Salute To The Fallen
Kabul, 26 Aug 2021, 13 KIA
In Honor of the 20th Anniversary of the 9/11 Attacks on America, We Honor USAFA 1987 Graduate Leroy Homer who Heroically Died as the Co-Pilot of United Flight 93 on That Fateful Day
Patti Stuart, STARRS BoD Member, USAFA ‘87
From his earliest days growing up in Long Island, American hero LeRoy W. Homer Jr. dreamed of being a pilot. At 15 years old he began working part-time jobs to pay for flight lessons and secured a private pilot’s license a few short years later. He was a very quick study and an excellent student, gaining acceptance to the Air Force Academy’s Class of 1987. Following graduation, LeRoy completed pilot training and was assigned to McGuire AFB, flying the C-141 Starlifter (at the time, one of the largest aircraft in the world).
LeRoy served in the First Gulf War and later supported operations in Somalia. He was selected as the 21st Air Force’s Aircrew Instructor of the Year for 1993. In 1995, LeRoy separated from active duty, joined the Air Force Reserve, and became a United Airlines pilot. In his reservist role, LeRoy – already an accomplished C-141 instructor – volunteered to be an Admissions Liaison Officer for USAFA. LeRoy earned the rank of major and resided in New Jersey, living a happy life with his wife, Melodie, and his baby daughter, Laurel.
On September 11, 2001, LeRoy served as Captain Jason Dahl on United Airlines Flight 93, Newark to San Francisco. Forty minutes into the flight, the crew was warned of a possible cockpit breach - two other aircraft had already flown into the World Trade Center towers.
With violent sounds of a struggle in the cockpit’s background, at 9:28 a.m. LeRoy shouted a “Mayday” call to Air Traffic Control (ATC). After-action analyses indicate that during the highjacking, First Officer Homer was knocked unconscious and dragged from the cockpit. However, prior to the assault and upon receipt of the ATC warning, the pilots had the foresight to manipulate the automatic pilot to render it impossible for the hijackers to control their aircraft. Indeed, after-action transcripts indicate that one of the hijackers remarked, “This does not work now. Bring the pilot back!” The two pilots were the first to fight the terrorists, and along with the crew and passengers, thwarted an attack on either the White House or the U.S. Capitol Building.
I am humbled and honored to say that I knew LeRoy while at the Air Force Academy. LeRoy was my classmate, and while I did not know him well, my memories of him align with those of his closest friends. During our freshman (Doolie) year, I shared a class with LeRoy after lunch. This was a military class, and admittedly, I had a very hard time staying awake. If it was not for Leroy’s humor I would have had a much harder time. I will remember his perpetual smile forever.
In the wake of 9/11 I have asked many classmates if they knew LeRoy. It turns out that the majority of my 1,000+ classmates knew him and have shared some great stories about him, especially about his attitude and his sense of humor. And his gift to impact so many of us positively. Whether one knew him well or not, all of us express our gratitude for the sacrifice he made on September 11th.
LeRoy posthumously received many awards and citations for his actions on that tragic day, but I believe he would be pleased most with the establishment of The LeRoy W. Homer Jr. Foundation, founded in 2002. This foundation was established to encourage and support young adults who wish to pursue careers as professional pilots and to increase awareness in the field of aviation. In support of this goal, The LeRoy Homer Jr. Foundation has awarded twenty-seven scholarships toward the goal of obtaining a private pilot’s license. What a fitting legacy for such a superior role model, pilot and individual!
Board Of Directors Spotlight
Ken Battle is a retired Air Force Chief Master Sergeant with 33 years of service. He served as the Maintenance Group Chief Enlisted Manager, providing staff support to the 315th Maintenance Group.
He was appointed by Gov. Nikki Haley to the South Carolina Commission for Minority Affairs in July 2015 and reappointed by Gov. Henry McMaster in June 2018. He is the current Board Chair and represents the 1st Congressional District. The commission serves as the single point of contact for the state’s minority population and provides programs designed to support the state’s minority community needs.
Ken is the Advisory Board Chair for the Economic Continuity Alliance (ECA) which has the mission to create continuous sustainable economic opportunities for African American businesses by eliminating barriers through providing resources, training, and access to capital. ECA is a membership-based organization, provides supportive services to increase the number of African American start-ups, and strengthens existing minority owned businesses preparing them to compete and excel.
Ken is also on the board, and elected secretary, of the Exchange Club of Charleston. The club has operated a Fair continually in Charleston County since 1924. Through its fundraising, the Fair has provided millions of dollars to hundreds of charities. The club’s donations benefit thousands of our citizens and make the Low Country a better place to live and work.
Ken was appointed Vice Chair of the Charleston Advancement Academy (CAA) in April 2019. CAA is a tuition free public charter high school. Partnering with the South Carolina Public Charter School District, its mission is to help young adults overcome real life challenges and earn their South Carolina state-issued High School Diploma.
Ken recently accepted a position on the board of Stand Together Against Racism and Radicalism in the Services (STARRS). The vision is to unify and inspire ALL Americans to acquire a deep understanding our unique heritage and to develop a lasting love for their country by embracing its North Star, America’s founding principles.
Ken was the founder, and then elected President in 2018, of the Mentor Exchange Club of Charleston. As President he worked within the Low Country community to exchange ideas and information with like-minded individuals, coaching and instructing them on how to better serve their communities. Helping People…Changing Lives.
Ken was the founder and President of Charleston Communities for Liberty, a community outreach organization, from June 2013 to June 2014. The organization was devoted to the ministry of assisting minority youth find gainful employment. Ken willingly took on numerous speaking engagements across the state, teaching the value of education.
Ken was an elected President of the Summerville Dorchester Museum in 2014 where he coordinated events and fostered community inclusiveness. Accomplishments included coordinating crowd control and security at the museum for the arrival of the “Best Friend of Charleston”, the historic train replica, built in the 1920s and valued at $750,000 owned by the City of Charleston.
Ken Battle is married to the former Denise M. Hawkins of Washingtonville, NY, has two sons, and four grandchildren
On the Oath of Office
Phillip Keuhlen, Commander, USN (Ret), USNA ’71
An oath of office has been a feature of U.S. military service since before our nation’s founding with several versions approved by the Continental Congress. But since 1789, in the oath specified by the first Congress of the newly constituted United States of America, the central, unending promise made by officers of the U.S. armed forces has been to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States ….”
This is unusual. Other nations’ militaries take oaths to defend their sovereign, their mother/fatherland, or their people. In two notable exceptions, where officers of other countries do take oaths mentioning their country’s constitution, the oaths require them to “comply with” (Russia) or “be loyal to” (China) their constitutions, not profess an affirmative responsibility to defend their constitution.
An officer ought to note this difference, understand the basis of the oath, and contemplate the responsibilities undertaken by it. A key resource for this purpose is the DOD publication, THE ARMED FORCES OFFICER (TAFO). In discussion of the American tradition of the citizen-soldier, the authors note that,
“….today’s armed forces officer is a champion of both the nation’s defense and the principles upon which the nation was founded. Taking an oath to support and defend the Constitution means swearing to uphold the core values that define the essence of American citizenship; the armed forces officer is first and foremost a citizen who has embraced the ideals of the nation – only then can he or she defend those principles with true conviction.” (Emphasis added)
The Constitution defines a compact of the people for a form and process of governance designed to protect and fulfill the principles stated in The Declaration of Independence. The First Principles of the American founding are contained in two elegant sentences:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. – That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
TAFO does not delve deeply into the origin or meaning of these principles, but simply describes them as universal principles concerning the proper relationship between citizens and the nation. It focuses on service by an officer to the sovereign people through civilian control of the military established in the Constitution. We will return to the TAFO guidance shortly. However, it is appropriate to first discuss the meaning of these First Principles each officer must embrace and defend.
The Founders were deeply imbued with the philosophy of natural rights associated with English philosopher John Locke. The Declaration affirms there are universal and unchanging truths about what is right and moral (natural rights) that arise from the existence of a perfect Creator and can be understood by the application of reason to the natural law revealed by the Creator. The First Principles stated by the Founders are enshrined as the first organic law in the U. S. Code and declare our rights are individual rights; that they are shared by all mankind; that they are conferred by our Creator, not by any state; and that they are ours by right, not bestowed by our government. The Declaration proclaims these truths incontrovertible, requiring no defense. It defines the legitimate function of government as securing the natural rights of individual citizens, and states that the power of government to secure those natural rights derives only from the consent of the people. These are the principles on which the Republic was founded and that every officer has sworn to defend.
DOD guidance in the TAFO acknowledges the role of the officer as a champion of the founding principles defended by the Constitution, but gives primacy to the tradition of civilian control of the military that arises from the constitutional authority of the President as the Commander-in-Chief, acting according to the laws and regulations enacted by the Congress. It provides this guidance:
“The American officer must refrain from individual interpretations of the Constitution. To be a “Defender of the Constitution and Servant of the Nation,” officers must promptly and effectively obey the chain of command, regardless of political party or ideological bent. An officer’s duty must be to implement state policy and to execute without challenge the lawful orders of elected leadership, reserving advice for legitimate forums and restricting it to matters of professional competence. Officers must not publicly question the effectiveness or validity of national policy.”1
Acknowledging this guidance, serving officers are guided by DOD to subordinate their personal beliefs about the Constitution to the policies established by the civilian leadership and the implementing orders issued by the chain of command. Such guidance notwithstanding, officers cannot escape their moral responsibility to support and defend both the Constitution and the principles enumerated in the Declaration.
Officers have several legitimate courses of action if they have reservations about actions, policies or orders in either regard.
- They have a duty to advise their superiors if they understand an action, policy or practice constitutes an adverse effect, whether their concern arises from constitutionality, lawfulness, or any other basis. By training and experience, officers have the professional competence to make recommendations about matters affecting the military effectiveness of their units, for both technical matters and non-technical factors such as trust, morale and unit cohesiveness. However, unless an order will result in manifestly illegal actions (e.g., genocide or other war crimes), they are obligated to carry out the order to the best of their ability after providing recommendations.
- They have the right to communicate with their representatives in Congress. Such communication must be in their capacity as a citizen, not in an official capacity.
- They have a duty to respond forthrightly and completely regarding their professional views when called upon to provide them by constitutionally empowered authorities such as members of Congress (e.g.;Crenshaw.house.gov/whistleblower).
- The have the right to submit reports (on the record or anonymously) of unlawful or unethical actions to IG or to EEO organizations within the service or to act as “whistleblowers" under appropriate statutes.
- They have the right as citizens to challenge by litigation policies or practices they believe unlawful or unconstitutional.
- They have the right to resign their commission stating the cause(s), and freely publicize their resignation and its cause(s) once accepted and separated.
An officer courageously taking any such action must understand the potential for repercussions, in spite of statutory protections.
1.The Armed Forces Officer, Department of Defense, Electronic Publication, January 2006, Chapter 4, Page 38
“Can The Academy Survive?”
PART 2 - Is Attrition A Good Thing?
By Doug Goodman, STARRS member, USAFA ‘72
By Scott Sturman M.D., STARRS BOA member, USAFA ‘72
In June 1968, 1254 of us Basic Cadets with newly shaved heads attended a briefing in Arnold Hall given by Brigadier General and triple ace Robin Olds. He began, “Look to the gentleman on your right.” 1254 heads snapped right. “Look to the gentleman on your left.” 1254 heads snapped left. “Four years from now one in three of you will not be here.” Most of us thought that third person would be someone else!
The general was right, and we were wrong. In June 1972 only 752 or 60% of our class graduated. In the ensuing four years we learned an important lesson. Those who left prematurely were not losers or quitters, but often the strongest amongst us and some of our best friends. The four-year Academy experience either reinforced or diminished career expectations. Some found the challenges of cadet life exhilarating and embraced it, while others rejected it and made the rational decision that a career in the Air Force was “just not for them.” A 1/3 attrition rate is natural, historically validated, and mutually beneficial for the institution and prospective career officers.
The single best high school indicator of success at the Academy is the motivation to make the Air Force a career. Most seventeen and eighteen year olds are ill equipped to make life long judgements, and, unfortunately, there are no other selection criteria that can reliably predict success. The four-year Academy experience of demanding academic, leadership, and physical challenges becomes the testing ground for identifying which cadets will be the optimum match for an Air Force career.
Lower attrition rates have led to another disturbing trend: the number of graduates that are motivated to make the Air Force a career has dropped from over 90% in the 1960s to under 50% today. This drop is closely correlated with the decline in respect for the Honor Code, as it has plummeted from nearly 100% in the 1960s to under 70% today, with 2/3 of the drop coming in the last decade. Not surprisingly, this decline in respect for the Honor Code is also associated with measurements of character development.
Character tests and Honor Code surveys demonstrate that fourth class cadets enter the Academy as the most honorable of the classes, but in spite of ensuing ethics and character training, their respect for the Honor Code declines over the next four years. Ironically, the well-trained upper classes fully understand the expectations of the Honor Code, but training has not translated into honorable behavior. There are at least three reasons that can be attributed to this decline in respect and adherence to the Honor Code: selective application, misuse for disciplinary reasons, and distrust in cadet ownership of the Code. The first of these is decidedly the most pernicious.
In regard to selective application, over 60% of graduates admit to violating the Honor Code, mostly due to the toleration provision, and yet less than 5% are adjudicated. To resolve this perceived unfairness and cynicism, cadets are put in the impossible position of enduring the scorn of “whistleblowing” or violating the toleration clause. It is worthwhile to remember that throughout all segments of society whistleblowing is generally an unsuccessful strategy with a high risk-low benefit ratio. In either case, respect for the Honor Code and faith in their soon-to-be fellow officers diminishes.
Left unresolved, an even bleaker future confronts the Honor Code. In an increasingly polarized society, group loyalties and identity politics are ascendent. Movements like CRT hold that individual and universal rights, as delineated in the Constitution, are social constructs designed to keep marginalized classes oppressed. Their assertion that legitimate rights are granted only to certain groups reenforces group loyalty. Special interest groups can take many forms at a military academy, but examples include: athletic teams, marginalized groups, academic study groups, identity groups, or malcontents.
When graduates from the past fifty years are surveyed to prioritize lessons of character, honor has declined from over 80% to less than 40%, while loyalty has risen from 15% to over 35%. Projecting current trends, loyalty will displace honor as the primary driver of ethical behavior by 2022. Loyalty can be a noble trait, but misplaced group loyalty over individual honor could sound the death knell for the Honor Code.
Random individual Honor Code violations driven by human nature are unavoidable. Individual indiscretions must be segregated from large scale group scandals, since initiating motivations and overall effect on the Academy are profoundly different. Large scale group scandals are predictable and stem from rampant, unenforced honor violations - primarily the toleration clause. A period of relative calm exists between scandals, as undetected and unenforced individual violations accumulate to a tipping point. A positive feedback loop ensues as the inherent unfairness of the system affects individuals personally and negatively. To report or not report? As misplaced loyalty supersedes honor, toleration is the inevitable result. The group provides validation to the individual and protects its members from whistleblowers.
Rebuilding respect for the Honor Code should not be focused on character development training of the fourth class. They are not the problem - they are already the most honorable of the classes. Similarly, aligning faculty and staff expectations is futile, as long as cadets are compelled to live in an environment of arbitrary enforcement. Requiring upper class cadets to recommit to the Oath of Honor taken at the conclusion of Basic Cadet Training and expecting a different outcome is naive. As last year’s scandal that involved 243 cadets guilty of cheating on an examination demonstrates, a program that expels less than 10% of violators while enrolls over 90% of guilty parties into an unvalidated, compulsory probation program reinforces the notion that valuing group loyalty over honor will be rewarded with leniency.
The starting point for rebuilding respect for the Honor Code is the rejection of the notion that the Academy must adjust its expectations to match the societal decline in ethics. Incoming cadets clearly recognize and embrace the expectation that they will be held to a higher ethical standard than their civilian counterparts. However, ethics and character training are rendered ineffective when cadets live in an environment where the Honor Code is enforced capriciously and hypocritically. It is incumbent on Academy leadership to recognize that the promotion of group identities and special interest loyalty over individual honor and integrity creates the breeding ground for large scale honor scandals. Managing the balance between honor and loyalty is paramount and it can also provide a framework for rebuilding respect for the Honor Code.
Coming soon: Part 3 - “There is No “I” in Honor Code”
Thanks to Dr. Frederick Malmstrom, PhD, a member of the USAFA Class of 1964, who served as a visiting scholar at USAFA from 1999-2014 and volunteered more than 10,000 hours of research timeinvestigating the Academy’s Honor Code.
Navy Update Part III
By Brent Ramsey, STARRS member, CAPT, USN (Ret), NROTC ‘69
Senator Cotton and Congressmen Banks, Crenshaw, and Gallagher commissioned an investigation recently to examine “The Fighting Culture of the United States Navy Surface Fleet”. The investigation was carried out by Lt Gen Robert E. Schmidle, USMC (Ret), and RADM Montgomery, USN (Ret). They report diversity compliance is a major resource drain and an impediment to fleet readiness. From the report:
"Sailors increasingly see administrative and non-combat related training as the mission, rather than the mission itself. “Sometimes I think we care more about whether we have enough diversity officers than if we’ll survive a fight with the Chinese navy,” lamented one lieutenant currently on active duty. “It’s criminal. They think my only value is as a black woman. But you cut our ship open with a missile and we’ll all bleed the same color.”
"Frustration with nonessential training was found to be overwhelming and not limited to the surface warfare community. Navy leaders have contributed to a morass of requirements, but so have senior civilian defense leadership and Congress. While programs to encourage diversity, human sex trafficking prevention, suicide prevention, sexual assault prevention, and others are appropriate, they come with a cost. The non-combat curricula consume Navy resources, clog in-boxes, create administrative quagmires, and monopolize precious training time. By weighing down sailors with non-combat related training and administrative burdens, both Congress and Navy leaders risk sending them into battle less prepared and less focused than their opponents,"
“I guarantee you every unit in the Navy is up to speed on their diversity training. I’m sorry that I can’t say the same of their ship handling training."
The investigation looked at recent Navy failures which have been frequent, troubling, and have led to loss of life, erosion of confidence in the Navy, and to the utter destruction of one the Navy’s amphibs, the USS Bonhomme Richard which burned pier-side in San Diego July of last year. The ship was only halfway through its life span and as a result of the catastrophic damage done by the fire was stricken and scrapped costing the Navy billions. The Navy’s current estimate to replace the ship is over $4B, money the Navy does not have. That the above striking observations were made by such senior and objective volunteer investigators with impeccable credentials and out of a desire for what’s best for the Navy, and who weren’t focused on the subject of diversity, is troubling about the Navy leadership and priorities.
While the Navy seems to accept at face value that it has racism problems, volumes of research point to a different explanation altogether. Peer review studies show that minorities in America are just as successful on average as whites if just three factors are present. One, finish high school. Two, have full time employment of any type even entry level. Three, marry before having children. If a young Black or Hispanic or any other ethnicity American does just these three things, opportunity in our great land opens up to all, including serving in the Navy at any level. Prior to recent political influence on the military, DoD carefully assessed internally conditions associated with alleged racism or white supremacy in the service and found that less than 2% of serving members or employees identified racism or white supremacy as a problem. Any racism or white supremacy is unacceptable. However, readily available data as to what constitutes a problem internally should drive policy and resource allocation, not politics or pop culture memes.
In our view, the Navy pursuing arbitrary demographic standards and adopting the language of CRT has gone off course. TF1N is a tremendous waste of resources that the Navy can ill afford. The GAO has recently documented that the services including the Navy have severe readiness problems. The Congressionally chartered study done by Lt Gen Schmidle and RADM Montgomery regarding the surface Navy raises legitimate questions about the Navy’s judgement, leadership, and resource allocation decision-making. It’s time for citizens to hold the Navy accountable for its poor judgment in embracing CRT, its poor leadership in establishing TF1N, and its lack of focus on ships and readiness.
The Navy appears to be adrift. The real enemy that every sailor, including the CNO, should be focused on, every hour, every day, is the People’s Republic of China. The CCP has boldly announced they are coming for us. Our Navy is not ready! To all appearances, its top priority is dubious personnel policy and practice instead of focusing on creating warriors and putting lethal ships to sea.
Brent Ramsey is a retired naval officer, writer, and volunteer. His articles/commentary on national defense have appeared at Real Clear Defense, National Defense, the Center for International Maritime Security, United States Naval Institute Proceedings, the Association of the United States Navy, and CD Media
Evidence of Indoctrination in the military
1. West Point Teaching "Marxism," Military Official Says; Left-Wing Courses Revealed
Amanda Prestigiacomo of The Daily Wire published an article on 13 Aug 2021 revealing that West Point’s curriculum includes several classes that incorporate the tenants of neo-Marxist Critical Race Theory indoctrination:
- Social Inequality
- Military Leadership: Leading Inclusive Teams
- Politics of Race Gender and Sexuality and Diversity
Similarly, there is a seminar about “diversity and inclusion that features images of Black Lives Matter protesters.”
2. Space Force Base Establishes PRIDE Club
Peterson-Schriever Space Force Base’s command approved the establishment of a new club: PRIDE Club. This club aims to create a safe, welcoming, and accepting social environment for LGBTQQIAAP friends, allies, and advocates, to facilitate safe and healthy conversation, community, and support through a variety of social activities, sports, and volunteering. Open to mil/civ/ctrs/spouses. Approved 25 Aug 2021.
3. Fort Bliss Soldier Warns Americans to Obey Once Martial Law is Declared
An indoctrinated Soldier from Fort Bliss posted the following video on TikTok. She seemed to be warning the American public to obey orders of the military when they take control of the population and marshal law is declared. What prompted her to record this video? What ideology motivated it? CRT? Wokism? Marxist indoctrination?
4. In Edition 8 we published several links to stories about the BLM indoctrination video USAFA appointees were required to watch prior to reporting for Basic Cadet Training. Normally we would want to avoid beating a dead horse, but this video came out after the content cut off. STARRS leadership recommends everyone watch this video because it is the best analysis we have seen to date about the indoctrinating video. Please take a short 11 minutes to watch.
Boots On The Ground Perspectives
1. From a 2010 USAFA grad and soon to be ex-USAF pilot related this story to STARRS Member Todd Wood at CDMedia:
“What I really wanted to email you about is my time as an Instructor Pilot down at Laughlin AFB. The USAFA students who came in (graduating from 2016-2019) that I instructed were some of the most entitled and subpar I had ever seen. I loved when I could instruct ROTC and OCS grads because they actually seemed to care.
The academy has lost all its meaning and mission. They never formed us as officers. What I tell my wife is that they literally forced me to become the exact opposite they tried to mold me as. That was from 06-10, and I can hardly imagine how it is now when the four degrees aren’t even put through stress — oh yeah I can, it shows when they can’t handle the multi-engine jet I’m instructing them in when it’s actually life or death if I don’t take the aircraft.
I now withhold all my academy donations. When the Association of Graduates hits me up, I tell them I’d donate to the Coast Guard Academy before I give to them. That was before I started reading your posts on your classmate, the surrender superintendent. I can’t believe how the school I had such a love/hate (mostly hate) for has gone so Berkeley.
If you want, I can fill you in on how Undergraduate Pilot Training has also gone by the wayside. It’s pretty scary to know how these kids we’re PUSHING through are gonna be the warfighters of the future. I’ll never let my family fly Space A.
Thanks for what you do, I just needed to get that rant off my chest.”
2. From a STARRS member:
A STARRS supporter recently had the opportunity to be in front of 40-50 cadets. He asked what their biggest challenge had been over the last year.
"COVID" was the response.
"What was the second biggest challenge, he asked?"
"All the politics" was the response of one cadet.
"Like CRT," the supporter asked?
The cadet nodded and the response was readily affirmed by the majority present. The group was then immediately admonished by an upperclassman who said with a warning finger--"be careful, you never know who is listening!"
“Freedom Is Never More Than One Generation Away From Extinction”
The Indoctrination of America’s Children
(Note, although STARRS focuses on the impact of CRT in the military, our high schools provide the cadets and recruits who are the future of our military and its ability to defend America. Teaching CRT in K-12 schools impacts the military adversely in two ways. First children of military personnel in schools are taught values that are foreign to their parent’s military values and can lead to friction between them and their service member parents. Second, if America’s youth are taught that America is evil, racist, and needs to be completely rebuilt into a Marxist or Socialist country, it will adversely affect our ability to attract quality young people to the military. Who wants to serve, defend and potentially give their lives for an evil racist country)
Over the past few months numerous videos have surfaced on social media showing parents and students letting their voices be heard against CRT-type and Woke indoctrination to school boards who listen without emotion or response, or respond in opposition to the speakers by cutting them off, having them removed, or even ending the session before all could be heard. If they do respond, they insist the school does not “teach” CRT.
In the last couple weeks videos have surfaced proving there are anti-American teachers out there on a mission to, as one put it, create revolutionaries.
1. California teacher brags about taking the American flag out of the classroom because it made her feel “uncomfortable.” In its absence, she tells the students they could pledge allegiance to the LGBTQ flag.
2. A pro-ANTIFA teacher in Sacramento, California, bragged to an undercover Project Veritas member about his goal to turn his students into “far-left revolutionaries.” He rates their political opinions over time to watch them move left and even gives extra credit to those who participate in left-wing activism.
Parents and Students Fight Back
We Can Prevail in The War Against Marxism?
After the video in 2 above went viral, parents and students had the courage to speak out at school boards!
A Call To Action
We thank you for expressing interest in STARRS and encourage you to take an active role. Engage your elected representatives at the local, state and national levels and express your concerns. Educate your fellow citizens by speaking at gatherings, writing editorials for local papers, talking to school boards and encouraging others to join us. If you have experienced the impact of this corrosive racist ideology, please share your story and observations with our editor Tracey.
What can you do?
Petition your school board to do the right thing!
Lead your community!
HIDDEN LAWS Enable Parents to CONTROL School Boards
The Government Integrity Project has found laws that enable parents to control the actions of School Boards by getting public signatures on legal petitions. See their website for information about the laws, petition templates and other helpful tidbits:
Please support STARRS’ mission to unify, not divide, ensure that the U.S. military remains free of politics, and to educate Americans of the danger of neo-Marxism and Critical Race Theory ideology, by sending donations to: STARRS, PO Box 468, Monument, CO 80132
*** STARRS is a newly formed corporation, whose 501(c)3 status is pending with the IRS. Once approval for our educational mission is received, STARRS will be a qualified organization eligible to receive deductible charitable contributions, effective 26 April 2021.***