Halloween “Hillary” In High School Hoot

The purpose of education is to prepare students for the world. This is true at every level including high school. Like college, U.S. high schools are microcosms of American society. Therefore, it's singularly appropriate that Halloween caricatures of a highly contentious presidential election would make a comical appearance within schoolhouse walls.

That high school was Robert E. Lee in Staunton, Va., and the adults in question were look-alikes: principal Mark Rowicki as Trump and secretary Stephanie Corbett as Clinton. As wearing a suit is standard fare for any administrator, Trump's Reaganesque slogan “Make America Great Again” cap and campaign button were the tipoffs. Yet, the “controversy” involves Ms. Corbett's portrayal of the Democratic nominee back under FBI investigation for criminal wrongdoing (read: Server-gate and Charity-gate). She donned a short blond wig, an orange prison jumpsuit with a waist chain and padlock. For good measure, Ms. Corbett proudly wore a “Department of Justice” name tag reading Hillary R. Clinton.

Only deluded liberals—with eyes squeezed shut and hands petulantly pressed over ears—entirely ignore the reality of Hillary Clinton's lawbreaking and corruption. They are the ones who refuse to see truth (or the humor of a Halloween prank). Repressive progressives slickly conceal their fascist impulses in the fictional assertion that a “political agenda” has been pushed on impressionable teenagers. Their complaint is quite some Halloween trick!

Well, First Amendment expression be damned! As the next president's decisions (read: the selection of perhaps up to 3 future Supreme Court justices) will directly affect their generation the school has the duty to educate these future voters as to the “two characters” currently vying for the presidency. The best choice on Election Day is crystal clear: the one not represented in Halloween orange prisoner's garb.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

The Naked Truth (Two Parts)

I think it is a universal truth that teenagers often make foolish or short-sighted decisions.  Certainly, creating child pornography of oneself and sending the video to another teen is ill-advised--and technically illegal--but unfortunately it not uncommon in this wired-in generation.  However, when Prince William County police take pictures of the boy's flaccid penis "as evidence" not only does it magnify the initial crime by creating further instances of child porn, but also such an act by the state is likely traumatizing to the minor.  As if this isn't heavy-handed enough, Prince William County prosecutors further want the teen to be forced to receive an injection so that his erect penis can also be photographed.  As a result, he has to flee the state to escape the warrant.  All of this is frankly Orwellian.  What happened to the boy's right to privacy or his right against self-incrimination?  It seems that Big Brother has supplanted Uncle Sam in America.

*****

A 17 year old is legally and biologically a child.  When this Manassas youth foolishly sent explicit images of himself to his teenaged girlfriend while it is technically considered child pornography--and therefore illegal--it is a child's mistake and should be treated gently with a judge's stern warning and community service hours.  He should not have to submit to the invasive humiliation of police comparison photographs of his genitalia.  Indeed, he should not suffer an overzealous persecution by Prince William County prosecutors: their plan to medically-induce the boy's erection to gather "evidence" was finally abandoned only after public outrage.  Given the propensities of this technically-savvy generation, this situation is not likely to be in isolated incident.  The law needs to be reduced from a felony to a misdemeanor for juveniles.  This is a simple case of hormones overwhelming common sense.  The boy's is understandable; police and prosecutors not so much.  

References: Explicit photos won't be used in 'sexting' case (Tom Jackman, Washington Post) &  Va. 'sexting' case reignites debate (Rachel Weiner, Washington Post)

 ‘Police to take graphic photos of teen as evidence’ & 'Police back off on plan to take explicit photo' (Matthew Barakat, The Washington Times)

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/