Fundamental Rights of Parents Are Not Free-Standing

I wrote this 3 years ago and from the looks of the recent elections most of it is coming to fruition.

Every morning parents around the country are waking up their children and preparing them for the day. Buses will carry loads, parents will chauffeur the neighborhood carpool and lines of children will walk, all heading to their learning institution. These children will range from the youngest of age four to the oldest of eighteen or nineteen. Once the children leave their home and step in to the realm of public education, they are no longer under the protection of their parents. They have become wards of the state. What has happened is an issue where parents nation wide need to stand up and take notice and question the leaders of our country, especially with the latest decision made by the he 9Th Circuit Court of appeals on November 3, 2005. In the summary of this decision the judges state;
“there is no free-standing fundamental right of parents ‘to control the upbringing of their children by introducing them to matters of and relating to sex in accordance with their personal and religious values and beliefs.’ … the parents are possessed of no constitutional right to prevent the public schools from providing information on the subject to their students in any forum or manner they select” (Fields vs. Palmdale School District).
Suddenly the thoughts of Socialism and a Marxist society are becoming far too easy to visualize. Should the government be allowed to sever the rights of a parent when it comes to the education of Dick and Jane? There is a danger looming over our freedoms and parents need to be informed knowing what, when and how things are being taught in the public institutions.
The danger of this ruling is going to be felt nation wide for generations to come if the Supreme Court does not overturn the Ninth Circuit. History reminds us of the calculating way that socialists and communists in other countries have come into power. They start with indoctrinating the children. Nadezhda Krupskaya wrote in her book On Labor-Oriented Education and Instruction; “Concerned parents around the world need to understand today’s global management system which merges labor and “lifelong learning” with socialist ideology psycho-social manipulation and high tech monitoring” (100). In her book, she compares the soviet education system under Lenin to that of the U.S. Education models for the new millennium. The similarities of the two are closely related and the liberal judges we have sitting on benches across the nation are being encouraged to side with organizations like the NEA and the AFL-CIO whose agendas remarkably have the same goal as that of the Socialist movement. It was in 1917, the NEA was taken over by socialist, progressive educators. (Gilmore) “The NEA bases its position on "research" of Alfred Kinsey and one of the co-authors, happens to Wardell Pomeroy, who helped found the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) (Gilmore). The NEA contributes to SIECUS, and sanctions publications created by this repulsive group. SIECUS officials and authors have a history with Communist-fronters. Pomeroy himself is documented endorsing both child sex and incest. One of the publications used frequently by the NEA is a Journal published in January 1967 written by Mary Calderone who is a SIECUS co-founder and former Planned Parenthood medical director entitled "Planning for Sex Education“(Gilmore). Another group who is heavily involved with the NEA is UNESCO who sponsors a publication called Classroom with Children Under Thirteen Years of Age, which was written for United States educators. This publication should cause alarm, for in this article it declared “that early and diligent methods would be required to "correct many of the errors of home training [which] cultivate attitudes running directly counter to the development of international understanding.... As long as the child breathes the poisoned air of nationalism, education in world-mindedness can produce only precarious results." (Gilmore)
The parents who are on the other side of this ruling were appalled when they found out that their first graders were given a questionnaire of dubious content, (Fields vs. Palmdale School District 15067). In their complaint the parents said “they would not have allowed their children to participate in the survey had they known of the sexual nature of some of the questions”. (Fields vs. Palmdale School District). Children age’s seven to ten were asked how often they experienced the thought or emotion and how they would rate that activity. Questions included “thinking about having Sex” “Can’t stop thinking about sex,” “Thinking about sex when I don’t want to.” (Fields vs. Palmdale School District 15066). These are seven year olds many of whose parents have not ever broached the subject of sex with them. Children of this age are more concerned with playing baseball and playground activities. It was not until ex-President Bill Clinton got in trouble for his liaison with Monica Lewinsky that many adults ever even said some of the things out loud that was suddenly being spoken about on the evening news, and now in everyday conversation. It is reasonable for parents to be up in arms concerning this subject but according to the ruling, there are no constitutional rights for parents when it comes to educating their children. Fifty years ago, the emphasis of education was the three R’s now the emphasis is on molding the children of today to be good citizens for tomorrow. Is there a pattern being seen?
When Hitler became influential education played a very important part in his success. It was a crucial move for Nazi Germany when they concentrated on educational institutions as they developed a devoted following for Hitler and the Nazis. “The Nazis were aware that education would create loyal Nazis by the time they reached adulthood…indoctrination and the use of propaganda were to be a common practice in Nazi schools and the education system”(Calvin). In both the first volume of Capital and the Communist Manifesto, the subject of schools and education was addressed. “Bridging the gap between physical and mental labor, Marx and Engels pointed to the need to combine education with productive labor in the schools” (Soviet education under Lenin). Today the “dumb-ing down” (Ravitch 242). of our society continues with the revision of history, and science so it does not offend any particular group of people. Diane Ravitch author of “The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn” examined the trend of elimination of information when it came to all subjects. She remarked on how educational materials were governed by “an intricate set of rules to screen out language and topics that might be considered controversial or offensive” (Ravitch 242). Ravitch having hands on experience with the educational system and having sat on a committee that was responsible for the National Standards Test was stunned at the censorship of material for trivial and often ludicrous reasons. She recalls the peanut history story and the recommendation of the elimination of a section because it asserted that peanuts are a healthy snack and some people have sever allergic reactions to peanuts so it was best for peanuts not be mentioned. Another of the largest reasons for the elimination of certain subjects was Social bias. Ravitch gives the example of Mount Rushmore: Because Mount Rushmore is offensive to Native Americans; the panel maintained that the monument “is an abomination to the Black hills because many Lakota people consider the Black Hills to be a sacred place to pray. The sculpture exists but American children should not be allowed to read about it or its sculptor. So apparently, there are things you can say which are offensive and be able to eliminate from the education of Dick and Jane unless it goes against basic fundamental Christian morals and values then the objection is never heard.
Proponents of this latest ruling are cheering because this will allow the indoctrination of America to continue so that we can build a better society. Just look at the good citizens of Cuba, Iran, and China; the form of government which is practiced in these countries, is far greater than that of the United States, after all those governments have control over their citizens. Here in the United States we have the tendency to run things the way we like them and speak our mind. Once children were taught to stand up and speak out when it came to bullies (Maglio 241) today children are taught to accept and what ever they do “Do Not Fight Back!” because both the bully and the victim will suffer the same consequences. There is, bear in mind, a zero tolerance policy for fighting even though the bully has been antagonizing the victim for months on end. However, what happens in the society where the indoctrination has been going on for twenty years or longer and Dick and Jane are now old enough to vote? Will they have been taught about the history of our country or was that information offensive to some group. Will they have knowledge of our forefathers who fought and died in order to keep this great land out of the hands of tyranny? Or will they vote they way they have been programmed in the educational institutions?
The goal of all future socialist countries is to control their citizens. When socialists place their future in the education system, by the time the children who have been under the instruction of the public educational system become of age ~ Socialists will have an entire population ready to do their bidding. According to the agenda of the NEA and the AFL-CIO, the children must be educated and molded into the future doing the work they are told to do. The freedoms to choose who we are as individuals is being slowly done away with in our society as the socialist agenda continues to capture the thoughts and spirits of young easy to influence minds. To further address these concerns let us take a look at a letter written to Hillary Clinton during her husband’s administration. Marc Tucker, President of the National Center on Education and the Economy (NCCE) wrote:
“We think the great opportunity you have is to remold the entire American system for human resources development… What is essential is that we create a seamless web of opportunities, to develop one’s skills that literally extends from cradle to grave and is the same system for everyone ~ Young and old, poor and rich, worker and full-time student. It needs to be a system driven by client needs… guided by clear standards that define the stages of the system for the people who progress through it, and regulated on the basis of outcomes that providers produce for their clients not inputs into the system.”
It is this kind of mindset that is controlling the educational systems here in the United
States.
It is not the wants and wishes of the individual but what is going to be beneficial for the entirety of the system that is important (Calvin). Students will be given a list of opportunities and their selection will have to be on the list or they will suffer the consequences. Soon there will be two classes: the haves and the have-nots. It was this same type of system our forefathers fought so diligently to break away from; who is willing to answer them when they question ~ why did we throw it all away?