. Research shows that a strong foundation in phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension, including knowledge building, is key to reading success.��

Decades ago, most of us learned to read using that proven approach—remember the old “Hooked on phonics worked for me” catchphrase? But many others were taught using harmful techniques such as three-cueing, which encourages kids to use pictures to guess at words�� instead of sounding them out.����

Now, absent clear direction from the state, California’s many school districts may continue using low-quality instructional materials and methods like three-cueing for decades to come.����

Yet there’s no time to wait in fixing the problem: California’s student outcomes in reading are trending in the wrong direction.��

According to data from, commonly known as the Nation’s Report Card, less than one-third of California fourth graders score “at or above basic” achievement levels in reading.

That means more than two-thirds of the state’s fourth graders are reading at a level of basic or below. In 2022, California’s average fourth grade reading score hit its lowest point in seven years.��

Solving this crisis starts with ensuring educators in the classroom are equipped with the right tools to teach kids how to read. Other states are leading the way as California falls behind.����

For example, North Carolina, Louisiana and Alabama require state-adopted science of reading training for all K–3 teachers and administrators. Mississippi and Florida require science of reading training for teachers in districts where readers are struggling and make the training available to all teachers.����

By blocking science of reading training, the California teacher’s union is preventing its own members from accessing critical reading resources. And that, in turn, is blocking reading achievement and academic progress for hundreds of thousands of California students.��

It’s time for everyone to come to the negotiating table in good faith, with policies that put kids’ best interests front and center. That’s what it will take for California to start turning around its dismal literacy landscape.����

Jeb Bush was governor of Florida from 1999 to 2007. He is the founder and chair of ExcelinEd.��

It’s hard to say whether we’re dealing with a (a government ruled by thieves), a (a government run by unprincipled career politicians, corporations and thieves that panders to the worst vices in our nature and has little regard for the rights of American citizens), or a Nanny State .

Whatever the label, this overbearing despotism is what happens when government representatives (those elected and appointed to work for us) adopt the authoritarian notion that the government knows best and therefore must control, regulate and dictate almost everything about the citizenry’s public, private and professional lives.

The government’s bureaucratic attempts at muscle-flexing by way of overregulation and overcriminalization have reached such outrageous limits that federal and state governments now require on penalty of a fine that individuals apply for permission before they can grow exotic orchids, host elaborate dinner parties, gather friends in one’s home for Bible studies, give coffee to the homeless, let their kids manage a lemonade stand, keep chickens as pets, or braid someone’s hair, as ludicrous as that may seem.

As the Regulatory Transparency Project explains, “There are over 70 federal regulatory agencies, employing hundreds of thousands of people to write and implement regulations. , and the regulatory code now is over 168,000 pages long.”

In his CrimeADay Twitter feed, Mike Chase highlights some of the more arcane and inane laws that render us all guilty of violating some law or other.

As Chase notes, it’s against the law to try to make an unreasonable noise while a horse is passing by in a national park; to leave Michigan with a turkey that was hunted with a drone; to refill a liquor bottle with different liquor than it had in it when it was originally filled; to offer to buy swan feathers so you can make a woman’s hat with them; to enter a design in the Federal Duck Stamp contest if waterfowl are not the dominant feature of the design; to transport a cougar without a cougar license; to sell spray deodorant without telling people to avoid spraying it in their eyes; and to .

In such a society, we are all petty criminals.

In fact, Boston lawyer Harvey Silvergate estimates that the average American now unknowingly commits three felonies a day, thanks to an overabundance of vague laws that render otherwise innocent activity illegal and an inclination on the part of prosecutors to reject the idea that there can’t be a crime without criminal intent.

The bigger the government grows, the worse the red tape becomes.

Almost every aspect of American life today, including the job sector, is now subject to this kind of heightened scrutiny and ham-fisted control.

Whereas 70 years ago, one out of every 20 U.S. jobs required a state license, today, almost .

According to business analyst Kaylyn McKenna, . Twenty-eight states require a license before you can work as a residential painter. Funeral attendants, whose duties include placing caskets in visitation rooms, arranging flowers and directing mourners, have to be licensed to do so in Kansas, Maine and Massachusetts.

The problem of overregulation has become so bad that, as one analyst notes, “getting a license to style hair in Washington or a firefighter.”

This is what happens when bureaucrats run the show, and the rule of law becomes little more than a cattle prod for forcing the citizenry to march in lockstep with the government.

Overregulation is just the other side of the coin to overcriminalization, that phenomenon in which everything is rendered illegal, and everyone becomes a lawbreaker.

As policy analyst Michael Van Beek , the problem with overcriminalization is that there are so many laws at the federal, state and local levels—that we can’t possibly know them all.

“It’s also impossible to enforce all these laws. Instead, law enforcement officials must choose which ones are important and which are not. The result is that they pick the laws Americans really must follow, because ,” concludes Van Beek. “Federal, state and local regulations — rules created by unelected government bureaucrats — carry the same force of law and can turn you into a criminal if you violate any one of them… if we violate these rules, we could be prosecuted as criminals. No matter how antiquated or ridiculous, they still carry the full force of the law. By letting so many of these sit around, just waiting to be used against us, , which has lots of options to charge people with legal and regulatory violations.”

This is the police state’s superpower: it has been vested with the authority to make our lives a bureaucratic hell.

“Such laws,” notes journalist George Will, “which enable government zealots to accuse almost anyone of committing three felonies in a day, do not just enable government misconduct, they incite prosecutors to intimidate decent people who never had culpable intentions. And to inflict punishments without crimes.”

This is what happens when the American people get duped, deceived, double-crossed, cheated, lied to, swindled and conned into believing that the government and its army of bureaucrats—the people �ɱ���appointed to safeguard our freedoms—actually have our best interests at heart.

The problem with these devil’s bargains is that there is always a catch, always a price to pay for whatever it is we valued so highly as to barter away our most precious possessions.

In the end, such bargains always turn sour.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of . His most recent books are the best-selling , the award-winning , and a debut dystopian fiction novel, . Whitehead can be contacted at staff@rutherford.org. Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at .

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg says that nondisclosure agreement was a serious crime that undermined democracy by concealing information from voters. Of these three accounts, Bragg’s is the least credible.

“This was a planned, coordinated, long-running conspiracy to influence the 2016 election, to help Donald Trump get elected through illegal expenditures, to silence people who had something bad to say about his behavior,” lead prosecutor Matthew Colangelo said at the beginning of Trump’s trial last month. “It was election fraud, pure and simple.”

Contrary to Colangelo’s spin, there is nothing “pure and simple” about the case against Trump. To begin with, Trump is not charged with “conspiracy” or “election fraud.” He is charged with violating a New York law against “falsifying business records” with “intent to defraud.”

Trump allegedly did that 34 times by disguising his 2017 reimbursement of Cohen’s payment to Daniels as compensation for legal services. The counts include 11 invoices from Cohen, 11 corresponding checks and 12 ledger entries.

Falsifying business records, ordinarily a misdemeanor, becomes a felony when the defendant’s “intent to defraud” includes an intent to conceal “another crime.” Bragg says Trump had such an intent.

What crime did Trump allegedly try to conceal? Prosecutors say it was a violation of an obscure New York law that makes it a misdemeanor for “two or more persons” to “conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.”

Why was the Daniels payment “unlawful”? By fronting the money, federal prosecutors argued in 2018, Cohen made an excessive campaign contribution.

Cohen accepted that characterization in a 2018 plea agreement that also resolved several other, unrelated charges against him. But Trump was never prosecuted for soliciting that “contribution,” and there are good reasons for that.

Such a case would have hinged on the assumption that Trump, in paying off Daniels, was trying to promote his election rather than trying to avoid embarrassment. While the first interpretation is plausible, proving it beyond a reasonable doubt would have been difficult, as illustrated by the unsuccessful 2012 prosecution of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, which was based on similar but seemingly stronger facts.

Federal prosecutors would have had to prove that Trump “knowingly and willfully” violated the Federal Election Campaign Act. But given the fuzziness of the distinction between personal and campaign expenditures, it is plausible that Trump did not think paying Daniels for her silence was illegal.

In any event, the Justice Department did not pursue that case, the statute of limitations bars pursuing it now, and Bragg has no authority to enforce federal campaign finance regulations. Instead, he is relying a moribund New York election law that experts say has never been enforced before.

As Bragg tells it, Trump is the one who committed “election interference,” which the DA describes as “the heart of the case.” Bragg says his prosecutors “allege falsification of business records to the end of keeping information away from the electorate.”

Cohen, whom the defense team accurately describes as a convicted felon and admitted liar with a grudge against his former boss, is the only witness who has tied Trump to the production of those records. And since they were produced after the election, Bragg’s narrative is nonsensical as well as irrelevant — a point that should not be obscured by the salacious details of Daniels’ story.

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason magazine. Follow him on Twitter: @jacobsullum.

Under this absurd theory, long before George Gascon even considered running for Los Angeles D.A., Teran downloaded information on officer misconduct with the sinister idea of using it years later so that defendants could get a fair trial.

Everything about this prosecution reeks, and voters should be embarrassed that Bonta filed these charges in the first place – charges that will utilize tremendous resources simply to drag a public servant’s name through the mud.

Just look to the likeliest source of the allegation—ex-Sheriff Alex Villanueva, a man who oversaw one of the most corrupt sheriff’s departments in L.A. history. Under his leadership, deputy gangs metastasized and misconduct flourished—the very type of behavior that Ms. Teran had a constitutional obligation to disclose to the defense. Rather than focus on cleaning up a department and improving conditions in the crumbling jail system, he used his platform to attack political opponents—and D.A. Gascon was his primary target. He continues this behavior today. Any charges that stem from his rants should be immediately suspect.

The A.G.’s office likewise remains incredibly secretive about the allegations. And as L.A. Times reporter Keri Blakinger pointed out, the A.G.’s handling of the case post-charge is extraordinary in the worst way. The office put out a warrant for Teran’s arrest instead of simply issuing a summons. Now she has a mugshot. And after a hearing, the court set a high bond—she ended up paying $50,000—when according to the standard bail guidelines, she should have been released on her own recognizance. Is this woman charged with downloading documents a public safety risk? Is she a flight risk? Certainly not on either count.�� If this behavior by the A.G. and the court seems excessive and cruel, that’s because it is.

And then there are the allegations themselves. District attorneys have an ironclad obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense, including police misconduct. If they fail to do so, a defendant may well have his conviction overturned. Certainly, in her role in the sheriff’s department, Teran knew how much misconduct existed. If she failed to ensure defendants received it — essentially, shutting off her brain to anything she learned in that role — she would have violated the Constitution, jeopardized convictions, and harmed victims. That does not seem like an outcome the Attorney General of this state should want, but it is this behavior that the A.G. appears to be punishing.

Why would Bonta, a Democrat, pursue such absurd charges? That’s the million-dollar question. But we can make some educated guesses based on the behavior we see across the state and the ability of law enforcement unions to exert political and financial muscle. In San Francisco, the peace officers union spent at least $600,000 to launch an effort to recall then-D.A. Chesa Boudin. In 2022, the California Correctional Peace Officers Association contributed over $1 million to state races, including more than to support Bonta’s election; and in 2020, $1.2 million.

If this is the motivation, it comes at a high cost. A career public servant is now facing eleven felony charges. The A.G.’s baseless charges will certainly make other prosecutors think twice before fully complying with their Brady obligations, lest they become a target of the union or vendetta-driven officials like Villanueva. And this will mean that people accused of crimes will not receive constitutionally fair trials. The results of this prosecution, in other words, will be catastrophic.

Despite Teran’s desire for a swift resolution, it appears the A.G. intends to drag it out for months. We should all watch with bated breath and hope for the only just resolution—all charges dismissed.

Jody Armour is a professor of law at USC and the author of “N*gga Theory: Race, Language, Unequal Justice, and the Law.”��

Consider my story. My 18-month-old son slipped and broke his leg. He received the standard of care from a Los Angeles pediatrician, but I wanted a second opinion. The subsequent physician we saw in Long Beach dismissed the pediatrician’s treatment and said my son needed rushed spica cast surgery via the emergency room.

This was a stressful situation. I had two medical opinions from respected doctors, one conventional and one aggressive, and I didn’t know what to do. To help inform my decision, I asked the hospital staff for the price of the spica cast procedure. I had no idea whether it would cost $500 or $50,000.

But when I tried to get basic price information, nurses and staff were incredulous and even hostile. They gaslit me into thinking I was crazy for merely asking for the price. They acted like I was nickel-and-diming over Angels tickets, not inquiring about the often wildly inflated price of major hospital care.

I decided that if I couldn’t trust the hospital about the price of the procedure, then I couldn’t trust it about the quality either. I pulled my son from his hospital bed and made plans to discuss this second opinion with his L.A. pediatrician.

But the story doesn’t end there. Hours later, I received a call from the second physician guilt-tripping me for my decision. “Just to confirm, you won’t be returning to the hospital for the treatment?” he concluded ominously. The next morning, I woke up to a knock on my door from the police. The hospital had called Child Protective Services. Outrageous.

After I cleared things up with the police and CPS, I looked into the second opinion further. It turned out my instinct was correct. The pediatrician said the procedure was unnecessary. My health insurer told me that it wouldn’t have been covered and would have cost me around $10,000. By demanding an upfront price, I protected my family’s health and wealth.

But what about the vulnerable people who don’t have the English skills or confidence needed to stand up to aggressive hospital staff, let alone the police? Are they just railroaded by the medical system?

Statistics suggest they are. Approximately 100 million Americans have medical debt. One in six people of color have medical debt in collections, i.e., ruined credit scores and garnished wages. Most Americans now avoid or delay care for fear of financial devastation.

Bipartisan legislation in the U.S. Senate, cosponsored by Sens. Mike Braun (R-IN) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT), would make real healthcare prices a reality. The Health Care Price Transparency Act 2.0 would codify and strengthen federal price transparency rules on hospitals and health insurers. It requires the publication of actual prices, not estimates, which don’t provide financial protection and prevent meaningful comparisons. The bill would unleash a competitive, pro-consumer marketplace, as clear prices do in other economic sectors.

This is a bipartisan issue for a bipartisan Congress. It should prioritize passing this vital healthcare reform this year. Healthcare price transparency can empower patients and families to choose the best care at the best prices and avoid overcharging when we’re in our most vulnerable state.

Michael Klein is a sales engineer in Palos Verdes.

Labor is crucial for commerce. Without people to produce goods and services, commerce would cease to exist. Businesses rely on labor to function, creating a demand similar to that of material goods and services. In other words, the labor market is the foundation on which all other markets depend.

In an age where everyone feels the need to have an opinion on just about everything, many people consider themselves “economic experts.” However, when everyone has an opinion on a complex issue, most of those opinions are bound to be wrong. Economics is a prime example of this, filled with false consensuses. With that in mind, let’s go ahead and debunk some common myths about the history of the American labor market, from the Industrial Revolution to the present.

When examining the history of America’s labor market, we must set ideology aside. Certain truths can be inconvenient when they contradict deeply held beliefs. Economics and politics are so intertwined that stating an objectively factual statement can lead to derision depending on the company one keeps. Contemporary Western society collectively holds onto many dogmas and assumptions that are patently incorrect.

One area of contention is the Industrial Revolution and the Gilded Age, often subject to criticism regarding the relationship between industry and climate change, income inequality, exploitation, and corruption by capitalism’s so-called excesses. Another common talking point is , and it was , , and the labor market thrived. However, none of these statements are true, as Nobel Prize-winning economist F. A. Hayek discusses in his 1954 book .

Hayek sets the record straight regarding the effects of the so-called “Robber Barons” on American labor markets during the Gilded Age. Many contemporary historians argue that (false claims that we often find in many modern classroom textbooks). They also claim that these corporations coerced rural populations to move to crowded, polluted cities for work, leaving them worse off. However, . While the consolidation of industry did lead to spikes in the labor market and increased productivity, there is no correlation between this and corporate exploitation.

The Industrial Revolution did not result in the poor getting poorer and the rich getting richer due to “capitalist oppression”. In fact, the generation of wealth was a result of a symbiotic relationship between the emerging industrial labor market and innovative industrialists. While the industrialists did become richer at a faster rate than the average laborer, .

The mass exodus of poor rural farmers to urban industrial centers was voluntary. Life in the countryside was more difficult and dangerous compared to urban life. The growing labor markets in major cities attracted rural folk, as there was a rise in demand for unskilled laborers. These workers were .

led to an increase in consumer demand and mass production. This incentivized the capitalist class to hire new workers on a large scale. Working for these firms provided financial security that exceeded what the rural poor had access to. Thus, the expanding labor demand from the hardships of rural living. Long story short, the reality of the situation is that the captains of industry and the ordinary bourgeoisie were responsible for laying the foundations for the diverse job market we have today.

While labor unions played a minor role in improving working conditions and the wellbeing of workers, the impact of private industry that of the labor movement. Early labor unions were generally hostile towards the growth of the industrial labor market and implemented barriers of entry to protect their own interests, Labor unions were reactionary in nature, a backlash against the progress of the Industrial Age. For example, organized labor largely technological innovations that would ultimately benefit both worker safety and economic productivity. The policies they pushed for of their members. They initially opposed concepts like the five-day workweek and company benefits, wanting to control the conditions themselves, as well as the labor supply.

F.A. Hayek and his fellow Austrian Economists present a more accurate picture of the consequences of the Industrial Revolution and the individuals, movements, ideas, and innovations that emerged from it. Their valuable insights provide a far more accurate understanding in contrast to most mainstream contemporary and modern economic historians.

Jacob Swartz is a writer and independent content creator based out of the Washington D.C. area. In addition to his involvement with the Mises Institute, he runs “The Politicrat” YouTube channel, where he conducts interviews and produces long form video content. This was written for and published by the Mises Institute.

Every day, I hear from constituents making tough choices between paying their utility bills, affording their homes, and managing everyday expenses. These stories are not just troubling; they are a call to action. We must take decisive steps to curb the escalating costs threatening our way of life.

Our priority must be stabilizing and reducing the cost of housing. I have introduced several legislative measures aimed at increasing housing affordability. In my first year in the legislature, I authored��. Recognizing that due to the high cost of housing, the historic housing shortage, particularly for affordable entry-level homes, and the struggle that young Californians face in saving for a down payment, buying a home in California can be an unattainable dream.��

SB 601, the��, would have incentivized homeowners looking to sell their homes to consider first-time buyers by increasing the capital gains exclusion on homes sold to first-time buyers.

In 2023, I authored��, which prioritizes the development of affordable and transitional housing on surplus state property. This initiative not only addressed the housing shortage but also provided real opportunities for our most vulnerable populations. The governor signed SB 240 into law.

������������������,��, which I am currently authoring, will reduce the number of evictions in mobilehome parks by giving residents and park owners more time to address violations. This measure is about fairness and stability, ensuring that fewer families face the disruption and despair of eviction.

Beyond housing, we must tackle other essential living costs that burden Californians.��

Since arriving in Sacramento, I have been vocal in advocating for the suspension of the��, recognizing the immediate relief this would offer millions of Californians. My call to suspend the gas tax was never supported by the majority party.��

Leaving families to choose between food, heat, or medications is cruel and goes against everything we stand for. In response, together with members of the Senate Republican Caucus, I��sent a����to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) asking what steps were taken to mitigate the effect of projected natural gas costs would have on Californians, especially our vulnerable populations, in February of last year.��

Through my collective advocacy, the CPUC approved an early disbursement of an annual utility bill credit for Californians, which resulted in Californians receiving credit in time to offset some of the current high prices they were facing.

My support for Senate Minority Leader Jones’����was critical step in opposing proposals that would have increased utility bills based on income. By advocating for a return to capped fixed charges, championed the principle that utility bills should be based on how much energy is used, not on a family’s income. This approach not only makes energy costs more predictable and manageable for all families but also encourages responsible energy consumption.

Through strong partnership work, my colleagues and I were able to pause��However, unfortunately, the Senate Energy, Utilities, and Communications Committee rejected the Cost of Living Reduction Act in April.��

Additionally, hosting����has allowed me to reach directly into communities, offering tools and education that empower individuals to better manage their finances during these challenging economic times.

Yet, more than legislative action is needed. We need a comprehensive strategy that includes responsible budgeting at the state level, avoiding unnecessary expenditures, and ensuring that our tax dollars are spent efficiently to maximize benefits for all Californians.

As we move forward, I am committed to continuing this fight, working tirelessly with my colleagues to craft policies that address immediate concerns and lay the groundwork for long-term stability and affordability. The challenges are significant, but together, we can make California a place where every hardworking family can thrive.

represents the 23rd��Senate District that includes portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties.

Instead of addressing these concerns, state leaders doubled down on orienting our public schools away from students and their parents, who should be deciding what their children learn. Woke school administrators demonstrated they are content to hand our children over extremist ideologues who clearly believe public education exists to carry out radical indoctrination, not to serve the best interests of our children.��

In the Fall of last year, California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed suit against Chino Valley Unified School District for mandating that parents be informed if their child identifies as transgender or “gender non-conforming.” Evident in the Attorney General’s about “forced outing” and “expos[ing] our most vulnerable students” is that state leaders think parents are villains, and that government is the primary protector for children. A court ruling ultimately led the District to its policy, generalizing parental notification to include any changes to a student’s record. Yet pro-child transition advocates say it’s still discriminatory.

In the latest segment of this saga, Murrieta Valley School District explicitly state orders by reaffirming a parental notification policy similar to that in Chino. If the voices heard at their April meeting were any indication, the Board is acting in line with the wishes of the parents who showed up in droves to support these protections. Similar lawsuits are ongoing throughout the state, including in nearby where a parental notification policy similar to that in Chino Valley remains in place.

The state’s ongoing persecution of these school boards expose the astounding level of disorder in our officials’ thoughts on education. First, Bonta and his acolytes seem content to discount the legitimate interests of the overwhelming number of parents who wish to raise their children according to their values and judgments. It is parents who know what is best for their children and how to help them when with difficult questions. Yet, when the state will not allow parents to be informed about serious issues that arise at school, they are deprived of an opportunity to counsel their children through sensitive situations.

Second, Bonta and others seem to think that government agents such as school administrators are well-intentioned and trustworthy figures when it comes to guiding children in these life-altering decisions. Even more shocking, they make it clear that the greatest risk to children who may be struggling with gender issues are parents! Speaking about the Chino Valley mandate that parents should merely be informed, Bonta’s own deputy said, “we can’t gamble for safety of students.” Yet who bestowed on school bureaucrats and politicians the prudence to determine what is best for any particular child? And what makes their claim to be the protectors of children greater than a parent’s natural prerogative?��

Implicit in these criticisms is that simply expressing reservations about gender transitioning for children and adolescents is dangerous, even if such concern is for one’s own child. The truth is that Bonta and others’ opposition to parental notification of transgender identification has little to do with protecting children and everything to do with using public schools as a carte blanche space to indoctrinate children and further their radical cultural agenda.��

The reality is that parents are on the front lines as defense against this attack on their rights to guide and teach their children and protect them from those who would irreversibly mutilate them. The attorney general and school bureaucrats are not trustworthy or protective figures if their priority is to hide life-altering surgeries from parents.��

School districts in Chino Valley, Murrieta Valley, Temecula, and throughout the state are doing the right thing by restoring parents’ natural right to be informed of life-altering developments regarding their children. Other school districts across the state need to follow suit before politicians can further harm California families.��

Melissa Melendez is the Executive Director of the California Chapter of the America First Policy Institute. She previously served as a California State Senator and Assemblymember.����

The Attorney General’s office recently confirmed that it’s circulating a proposal to reclassify marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III under the federal Controlled Substances Act. The move, which affirms a����by the Department of Health and Human Services and the FDA, marks an about-face for bureaucracies that have traditionally maintained a “flat earth” perspective for all things cannabis.��

Under federal guidelines,����possess “no currently accepted medical use in the United States” and “lack accepted safety for use under medical supervision.” By contrast, Schedule III substances, like ketamine and anabolic steroids, are recognized as having well-established medical use�� and an acceptable safety profile for patients.

The federal government’s decision to finally recognize cannabis as a legitimate therapeutic agent is historic.��

For decades, federal officials maligned patients and doctors who spoke out about the benefits of cannabis. One former federal drug czar even accused physicians who supported medical marijuana of practicing “.”��

For years, the government����against statewide medical cannabis legalization initiatives — and even went so far as����of their medical licenses for daring to discuss cannabis therapy with the sick and dying.��

Not anymore.��

According to HHS, an estimated 30,000 health practitioners in the United States are currently authorizing medical marijuana for their patients. The department also����that��“the vast majority of individuals who use marijuana are doing so in a manner that does not lead to dangerous outcomes to themselves or others.”

The government’s stunning reversal validates the experiences of tens of millions of Americans. But it still falls����of the changes necessary to bring federal marijuana policy into the 21st��century. Specifically, the proposed change����federal marijuana policy with the cannabis laws of most U.S. states, particularly the����that have legalized its use and sale to adults.��

These jurisdictions regulate marijuana in a manner far more akin to alcohol — a substance omitted from the Controlled Substances Act — than a prescription drug. As a result, the state-licensed adult-use cannabis industry — and those who patronize it — will continue to operate in legal limbo, without any clear guidance from the federal government.

Nevertheless, as a first step forward, this policy change dramatically shifts the political debate surrounding cannabis.��

Of course, the longstanding politicization of cannabis won’t go away overnight. For decades, marijuana’s critics have derided both the plant and its consumers. Some will no doubt continue to try and do so despite the federal government’s decision to change course. But their claims will increasingly fall upon deaf ears.��

After nearly a century of cannabis criminalization, prohibition is coming to an end.

Paul Armentano is the Deputy Director for, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. This op-ed was distributed by OtherWords.org.