Thursday, September 03, 2009

NYT Story on UN Sex-Ed Guidelines, Several Weird Things

This little story is weirder than it seems, and on the face of it it seems pretty weird. The New York Times had an article this week about new sex-ed guidelines issued by the United Nations. Here's how it starts:
PARIS — A set of proposed international sex education guidelines aimed at reducing H.I.V. infections among young people has provoked criticism from conservative groups that say the program would be too explicit for young children and promote access to legal abortion as a right.

The guidelines, scheduled to be released by Unesco in a new draft next week, would be distributed to education ministries, school systems and teachers around the world to help guide teachers in what to teach young people about their bodies, sex, relationships and sexually transmitted diseases. They would address four different age groups.

“In the absence of a vaccine for AIDS, education is the only vaccine we have,” said Mark Richmond, Unesco’s global coordinator for H.I.V. and AIDS and the director of the division that coordinates educational priorities. “Only 40 percent of young people aged 15 to 24 have accurate knowledge” of how the disease is transmitted, he said, even though that age group “accounts for 45 percent of all new cases.” Sex Ed Guide Generates Opposition

I had seen a summary of these sex-ed guidelines on another site, and they are pretty controversial sounding. I even flipped through the report, not reading but just seeing what it was, I figured I'd come back to it. The UN recommends pretty explicit information for young children regarding sexual function. For instance, according to THIS blog report, the 5-8 year old category includes learning about:
  • Private body parts that can feel pleasure when touched by oneself
  • Basic information regarding conception, fertilization, pregnancy and childbirth
  • The natural exploration of one’s own body
  • Masturbation: the touching and rubbing one’s genitals
  • Cultural and religious messages regarding sex, gender and sexuality
  • Gender roles, gender inequality and gender-based violence
  • Consensual sexual activity and sexual abuse
  • Male and female sexual organs
  • Sexual diversity
  • HIV/AIDS and sexually transmitted infections

Just to give you an idea. Not everybody would agree about the appropriateness of these topics for kids that young, let's say. But whatever, it opens the subject up for debate. Why wouldn't you teach eight-year-olds that some parts of your body feel good when you touch them? It is an undisputed truth, and everybody knows it, what's so terrible about saying it out loud? See what I mean? There are things to talk about here.

Now here's the first weird thing. The link in the NYT article, which I included in the blockquote above, goes to some 2008 report from a 2007 conference, a document titled Review of Sex, Relationships and HIV Education in Schools. That isn't new, and it does not contain guidelines, it is a review of sex-ed education, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. It is clearly the wrong document.

Here's the second weird thing. I went back to read the original, and the UN has taken their document offline. It was HERE, and it was more than a hundred pages long. The current document at that link is one page long, with text covering the title that says, "A new version will be available soon."

So it sounds like they are taking the criticism very, very seriously.

More from the Times:
But the conservative criticism has already caused one of the key participating and donor agencies, the United Nations Population Fund, to pull back from the project and ask that its name be edited out of the published material, United Nations officials said.

A Population Fund official, reached in New York, said Tuesday that the fund wanted changes to the text. “Discussions are ongoing to make the publication more effective and adaptable by countries, so it may better serve countries as guidelines for use in national educational systems,” the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of the matter.

A draft issued in June has been attacked by conservative and religious groups, mainly in the United States, for recommending discussions of homosexuality, describing sexual abstinence as “only one of a range of choices available to young people” to prevent disease and unwanted pregnancy, and suggesting a discussion of masturbation with children as young as 5.

We are familiar with that way of wording things, "children as young as 5." The 5-to-8 category gets some information, so they say the five-year-olds get it. The construction casts doubt on the author of this piece, Steven Erlanger, and alerts you to other signs of bias in the article. An objective author would have said that children would have the knowledge "by the age of eight." But the Times chose to go with shocking rather than accurate. Look, HERE is an article on a conservative web site titled "United Nations Plan: Teach Masturbation to 5-Year-Olds." See how clever that is? The New York Times should be better than that.

Suspicion having been raised, I wonder what exactly in the recommendations the Population Fund objected to -- there is no reason to believe they objected to the imparting of accurate information at a surprisingly early age, they may have objected to something else. But listen, we're talking about organizations that generate paperwork by the ton, there's not much of a chance I'm going to Google around and find out what this group objected to. That means the author gets away with implying that the United Nations Population Fund sides with puritanical conservatives in this matter.

Skipping down...
The barrage of criticism has put Unesco, the United Nations agency charged with advancing education and culture worldwide, on the defensive. The agency has removed the June draft of the guidelines from its Web site, and delayed the release of the final document.

“Unfortunately, the way the guidelines have been presented by certain media has provoked some fairly aggressive reactions, mainly in the form of virulent comment on conservative American Web sites, but also via some very nasty e-mails directed at the two co-authors as well as certain Unesco staff,” said Sue Williams, the spokeswoman for the agency, which is based in Paris.

Okay, that explains why the document I was reading a couple of days ago is gone now. It doesn't explain why the Times links to a random 2008 report though.

Man, I wish I'd saved that thing.

Then weird thing number three:
The guidelines suggest, for example, that teachers begin discussing masturbation with children ages 5 to 8, with a more extensive discussion for those ages 9 to 12.

Michelle Turner, founder of the Maryland-based Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum, says children that age should be learning “the proper name of certain parts of their bodies” but “certainly not about masturbation.”

“I’m really concerned about what they want to teach 5- to 8-year-olds, and I have concerns about their position on abortion and the way they want to present it to youth,” she said. “Where are parents’ rights? It’s not up to the government to teach these things.”

Here is an international organization issuing guidelines to be used all around the world, and the reporter calls up Michelle Turner of Montgomery County's Citizens for Responsible Whatever to ask her what she thinks about it?

That is some thorough reporting.

Not to be a spoilsport or anything, there is nothing here about "the government," this is a United Nations report. I understand that conservative people might not want their children to find out that touching certain body parts is pleasurable, but this report is not a mandate, not "the government," it affects "parents' rights" in no way.

I think of our controversies here as local, sometimes forgetting the media attention we have gotten. It is possible that Michelle Turner, having championed the failed effort to undermine our county school district's intention to teach students about contraception and sexual orientation, is, after all is said and done, a nationally recognized expert on such matters. I would say that the techniques used by the CRC in fighting sensible sex-ed were the precursors of the kinds of "death panel" and "euthanize grandma" techniques we see now being implemented at the national level, so maybe our little fishbowl is a bigger deal than we realize sometimes. Maybe Michelle Turner's opinion matters to somebody.

Oh, but here's one of those nutty liberals who wrote this recommendations document:
But one of the guidelines’ authors, Nanette Ecker, former director of international education and training at the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, said that given the extent of sexual abuse, unplanned pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases, sex education has to start early in order to “provide young people with the specific information and skills they need to navigate safely from childhood to adulthood.”

Why, I never! Those liberals and their wild ideas!

One more important aspect of this:
“The document is not a curriculum,” Mr. Richmond said. “It focuses on the why and what issues that require attention in strategies to introduce or strengthen sexuality education.”

The US has traditionally ignored UN recommendations about everything, and I am pretty sure these guidelines would never in a million years affect any decision made by any school board or schoolteacher. But this is a polarizing topic, and knee-jerk conservatives know what their opinion is as soon as they see the title of the document, it's not like they have to read it to know they're against it.


Anonymous herbert O said...

"Here is an international organization issuing guidelines to be used all around the world, and the reporter calls up Michelle Turner of Montgomery County's Citizens for Responsible Government to ask her what she thinks about it"

By doing what others had thought impossible, Michelle has become an internationally renowned figure.

She stopped the gay agenda in the very bastion of liberalism and put their plans off a couple of years.

Other of her colleagues, like the estimable Peter Spriggs, have even been nominated for awards for their visionary work.

The New York Times knows where to go for vital insights into this field.

September 03, 2009 11:49 AM  
Blogger Tish said...

You ask "Why wouldn't you teach eight-year-olds that some parts of your body feel good when you touch them?" They already know.

Kids live in their own bodies. They learn what feels good. It's perfectly natural. What I don't understand is the people who think children don't know about touching themselves. Do they strap their children down? Put manacles on them while they shower?

Years ago some friends of ours adopted a baby boy. They were at the pediatrician's office for the one-year check up and the doctor asked if the parents had any questions. The dad said, "He's started playing with his penis a lot. When will he stop doing that?" The pediatrician looked at dad and asked, "Have you?"

September 03, 2009 11:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Great post, Jim...significant and important topics to discuss. will not take that long for the various "Anonymous" posters to talk about Obama's upcoming speech before Congress or the merits of Sarah Palin as a viable candidate for President.
I'd love to be proved wrong on this prognostication but we all know it will happen!

September 03, 2009 12:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said... clever of you...using "herbert o" as your pseudonym! How you hunger for authenticity! ("internationally renowned figure"? oh, puleeeeze.) And Peter Spriggs "nominated for awards for their visionary work"?
What are you flavoring your Kool Aid with these days?

September 03, 2009 12:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"By doing what others had thought impossible, Michelle has become an internationally renowned figure."

Michelle Turner is a professional part-time dog-walker quoted in the New York Times as an international expert on sex education -- just like we had the failed Judges and Stewards Commissioner for the International Arabian Horse Association appointed to be director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Ms. Turner may have done what others had thought impossible, just like Brownie did what others had thought was impossible, twiddling his thumbs while one of our greatest American cities was washed into the sea.

September 03, 2009 12:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Michelle simply echoed a view lots of conservatives hold... maybe you teach 5 year olds the proper names for the body parts but that's it.

I cannot imagine sitting down and having a discussion with my 5 year old twin nieces about this subject.

My lovely little niece who bursts out in song "I believe I can fly" when my 13 year old son indicates that we have a long bike ride ahead and we are going to have to fly....(the twins were on trailers).

You all are a horrible corrupting influence on children. Teach yours whatever you would like ... leave mine alone.

Wow. You should be really ashamed of yourself Jim for attempting to justify this. Really ashamed. Have you forgotten what innocent little creatures 5 year olds are ?

I haven't.


September 03, 2009 1:16 PM  
Anonymous herbert O said...

"Obama's upcoming speech before Congress"

I can't imagine that he's going to dazzle anybody.

He's Joe Cool. That's worked for him so far but it doesn't mesh well with this situation.

His smarter move would be to adjust his proposals and not make a prime-time address out of it. that would more suit his personality. By cutting his losses he could regroup and try again after contemplating lessons learned.

This address will probably signal the end of his chance of enacting his agenda.

"or the merits of Sarah Palin as a viable candidate for President"

She has proved her political potency again by alerting America to the Death Panel problem.

A direct hit.

Big bonus: this week, the no-account redneck ex-BF of her daughter is talking trash to the NY media glitzers.

She's sure to get alot of sympathy out of it.

Her and Todd sometimes yelled at each other. OOOO...scandal.

Who ever heard of such a thing?

"while one of our greatest American cities was washed into the sea"

That happened in a flash. Nobody had time to twiddle while it happened.

A massive rescue effort was needed and it wasn't sufficient but the catastrophe was unique and the locals didn't do any better.

You can dis Michelle all you want but the NY Times is calling her and not TTF. That says something.

September 03, 2009 1:18 PM  
Blogger JimK said...


I don't know what it is you think we -- or I -- stand for or endorse. This article is about some United Nations sex-ed recommendations, not mine or TTF's, in fact if I were developing a curriculum I would not recommend teaching anything about masturbation to elementary school children.

Honestly, there is something that worries me about your comment, Theresa. When you use this kind of emotional language, turning me into a monster because I report on a UN document and point out the fact that there are issues here to be discussed, it is clear to me that you are seeing things out of proportion, and I am not confident that you or members of your group will know when to stop. You seem unable to acknowledge that I am a father who loves his children and cherishes the innocence of all children as much as you do, you seem driven to demonize me, and I don't know why you are like that, but it scares me a little bit to think of what could happen if you or someone else were to act on your beliefs.


September 03, 2009 2:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"dis Michelle all you want"


Michelle is from "an obscure local organization in the state of Maryland in the United States."

And she walks dogs for pocket change.

September 03, 2009 3:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am very realized to hear that you don't think teaching about masturbation to elementary school children is appropriate.

You are aware that MCPS currently shows a movie that has a kid clutching his dirty sheets from a wet dream and running into his older sibling ? They show this to 10 year olds. that was the year I pulled my kids out.

You also said you didn't see anything wrong with using the word anal sex around 10 year olds when I complained quite vehemently that this was inappropriate.

So perhaps you have changed your beliefs, good.

Some small children do masturbate, I am not going to deny that. Most don't. So once again, it looks like at least some TTF's are in favor of teaching all kids about it because of the few that do.

Kind of like teaching them all about sex and every little detail about it at age 10. Because "some of them" might be having sex at that age.

Dumb. Just really dumb.

And Jim, how would you have felt if Bush had decided to issue a "welcome back to school speech" and mandated that all the kids listen ? Appropriate ?


September 03, 2009 3:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Aunt Bea walks in the park too... are you going to dis her ?

Sweet. And so consistent.

September 03, 2009 3:55 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

And Jim, how would you have felt if Bush had decided to issue a "welcome back to school speech" and mandated that all the kids listen ? Appropriate ?


Does everything scare you?

Fact-check time. Obama is not the first sitting President to address the nation's public school students while they're in school.

Remarks to Students and Faculty at Alice Deal Junior High School

Thank you, Ms. Mostoller, and thanks for allowing me to visit your classroom to talk to you and all these students, and millions more in classrooms all across the country...

Pappy Bush did address every public school student in the country and guess what, they didn't all become Republicans just like they're not going to become Democrats by listening to this President address them.

FYI Anon, I take walks in the woods to enjoy nature's bounty. I do it for pleasure and exercise. Nobody pays me and I don't have to clean up any dog messes.

September 03, 2009 8:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I take walks in the woods to enjoy nature's bounty. I do it for pleasure and exercise."

What the heck?

What kind of "bounty" we talking about here? You're not eating the bugs and mushrooms, are you?

You know, if you go to one of them fancy-pants health clubs in Bethesda, you could watch a nature video while on the treadmill and you don't have to worry about stepping in anything.

Then, there's the naked women sitting around in the locker room, while the servants prepare their salads.

You can even have the chauffeur cut through the park on the way home.

September 04, 2009 6:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Fact-check time. Obama is not the first sitting President to address the nation's public school students while they're in school."

This is kind of like saying:

"Fact-check time. Iran is not the first nation to develop nuclear weapons."

Why can't Iran have nuclear weapons when other countries do?

Why can't Obama make kids listen to his speech when other Presidents have?

The answer to both is the same:

Because they're nuts!

September 04, 2009 7:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Fact-check time. Obama is not the first sitting President to address the nation's public school students while they're in school."

This is kind of like saying:

"Fact-check time. Iran is not the first nation to develop nuclear weapons."

Why can't Iran have nuclear weapons when other countries do?

Why can't Obama make kids listen to his speech when other Presidents have?

The answer to both is the same:

Because they're nuts!

September 04, 2009 7:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Theresa, et al: It's time for you to admit publicly that you are just plain sex-phobic! Passing along messages to children that they should avoid talking about sex or learning about it is nothing less that child abuse.
Grow up!

September 04, 2009 9:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Remind me again...parents of Mongtomery County Public Schools have the right to withdraw their children from Family Life that right?
That being the case, why do you say "You all are a horrible corrupting influence on children. "Teach yours whatever you would like ... leave mine alone."? Yet you deign to tell the majority of parents in the county what their children should/may not learn in school? Isn't that the major objective of CRC?
Have your children been forced to attend classes which you directed, by filling out the appropriate forms, that they be excused from? My memory needs to be refreshed... does "that was the year I pulled my kids out." mean you pulled them out of the class or out of Montgomery County Public Schools?

September 04, 2009 9:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


What do you think would be the result if all parents were to vote on whether public schools should teach 5-8 year olds about masturbation?

Up or down?

September 04, 2009 9:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Obama is not the first sitting President to address the nation's public school students while they're in school.

George H.W. Bush did address every public school student in the country"

and, now, for the rest of the story:

"President George H.W. Bush made a similar address to schools in 1991. Democrats accused the Republican president of making the event into a campaign commercial.

Critics are particularly upset about lesson plans the Obama administration created to accompany the speech. The lesson plans, available online, recommends having students "write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president.""

I heard Saddam Hussein used to do this too.

It's that Hussein gene!

He has no choice.

September 04, 2009 11:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obama and George H.W. Bush.

Two birds of a feather.

When George heard Barry was going to raise taxes too, he said:

"that's astute

let's get together and call ourselves and institute

four years from now

when you have a lot of free time

read my lips, baby!"

September 04, 2009 11:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

President George H.W. Bush addressed American students in 1991, and Ronald Reagan did so via C-SPAN in 1988. (Bush talked mainly about the importance of education, while Reagan hailed the benefits of low taxes and the line-item veto.) President George W. Bush appealed to "the children of the country" to back the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001, to no public criticism. Admittedly, some Democrats accused his father of playing politics in '91, while Newt Gingrich ardently defended him. (Waiting for Gingrich to defend Obama. Still waiting.)

But there was nothing like the frenzied reaction to Obama's planned speech (which school principals are free to ignore if they so choose) to any of the other presidents' statements to students. The Florida Republican Party went into full-tilt crazy against Obama's plan to spread his "socialist ideology," claiming "schoolchildren across our nation will be forced to watch the president justify his plans for government-run health care, banks, and automobile companies, increasing taxes on those who create jobs, and racking up more debt than any other president." State party chairman Jim Greer called Obama the "Pied Piper" -- you remember, the shady guy who lured kids away from home. Since Obama merely plans to tell students to stay in school and work hard -- an early draft of lesson materials that asked them to talk about ways they could help the president was scotched -- Politifact gave the Florida GOP its "Pants on Fire" designation.

But that's not stopping other blowhards of the Pants on Fire Party. Lunatics like Pamela Heller of Newsmax, radio host Brian Fischer and WorldNetDaily's Bob Unruh are trying to organize parents to take their kids out of school for the day. Texas Gov. Rick Perry says he's "troubled" by Obama's speech. Crazy Glenn Beck and Michelle Malkin are raging against "indoctrination" while Townhall's Meredith Jessup is calling it "a massive abuse of government power."

September 04, 2009 12:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And lest you dismiss these rantings as confined to the lunatic fringe and ratings-crazed talk-show hosts, the backlash has had an effect. First, after school administrators in mostly red states expressed concerns about exposing kids to the speech without knowing what's in it, the president's office said he'd make it available on Monday so they can read it in advance. OK, that's nice of the president, but is anybody else a little rattled that some right-wing bullies appointed the nation's unelected school administrators to vet our president's speech? And even that wasn't enough for administrators in six states: Districts in Missouri, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Virginia and Texas are telling reporters they won't show Obama's speech to students on Tuesday. (I'd urge parents of kids in those districts to protest by keeping their kids home, except liberals value education too much to do that.)

Where to start to explain this hysteria? Since the height of Sarah Palin's dishonest and divisive campaign last September, I've been alarmed by the unique way in which Obama's opponents paint him as "the other." For the life of me, I can't think of another American politician -- not even Hillary Clinton, although it's close -- who has spurred such visceral, irrational hatred. (Tell me if I've missed anyone in comments.) Sure, John Kerry was "French" and Michael Dukakis was Greek (and looked like a pinhead in that dumb helmet), but only Obama is a Marxist Communist who pals around with terrorists and wants to harm your children.

The hysteria Obama inspires in his far-right foes is primeval, primordial. From the Birthers' obsession with the facts of his birth -- which lets them obsess about his origins in miscegenation -- to the paranoia that he's coming for the children, there's a deep strand of irrational paranoia that can't be anything other than racial. These people don't merely disagree with him, they distrust and dislike him viscerally. He's not merely wrong, he's scary; even terrifying.

I've said this before, to little result, but it's past time for mainstream, responsible Republicans to stand up against this latest irrational attack on the president. I've clashed with MSNBC's Joe Scarborough over the years, and I haven't been a guest on "Morning Joe" for many, many months, but he deserves credit for calling out the people on his side of the aisle for the bile they're spewing. “Seriously, why don’t we want the president of the United States, any president of the United States, delivering the message to kids: work hard, stay in school, succeed,” said Scarborough, adding, “Get your ratings if you want, you’re just screwing your political party.” Scarborough's right, it's turning the GOP into the lunatic fringe, but I think it's also hurting the president, and hurting the country.

September 04, 2009 12:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"But there was nothing like the frenzied reaction to Obama's planned speech to any of the other presidents' statements to students."

We've haven't a socialist President for a while.

"is anybody else a little rattled that some right-wing bullies appointed the nation's unelected school administrators to vet our president's speech?"

Not me. Howsabout everyone else?

"only Obama is a Marxist Communist who pals around with terrorists"

Well, at least you're not too far gone to realize that.

"From the Birthers' obsession with the facts of his birth"


That is the Constitution we're talking about.

"I've said this before, to little result, but it's past time"

OK, you've had your say now so could you shut up now.

No one's interested.

September 04, 2009 3:00 PM  
Anonymous herbert O said...

President Obama's plan to speak to America's schoolchildren next Tuesday has some Republicans in an uproar. "As the father of four children, I am absolutely appalled that taxpayer dollars are being used to spread President Obama's socialist ideology," thunders Jim Greer, chairman of Florida's Republican Party, in a press release. "President Obama has turned to American's children to spread his liberal lies, indoctrinating American's [sic] youngest children before they have a chance to decide for themselves." Columnists who spy a conspiracy behind every Democrat are also spreading alarm.

This is overwrought, to say the least. According to the Education Department's Web site, Mr. Obama "will challenge students to work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for their learning"—hardly the stuff of the Communist Manifesto or even the Democratic Party platform. America's children are not so vulnerable that we need to slap an NC-17 rating on Presidential speeches. Given how many minority children struggle in school, a pep talk from the first African-American President could even do some good.

On the other hand, the Department of Education goes a little too far in its lesson plans for teachers to use in conjunction with the speech—especially the one for grades 7 through 12. Before the speech, teachers are urged to use "notable quotes excerpted (and posted in large print on board) from President Obama's speeches about education" and to "brainstorm" with students about the question "How will he inspire us?" Suggested topics for postspeech discussion include "What resonated with you from President Obama's speech?" and "What is President Obama inspiring you to do?"

This seems to cross the line between respecting the office and aggrandizing the man who currently holds it. As the President and his speechwriters prepare for school on Tuesday, we hope they will be more circumspect than the education bureaucracy.

September 04, 2009 3:06 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Re: the President's speech.

Our principal told us today that showing or not showing the speech to students was a teacher's decision, but we must make a genuine and deep connection to the instruction we are giving our students, and relate the lesson to the curricular goals of the class. He indicated that he and other administrators would ask teachers to justify why they were showing the speech. I, as a Latin teacher, will not show it. Perhaps some government teachers will.

The freepers have terrorized America's educational institutions about, of all things, a speech by the president, because they hate, just hate, Obama. Why is that? Hmmmm.

September 04, 2009 7:48 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Theresa and other parents:

I have overheard parents, mothers and fathers of boys, in our teachers lounge, talk about their children, and universally they have said that small boys are really happy about their penises (i.e. they touch them a bunch). I have no direct knowledge of this, and certainly don't remember. Is this true? If it is, should we tell these children they are bad and stop them? Should we discuss it? I do remember the Sunday school lessons for teenage boys about Onanism (google it if you don't know what it means), in between the lessons about not being a homosexual.

Also, Theresa and other parents, do 10-year-olds have wet dreams? Again, I don't remember. If they do, should we not discuss this alarming performance of their bodies with them?

I really don't know this stuff and am looking for information from parents.

I will say, if things are happening with children's bodies, if it happens to all of them, we should talk about it with them. Actually, I mean someone should, not me. I would blush.

September 04, 2009 7:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...




no one respond to that,


September 04, 2009 8:49 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon -- "responding to that" is what this comment section is all about. This is where we propose ideas and discuss them. You are free to disagree with what you have read.


September 04, 2009 9:16 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

"From the Birthers' obsession with the facts of his birth"


That is the Constitution we're talking about.

No it isn't. What birthers talk about is the view of the Constitution from the funny farm.

To wit:

"Obama has planned his speech not for purposes of indoctrination, as many on the right are claiming. Oh, no -- his planning goes deeper, and more evil than that. Really, he's trying to distract from a procedural hearing in Orly Taitz's Birther lawsuit on behalf of Alan Keyes, the one in which she's now filed yet another fake Kenyan birth certificate that supposedly proves Obama wasn't born in the U.S.

Allow the blog where our e-mailer got their information to explain:

As an observer of the Oba-Hussein Administration strategy and tactics, which increasingly seems to misjudge the minds of the American people and bask in the narcissistic glow of accolades from their core admirers and bought supporters, it occurred to me that the choice of Tuesday September 8th to try to hog the national news scene has much to do with another MAJOR event taking place on that date at 8:00 a.m. in Santa Ana, California.

Oba-Hussein well knows that most of the nation's schools start on September 9th, so making his message to schools when most are not yet starting CLEARLY shows he is trying to suck the oxygen out of the news cycle with this high-sounding but fraudulent pep talk to empty schools and try to bury the ELIGIBILITY story.

Federal District Court Judge, David O. Carter, will begin hearing the Obama eligibility case brought by Orly Taitz on behalf of Presidential candidate Alan Keyes and some 200 military clients, who all demand Obama provide valid documentation to prove he is eligible to be President of the USA and also to be Commander in Chief and issue/approve military orders.

Another birther suit by Taitz with another fake birth certificate (this one debunked by Jerome Corsi of World Net Daily himself) is a "MAJOR event?"


What will the crazies come up with next?

September 05, 2009 11:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

well, thanks, Anon-B for ignoring Robert's comments

the new tactic by the radical left is to characterize any oppostion as wild, dangerous and crazy

they rolled it out last fall to slander the McCain campaign rallies

then they tried it again with the town hall meetings this summer and the strategy backfired badly

a group of military people are suing over the validity of a legal document

big deal

the legal process will determine

the gig is up, you crazy old bat

Americans aren't falling for the "moderates are crazy" routine anymore

it was an interesting tactic for a while though

September 05, 2009 12:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You said: "the gig is up, you crazy old bat"

As usual, you are a rude, hateful, and exemplify very bad manners. Show some respect and courtesy when you address folks in here.

September 05, 2009 5:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think that was fairly restrained considering the rhetorical antics of our anon-B

The very model of restraint

September 05, 2009 5:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" features the kind of restraint you should consider for yourself, Mr./Mrs./Ms Anonymous.

September 06, 2009 8:44 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

the new tactic by the radical left is to characterize any oppostion as wild, dangerous and crazy

they rolled it out last fall to slander the McCain campaign rallies

More revisionist history!

Slander? You must think McCain slandered his own rally attendees then. Watch the video. McCain himself encouraged his own supporters at his own campaign rallies -- even though they booed him -- to be "respectful" in their fight with Obama over the campaign.

McCain said in response to boos, "...No no! I want everyone to be respectful, and let's make sure we are because that's the way politics should be conducted in America..."

Of course he had to say something. The crazies at his campaign rallies and the crazies outside them were getting all the attention.

September 06, 2009 12:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You must think McCain slandered his own rally attendees then."

He was speaking to those who were booing not mischaracterizing the whole group of supporters as the Democrat propaganda machine was.

There were plenty of Democrats who booed McCain too and we don't even have to mention the unfair hostility hurled at Sarah Palin.

With their abundant hypocrisy, you wonder how Democrats sleep at night.

September 08, 2009 11:41 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

He was speaking to those who were booing

Oh brother, Anon, do you really think he was ONLY speaking to the people who booed when he took the mic and addressed the entire crowd?? He was trying to keep his campaign rallies from turning into what this year's town hall meetings have become, vent sessions for SoreLosermen.

McCain told an entire rally " do not need to be scared..." after one participant said he was scared of an Obama presidency.

McCain told another entire rally Obama was "a decent family man, citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues" after one woman said she didn't trust Obama, "he's an Arab."

September 08, 2009 4:14 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home