Father Sickened By Anti-Constitutional Note From Son’s School

reply to post by Rocker2013

irst, grow up, it's not a "Liberal agenda", if that were the case how do you explain a REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT rolling out the Patriot Act?!

Sure enough it was a Republican Potus, but a Democratic Potus expanded those powers, and followed it up with the NDAA.

Of course the op was about the national discussion of gun control same argument being made for the Patriot Act is now being made for gun control.

If your not a "mass murder" they have nothing to worry about.

That's like infinitely ANTI AMERICAN. That's like, infiltrated by Chinese government style yo.

Jedi mind tricks on the children, future precedence right here.
Removing all abilities to FIGHT because it's not safe.

Even if it's the right thing to do. Some would say never, but a right is a right is a right.

Was this wrong? Absolutely. I'd flip and I'm not an American. School's fault? Nope:

The Blaze notes that the school are “checking into” the incident following a separate complaint from another parent. A spokesperson for the school said that they were unsure why the teacher had instructed the children to write such a statement.

Looks like they were blindsided too.

Originally posted by Bioshock

I don't understand how this has a place in public education? A teacher actually sat down and had students write “I am willing to give up some of my constitutional rights in order to be safer or more secure.”? Where does this stop? And why do we as Americans allow it?

This "teacher" should be fired immediately. You're there to educate students, not push your screwed up liberal agenda.

After reading through the articles cited here and the updates on this story, a couple of things have come to mind. This was written by the child during what I would call a "guest lecture" by a lawyer in the classroom to discuss Constitutional law. While I can see teaching the students what the Constitution is and why and how it came about, I'm not so sure that your average 4th grader would grasp the subtleties of Constitutional law. My own daughter notwithstanding as every conversation with her from the moment she learned to speak was like preparing to argue my case with the Supreme court, but that's a different thread altogether.

I am also not so sure how the sentiment of the statement written differs from the reasoning used by both parties after the Trade Center bombings. Or to support continued prohibitions of a certain kind that is not to be discussed here.

Penny

So we have something a written by a kid who has no idea what it means nor do we have any context as in? Could the teacher have said write this down and ask your parents how they feel. So we know nothing and yet we at ATS condem what somebody may or may not have said and want to deny that person their what? Thats right, their constitutional right of free speech for the security of children from certain ideas. So in fact you all do agree with the note. Interesting that.

reply to post by MrSpad


So you see no problem using one Amendment to destroy another?

For the kids to write he was willing to give up his rights to stay safe means he was believed giving up his rights keeps him safe.

Now where did he get this belief - it doesn't appear it came from his father?

My guess this guest lawyer was talking about how some people would rather see children be killed than give up their gun rights.

Even the MSM admitted these new gun laws would not have stopped the recent shootings. I wonder if these children were taught political opinions as facts.

I would like to see these children learn real facts about the very real dangers of giving up rights.

BTW - I don't own a gun and would never think of buying one and I would consider myself a liberal.

Originally posted by MrSpad
So we have something a written by a kid who has no idea what it means nor do we have any context as in? Could the teacher have said write this down and ask your parents how they feel.

That's true.

So we know nothing and yet we at ATS condem what somebody may or may not have said and want to deny that person their what? Thats right, their constitutional right of free speech for the security of children from certain ideas. So in fact you all do agree with the note. Interesting that.

Freedom of speech(which is incorrect btw, the 1st is in reference to gov't limiting speech) is extended to the classroom? Can a teacher say, "Monkey love is interesting."? Not appropriate nor illegal but not curriculum either.

Originally posted by intrepid
Was this wrong? Absolutely. I'd flip and I'm not an American. School's fault? Nope:

The Blaze notes that the school are “checking into” the incident following a separate complaint from another parent. A spokesperson for the school said that they were unsure why the teacher had instructed the children to write such a statement.

Looks like they were blindsided too.

they're covering themselves legally by putting distance between themselves and the teacher. it could be just the teacher, but i highly doubt it.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
it could be just the teacher, but i highly doubt it.

Why?

Originally posted by MrSpad
So we have something a written by a kid who has no idea what it means nor do we have any context as in? Could the teacher have said write this down and ask your parents how they feel. So we know nothing and yet we at ATS condem what somebody may or may not have said and want to deny that person their what? Thats right, their constitutional right of free speech for the security of children from certain ideas. So in fact you all do agree with the note. Interesting that.

the point is that they don't WANT the kids to know what it means, just blindly accept it.

would you argue that charles manson was just practicing free speech? because most would call it brainwashing.

reply to post by intrepid


Correct, someone can believe same sex marriage is wrong but I don't want them instructing public school children to write that down on a piece of paper.

reply to post by Bioshock


I don't know what to say. I'm at a loss for words.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by MrSpad

 

So you see no problem using one Amendment to destroy another?

Isn't it possible that this was the very thing the "guest lawyer" was trying to illustrate. Until we have heard from he/she we are only assuming what the intended lesson was all about, IMO.

Penny

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
it could be just the teacher, but i highly doubt it.

Why?

it is a trend that can be seen in all information venues, from news stations to indoctrination centers.

i accept the possibility that it could be a lone teacher, but when that public school teacher is parroting the same talking points as the ones who established and oversee public schools (the government), my suspicions are aroused.

Got an update and it's going to piss a lot of people off. Stinks massively:

Update, 11:36 a.m.:​ Harvey told TheBlaze he received a call from the school Friday morning that featured the principal, guidance counselor and Sabb. He was told the sentence came during the lesson with the lawyer, that Sabb had nothing to do with it, and that Harvey’s son “wrote it on his own free will.”

Harvey said he had spoken to a girl in the class who specifically said Sabb handpicked students to write the sentence.

“All the children are pointing at the teacher,” Harvey said Friday. “They [the school] told me that my son wrote that on his own free will — there’s now way he knew how to write that on his own free will. He likes to use some big words to flourish — [but] if he was going to put together a sentence that political I’m sure it would be more jumbled than a nice sentence like that.”


[Update] The teachers in the stories above haven't been fired, but another one was for "illicit Bible conveyance," for giving an inquisitive student a Bible.

I hope the link works, it's long:

______beforeitsnews/opinion-conservative/2013/04/4th-graders-crayon-paper-i-am-willing-to-give-up-some-of-my-constitutional-rightsto-be-safer-261 8416.html

Nope, that link doesn't work but it's on this site: ______beforeitsnews/

Further, looks like you were right Bob.

reply to post by pennylemon


I would love to see the justification for the wording on the paper.

Will definitely keep tabs on this.

reply to post by intrepid

nice find. the crazy train knows how to protect it's own.

it reminds me of this:

again, i'm not above acknowledging the possibility that one in their group speaks perfect english and knows how to use proper punctuation, or that they could make such a neat sign and hold it up for the camera; but it isn't like a rally is going on...do they just stand around holding up signs, or were they told to hold it and either lied to about it's meaning, or told lies that obama could come in and bomb things and that it would make their country better?

which one would be more profitable to those publishing the photo?

reply to post by intrepid


I found the response on the Blaze. Lets see if that link works..

The Blaze - School District Responds

FWIW - just two point from me..

1. I am suspect that is something a 4th grader would write of his "own free will" without some prompting and/or manipulation to do so.

2. While we are outraged that a 4th grader wrote that in school, doesn't it say exactly what we adults have been doing for years now?

reply to post by Bioshock

I hope when this kid gets to grade 10, that for his physics science project he reveals, armed with nothing but a stop watch, a few basic equations and a bunch of videos - that the twin towers of NYC on 9/11 could only have been destroyed the way they were observed to have been destroyed, by the use of explosives and not as a result of the plane impacts and fires, and that his project ends up in the national science fair with lots of headlines. That would make for an appropriate irony here, imho.