Tag Archives: Denver

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

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.

Romney won the presidential debate – according to left-wing MSNBC hosts

From the left-wing Politico, no less.

Excerpt: (links removed)

Left-leaning commentators hit President Barack Obama hard on TV and the Internet after the first presidential debate in Denver on Wednesday night, saying GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney handily defeated his more experienced opponent.

MSNBC hosts were “stunned” by Obama’s performance, suggesting the president was rusty for not having debated in four years.

“I don’t think he explained himself very well on the economy. I think he was off his game. I was absolutely stunned tonight,” Ed Schultz said.

“Where was Obama tonight?” Chris Matthews asked.

Matthews said Romney addressed Obama “like the prey. He did it just right. I’m coming at an incumbent. I’ve got to beat him. You gotta beat the champ, and I’m gonna beat him tonight. And I don’t care what this guy moderator, whatever he thinks he is, because I’m going to ignore him. What was Romney doing? He was winning.”

“It does remind you that the last debate Mitt Romney had was seven months ago and the last debate that Barack Obama had was four years ago,” said Maddow.

The Daily Beast’s Andrew Sullivan called Obama “tired,” “bored” and wrote that he might have even lost the election.

“He choked. He lost. He may even have lost the election tonight,” Sullivan wrote, later adding, “Obama looked tired, even bored; he kept looking down; he had no crisp statements of passion or argument; he wasn’t there. He was entirely defensive, which may have been the strategy. But it was the wrong strategy. At the wrong moment.”

Sullivan, an Obama supporter, was even more vicious on Twitter, calling Obama’s performance “terrible” and “political malpractice.”

“This is a rolling calamity for Obama. He’s boring, abstract, and less human-seeming than Romney!” he wrote. “He’s throwing the debate away.”

Another Obama supporter, liberal comedian Bill Maher, went on a similar Twitter rant, firing off such comments as, “Obama made a lot of great points tonight. Unfortunately, most of them were for Romney.”

A post-debate CNN poll found that:

According to a CNN/ORC International survey conducted right after the debate, 67% of debate watchers questioned said that the Republican nominee won the faceoff, with one in four saying that President Barack Obama was victorious.

“No presidential candidate has topped 60% in that question since it was first asked in 1984,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

While nearly half of debate watchers said the showdown didn’t make them more likely to vote for either candidate, 35% said the debate made them more likely to vote for Romney while only 18% said the faceoff made them more likely to vote to re-elect the president.

More than six in ten said that president did worse than expected, with one in five saying that Obama performed better than expected. Compare that to the 82% who said that Romney performed better than expected. Only one in ten felt that the former Massachusetts governor performed worse than expected.

[…]The sample of debate-watchers in the poll was 37% Democratic and 33% Republican.

[…]Debate watchers thought Romney was more aggressive. Fifty-three percent said Romney spent more time attacking his opponent. Only three in ten thought Obama spent more time taking it to Romney. By a 58%-37% margin, debate watchers thought Romney appeared to be the stronger leader.

The problem with Obama is that he had four years to run the economy, and he ran it into the ground. You can’t defend failure like that by shifting blame and pointing fingers. He failed because his ideas are wrong. We need new ideas – a different approach. But that doesn’t explain why Obama performed so poorly. Obama performed poorly because he has been totally isolated from any disagreement or critical evaluation for the last 4 years. In his mind, it’s not just the private sector that’s fine. The unemployment rate is fine, the national debt is fine, the budget deficit is fine, the terrorist attack in Libya is fine, socialized health care is fine, poor education outcomes is fine, taxpayer-funded abortion is fine, Iran having nuclear weapons is fine, and gay marriage is fine. He just has complete and utter contempt for anyone who disagrees with him – he has been indoctrinated to think that anyone who disagrees with him is not just wrong, but evil. And maybe even that all disagreement with him is motivated by racism. He came across as a whiny, petulant child, because of his ideological rigidity and lack of humility.

The mask came off Wednesday night, and it was all Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers underneath. The media and the teleprompter could not protect him from his real self.

Romney wins first debate: spanks dazed and confused Obama like a foolish child

The debate was the worst ass-kicking in a Presidential debate that I have ever seen.

The transcript is here. And here’s the story on what went down.

Excerpt:

GOP presidential challenger Mitt Romney tonight charged that President Barack Obama’s jobs plan is a failure, with millions out of work and looking for help.

“My plan is to put people back to work in America,” Romney said tonight at the first of three presidential debates scheduled for the 2012 presidential election season.

“Look at the history of the past four years. We have 23 million people unemployed. Keeping with the status quo is not going to work for the American people.”

Obama returned to his oft-repeated theme of blaming George W. Bush, asserting the taxation approach Romney was proposing was nothing more than a return to the “trickle-down” economy of the Republican plan.

Obama began the debate by reciting familiar campaign themes, suggesting once again that his administration inherited from Bush one of the worst economies in the history of the United States.

But Romney struck a theme of energy independence and advancing small business as keys to getting the U.S. economy growing again. He accused Obama of proposing “trickle-down government,” represented by more government regulation and more taxation.

Romney disputed Obama’s assertion he was locked into a tax cut, charging that under the Obama administration the middle class has been pressed by reduced income, diminished job opportunities and increased food and energy costs.

From the first moments of the debate, Romney looked Obama directly in the eye, took exception to president’s assertions about Romney’s policies, and gave more precise answers.

Obama pressed that Romney’s economic plan called for $5 trillion in tax cuts and $2 trillion in military budget increases, a program Obama asserted would demand tax increases on middle-income earners.

“Look, I’ve got five boys and I’m used to somebody saying something that’s not true and hoping that by repeating it I’m going to believe it,” Romney countered, asserting that everything Obama said about his tax program was inaccurate.

Obama insisted Romney’s tax-reduction plan of necessity would either increase the deficit or demand tax increases for the middle class, charging that under Romney’s definition Donald Trump would be a small business.

Objecting to Jim Lehrer’s interruption that the first segment was exceeding the 15-minute limit, Romney charged that Obama would increase taxes on small businesses at the cost of 700,000 jobs.

As the discussion advanced to the nation’s deficit, Obama reiterated his statement that he inherited a massive deficit, and appeared on the defensive.

“You have been president for four years, you said you would cut the deficit in half and you have run $1 trillion in deficits each of the four years,” Romney attacked. “That does not get the job done.”

Romney pointed out that when the economy was growing as slowly as it is now, more slowly than when Obama took office, this is no time to increase taxes.

“You never balance the budget by increasing taxes,” Romney insisted. “I don’t want to go down the path of Spain.”

And:

Romney said “ignoring the 10th Amendment is not the way to have a vibrant economy.”

Romney said the key to education is great teachers, and he raised a reference to the U.S. Constitution regarding citizen rights.

“I interpret our founding documents as providing a responsibility for religious freedom – to pursue happiness by taking care of the less fortunate – but massive government involvement limits freedom – the path we are taking is not working with 23 million Americans unemployed and 50 million on food stamps.”

Obama said the responsibility of the federal government was important in improving the educational system in America.

“Budgets reflect choices. If we cut taxes to benefit people like Gov. Romney and me, it makes a difference,” Obama. He again demanded specifics of the GOP plans.

“When it comes to making college affordable, whether it be two years or four years, we cut out the middleman and eliminated banks from making a profit in student loans. Gov. Romney believes in education but he tells kids to borrow from their parents to go to college.”

Romney responded, “Mr. President, you are entitled to your own airplane and your own house – but not to your own facts.”

Romney said Obama put $90 billion into green jobs, but half of the recipients went bankrupt and others were owned by contributors to your campaign, and questioned the number of teachers that would have hired.

Romney proposed grading schools to know which were succeeding and which were failing.

“Massachusetts schools are ranked No. 1 in education because I care for education for all our children,” Romney said.

It was so bad that even gay activist and radical leftist Andrew Sullivan called it for Romney: (H/T Hot Air)

Look: you know how much I love the guy, and you know how much of a high information viewer I am, and I can see the logic of some of Obama’s meandering, weak, professorial arguments. But this was a disaster for the president for the key people he needs to reach, and his effete, wonkish lectures may have jolted a lot of independents into giving Romney a second look…

The person with authority on that stage was Romney – offered it by one of the lamest moderators ever, and seized with relish. This was Romney the salesman. And my gut tells me he sold a few voters on a change tonight. It’s beyond depressing. But it’s true.

A post-debate poll from left-wing CNN found that an astonishing 67% of registered voters thought that Romney won the debate.

Even the radically left-wing National Journal says:

Call it the curse of incumbency. Like many of his predecessors, President Obama fell victim Wednesday night to high expectations, a short fuse, and a hungry challenger.

If Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney didn’t win the first of three presidential debates outright, he more than covered the spread. He was personable, funny, and relentlessly on the attack against a heavily favored Obama.

The president looked peeved and flat as he carried a conversation, for the first time in four years, with somebody telling him he’s wrong.

This debate was a blowout – and that’s just the reaction of the left.

Left-wing reactions on Twitter

Bill Maher: (HBO)

Bill Maher says Romney defeated Obama
Bill Maher says Romney defeated Obama

Peter Beinart (The New Republic)

Peter Beinart says Romney defeated Obama
Peter Beinart says Romney defeated Obama

Piers Morgan: (CNN)

Piers Morgan says Romney defeated Obama
Piers Morgan says Romney defeated Obama

And CHRIS MATTHEWS too:

Something else ran down his leg tonight, and it wasn’t a tingle, it was a tinkle.

Romney leading by 4 points in swing states

The latest poll of swings states from the left-wing Politico shows Romney leading Obama by 4 points, even with a 2 point oversampling of Democrats.

Breitbart explains: (links removed)

This week, Politico released its latest Battleground pollof the presidential race. Despite coming from the left-wing news site, the poll is one of my favorites. Its put together by respected pollsters from both parties, makes available its full cross-tabs and uses a very modest and reasonable turnout model for its sample. Including leaners, the sample in the poll is D+2. Nationally, Obama leads by 2-3 points, but, in the critical swing states, Romney now has the edge.

Each candidate leads in states considered “safe” for their party. In safe GOP states, Romney leads by 8. In safe Democrat states, Obama leads by a massive 22 points. But, in the more numerous and more important “toss up” states, Romney leads by 4, hitting the critical 50% threshold.

In the slightly different category of “battleground” states identified by Politico, Romney leads by 2, 49-47. Romney’s lead over Obama is powered primarily by his edge with independents. Romney leads Obama by 4 among the important swing voters. By 11 points, these voters think Romney would do better on the economy than Obama, 51-40.

Romney also has a big edge with middle class families, who prefer him over Obama by 15 points, 56-41.

My prediction for this election remains Romney 52, Obama 47.

Related posts

Vandal Maurice Schwenkler worked for Democrats, was arrested at RNC convention

Breaking news about the Democrat who was arrested for vandalizing the Denver Democrat headquarters. (H/T Gateway Pundit)

From CBS News via Breitbart via Gateway Pundit.

Here’s news from the Associated Press.

Excerpt:

A suspect in a vandalism at the Colorado Democratic headquarters was once a paid campaign worker for a Democratic candidate for the Legislature, according to public records.

Maurice Schwenkler, 24, was arrested in Denver Tuesday on a charge of criminal mischief after windows were smashed at Democratic offices. Many of the windows displayed posters supporting health care reform, and (democratic) party officials called it political vandalism.

The Denver Post reported Wednesday that Schwenkler was also arrested in St. Paul, Minn., on the last day of the 2008 Republican convention on a charge of unlawful assembly.

No details of that arrest or Schwenkler’s activities at the time were immediately available.

There was no phone number listed for Schwenkler and it wasn’t immediately clear if he had an attorney.

The Post reported Schwenkler was paid $500 in November 2008 to walk door to door in support of Democrat Mollie Cullom, a candidate for the state House from Centennial.

Cullom lost to Republican David Balmer.

Campaign records show Schwenkler was among dozens of canvassers paid by a political committee called the Colorado Citizens’ Coalition.

Balmer said he suspects the vandalism might have been intended to make the Republican Party look bad.

“This sounds like the type of Democratic tactic from the left fringe trying to make Republicans look mean-spirited,” Balmer said. “In this case, it blew up in their face.”

The Democratic Party estimates the damage at $10,000. A second suspect was still at large.

So at this point I think that it is still an open question as to whether this was a faked hate crime, an inside job by Democrats, or something else. It’s pretty clear that the Democrats would love to appear as victims of those who oppose Obamacare. They believe that their opponents are devils and that they are angels. And if there is only evidence AGAINST that view and FOR the converse, then maybe they manufactured some evidence to fool the public.

MUST-READ: Was the radical left behind the vandalism of Democrat HQ?

UPDATE: The latest news on this story is here.

Story from the Denver Post. (H/T Michelle Malkin)

Excerpt:

A 24-year-old arrested this morning on suspicion of smashing 11 windows at Colorado Democratic Party headquarters tried to conceal his identity while allegedly committing the crime, according to police descriptions.

Maurice Schwenkler wore a shirt over his face, a hooded sweat shirt and latex gloves before he and another man fled the scene on bicycles, police said. Schwenkler was apprehended after a short chase. The other suspect remains at large.

While Schwenkler does not appear in the state’s voter registration database, a person by that name in November 2008 received $500 from a political 527 committee called Colorado Citizens Coalition for “communications,” according to campaign finance disclosures.

The accountant for the 527 appears to be the same woman who handles the books for many other Democratic-leaning political committees.

A Maurice Schwenkler also signed an online 2005 petition to free anti-war Christian protesters who were captured in Iraq.

State Democratic Party Chairwoman Pat Waak initially blamed the vandalism on animosity surrounding the health care debate, though Denver police declined to comment on possible motives.

Malkin writes:

Another non-surprise: Schwenkler was paid by the SEIU-related front group CCC, according to Colorado blogger El Presidente.

And here are the campaign finance records for the CCC.

According to campaign finance records, someone named “Maurice Schewenkler” was paid $500 on November 6, 2008, by a group called the Colorado Citizens’ Coalition. Judging by the contributors, this 527 political organization falls on the liberal side of the spectrum. How liberal? Contributors include Tim Gill ($12,500), the AFL-CIO ($25,000), NARAL ($12,500) and Pat Stryker ($75,000). The documents list Schewenkler’s duty as “electioneering” and his purpose as “communication.”

This story reminds me of those faked hate-crimes that the radical leftists commit against themselves all the time.