Thursday, March 06, 2008

The Child Indoctrinators


The old Soviet Union had the same system of child indoctrination that has just been implemented by a court in California.

By de Andréa
March 6, 2008

Some call it education, but when forced by the government, it is no longer education, it is INDOCTRINATION…

More legislation from the bench, a ruling from a California appeals court that could subject the parents of more than 166,000 students in the state of California to criminal charges will be taken to the state Supreme Court.

The announcement comes this week from the Pacific Justice Institute, whose president, Brad Dacus, described the impact of the decision as "staggering."

"The scope of this decision by the appellate court is breathtaking," he said. "It not only attacks traditional parental rights, but also calls into question homeschooling through charter schools and teaching children at home via independent study through public and private school."

"If not reversed, the parents of the more than 166,000 students currently receiving an education at home will be subject to criminal charges," he said.

After the family's homeschooling was brought to the attention of child advocates, the decision from the 2nd Appellate Court in Los Angeles granted a special petition brought by lawyers appointed to represent the two youngest children of Phillip and Mary Long of Los Angeles, The lawyers appointed by the state were unhappy with a lower court's ruling that allowed the family to continue homeschooling and challenged it on appeal.

Justice H. Walt Croskey, whose opinion was joined by two other judges, then ordered: "Parents who fail to [comply with school enrollment laws] may be subject to a criminal complaint against them, found guilty of an infraction and subject to imposition of fines and an order to complete a parent education and counseling program.” In other words, one must get ones head right. (A type of reprogramming)

The determination reversed a decision from Superior Court Judge Stephen Marpet, who ruled "parents have a constitutional right to school their children in their own home.” The Longs had their children enrolled in Sunland Christian School, a private homeschooling program.

But Judge Croskey, without hearing arguments from the school, opined that the situation was a "ruse of enrolling [children] in a private school and then letting them stay home and be taught by a non-credentialed parent."

Officials with the school said they asked Pacific Justice to work on the Supreme Court appeal because the organization "has been in full compliance with the requirements of the law for more than 23 years. We've never been given an opportunity to represent our case in the Court of Appeal," Terry Neven, the president of the school, said. "Consequently, we are excited that PJI will represent us before the California Supreme Court so that the rights of parents and homeschooling families are preserved."

The ruling, also issued a further warning of potential penalties for parents, this time in civil court. It said under a section titled "Consequences of Parental Denial of a legal education that parents are subject to being ordered to enroll their children in an appropriate school or education program and provide proof of enrollment to the court, and willful failure to comply with such an order may be punished by a fine for civil contempt." I do believe the court is going to have to define “appropriate school or education program,” especially since all of these schools have been accredited by the State.

The school's website notes it offers a homeschool/independent study program that is accredited. It began in Los Angeles in 1986 with 24 students and now serves more than 3,000 families.

"While SCS is a Christian program, we enroll any family desiring assistance in teaching their own children at home. All we ask is that each family respects our values," a spokesman for the school said.

"The future of homeschooling (both public and private) in California requires the reversal of this decision," Neven said. "Normally in a dependency court action, they simply make a ruling that will affect the specific family. It accomplishes the same thing, meaning they would force [the family] to place their minor children into a school. Such rulings on a variety of issues always are "done in the best interests of the child" and are not unusual. But in this case, the court went much further, essentially concluding the state provided no circumstance that allowed parents to school their own children at home.

Specifically, the appeals court affirmed, the trial court had found that "keeping the children at home deprived them of situations where (1) they could interact with people outside the family, (2) there are people who could provide help if something is amiss in the children's lives, and (3) they could develop emotionally in a broader world than the parents' 'cloistered' setting."

Further, the appeals ruling said, California law requires "persons between the ages of six and 18" to be in school, "the public full-time day school," with exemptions allowed only for those in a "private full-time day school" or those "instructed by a tutor who holds a valid state teaching credential for the grade being taught."

The more important issue here is that in a homeschool setting, the government does not have control over what the student is being programmed with, and this lack of power and control is what drives the hate America anti-freedom advocates crazy.

For homeschoolers in California, Hanson said, "there may be everywhere from concern to panic, just based on not knowing what the [ultimate] results will be."

The Home School Legal Defense Association, the world's premiere international advocacy organization for homeschoolers, emphasized that the ruling made no changes in California law regarding homeschooling. While the decision from the appeals court "has caused much concern among California homeschoolers," the HSLDA said, there are no immediate changes any homeschoolers need to address.

In a truly free constitutional republic this would be a true statement, because legally courts cannot make law. However in a world where the courts can rewrite law or legislate from the bench whether legal or not, it contributes to the incremental destruction of the citizens inalienable rights.

Plunder
Case and point…The supreme court violated the constitution when it ruled that government, whether it be local or otherwise can for any reason whatsoever take anyone’s property, pay penny’s on the dollar, and sell it for profit to a developer. “Legislation from the bench”.

The Longs earlier said they also are considering an appeal to the state Supreme Court because of the impact of the order for their family, as well as the precedent that could be construed.

They have disputed with local officials over homeschooling and other issues for years. In at least two previous decisions, courts affirmed their right to homeschool, they said.

The underlying Motive
The current case was brought by two attorneys who had been appointed by the state to represent the family's minor children in a dependency case stemming from accusations of abuse that resulted from the parents' decision to impose discipline on their children with spankings. The case actually had been closed out by the court as resolved when the lawyers filed their special appeal.

Phillip Long, the father said he objects to the pro Islam, pro-homosexual, pro-bisexual, pro-transgender, agenda of California's public schools. "We just don't want them teaching our children," he said. "They teach things that are totally contrary to what we believe. They put questions in our children's minds we don't feel they're ready for. When they are much more mature, they can deal with these issues, alternative lifestyles, and such, or whether or not they came from primordial slop. Until then it is my job to teach them the correct way of thinking,” said. Mr. Long.

THE BOTTOM LINE: The truth be known, the so-called child protective services, and the ACLU, backed by the public schools system, which is ultimately backed by the Federal Department of Education, have been after the Long’s for years. In the past the courts have always upheld the law, but if one has nothing better to do than to destroy the rights of others as well as being backed by unlimited funds, (it’s a little like playing poker with a billionaire) no matter how good your hand is he is eventually going to win.

When the court ruled that the Long’s were not trained teachers and homeschooling is not a proper or an “appropriate school or education program”, what the court was really saying is that freedom no longer exists in America, you are acting independent, and this is just not acceptable in a dictatorial society. You must be dependent on the government for everything, especially for indoctrination. How else can the government force the future citizens of a society to eventually give up all of their rights?

This is clearly not a case of right verses wrong or even a case of legal verses illegal. This is just the government steamrolling over the citizen for control of the future. Did you ever wonder why education was not one of the government’s constitutional powers? Well it still isn’t, but then who in the government pays any attention to the Constitution? Obviously not the courts, it was because the framers believed the people should be in charge of their own education and future. You see the one who controls the education of children, controls the future of a country. A tyrannical government certainly is not going to let the citizens control their own future. So, we now have the illegal federal department of education/indoctrination, determining our future. Because after all, the government Elitists always know what is best for you.

The fears of our founders we not unfounded…

de Andréa

No comments: