THE DISGUSTING "Parent of the Fatherland" LEGAL DOCTRINE

In November a federal appeals court rejected a challenge by parents to a school-district survey of elementary-school students that contained privacy-invading, sexually explicit questions. The Palmdale School District in Los Angeles County had conducted the survey of children 7 to 10 years old. Their parents were told they could opt out, but they were left in the dark about the content. According to the notice parents received, the survey aimed to “establish a community baseline measure of children’s exposure to early trauma (for example, violence)” and to “identify internal behaviors such as anxiety and depression and external behaviors such as aggression and verbal abuse.” It turned out that of the 79 questions asked, ten related to the children’s thoughts about sexual matters.

Several parents were outraged, and when their complaint to the school district was dismissed, they went into federal court, claiming the school had violated their right “to control the upbringing of their children by introducing them to matters of and relating to sex” (Fields v. Palmdale School District ). The district and appeals courts sided with the school district. It was not known if the parents would appeal to the Supreme Court. (The school district has stopped doing the survey.)

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion is instructive for gauging the relationship between individual and state in modern America. Unfortunately, the ruling leaves little room for optimism.

Judge Stephen Reinhardt rejected the parents’ plea on essentially two grounds: that once parents choose a school for their children, they have no right to micromanage it, and that under the parens patriae doctrine (“parent of the fatherland”), the government may look after the mental health of children. Both arguments are pernicious.

The first is deceptively so. On first glance it is reasonable to hold that once parents choose a school, they have no right to dictate what goes on in the classroom. They have no such right with a private school. Why should they have it with a government school? The judge’s sleight-of-hand consists in ignoring that parents do not freely choose their children’s schools. Yes, they may opt for private schools or homeschooling over the government alternative, but they must pay taxes no matter what they choose. Moreover, in the 1920s the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the states’ power to regulate private schools comprehensively.

If a private school conducted a sex survey without fully informing their parents, the matter could be handled contractually. As a last resort, parents could pull their children out and cut the school off financially. They can’t do that with the government schools. Thus the system is rigged in favor of the state.

Judge Reinhardt further defended the school district by holding, “[T]he questioning can also be justified on the basis of an alternative state interest-namely, parens patriae. .. . . [T]he School District’s interest in the mental health of its students falls well within the state’s authority as parens patriae. As such, the School District may legitimately play a role in the care and nurture of children entrusted to them for schooling.”

The parens patriae doctrine is left over from the age of absolute monarchy, when the king, believed to be a descendant of Adam, was regarded as the father of his subjects. The famous exponent of that idea, Sir Robert Filmer, wrote in Patriarcha or the Natural Power of Kings, (1680), “It may seem absurd to maintain that kings now are the fathers of their people, since experience shows the contrary. It is true, all kings be not the natural parents of their subjects, yet they all either are, or are to be reputed, the next heirs to those first progenitors who were at first the natural parents of the whole people, and in their right succeed to the exercise of supreme jurisdiction; and such heirs are not only lords of their own children, but also of their brethren, and all others that were subject to their fathers.”

Parens patriae is one of those assertions by the state that is assumed to be binding, but that no one consented to. Considering that the government regards itself as the ultimate landlord, we shouldn’t be surprised that it also sees itself as the ultimate parent. The American Revolution was indeed incomplete.

Source



WHATEVER HAPPENED TO CHRISTMAS?

Christmas is a wonderful, joyous day. For Christians it is uniquely important. It is the day that Christ the Lord was born. Many others who do not share our faith still rejoice in its message of peace on earth and goodwill toward men. The beauty of this day is so powerful that more than 90 percent of Americans celebrate Christmas.

So it’s hard to understand why the word “Christmas” is being abandoned. Are people so ashamed of this holy day that they don’t want the word “Christmas” spoken in public - not in shopping malls or offices or classrooms, not on television or radio? It’s even hard to find the word “Christmas” in advertisements for Christmas presents. Quietly, gradually but steadily, the word “Christmas” is disappearing from public view and is being replaced by something called the “Holiday Season,” with “Happy Holidays” taking the place of “Merry Christmas.”

Does anyone really believe Christmas is just one in a list of winter holidays? Of course not. We still say “Happy Thanksgiving,” “Happy Hanukah” and “Happy New Year.” Yet where has “Merry Christmas” gone? All of us, including the promoters of the “Holiday Season,” know quite well that this is the Christmas season. We all know that on December 25, the stores close, hundreds of millions of people go to church, more than any other time of year; and families exchange presents, come together for a festive meal, and wish each other a “Merry Christmas.”

So why are we subjected to this elaborate and silly Holiday Season charade, and who is behind it? No one, it seems. In fact, when we complain about an anti-Christmas campaign, we are told there is no such thing. We’re imagining it. The “Holiday Season” just sort of… replaced Christmas. When that argument collapses of its own weight, we are told that other religious groups are offended by Christmas. But that’s not true. People of other faiths are not campaigning to stop us from talking about or celebrating Christmas. They are not afraid of Christmas. In fact, as people of faith, they respect Christmas, just as Christians respect their holy days and traditions.

So, who is ashamed of the word “Christmas,” and what are they ashamed of? A babe wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger? Or maybe angels singing, “Glory to God in the highest and on earth, peace, good will toward men?”

The vast majority of Americans find Christmas a time of joy, peace, and hope. Even many who do not share the Christian belief that Christ is the Son of God and Savior of the world admire Him as a great moral teacher. Unfortunately, many people perceive Christmas as being offensive to others. And thanks to “political correctness” in this country, it is seen as the ultimate sin to offend anyone. Since when in a country where we cherish our First Amendment right to freedom of speech is it offensive to wish each other “Merry Christmas?” By the way, the First Amendment guarantees a freedom of religion as well.

In reality, there is a small group of people who want to impose their ideas of "political correctness" on the rest of us. They do this by trying to drive religious beliefs underground. Their message is as clear as it is outrageous: You can believe whatever you wish, as long as you do it in the privacy of your own homes or inside your churches - just don’t dare do it in public.

No thanks. We’ll keep on decorating our Christmas trees, exchanging gifts, wishing “Merry Christmas,” and rejoicing at the words “Fear not: for, behold, I bring unto you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, which is Christ the Lord.” “MERRY CHRISTMAS!”

Source



Truth Forbidden in Australia

Australia's largest city, Sydney, has been suffering a long time from the aggressive and criminal behaviour of young Muslim men who are the children of Arabs who were allowed into Australia as refugees during the civil war in Lebanon. And the politicized police have been made to treat the offenders concerned with kid gloves. Last weekend, young Anglo Australians got sick of police inaction and held a rally to deal with the Muslims themselves. Under the influence of the hot weather and much beer, however, the rally turned into a huge riot that the police could barely restrain.

The riot did however wake the authorities up to the fact that they were going to have to deal with the Muslim problem themselves and, under the pretext of restraining "racism" among Anglo-Australians, new laws have been rushed through that enable better police control of aggressive gatherings. And since the Muslims move in large packs, that was needed. We will see this weekend what happens as a result. I have been monitoring the ethnic incidents daily on my Australian Politics blog.

As I mentioned, the authorities in Sydney blame everybody but the Muslims (sound familiar?) and various media figures have been caught in that net. Note the following quote about popular Sydney radio announcer Brian Wilshire :

"The career of veteran 2GB announcer Brian Wilshire is in limbo after he called Lebanese-Australians "inbreds" and questioned their intelligence on air. Wilshire, 61, was yesterday pulled off air and made to apologise for comments he made on Thursday night. Discussing Middle Eastern boys involved in violence he said: "Many of them have parents who are first cousins, whose parents were first cousins ... The result of this is inbreeding."

Source

What he said is of course the simple truth. Marrying cousins is normal in Arab countries and the average Arab IQ is much lower than the normal Western IQ. You can see here that the average IQ in Lebanon is 86. If you want to encourage the speaking of truth to power, Wilshire can probably be reached here: surfreport@mrpc.net