Connect with us

Southwest

Parents and students need school choice, not religious bigotry

Published

on

Parents and students need school choice, not religious bigotry

Join Fox News for access to this content

Plus special access to select articles and other premium content with your account – free of charge.

By entering your email and pushing continue, you are agreeing to Fox News’ Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, which includes our Notice of Financial Incentive.

Please enter a valid email address.

Having trouble? Click here.

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Politicians across the nation claim they want a world-class education system that ensures every child receives the education they deserve. 

Advertisement

How we get there is the source of debate. Despite spending hundreds of billions of dollars in recent decades on our public education system, we have very little to show. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the U.S. hovers near the middle of the pack internationally in standardized test scores even as other countries have advanced. One report said, “The U.S. struggled the most in math, where 15-year-olds in 29 other countries had higher average scores than Americans.” 

This is unacceptable. And while there are a variety of reasons for our education stagnation, we believe that one answer is to provide families more choice, including private, religious schools.  

AHEAD OF KEY SUPREME COURT ARGUMENTS, HERE’S WHICH STATES HAVE PASSED SCHOOL CHOICE MEASURES

Parents in Oklahoma have been fighting for more education freedom for decades. One way Oklahoma responded was by expanding access for new and innovative charter schools as alternatives for parents seeking a better education for their children, including offerings such as a French-immersion school.

The U.S. Supreme Court will decide if Oklahoma can let a Catholic school join its charter program. What will the court have to say? FILE: The court is seen on Nov. 15, 2023, in Washington. (AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib, File)

Advertisement

But Oklahoma’s choice is under attack once again at the United States Supreme Court.  

In Oklahoma, we have been battling two different lawsuits trying to destroy faith-based options for parents to choose. The ACLU, Freedom from Religion Foundation and others filed the first suit. Shockingly, the attorney general of Oklahoma, Gentner Drummond, filed the second.  

The aim of both suits is to prevent the Statewide Charter School Board and our Oklahoma Department of Education from treating St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School the same as every other applicant who applies to be a charter school simply because it is faith-based. The U.S. Supreme Court will soon hear arguments in the case. 

Oklahoma is rural. To ensure parents in rural areas have expanded choices, virtual options are available. We believe in Oklahoma that parents are best positioned to determine the educational needs of their own children and that the Oklahoma Department of Education should give parents as many options as possible to meet a diverse array of needs. Some parents may choose their local school, some parents may choose a brick-and-mortar charter school in their area, some parents may prefer a virtual approach.  

St. Isidore applied to be one of those options. They met all the academic criteria we require in Oklahoma to be a qualified option for parents. However, the ACLU and Attorney General Drummond objected, claiming that the state must discriminate against St. Isidore because it is Catholic.  

Advertisement

Supporters of school choice responded that we are simply trying to expand options for parents, and we are not allowed to violate the Free Exercise Clause of the United States Constitution.   

In fact, we felt bound by prior U.S. Supreme Court decisions prohibiting this kind of religious bigotry in educational choices, including Carson v. Makin, a recent case won by the Institute for Justice and First Liberty Institute against the state of Maine for doing precisely what Drummond is demanding be done here – engaging in religious bigotry against a faith-based educational option. 

The argument, advanced by the ACLU and Drummond, is that religious bigotry is enshrined in the Oklahoma Constitution because it has two provisions that work together to prohibit government resources from aiding a faith-based educational program.  

These provisions are sometimes called “little Blaine Amendments,” because they harken back to efforts by Senator James Blaine from Maine in the late 19th Century to ensure that no public funds would go to Catholic schools but rather would be reserved to the more Protestant-friendly public schools.  

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION  

Advertisement

This effort to ban Catholic schools from receiving any aid is a “doctrine, born of bigotry,” according to Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. It is this bigotry that the ACLU and Drummond are attempting to continue, and it is this bigotry that we intend to end in Oklahoma. 

For decades, politicians and activists pointed fingers at each other, each trying to blame another for the educational ills of our home state. Almost every solution offered sounds different and promising, but they usually have the same thing in common – they are government-led solutions.  

We are trying to do something different in Oklahoma. We are trying to empower parents to decide for their families and force schools to compete for parents in an open market system. Some parents would like a faith-based option.  

St. Isidore applied to be one of those options. They met all the academic criteria we require in Oklahoma to be a qualified option for parents. However, the ACLU and Attorney General Drummond objected, claiming that the state must discriminate against St. Isidore because it is Catholic.  

Excluding that option in the name of 19th century religious bigotry is just another political agenda driving education policy.  

Advertisement

Instead of fighting against parents and telling them that government officials know what is best for their children, we should instead listen to them. There is hope that the Supreme Court will give us this chance, a chance to take power away from government bureaucrats and give it back to the people.  

Ryan Walters, Oklahoma’s state superintendent of public instruction since 2023, is a former high school history teacher and education reform advocate committed to parental empowerment and conservative policy initiatives in public education. Hiram Sasser is executive general counsel for First Liberty Institute, a nonprofit law firm dedicated to defending religious freedom for all. 

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM HIRAM SASSER 

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM RYAN WALTERS

Advertisement

Read the full article from Here

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Southwest

‘Must-see TV’: Texas Senate candidate challenges Jasmine Crockett to public debate

Published

on

‘Must-see TV’: Texas Senate candidate challenges Jasmine Crockett to public debate

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

FIRST ON FOX: Texas Senate candidate Rep. Wesley Hunt, R-Texas, challenged House colleague Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, to a debate after Crockett entered the race earlier this week. 

Hunt, who faces incumbent Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in a competitive Republican primary, was quick to challenge Crockett to a debate, saying that if the new contender agreed it would be “must-see TV.”

“Jasmine Crockett and I see two different Americas. She defines this country by victimhood. I define it by hard work, grit, and determination,” Hunt told Fox News Digital.

Sources close to the campaign told Fox News Digital that Crockett approached Hunt on Capitol Hill to discuss a potential debate. Hunt’s campaign team confirmed to Fox News Digital that this is the first conversation the two have ever had. 

Advertisement

“A Hunt vs. Crockett debate is must-see TV, and I welcome it,” Hunt added.

Rep. Wesley Hunt challenged Rep. Jasmine Crockett to a debate in the newly shaken-up Texas Senate race, emphasizing their stark political differences and framing it as “must-see TV.” (Photo by Brendan SMIALOWSKI / AFP / Jason Fochtman/Houston Chronicle via Getty Images)

JASMINE CROCKETT SAYS SHE DOESN’T NEED TO CONVERT TRUMP SUPPORTERS IN HER TEXAS SENATE BID

Should Crockett or Hunt be elected to the Senate seat, it would be the first time a Black American has been elected to a state-wide office in the Lone Star State. The Texas Republican pointed this out, telling Fox that he cares more about being an American than he does a Black man.

“I’m the great-great-grandson of a slave,” Hunt told Fox. “Our family story is one of going from a plantation to West Point, combat, and the United States Congress. That’s the story of American progress.

Advertisement

“I’m proud to be Black, but I’m prouder to be an American, and a native Texan,” Hunt added. “I’m far more focused on being a father, a husband, a veteran, a servant leader, and a citizen than my skin color.”

QUIET GOP ‘ASTROTURF’ CAMPAIGN CONVINCED LIBERAL FIREBRAND TO RUN FOR US SENATE, SOURCE SAYS

Hunt’s campaign team shared a graphic with Fox News Digital they would use to promote the debate.  (Wesley Hunt for Senate)

Crockett joining the field presents a unique situation for what has traditionally been a deep red state. Her congressional district encompasses a large portion of the Dallas metropolitan area, and her youthful energy and large social media presence differ from other Democratic contenders in the past. 

Hunt also boasts a large social media presence, with his team telling Fox that they have over 4.1 million followers across multiple platforms, including Instagram, X, Truth Social and others. 

Advertisement

Crockett has 2.5 million followers on Instagram and roughly 500,000 on X.

SPEAKER JOHNSON LAUGHS OFF JASMINE CROCKETT SENATE BID: ‘ABSOLUTELY DELIGHTED’ SHE IS RUNNING 

The pair’s influencer-style approach to politics proved successful in winning their respective congressional seats, but securing victory over the Senate spot will be a challenge for both. 

Rep. Wesley Hunt launched his campaign for senate at the beginning of October.  (ANGELA WEISS/AFP via Getty Images)

Crockett’s ambition to flip the traditionally red state to the Democrats will be quite the uphill battle. Senator Tim Sott, R-S.C., who chairs the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said Democrats getting behind Crockett indicated the party has been “overrun” by a far-left agenda. 

Advertisement

“I think it says something about who the Democrats are nationally, not just in Texas,” Scott told Fox News Digital earlier this week. “What it says is that they’ve been overrun by this radical left agenda that focuses on rhetoric, not reality.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Election day for the Texas primary is Mar. 3, 2026 and the general election is Nov. 3, 2026. 

Fox News Digital reached out to Crockett, but did not receive a response.

Preston Mizell is a writer with Fox News. Story tips can be sent to Preston.Mizell@fox.com and on X @MizellPreston

Advertisement

Read the full article from Here

Continue Reading

Southwest

MIKE DAVIS: Driving a stake through 2020 election lawfare

Published

on

MIKE DAVIS: Driving a stake through 2020 election lawfare

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The 2020 election ended six years ago. Yet, two power-hungry Democrat attorneys general up for re-election next year, Kris Mayes of Arizona and Josh Kaul of Wisconsin, persist in their lawfare against Trump supporters who lawfully challenged the election. These disgraceful cases must end immediately.

President Trump and many supporters found numerous discrepancies with the 2020 election. They challenged the results in several closely-contested states. The First Amendment and the Electoral Count Act of 1887 permitted such challenges — just like Democrats challenged Republican presidential wins in 1968, 2000, 2004 and 2016. Leftists maliciously alleged that the challengers submitted “fake electors” as part of the effort to overturn certified results in these states.

Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes and Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul weigh next steps in their 2020 fake elector prosecutions. (Mario Tama/Daniel Boczarski/Getty Images for Democratic Party of Wisconsin)

This is utter nonsense. No one was duped by the intent of these alternate electors. Rudy Giuliani didn’t have the “real” electors tied up in his trunk while sending in the “fake” electors.

Advertisement

The slates of electors submitted were alternate electors in the event that, on Jan. 6, 2021, Congress sustained objections to the certification of electors in the contested states.

SOCIAL MEDIA ERUPTS AS RESURFACED AG JAMES POSTS COME BACK TO HAUNT HER: ‘NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW’

In 2022, Democrat Mayes defeated Republican Abraham Hamadeh by less than 300 votes to become attorney general of Arizona. She immediately started pursuing illegal lawfare against Trump supporters. Mark Brnovich, the previous attorney general, took no action against those who had disputed the 2020 election, because he recognized that they had committed no crimes. Mayes didn’t care and sought indictments against the eleven Arizona alternate electors and seven other defendants, including Mike Roman, President Trump’s campaign head of operations on election day.

Former Mayor of New York Rudy Giuliani speaks during a news conference outside the federal courthouse in Washington, Dec. 15, 2023. (Jose Luis Magana, File/The Associated Press)

A Maricopa County trial court correctly threw out the indictment and ordered Mayes to seek a new one. Mayes had not provided the grand jury with the full text of the Electoral Count Act, a complicated and arcane statute that has direct bearing on the case. If the statute permitted the defendants’ actions, the state cannot sustain its case. Federal election law preempts state law with respect to federal elections. The statute was so complex that Congress amended it a few years ago through the Electoral Count Reform Act.

Advertisement

Mayes scurried to the Arizona Court of Appeals. That court wisely declined to hear her appeal. Now, she has petitioned the Arizona Supreme Court for review. The justices should follow the sage lead of the appellate court and decline to hear Mayes’ appeal.

JONATHAN TURLEY: FANI WILLIS’ CASE AGAINST TRUMP COLLAPSES UNDER ITS OWN INSANITY

Mayes is the same prosecutor who threatened to investigate President Trump for a supposed death threat against former Rep. Liz Cheney — a Trump-deranged RINO — during a campaign rally in Phoenix. Trump, of course, made no such threat, and Mayes abandoned her stunt shortly after the president’s resounding victory last November.

Wisconsin also suffers from a partisan Democrat attorney general seeking re-election. In 2024, nearly four years after the conclusion of the 2020 election, Kaul, a radical leftist like Mayes, obtained indictments against three defendants, including Roman and two of Trump’s attorneys.

The facts were the same as in Arizona, except that Kaul did not charge the 10 Wisconsin alternate electors. The defendants are now facing a preliminary hearing in Dane County, a leftist bastion home to the state capital and the ultra-liberal University of Wisconsin-Madison, where they are hard-pressed to find a fair and impartial jury.

Advertisement

MIKE DAVIS: AFTER TRUMP CASE COLLAPSES, TIME FOR FANI WILLIS TO LAWYER UP

A preliminary hearing is scheduled for Dec. 15. One defendant has sought to disqualify Judge John Hyland, alleging that a retired judge named Frank Remington wrote the opinion denying a defense motion to dismiss. The recusal motion included support from a Georgetown expert who concluded that, based on writing styles, Remington had written the opinion. Hyland denied the motion to recuse and asserted that he had written the opinion.

President Donald Trump speaks during a Cabinet meeting at the White House, Tuesday, Dec. 2, 2025, in Washington, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, left, and War Secretary Pete Hegseth. (Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP Photo)

Regardless of how the preliminary hearing goes, the case should end. Kaul brought the charges, after the facts were known for four years, in the middle of the 2024 election, in which Wisconsin was a pivotal swing state. We cannot criminalize politics.

There was another prosecutorial embarrassment who brought charges against a slew of defendants over the 2020 election in Georgia: Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis. Her case got derailed when it became public, thanks to Roman’s attorney Ashleigh Merchant, that Willis was having an affair with one of the special prosecutors she had hired, Nathan Wade, who received nearly $700,000 courtesy of the taxpayers of Fulton County. Wade spent much of it on Willis, treating her to lavish global trips. The lovers claimed Willis had reimbursed Wade, but there was no corroborating evidence. Georgia courts disqualified Willis, and a special prosecutor who replaced her dismissed the case earlier this month.

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Lawfare Democrats failed to lock up, bankrupt, or defeat Trump electorally. They are trying to get one last pound of flesh from some of the president’s former aides and supporters. If Mayes and Kaul do not follow the Georgia special prosecutor’s stellar example and drop their sham cases, the courts in Arizona and Wisconsin should.

The Justice Department also should pursue charges against these affronts to the legal profession for conspiracy to violate the civil rights of these lawfare victims under 18 U.S.C. § 241. After all, as we heard so much during the lawfare campaign against President Trump, no one is above the law.

Read the full article from Here

Continue Reading

Southwest

Oklahoma man accused of threatening federal agents online

Published

on

Oklahoma man accused of threatening federal agents online

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement released an image Friday showing a suspect accused of threatening federal agents being taken into custody by an officer from Homeland Security Investigations.

The agency said, “Threatening to assault, murder or interfere with a federal agent is a FELONY.”

“Logan Murfin of Tulsa, OK, has been charged with ten counts after posting on social media that federal agents need to be gunned down, shot & executed,” ICE wrote on X.

“Welcome to the find out stage, Logan,” it added.

Advertisement

SANCTUARY POLITICIANS’ RHETORIC LED TO 1,150% SURGE IN VIOLENCE AGAINST ICE AGENTS: DHS

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement shared an image Friday of suspect Logan Murfin being taken into custody, after he allegedly threatened federal agents on social media. (Salwan Georges/The Washington Post via Getty Images; ICE)

The image shows Murfin being detained by a federal officer. In the background is a holiday decoration with the message “Season’s Greetings.”

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Oklahoma said Thursday that Murfin is charged with five counts of threatening to assault and murder federal law enforcement officers with intent to impede, intimidate, interfere and retaliate and five counts of interstate communication with a threat to injure.

SENATOR WARNS OF ‘POWDER KEG’ AS PEOPLE CONDONE BEHAVIOR OF ANTI-ICE PROTESTERS

Advertisement

Federal agents search for undocumented immigrants on Nov. 17, 2025, in Charlotte, N.C. (Ryan Murphy/Getty Images)

“According to court documents, Murfin knowingly posted several threatening and intimidating statements on social media advocating for the assault and murder of federal agents,” the U.S. Attorney’s Office said.

Federal agents detain a person after attending a court hearing at immigration court at the Jacob K. Javitz Federal Building in New York City on July 1, 2025. (Mostafa Bassim/Anadolu via Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“He stated that federal agents need to be gunned down, shot, and executed. Further, Murfin encouraged people to stay armed and to kill agents when seen because the agents don’t deserve to live,” it added.

Advertisement

Read the full article from Here

Continue Reading

Trending