4 Ways To Help Your Kids Fight Assimilation Into Cultural Leftism

Equipping our kids might mean talking to them about difficult and uncomfortable subjects long before we’d like to. But choosing not to have them doesn’t protect our kids. It dooms them to leftist assimilation.

4 Ways To Help Your Kids Fight Assimilation Into Cultural Leftism

Dec 16, 2019

 

“You don’t agree with me that gay marriage should be legal?” All eyes around the lunch table were suddenly trained on my sixth-grade daughter. “But that means you hate gay people!” Morgan exclaimed.

“No it doesn’t,” Faust daughter replied. “My grandma is gay, and I love her. So, what is your argument?”

“Well, if a man and a woman who love each other can get married, then two men who love each other should be able to get married, and two women who love each other should be able to get married. There’s no difference.”

“The difference is that a man and a woman make a baby,” Faust daughter responded again. “A man and a man don’t make a baby, and a woman and a woman don’t make a baby.”

“Oh, I guess that’s true. But the two men or the two women could just adopt if they wanted a baby.”

“No. Adoption is not about giving kids to adults. Adoption is about finding homes for children who don’t have parents. And all children need moms and dads,” Faust daughter insisted.

“Well, I think kids just need adults who love them,” came the response.

“No, dads teach kids certain lessons; moms teach kids other lessons. And kids need both kinds of lessons,” Faust daughter concluded.

Amazingly, No.1 Faust daughter was able to identify three truths about marriage and family that escape most adults: 1) The public purpose of marriage is not about adult feelings, it’s about children. 2) No adult has a right to a child. 3) Men and women offer distinct and complementary benefits to child-rearing.

As she retold this lunch-time drama, I remember thinking, “Wow, it worked!” No. 1 Faust daughter had retained and could explain much of what we had been talking about at home. It was proof that not only can kids handle these big conversations, they thrive on them.

Parenting Is About Training

After our eldest daughter’s relatively sheltered elementary school life, my husband and I decided it was time for the “Great Equipping.” Our philosophy throughout her first decade of life had been focused on filtering out damaging ideas about worldview, gender, sex, etc. We strove to saturate her in truth and beauty during the phase wherein kids unquestioningly absorb everything they see and hear.

We limited her exposure to distorted depictions of sex, violence, and competing worldviews whether from media or agenda-driven adults. We encouraged scripture memorization, modeled imperfect-but-healthy relationships, and emphasized the purpose and inherent goodness of sex within marriage. But the time for sheltering was at an end because she was about to enter the ultimate worldview battleground — a woke Seattle public school.

The Great Equipping is the time in a child’s development when critical thinking begins, accompanied by questions like, “How do we know that’s true?” “But what if you’re wrong?” It’s easy for children to catch their parents off guard when they begin challenging core theological concepts that, only a month before, they were happily regurgitating. But fear not, these questions are an indication your kid is ready for more. They are ready to be experts.

We tell every one of our kids upon entering middle school, “We want you to know more about controversial topics than all your friends.” Yes, the Great Equipping means talking about difficult and uncomfortable subjects with our kids way before we’d like to.

But we really don’t have a choice, because the world is messaging to our kids nonstop about sex and transgenderism and every other topic that may make us squeamish. To the world, our discomfort is irrelevant. Having conversations with our kids about abortion or pornography may be discomforting, but choosing not to have them doesn’t protect our kids. It dooms them to leftist assimilation.

Uncomfortable as it is, the goal of parenting is not to keep kids safe or happy. The goal is training.

1. You Are the Primary Educators

Pre-parenthood, my husband and I worked in youth ministry. We witnessed both ends of the parenting spectrum: the laissez-faire, uninvolved-and-unaware-of-what’s-going-on-in-their-child’s-world parents. Those kids were so overwhelmed by the messages and pressures of the world, they were often swallowed whole by the time they graduated high school.

On the other end of the spectrum were the Christian kids smothered with protection. These kids often fell apart when they went to college. Their parents’ extreme sheltering meant they never had a chance to come up against a worldview challenge, whether evolution or sexual morality or the veracity of scripture, which left them woefully outgunned when they encountered the slightest pushback.

My husband and I decided on a middle road: train our children on every question the world would throw at them while they were under our roof. That middle road demanded we take our role of “primary educators” seriously. Not only by laying a solid foundation of truth and beauty when our kids were young, but also by introducing them to competing worldviews in middle school. The summer before our oldest entered sixth grade, we studied abortion, transgenderism, same-sex attraction, socialism, and more.

Being the “primary educators” of our children means being the first to talk with them about difficult subjects. Why? Because the person who introduces your child to a new something, especially a sensitive something, is the person your kid will consider the authority.

For example, if the first time your kid hears about porn is when a fifth grader with a smartphone shoves a video in his face, where do you think he goes for more information? Even if your initial conversation is not exhaustive, the first person to tell your kids about tough issues has to be you. As the mothers who lead the grassroots marriage movement CanaVox often say, “Better a year too early than five minutes too late.”

2. Include Your Kids in What You’re Already Doing

While good programs are helpful, don’t think this training requires formal curriculum. My husband and I have opted for more of a Deuteronomy 6 approach wherein you incorporate worldview conversations as “you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up.”

This brand of training is more of an incremental handoff than a course-completion. I once heard of a discipleship model that encapsulates this slow equipping:

Step 1. I do, you watch.
Step 2. I do, you help.
Step 3. You do, I help.
Step 4. You do, I watch.

By the time your kids exit childhood, you should be done with Step 1. Your kids should already have observed you living it. Our kids have witnessed their parents read about and work through difficult scriptural and worldview questions.

They’ve watched us respond to situations with, “I don’t know. Let me learn more and get back to you.” They’ve listened to us listen to political and worldview-forming podcasts. They’ve seen us survive the real-life fallout of speaking unpopular truth about cultural topics. Your kids should understand healthy marriage, friendship, and conversations because they’ve witnessed you living them. Modeling is a critical part of Step 1. You are “doing,” and they are “watching.”

When they are near the end of the innocent phase, you should introduce Step 2. As a Federalist reader, I assume you are engaged in apologetic or policy discussions online, yes? Invite your 10-year-old or 12-year-old to read your exchanges and discuss your critic’s objections. Ask your daughter to help you with your response.

What part of your argument is the strongest and the weakest? What would she add? When you want to share a powerful pro-life video, watch it with your son and ask him to help you write a few lines about the “rape exception” in abortion. You are “doing.” They are “helping.”

When they hit that phase where the Great Equipping begins, you should be in the midst of Step 2 and moving into Step 3. If they’ve been saturated in truth and beauty and received honest answers to honest questions, the urge to further investigate and defend their worldview comes naturally. They will likely start pushing back in their classrooms, engaging in difficult conversations with friends, or identifying objectionable content in the shows they are watching (preferably with you sitting on the couch next to them).

Step 3 done right looks like this: Your middle-schooler reports that his class discussion was based on the idea that “slaveholders in the South must’ve been Republicans because Republicans are racist.” You stay your fingers from typing an angry email to the teacher and instead ask your son, “Would you like to watch a video on the history of the Democratic Party together?” or “Would you like to read the first Republican Party platform, which denounces slavery as one of the ‘twin relics of barbarism’?” You “help” while they “do.”

Ideally, by the time our kids graduate high school, they regularly dwell in the land of Step 4. You “watch” them from the sidelines responding to objections. They are drafting their own social media comments about the harms of puberty-blockers and writing pro-life essays all on their own.

A precaution: There is no shortcutting this. Do not live in the fantasy that you can skip from Step 1 to Step 4. You arrive at Step 4 only after your kids have had a couple years in Step 2 and Step 3 and have had many opportunities to practice grappling through difficult topics in the safety of your home.

3. Balance Protection and Exposure

I don’t knock any parent who chooses private school or homeschool to protect their children from the world. The only mommy war I fight is the one that really matters — to insist that every child has a right to his or her mommy (and daddy). Whether your child takes a bus to school or just has to come to the kitchen table, Christian parents are responsible for equipping their kids.

Some Christians bristle when I tell them our children are in public school. They ask, “How could you allow them to be subjected to that liberal agenda?” Their concern is justified, of course. This educational path is wrought with daily political and religious friction. We have to evaluate, child by child and year by year, whether this friction is sharpening our kids or grinding them down. If it’s grinding them down, we retreat and regroup. If the friction results in stronger mental and spiritual acumen, then they remain.

Now spanning grades four through 11, our kids often share with us the difficult conversations they’ve had with friends or a ridiculous statement from a teacher, or lament some biased curriculum. Such conversations are followed by a heavy does of Step 3 as we conduct joint research into what the Bible says about that subject, as well as supporting natural law and social science arguments. Our two oldest have spent hours investigating the character of Christopher Columbus, whether our Founding Fathers were racist, the sexes wage gap, the truth claims of Islam, and more.

For example, recently, No. 2 Faust daughter stormed in and told me, “Mom, you wouldn’t believe what Jenna said! She said abortion was okay because ‘my body, my choice.’ I was so mad, but I didn’t know what to say.” Three hours later, after an exploration of videos on natal development and some research on pro-choice talking points, No. 2 Faust daughter said confidently, “The next time one of my friends says ‘my body, my choice,’ I’m going to say, ‘If it was your body you’d be the one dead at the end of the abortion.’”

I have seen the fruits of this Great Equipping in my friends’ children as well. One friend’s sixth-grade daughter, championing the pro-life cause while riding the school bus, successfully converted four pro-choice classmates by simply being prepared to have the conversation. Another friend found out during her seventh-grader’s conference that her child had spoken directly to the history teacher himself regarding his obvious political bias in the classroom, which resulted in a humbled, more mindful educator.

Of course, not every conversation will result in such tangible “wins.” Many times our kids will experience the same rejection we adults face when we stand for our convictions. The sure result will be, however, that every oppositional interaction they have will help to sharpen their minds, and that is always a win.

4. Stay Connected

One last thing, and it’s a big thing. These conversations will be impossible or have little effect if we aren’t connected to our kids. Connection comes not only from physical proximity — driving them to school, joint dinner prep, working in the yard together — but also from emotional proximity.

If your kids are going to navigate a hostile world of competing ideas, they must know you are the safe place to put all their questions, feelings, and doubts. You demonstrate this by not freaking out when they tell you their friend came out as bisexual, or when your little girl says she wants to marry Taylor Swift, or when your son wants to know what “trans” is. While your head may say “WTH!” your face needs say, “I’d love to talk with you about that.”

Have my husband and I achieved the right balance of modeling and exposing, sheltering and training? I hope so. But we are only at the virtual half-time in this parenting game. I’ll tell you what the scoreboard says in another decade when the game is over.

What I can say is that my kids can hold their own. They can spot a lie when they hear one. They know that answers to the hardest questions do exist, even if they don’t yet know what those answers are. They know their parents are in the fight with them. And they know that while they may lose friends if they speak up, they earn the respect of their friends who remain.

Katy Faust is the founder and director of the children’s rights organization Them Before Us and the Washington state leader of CanaVox. She is married and the mother of four children, the youngest of whom is adopted from China. You can follow her on Twitter @Advo_Katy.

Kanye Understands A Crucial Part Of The Gospel Other Celebrity ‘Christians’ Don’t: ‘It’s A Hard Road To Heaven’

The problem with so many Christ-claiming celebrities is that they don’t actually believe Jesus is King. It seems Kanye does.

Kanye Understands A Crucial Part Of The Gospel Other Celebrity ‘Christians’ Don’t: ‘It’s A Hard Road To Heaven’

Oct 30, 2019

 

Kanye is starting quite the conversation, a conversation that has Christians, non-Christians, white people, black people, Democrats, and Republicans all engaging for different reasons. Is Kanye really converted? Does his affinity for Donald Trump take away from his impact, or aid it? Is this a phase that will fizzle out? Is his album objectively good? Or are his lyrics just refreshing?

While questions like these are worth asking, we can make observations about his newly released album “Jesus Is King” without having all the answers. One fact that simply cannot be overlooked is the truly countercultural message in Kanye’s lyrics — one that is essential to the message of the gospel but so often left out of pop-culture claims to Christianity that ultimately fall flat.

That message is hard to miss: Jesus is King. Kanye weaves this theme throughout his lyrics, and now throughout his life.

Culture Promulgates a Weak Version of ‘Christianity’

How does this differ from other professing faith-filled celebs? To recall an opportune example, consider Bachelor Nation’s beloved Season 15 Bachelorette “Alabama Hannah” Brown. Hannah talked about her faith and being a Christian consistently throughout the show, and although it was unfortunate that the infamous sex “accusation” occurred courtesy of the most universally hated bachelor on the show, Luke P., Hannah revealed her worldview is no different from other celebrity, in-name-only Christians.

When Luke confronted her, however narcissistically, about the possibility of her having sex with one or more of the few remaining bachelors, the conversation escalated to Hannah dismissing Luke from the show. When he all but refused to leave, Hannah replied, “I have had sex … and Jesus still loves me.”

She’s not wrong. She did have sex, and Jesus still loves her. Good theology, Hannah. But her remorseless attitude perfectly encapsulates the flagrantly unbiblical worldview of countless pseudo-Christian celebs. Upon Luke’s exit, she continued, “I didn’t just go to the Fantasy Suite, I f-cked in a windmill. And guess what? We did it a second time,” before winking at the camera, her face in an ear-to-ear grin.

I’m not here to beat the dead Hannah B. horse. She is merely symptomatic of our culture’s exceptionally weak notion of what passes as “Christian.” As Refinery29 put it, Hannah is “a devout Christian who praises Jesus Christ in her Instagram bio.” Really? Is that all it takes to call oneself a Christian these days?

Real Christianity Results in Obedience

Pop culture icons tend to appeal to Christianity only insofar as it broadens their appeal to a Christian base. As soon as it seems not to benefit their wallets anymore, their faith doesn’t seem to be all that active. Not that keen spectators can’t see the reversal coming, for their faith doesn’t result in any identifiable fruit.

Often, the only evidence of Christianity is simply an Instagram bio — directly above an erotic pose in Calvin Klein underwear. Or in an interview soundbite — promoting an explicit new album. Or in a gaudy cross tattoo or necklace — stuck somewhere amid cleavage. These icons are Christians in name only. Not in understanding, not in message, and not in obedience.

That last part — obedience — is the hardest. Believing God exists is common sense, but merely acknowledging that isn’t Christianity. Making Jesus “King” and doing what he asks of you — that’s the difficult part. It’s that whole idea the book of James carries, that “faith without works is dead.”

Kanye’s theology isn’t perfect. “Excuse me if I mispronounce anything,” he says. “I am a recent convert. It means I recently got saved within this year.” But the gospel isn’t complicated. (In a sentence, as Pastor John Piper articulated, “The gospel is the news that Jesus Christ, the Righteous One, died for our sins and rose again, eternally triumphant over all his enemies, so that there is now no condemnation for those who believe, but only everlasting joy.”) Children can understand it. And Kanye has grasped the transformational aspect of the gospel that so many haven’t.

In one new song, “Use This Gospel,” he sings, “Use this gospel for protection. It’s a hard road to heaven.” Yes, it is, Kanye. If it weren’t, Jesus wouldn’t have instructed each of his followers to “take up [their] cross daily and follow” him.

As my friend put it, “[Kanye’s] passion for simple obedience is just so contagious.” It’s true. His simple obedience is evidenced in his lyrics, in his calls for modesty, in his warnings against premarital sex, in his denouncing of unbiblical public policies, and in his parenting goals.

Kanye Confesses Jesus Is King

His message in “Closed on Sunday” (Chick-fil-A mentions excepted) is rich with the practical outworking of a Christian not being “conformed to this world” but instead being “transformed”:

Raise our sons, train them in the faith
Through temptations, make sure they’re wide awake
Follow Jesus, listen and obey
No more livin’ for the culture, we nobody’s slave
Stand up for my home
Even if I take this walk alone
I bow down to the King upon the throne
My life is His, I’m no longer my own.

Whether Kanye is truly a Christian or not is something only he and God know. But one thing we do know is that a person can’t be a Christian if he doesn’t believe and live by these simple truths.

That’s the problem with so many Christ-claiming celebrities: They don’t actually believe Jesus is King. It seems Kanye does.

Kylee Zempel is an assistant editor at The Federalist. Follow her on Twitter @kyleezempel.

U.S. Forces Parents Away From Adopted Children For As Long As Two Years

Luke and Brittney Stasi appear to have been victims of an unannounced policy change at the U.S. State Department keeping parents from bringing their adopted children home. Will Congress act?

U.S. Forces Parents Away From Adopted Children For As Long As Two Years

Aug 12, 2019 By Jayme Metzgar

Luke Stasi hasn’t seen his family since January. As his wife, Brittney, has been managing five children and a small business alone in South Carolina, Luke has spent the past seven months stuck in Africa with their sixth child, Victor.

It was December 12, 2018, when a Nigerian court finalized the family’s adoption of Victor, declaring the child (then age five) to be their son. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service duly approved the family’s I-600 application, recognizing the adoption. Yet as of this writing, eight months later, the U.S. Consulate in Lagos, Nigeria, has failed to issue a visa so Victor can come home.

As Americans continue to grapple with the separation of families at our southern border, a quieter immigration crisis is separating parents from children—not migrant families this time, but U.S. citizens. The Stasis are one of dozens of adoptive families facing a frightening new trend: an eleventh-hour stall in the international adoption process that leaves them stuck overseas with a child who is legally theirs, but is unable to enter the United States.

‘Just Stick Him in an Orphanage’

Luke and Brittney appear to have been victims of an unannounced policy change at the Lagos consulate in particular, and the U.S. State Department in general. “Of all of the families from our adoption agency who came to Nigeria before us, their cases were approved in four weeks or less,” Luke told me in an interview. “We were seeing families get their visas in a matter of days.”

But when the Christmas holidays forced the Stasi family to wait until 2019 for their visa interview, they found a grim new reality. “Starting in January, the whole thing shut down,” Luke said. “Every family that has applied since we did is still waiting. We know of six other families who are stuck.”

Nigerian law requires American adoptive families to travel to Nigeria for a supervised “bonding period” with their child prior to finalizing the adoption. This means that by the time families apply for a U.S. immigrant visa, they have already spent several weeks living with and caring for their child in Nigeria. With the visa-approval process now dragging on for months to no end in sight, families face an agonizing choice: stay in Africa for an indefinite length of time, or abandon the child with whom they’ve been building a fragile, new bond.

“When my wife went to the consulate in January to ask about our visa interview, the consular official just ripped her head off,” Luke remembers. “‘This could take six months to a year!’ she said.” When Brittney asked how they could ever manage to stay in Africa up to a year, Luke says the staffer told her to go home and leave their son behind. “She actually told my wife: ‘There are orphanages all over the country. Just stick him in one of those.’”

Unwilling to subject Victor to the emotional damage of a second abandonment, the Stasis decided that Luke would stay in Africa, with Brittney and their five other children returning home. Days turned to weeks, and weeks to months, without a single word from U.S. consular officials on the reason for the delay, a progress report, or an expected date of resolution.

“We can’t even get the names of the officials we’re working with,” Luke told me. “Everything is anonymous. There is no accountability at all.”

In addition to crippling financial costs and lost income—“We’ll probably have to sell our house when I get back just to make ends meet”—Luke says the separation is taking a severe emotional toll. “My kids are really suffering. We’ve missed so many birthdays together, Easter, Fourth of July. They’ve given up their dad so their new brother can have one. But it’s hard.”

Other adoptive families haven’t been able to withstand the strain and financial costs. Several have been forced to return to their homes and jobs in the United States, leaving their newly adopted children with paid caregivers—or placing them back into orphanages.

A Cloak of Invisibility

In all the stalled Nigeria cases, the U.S. State Department has invoked a murky investigative process called “administrative processing,” used for traditional visa applications to screen for national security threats, but previously unknown in the world of international adoption. The process is shrouded in secrecy. Last year, a State Department staffer answered one adoption agency’s query as follows: “The sections of the Foreign Affairs Manual that discuss administrative processing are also not available to the public since they are not unclassified.”

“Nobody knows what administrative processing even is,” says Kelly Dempsey, an adoption attorney based in North Carolina. “I’ve been doing this a long time, and it’s not something we ever used to see. It used to be that if the State Department thought something was wrong with a child’s file, they would mark the case as ‘not clearly approvable’ and send it back to USCIS to investigate. Then the burden of proof would be on the petitioner—the family—to answer questions and prove everything was legitimate.”

“Now, families still bear that burden,” Dempsey continues, “but they don’t even know what the issues are, or what problems the State Department is investigating. It’s this cloak of protection and invisibility that the State Department gets to impose upon adoption cases.” She notes that thus far, every family who has made it through administrative processing has been vindicated, with their visa ultimately approved. After parents and children have suffered months of delay, heartache, and financial strain, no fraudulent adoptions have been uncovered.

It’s not just happening in Nigeria. While no comprehensive data on administrative processing exists, interviews with a half-dozen U.S. adoption agencies point to a broad and growing trend. Five of six agencies reported a combined total of 34 adoption cases stuck in administrative processing since 2017. These have occurred in 11 countries, two of which have implemented the Hague Adoption Convention.

Considering that these numbers come from just six of nearly 100 American agencies doing international placements, it’s fair to conclude the actual numbers are significantly higher. The longest cases have seen parents separated from their adopted children for more than two years.

‘They Can Never Give Me Back These Two Years’

Sophie Hartman has the grim distinction of being one of the parents whose suffering has lasted longest, and there’s no end in sight. Ghana finalized Sophie’s adoption of seven-year-old Leya, who has special medical needs, in July 2017.

Like the Stasi family, Hartman promptly received I-600 approval from USCIS, as well as a visa interview. Yet more than two years have gone by with the case languishing in “administrative processing”—no visa issued, and no word on when the ordeal might end. Leya, now nine years old, remains alone in an orphanage in Ghana, half a world away from her mother and two adoptive sisters.

Leya, now nine years old, remains alone in an orphanage in Ghana, half a world away from her mother and two adoptive sisters.

“It’s so confusing to her—she just doesn’t understand why it’s taking so long, or why we can’t get this one piece of paper to bring her home,” Sophie told me in an interview. “I was able to Facetime with her some, but we decided to stop doing that quite so much. It became so painful for her that it was actually harming her as much as it was helping.”

Having lived five years in Africa and adopted two girlsfrom Zambia several years ago, Sophie tells me that dealing with the U.S. government for Leya’s adoption has been a comparative nightmare. “In Zambia, they answered my questions and kept me informed as to what was happening throughout the process,” she said. “But now, they won’t tell me a single thing. Not a word.”

Hartman has records of 14 requests she and her U.S. senator have made to various State Department officials for meetings, assistance, and updates on Leya’s case. None of these requests has yielded a shred of information.

Sophie worries that her daughter is not receiving the nutrition and medical care she could be getting at home—not to mention love, attention, and belonging. In addition, a precious bed at an AIDS orphanage has been filled for two years by a child who has a family, while other children affected by the AIDS epidemic go without care.

“Someone has to be held accountable for this,” Sophie told me. “They can never give me back these two years with my kid. They have stolen that forever. How do you buy back two years of your child’s life that you didn’t even get to be a single part of?”

‘The State Department Is Derelict in Its Duty’

It’s hard not to see the connection between this new rash of heartless family separations and the dramatic recent downturn in international adoption. Both trails lead back to an anti-adoption ideology currently governing the Office of Children’s Issues in the U.S. State Department. The chief of OCI’s Adoption Division, who was appointed to the job in 2014, once called international adoption “a profoundly problematic institution.”

Both trails lead back to an anti-adoption ideology currently governing the Office of Children’s Issues in the U.S. State Department.

Indeed, the co-opting of “administrative processing” for a new purpose fits the pattern of State Department behavior since 2017. The department has repeatedly invented creative re-interpretations of rules and policies to restrict adoption. (State has been sued twice in federal court for these improper interpretations. It lost one case, and the other is ongoing.)

Proper government oversight of international adoption is an imperative for the welfare of vulnerable children and adoptive families alike. But this lengthy, utterly unaccountable separation of parents and children—citizens of the United States—is both tyrannical and inhumane.

“The State Department is derelict in it is duty to serve American families,” Dempsey says. Will Congress stand by and allow a rogue office in the U.S. State Department to bring about the near-extinction of international adoption?

Just as this story was being finalized, Luke Stasi informed me that at long last, he’s seen movement in Victor’s case. “We’ve been reaching desperate straits,” he wrote, “and we were forced to consider leaving our adopted son here in Africa. As a last-ditch effort we reached out to friends and family and asked them to email the Department of State Office of Children’s Issues and plead that our case be completed.”

Just days after the Stasis’ friends began bombarding the State Department with emails, the unthinkable happened: Luke heard from the consulate to schedule a visa interview. “But it’s not over till it’s over,” he says, noting that the first available appointments are eight weeks away. “I won’t celebrate until I’ve got a visa in hand.”

Jayme Metzgar is a Senior Contributor at The Federalist.
Photo Photo courtesy Luke Stasi

https://thefederalist.com/2019/08/12/u-s-forces-parents-away-adopted-children-long-two-years/