Teacher labeled terrorist, child abuser after students sing for healthcare on CNN

reply to post by JIMC5499


While I agree with your postulated course of action were you one of the parents, I feel you would be terribly disappointed in the result. It would become part of the political game, and the cause and root of the complaint would be lost in 'bi-partisan' rhetoric.

Also, CNN and other agencies are not news agencies, they are entertainment services - at least according to the law.

Interesting comments.

However, just because the "vandalizer" was wrong, doesn't make the teacher right.

Everybody seems to be pointing to which one (the teacher, or the vandalizer) was incorrect in their actions.

My answer is that they are both wrong and should face the consequences.

As for, once again, singing the praises and/or policies of the President, it does not belong in a public school.

Singing about a President, once they are out of office and history is written is one thing. For starters, facts help. As of right now, there are no facts whatsoever regarding Obama's presidency and therefore anything written and/or sung is merely OPINION and the opinion of a teacher and/or administration has no business being taught to kids in school.

The only fact is that Obama is the first African American President in the US. If they want to sing about that, fine -- but it would be a pretty short song.

As for everything else, not enough time has passed to determine what has or has not happened during his presidency.

Stimulus - this could go down as the fall of the US or the plan that saved the world. Let them sing once we know.

Healthcare - Congress doesn't even know what's going to be in the final bill yet. So discussing anything, or teaching anything, about said healthcare reform is completely guessing. Then, whether or not said reform, if it gets passed, is beneficial can't be determined for, at the least, a couple of years. Really ten years since that's how long until it's paid for. Sing about it then.

Banks - Cars - Real Estate - Swine Flu Vaccine - Education - War -

It is all up in the air right now because Obama has his hands in it all - and until the dust settles and history begins to write itself, there is no reason why any school child should be LEARNING about any of it. Until it becomes history, it is only politics. And politics have no place in school.

reply to post by JIMC5499


You make a valid point. Especially when it has to do with such a heated issue in America. Politics and healthcare and now those child's faces will be associated with the frame of mind the teacher encompasses.

Originally posted by nunya13

Now, your entitled to your opinion about health care, but some people just take it too far. Mostly I wanted to show that the "terrorist" label also gets thrown at liberals, or those seen as having liberal ideas, just as easily as it is at the conservatives. It just seems more so right now because we have Democrat in the WH. When Bush was POTUS, liberals were the ones being labeled as terrorists for having opposing ideas.

This was the doings of just one man. It is true that professor shouldn't have done that to his school children, he should be reprimended and put in suspention for using children, who are very susceptible at a young age, to advocate HIS/HER ideals.

BTW, at least when Bush was in office there weren't any reports from the government targetting liberals in specific.

If i remember correctly the Patriot Act didn't specify any groups in the left, or right, here is a summary of the Patriot Act.

www.fas.org...

But then we got the Janet Napolitano report in which she specifically targets, at least at first, "rightwings groups," and even later reports include people who want to defend the Constitution as being labeled "possible terrorists."

However, Patriot Act II, had more sweeping laws which in many cases would be UnConstitutional but it still didn't target people in the left.

The government would no longer be required to disclose the identity of anyone, even an American citizen, detained in connection with a terror investigation - until criminal charges are filed, no matter how long that takes (sec 201).

Current court limits on local police spying on religious and political activity would be repealed (sec. 312).

The government would be allowed to obtain credit records and library records without a warrant (secs. 126, 128, 129).

Wiretaps without any court order for up to 15 days after terror attack would be permissible. (sec. 103).

Release of information about health/safety hazards posed by chemical and other plants would be restricted (sec. 202).

The reach of an already overbroad definition of terrorism would be expanded - individuals engaged in civil disobedience could risk losing their citizenship (sec. 501); their organization could be subject to wiretapping (secs. 120, 121) and asset seizure (secs. 428, 428).

Americans could be extradited, searched and wiretapped at the behest of foreign nations, whether or not treaties allow it (sec. 321, 322).

Lawful immigrants would be stripped of the right to a fair deportation hearing and federal courts would not be allowed to review immigration rulings (secs. 503, 504).

www.aclu.org...

Under the current administration they have targeted specific groups, including anyone who oposes any policies of Obama, but it was mainly targeting the right, and even moderates.

Later when complaints were being made once the informaion was leaked on the DHS report made by Janet Napolitano, she made another report in which she includes other groups, but this was just so she could save some face, and it wasn't part of the original leaked documents.




[edit on 8-10-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by lpowell0627


You're right. They were both wrong.

The teacher was wrong for having the children sing support of a specific issue that is hotly debated in America. Maybe if it was more generic and took out the politics of it, namely Obama's idea of healthcare reform, but even then, what the heck do kids even know or understand about the healthcare system? Absolutely nothing. So the teacher obviously did this for selfish reasons.

As far as the Wiki page "vandalizer" goes, he was wrong to go so far out of his way to essentially slander the educator. Some of the things said were just so out there and over the top.

The article has this example of what the perpetrator wrote:

"Each classroom provides students with technology such as notebook computers, interactive whiteboards, digital cameras, H1N1 mixing labs, projectors, and audio video equipment, as best to stay in contact with their overlord masters. In addition to the technologically-equipped classrooms, the school provides students with accessible amenities such as a recording studio for songs of blind worship to Barack Hussein Obama, a darkroom for the daily prayers to Mecca, a two-story vaulted ceiling library/missile silo, a gymnasium used for the terrorist training, and a dance studio for gettin' down."

I keep sounding like a broken record, but people are definitely entitled to their opinions, but when people go so far out of their way to defame and slander someone who has a differing opinion there's something really wrong with that.

You have your beliefs. I have mine. Were both entitled to them, but the SECOND, you impose your beliefs on me or use mine against me, that's when a line has been crossed.

The same does go for the teacher. Thank you for bringing up that point. I completely missed it.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


You're completely right. But I'm mainly focusing on the labels that average citizens through around at other citizens. Not the governments who have a vested interest in targeting certain groups.

While the Bush admin. may not have targeted specific groups (only because they were very careful in their wording, but we all know what groups their comments were directed at) average citizens WERE targeting liberals as being unpatriotic, terrorist sympathizers. Unfortunately, the tables have turned now that dems are in power, but this time it is worse because the right has been specifically targeted by the WH.

If I read the article correctly, the teacher's class was in a PRIVATE SCHOOL. That makes a whole lot of difference. A public school might be a more objectionable forum for partisan beliefs, because students must attend whether they agree with their teacher or school or not. But a private school is free to pursue it's own secular or religious agenda. The parents voluntarily enroll their students in it and can withdraw them anytime they please.

The article also doesn't mention whether or not the parents were notified that their children's performance was going to be aired on CNN, but I assume they were. There is no evidence in the article that they were not.

For all I know the children were expressing their parents' own political views.

There was a thread a couple of weeks ago that showed children in a private school praying for a life-sized cutout of George Bush. As a parent I would strongly object to my child doing that, but, again, it was a private school and a private curriculum can set its own agenda.