California public schools introduce gay indoctrination starting in kindergarten

From the liberal Los Angeles Times. (H/T Come Reason)


At Wonderland Avenue Elementary School in Laurel Canyon, there are lesson plans on diverse families — including those with two mommies or daddies — books on homosexual authors in the library and a principal who is openly gay.

But even at this school, teachers and administrators are flummoxed about how to carry out a new law requiring California public schools to teach all students — from kindergartners to 12th graders — about lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans in history classes.

“At this point, I wouldn’t even know where to begin,” Principal Don Wilson said.

Educators across the state don’t have much time to figure it out. In January, they’re expected to begin teaching about LGBT Americans under California’s landmark law, the first of its kind in the nation.

Notice how dissent from GLBT indoctrination is portrayed in the mainstream media:

In 2005, L.A. Unified debuted the nation’s first chapter in a high school health textbook on LGBT issues covering sexual orientation and gender identity, struggles over them and anti-LGBT bias. A section on misconceptions says sexual orientation is not a choice — a statement many religious conservatives disagree with.

Unfortunately for the leftist media, the peer-reviewed studies show that homosexuality is a choice – but that’s not what young people are going to learn in California public schools. They’ll learn what the GLBT lobby wants children to believe, instead.

And it’s OK to deprive a child of a mother or father:

On a recent morning, teacher Jane Raphael invited her two dozen kindergartners, first-graders and second-graders to sit in a circle and tell a story about their family. The students described a cross section of modern-day America: moms and dads and athletic siblings, crazy dogs, a cat named Lulu, a fish that died, divorced parents, a girl with two mommies.

You can bet that the public schools won’t be teaching the children about gay crime horror stories like Joshua Brown or Frank Lombard. These stories are a thousand times more horrifying than Matthew Shepard, but no one has ever heard about those stories. No, that’s not what the GLBT lobby wants children to learn about at all.

And that’s the problem with public schools – they only tell children what the government wants the special interest groups who get them elected want children to hear. The government wants to get re-elected, so they put public functions up for sale to the highest bidder. Special interest groups like the GLBT lobby promise them votes and campaign donations in exchange for telling children what they want the lobby wants them to believe. They only want to minimize the damage is to cut off the funding for government functions – perhaps by giving parents more control over education with voucher programs.

Even some Christian conservatives support this by voting to transfer money from private taxpayers into public schools. I once knew a Christian woman who told me that forcing her husband to pay more in taxes for public schools was a good idea, because public schools fed children free breakfasts so that all the children would be “equal”. Although she denied it, what she was really voting for was the indoctrination of children with gay proganda using her family’s money – money earned by her Christian husband. Apparently, she thought that the public schools needed her husband’s money more than her family did. When pressed by me, she admitted that she held that view because it made her feel good – she had never thought about the consequences of her voting for her husband’s ability to lead the family in a Christian direction.

Lenny has more to say about this decision by the California public schools.

13 thoughts on “California public schools introduce gay indoctrination starting in kindergarten”

  1. “because public schools fed children free breakfasts so that all the children would be “equal”. ”

    And here I thought it was because some children were going to school hungry and it was a way for the community to charitably support those in need.

    I still get people denying that there is such a thing as a “gay agenda.” Of course, they firmly believe in the “Harper agenda” or the “religious agenda” and so on.


      1. That assumes it is controlled by the state (which is it now). It originally was a need noticed by parents and teachers who sought to fullfill it. It was local and grassroots. Then the governments/boards got involved at which point, yes, it ceased to be charity.

        My MIL got a school lunch program started back when my husband was in elementary (well before I ever met them). What she noticed was the large numbers of kids sent to school with a bag of chips and a can of pop for their lunch. She got other parents involved and together they started a school lunch program. I don’t know what became of the program afterwards, as they moved a number of times over the years, but back then it was the parents, not the state, that instigated it.


        1. Just to clarify, it also had nothing to do with equality, but ensuring that these kids actually had at least one healthy and adequate meal in their day.


          1. Yes, and this is why men don’t marry. Because women have decided to replace what men do with government social programs, so that they can prefer men who are entertaining and attractive, instead of choosing men who can provide. Providing for a family is the government’s job. Men are merely entertainment. And if feelings and physical attraction don’t work as a way of choosing “Mr. Right”, then it’s not the woman’s fault, it’s the government’s responsibility to tax the responsible provider men who are not yet married to “fix things up” so that everyone – people who married before having babies and people who didn’t – are all “equal”. This is why Canada is where it is. Because a significant number of Canadians value the state more than family, and they try to cash it out with emotional pleading. Canadians are anti-male, anti-father, anti-marriage and anti-family. They want the state to replace men so that women don’t face an undue burden of having to be prudent and responsible about who they choose to have sex with. And this goes right up to provide free health care for all, regardless of personal decisions and lifestyles. I believe that Quebec already has free day care as well. Some people just don’t want to be bothered with having to care about men and children as if they are real people. Just use them and dispense with them – hand them off to somebody else to deal with. A man’s job is to pay taxes, a child’s job is to generate welfare checks. Let the state take the money from men automatically through taxes, and let the state deal with the children’s education. Women should not have to deal with the demands of men or children. There is no relationship required – no being obligated to care about the needs of men and children. There are only the feelings and intuitions of the woman. And if things go wrong, she should be able to take money from others to make her life like the lives of the prudent women.


        2. Well, I am sorry to be hard on you. But what I have to tell you is that this is something that people have to decide up front. Stay at home mothers don’t send their children to school with a bag of chips and a can of pop. They make their lunches – that’s their job. And it’s the man’s job to pay for women to stay home and make those healthy lunches, and to choose a woman who is fit herself and who knows the value of diet and exercise – someone who can count grams of crabs, protein and fat. When you get the government involved, what you are saying is that it’s the government job to make good moms and good dads unnecessary, because it’s the government’s responsibility to parent the children and to make those decisions. I want to be very clear here – the intuition common in women to outsource responsibilities to lead, provide and protect to the state is anti-father, anti-marriage, anti-husband and anti-family. I think women vote to give these responsibilities to the state because they do not want to have to choose good men and to be good in order to attract and retain those good men. They do not like to have to deal with a good man’s leadership, his moral judgments or his exclusive theological claims. They want to choose men who make no demands and impose no obligations and then have the state replace the functions of a man.

          I care about my future children, so when judging women, I am careful to judge her based on more than physical appearance. I am testing her to see how she mentors and cares and relates to people and animals, and how seriously she takes her obligations to others. It’s not for me to choose a good looking woman to have sex with and then outsource cooking, mentoring and nurturing to state-run day care and state-run public schools. I want my wife’s values to go into the children, and I have to be careful to choose a good wife, and not to outsource her womanly skills to the state. I am not free to choose women based on hormones and lust.


          1. I am worried about anything that says to women that it is ok to raise a child without a father. I want women to take see single motherhood as child abuse – as bad as abortion. That’s where I am coming from. And when I see them want to make men unnecessary because the state will provide what fathers provide, it tells me that women want men to be optional. And I am opposed to all of that. That’s why we have a 42 out-of-wedlock birth rate in the USA. Because the government is viewed as a man-replacement and women don’t choose men for those roles any more. They resent the idea that they should have to prefer men on any grounds other than emotions and intuitions. And that’s what causes them to say that the state should make it easier for women to do this by replacing good men with government programs.

            I think that women really need to view single motherhood by choice as child abuse and to recognize that anything that encourages women to choose men on criteria other than their ability to provide, protect and lead on moral and spiritual issues increases the amount of child abuse. I would not marry anyone who empowers the state to make it easier for women to prefer men based on appearance and peer approval and pop culture, instead of on traditional male roles.


          2. Consider this:



            Scandinavia has long been a bellwether of family change. Scholars take the Swedish experience as a prototype for family developments that will, or could, spread throughout the world. So let’s have a look at the decline of Swedish marriage.

            In Sweden, as elsewhere, the sixties brought contraception, abortion, and growing individualism. Sex was separated from procreation, reducing the need for “shotgun weddings.” These changes, along with the movement of women into the workforce, enabled and encouraged people to marry at later ages. With married couples putting off parenthood, early divorce had fewer consequences for children. That weakened the taboo against divorce. Since young couples were putting off children, the next step was to dispense with marriage and cohabit until children were desired. Americans have lived through this transformation. The Swedes have simply drawn the final conclusion: If we’ve come so far without marriage, why marry at all? Our love is what matters, not a piece of paper. Why should children change that?

            Two things prompted the Swedes to take this extra step — the welfare state and cultural attitudes. No Western economy has a higher percentage of public employees, public expenditures — or higher tax rates — than Sweden. The massive Swedish welfare state has largely displaced the family as provider. By guaranteeing jobs and income to every citizen (even children), the welfare state renders each individual independent. It’s easier to divorce your spouse when the state will support you instead.

            The taxes necessary to support the welfare state have had an enormous impact on the family. With taxes so high, women must work. This reduces the time available for child rearing, thus encouraging the expansion of a day-care system that takes a large part in raising nearly all Swedish children over age one. Here is at least a partial realization of Simone de Beauvoir’s dream of an enforced androgyny that pushes women from the home by turning children over to the state.


  2. Answering here because of the weird reply thread thing wordpress does.

    You seem to have gone off in a weird direction based on what I said. How does this have anything to do with why men don’t want to marry? Who said anything about SAHMs or single mothers? I have no idea who packed those lunches, but considering the era and location, it’s unlikely to have been single mothers. I have no idea who actually packed those crappy lunches, and don’t have enough information to draw any conclusions. Leaping from that to marriage, abortion, etc. is illogical.

    Side note; daycare in Quebec is not free, but it is heavily subsidized. I believe it’s either $5 or $7 a day.


    1. May I interject ?

      I think you may have missed the linked association on what causes a “welfare state” where children are being educated and care vs. care for by the parents.

      The welfare state / care of children was primarily isolated to the broken families of the lowest classes and has now reached into broken families of “ALL” classes. What is occurring in LA will soon increase in frequency (very destructive message of “diverse” families – TO KINDERGARDEN). The end result will be responsible men “footing the bill” while watching their families being destroyed along with the rest of society.

      Consider the riots in England. The riots were blamed on lack of fathers, welfare state, poor families, etc ( I suggest working re-reading WK’s post and follow the process).

      “Responsible” men today DO NOT want to get married. They are punished by the courts and laws while women are protected (It is not in their best interest for the reasons stated).

      I hope with offered the “readers edition “.



  3. In my opinion, the homosexuals won’t stop their march of forced homosexual indoctrination of little children as this is the next crop for them to “harvest” their “livestyle partners” from.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s