News

Colorado preschool kicks 4-year-old out when her parents question LGBT indoctrination

4 Comments
National Education Association
National Education Association

The radically leftist Denver Post has the story:

A 4-year-old Aurora girl was kicked out of a preschool last month when her parents raised questions about books read in her class, including ones that told the stories about same-sex couples and worms unsure about their gender.

Her mother, R.B. Sinclair, sees it as sex education and wanted to opt her daughter out of those discussions.

Instead, school officials from Montview Community Preschool & Kindergarten in Denver — run as a private, parent cooperative — explained the stories were part of the school’s anti-bias curriculum, and because the discussions are embedded through the day, they told her that opting out was not possible.

The school’s anti-bias curriculum is part of a growing push in public and private school classrooms where educators use more diverse depictions of families and gender roles to expose students to differences before children have a chance to form negative opinions.

“Biases start as kids get older and start to see differences as negative. At a young age, kids are exploring all different kinds of things,” said Kim Bloemen, director of early childhood education for the Boulder Valley School District. “It’s about just providing them with all these experiences.”

In a letter sent home to Montview parents, the school defended the books and in a newsletter suggested ways for parents to discuss the topics at home.

School officials refused to comment for this story or answer questions about their curriculum or the goals they set.

[…]In Boulder’s public preschools, all teachers were trained this year to integrate a broader type of diversity to include gender and sexual differences and to have conversations with young children.

So, who is doing the training of the teachers in the public schools?

These guys:

A Queer Endeavor, an initiative started in the School of Education at the University of Colorado at Boulder, has helped train 2,500 teachers over the past three years, including those in Boulder and in the St. Vrain Valley School District.

[…]The initiative helps teachers keep the focus on family structures and on being positive about differences.

More about “A Queer Endeavor” from their web site:

Housed in the CU-Boulder School of Education and led by Bethy Leonardi, PhD, and Sara Staley, PhD, A Queer Endeavor is an initiative focused on supporting teachers and school communities around topics of gender and sexual diversity.

[…]The work of A Queer Endeavor is made possible through a partnership between the School of Education at the University of Colorado Boulder and the generous support of the Twisted Foundation.

And it’s not just the gay activists who get into the schools to push their agenda. Schools who refuse to toe the line on gay activism will not be accredited:

Back to the Denver Post article:

Kristen Johnson, senior director of the Academy for Early Childhood Program Accreditation from the National Association for the Education of Young Children, a nonprofit that accredits preschools, said the organization’s standards require schools in some way to include depictions of nonstereotypical gender roles and families.

“The early-childhood years are the prime time to help children develop healthy self-identities as well as learn to respect and interact positively with people who are different from themselves,” Johnson said. “Reading books that are inclusive of diverse characters is an essential strategy for supporting self-esteem in children who are part of these families, as well as teaching children about the diversity of all families.”

So let’s see what happened:

  • public school teachers were trained by gay rights groups in LGBT propaganda (undermining heterosexual norms like monogamy and exclusivity, and undermining natural marriage)
  • four-year-old child indoctrinated to approve of redefinition of natural marriage and family, so that she won’t judge the selfish adults for redefining marriage
  • parents try to protest the LGBT propaganda, but they are told there is no opt-out, and their daughter is kicked out

Keep in mind that the parents of this four-year-old girl are taxpayers – they are forced to pay taxes that go to these public school teachers. There is no opt out of the lessons, and there is no opt-out of paying taxes for these public schools. And there is no transparency to parents or to voters – that’s the whole point of it.

Team LGBT wants children to adopt an anything-goes approach to relationships and sex, so that these children have a knee-jerk reaction against natural marriage as the best arrangement for children and for society.

The problem is that moral norms around natural marriage are there for a reason. By teaching children to “celebrate diversity”, they are removing the moral boundaries reduce harm in adults and in their vulnerable children. I understand what the gay activists want. They want to make a world where no one objects to a woman leaving husband, taking her 3 children, and moving in with her lesbian lover. They want children to think that is as good as lifelong married love between one man and one woman. But that woman’s children will be raised fatherless, which is bad for them. The gay activists and their allies in the public schools do not want selfish adults shamed or offended by anyone who articulates that natural marriage is best for kids and society. That’s why they are indoctrinating your kids – for their benefit. They want to be selfish, and not be disagreed with.

Here’s the end game of the gay activists, explained by a gay activist, and reported by The Blaze:

A 2012 speech by Masha Gessen, an author and outspoken activist for the LGBT community, is just now going viral and it includes a theory that many supporters of traditional marriage have speculated about for years: The push for gay marriage has less to do with the right to marry – it is about diminishing and eventually destroying the institution of marriage and redefining the “traditional family.”

[…][T]hose advocating for gay marriage have long stated that the issue will not harm traditional marriage. Ms. Gessen’s comments on the subject seem to contradict the pro-gay-marriage party lines.

Gessen shared her views on the subject and very specifically stated;

  • “Gay marriage is a lie.”
  • “Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there.”
  • “It’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist.” (This statement is met with very loud applause.)

As mentioned above, Gessen also talked about redefining the traditional family. This may have something to do with the fact that she has “three children with five parents”:

“I don’t see why they (her children) shouldn’t have five parents legally. I don’t see why we should choose two of those parents and make them a sanctioned couple.”

That’s the real goal of these gay activists and their public school allies. Getting children to not see natural marriage as normal. Getting children to not condemn selfish adults who don’t give children access to their biological mom and biological dad for life. The gay activists don’t want the obligations to do relationships and marriage in a way that benefits children. They want to make a world where the next generation of children won’t judge them for depriving kids of their mom and their dad. They don’t want kids to expect that men and women commit to each other self-sacrificially, monogamously and faithfully. They don’t want kids to expect that adults put their kids above their feelings and desires, for the benefit of the kids.

The end goal is to get rid of moral values and moral boundaries in romantic and sexual relationships, so that adults can never be judged for taking actions and living lifestyles that harm themselves and/or others – especially children who need a mom and a dad. We can allow people to live differently while still promoting natural marriage as the best environment for having and raising children. It is more important that selfish adults give children a mom and a dad, than that selfish adults indoctrinate children to affirm selfish adults who deny children a mom and a dad.

I hope everyone read my recent post about the dangers of public schools. Christians should make a plan to keep their kids away from these government-run schools. But the real solution is to stop the funding of these schools by taxpayer dollars. Parents should be able to buy the instruction they want for their kids, not be forced to pay for schools and teachers that do not reflect their values.

News

Ted Cruz courts delegates in Colorado and North Dakota, ahead of Wisconsin stand

Leave a comment
Conservative women rallying to Cruz in Wisconsin
Conservative women rallying to Cruz in Wisconsin

Let’s start with an article about Cruz’s get-out-vote plan in Wisconsin, from the radically leftist Politico.

Excerpt:

Just as in Iowa, Cruz arrived in Wisconsin before Trump, has worked it harder and stayed longer. He’s delivered speeches at rallies across the state, shaken hands at a sandwich shop, fought for votes at a fish fry and promised to bring back American jobs at a factory in Oshkosh.

Cruz has opened a “Camp Cruz” to provide free housing for volunteers who make the trek to the voter-rich Milwaukee region, as he did in Des Moines; he has again slammed Trump for refusing to debate him; and he has tried to fend off a third candidate (then Marco Rubio, now John Kasich) from serving as a spoiler.

[…]Cruz has the backing of one of the state’s leading right-wing talk radio hosts (Charlie Sykes in Wisconsin, Steve Deace in Iowa), one of the state’s leading social conservative groups (Wisconsin Family Action PAC now, The Family Leader in Iowa) and another extensive and deeply organized grass-roots network fueled by county chairs blanketing the state and a long list of supportive faith leaders. He spent Saturday night here in Ashwaubenon, screening a Christian film — just as he did in West Des Moines last fall.

The Christian film this time was “God’s Not Dead 2”, and it features two well-known Christian apologists – J. Warner Wallace and Lee Strobel. You can read more about what Ted thought of the movie.

The Politico article continues:

[T]he biggest differences between Iowa and Wisconsin appear only to benefit Cruz. Then, he was under fire from the political establishment — from the popular Republican governor there (Terry Branstad) to national leaders like Bob Dole. Now, Cruz has the backing of Wisconsin’s popular governor, former rival Scott Walker appears in one of his closing TV ads, as well as support from key figures in the state Legislature, including the majority leader and the Assembly speaker, both of whom previously supported Rubio.

The local conservative talk show hosts love Cruz, and they are attacking Trump for attacking Walker’s successful conservative reforms:

Local talk-radio hosts have pilloried the front-runner for denigrating Walker when he was still in the race and in recent days.

“When Donald Trump comes into Wisconsin, knows nothing about our state, trashes all the work we’ve done, trashes our governor, trashes our party, we take it personally,” said Vicki McKenna, another prominent conservative radio host. “It’s just spectacularly stupid.”

Cruz, on the other hand, has taken full advantage of the two weeks leading into Wisconsin that are uninterrupted by any other primary or caucus, McKenna said.

“He’s actually got people here in Wisconsin advising his campaign; he’s made an effort to understand even district to district, county to county,” she said.

[…][Governor Scott] Walker and Carly Fiorina spent days crossing the state stumping for Cruz. Walker’s wife, Tonette, joined Cruz’s wife, Heidi, for a Saturday sprint, hitting three stops along with Utah Sen. Mike Lee.

Wisconsin votes on Tuesday, but there is more going on with the delegates from states that have voted already.

Delegates and the GOP Convention

Even though the delegates who attend the conference from each state are bound in the first round(s) to vote according to the primary / caucus election results for their state, they are released to vote how they want in later rounds of voting. If Trump shows up at the convention in Cleveland and doesn’t have 1,237 votes, then he won’t win the nomination in the first round. If no one gets 1,237 votes, then the convention becomes a “contested” convention. That’s when having true conservative delegates become crucial, because delegates vote according to their conscience in the 2nd round and later. (Some unbound delegates can even vote their conscience in the first round).

The Cruz campaign knows this, and they are trying to make sure that the delegates who picked are genuine conservatives and are members of the Republican Party.

Conservative Review reports on North Carolina delegates:

In North Carolina, Donald Trump won 30 bound delegates at the primary, and Ted Cruz won 27.  That is for the first ballot, where delegates are officially bound.  District Conventions were held in four of the state’s thirteen congressional districts last weekend.   A grassroots activist in North Carolina provided Conservative Review with the results of those districts.  Nine of the 12 delegates elected yesterday are definitely Cruz supporters and have worked to elect Cruz for a significant period of time.  Two others identified themselves as Cruz supporters at the convention so that 11 of the 12 are Cruz supporters.

The Washington Times reports on Colorado delegates:

Ted Cruz on Saturday picked up the first six of 37 Colorado delegates to be chosen before the Republican National Convention, giving his candidacy a boost entering this week’s Wisconsin primary. The six delegates, three each from 1st and 6th congressional districts, shut out would-be delegates for businessman Donald Trump and Ohio Gov. John Kasich at party assemblies.

[…]Delegates from Colorado’s other five congressional districts are to be selected at assemblies leading up to Saturday’s Colorado Republican Convention in Colorado Springs, which Mr. Cruz is expected to attend.

Leftist CNN reports on North Dakota delegates:

Ted Cruz claimed a majority of delegates in North Dakota on Sunday — though the delegates are not bound to him, so their loyalty remains uncertain.
North Dakota Republicans selected 25 national delegates and, of those, 18 were on a list of preferred delegates that Cruz circulated — a clear win for the Texas senator.

North Dakota delegates are “unbound”, so they get to vote however they want from the first round on at the convention.

Related posts

News

What percentage of Muslims approve of radical Islam and terrorism?

5 Comments
Muslim populations in Europe
Muslim populations in Europe

Normally, when people ask me about this question, I go straight to the 2013 Pew Research survey which I blogged about before. But now I have something even better.

Here’s a post from Ben Shapiro at Breitbart News which looks at several polls from several different countries.

Shapiro writes: (links to polls removed)

So, here is the evidence that the enemy we face is not a “tiny minority” of Muslims, let alone a rootless philosophy unconnected to Islam entirely. It’s not just the thousands of westerners now attempting to join ISIS. It’s millions of Muslims who support their general goals, even if they don’t support the group itself.

France. A new, widely-covered poll shows that a full 16% of French people have positive attitudes toward ISIS. That includes 27% of French between the ages of 18-24. Anne-Elizabeth Moutet of Newsweek wrote, “This is the ideology of young French Muslims from immigrant backgrounds…these are the same people who torch synagogues.”

Britain. In 2006, a poll for the Sunday Telegraph found that 40% of British Muslims wanted shariah law in the United Kingdom, and that 20% backed the 7/7 bombers.Another poll from that year showed that 45% of British Muslims said that 9/11 was an American/Israeli conspiracy; that poll showed that one-quarter of British Muslims believed that the 7/7 bombings were justified.

Palestinian Areas. A poll in 2011 showed that 32% of Palestinians supported the brutal murder of five Israeli family members, including a three-month-old baby. In 2009, a poll showed that 78% of Palestinians had positive or mixed feelings about Osama Bin Laden. A 2013 poll showed 40% of Palestinians supporting suicide bombings and attacks against civilians. 89% favored sharia law. Currently, 89% of Palestinians support terror attacks on Israel.

Pakistan. After the killing of Osama Bin Laden, the Gilani Foundation did a poll of Pakistanis and found that 51% of them grieved for the terrorist mastermind, with 44% of them stating that he was a martyr. In 2009, 26% of Pakistanis approved of attacks on US troops in Iraq. That number was 29% for troops in Afghanistan. Overall, 76% of Pakistanis wanted strict shariah law in every Islamic country.

Morocco. A 2009 poll showed that 68% of Moroccans approved of terrorist attacks on US troops in Iraq; 61% backed attacks on American troops in Afghanistan as of 2006. 76% said they wanted strict sharia law in every Islamic country.

Jordan. 72% of Jordanians backed terror attacks against US troops in Iraq as of 2009. In 2010, the terrorist group Hezbollah had a 55% approval rating; Hamas had a 60% approval rating.

Indonesia: In 2009, a poll demonstrated that 26% of Indonesians approved of attacks on US troops in Iraq; 22% backed attacks on American troops in Afghanistan. 65% said they agreed with Al Qaeda on pushing US troops out of the Middle East. 49% said they supported strict sharia law in every Islamic country. 70% of Indonesians blamed 9/11 on the United States, Israel, someone else, or didn’t know. Just 30% said Al Qaeda was responsible.

Egypt. As of 2009, 87% of Egyptians said they agreed with the goals of Al Qaeda in forcing the US to withdraw forces from the Middle East. 65% said they wanted strict sharia law in every Islamic country. As of that same date, 69% of Egyptians said they had either positive or mixed feelings about Osama Bin Laden. In 2010, 95% of Egyptians said it was good that Islam is playing a major role in politics.

United States. A 2013 poll from Pew showed that 13% of American Muslims said that violence against civilians is often, sometimes or rarely justified to defend Islam. A 2011 poll from Pew showed that 21 percent of Muslims are concerned about extremism among Muslim Americans. 19 percent of American Muslims as of 2011 said they were either favorable toward Al Qaeda or didn’t know.

In short, tens of millions of Muslims all over the world sympathize with the goals or tactics of terrorist groups – or both. That support is stronger outside the West, but it is present even in the West. Islamist extremism is not a passing or fading phenomenon – it is shockingly consistent over time. And the West’s attempts to brush off the ideology of fanaticism has been an overwhelming failure.

A more recent poll says that 13% of Syrian refugees support Islamic State:

A first-of-its-kind survey of the hordes of Syrian refugees entering Europe found 13% support the Islamic State. The poll should raise alarms about the risks posed by the resettlement of 10,000 refugees in the U.S.

The poll of 900 Syrian refugees by the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies also found that another 10% of the displaced Syrians have a lukewarm, but not entirely negative, view of the terror group. That means 23% — or almost 1 in 4 — could be susceptible to ISIS recruitment.

It also means as many 2,500 of the 10,000 Syrian refugees that the Obama administration is resettling inside American cities are potential terrorist threats.

Now contrast those facts with the views of Barack Obama and his allies in the mainstream media.

That video is from The Weekly Standard, here’s the text:

President Obama told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria that 99.9 percent of Muslims reject radical Islam. He made the comments in response to a question about the White House avoiding using the phrase “Islamic terrorists.”

“You know, I think that the way to understand this is there is an element growing out of Muslim communities in certain parts of the world that have perverted the religion, have embraced a nihilistic, violent, almost medieval interpretation of Islam, and they’re doing damage in a lot of countries around the world,” said Obama.

“But it is absolutely true that I reject a notion that somehow that creates a religious war because the overwhelming majority of Muslims reject that interpretation of Islam. They don’t even recognize it as being Islam, and I think that for us to be successful in fighting this scourge, it’s very important for us to align ourselves with the 99.9 percent of Muslims who are looking for the same thing we’re looking for–order, peace, prosperity.”

So Obama denies all of these surveys, and instead invents a view of the world that is consistent with his feelings. A true man of the secular left.

This gap between belief and reality explains why he is now bringing 200,000 Syrian Muslim refugees into America, keeping Syrian Christian refugees out of America, and generally underestimating Islamic State (ISIS / ISIL) because he cannot believe that radical Islam is anything for us to be concerned about.

Is the government capable of vetting Syrian refugees to find threats?

Not so much:

The administration argues that it’s conducting interviews with Syrians at camps in Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon. But without security forces on the ground in Syria who can verify details, there is no way to back-check a refugee’s story to see if he is telling the truth and is, in fact, not a security threat.

Even when we had people on the ground in Iraq to screen refugees, terrorists got through the safety net.

In 2011, for instance, two Kentucky immigrants who had been resettled as Iraqi refugees were busted for trying to buy stinger missiles for al-Qaida.

It turned out that their fingerprints matched those linked to roadside bombs in Iraq. It was a major red flag that should have barred their entry, but U.S. screeners failed to take note. And the terrorists slipped into the U.S.

The administration’s vetting process for the massive influx of Syrian refugees is completely unreliable, admits the FBI official in charge of such security background checks.

“It’s not even close to being under control,” warned assistant FBI director Michael Steinbach.

We should not be believing the man who promised us that we could keep our doctor, keep our health plans, and that our health insurance premiums would go down $2,500. He is either lying, or he likes to speak on matters where he is not competent to know the truth of the matter.

UPDATE: ECM sends me this video from Ben Shapiro:

Awesome!