Hm. So, on the heels of the Sing for Change and Obama Youth creepiness, we have the campaign itself encouraging the indoctrination of 12-year olds and under into the mysteries of liberalism.
We should not let them make up their own minds as to where they fit on the ideological spectrum based on life experiences, after all…it’s much safer to get them firmly into the fold before their eyes are completely open.
It’s a trend after all, isn’t it? Fits right in with the Ayers methodology.
Filed under: Barack Obama, Democrats, Election 2008, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs
“he tried to have schools teach sex education to kindergartners. ”
God, more of this dreck.
How many pinnochios does it take before this stuff will stop getting passed around?
Until it stops being the truth?
As far as I know, that bill does not specify what exactly is “age appropriate.” It doesn’t specify who is deciding what is age appropriate. Nor does it specify how they are reaching the conclusion as to what is age appropriate.
Even the FactCheck.org article that defends the bill against McCain’s ad does not address these questions.
And even at the K level, aren’t lessons on “inappropriate touching” and “how to say no” a form of sex education? What method is used to teach those lessons to 5-year-olds?
Again, what is “age appropriate”? A coloring book featuring a pedophile? “See Sally Run” (from her uncle)?
With these unanswered questions, I’m not seeing the lie.
What the FactCheck.org article says is:
That’s pretty straightforward.
Do you oppose teaching young children about “inappropriate touching” and “how to say no,” Red?
The bill Obama supported loosely looked to the Oregon program
A. Grades K-3:
1. Good touch, bad touch
2. Understanding body parts, proper anatomical names, stages in basic
growth process
3. Communicable/non-communicable diseases, the concept
4. Behaviors that reduce the spread of communicable diseases (washing
hands, not sharing eating utensils, using Kleenex)
5. Accepting of their uniqueness and a positive regard for themselves and
others
6. Recognize risk behaviors (sharing body fluids) and methods of prevention
7. Unsafe objects (needles, broken glass, drug paraphernalia)
8. Refusal skills, role playing
9. Personal hygiene
10. Emotional development
I say loosely because the bill was fraught with ambiguity.
That FactCheck article does not define what is “age appropriate.” And seeing as that is the basis for its entire defense of the bill, it would be nice to know what that is…exactly.
Anyone can defend their arguements by tossing out unsupported and undefined subjective phrases, as FactCheck.org has done here. Where’s the beef?
“Do you oppose teaching young children about “inappropriate touching” and “how to say no,” Red?”
Well, I will begin by saying I think parents should do their own teaching about such topics. But that doesn’t play well into the liberal victimology ideal, where even our 5-year-olds need to be protected by—who else—the government.
I cannot answer that question properly until I know the method being used to teach the lessons. That is my entire point. Can anyone answer that question? Obama’s bill sure doesn’t. For all I know that is left up to each individual teacher. That’s dangerous.
Do you want some teacher you may not even know giving your 5-year-old sex education lessons on touching and you don’t know how they are going to present it?
Do you guys not cover the issues anymore?
Or just spin?
We’re saving the issue coverage for you. Feel free to start whenever you’re ready. ;)
But seriously. What you call spin might be an issue to some of us, and vice versa.
This particular issue goes to the heart of Obama’s extensive legislative experience that some of you think so highly of.
And the cult stuff in the main post is just plain scary.
I was referencing the main post.
However,
I’d have to say you guys should latch on to Alfie’s diagnosis of the sex-ed issue, as he’s done some research on it.
I too have chased some stuff down and it does look as if it was intended to mimic other legislation aimed at teaching appropriate touching and to protect kids from sexual predators.
It was poorly authored, but you can hardly blame Barack for voting for it, based on its intent.
Yeah, I guess fixing it would have been too much trouble.
wow pill,
thanks for the grossest oversimplification of the political process to date.
just hop in there and rewrite the sucker.
Or Obama could have voted “no” because it was poorly written and ambiguous at best.
Oh, and Joe… ya… freakin CREEPY.
“wow pill,
thanks for the grossest oversimplification of the political process to date.
just hop in there and rewrite the sucker.”
So words didn’t matter to Obama back then like they do now?
Obama voted against funding the troops because of wording, didn’t he? And what was the intent of that bill?
And what did Democrats turn around and do? They wrote another bill that was more to their agenda, didn’t they? And McCain voted against it, because of its wording.
So don’t accuse me of oversimplifying our political process, when that is the exact process that gets used by both sides.