I've covered the bill previously, showing that the bill did indeed change "6th" to "K", thus applying sex ed to the kindergartners. The text also showed that it was NOT about "inappropriate touching", as Obama insists, but education about sexually transmitted diseases, and other of what Obama insists are "age-appropriate" lessons.
Obama said that the bill applied the "SEICUS" guidelines, suggesting that these guidelines would prove that Kindergartners would only learn about "inappropriate touching".
Maybe they thought we were too stupid to read. After all, the media accepted their memo and never bothered to check the facts, so maybe they could get the average person to be as naive and gullible as the mainstream press.
Well, here are the guidelines. In those guidelines, we find "level 1" applies to ages 5-8 (Page 17), which is the Kindergarten through 3rd grade. And the levels indicate when the topics "should first be discussed" (page 18).
OK, since Obama said he voted for lessons on "inappropriate touching", let's search on the word "touch". We find on page 51, for level 1 (Kindergarten):
Touching and rubbing one's own genitals to feel good is called masturbation".
Whatever you think about this, it is clear Obama's "age-appropriate" guidelines for K-level sex ed was NOT just about "inappropriate touching". Obama is lying, McCain telling the truth -- based on Obama's OWN words, and his OWN reference to SEICUS.
But there's more references to "touching". All of these are level 1 items, to be discussed by 5-8 year olds:
Page 25: Both boys and girls have body parts that feel good when touched.
Page 51: Bodies can feel good when touched.
Page 52: People often kiss, hug, touch, and engage in other sexual behaviors with one another to show caring and to feel good.
Page 54: Both girls and boys may discover that their bodies feel good when touched.
That's 5 times the guidelines have told teachers to tell 5-year-olds that touching their sexual organs will make them feel good. What 5-year-old doesn't want to feel good? This isn't teaching children about "inappropriate touching".
Page 65: A person cannot become infected with HIV by being around, touching, or hugging someone who has HIV or AIDS.
Page 67: Topic 7: (This is the section about inappropriate touching).
Ok, what about all the other things in the Level 1 (age 5-8) discussions? Here are a bunch of them. Ssnce Obama thinks this is all fine for 5-year-olds, I figure no liberal can attack me for this:
Page 26: Men and women have reproductive organs that enable them to have a child.
Page 26: Vaginal intercourse – when a penis is placed inside a vagina – is the most common way for a sperm and egg to join.
Page 27: Babies usually come out of a woman’s body through an opening called a vagina.
Page 27: Some babies are born by an operation called a Caesarian Section.
Do we need to teach a 5-year-old about putting a penis in a vagina? Or that their pregnant mother might be cut open?
Page 29: Human beings can love people of the same gender and people of another gender.
Page 29: Some people are homosexual, which means they can be attracted to and fall in love with someone of the same gender.
Page 29: Homosexual men and women are also known as gay men and lesbians.
Page 29: Making fun of people by calling them gay (e.g. “homo,” “fag,” “queer”) is disrespectful and hurtful.
Remember, Obama voted for a bill that said THIS teaching was more important than whatever they were currently teaching in Kindergarten.
Page 37: Dating is when two people who are romantically attracted to each other spend their free time together.
Page 37: When children become teenagers, they spend more time with their friends and may begin to date.
Page 37: Some adults, including single parents, may date.
Why does a 5-year-old have to know about dating?
Page 51: Touching and rubbing one’s own genitals to feel good is called masturbation.
Page 52: Some boys and girls masturbate and others do not.
Page 52: Masturbation should be done in a private place.
Page 52: People often kiss, hug, touch, and engage in other sexual behaviors with one another to show caring and to feel good.
Why does a 5-year-old need to know that people "often engage in sexual behavior with one another to feel good"? Or to masturbate in private?
Page 53: Topic 4: Sexual Abstinence (NO LEVEL 1)
So we teach a 5-year-old that masturbation feels good and should be done in private, but we can't teach them about abstinence. Hmmm.
Page 61: Sometimes women become pregnant when they do not want to be or are unable to care for a child.
Why do they have to teach THIS to a 5-year-old? To prepare them for Level 2, age 9, when they justify killing babies. Got to start young to convince humans that killing is OK:
Page 62: A woman faced with an unintended pregnancy can ... have an abortion to end the pregnancy.
Page 62: Abortion is legal in the United States up to a certain point in a pregnancy.
Page 62: A legal abortion is very safe.
OK, a few more level 1 items:
Page 72: Men and women are capable of doing almost all the same jobs.
Page 72: Some men and women may be told that certain jobs and tasks are only for women or only for men, but this is beginning to change.
OK. Don't presume that because I listed something, I oppose teaching it, or even oppose teaching it to a 5-year-old. Some lessons in this plan were appropriate. Others were not appropriate for a 5-year-old, in my opinion.
But this isn't about whether I think something is appropriate or not. This is about whether the Illinois law that Obama passed out of his committee required teaching sex ed to Kindergartners.
Obama says McCain is lying, and that the law ONLY taught "inappropriate touching".
He offered as proof the SEICUS guidelines.
And as you can see, FROM THE SEICUS guidelines, Obama was lying. The law DID teach sex education, including masturbation, homosexuality, details about body parts, and even a little indoctrination in cultural change.
Somehow, the mainstream media was incapable of reading the document he claimed would verify his claims. If the media did this, they would KNOW that Obama was lying, and McCain was telling the TRUTH.
Maybe it is a stretch to call this an Obama "accomplishment" (the bill failed). But he certainly supported and voted for the bill. And now he's lying about it.
4 comments:
Ever wonder why the media outlets like MSNBC talk about this in the context of what they say Obama wanted but not what he supported.
Why have they never put up on the screen the actaul language of the bill in question?
Simple. Because it would show that the asertion by Mccain's camp is accurate based on the language of the bill thats why.
Objective journalism is lost. You know its sad when the media tell you to visit factcheck.org to verify facts on your own. Gee I thought that was their role.
I cannot recall MSNBC in the evening; exception being Mornming Joe in the early morning, ever saying Obama has been dishonest or disingenious or has inflated the truth or in any other way been even the slighest critical of his campaign with regard to message and yet the examine everything Palin or McCain or their surrogates say.
I sold my General Electric stock two years ago when I recognized these folks were in the tank for the liberals when they would not say one single positive thing about our efforts in Iraq or support our troops.
They think they can earn some points back by demoting Olbermann and Mathews from anchoring coverage, but sent them back to their shows. What they should have done was fire them both.
Tim Russert has to be rolling over in his grave.
This happens to be a little far fetched. If you read the proposed law it specifically says "age appropriate" material. To take pieces from the whole bill of sex education for children up to seniors in high school and equate those to the teaching in to childern in kindergarden is completely against the spirit of the written document. I will agree that McCain isn't techniqually lying, becasue sex ed is inncluded if you concur that sex ed in the law was written to be "age appropriate".
Anon, what do you think is far-fetched?
The law said "age-appropriate". Who do you think decides what is "age-appropriate"? You? Me? Or the guidelines that the law references?
I have provided the quotes from the guidelines, showing what Obama said was "age-appropriate" for the 5-8 year-old group.
But even if you reject that, and simply look at the clear language of the bill, they were teaching about sexually transmitted diseases in Kindergarten, and therefore Obama was lying when he said that the ONLY thing to be taught to the K kids was "inappropriate touching" -- which by the way is already covered in the stranger danger curriculum that has nothing to do with "Sex Education".
Post a Comment