Liar, Liar Teach My Child?

It is the duty of parents - as well as their self evident and unalienable right - to direct the upbringing and education of their children. The states, individually, have decided to provide a public education system in order to facilitate the education of their citizens. It is simply that - one possible way to educate the children of that state. It was not intended to be compulsory, but only to provide an option to those families who could not afford a private school or tutor or who felt unable to educate their own children and because the government recognized the value of having educated citizens.

There is an unspoken but logical compact between the state and the parents regarding that option.  That unspoken compact is that the state, in providing a public education, will do so in a manner that does not harm the students. In the ordinary course of events, that should be self evident. No parent in their right minds would allow someone to deliberately harm their children - right? The state has broken the unspoken compact between itself and parents.

We have come to a time when the state cares more for political correctness and appearances than it does about your child. The SCOTUS ruling in TLO vs New Jersy in 1985 was only an incremental step in conditioning parents to accept bad behavior on the part of the government in their state provided schools. That ruling allowed teachers and school officials to interrogate children about crimes  - for which they may be prosecuted - without notifying parents. There are other posts on this site and on others regarding the ins and outs of that outrage.

And now, the state is saying that it must be allowed to teach your children to disregard behaviors that indicate mental instability in order to cater to the few individuals that suffer from gender dysphoria disorder. (Current stats, which are quite likely to change with such encouragement stand at about .02 % of the population.)

 If a young girl goes into a ladies room and sees a man in there, she is likely to become apprehensive and go to find a trusted adult. That is a healthy reaction to aberrant behavior. That is a reaction that keeps people safe from those whose mental illness may cause them to act violently. Forcing children to ignore or suppress that natural and healthy reaction to aberrant behavior is child abuse and it creates a child who will be unlikely to do what is most natural to protect themselves - even into adulthood - from those who exhibit aberrant behaviors in other circumstances.

Disregarding the extreme discomfort and harmful conditioning that sharing bathrooms and changing rooms with opposite sex schoolmates will cause for those not affected with gender dysphoria disorder is directly harming the majority of the children with whom the public school system has been entrusted.

In addition, what does it do to the youngest children when a teacher - someone who they have been told to trust - lies to them about whether someone is a boy or a girl? If they cannot be trusted to tell such a basic truth, then how can a child logically trust them about anything else? Will teachers be allowed to say this student is biologically a girl but they have a mental disorder called gender dysphoria that makes them think they are a boy, so we are all going to be "helpful" by encouraging them in their mental illness? Or, as seems more likely considering some of the teacher guidance that is coming out, will they be forced to say "this is a boy" now or be fired?

Add to that harm the reminder that teenagers are, well, teenagers, and that the whole self identifying gender movement allows them to switch their gender from day to day or even minute to minute. How much power should they have over their teachers? The power to get them fired for referring to them as a boy/girl/it? This is a guarantee of sexual assault cases to come and worse.

If the sufferers of gender dysphoria require bathrooms and changing facilities other than those assigned to them by their biological sex, then the school districts are on the hook to provide separate and single changing/bathroom areas for them. Because there is no other option that does not harm the  children. It is also the only way to protect the afflicted from other sufferers - because you cannot have the "trans" boys sharing bathrooms and changing rooms with "trans" girls either. But the courts, when asked, decided that the schools must allow these children to use the bathroom of their choice in disregard of the harm it will cause to the other children. (This was the decision of the federal appeals court. The SCOTUS vacated that decision upon reviewing the changes to federal policy of President Trump, but they refused to hear the case during this term which means it will come up again in a few years.)

The very idea that a court of any level could say that the majority of our children MUST be harmed, because the sufferers of a mental disorder don't want to use separate facilities provided for them in an effort to maintain the safety and conscience of all the students, is appalling.

The fact is that the public school system is outdated, inefficient and expensive. We have other alternatives even in the public realm. On-line schools have become well accepted and provide a challenging curriculum with more input from parents. Homeschooling has been shown to produce responsible students well able to succeed in life or college. It is time, when the government is willing to deliberately harm the majority of the children with whom they have been entrusted, to leave that system.


What we allow is what will continue. The compact has been broken and the purveyors of political correctness in high places will continue to use our children as political pawns to fundamentally transform what they were put into office to maintain.

 Stop sending your children to public schools that harm them. Stop electing people to office who will not prevent such harm. And stop approving more funding for a system that is deliberately harming children. These are your children. This is your responsibility and your duty as a parent.

"1 Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!

2 It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones." Luke 17:1-2

"1  And he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint;

2 Saying, There was in a city a judge, which feared not God, neither regarded man:

3 And there was a widow in that city; and she came unto him, saying, Avenge me of mine adversary.

4 And he would not for a while: but afterward he said within himself, Though I fear not God, nor regard man;

5 Yet because this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me.

6 And the Lord said, Hear what the unjust judge saith.

7 And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them?

8 I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" Luke 18:1-8

Update on AB 390 and SB 309

Just checked my e-mail. I think I need to take a break now. Because I'm just that disgusted and annoyed. If you need me, I may be in a church somewhere. Or playing games. It's a toss-up.

"Proposal: AB390 (-3042) View Bill History
relating to: parental notification for questioning pupils about criminal activity.

4/8/2014: Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1

Proposal: SB309 (-04...13) View Bill History
relating to: parental notification for questioning pupils about criminal activity.

4/8/2014: Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1"

I know you were swamped in the Education committee and in the legislature in general, Mr. Leibham and Mr. Kestell, but this needs to be taken care of. The Wisconsin State Constitution demands it of you - to wit:

 "Remedy for wrongs. SECTION 9. Every person is entitled
to a certain remedy in the laws for all injuries, or wrongs which
he may receive in his person, property, or character; he ought to
obtain justice freely, and without being obliged to purchase it,
completely and without denial, promptly and without delay,
conformably to the laws."

Where is my remedy and that of all the parents and children of this state who have been injured by the current status quo? Parents opt to utilize the schooling option provided by the state of WI on the basis that the personnel provided by the state of WI can be trusted not to harm our children. They are doing harm. Fix it.

 

"Judge me, O Lord; for I have walked in mine integrity: I have trusted also in the Lord; therefore I shall not slide."~ Psalm 26:1

 

 

Plymouth 2/20/10 Leibham listening session

Just a quick update-My apologies to Mr. Leibham for misspelling his name. I hope that my readers will be good enough to correct me if I do so again. It was entirely unintentional.

I went to another listening session for Mr. Leibham. There are 9 short videos taken before my batteries ran out.


This is a question about SB460. SB460 is a bill that would allow an individual to get a prescription for drugs to treat certain STD's for their partner without requiring a physician to examine that partner. There are so many reasons that this is wrong that I am a bit baffled as to how such a proposal would make it to bill form.


This segment is a follow up question about the rules as to how long our legislators may have to examine a bill before being required to vote on it.


This is a question about Mr. Doyle's unconscionable Global Warming bill which is currently before the legislature. Did you hear that, my fellow Wisconsinites? A 30-50% increase in your energy bills. Can you afford that? We'll be taking the lead in personal bankruptcy filings if this goes through. We haven't felt the entire economic impact of the last budget yet. My pockets are pretty well empty at this point. There were two local mayors at this session and both said their cities can no longer come up with the money to remain in compliance with the state's unfunded mandates.

Here's the message, Mr. Doyle and WI legislature- "THERE IS NO MORE MONEY, STOP SPENDING."


The question was where are we now as regards the legislature's/governor's continuing attempt to change joint and several liability to make it impossible to afford auto insurance in WI.


This was a question regarding legislation, AB 751, introduced by some folks who are pushing the National Popular Vote movement. This would disenfranchise WI voters by giving WI electoral college votes to the winner of the popular vote in a presidential election regardless of how the people of WI vote. The next two videos are a continuation of this question.






Mr. Leibham is answering a question regarding the influence of lobbyists on his opinion. There was a follow up question as to whether or not a constituent could visit Mr. Leibham's office and get the same access as a lobbyist. The answer is YES. Please visit your legislators and let them know what you are thinking.


This was a question about illegal aliens and how we can control our costs with regard to the drain they cause on social services.

This is where I ran out of battery power. One of Mr. Leibham's better statements was that his colleagues didn't understand why he was printing up Legislative Update fliers to let his constituents know what the legislature is doing. Another constituent quipped that "Madison is where logic goes to die".

There were also questions about:

• WI healthcare amendment - This would not go into effect until after Obamacare is passed, if it passes.
• There was a question on the proposed radio tax. As that is a national rather than state issue, Mr. Leibham has no control over the vote on that.
• Mayor Meyer(sp?) from Sheboygan Falls asked why the state of Wisconsin continues to engage in structural deficits.
• There was a question about the UW Hospital's decision to perform late term abortions. (In my opinion, an abominable practice which has yet to have been shown to have any significant medical benefits to the mother.)
• There was a question about SB 439. This legislation is referring to the ability to convert a traditional IRA into a Roth IRA.
• AB 458. This was recently signed into law by Mr. Doyle. In essence, this disenfranchises WI parents from making decisions about the proper curriculum for sex education classes for the children in their school districts. This is a continuation of a disturbing and dangerous trend to inflict government upon our children under the misguided and arrogant opinion that declares that parents are too stupid to know what is best for their children and therefore government must step in and make our parenting decisions for us. Luckily, we may still opt to not provide a sex education(or reproductive health or whatever your district calls it)class in our districts. On the up side, eliminating that class should save us some money.
• There were questions brought up about why the entire state should bear the cost of Mr. Doyle's wish -a high speed train from Madison to Milwaukee. Now, aside from the obvious concern, that this would lose money like a dog sheds hair, I have to ask myself, why do we need such a thing? There is already a bus route between Milwaukee and Madison that is cheaper than the estimated $20.00 - $33.00 per trip cost of this train and that would be just as fast. Because the estimated trip time for this high speed rail line is -brace yourselves-about an hour and a half. That's right, this wonderful high speed rail line that will cost more than a bus ticket (Bus ticket is $19.00 with multiple pick-up and drop-off sites in both cities, unlike the train.)will get you there at the same speed as driving. So the governor and our legislature want to spend nearly a billion dollars to create a money pit that services only Dane and Milwaukee Counties, while taking business from the bus companies who currently provide perfectly adequate service, and they think the rest of the state should be on the hook for the continuing costs. May I refer them back to the message under the global warming bill video? It's equally applicable here.
• Mr. Leibham encouraged citizens to oppose the .5% sales tax increase being requested by the County of Sheboygan. The belief expressed throughout the room was that Sheboygan County needs to reduce spending rather than increasing taxes.

It was a well-attended meeting and Mr. Leibham remarked that the Sheboygan session had also been well attended.

After seeing what sorts of legislation our legislators have been considering, both in Mr. Leibham's pamphlet and on the WI legislature site (Proclaiming that the ancient Macedonians were Hellenes? Really? This requires legislation?) maybe I ought to be submitting my own legislative proposal for the protection of our children's Constitutional rights to someone other than Mr. Leibham. At least mine has the virtue of asking for the restoration of a right that has been defacto and unjustly removed by the courts. I will share it here. If any of you wish to submit this language to your own legislators, be my guest. Here's the text:

Whereas, the State of Wisconsin recognizes that minor children have the same rights to due process and protection under the law as every American citizen; and

Whereas, it is unreasonable to expect a minor child to understand their rights and be able to properly exercise his or her Constitutional rights in his or her own protection in the face of authority, and under the coercion that can, currently, or at any time hereafter be applied to said child; and

Whereas, the right of school officials, administrators and police school liaison officers to exercise the privileges of "in loco parentis" have been unaddressed, leading to the violation of our children's civil and 5th amendment rights;
Therefore, be it resolved that the right of school officials, administrators, and police school liaison officers, or any of their designees to exercise the powers of "in loco parentis" shall not extend to questioning a student about any issue that could result in the filing of a criminal complaint without having a parent, legal guardian or legal representation, chosen by the parent or legal guardian, who shall act in the best interests of the child, present during questioning.

Be it also resolved that school officials shall not be held criminally liable for acting to protect the students, the school and it's environs in the case of an immediate threat.

Or maybe I ought to just be grateful for what we still have. Get involved folks, it's your state.

"Saying, There was in a city a judge, which feared not God, neither regarded man:
And there was a widow in that city; and she came unto him, saying, Avenge me of mine adversary.
And he would not for a while: but afterward he said within himself, Though I fear not God, nor regard man;
Yet because this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me.
And the Lord said, Hear what the unjust judge saith.
And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them? "~Luke 18:2-7

Back to School? Protect your child

Update: I added a bit to the 5th paragraph as well as adding a 6th.
I received a back to school reminder from the folks at Wisconsin Family Action that contained a useful link to a list of back to school resources for Christian families from Wisconsin Family Council. Among those resources is a video on student's rights to live their faith at school. As I was looking at that link, I was recalling my own experiences with the public school system. I think there is another resource parents desperately need if, for some reason, they cannot homeschool their children.

I have written a post at the AFB on this issue and I encourage you to read the post and the discussion which follows -if you have not already done so. If you don't have time, the short version is that school officials, acting "in loco parentis" are able to interrogate your child at school, without notifying you, for the entirety of the school day, if your child is implicated in any way to have been even contemplating a crime or any activity for which charges could be brought against your child. They do not have to notify you. They may lie to your child in order to coerce a confession and they are not required to tell your child what his/her rights are in this situation.

Now most of you are probably thinking, that won't happen to my child, so this isn't an issue for me. What if your child upsets another child, or another child simply wants to be mean? We all know that children can be unpredictable. All that is necessary for this sort of interrogation to occur is one child telling a teacher or principle they heard your child saying something that could be perceived as a threat to the school or another student. A frustrated statement of " They make me so mad, I could just kill them." about another student would be sufficient, in some situations, to lead to such questioning. Once such an interrogation session has been initiated, it is my feeling that the school official feels an obligation to obtain a confession of some sort to justify their actions in questioning your child.

Are you an outspoken parent who opposes the plans of the local school board? While I would prefer to think such tactics would be beneath most school administrators, it is possible that such an interrogation could be used to shut you up.

The bottom line is, you need to protect your child from this procedure at school. Even if they are the greatest kid in the world they are not safe from the mischief that can result from envy or malice. You owe your child this duty of protection if you are sending them to a public school. And if your child is the type of kid who would do such things? He/She needs your protection too. We all are to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and we all have a Constitutional right to have an attorney present during questioning. That includes your child, innocent or guilty. (If you child is guilty, there is a place in the process for confessions, but that place is not under the interrogation of school officials.)

Your school administration will undoubtedly argue that their questioning cannot be used in a court, but the judge can certainly ask the arresting officer why they arrested and charged your child. The answer "school officials told me the child had confessed to this crime" is permissible.

Send the school a letter rescinding their authority to act "in loco parentis" in the event that your child is being questioned about anything for which they could be criminally charged. Hopefully, you will never need it, but just in case you do, you'll be glad you did.

Below is a generic form of the letter that I used. I am not a lawyer and I have no idea how this would be regarded in a court, should it come to that. I hope it will at least give your school administration enough of a reality check that you will be informed if your child is ever in this situation.

"This letter is to rescind the school district’s right to act “in loco parentis” to my child in the event that he is being questioned about any matter that could involve criminal charges being brought against him. Just as I would not expect you to act as a doctor in the event of a serious injury, I do not expect you to act as legal counsel in this situation.
Whether you recognize it formally or not, when you question a student about a crime, you are acting as an agent of the state and that is a direct conflict of interest with your status of acting “in loco parentis” to my child when he is a student in your school. I recognize that this is a challenge for you and that you feel duty bound to act in the best interests of the school at large.
With that in mind, I cannot in good conscience put my child or you in such a position. Therefore, I must insist, that in the extremely unlikely event that my child should be in such a situation, I require immediate notification. I also forbid any questioning of my child unless he has a parent or a lawyer who is acting on his behalf present at the time of such questioning.
I would also encourage the school board to recognize the serious consequences of such questioning in today’s world. There are many ways for students to be brought to the attention of school administrators for such questioning, ranging from actual criminal actions to the malice of other students or adults. Should students be questioned about a crime without even having a parent present? Is that really in the best interests of our students? What does that teach them about their Constitutional rights? I encourage the school board to review current policy and make appropriate changes."

"And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. " ~Deut 6:7