“If we’re going to ask questions about, you know, who has been promulgating negative ads that are completely unrelated to the issues at hand, I think I win that contest pretty handily.”
— The Supremely Eloquent Barack Hussein Obama
Pronounced "Patter-EE-koh"
E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com
Disclaimer: Simpsons avatar may resemble a younger Patterico...
The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author. They are not made in any official capacity, and do not represent the opinions of the author's employer.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
| 29 | 30 | |||||
Powered by WordPress.
McCain is right. Barack did vote for Kindergarten Sex Ed.
National Review’s Byron York tries to talk to the five sponsors of the infamous sex-ed bill at the center of the recent McCain-Obama ad war. Only one of the Illinois legislators returned his calls, and neither he nor the head of the Illinois Education Association can provide a compelling argument that explains away the plain meaning of the bill’s text, which reads: “Each class or course in comprehensive sex education in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV.”
York concludes that Obama’s explanation that he merely supported legislation that would teach kindergarteners what constitutes inappropriate touching “has been accepted by nearly all commentators. And perhaps that is indeed why he voted for Senate Bill 99, although we don’t know for sure. But we do know that the bill itself was much more than that. The fact is, the bill’s intention was to mandate sex education, especially concerning contraception and the prevention of sexually-transmitted diseases, for children before the sixth grade and as early as kindergarten. Obama’s defenders may howl, but the bill is what it is.”
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=NzI3ZDUzOTE0ZThlMTU3MTY0MDI4ZTY0MTZhY2I2MGY=
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Weblogs/TWSFP/TWSFPView.asp#8688
http://thepage.time.com/mccain-camp-memo-on-obama-camp-attacks/
Joe (8102a5) — 9/16/2008 @ 12:11 amAlrighty then, let Byron York track down some of these kindergarten kids who’ve been supposedly taught about how to have safe sex with one another and by golly lets get to the bottom of this!! Those perverted Kindergarten kids will probably try to put up a smoke screen or try and obfuscate the issue or lie outright. But, show no mercy Mr. York!! Corner them in the hallways and DEMAND THAT THEY TELL YOU EXACTLY WHAT THEY LEARNED IN THEIR SEX ED CLASSES BECAUSE OF THAT BAD BAD MAN RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.
Hopefully someone calls the cops on you.
Why are the writers at the National Review such irrepressible bully’s and dickheads. One thinks maybe if they’d gotten sex ed at some point and could get laid maybe they wouldn’t be so uptight about getting all huffy and self-righteous with librarians (Stanley Kurtz. We’re still waiting for your ground breaking expose of CAC, you twit.) and now, kindergarten kids.
Is there no limit to the crap they’ll write to secure a Regnery Publishing deal?
Peter (e70d1c) — 9/16/2008 @ 1:59 amI’ve been told it’s bad form to call The One “Barack Hussein Obama.” However, there’s nothing unfair about tagging someone with their own quotes, so why not instead call him Barack “Well, I think if you’ve got a guy named Barack Hussein Obama, that’s a pretty good contrast to George W. Bush” Obama.
Xrlq (62cad4) — 9/16/2008 @ 4:08 amWhy is it bad form to call someone by his given, legal name? The only thing I can imagine is that he somehow finds his own name derogatory in some fashion.
The male Dana (3e4784) — 9/16/2008 @ 4:59 amOh, now that you’re playing the Muslim card, what’s next?
Oh, McCain plastered Obama’s black face putting down Palin for being ‘pretty’…..ehhhhh , that’s not racist?
I like that handmade lawnsign in florida in front of rightwinger’s trailer: “Obama is half Muslin”
polyester/cotton?
I knew that Obama’s a hard sell and uphill battle…but does Phil Gramm know what his work on Wall Side did for his friend McCain?
datadave (eb12a5) — 9/16/2008 @ 5:07 amPalin is prettier than Obama, no matter what the colors.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 9/16/2008 @ 5:24 amJoe, #1
How often have you dealt with five year olds? Well, seeing as you have no practical experience with the creatures, I’ve got bad news for you …
Anything past “Mommy has a special place in her tummy where the baby grows” is quite beyond their understanding.
What you link to are stories and opining on the bill, not to the bill itself. What did the bill say. What were legislators being called to vote upon? Not what they thought they were voting on, not what pundits thought they were voting on, not what you think they were voting on, what they were voting on. What it says, not what you want it to say. Did the bill say anything on age appropriate instruction? If it did, what did it say about age appropriate instruction.?
Unlike certain parties (Wikipedia) some of us understand the importance of primary sources.
Alan Kellogg (e4d258) — 9/16/2008 @ 5:35 amAlan, I posted this in another thread on this blog, and it came from a fact-check site of the Obama campaign…in that blog, they tried to explain the vote, but, this is the exact words of the bill:
COMPREHENSIVE SEX ED FOR KINDERGARTEN
Full Text of SB0099
093_SB0099 LRB093 05269 NHT 05359 b
AN ACT concerning education.
Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, represented in the General Assembly:
Section 5. The School Code is amended by changing Sections 27-9.1 and 27-9.2 as follows:
(105 ILCS 5/27-9.1) (from Ch. 122, par. 27-9.1) Sec. 27-9.1. Sex Education.
(a) No pupil shall be required to take or participate in any class or course in comprehensive sex education if the pupil’s his parent or guardian submits written objection thereto, and refusal to take or participate in such course or program shall not be reason for suspension or expulsion of such pupil. Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K 6 through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV AIDS. Nothing in this Section prohibits instruction in sanitation, hygiene or traditional courses in biology.
reff (959425) — 9/16/2008 @ 6:22 am“Now keep in mind that we’ve been in this fight, Pam and I, back in Illinois when I was the chairman of the Health Care Committee, helped to push through legislation. And I remember Alan Keyes, I ran against Alan Keyes [laughter] I don’t know if you guys remember Alan Keyes. But I remember him using this in a, his campaign against me saying, [mimicking Alan Keyes] “Barack Obama supports teaching sex education to kindergartners.” [Laughter] And, which I didn’t know what to tell him.
But it’s the right thing to do, you know, to provide age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in the schools.”
This is a comment in Barack’s own words about this exact same bill.
reff (959425) — 9/16/2008 @ 6:25 amFrom York’s own piece:
In other words, no matter what you intend to teach, it has to be at an appropriate level for the students receiving the instruction. Only a hack like York could note that language in the very piece he writes arguing that the bill mandates sex-ed for kindergarteners.
Anyway there’s also an emphasis on abstinence. Don’t you conservatives love that sort of thing? Oh, you do…until it results in feel-good teen pregnancy stories that will help one of your own get elected, or until it’s featured in a bill that Obama supported.
Xanthippas (9c0325) — 9/16/2008 @ 6:25 amIn the comment, Barack does mention “age appropriate sex education,” but, the bill states: Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K 6 through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV AIDS. Shall include in courses offered would mean that kindergarten children shall be taught in classes those specific pieces of information.
reff (959425) — 9/16/2008 @ 6:28 amMuch as I dislike BHO, I have to give him a pass here. The key to me being the “any comprehensive sex education course” language. There’s your out. How is such a course defined? I’m guessing what qualifies is not going to apply to elementary school level classes. And maybe not even middle school.
Soronel Haetir (2fa914) — 9/16/2008 @ 6:29 amObama has a lot of ticks, one is the need to tell on himself when he knows he is lying. This guy’s weird family upbringing has given him some real issues.
BrentF (e6db0a) — 9/16/2008 @ 7:16 amA question to all you B.O. fans:
When is someone who was “community organizing” with Barrack going to come out and speak about his role?
McCain has no trouble finding people to back up his version of Hanoi Hilton.
Whats really scary about the Obama campaign is their attempts to shut down their opposition. Over at my website nancysinsights.blogspot.com we are highlighting Obama’s thug tactics trying to shut down a Chicago radio station. This guy is very scary for those of us who value free speech. For all of you who have blogs you need to report on this story. Fairness doctrine anyone? Scary stuff from Team Obama.
Nancy (412120) — 9/16/2008 @ 8:02 amSoronel, I understand your point, but, since the language of the bill itself says the “comprehensive” education “SHALL” include certain specifics, that simply says to this lay person that those things “SHALL” be included to kindergarten children.
reff (959425) — 9/16/2008 @ 8:08 amSoronel, please if you can, give me an example of how K 6 through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV AIDS would be taught to kindergarten students.
…aside…I know, I can’t think of a way to do that either…
reff (959425) — 9/16/2008 @ 8:10 amSupport for McCain’s position from an unexpected source:
How about Illinois state senator, Obama advisor, and Democratic delegate James Meeks. From the Sun-Times on September 1st:
“I want the whole nation to look at Illinois,” said a defiant Meeks, pastor of Salem Baptist Church and a state senator. “I want the whole nation to ask, ‘Why is Illinois racist?’ I want them to ask, ‘Why is Illinois treating low-income students like that?’ ”
Illinois ranks second to last in the country for state funding of public education, according to a recent survey by the National Center for Education Statistics.
Speaking on a local level, Meeks derided Chicago’s public schools — many of which serve African-American communities — for valuing sex education programs over academic ones. “And the same school is not teaching reading, writing and arithmetic. How did we get here?”
This quote came from NR’s media blog.
ROA (bea1d3) — 9/16/2008 @ 8:15 amMaybe I am out of order, but it seems to me, reading the comments and the ‘bill’s’ language itself that kindergarten through 12 shall receive instruction on comprehensive sex educationbut K6-12 get extra: prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV AIDS. . Heck some kindergarten kids I’ve overseen as a volunteer haven’t even been completely potty trained so how do you “instruct” them on sex?
Sue (4d3ef7) — 9/16/2008 @ 8:24 amI think it is just awful what B Hussein is up to now. Please McCain, please win
HusseinWillFail (4c5cb4) — 9/16/2008 @ 8:30 amOn Kindergarten Sex Ed that Obama voted for:
“It seems to me that all the McCain ad does is decline to accept Obama’s self-serving characterization of the reason why he voted for the bill. But study the text and the legislative history of the bill, as York has, and try to explain how it can possibly be considered a lie to say that he voted for comprehensive sex education for kindergartners.”
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2008/09/was-obamas-only-education.html
Or this made up Troopergate Obama smear campaign:
Democrat Mike Gravel, who knows about it from being from Alaska, defending Sarah Palin on her acts with this trooper. Gravel says what do we need to do, wait for him to kill somebody first? http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/09/comedy-gold-lefty-radio-hosts-crestfallen-as-palin-defended-by-mike-gravel/
And those directing the “Troopergate” investigation are Obama supporters (now does that seems fair?):
http://blogsforjohnmccain.com/those-overseeing-troopergate-investigation-are-obama-supporters
Joe (8102a5) — 9/16/2008 @ 8:31 am“Barack Hussein Obama”
I think you just proved his point.
JAR (ab000b) — 9/16/2008 @ 10:24 amWhat no one seems to mention is that the bill would pave the way for a change in the curriculum that was being taught. The Obama campaign itself referred to SIECUS which does spell out in detail what is considered “age-appropriate”, even for children as young as 5. No matter how you vote or how much you despise the other side of the political coin, please check out the rest of the story at the SIECUS link below and read it in its entirety. Is this curriculum only about protecting young children from inappropriate touching? Is some of this information really appropriate for the age group indicated? If it were YOUR child in the Illinois school system, how would you want your Senator to vote?
http://www.siecus.org/_data/global/images/guidelines.pdf
USAmomof4 (e59584) — 9/16/2008 @ 10:28 amAnd what point would that be, JAR?
Oops, I forgot. It is racist to note that Barack’s middle name is Hussein.
JD (41e64f) — 9/16/2008 @ 10:33 amHere’s the quote of the day, kids.
Carly Fiorina
JAR (ab000b) — 9/16/2008 @ 10:37 am“Milhaven: Does Sarah Palin — John McCain obviously thinks she has the experience to become president of the United States. Do you think she has the experience to run a major company like Hewlett Packard?
Fiorina: No, I don’t. But you know what, that’s not what she’s running for. (Laughs) Running a corporation is a different set of things.”
What is so wrong with that, JAR? She doesn’t have that experience. Baracky’s is not qualified to run a mortgage company, a hot dog stand, or a McDonald’s, so I fail to see your point.
JD (41e64f) — 9/16/2008 @ 10:39 amNo JD, the real problem is that Barack Obama isn’t qualified for the Presidency.
Apogee (366e8b) — 9/16/2008 @ 10:42 am“Oops, I forgot. It is racist to note that Barack’s middle name is Hussein.”
No it’s just sleazy, and laughable in the context of a condemnation of sleaze[!!?] to write that that Barack Obama’s middle name is “Hussein.”
JAR (ab000b) — 9/16/2008 @ 10:42 amThe strikethrough got stripped.
JAR (ab000b) — 9/16/2008 @ 10:44 amoh well
Obama wants to impose sex education on kids in public schools, but he sends his kids to expensive private schools, exactly like the schools he attended. He knows the values involved and has selected the sort of education he wants for his own kids, but not for yours.
Ropelight (b9f273) — 9/16/2008 @ 11:18 amRopelight, you’d be horrified by the sex education in private schools. The first day of sex-ed class in my school began with George Carlin’s “7 words you can’t say on TV.” The class was taught by a litle old man with a bow tie, who’d been teaching the course since 1948. He kept it updated of course.
But anyway that’s not why I’m here. I’m here because I just recognized something about this post that somehow I’d missed. Though, as a jew, it should be Obvious.
Barack Hussein [w-strikethrough] Obama”
50 years ago it would have been my father’s middle name Yitzhak.
What would you say to Michelle MaglalangMalkin?
Racism, Pat.
It’s that simple. No other way around it.
JAR (ab000b) — 9/16/2008 @ 11:48 am