April 22, 2003
It just happened again ... New Orleans, Louisiana, one student dead, several more wounded as gunmen opened fire in a school building with an AK-47.
Following the Harris/Klebold rampage at Columbine High School on April 20, 2000, (Hitler's Birthday), conferences were held in most if not every state concerning "youth safety," culminating in a nationwide Youth Safety Summit called by then President Bill Clinton.
The purpose? To come up with ways to make our government schools and students safer in the school environment. All of this was done under the mantra that our children have the right to be safe while they learn.
Never mind that school shootings were unheard of before 1990. Never mind that guns used to appear in gun racks in pickups in school parking lots on a regular basis and were never used to harm anyone. Never mind that since the advent of education reform, something is obviously and decidedly wrong. It's out with the old way of doing things, in with the new. The paradigm is shifting. What was cannot be applied to what is! To that end, we must not look to the tried and true, we must put our faith in the tried and untrue in the interests of implementing the deception.
Nationwide, billions of dollars have been spent on conferences, summits, consultants, curriculums, laws, metal detectors and police officers in schools to "make our students safe." Schools have virtually become youth prisons. Judging from what happened in New Orleans, Louisiana, students in government schools are no safer now than they were in 2000 when Harris and Klebold cut loose.
But pockets have certainly been well-lined with tax dollars since April 2000. The number of businesses and organizations established, focusing on different aspects of "youth safety," has multiplied in direct proportion to the amount of money available for the taking. And state legislatures can't figure out why they don't have the money to balance their budgets.
But New Orleans is an isolated incident? First of all, this isn't the first school shooting since April 2000. Second, in a system that is "all" inclusive, where the mandate is to meet system goals, New Orleans cannot be termed an isolated incident, New Orleans represents the failure of the system to meet the stated purpose. The "all" mantra is a double-edged sword.
Before the youth safety summit was held in Washington State in August 2000, researchers in that state predicted the outcomes.
How could they do that? How was that possible? Because the outcomes were predetermined. The meetings held across the state and at the state level were not to obtain the unfettered input of the people, but rather were to facilitate those attending into accepting as their own the predetermined outcomes, such that the attendees would publicly support the predetermined outcomes and defend them if the need arose.
While a report, outlining the fraud and deceit of the Washington Youth Safety Summit, was submitted to the legislators of Washington state, the report was ignored and the predetermined agenda orchestrated by government bureaucrats to justify and expand their power and positions moved forward, requiring the expenditure of millions of taxpayer dollars.
It is now April 2003. There are cameras in school hallways, classrooms and on school grounds to spy on students and people. There are metal detectors to detect guns, knives and other weapons. There are police officers to patrol the hallways and school grounds. There are locks on the doors to keep students and teachers in and everyone else out. There are conflict resolution and peer mediation curriculums being taught, supposedly to resolve differences of opinion. Are the students safer today than they were in 2000? Obviously, they are not. If they were, the shooting in New Orleans wouldn't have happened.
What has been accomplished via all the safety measures outlined above? Well, a good example happened in Florida recently, when 12 year-old Kyle Fredrikson was arrested by the school security officer, Deputy Tom Langer, and charged with disruption of an education institution. What was Kyle's crime? Kyle stomped in a mud puddle after being ordered not to.
The Safe Schools program is doing exactly what it was intended to do which is not what parents and citizens have been told is the purpose of it.
This is not, by any matter of means, the first time the likes of what happened to Kyle Fredrikson has occurred. Children have been suspended for tying their shoe laces without permission. One little boy was suspended for turning his baseball cap around backward without permission. Another little six-year-old boy was suspended for planting an innocent kiss on the cheek of a female classmate. Kids have been suspended for taking aspirin to school or a kitchen knife in their lunch. Every suspension an absurd act of adults who display a decided lack of common sense. And these are the people supposedly there to educate children?
But, the zero tolerance policy message is clear: do nothing without asking and receiving permission; march to the beat of the drum of conformity like a good little soldier! If you don't, you will be punished just as Kyle Fredrikson was punished.
The purported purpose of the Safe Schools program is to make "all" students safe in the learning environment. This includes children who "might be" homosexual. To make those children safe, so goes the reasoning, "all" children must be taught and accept that homosexuality is normal, natural, and a life-style choice.
When a parent in Massachusetts sat in on a class teaching children that homosexuality was normal, taped it, and went public with what the children were exposed to and subjected to, the pro-homosexual group teaching the class threatened to sue the parent. The obvious reason was to keep the parent from divulging to the public in general the sexual perversion and deviance to which the children were being exposed and subjected in the classroom. The children weren't being taught to "hate the sin, love the sinner;" children were being taught the finer points of homosexual sexual practices and that those sexual practices were normal sexual behavior.
Were the school personnel who organized this class and the people who conducted this class arrested for what amounts to child abuse in the classroom? No, they were not. If a parent were to subject a child to this in the home, the parent would be arrested for child abuse. So why not the school personnel and those who taught the class? Because the definition of child abuse in the home is intended to remove children from the home and place them under the direct control of the state where they can be subjected to the same or worse with no consequence. There is no better proof of that than the number of children who have been raped, molested, sodomized and killed under the care of the state.
If a parent or citizen manages to divulge what is going on in the government school classroom, the government is quick to proclaim that it was all just "a terrible misunderstanding," and the program or class is shut down until parents and citizens are satisfied that the problem has been resolved, at which point everything returns to the way it was before the "terrible misunderstanding."
And people wonder why kids are going off the deep end; why kids are killing kids; why juvenile crime is on the rise. Those parents who have gone to their legislators with proof of what's going on in classrooms have received the flippant response, "It's not our responsibility; curriculum is a local matter."
At the local level, parents who have gone public have been subjected to the poison pen of the mainstream media as happened in the Stevenson-Carson School District in Washington State. Although Washington legislators were very aware of what happened in the Stevenson-Carson School District, and although state researchers had outlined for the legislators how these curriculums were the result of the state education reform law, ESHB 1209, laws of 1993, the Legislature refused to act.
People wonder why — after all this time and all the money that has been spent on "reforming" education — is education reform (aka systems education) such a failure? It is a failure, and will continue to be a failure at its stated purpose of educating children, because it is based on the religions of New Age and humanism. Our education system did not have the problems it is experiencing today when our education system was based solely on the Christian world view.
It's time to throw out the new and go back to what works! Not only is what works less expensive but it is more effective if the goal is the education of children for intelligence.
© 2003 Lynn M. Stuter - All Rights Reserved