State Indoctrination Centers

Must… control… fist of death…

The Ninth Circuit, in its infinite wisdom, has decided that parents have no rights in regard to what their children are taught in a public school. This decision is in regards to parents who objected to having their first graders subjected to questions about their sexual feelings and activities so the school counselor could study them for her master’s thesis.

But let me assure you, this decision is not limited to sex ed. Oh, if only this were the case. Look at what the court really found:

We conclude only that the parents are possessed of no constitutional right to prevent the
public schools from providing information on that subject to
their students in any forum or manner they select.

Catch that? The government can, without limitation, tell your children whatever they want in a public school and there is nothing you can do about it. Your only option is to send them or not send them. Of course, we also have compulsory education, so you have to either pay for private school, or pay to homeschool, which has considerable expenses of its own. And even at that, in the People’s Republic of Kalifornia, even homeschooling is highly regulated and overtly discouraged.

So why? Seriously, why would the school care, as long as the kids are getting educated? Because education has nothing to do with it. This is all about indoctrination. Don’t take my word for it — listen to the Ninth Circuit:

For example, the state “as parens
” may restrict parents’ interest in the custody, care, and
nurture of their children “by requiring school attendance, regulating
or prohibiting the child’s labor and in many other
ways.”… (“No question is raised concerning the power of the
state reasonably to regulate all schools, to inspect, supervise
and examine them, their teachers and pupils; to require that all
children of proper age attend some school, that teachers shall
be of good moral character and patriotic disposition, that certain
studies plainly essential to good citizenship must be
taught, and that nothing be taught which is manifestly inimical
to the public welfare.
“); Hooks v. Clark County Sch. Dist.,
228 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2000)

[My bolding; italics in original] Get that? The court is affirming what was said in Hook; it isn’t just the school’s job to teach your children. They also want to make them “patriotic.” They have the right to prevent anyone, including you, if you homeshool, from teaching anything “manifestly inimical to the public welfare.” Think about what that means.

Patriotism, in this case, is defined by the state. If you believe that the state is tyrannical, and support its overthrow, you might be considered a patriot by a lot of people — but not by the state you wish to overthrow. If you decided to teach your children what they would need to know to overthrow that state, like basic marksmanship, the state reserves the right to prevent it as being inimical to the public (really, the state’s) welfare.

The Ninth Circuit has admitted that the purpose of public schooling, and indeed compulsory education in general, is to make sure that children think the way the state wants them to think. That is why I support the separation of school and state. This is dangerous people, and we need to nip it now, while we still can.


  1. Peggy says:

    The only consolation is that of all the district courts, they hold the record for percentage of decisions reversed. One of the judges here can make some very caustic remarks about California rulings and the lack of constitutional foundation to their opinions.
    But that kind of thinking is beginning to spread and become more prevalent here. Some of the local schoolboards are trying to initiate similar policies. The school board in my county is just now getting off a year of SACS probation for meddling in the day-to-day activities of the school system, with their pathetic attempt at social engineering. Three out of five of the original members did not get re-elected last year because of it.

  2. Citizen Quasar says:

    Yes, it is a mind control process.

    It begins at birth. Birthing hospitals are points of entry for the United States. While still dazed and traumatized from giving birth, new mothers are presented with documentation to sign in order to get a birth certificate for the child. This document links the child’s name to an alter ego differentiated from the real child by the use of ALL CAPITALS. Then the child is taken to the delivery room where it is rececived by the state in the capacity of parens patriae. The state then becomes the child’s parent, on the presumption that the natural parent is incompetent to raise the child.

    In order to get around this, birth should not be conducted at a point of entry and an affidavit should be signed by a witness to the birth. Then there is no documentation involving the state in parenting and no delivery of the child to the state.

  3. Mexigogue says:

    At some point we’re going to have to annex California and make it American.

  4. Phelps says:

    Well, we have the Looney Party position now.

  5. Citizen Quasar says:

    I live in Oklahoma. I am glad that you are not talking about me.