Not So Young But Angry Conservatives Unite

Getting sick of the progressively worse slant and obvious bias of the media? Got booted out of other sites for offending too many liberals? Make this your home. If you SPAM here, you're gone. Trolling? Gone. Insult other posters I agree with. Gone. Get the pic. Private sanctum, private rules. No Fairness Doctrine and PC wussiness tolerated here..... ECCLESIASTES 10:2- The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of a fool to the left.

Thursday, November 03, 2005

LET'S TALK ABOUT SEX, BUT NOT WITH PARENTS

LINK: http://www.redstate.org/story/2005/11/2/22125/7274


“There is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children.” The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has previously ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional, has again thrust a dagger into the heart of the American way of life -- and has this time attacked the very institution which has kept the foundation of this country secure -- the family.

Well, the Ninth Jerkit Court of Shlameels, or Circus Court is at it again. When do they not hear a controversial and loaded case? But, for once, it's not ruling against God and Country. This one is targeted at your kids....

Fields v. Palmdale School Dist., -- F.3d-- (9th Cir. 2005), was decided today by the court. In that case, parents sued the Palmdale School District for giving a survey, which included ten questions of a sexual nature, to students between the ages of seven and ten.
The School District sent a note home to parents asking for parental consent to engage their children in a survey of early trauma. The survey was prepared by Kristi Seymour, a volunteer "mental health counselor" at Mesquite Elementary School while she was enrolled in a master's degree program at the California School of Professional Psychology. The School District, collaborating with the School of Psychology and Seymour, developed and administered the questionnaire to first, third, and fifth grade students. While parents were informed that the survey would cover "baseline . . . exposure to early trauma (for example, violence)," it specifically did not mention sex. In fact, the survey asked seven year olds to "rate the following activities" among which were these:
Read on . . .

Nov 2nd, 2005: 22:01:25
8. Touching my private parts too much
17. Thinking about having sex
22. Thinking about touching other people’s private parts
23. Thinking about sex when I don’t want to
26. Washing myself because I feel dirty on the inside
34. Not trusting people because they might want sex
40. Getting scared or upset when I think about sex
44. Having sex feelings in my body
47. Can’t stop thinking about sex
54. Getting upset when people talk about sex

Seven year olds were asked these questions.

Seven year olds? Frickin seven year olds? OK, in junior high, it's time for THE TALK, but seven? WTF are these liberals thinking? Don't kids get confused enough without introducing graphic terms and questions about sex? And what if some of the kids had been molested? Ready to open that can of worms?

Another reason why the state ought not to play nanny with our kids. I'd sooner trust that British nanny with the kid shaking perclivity over these idiots. And this ruling, is from the Board and School District. I do wonder which promiscous or twisted liberal parent thought this was a good idea.

OK, in Kindergarten Cop, a kid said; "Boys have a penis, girls have a vagina." That was funny at the time, but like then, Arnie is not laughing. Many parents are not laughing. And I don't blame them. Shall we let the teachers explain intercourse and mid-coitis to der kinder also?



The parents of the children learned of the survey questions when their children started telling them about the survey. Horrified, the parents complained to the school, arguing that had they know the true nature of the survey, they would have never offered their consent. The school district rebuffed the parents, and the parents sued.

About time the parents woke up and did something. And who does the school board think it is? True, we entrust bureaucrats to make teachers play second parent. But when that trust is breached, there is a time and place for reform or cleaning house in the education system. Where was the ACLU for the parents, this time? People for the American Way? No comment, again....

The trial court rejected the parents arguments and today, in stunning language, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the rejection.

What a shock, the Marxist Kangaroo Court ruled for the state. This is the same court that ruled against the Pledge of Allegiance, One Nation Under God, protects terrorists, cop killers, and pedophiles. What a fine bunch Clinton appointed in his tenure....


In fact, the Ninth Circuit, in its opinion stated
The district court dismissed the federal causes of action

"for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and dismissed the state claims without prejudice to their right to re-file in state court. We agree, and hold that there is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children, either independent of their right to direct the upbringing and education of their children or encompassed by it. "

Translated: We're taking over and there's nothing you can do about it. We don't want em to say God, we don't want patriotism, and we want the state to educate them on sex and other private acts of intimacy......

"We also hold that parents have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students."

Translated: If we want to, we reject your rights. Granted, you birthed and are raising the kids, but they are ours now. And you may not challenge your own school board, which you voted for in the elections. You cannot change it, since you the people are under us, the mighty court.

Interestingly, while the court ruled that parents have no "right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which children might be exposed," the public schools, according to the Ninth Circuit, can only expose children to sex. Exposing children to prayer or the Pledge of Allegiance would indoctrinate the children unfairly.

More hypocrisy. It's fine to expose them to sex and weirdo behavior, but God forbid we let them see or talk about God, or patriotism. Idiots. Roland Freisler and Judge Vishinsky would be proud of these kangaroo socialist judges. Rubber stamps for the time warp stuck hippies and rapists of this country.

Indoctrinate unfairly? So Christian and conservative Orthodox kids ought to be "fairly exposed" to homosexuality which goes against their own private families and religious teaching? Well, these morons on the 9th Circus will run out of steam, and will push their luck one time too many.....


As a legal matter, the case was most likely rightly decided based on the law. But, we should all be outraged at the lack of respect the Ninth Circuit showed to parents -- who should be the the only party introducing seven year olds to issues of sex. As Neodanite said, if the town pervert had grilled the seven year olds on masturbation, it would have been a crime. In the same way, I can hardly imagine the Ninth Circuit upholding a law that would give parents the exclusive right to education their children about sex. And that is just not right.

Bravo on the article. Good Luck America, and Good Night.....

11 Comments:

  • At 11:09 AM, Blogger Ranando said…

    WOW, I wouldn't touch this with your 10 foot pole.

     
  • At 11:26 AM, Blogger NDwalters said…

    Ran, you do not care to comment for once? I am shocked. As a parent, I am sure you would be somewhat up in arms with the school teaching your kids something you'd prefer to talk to them alone about.....

    10 foot pole? Who told?

     
  • At 11:30 AM, Blogger Ranando said…

    Nick,

    I'm in total agreement with you on this.

    I don't have any kids. Just my wife of twenty years, Molly ( English Spinger Spanial ), Maggie Black Cat ), Tia, Kelly and Dafadel ( Horses ), Ricky & Lucy ( fish ), Alfie & Artie ( Birds )

     
  • At 11:44 AM, Blogger NDwalters said…

    I figured that, just taken aback. I figured you for a kids guy or uncle.

    I got pets. Timmy and Duke (2 black cats)

    Then my fam. Mom, Dad, Sis, Brother in Law, Niece.

    And grandparents.

    You have birds? Parakeets? Or something like a big frickin parrot?

     
  • At 11:50 AM, Blogger Ranando said…

    I have two order brothers and two older sisters, big family with lots of cousins, nieces and nephews.

    This Thanksgiving the entire family is getting together at my wife and mine farm in Chester Springs, Pennsylvania, over 75 people.

    Of all of my homes this is my favorite, built in 1795. No beter place to have Thanksgiving.

     
  • At 12:34 PM, Blogger Kevin said…

    Hmmm. Well I'll make a comment or two -- but don't get mad ND.

    Don't kids get confused enough without introducing graphic terms and questions about sex?

    Actually, I'm not sure that they do. I think it moreso just has to do with our culture. I've noticed that in other countries, youngsters seem much more comfortable with sex (seeing it on TV, etc). I think a lot has to do with our Puritanical value system suggesting that 'sex is bad' or 'sex is dirty'.

    And what if some of the kids had been molested? Ready to open that can of worms?

    Ummm. I just really disagree with your thought on this. HAD a child already BEEN molested (obviously a terrible thing), it should be explored as soon as possible. I think any medical professional will tell you that. You're suggesting they 'bottle-up' their emotions of having been molested? Or worse, go about thinking it MIGHT have been ok what happened to them -- only to find out a decade later it was VERY wrong?

    Shall we let the teachers explain intercourse and mid-coitis to der kinder also?

    Honestly, there is really logical reason NOT to explain sex to children. It's just a matter of values, which doesn't really make any sense when you are talking strictly about education.

    Sex, like it or not, is a requirement for life to sustain itself. What's the big secret behind it? Honestly, why is it so embarrassing for a child to ask 'mom, where do babies come from'?

    and we want the state to educate them on sex and other private acts of intimacy......

    Again, I honestly don't think the state is trying to teach intimacy as you put it. They are trying to teach sex - sexual intercourse at that.

    There is a big difference explaining to a 7 year old how to carress a womans's breasts while slowly rubbing her inner thigh versus explaing that the PENIS goes into the VAGINA and that life can be created from this act.

    More hypocrisy. It's fine to expose them to sex and weirdo behavior, but God forbid we let them see or talk about God, or patriotism.

    a) Please define 'weirdo behavior'

    b) Children CAN talk about God and country and anything else they want to. They just can't have a teacher impose beliefs upon them.

    I know you ask why, but it's for the same reason that most children see the Pilgrim's encounters with the native Americans as a friendly thing until the Natives rebelled --- it's taught that way and children are highly impressionable, unable to decipher and question most things for themselves.

    So again, and I'll go against my usual grain on this one: if they start teaching 7 year olds homosexual practices, I'd probably suggest it's inappropriate. NOT because I am against being gay (because I proudly support people being gay), but rather because homosexual-sex has NO biological means. It's not required for life to sustain itself.

    I hate to throw this last log on the fire, but be it your own Puritanical views or whatever other reason, I think your lack of sex plays an important role on how you view this matter.

    Once you have sex, I think you'll see it's really not an 'evil tool' nor some 'instrument of the devil' but only something we make frightening and 'dirty' by keeping it so taboo.

     
  • At 1:29 PM, Blogger NDwalters said…

    Kevin, Kevin, Kevin, there must be standards.

    So you're saying it's ALRIGHT for the schools to subvert the parents rights under false pretenses?

    What kind of libertarian would dare agree with that?

    Ranando, sounds nice. My family is all here in Texas, we do Thanksgiving with my sister and niece. Plus, I get to work early morning on Thanksgiving, it's insurance but it pays time and a half.... Eh, morning is when the cooking is anyway.

     
  • At 4:55 PM, Blogger leftcoastmark said…

    A thought ... since the schools get ADA money based on attendance why not pull your kids out. I have three grown children and four grandkids. If I found that their school districts were up to this kind of crap I would be spending my retirement savings on private schools in about a heart beat.

     
  • At 8:47 PM, Blogger NDwalters said…

    Mark, interesting thought. I know there are varying political beliefs, but I know there's some fundamental values. If the kids are gonna learn, let it be with their families, not strangers.....

     
  • At 8:53 PM, Blogger Kevin said…

    But my point was, shouldn't we - as a culture - examine why we feel the need to have our families talk to us about sex, rather than educated professionals?

    We're taught all sorts of things about ourselves in school. Why is sex so different?

     
  • At 8:56 PM, Blogger Kevin said…

    Also, I agree with you, there SHOULD be standards. That's why I wrote this particular blurb earlier:

    There is a big difference explaining to a 7 year old how to carress a womans's breasts while slowly rubbing her inner thigh versus explaing that the PENIS goes into the VAGINA and that life can be created from this act.

    Perhaps I didn't read the original article well enough, but are they intending to teach something more than simple sexual anatomy, intercourse, and masturbation?

     

Post a Comment

<< Home