December 26, 2024 • 57 mins
Join us for a compelling conversation with Brad Dacus, founder of the Pacific Justice Institute, as we tackle the complexities of parental rights in the face of government intervention. Discover why the system might be incentivizing Child Protective Services to take children away from their homes and what this means for families across the nation. With Brad's extensive experience as a pro bono attorney, we explore practical strategies to protect families and uphold civil liberties, shedding light on how to navigate these often murky waters.
In a world where education is increasingly contentious, we examine the influence of teachers' unions and so-called leftist agendas within public schools. Learn about the rise of homeschooling, private schooling, and church-led co-ops as alternatives for parents seeking more control over their children's education. This episode offers actionable advice for parents eager to make a positive impact, from using opt-out forms to spearheading Bible clubs and evangelism outreach in public schools, ensuring a balanced and informed approach to modern educational challenges.
Finally, we delve into the legal and ethical dilemmas faced by teachers and clinicians in states with strict gender identity policies. Brad Dacus sheds light on how educators can navigate these challenges while maintaining their beliefs and safeguarding parental rights. We also address the legal landscape surrounding homeschooling, offering a guide for parents to protect their children online and avoid unnecessary CPS intervention. This episode is a treasure trove of insights for anyone grappling with the intersection of education, government involvement, and personal freedoms.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
You can lose your children and let me tell you why
.
Social workers, their littlelocal agency, their little
fiefdom, if you will, theircounty agency, they get more
than $8,000 per head that theytake by the federal government.
No strings attached by thefederal government, by the way.
Federal government doesn't say,oh, you have to give certain
due process protections, youhave to make sure that there's a
(00:23):
jury of their peers before youpermanently take a child.
Oh, no, federal government justsays, basically, you tell me
how many kids you've taken.
Here's $8,000 per head and, bythe way, we'll give you $8,000
for every year.
You keep those children fromthe families.
Speaker 2 (00:47):
Hello everyone, thank you for joining me.
Today's episode was with probono attorney Brad Dacus, and he
is the attorney and CEO andfounder of Pacific Justice
Institute.
I wanted to have Brad onbecause it was really important
for me to talk about the lawsand regulations of public
(01:08):
schools, homeschools and, ingeneral, about our education
system.
Brad is somebody who has helpedand stood by so many teachers.
He's helped so many parentsthat have had their children
taken away from their homes andthis episode was kind of I
wouldn't say kind of, but itgenuinely was an eye-opener,
(01:30):
because it really got me intothinking about how easy it is
from Child Protective Servicesto take away children from their
homes, and the incentivesbehind it blew my mind away that
social workers get an incentive.
I mean, we talk about that.
We do talk about the publicsystems.
We do talk about the rights oftherapists.
(01:50):
We do talk about you know, ifwe choose to not want to use
pronouns all of that was justamazing and I loved having him
on because he has such knowledgeof the law.
Brad is definitely someone thatis such a high regard to the
community of all.
Americans definitely need toknow about him, be aware about
(02:12):
him and his work.
He is such a support system.
He's a phenomenal attorney andI'm very honored that he
accepted my invitation and wason.
We do talk a lot about publicschool laws and homeschooling
laws and what grounds is thereto take your child away from
home and how to protect yourself, how to protect your family,
(02:36):
and I think you guys are goingto really find this episode
intriguing and an eye-opener.
So thank you for watching andsupporting Brad.
Thank you so much for joiningme today.
I have to say that it's such anhonor to be in your presence.
I admire your work, I admireyou as a human being and I'm
very grateful that you acceptedmy invitation and are with me
(02:58):
today.
Speaker 1 (02:59):
Oh, thank you, it's a pleasure.
Speaker 2 (03:01):
Absolutely.
Let's start with this importantquestion.
I want to know what brought thethought to the Pacific Justice
Institute.
How was that, this beautifulinstitute, born?
Speaker 1 (03:17):
Yeah, it's a great question, you know it.
Actually, it all started when Igraduated from law school and
John W Whitehead, the founder ofthe Rutherford Institute, asked
me to open an office for him inCalifornia, on the West Coast,
and coordinate litigation in 14Western states.
You know, I said yes afterpraying and realizing I had to
(03:39):
trust in the Lord and not myself.
And God blessed it and Ideveloped a huge team of
attorneys, network of attorneysin little towns all throughout
the Western United States.
Then, after five years, theorganization contracted, closed
down its regional office,including mine, but offered to
have me head up the publicaffairs office, to promote me to
(04:01):
be the face of the organizationfor all media, all radio,
television, everything.
Also, I testified beforeCongress, have a higher salary,
it all looks so perfect.
And I said yes, of course, so Ididn't have to pray about this.
And then I had insomnia.
I couldn't sleep, stillcouldn't sleep.
Next night, still couldn'tsleep.
I went oh shoot, I got to prayabout it.
(04:21):
And when I did, the questionthat God brought to my mind
right away was what desires hasGod put on my heart?
And the desires put on my heartwas not to just really be in
the media or testify forCongress, but to make sure that
people got the help that theyneeded where it was needed the
most here on the West Coast atthe time.
So I said, okay, god, I'll doit on several conditions.
(04:43):
I need a free office space,donated in Sacramento, free
computer system, keep me on theradio stations for free we have
to be in the black in just threemonths and I'm never going to
charge anyone.
And God came through on all ofthem, and some of them in
miraculous ways, and the PacificJustice Institute was born.
It was back in 1997.
(05:04):
And Pacific Justice Institutewas born back in 1997.
Now fast forward.
We have not just one officethat was donated, we have a
donated office space for 36offices we have now coast to
coast in 26 states, and most ofit has free utilities as well.
And it's just reallyencouraging to see how God has
(05:26):
lifted it up and all the workthat we're able to do and
accomplish all without charge.
We now have 245 cases in activelitigation coast to coast, and
it's just such a joy to see howGod has really blessed it and
how many people thousands ofpeople that we help every year
without charge.
Speaker 2 (05:45):
That's beautiful.
I love that.
It's God's work to do work likethis.
It's like I feel like sometimeswe are placed into certain
situations, that it's ourcalling.
Do you feel like this was yourcalling?
This is what you were born todo.
Speaker 1 (06:01):
Yeah, originally it was interesting I was going to
be a pastor, go to seminary.
Really, yeah, I was going to bea pastor, go to seminary.
And really, yeah, I was goingto be a pastor seminary.
And after getting my degree infinance, I was.
But, um, I was working a coupleyears and prayed about it and
the more I sought the lord on,the stronger my desire was to go
to law school.
Didn't exactly make sensebecause I want to do god's work,
but it was strong desire to goto law school so.
(06:23):
So I thought, well, this mustbe a calling.
It doesn't always make sense,so I went ahead and went to law
school.
But the irony is is that I'dactually do more preaching in
different churches than I everwould have had I probably gone
to seminary.
So, like this upcoming Sunday,I'm going to be preaching at a
church in West Sacramento and sothey have these things
(06:46):
scheduled.
So I'd say, over a longmajority of my Sundays I'm guest
preaching at churches,preaching from the word,
applying the word expositoryverse by verse to what we're
facing today and the challengesof the day.
And of course, I always love toshare the gospel message of
hope in Christ as well, at theend of every service.
(07:06):
So it's really I get the bestof both I get to preach at the
same time on Monday throughFriday, and I get to be involved
in making sure that everyone'sgetting help across the country
when it comes to religiousfreedom, parental rights against
the government and the sanctityof human life All three areas
that are very dear to my heart.
Speaker 2 (07:27):
Absolutely, and I love that.
One question that I want to askyou is can you share a recent
case that highlights the coremission of Pacific Justice
Institute?
Speaker 1 (07:37):
Yeah, there are so many, so let me give you.
I'll just give you one thatcomes to my mind.
He's down in SouthernCalifornia.
There's a church I think it'sFoothills Christian Church and
it's.
It's a wonderful church.
Well, they have a district ofprivate school.
They also have a preschool and,like all preschools, it's
(07:58):
licensed with the state.
It has to be under Californialaw.
Well, the state of Californiahas basically shut them down and
they've had brought in a SWATteam.
It was like a SWAT type kind ofteam with bulletproof vests and
guns.
And the reason they did is,initially, someone blew the
whistle that a few of the kidswere not wearing masks because
(08:18):
their policy was to do whatparents wanted, not what the
state necessarily wanted orpeople wanted.
And that was a very smart thingto do, because we now know that
those little ones you knowthree, four year olds wearing
masks it's actually not good forthem to be wearing those masks
for their people,psychologically, development
wise as well as health wise, butnonetheless, that's what sort
(08:38):
of triggered the whole thing.
And then they came in there.
You know guns, a blazing, ifyou will, not shooting, but
stalking, you know just invadingthe place without, we would
argue, without the properwarrant, without they went
through private files, them nolonger to sing religious songs.
(09:09):
They could not sing.
Compel any little preschoolerto sing a religious song or, for
that matter, to hear Biblestories?
Well, this is a Christianprivate preschool at a church,
really.
So that's what the state, thegovernment of the state of
California, governor GavinNewsom he was behind this move
and this legislation supportingit.
So we at Pacific Justice we'vetaken it on and we're defending
(09:33):
them.
And then we've taken it on andnow we have it up on appeal.
That's just a classic exampleof religious freedom, also mixed
with parental rights, against avery totalitarian government
that we have in California andalso, for that matter, presently
at the federal level with thisadministration.
There's so much that's takenplace that we at Pacific Justice
(09:56):
have taken on.
One was when they shut down thechurches in California and
other blue states, red statesquickly opened up.
They said we're going to openup restaurants, we're going to
open up churches Makes totalsense.
Well, not if you live in astate like California.
They open up restaurants andpot shops and liquor stores Well
(10:17):
, but they kept those churchesshut down and those synagogues
shut down.
We at Pacific Justice Institute, we went in and filed a lawsuit
in federal court.
We took it rapid fire all theway to the Supreme Court and
Supreme Court, after just threedays, shut down.
We at Pacific Justice Institute, we went in and filed a lawsuit
in federal court.
We took it rapid fire all theway to the Supreme Court and
Supreme Court, after just threedays of deliberation, granted an
emergency injunction ruling sixto three ordering the governor
of California to open thosechurches and synagogues
(10:38):
immediately.
And now we've also beendefending people in the
workplace being persecutedbecause of their faith, where
they didn't want to take acontroversial vac shot, where
they didn't want to take acontroversial vac shot, where
they don't want to compromisetheir faith and say pronouns
affirming something that's nottrue, something that to them is
blasphemous against the creator.
So we're taking these on andrepresenting them.
And then, of course, publicschools, with teachers lying and
(11:01):
hiding things from parents.
We have lawsuits.
We filed against that in NewJersey and other places.
And it's just, you know,pro-life counselors being
criminally prosecuted by theBiden administration, facing up
to 10 years behind bars.
A pastor with three kids and awife peacefully praying there on
(11:22):
the grounds of an abortionclinic Didn't touch anyone,
didn't block, you know, up to 10years behind bars.
Really, that's like seconddegree homicide, second degree
murder.
You know it's a third degreehomicide murder.
So this is insane.
Well, this is the Bidenadministration.
The Department of Justice hasbeen targeting pro-lifers
(11:43):
peaceful, wonderful people doinggreat work, while ignoring the
violence of mobsters andcriminals who have come across
the border.
It's just been insane.
So we at Pacific Justice,needless to say, have been very,
very busy over the last severalyears in particular.
Speaker 2 (11:59):
I'm sure God has been removed from many people's
homes.
It has been removed fromschools and other wonderful
areas that children need to bein.
As a man of faith and aprestige attorney, what do you
think we as Americans did wrongto be in this situation?
Speaker 1 (12:20):
Well, I think part of it was complacency acquiescence
.
Well, I think part of it wascomplacency acquiescence Maybe
we're too busy earning a livingand the American dream, if you
will, that we started allowingthings to chip away from FDR
(12:41):
forward, that started chippingaway from religious freedom,
really chipping away fromrespecting the Constitution
based on its strict construction, its original intent, what it
says, what it meant to say.
So that has been a lot of whatwe're talking about.
And then the good news, ofcourse, the great news is what
(13:03):
happened in 2016.
A miraculous election outcomein the eyes of most political
consultants and experts resultedin a major revolution in our
federal courts, starting withthe Supreme Court.
You know we now have threeappointments to the Supreme
Court by former President DonaldTrump we think that there'll be
(13:24):
possibly one to three more inhis term in the next four years
and this resulted in landmarklegislation, from reversing Roe
versus Wade to respectingreligious freedom in multiple
different facets and ways.
Parents' rights were going tomake even more progress in
parents' rights moving forwardwith our existing legislation
(13:47):
and religious freedom movingforward.
So we're very positive on thelooking forward, but looking
backward, without question, yeah, we allowed things to really go
downhill, and a lot of it is ineducation, the public schools,
without school choice, withoutparents having any say.
(14:07):
The teachers union, driven bypeople from the far left, have
been brainwashing our childrenvery, very effectively.
More than one in four childrenin public high schools today
identify as being gay, lesbian,transgender, bisexual, binary or
queer something in thatspectrum.
That's catastrophic in so manyways, and that's because of the
(14:32):
breakdown taking place there.
Also, the breakdown of thefamily unit has also opened the
door for a lot of confusion anda lot of mistrust for marriage.
And then the latest transgendermovement has just been so
catastrophic and has taken somany victims and has caused me
to term public schools today asa general rule with some
(14:54):
exceptions, as a general rulethey become spiritual death
camps for our children, as wellas physical problems as well.
So that's where we are, butmoving forward.
We at Pacific Justice are veryoptimistic?
Speaker 2 (15:07):
Yes, absolutely.
Since we're on that topic, howdo you view the role of parents
in shaping educational contentin public schools?
Speaker 1 (15:17):
Well, first off, the first role I believe they should
have is to pull their childrenfrom public schools as soon as
possible, if they can do it.
I'm not saying thus saith theLord.
God has commanded all parentsto do this.
I'm not going to say that Idon't know every family
situation.
I don't know every singlepublic school or public school
teacher, but that's the firststep, whether it's homeschooling
, private schooling or workingwith churches, as we've done to
(15:40):
start church homeschool co-ops,we're helping churches across
the country do this.
They're easy to do, they'resimpler than private schools,
very affordable and helps justabout any family who wants to
homeschool per se, not to haveto feel like they're doing it
alone.
So that's number one.
Number two my wife and I wrote abook called Reclaim your School
(16:00):
.
It's available free download onour website.
It talks all about how parentscan have a positive impact on
public schools by not only justvolunteering to be teacher's
aides, but also empowering theirchildren, monitoring what's
going on in the schools and alsoworking with their church on
(16:22):
how they can effectively haveoutreach in public schools.
There's so many things they cando.
They can also utilize what wehave, a valuable tool called
opt-out forms that we'vecustomized for, I think, almost
all the 50 states across thecountry and go and download it
for free on our website.
It's also in that book Reclaimyour School.
They can download it for free.
They website.
It's also in that book Reclaimyour School.
(16:42):
They can download it for free.
They can fill it out, check theboxes, send it to the school
district and to the schoolprincipal and their teachers,
putting them all on notice.
I don't want my child exposedto this or this and I want to be
notified about that.
It's not a foolproof.
It's not a foolproof inCalifornia.
(17:17):
States like California,legislation by the Democrats was
passed that have gutted free ondownload right now on our
website for free pjiorg pjiorg.
They can also sign up to getour free e-newsletter on the
Legal Insider.
It keeps people updated onwhat's happening in our many
cases all across the country atpjiorg.
Speaker 2 (17:40):
Yes, and I'm going to link all of that for anyone
wondering.
By the way, I know people aregoing to message me about that.
I preach to the choir.
I think that pulling childrenout of school and homeschooling
them and private schools are anessential definitely, but what
do you think?
Is that going to help thesituation with all these
propagandas, or is that going tomake it worse?
Speaker 1 (18:01):
That's a great question because many people say
you know, if we take all ourkids out, you know we're just
surrendering the public schools.
Well, and that's the biggest,one of the biggest arguments.
Well, I say this we need tosave as many children as we can
from what I call the spiritualdeath camps A child today, what
public schools have become havebecome too much for a child to
(18:22):
be expected to survivespiritually.
The way schools are today,especially in states like
California, or even in schooldistricts like the Dallas
Independent School District,houston School District, atlanta
, I mean even large city schooldistricts in red states.
So that's even large cityschool districts in red States.
So that's so I, you know I, Ithink we should pull out, but at
(18:44):
the same time we can't forget.
Even if we pull out ourchildren, we can't forget the
children in public schools.
So all it takes is just a fewkids in a public school, for
example, to start a Bible club.
Just a few kids with that Bibleclub have an outreach,
evangelism, outreach Week,working with ministries such as
(19:06):
DecisionPointorg.
It's a wonderful ministry.
My wife and I actually helpedget it started from the
beginning.
They have full revival ralliesin the school gyms.
My wife and I did the veryfirst one in Sacramento and we
talk about it in our book.
We wrote Reclaim your School.
But it's now a separateministry and it's all over the
country decisionpointorg.
(19:28):
So there's so many things thatcan practically be done to reach
out to the kids that are stillthere, while at the same time
with churches and others workingto provide viable alternatives
for kids.
You know, I tell pastors.
I talked to one pastor.
He says yeah, you know, ourchurch is getting small and
we're all getting old and youknow, I don't know if any of us
(19:49):
are going to be alive 10 yearsfrom now.
I said, well, that doesn't haveto be.
He goes what do you mean?
I says you want your church togrow, you want young people.
I said sure.
I said well, contactdecisionpointorg.
They partner with churches likeyours and they help start youth
programs, first doing theoutreach week, the outreach to
the Bible club that you helpstart, and then, with the kids
(20:11):
who come to Christ, they steerthem to the church that's there
sponsoring them, and the peoplethere in your church can teach
Sunday school and can teachyouth programs and they can even
start a tutoring program.
They can start a private schoolor, excuse me, a homeschool
co-op, reaching out to people inthe community and people in
(20:35):
your church that have extra timeon their hands can help tutor
and monitor things.
I mean, there's just so muchpossibilities out there, even
for a church that seemingly isshrinking and dying out, if you
will.
Speaker 2 (20:49):
Yeah, one thing I always think about is these
consequences behind choosing toget your kids out of public
school and homeschool them.
The CPS is one of them.
How involved can they get?
Because I'm a new homeschoolingmom and I haven't heard
anything yet.
But these are definitely lawsthat I want to get into because
(21:09):
my audience majority of them arehomeschooling families, new
homeschooling families.
So question how involved canCPS get?
If you're homeschooling yourchild, is that considered
something where they can getinvolved with or they have no
rights to that?
Speaker 1 (21:27):
Yeah, that's a great question.
So, cps, you know we had a casewhere they went after a
homeschooling family inCalifornia, alleging that you
can't homeschool unless you're acredentialed teacher.
So they raided the house, tookthe kids.
We stepped in, we representedthem In fact I did this myself
(21:48):
personally and kids were givingback to the mother and you know
we could have sued.
At that time the mother decidedshe didn't want to file a
lawsuit against the schooldistrict it was up in Nevada
City, california.
But then later on we hadanother big homeschooling case
and we very similar facts.
We prevailed and the US and thestate Supreme Court of
(22:11):
California allowed it to hold usas case law.
But the reality is, generallyspeaking, social workers have
attacked homeschoolers.
Children are more vulnerable ofa social worker taking them if
they're in a public school thanif they're homeschooled.
It wasn't always that way, butnow social workers are so
(22:32):
aggressive in taking childrenthat may have gender confusion
and the family is not willing,the parents aren't willing to
encourage it and embrace it, oryour same sex acts with other
kids.
If the parents aren't willingto do that, then that's grounds
to have your child permanentlytaken from you in states like
california, new york, illinois,oregon, washington, the
northeast it's common, it'shappening all the time so so
(22:58):
that's why it's actually betterfor parents to homeschool,
because they're not monitored bya progressive or leftist
teacher looking for hostileparents after encouraging a
child to be gender confused orto delve into gender or sexual
confusion.
So, that said, homeschoolersare still vulnerable, needless
(23:21):
to say, and so what they need todo is they need to basically be
prepared.
Now we have an article, freearticle, on our website.
It's called 12 Steps to Protectyour Children from CPS.
I'm not exaggerating.
Every family in America withchildren under the age of 18
(23:42):
should have that article.
It's not long.
It's step by step what theyneed to do to protect their
children from being taken.
Once their children are takenand they call me, it's too late.
Usually they've got to gothrough the system.
They're presumed generallyguilty until proven innocent.
They have agovernment-appointed public
(24:03):
defender and everything isstacked against them the
children they don't have, theirchildren they can't bring in
their own expert.
Oh no, the government says no,only our experts, but the
parents.
Before the children are taken,when they get that first call
from a social worker, they firstknock on their door.
They know what to say they knowwhat to do, they can keep their
(24:24):
children.
Usually more than 98, 99% ofthe time they will keep their
children.
They will not be taken.
That is how important thisarticle is 12 Steps to Protect
your Children from CPS or ChildProtective Services.
They call it different thingsin different states, but it's
social workers and they can getdownload that for free from our
(24:46):
website.
P, j, I, dot o r g.
Children and parents are losingchildren and come from nice
suburban neighborhoods, safeneighborhoods.
People say, oh, we're not goingto lose our children.
That's for those, thosedeadbeat folks who are on drugs
and alcohol in the inner cityand where the dad's behind bars
(25:07):
and the mom's a prostitute.
No, no, this is a threat.
It doesn't matter who you are,no matter how nice of a
neighborhood you live in.
You can lose your children.
And let me tell you why.
Social workers, their littlelocal agency, their little
fiefdom, if you will, theircounty agency.
They get more than $8,000 perhead that they take by the
(25:30):
federal government no stringsattached by the federal
government, by the way.
Federal government doesn't say,oh, you have to give certain
due process protections, youhave to make sure that there's a
jury of their peers before youpermanently take a child.
Oh no, federal government justsays basically you tell me how
many kids you've taken.
Here's $8,000 per head and, bythe way, we'll give you $8,000
(25:50):
for every year.
You keep those children fromthe families.
Speaker 2 (25:52):
So this is an incentive, just like vaccine
incentives that go to doctors.
This is an incentive that goesto social workers from removing
children from homes.
This is an incentive that goesto social workers from removing
children from homes.
Speaker 1 (26:02):
Is that what I'm saying?
It's a big incentive, amoney-based incentive, and
that's why I'm hoping that thisnew Congress, a new White House
and Senate will address thisissue and say in the future
frankly, I think they should sayyou know what?
We're not funding governmenttaking kids anymore.
States, you fund it and youprioritize accordingly.
(26:24):
That's what needs to happen,and if they don't, alternative
number two is they need to sayyou know what?
From now on, states, in order toget money per child that you
take, you must meet these dueprocess requirements.
You have to prove not just apreponderance of the evidence,
you must show by clear andconvincing evidence In a court
of law.
You must give the parents ajury of their peers, if the
(26:48):
parents request it.
You must have due process.
You must give them a speedytrial.
You must give them their rights, just like you do criminals.
You give them their Mirandarights.
You need to read to parentstheir rights and make them aware
of their rights to not have tojust sign documents waiving
their rights and waivingauthority over their children.
(27:09):
There's so much that needs tobe done on that level.
So if governors are going tokeep giving money out.
They need to at least ensurethat some basic due process
actions are taken.
Right now, the best state inthe country to raise your child
safely is Oklahoma, believe itor not.
They have actually yeah, they'reactually the most progressive
(27:31):
in addressing these issues ofabuse by social workers and
making sure that there's reallyadequate due process.
Protection of families notlosing their children wrongfully
.
Speaker 2 (27:42):
What I want to understand is on what grounds do
they take children away fromparents?
You're saying, you don't haveto be a prostitute or a drug
addict or a criminal, they canjust come in and just take your
kids.
I mean, on what grounds, though?
Speaker 1 (27:57):
It's actually very easy.
So here's what the protocol is.
Say a teacher talks to a childand a child says you know, miss
Jones, I really say it's a girl,jill.
And she says I really feel likeI'm a boy, can you call me,
jimmy the teacher?
Many public school teachers notmost would say oh, yes, I
(28:18):
affirm you as a boy.
Yes, you're now Jimmy.
And then she'll call the socialworkers and the social workers
will talk to the girl and say doyour parents, will they approve
of this?
Oh no, they won't.
I know they won't.
They might even spank me orthey will be real upset.
(28:38):
Oh, they will.
They're not going to affirm you, they're not going to encourage
it.
Okay, we'll take you, we'llmake sure you're put in
protective care.
They take the child, say an11-year-old girl.
I mean, this is nothypothetical, this is real, this
is real stuff.
Yeah, they take the child, theyput the child in a foster home.
Often we'd see a gay family, atransgender couple, and the
(29:02):
parents don't see their childagain.
And that's not unusual.
If your child has genderconfusion, the odds are you will
lose your child and manyparents don't even find out they
have any kind of genderconfusion until after the child
is taken.
A lot of this quote genderconfusion.
It's encouraged, it's initiated, the thoughts of it by the
(29:24):
public schools that you know.
Hollywood is not helping either.
Disney and other networksthey're encouraging it, they're
creating it, but it's very, verydangerous.
Public schools have become very,very dangerous to children,
whether you know the a child, bythe way, who is solidified in
(29:47):
their confusion thanks togovernment schools and the
indoctrination that they have.
Generally speaking, thatcombined, of course, with you
know, sexual child abuse andthings like that can also be
contributory, lack of you know,proper gender bonding, et cetera
.
But if this is encouraged andsolidified, particularly by a
public school, then that child'ssuicide risk increases, not
(30:14):
200%, no, by 1,200%, 12 timesthe risk of committing suicide.
If they're confirmed andencouraged in this area, now,
the public schools, the teachersunion, they say, well, that's
because society is not affirmingthem and encouraging them.
No, no, no.
Studies show that a child isjust as likely to commit suicide
(30:35):
if they're in a veryprogressive community like San
Francisco than if they're in aconservative community like a
small town in East Texas.
It's an internal issue, it is amentally.
It causes suicide because itdoes not resolve the confusion
that a child's facing.
Speaker 2 (30:54):
Brad, can you give us a little bit of details of what
teachers face that are notgender affirming in schools?
What are the consequences?
I mean, I know that you'vehelped a few teachers not a few,
a lot of hundreds to you know,be correct here.
You were on Tucker Carlson withI forgot her name, jessica, was
(31:17):
it One of your?
You know you guys were talkingabout how she was fired and she
was fired because she wasstanding up for what was right.
So what are some of theconsequences that teachers face?
I know you talked about this onTucker's show.
Speaker 1 (31:32):
Well, the consequences that they face,
particularly in leftist Democratcontrolled areas and school
districts and school boardsboards is nothing less than
losing their jobs.
They're being ordered.
For example, in California apublic school teacher has to
(31:54):
basically, you know, confirm andencourage a child's gender
confusion.
If the child expresses thatthey have such confusion or
aren't sure of things, and theyget away with it they're
protected by state law.
Even a conservative schoolboard run by parents is now by
state law is prohibited frompunishing any teacher who
(32:18):
secretly grooms a child intogender confusion, into gender
confusion.
Right now in New Jersey, on theother side of the country, the
attorney general therepronounced that all teachers
have to not only use pronounsthat violate their conscience
and every good teacher shouldviolate their conscience to
encourage any confusion in anychild, much less confusion that
(32:39):
results increases theirlikelihood of suicide by 1200%.
So that's number one.
But it also the attorneygeneral says all public school
teachers also have to lie toparents, to conceal, to cover it
up.
If a child has gender confusion, and then the child what
commits suicide and they tellthem, say afterwards oh yeah, by
the way, forgot to tell you orI couldn't tell you, the child
(33:00):
had gender confusion the parentcould have gotten.
Counseling, could have got thechild the real support to
address the underlying cause,whether it was sexual child
abuse by a stranger or who knowswhat.
This is the reality of whatteachers, the minority of
teachers, the good teachers, theones that have a conscience,
that really truly care aboutchildren this is what they're
(33:23):
facing and that's why we atPacific Justice Institute have
made a pledge to defend everysingle teacher that wants to
respect the rights of parentsand appreciates and truly cares
for children.
We'll defend them withoutcharge in these situations, all
across the country, coast tocoast.
You know we have an office inMiami, atlanta, delaware, boston
(33:46):
, philadelphia, chicago, dallas,many places all across the
country, and we're ready tostand by our work, very uniquely
, to make sure that everyonegets help.
That's sort of our hallmark, bythe way.
We don't just cherry pick likeother organizations.
They just cherry pick a fewhigh profile cases.
We work hard to make sure thateveryone gets help, that no
one's left on the side of theroad without charge.
(34:08):
That's what we do at PacificJustice Institute.
Speaker 2 (34:11):
And what does this process look like for the
teachers?
I wonder, is this a longprocess, like going to court and
dealing with all these laws?
I mean, is this a drainingprocess for teachers?
I just want to know, becausethere's a lot of teachers that
are struggling.
I know a few that are refusingto go back.
They're just tutoring right nowbecause of this issue.
(34:32):
Particularly our tutor.
She's phenomenal, but she'sreluctant to go back because she
is protecting the truth.
She's like if I go back, I'mgoing to be affirming all these
confusions and I don't want tobe placed in that situation.
Speaker 1 (34:47):
Right.
Well, we give direct counsel toteachers in this situation and
how they can work around it.
They need to, you know, firstoff, assuming they have a
hostile school district, ahostile principal.
You know first off.
You know they can contact theparents off.
You know they can contact theparents.
(35:08):
They can, you know, assumingthat they're not bound by state
law, like California, from doingso.
Potentially they can let theparents know, find out where the
parents are at.
Most parents would not saythat's a good thing.
Most parents say this isterrible.
We don't want to encourage ourchild to be confused.
That's so harmful medically,psychologically, you know, risk
of suicide.
(35:28):
So, but even if they havehostile parents, here's the
different ways around is first,the parent.
If it's a school, she can saywell, look, you are registered,
based on your birth certificate,as this gender.
I'm going to refer to you asthat gender and that name.
If she's told she can't, if theparents say no and the school
(35:50):
district says no, you have touse refer the other name.
Then the other alternative is ateacher can use the last name
of all the children in the class.
She says you know, I'm going todo something different, you
know, instead of just using yourfirst name, I'm going to use
your last name.
Last names are unique andthey're something that you
should be proud of and they havedifferent history about you.
(36:11):
It says a lot about you and I'mgoing to use your last name and
break things up.
So that's what I'm going to do.
So the teacher uses the lastname, avoids any pronouns and
then, if that's not good enough,then we at the Pacific Justice
Institute think the parent has avery strong position for us to
file a lawsuit on their behalfand represent them.
(36:33):
We think we would prevail inthese cases as a general rule
across the country.
But it first takes teachersknowing their rights.
They should go to our website,learn about their rights and, at
the same time, contact us ifthey're in that situation as
soon as possible.
Speaker 2 (36:49):
Brad, what are some of the consequences of not using
pronouns?
If we don't want to usepronouns, are there consequences
?
Can we talk about those alittle bit?
Sure Are?
There things like that.
Speaker 1 (37:15):
Yeah, well, it depends on the policy of the
state you're in and the schoolboard.
So California, a teacher couldlose their job potentially,
especially if they have a schooldistrict that doesn't want to
work with them and schooldistrict is obstinate and says
you have to use pronouns.
Speaker 2 (37:29):
So it's their license to teach if they're not
utilizing a student.
Speaker 1 (37:34):
Depending on the state they live in.
That's very true.
That's the position of theteachers union and, by the way,
teachers don't have to pay apenny to the teachers union.
They have a right under bothfederal law, under Title seven,
but even under case law, supremeCourt, case law.
They have a right to not payany dues to the union at all,
(37:55):
and nor should they if they havea conscience.
As far as I'm concerned, in notwanting to support the evil and
the wickedness that the teachersunion, the NEA, supports with
regard to the evil that theybring into the public schools,
it just floors me how I can seea teacher, you know, professing
to be a committed Christian,attending church, you know,
(38:16):
whatever At the same time givingmoney to fund the evil
destruction of children withradical curriculum.
That goes totally against theconscience of anyone who, as I
call a true believer.
That's why I encourage teachersto really, you know, pray about
and examine their heart andconscience before they become a
(38:36):
part of a union.
But anyway, that's somethingthat we're looking at in the way
of consequences.
You know, they can lose theirjobs, and it's very real, and it
all depends on the state theylive in, the school board,
whether it's one controlled bythe teachers union, which more
than 85% are in the UnitedStates.
(38:57):
And even then, do they have aprincipal that's willing to work
with them and help them,accommodate their convictions
and their faith by letting themuse, say, the last name of the
children in the class?
They don't want to do just thelast name of the one child,
that's, you know, put.
You know, don't do all thechildren in their class last
(39:19):
names, or, and, or just avoidusing pronouns at all and only
say their name, just avoid usingpronouns at all and only say
their name?
Speaker 2 (39:30):
Do you work with any clinicians, therapists
particularly?
Do you have cases withtherapists that are in similar
situations, like teachers aboutto lose their licensure for not
using pronouns or anything likethat?
Speaker 1 (39:41):
Yeah, actually I had a case out of Texas a number of
years ago and I personally flewin and took on the case myself
because I'm licensed not only inCalifornia but also in Texas
and we didn't have an office inTexas at the time.
Now we have two attorneys therein Texas on staff, but I went
ahead and defended thispsychologist who was being sued.
(40:05):
In fact, he was having hislicense challenged before the
tegas texas board of licensors,for you know uh, I forget the
exact name, but that's what theydo, and it was.
They was being attacked bysomeone out of state that saw
his website, the fact that hegave counseling to people who
were struggling with genderconfusion, um and uh and the
(40:28):
like, and we and they're in the.
The state of texas was on thebrink of taking his license from
him this is no, because, uh, hewas engaging in, uh, counseling
, uh, it's either for someonewho was gender confused or
someone or who wanted people whowanted counseling regarding
(40:48):
same sex attraction.
And they said, oh, this isterrible.
And I went right into court, Imean, and I went right before
that commission.
There's nothing, no grounds.
You have to remove his licensefor providing counseling that is
(41:10):
requested and sought after byan adult client.
This is their right.
He has every right to do so inaccordance to the faith and
convictions of his client.
And if you do decide to takehis license, then we at Pacific
Justice Institute are going tochallenge this in federal court
(41:31):
and are going to take this allthe way to the United States
Supreme Court if necessary,where I'm very confident we will
win.
I says, you know, I says youcannot allow ideology to trounce
upon the constitutional rightsof counselors to provide the
counseling and therapy requestedand needed, assessed by their
(41:54):
client, by their counselor inthe state of Texas.
Now there's some intolerant,bigoted states like California
and New York that have bannedcounseling for people who have
same-sex attraction and want tounderstand the underlying reason
or even gender identity issues.
It's actually banned.
California, governor ofCalifornia would just as soon
have people commit suicide,apparently, than allow them to
(42:16):
actually address the underlyingissues, because there's nothing
genetic about it.
This is a result of past things, whether it's sexual child
abuse, that's right.
Lack of gender gender peerbonding with your you know, with
your like gender could be alack of a father affirming you
know, or life difficulties yes,so many are.
(42:41):
Insecurities by you know just anumber of things, our
insecurities by you know just anumber of things.
And yet these are all thingsthat can be addressed and have
successfully been addressed witha qualified counselor in
helping the person understandingthat you know, like a classic
example, a girl that was, say,sexually abused.
They can often develop a veryhigh negative stigma to the male
(43:05):
anatomy, want nothing to dowith the male anatomy or people
who are male and therefore theyseek females who are safe, if
you will, in their minds becausethey've not had the counseling
to address the fears and thetrauma.
Speaker 2 (43:22):
That's right.
Speaker 1 (43:23):
You know, that's just one example.
The fears and the trauma,that's right.
You know, that's just.
You know one example.
Or a male that's been, say,sexually abused by, uh, by
whoever, um, or the, or thefemale, for that matter.
They all they can say look, Iwant, this is so traumatic, I
want to become a differentperson.
So they think, by changingtheir gender, their name, how
they look, um, and everything,that they can become a different
(43:45):
person to escape this, thishorror, this, this past.
It doesn't work.
We know they, they're not happyand it's tragic.
And yet we have states, bluestates, that prevent people from
even having the freedom to getcounseling, even though we know
statistically what the resultsare to these individuals as a
(44:07):
general rule.
So, yeah, yeah, so they need toencourage their state
legislators to do the rightthing.
Hopefully we're going to havesome positive legislation on a
federal level protectingcounselors moving forward.
Speaker 2 (44:18):
Absolutely, and I'll go even deeper than that.
You know, a lot of cliniciansare even scared to help their
clients with coming to thisconclusion or, you know, being
very truthful about what'sreally happened and having them
see a bigger picture.
There's a lot of fear behindthat and I have a lot of
(44:39):
colleagues who have pronounseven in their bios because
they're just so afraid.
And so it's this fear.
As an attorney, what advice doyou give therapists that do want
to practice truth but they'revery afraid of having their
license revoked and taken away,kind of like what's happening
with Jordan Peterson?
Speaker 1 (45:00):
Right, right, yeah, and he's written some great
books, that's for sure.
Speaker 2 (45:04):
Yes, he has.
I've read one of them.
Speaker 1 (45:07):
And a great guy.
So here's what you do.
Let's say you're in a hostilestate.
Let's say you're in California,new York, one of these places,
but they say you can't givecorrective therapy, or whatever
you want to call it, to helpsomeone be able to address and
no longer, at least, be bound bythese feelings of either gender
(45:27):
confusion or same-sexattraction.
And how do you deal with that?
Well, what we advise counselorsto do is, first off, to have
their client, in writing, statesign a statement saying that
they understand that thecounseling they're receiving is
not for the intended purpose ofmodifying their gender identity
(45:52):
or their sexual orientation andthat this will not be the direct
focus of this counseling.
So they signed that statement.
Legally, we can do that.
Yeah, you can have them say youwant them acknowledging First
it helps protect the counselor,the psychologist, to have the
(46:14):
client sign something like this,where the client is, in writing
, understanding they are notgetting counseling for the
counseling for the purpose, forthe only you know, as you know,
how do we change your gender,how do we change your sexual
orientation?
Put that in there.
See, that is not the purpose ofthis counseling and that is not
(46:35):
the center focus of thiscounseling.
Then, after that's done, thecounselor does what a counselor
would do anyway, which is findout what is the underlying
reason why they have genderconfusion, why they have
same-sex attraction, what wasthe issue?
What's involved in their past?
What has not been reconciled?
(46:56):
Was it sexual child abuse, lackof peer bonding, the absence of
a father?
Or a father that wasconditional in spending time
with his girl only if she didboy things with him?
Or the mother who only wantedthe child to do to do girl
things or dress the child like agirl, which you know some sick
yeah, we see all the time yeah,yeah, it's often mothers who
(47:23):
have a you know, a motherpartner.
Sometimes we see that happening.
It's just carries on and it'sjust very sad.
But through the counselingthough, if they focus on that,
that's really what the coreissue is these underlying issues
, and then what happens withregards to the same-sex
(47:43):
attraction or the genderidentity.
The same-sex attraction or thegender identity that often plays
itself out once the realunderlying issues are addressed.
But that's the approach that Iwould recommend for a counselor
not to go into saying, okay,we're going to give you the five
steps of how you can changeyour gender identity, or here's
the five steps on how to changeyour sexual orientation.
No, no, no, no.
(48:03):
How to change your sexualorientation?
No, no, no, no.
But a good counselor anywaywould, would should focus on how
did those feelings come?
Where did those?
Where did it come?
That identity come from, andwe're going to help you address
that.
We're going to help deal withthose, those Not be afraid of
laws and consequences.
Right, and that's and that's thebest way of it.
Some psychologists andcounselors have left intolerant,
(48:26):
bigoted states like Californiayeah, that's what's happened.
But those that are still inCalifornia, that still have a
heart wanting to help people whowant help or seeking help yeah,
it's very helpful.
Yeah, it's very helpful.
I don't know of anypsychologist or counselor that
(48:51):
tries to indoctrinate or changesomeone's orientation or gender
identity, that is not seeking tohave that done.
It's counterproductive, it canbe frustrating.
It can you know?
So I just don't see thathappening.
And yet that's the you know thescare stories that are
attempted by the left tostigmatize responsible
psychologists and counselors whoare actually doing the right
(49:13):
thing helping people who wanthelp, who need help and are
ready to get that help.
Speaker 2 (49:21):
Absolutely, Brad.
Going back to I'm kind of goingto steer away from this topic
and go back to homeschooling.
I think one important questionI forgot to ask is what do you?
I mean, what are some laws thatparents need to be very mindful
of if they're choosing tohomeschool their kids, or when
they're homeschooling their kids, what's like essentials that
(49:42):
they need to know?
Speaker 1 (49:46):
essentials that they need to know.
Yes, great question, and wetalk about a number of this is
also in our material online,pjiorg.
But I, just right off hand, Ican tell you number one they
need to be familiar with theirstate laws.
States have differentrequirements and mandates.
So in California, if they'regoing to go it alone, they need
to file their own private schoolaffidavit.
Yes, they write, yeah, their ownprivate school affidavit, sa,
right, yeah, their own privateschool affidavit, yeah, and with
(50:08):
the state exactly.
They need to have some kind ofa curriculum program of some
kind.
Yes, they need to keep anattendance of a child and they
need to have some methodologyshowing grades so that they're
testing their child in some way.
So you can do this.
Now some schools real trendingschools have different
(50:30):
methodologies.
That's fine.
But uh, homeschoolers, theyneed to.
That in california that's whatthey need to do.
Those are just general, good,general principles, uh, but to
have, you know, an actualprogram, you know social worker
finds out that the childrencan't read and write and parents
just say, well, they'll learnon their own.
Somehow they're probably goingto be written up for truancy and
(50:52):
maybe lose their children.
Before they ever take theirchild out of a public school,
they need to have somethingeither the child enrolled in a
private school, an actualprivate school, or file their
own private school affidavit.
They need to have that done inadvance.
They can't just pull their kidsout and say, yeah, we're going
to get this done.
Next month no social workercould be called and they could
(51:13):
lose their kid, their child,their children.
So that's real important.
Also, they need to know thatthey're going to be under more
scrutiny potentially, at leastinitially.
I encourage parents, if there'sany kind of fear of social
workers going after them, thatthey uh, that they stop corporal
punishment spanking of a child.
(51:34):
If they do spank a child, itneeds to be not with a belt but
with a paddle with a curved edge.
Speaker 2 (51:41):
But it is legal to keep your child in california
right.
As long as there's no bruisesor marks you, you can take them
Right and so that's why thebelts sometimes can make a
little red mark.
Speaker 1 (51:51):
You know, that's just what happens.
Speaker 2 (51:53):
That's what we got growing up the belt.
Speaker 1 (51:56):
Yeah, I did too, and I haven't killed or shot anyone.
I'm actually a really peacefulguy.
Neither, neither Not thetherapist, our founding fathers,
by the way, all of them werespanked with a switch or a belt
and, you know, they turned outvery well, in fact, much better
than the kids do today.
So that generation.
So I would say that those aresome things that parents need to
(52:18):
take into consideration oftheir homeschooling Understand
they may be under more scrutiny.
And also, if their children,generally speaking, if they
reach the age of um, eight, nineor ten, especially ten, I mean
um, they need to be looking atalternative, uh forms of
discipline anyway, that areactually probably more effective
.
Uh, just what I've read now.
(52:38):
I remember a friend of mine incollege.
You know he was raised in thestate of texas and he was.
He got a whip him when he was16 for talking back to his
mother and his dad didn'tapprove of that.
And you know he was raised inthe state of Texas and he was.
He got a whip him when he was16 for talking back to his
mother and his dad didn'tapprove of that, and you know.
So he turned out just fine.
But we'd have to be sensitiveto the stereotypes of the day
and yeah, and so uh consequencegrows with age.
(53:02):
Yeah, and, and, yeah, exactly,and, and you know there's great
books like uh, like how to havea Good Kid by Friday.
If you have a strong-willedchild where nothing seems to
work, I highly recommend thatbook by Dr Lemon, how to have a
Good Kid by Friday.
It's an excellent book.
Speaker 2 (53:20):
It is excellent.
I've read that book a few times.
There's a lot of great books,but know.
But yeah, I agree with you theconsequence definitely needs to
grow with age Spanking.
A 16 year old is a little muchthere.
Speaker 1 (53:34):
Yeah, especially in today's society.
But bottom line, if people wantto homeschool, those are just
some things that they should do.
But I highly recommend them,though, not to go it alone.
If they, they can be a part ofa church where other parents are
homeschooling and it also.
If they're not a part of achurch and they're home, it's
(53:55):
also for their safety.
I think parents are more likelyto have their child taken if
they're going in alone rogue anddon't have any kind of
community support.
When they're part of a church,though, it sends a signal to
social workers.
You know any kind of communitysupport.
When they're part of a church,though, it sends a signal to
social workers, especially whenthe pastor's wife come to the
house.
When the social worker's thereSay we're just here to support,
they're part of our church.
It tells the social worker youtake this child wrongfully,
(54:15):
you're going to have an entirechurch community know about it.
That's right.
There's going to beramifications.
So I've encouraged you.
I've gotten many familiesparents who don't go to church
to be a part of a church, justas part of a defensive measure
to keep from losing theirchildren from from social
workers.
It really makes a lot of sense,even if they're atheists.
It's just.
(54:36):
It's just a smart thing to do.
And who knows?
Stats show that that faithactually results in children
making wiser decisions.
Faith actually results inchildren making wiser decisions
less likely to get pregnant,less likely to drop out of
school, do drugs, et cetera.
Not a bad thing.
Speaker 2 (54:52):
Not at all.
Have you ever heard of ahomeschooling program called
Abeka?
Speaker 1 (55:02):
Oh yes, I've heard great things about it.
Speaker 2 (55:03):
It's one of many out there that are just doing
excellent, excellent work.
That's right.
Yeah, we are enrolled withAbeka and their Christian Bible
study is just phenomenal.
That's like the first classthat 8 in the morning my son
logs into in their prayer.
It's just so beautiful and itteaches just wonderful values
and morals, and so everyone'sout there.
Speaker 1 (55:24):
One thing I do want to warn parents, especially
their homeschooling, and that isthis A lot of them are now
being victimized by the Internet.
Parents may put you knowfiltering on their Internet.
They need to have filtering,obviously, but it doesn't filter
ideas.
So I encourage parents, if theyallow a child on the Internet,
(55:46):
not to have it in their bedroom,only in the kitchen, not on
with earplugs.
It needs to be so that parentscan hear exactly what they're
listening to at all times.
That's right.
And also I encourage parentsnot to let their children have
cell phones.
Instead, give them flip-upphones where they can make phone
calls, they can text, but notcell phones, because that allows
(56:10):
them at school to have accessto all kinds of things that can
just really confuse and reallyhurt children.
The studies show this, and soparents need to really be
proactive like never before.
Homeschooling is not a safetymeasure like it used to be.
Parents need to be veryproactive and I encourage them
(56:39):
to go through all the measuresthey can to protect their
children when it comes to theinternet access via a laptop or
a cell phone.
Speaker 2 (56:45):
Yeah, I agree, I agree, I agree, fred, thank you
so much for today.
It was such an awesomeconversation.
I loved that we coveredhomeschooling and public schools
and counselors.
I love your ideas.
I love the fact that you knowlaw so well and you're such a
helpful individual for peopleout there, and your amount of
(57:06):
faith, which makes it a hundredtimes better.
Speaker 1 (57:09):
So thank you, thank you, and I appreciate your
podcast and the privilege toparticipate.
Thank you again.
Speaker 2 (57:15):
Absolutely.
You can lose your children and let me tell you why
.
Social workers, their littlelocal agency, their little
fiefdom, if you will, theircounty agency, they get more
than $8,000 per head that theytake by the federal government.
No strings attached by thefederal government, by the way.
Federal government doesn't say,oh, you have to give certain
due process protections, youhave to make sure that there's a
(00:23):
jury of their peers before youpermanently take a child.
Oh, no, federal government justsays, basically, you tell me
how many kids you've taken.
Here's $8,000 per head and, bythe way, we'll give you $8,000
for every year.
You keep those children fromthe families.
Speaker 2 (00:47):
Hello everyone, thank you for joining me.
Today's episode was with probono attorney Brad Dacus, and he
is the attorney and CEO andfounder of Pacific Justice
Institute.
I wanted to have Brad onbecause it was really important
for me to talk about the lawsand regulations of public
(01:08):
schools, homeschools and, ingeneral, about our education
system.
Brad is somebody who has helpedand stood by so many teachers.
He's helped so many parentsthat have had their children
taken away from their homes andthis episode was kind of I
wouldn't say kind of, but itgenuinely was an eye-opener,
(01:30):
because it really got me intothinking about how easy it is
from Child Protective Servicesto take away children from their
homes, and the incentivesbehind it blew my mind away that
social workers get an incentive.
I mean, we talk about that.
We do talk about the publicsystems.
We do talk about the rights oftherapists.
(01:50):
We do talk about you know, ifwe choose to not want to use
pronouns all of that was justamazing and I loved having him
on because he has such knowledgeof the law.
Brad is definitely someone thatis such a high regard to the
community of all.
Americans definitely need toknow about him, be aware about
(02:12):
him and his work.
He is such a support system.
He's a phenomenal attorney andI'm very honored that he
accepted my invitation and wason.
We do talk a lot about publicschool laws and homeschooling
laws and what grounds is thereto take your child away from
home and how to protect yourself, how to protect your family,
(02:36):
and I think you guys are goingto really find this episode
intriguing and an eye-opener.
So thank you for watching andsupporting Brad.
Thank you so much for joiningme today.
I have to say that it's such anhonor to be in your presence.
I admire your work, I admireyou as a human being and I'm
very grateful that you acceptedmy invitation and are with me
(02:58):
today.
Speaker 1 (02:59):
Oh, thank you, it's a pleasure.
Speaker 2 (03:01):
Absolutely.
Let's start with this importantquestion.
I want to know what brought thethought to the Pacific Justice
Institute.
How was that, this beautifulinstitute, born?
Speaker 1 (03:17):
Yeah, it's a great question, you know it.
Actually, it all started when Igraduated from law school and
John W Whitehead, the founder ofthe Rutherford Institute, asked
me to open an office for him inCalifornia, on the West Coast,
and coordinate litigation in 14Western states.
You know, I said yes afterpraying and realizing I had to
(03:39):
trust in the Lord and not myself.
And God blessed it and Ideveloped a huge team of
attorneys, network of attorneysin little towns all throughout
the Western United States.
Then, after five years, theorganization contracted, closed
down its regional office,including mine, but offered to
have me head up the publicaffairs office, to promote me to
(04:01):
be the face of the organizationfor all media, all radio,
television, everything.
Also, I testified beforeCongress, have a higher salary,
it all looks so perfect.
And I said yes, of course, so Ididn't have to pray about this.
And then I had insomnia.
I couldn't sleep, stillcouldn't sleep.
Next night, still couldn'tsleep.
I went oh shoot, I got to prayabout it.
(04:21):
And when I did, the questionthat God brought to my mind
right away was what desires hasGod put on my heart?
And the desires put on my heartwas not to just really be in
the media or testify forCongress, but to make sure that
people got the help that theyneeded where it was needed the
most here on the West Coast atthe time.
So I said, okay, god, I'll doit on several conditions.
(04:43):
I need a free office space,donated in Sacramento, free
computer system, keep me on theradio stations for free we have
to be in the black in just threemonths and I'm never going to
charge anyone.
And God came through on all ofthem, and some of them in
miraculous ways, and the PacificJustice Institute was born.
It was back in 1997.
(05:04):
And Pacific Justice Institutewas born back in 1997.
Now fast forward.
We have not just one officethat was donated, we have a
donated office space for 36offices we have now coast to
coast in 26 states, and most ofit has free utilities as well.
And it's just reallyencouraging to see how God has
(05:26):
lifted it up and all the workthat we're able to do and
accomplish all without charge.
We now have 245 cases in activelitigation coast to coast, and
it's just such a joy to see howGod has really blessed it and
how many people thousands ofpeople that we help every year
without charge.
Speaker 2 (05:45):
That's beautiful.
I love that.
It's God's work to do work likethis.
It's like I feel like sometimeswe are placed into certain
situations, that it's ourcalling.
Do you feel like this was yourcalling?
This is what you were born todo.
Speaker 1 (06:01):
Yeah, originally it was interesting I was going to
be a pastor, go to seminary.
Really, yeah, I was going to bea pastor, go to seminary.
And really, yeah, I was goingto be a pastor seminary.
And after getting my degree infinance, I was.
But, um, I was working a coupleyears and prayed about it and
the more I sought the lord on,the stronger my desire was to go
to law school.
Didn't exactly make sensebecause I want to do god's work,
but it was strong desire to goto law school so.
(06:23):
So I thought, well, this mustbe a calling.
It doesn't always make sense,so I went ahead and went to law
school.
But the irony is is that I'dactually do more preaching in
different churches than I everwould have had I probably gone
to seminary.
So, like this upcoming Sunday,I'm going to be preaching at a
church in West Sacramento and sothey have these things
(06:46):
scheduled.
So I'd say, over a longmajority of my Sundays I'm guest
preaching at churches,preaching from the word,
applying the word expositoryverse by verse to what we're
facing today and the challengesof the day.
And of course, I always love toshare the gospel message of
hope in Christ as well, at theend of every service.
(07:06):
So it's really I get the bestof both I get to preach at the
same time on Monday throughFriday, and I get to be involved
in making sure that everyone'sgetting help across the country
when it comes to religiousfreedom, parental rights against
the government and the sanctityof human life All three areas
that are very dear to my heart.
Speaker 2 (07:27):
Absolutely, and I love that.
One question that I want to askyou is can you share a recent
case that highlights the coremission of Pacific Justice
Institute?
Speaker 1 (07:37):
Yeah, there are so many, so let me give you.
I'll just give you one thatcomes to my mind.
He's down in SouthernCalifornia.
There's a church I think it'sFoothills Christian Church and
it's.
It's a wonderful church.
Well, they have a district ofprivate school.
They also have a preschool and,like all preschools, it's
(07:58):
licensed with the state.
It has to be under Californialaw.
Well, the state of Californiahas basically shut them down and
they've had brought in a SWATteam.
It was like a SWAT type kind ofteam with bulletproof vests and
guns.
And the reason they did is,initially, someone blew the
whistle that a few of the kidswere not wearing masks because
(08:18):
their policy was to do whatparents wanted, not what the
state necessarily wanted orpeople wanted.
And that was a very smart thingto do, because we now know that
those little ones you knowthree, four year olds wearing
masks it's actually not good forthem to be wearing those masks
for their people,psychologically, development
wise as well as health wise, butnonetheless, that's what sort
(08:38):
of triggered the whole thing.
And then they came in there.
You know guns, a blazing, ifyou will, not shooting, but
stalking, you know just invadingthe place without, we would
argue, without the properwarrant, without they went
through private files, them nolonger to sing religious songs.
(09:09):
They could not sing.
Compel any little preschoolerto sing a religious song or, for
that matter, to hear Biblestories?
Well, this is a Christianprivate preschool at a church,
really.
So that's what the state, thegovernment of the state of
California, governor GavinNewsom he was behind this move
and this legislation supportingit.
So we at Pacific Justice we'vetaken it on and we're defending
(09:33):
them.
And then we've taken it on andnow we have it up on appeal.
That's just a classic exampleof religious freedom, also mixed
with parental rights, against avery totalitarian government
that we have in California andalso, for that matter, presently
at the federal level with thisadministration.
There's so much that's takenplace that we at Pacific Justice
(09:56):
have taken on.
One was when they shut down thechurches in California and
other blue states, red statesquickly opened up.
They said we're going to openup restaurants, we're going to
open up churches Makes totalsense.
Well, not if you live in astate like California.
They open up restaurants andpot shops and liquor stores Well
(10:17):
, but they kept those churchesshut down and those synagogues
shut down.
We at Pacific Justice Institute, we went in and filed a lawsuit
in federal court.
We took it rapid fire all theway to the Supreme Court and
Supreme Court, after just threedays, shut down.
We at Pacific Justice Institute, we went in and filed a lawsuit
in federal court.
We took it rapid fire all theway to the Supreme Court and
Supreme Court, after just threedays of deliberation, granted an
emergency injunction ruling sixto three ordering the governor
of California to open thosechurches and synagogues
(10:38):
immediately.
And now we've also beendefending people in the
workplace being persecutedbecause of their faith, where
they didn't want to take acontroversial vac shot, where
they didn't want to take acontroversial vac shot, where
they don't want to compromisetheir faith and say pronouns
affirming something that's nottrue, something that to them is
blasphemous against the creator.
So we're taking these on andrepresenting them.
And then, of course, publicschools, with teachers lying and
(11:01):
hiding things from parents.
We have lawsuits.
We filed against that in NewJersey and other places.
And it's just, you know,pro-life counselors being
criminally prosecuted by theBiden administration, facing up
to 10 years behind bars.
A pastor with three kids and awife peacefully praying there on
(11:22):
the grounds of an abortionclinic Didn't touch anyone,
didn't block, you know, up to 10years behind bars.
Really, that's like seconddegree homicide, second degree
murder.
You know it's a third degreehomicide murder.
So this is insane.
Well, this is the Bidenadministration.
The Department of Justice hasbeen targeting pro-lifers
(11:43):
peaceful, wonderful people doinggreat work, while ignoring the
violence of mobsters andcriminals who have come across
the border.
It's just been insane.
So we at Pacific Justice,needless to say, have been very,
very busy over the last severalyears in particular.
Speaker 2 (11:59):
I'm sure God has been removed from many people's
homes.
It has been removed fromschools and other wonderful
areas that children need to bein.
As a man of faith and aprestige attorney, what do you
think we as Americans did wrongto be in this situation?
Speaker 1 (12:20):
Well, I think part of it was complacency acquiescence
.
Well, I think part of it wascomplacency acquiescence Maybe
we're too busy earning a livingand the American dream, if you
will, that we started allowingthings to chip away from FDR
(12:41):
forward, that started chippingaway from religious freedom,
really chipping away fromrespecting the Constitution
based on its strict construction, its original intent, what it
says, what it meant to say.
So that has been a lot of whatwe're talking about.
And then the good news, ofcourse, the great news is what
(13:03):
happened in 2016.
A miraculous election outcomein the eyes of most political
consultants and experts resultedin a major revolution in our
federal courts, starting withthe Supreme Court.
You know we now have threeappointments to the Supreme
Court by former President DonaldTrump we think that there'll be
(13:24):
possibly one to three more inhis term in the next four years
and this resulted in landmarklegislation, from reversing Roe
versus Wade to respectingreligious freedom in multiple
different facets and ways.
Parents' rights were going tomake even more progress in
parents' rights moving forwardwith our existing legislation
(13:47):
and religious freedom movingforward.
So we're very positive on thelooking forward, but looking
backward, without question, yeah, we allowed things to really go
downhill, and a lot of it is ineducation, the public schools,
without school choice, withoutparents having any say.
(14:07):
The teachers union, driven bypeople from the far left, have
been brainwashing our childrenvery, very effectively.
More than one in four childrenin public high schools today
identify as being gay, lesbian,transgender, bisexual, binary or
queer something in thatspectrum.
That's catastrophic in so manyways, and that's because of the
(14:32):
breakdown taking place there.
Also, the breakdown of thefamily unit has also opened the
door for a lot of confusion anda lot of mistrust for marriage.
And then the latest transgendermovement has just been so
catastrophic and has taken somany victims and has caused me
to term public schools today asa general rule with some
(14:54):
exceptions, as a general rulethey become spiritual death
camps for our children, as wellas physical problems as well.
So that's where we are, butmoving forward.
We at Pacific Justice are veryoptimistic?
Speaker 2 (15:07):
Yes, absolutely.
Since we're on that topic, howdo you view the role of parents
in shaping educational contentin public schools?
Speaker 1 (15:17):
Well, first off, the first role I believe they should
have is to pull their childrenfrom public schools as soon as
possible, if they can do it.
I'm not saying thus saith theLord.
God has commanded all parentsto do this.
I'm not going to say that Idon't know every family
situation.
I don't know every singlepublic school or public school
teacher, but that's the firststep, whether it's homeschooling
, private schooling or workingwith churches, as we've done to
(15:40):
start church homeschool co-ops,we're helping churches across
the country do this.
They're easy to do, they'resimpler than private schools,
very affordable and helps justabout any family who wants to
homeschool per se, not to haveto feel like they're doing it
alone.
So that's number one.
Number two my wife and I wrote abook called Reclaim your School
(16:00):
.
It's available free download onour website.
It talks all about how parentscan have a positive impact on
public schools by not only justvolunteering to be teacher's
aides, but also empowering theirchildren, monitoring what's
going on in the schools and alsoworking with their church on
(16:22):
how they can effectively haveoutreach in public schools.
There's so many things they cando.
They can also utilize what wehave, a valuable tool called
opt-out forms that we'vecustomized for, I think, almost
all the 50 states across thecountry and go and download it
for free on our website.
It's also in that book Reclaimyour School.
They can download it for free.
They website.
It's also in that book Reclaimyour School.
(16:42):
They can download it for free.
They can fill it out, check theboxes, send it to the school
district and to the schoolprincipal and their teachers,
putting them all on notice.
I don't want my child exposedto this or this and I want to be
notified about that.
It's not a foolproof.
It's not a foolproof inCalifornia.
(17:17):
States like California,legislation by the Democrats was
passed that have gutted free ondownload right now on our
website for free pjiorg pjiorg.
They can also sign up to getour free e-newsletter on the
Legal Insider.
It keeps people updated onwhat's happening in our many
cases all across the country atpjiorg.
Speaker 2 (17:40):
Yes, and I'm going to link all of that for anyone
wondering.
By the way, I know people aregoing to message me about that.
I preach to the choir.
I think that pulling childrenout of school and homeschooling
them and private schools are anessential definitely, but what
do you think?
Is that going to help thesituation with all these
propagandas, or is that going tomake it worse?
Speaker 1 (18:01):
That's a great question because many people say
you know, if we take all ourkids out, you know we're just
surrendering the public schools.
Well, and that's the biggest,one of the biggest arguments.
Well, I say this we need tosave as many children as we can
from what I call the spiritualdeath camps A child today, what
public schools have become havebecome too much for a child to
(18:22):
be expected to survivespiritually.
The way schools are today,especially in states like
California, or even in schooldistricts like the Dallas
Independent School District,houston School District, atlanta
, I mean even large city schooldistricts in red states.
So that's even large cityschool districts in red States.
So that's so I, you know I, Ithink we should pull out, but at
(18:44):
the same time we can't forget.
Even if we pull out ourchildren, we can't forget the
children in public schools.
So all it takes is just a fewkids in a public school, for
example, to start a Bible club.
Just a few kids with that Bibleclub have an outreach,
evangelism, outreach Week,working with ministries such as
(19:06):
DecisionPointorg.
It's a wonderful ministry.
My wife and I actually helpedget it started from the
beginning.
They have full revival ralliesin the school gyms.
My wife and I did the veryfirst one in Sacramento and we
talk about it in our book.
We wrote Reclaim your School.
But it's now a separateministry and it's all over the
country decisionpointorg.
(19:28):
So there's so many things thatcan practically be done to reach
out to the kids that are stillthere, while at the same time
with churches and others workingto provide viable alternatives
for kids.
You know, I tell pastors.
I talked to one pastor.
He says yeah, you know, ourchurch is getting small and
we're all getting old and youknow, I don't know if any of us
(19:49):
are going to be alive 10 yearsfrom now.
I said, well, that doesn't haveto be.
He goes what do you mean?
I says you want your church togrow, you want young people.
I said sure.
I said well, contactdecisionpointorg.
They partner with churches likeyours and they help start youth
programs, first doing theoutreach week, the outreach to
the Bible club that you helpstart, and then, with the kids
(20:11):
who come to Christ, they steerthem to the church that's there
sponsoring them, and the peoplethere in your church can teach
Sunday school and can teachyouth programs and they can even
start a tutoring program.
They can start a private schoolor, excuse me, a homeschool
co-op, reaching out to people inthe community and people in
(20:35):
your church that have extra timeon their hands can help tutor
and monitor things.
I mean, there's just so muchpossibilities out there, even
for a church that seemingly isshrinking and dying out, if you
will.
Speaker 2 (20:49):
Yeah, one thing I always think about is these
consequences behind choosing toget your kids out of public
school and homeschool them.
The CPS is one of them.
How involved can they get?
Because I'm a new homeschoolingmom and I haven't heard
anything yet.
But these are definitely lawsthat I want to get into because
(21:09):
my audience majority of them arehomeschooling families, new
homeschooling families.
So question how involved canCPS get?
If you're homeschooling yourchild, is that considered
something where they can getinvolved with or they have no
rights to that?
Speaker 1 (21:27):
Yeah, that's a great question.
So, cps, you know we had a casewhere they went after a
homeschooling family inCalifornia, alleging that you
can't homeschool unless you're acredentialed teacher.
So they raided the house, tookthe kids.
We stepped in, we representedthem In fact I did this myself
(21:48):
personally and kids were givingback to the mother and you know
we could have sued.
At that time the mother decidedshe didn't want to file a
lawsuit against the schooldistrict it was up in Nevada
City, california.
But then later on we hadanother big homeschooling case
and we very similar facts.
We prevailed and the US and thestate Supreme Court of
(22:11):
California allowed it to hold usas case law.
But the reality is, generallyspeaking, social workers have
attacked homeschoolers.
Children are more vulnerable ofa social worker taking them if
they're in a public school thanif they're homeschooled.
It wasn't always that way, butnow social workers are so
(22:32):
aggressive in taking childrenthat may have gender confusion
and the family is not willing,the parents aren't willing to
encourage it and embrace it, oryour same sex acts with other
kids.
If the parents aren't willingto do that, then that's grounds
to have your child permanentlytaken from you in states like
california, new york, illinois,oregon, washington, the
northeast it's common, it'shappening all the time so so
(22:58):
that's why it's actually betterfor parents to homeschool,
because they're not monitored bya progressive or leftist
teacher looking for hostileparents after encouraging a
child to be gender confused orto delve into gender or sexual
confusion.
So, that said, homeschoolersare still vulnerable, needless
(23:21):
to say, and so what they need todo is they need to basically be
prepared.
Now we have an article, freearticle, on our website.
It's called 12 Steps to Protectyour Children from CPS.
I'm not exaggerating.
Every family in America withchildren under the age of 18
(23:42):
should have that article.
It's not long.
It's step by step what theyneed to do to protect their
children from being taken.
Once their children are takenand they call me, it's too late.
Usually they've got to gothrough the system.
They're presumed generallyguilty until proven innocent.
They have agovernment-appointed public
(24:03):
defender and everything isstacked against them the
children they don't have, theirchildren they can't bring in
their own expert.
Oh no, the government says no,only our experts, but the
parents.
Before the children are taken,when they get that first call
from a social worker, they firstknock on their door.
They know what to say they knowwhat to do, they can keep their
(24:24):
children.
Usually more than 98, 99% ofthe time they will keep their
children.
They will not be taken.
That is how important thisarticle is 12 Steps to Protect
your Children from CPS or ChildProtective Services.
They call it different thingsin different states, but it's
social workers and they can getdownload that for free from our
(24:46):
website.
P, j, I, dot o r g.
Children and parents are losingchildren and come from nice
suburban neighborhoods, safeneighborhoods.
People say, oh, we're not goingto lose our children.
That's for those, thosedeadbeat folks who are on drugs
and alcohol in the inner cityand where the dad's behind bars
(25:07):
and the mom's a prostitute.
No, no, this is a threat.
It doesn't matter who you are,no matter how nice of a
neighborhood you live in.
You can lose your children.
And let me tell you why.
Social workers, their littlelocal agency, their little
fiefdom, if you will, theircounty agency.
They get more than $8,000 perhead that they take by the
(25:30):
federal government no stringsattached by the federal
government, by the way.
Federal government doesn't say,oh, you have to give certain
due process protections, youhave to make sure that there's a
jury of their peers before youpermanently take a child.
Oh no, federal government justsays basically you tell me how
many kids you've taken.
Here's $8,000 per head and, bythe way, we'll give you $8,000
(25:50):
for every year.
You keep those children fromthe families.
Speaker 2 (25:52):
So this is an incentive, just like vaccine
incentives that go to doctors.
This is an incentive that goesto social workers from removing
children from homes.
This is an incentive that goesto social workers from removing
children from homes.
Speaker 1 (26:02):
Is that what I'm saying?
It's a big incentive, amoney-based incentive, and
that's why I'm hoping that thisnew Congress, a new White House
and Senate will address thisissue and say in the future
frankly, I think they should sayyou know what?
We're not funding governmenttaking kids anymore.
States, you fund it and youprioritize accordingly.
(26:24):
That's what needs to happen,and if they don't, alternative
number two is they need to sayyou know what?
From now on, states, in order toget money per child that you
take, you must meet these dueprocess requirements.
You have to prove not just apreponderance of the evidence,
you must show by clear andconvincing evidence In a court
of law.
You must give the parents ajury of their peers, if the
(26:48):
parents request it.
You must have due process.
You must give them a speedytrial.
You must give them their rights, just like you do criminals.
You give them their Mirandarights.
You need to read to parentstheir rights and make them aware
of their rights to not have tojust sign documents waiving
their rights and waivingauthority over their children.
(27:09):
There's so much that needs tobe done on that level.
So if governors are going tokeep giving money out.
They need to at least ensurethat some basic due process
actions are taken.
Right now, the best state inthe country to raise your child
safely is Oklahoma, believe itor not.
They have actually yeah, they'reactually the most progressive
(27:31):
in addressing these issues ofabuse by social workers and
making sure that there's reallyadequate due process.
Protection of families notlosing their children wrongfully
.
Speaker 2 (27:42):
What I want to understand is on what grounds do
they take children away fromparents?
You're saying, you don't haveto be a prostitute or a drug
addict or a criminal, they canjust come in and just take your
kids.
I mean, on what grounds, though?
Speaker 1 (27:57):
It's actually very easy.
So here's what the protocol is.
Say a teacher talks to a childand a child says you know, miss
Jones, I really say it's a girl,jill.
And she says I really feel likeI'm a boy, can you call me,
jimmy the teacher?
Many public school teachers notmost would say oh, yes, I
(28:18):
affirm you as a boy.
Yes, you're now Jimmy.
And then she'll call the socialworkers and the social workers
will talk to the girl and say doyour parents, will they approve
of this?
Oh no, they won't.
I know they won't.
They might even spank me orthey will be real upset.
(28:38):
Oh, they will.
They're not going to affirm you, they're not going to encourage
it.
Okay, we'll take you, we'llmake sure you're put in
protective care.
They take the child, say an11-year-old girl.
I mean, this is nothypothetical, this is real, this
is real stuff.
Yeah, they take the child, theyput the child in a foster home.
Often we'd see a gay family, atransgender couple, and the
(29:02):
parents don't see their childagain.
And that's not unusual.
If your child has genderconfusion, the odds are you will
lose your child and manyparents don't even find out they
have any kind of genderconfusion until after the child
is taken.
A lot of this quote genderconfusion.
It's encouraged, it's initiated, the thoughts of it by the
(29:24):
public schools that you know.
Hollywood is not helping either.
Disney and other networksthey're encouraging it, they're
creating it, but it's very, verydangerous.
Public schools have become very,very dangerous to children,
whether you know the a child, bythe way, who is solidified in
(29:47):
their confusion thanks togovernment schools and the
indoctrination that they have.
Generally speaking, thatcombined, of course, with you
know, sexual child abuse andthings like that can also be
contributory, lack of you know,proper gender bonding, et cetera
.
But if this is encouraged andsolidified, particularly by a
public school, then that child'ssuicide risk increases, not
(30:14):
200%, no, by 1,200%, 12 timesthe risk of committing suicide.
If they're confirmed andencouraged in this area, now,
the public schools, the teachersunion, they say, well, that's
because society is not affirmingthem and encouraging them.
No, no, no.
Studies show that a child isjust as likely to commit suicide
(30:35):
if they're in a veryprogressive community like San
Francisco than if they're in aconservative community like a
small town in East Texas.
It's an internal issue, it is amentally.
It causes suicide because itdoes not resolve the confusion
that a child's facing.
Speaker 2 (30:54):
Brad, can you give us a little bit of details of what
teachers face that are notgender affirming in schools?
What are the consequences?
I mean, I know that you'vehelped a few teachers not a few,
a lot of hundreds to you know,be correct here.
You were on Tucker Carlson withI forgot her name, jessica, was
(31:17):
it One of your?
You know you guys were talkingabout how she was fired and she
was fired because she wasstanding up for what was right.
So what are some of theconsequences that teachers face?
I know you talked about this onTucker's show.
Speaker 1 (31:32):
Well, the consequences that they face,
particularly in leftist Democratcontrolled areas and school
districts and school boardsboards is nothing less than
losing their jobs.
They're being ordered.
For example, in California apublic school teacher has to
(31:54):
basically, you know, confirm andencourage a child's gender
confusion.
If the child expresses thatthey have such confusion or
aren't sure of things, and theyget away with it they're
protected by state law.
Even a conservative schoolboard run by parents is now by
state law is prohibited frompunishing any teacher who
(32:18):
secretly grooms a child intogender confusion, into gender
confusion.
Right now in New Jersey, on theother side of the country, the
attorney general therepronounced that all teachers
have to not only use pronounsthat violate their conscience
and every good teacher shouldviolate their conscience to
encourage any confusion in anychild, much less confusion that
(32:39):
results increases theirlikelihood of suicide by 1200%.
So that's number one.
But it also the attorneygeneral says all public school
teachers also have to lie toparents, to conceal, to cover it
up.
If a child has gender confusion, and then the child what
commits suicide and they tellthem, say afterwards oh yeah, by
the way, forgot to tell you orI couldn't tell you, the child
(33:00):
had gender confusion the parentcould have gotten.
Counseling, could have got thechild the real support to
address the underlying cause,whether it was sexual child
abuse by a stranger or who knowswhat.
This is the reality of whatteachers, the minority of
teachers, the good teachers, theones that have a conscience,
that really truly care aboutchildren this is what they're
(33:23):
facing and that's why we atPacific Justice Institute have
made a pledge to defend everysingle teacher that wants to
respect the rights of parentsand appreciates and truly cares
for children.
We'll defend them withoutcharge in these situations, all
across the country, coast tocoast.
You know we have an office inMiami, atlanta, delaware, boston
(33:46):
, philadelphia, chicago, dallas,many places all across the
country, and we're ready tostand by our work, very uniquely
, to make sure that everyonegets help.
That's sort of our hallmark, bythe way.
We don't just cherry pick likeother organizations.
They just cherry pick a fewhigh profile cases.
We work hard to make sure thateveryone gets help, that no
one's left on the side of theroad without charge.
(34:08):
That's what we do at PacificJustice Institute.
Speaker 2 (34:11):
And what does this process look like for the
teachers?
I wonder, is this a longprocess, like going to court and
dealing with all these laws?
I mean, is this a drainingprocess for teachers?
I just want to know, becausethere's a lot of teachers that
are struggling.
I know a few that are refusingto go back.
They're just tutoring right nowbecause of this issue.
(34:32):
Particularly our tutor.
She's phenomenal, but she'sreluctant to go back because she
is protecting the truth.
She's like if I go back, I'mgoing to be affirming all these
confusions and I don't want tobe placed in that situation.
Speaker 1 (34:47):
Right.
Well, we give direct counsel toteachers in this situation and
how they can work around it.
They need to, you know, firstoff, assuming they have a
hostile school district, ahostile principal.
You know first off.
You know they can contact theparents off.
You know they can contact theparents.
(35:08):
They can, you know, assumingthat they're not bound by state
law, like California, from doingso.
Potentially they can let theparents know, find out where the
parents are at.
Most parents would not saythat's a good thing.
Most parents say this isterrible.
We don't want to encourage ourchild to be confused.
That's so harmful medically,psychologically, you know, risk
of suicide.
(35:28):
So, but even if they havehostile parents, here's the
different ways around is first,the parent.
If it's a school, she can saywell, look, you are registered,
based on your birth certificate,as this gender.
I'm going to refer to you asthat gender and that name.
If she's told she can't, if theparents say no and the school
(35:50):
district says no, you have touse refer the other name.
Then the other alternative is ateacher can use the last name
of all the children in the class.
She says you know, I'm going todo something different, you
know, instead of just using yourfirst name, I'm going to use
your last name.
Last names are unique andthey're something that you
should be proud of and they havedifferent history about you.
(36:11):
It says a lot about you and I'mgoing to use your last name and
break things up.
So that's what I'm going to do.
So the teacher uses the lastname, avoids any pronouns and
then, if that's not good enough,then we at the Pacific Justice
Institute think the parent has avery strong position for us to
file a lawsuit on their behalfand represent them.
(36:33):
We think we would prevail inthese cases as a general rule
across the country.
But it first takes teachersknowing their rights.
They should go to our website,learn about their rights and, at
the same time, contact us ifthey're in that situation as
soon as possible.
Speaker 2 (36:49):
Brad, what are some of the consequences of not using
pronouns?
If we don't want to usepronouns, are there consequences
?
Can we talk about those alittle bit?
Sure Are?
There things like that.
Speaker 1 (37:15):
Yeah, well, it depends on the policy of the
state you're in and the schoolboard.
So California, a teacher couldlose their job potentially,
especially if they have a schooldistrict that doesn't want to
work with them and schooldistrict is obstinate and says
you have to use pronouns.
Speaker 2 (37:29):
So it's their license to teach if they're not
utilizing a student.
Speaker 1 (37:34):
Depending on the state they live in.
That's very true.
That's the position of theteachers union and, by the way,
teachers don't have to pay apenny to the teachers union.
They have a right under bothfederal law, under Title seven,
but even under case law, supremeCourt, case law.
They have a right to not payany dues to the union at all,
(37:55):
and nor should they if they havea conscience.
As far as I'm concerned, in notwanting to support the evil and
the wickedness that the teachersunion, the NEA, supports with
regard to the evil that theybring into the public schools,
it just floors me how I can seea teacher, you know, professing
to be a committed Christian,attending church, you know,
(38:16):
whatever At the same time givingmoney to fund the evil
destruction of children withradical curriculum.
That goes totally against theconscience of anyone who, as I
call a true believer.
That's why I encourage teachersto really, you know, pray about
and examine their heart andconscience before they become a
(38:36):
part of a union.
But anyway, that's somethingthat we're looking at in the way
of consequences.
You know, they can lose theirjobs, and it's very real, and it
all depends on the state theylive in, the school board,
whether it's one controlled bythe teachers union, which more
than 85% are in the UnitedStates.
(38:57):
And even then, do they have aprincipal that's willing to work
with them and help them,accommodate their convictions
and their faith by letting themuse, say, the last name of the
children in the class?
They don't want to do just thelast name of the one child,
that's, you know, put.
You know, don't do all thechildren in their class last
(39:19):
names, or, and, or just avoidusing pronouns at all and only
say their name, just avoid usingpronouns at all and only say
their name?
Speaker 2 (39:30):
Do you work with any clinicians, therapists
particularly?
Do you have cases withtherapists that are in similar
situations, like teachers aboutto lose their licensure for not
using pronouns or anything likethat?
Speaker 1 (39:41):
Yeah, actually I had a case out of Texas a number of
years ago and I personally flewin and took on the case myself
because I'm licensed not only inCalifornia but also in Texas
and we didn't have an office inTexas at the time.
Now we have two attorneys therein Texas on staff, but I went
ahead and defended thispsychologist who was being sued.
(40:05):
In fact, he was having hislicense challenged before the
tegas texas board of licensors,for you know uh, I forget the
exact name, but that's what theydo, and it was.
They was being attacked bysomeone out of state that saw
his website, the fact that hegave counseling to people who
were struggling with genderconfusion, um and uh and the
(40:28):
like, and we and they're in the.
The state of texas was on thebrink of taking his license from
him this is no, because, uh, hewas engaging in, uh, counseling
, uh, it's either for someonewho was gender confused or
someone or who wanted people whowanted counseling regarding
(40:48):
same sex attraction.
And they said, oh, this isterrible.
And I went right into court, Imean, and I went right before
that commission.
There's nothing, no grounds.
You have to remove his licensefor providing counseling that is
(41:10):
requested and sought after byan adult client.
This is their right.
He has every right to do so inaccordance to the faith and
convictions of his client.
And if you do decide to takehis license, then we at Pacific
Justice Institute are going tochallenge this in federal court
(41:31):
and are going to take this allthe way to the United States
Supreme Court if necessary,where I'm very confident we will
win.
I says, you know, I says youcannot allow ideology to trounce
upon the constitutional rightsof counselors to provide the
counseling and therapy requestedand needed, assessed by their
(41:54):
client, by their counselor inthe state of Texas.
Now there's some intolerant,bigoted states like California
and New York that have bannedcounseling for people who have
same-sex attraction and want tounderstand the underlying reason
or even gender identity issues.
It's actually banned.
California, governor ofCalifornia would just as soon
have people commit suicide,apparently, than allow them to
(42:16):
actually address the underlyingissues, because there's nothing
genetic about it.
This is a result of past things, whether it's sexual child
abuse, that's right.
Lack of gender gender peerbonding with your you know, with
your like gender could be alack of a father affirming you
know, or life difficulties yes,so many are.
(42:41):
Insecurities by you know just anumber of things, our
insecurities by you know just anumber of things.
And yet these are all thingsthat can be addressed and have
successfully been addressed witha qualified counselor in
helping the person understandingthat you know, like a classic
example, a girl that was, say,sexually abused.
They can often develop a veryhigh negative stigma to the male
(43:05):
anatomy, want nothing to dowith the male anatomy or people
who are male and therefore theyseek females who are safe, if
you will, in their minds becausethey've not had the counseling
to address the fears and thetrauma.
Speaker 2 (43:22):
That's right.
Speaker 1 (43:23):
You know, that's just one example.
The fears and the trauma,that's right.
You know, that's just.
You know one example.
Or a male that's been, say,sexually abused by, uh, by
whoever, um, or the, or thefemale, for that matter.
They all they can say look, Iwant, this is so traumatic, I
want to become a differentperson.
So they think, by changingtheir gender, their name, how
they look, um, and everything,that they can become a different
(43:45):
person to escape this, thishorror, this, this past.
It doesn't work.
We know they, they're not happyand it's tragic.
And yet we have states, bluestates, that prevent people from
even having the freedom to getcounseling, even though we know
statistically what the resultsare to these individuals as a
(44:07):
general rule.
So, yeah, yeah, so they need toencourage their state
legislators to do the rightthing.
Hopefully we're going to havesome positive legislation on a
federal level protectingcounselors moving forward.
Speaker 2 (44:18):
Absolutely, and I'll go even deeper than that.
You know, a lot of cliniciansare even scared to help their
clients with coming to thisconclusion or, you know, being
very truthful about what'sreally happened and having them
see a bigger picture.
There's a lot of fear behindthat and I have a lot of
(44:39):
colleagues who have pronounseven in their bios because
they're just so afraid.
And so it's this fear.
As an attorney, what advice doyou give therapists that do want
to practice truth but they'revery afraid of having their
license revoked and taken away,kind of like what's happening
with Jordan Peterson?
Speaker 1 (45:00):
Right, right, yeah, and he's written some great
books, that's for sure.
Speaker 2 (45:04):
Yes, he has.
I've read one of them.
Speaker 1 (45:07):
And a great guy.
So here's what you do.
Let's say you're in a hostilestate.
Let's say you're in California,new York, one of these places,
but they say you can't givecorrective therapy, or whatever
you want to call it, to helpsomeone be able to address and
no longer, at least, be bound bythese feelings of either gender
(45:27):
confusion or same-sexattraction.
And how do you deal with that?
Well, what we advise counselorsto do is, first off, to have
their client, in writing, statesign a statement saying that
they understand that thecounseling they're receiving is
not for the intended purpose ofmodifying their gender identity
(45:52):
or their sexual orientation andthat this will not be the direct
focus of this counseling.
So they signed that statement.
Legally, we can do that.
Yeah, you can have them say youwant them acknowledging First
it helps protect the counselor,the psychologist, to have the
(46:14):
client sign something like this,where the client is, in writing
, understanding they are notgetting counseling for the
counseling for the purpose, forthe only you know, as you know,
how do we change your gender,how do we change your sexual
orientation?
Put that in there.
See, that is not the purpose ofthis counseling and that is not
(46:35):
the center focus of thiscounseling.
Then, after that's done, thecounselor does what a counselor
would do anyway, which is findout what is the underlying
reason why they have genderconfusion, why they have
same-sex attraction, what wasthe issue?
What's involved in their past?
What has not been reconciled?
(46:56):
Was it sexual child abuse, lackof peer bonding, the absence of
a father?
Or a father that wasconditional in spending time
with his girl only if she didboy things with him?
Or the mother who only wantedthe child to do to do girl
things or dress the child like agirl, which you know some sick
yeah, we see all the time yeah,yeah, it's often mothers who
(47:23):
have a you know, a motherpartner.
Sometimes we see that happening.
It's just carries on and it'sjust very sad.
But through the counselingthough, if they focus on that,
that's really what the coreissue is these underlying issues
, and then what happens withregards to the same-sex
(47:43):
attraction or the genderidentity.
The same-sex attraction or thegender identity that often plays
itself out once the realunderlying issues are addressed.
But that's the approach that Iwould recommend for a counselor
not to go into saying, okay,we're going to give you the five
steps of how you can changeyour gender identity, or here's
the five steps on how to changeyour sexual orientation.
No, no, no, no.
(48:03):
How to change your sexualorientation?
No, no, no, no.
But a good counselor anywaywould, would should focus on how
did those feelings come?
Where did those?
Where did it come?
That identity come from, andwe're going to help you address
that.
We're going to help deal withthose, those Not be afraid of
laws and consequences.
Right, and that's and that's thebest way of it.
Some psychologists andcounselors have left intolerant,
(48:26):
bigoted states like Californiayeah, that's what's happened.
But those that are still inCalifornia, that still have a
heart wanting to help people whowant help or seeking help yeah,
it's very helpful.
Yeah, it's very helpful.
I don't know of anypsychologist or counselor that
(48:51):
tries to indoctrinate or changesomeone's orientation or gender
identity, that is not seeking tohave that done.
It's counterproductive, it canbe frustrating.
It can you know?
So I just don't see thathappening.
And yet that's the you know thescare stories that are
attempted by the left tostigmatize responsible
psychologists and counselors whoare actually doing the right
(49:13):
thing helping people who wanthelp, who need help and are
ready to get that help.
Speaker 2 (49:21):
Absolutely, Brad.
Going back to I'm kind of goingto steer away from this topic
and go back to homeschooling.
I think one important questionI forgot to ask is what do you?
I mean, what are some laws thatparents need to be very mindful
of if they're choosing tohomeschool their kids, or when
they're homeschooling their kids, what's like essentials that
(49:42):
they need to know?
Speaker 1 (49:46):
essentials that they need to know.
Yes, great question, and wetalk about a number of this is
also in our material online,pjiorg.
But I, just right off hand, Ican tell you number one they
need to be familiar with theirstate laws.
States have differentrequirements and mandates.
So in California, if they'regoing to go it alone, they need
to file their own private schoolaffidavit.
Yes, they write, yeah, their ownprivate school affidavit, sa,
right, yeah, their own privateschool affidavit, yeah, and with
(50:08):
the state exactly.
They need to have some kind ofa curriculum program of some
kind.
Yes, they need to keep anattendance of a child and they
need to have some methodologyshowing grades so that they're
testing their child in some way.
So you can do this.
Now some schools real trendingschools have different
(50:30):
methodologies.
That's fine.
But uh, homeschoolers, theyneed to.
That in california that's whatthey need to do.
Those are just general, good,general principles, uh, but to
have, you know, an actualprogram, you know social worker
finds out that the childrencan't read and write and parents
just say, well, they'll learnon their own.
Somehow they're probably goingto be written up for truancy and
(50:52):
maybe lose their children.
Before they ever take theirchild out of a public school,
they need to have somethingeither the child enrolled in a
private school, an actualprivate school, or file their
own private school affidavit.
They need to have that done inadvance.
They can't just pull their kidsout and say, yeah, we're going
to get this done.
Next month no social workercould be called and they could
(51:13):
lose their kid, their child,their children.
So that's real important.
Also, they need to know thatthey're going to be under more
scrutiny potentially, at leastinitially.
I encourage parents, if there'sany kind of fear of social
workers going after them, thatthey uh, that they stop corporal
punishment spanking of a child.
(51:34):
If they do spank a child, itneeds to be not with a belt but
with a paddle with a curved edge.
Speaker 2 (51:41):
But it is legal to keep your child in california
right.
As long as there's no bruisesor marks you, you can take them
Right and so that's why thebelts sometimes can make a
little red mark.
Speaker 1 (51:51):
You know, that's just what happens.
Speaker 2 (51:53):
That's what we got growing up the belt.
Speaker 1 (51:56):
Yeah, I did too, and I haven't killed or shot anyone.
I'm actually a really peacefulguy.
Neither, neither Not thetherapist, our founding fathers,
by the way, all of them werespanked with a switch or a belt
and, you know, they turned outvery well, in fact, much better
than the kids do today.
So that generation.
So I would say that those aresome things that parents need to
(52:18):
take into consideration oftheir homeschooling Understand
they may be under more scrutiny.
And also, if their children,generally speaking, if they
reach the age of um, eight, nineor ten, especially ten, I mean
um, they need to be looking atalternative, uh forms of
discipline anyway, that areactually probably more effective
.
Uh, just what I've read now.
(52:38):
I remember a friend of mine incollege.
You know he was raised in thestate of texas and he was.
He got a whip him when he was16 for talking back to his
mother and his dad didn'tapprove of that.
And you know he was raised inthe state of Texas and he was.
He got a whip him when he was16 for talking back to his
mother and his dad didn'tapprove of that, and you know.
So he turned out just fine.
But we'd have to be sensitiveto the stereotypes of the day
and yeah, and so uh consequencegrows with age.
(53:02):
Yeah, and, and, yeah, exactly,and, and you know there's great
books like uh, like how to havea Good Kid by Friday.
If you have a strong-willedchild where nothing seems to
work, I highly recommend thatbook by Dr Lemon, how to have a
Good Kid by Friday.
It's an excellent book.
Speaker 2 (53:20):
It is excellent.
I've read that book a few times.
There's a lot of great books,but know.
But yeah, I agree with you theconsequence definitely needs to
grow with age Spanking.
A 16 year old is a little muchthere.
Speaker 1 (53:34):
Yeah, especially in today's society.
But bottom line, if people wantto homeschool, those are just
some things that they should do.
But I highly recommend them,though, not to go it alone.
If they, they can be a part ofa church where other parents are
homeschooling and it also.
If they're not a part of achurch and they're home, it's
(53:55):
also for their safety.
I think parents are more likelyto have their child taken if
they're going in alone rogue anddon't have any kind of
community support.
When they're part of a church,though, it sends a signal to
social workers.
You know any kind of communitysupport.
When they're part of a church,though, it sends a signal to
social workers, especially whenthe pastor's wife come to the
house.
When the social worker's thereSay we're just here to support,
they're part of our church.
It tells the social worker youtake this child wrongfully,
(54:15):
you're going to have an entirechurch community know about it.
That's right.
There's going to beramifications.
So I've encouraged you.
I've gotten many familiesparents who don't go to church
to be a part of a church, justas part of a defensive measure
to keep from losing theirchildren from from social
workers.
It really makes a lot of sense,even if they're atheists.
It's just.
(54:36):
It's just a smart thing to do.
And who knows?
Stats show that that faithactually results in children
making wiser decisions.
Faith actually results inchildren making wiser decisions
less likely to get pregnant,less likely to drop out of
school, do drugs, et cetera.
Not a bad thing.
Speaker 2 (54:52):
Not at all.
Have you ever heard of ahomeschooling program called
Abeka?
Speaker 1 (55:02):
Oh yes, I've heard great things about it.
Speaker 2 (55:03):
It's one of many out there that are just doing
excellent, excellent work.
That's right.
Yeah, we are enrolled withAbeka and their Christian Bible
study is just phenomenal.
That's like the first classthat 8 in the morning my son
logs into in their prayer.
It's just so beautiful and itteaches just wonderful values
and morals, and so everyone'sout there.
Speaker 1 (55:24):
One thing I do want to warn parents, especially
their homeschooling, and that isthis A lot of them are now
being victimized by the Internet.
Parents may put you knowfiltering on their Internet.
They need to have filtering,obviously, but it doesn't filter
ideas.
So I encourage parents, if theyallow a child on the Internet,
(55:46):
not to have it in their bedroom,only in the kitchen, not on
with earplugs.
It needs to be so that parentscan hear exactly what they're
listening to at all times.
That's right.
And also I encourage parentsnot to let their children have
cell phones.
Instead, give them flip-upphones where they can make phone
calls, they can text, but notcell phones, because that allows
(56:10):
them at school to have accessto all kinds of things that can
just really confuse and reallyhurt children.
The studies show this, and soparents need to really be
proactive like never before.
Homeschooling is not a safetymeasure like it used to be.
Parents need to be veryproactive and I encourage them
(56:39):
to go through all the measuresthey can to protect their
children when it comes to theinternet access via a laptop or
a cell phone.
Speaker 2 (56:45):
Yeah, I agree, I agree, I agree, fred, thank you
so much for today.
It was such an awesomeconversation.
I loved that we coveredhomeschooling and public schools
and counselors.
I love your ideas.
I love the fact that you knowlaw so well and you're such a
helpful individual for peopleout there, and your amount of
(57:06):
faith, which makes it a hundredtimes better.
Speaker 1 (57:09):
So thank you, thank you, and I appreciate your
podcast and the privilege toparticipate.
Thank you again.
Speaker 2 (57:15):
Absolutely.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Intentionally Disturbing
Join me on this podcast as I navigate the murky waters of human behavior, current events, and personal anecdotes through in-depth interviews with incredible people—all served with a generous helping of sarcasm and satire. After years as a forensic and clinical psychologist, I offer a unique interview style and a low tolerance for bullshit, quickly steering conversations toward depth and darkness. I honor the seriousness while also appreciating wit. I’m your guide through the twisted labyrinth of the human psyche, armed with dark humor and biting wit.