Yes, and More to Come
  
Under the Clinton Goals 2000 Plan?

By Dr. Art Barrons

It is no secret that the former U.S. Senate Bill 1513 from the 103rd Congress, the Elementary and Secondary Education Reauthorization Act, commonly known as "Goals 2000," contains language fit to make parents begin another American Revolution.
But most parents are too busy to attend to the details. And the few who appear to even care sometimes have to fight within the microcosms of their own homes to even keep their children. At least, that's sometimes the case when San Francisco's far-left PC-police (the local Child Protective Services) finds out they actually are teaching their kids morals at home.
Parents also have to battle the sexual special interests that not only want their children (and I mean want), but are forcing the discussion and display of this desire in classrooms nationwide.
That situation is more common than we think. Ask the East Bay's Reverend Austin Miles what happens when CPS policies -- and those who enforce them, although sometimes unknowingly -- are even questioned. These battles must be fought on a case-by-case basis and are prolonged by the overtly-biased dominant media (which happens to miss talking to the defense in its recursion of "facts") and also by left-wing judges imposed by the Clinton Administration.
The situation is becoming tangible on a



grand scale. It no longer is merely a hidden agenda.
For instance, I have now a public copy of "The Lesbian/Gay Speakers [yes, no apostrophe] Bureau of Community United Against Violence TRAINING MANUAL."
This high-school program was approved for use in the San Francisco Unified School District by the San Francisco School Board. But don't think, for even a minute, that this is isolated to San Francisco. After all both Bill Clinton in 1993 and then again, Hillary, in her public book-signing in 1995, described San Francisco as the "model city for the rest of the United States."
The manual is fascinating, counseling homosexual activists how to most expediently answer questions like "What do you do in bed?", "How prevalent is S&M in the gay community?", "What about man/boy love?", and "Do gay men and lesbians [note the recent partitioning of the term "lesbian" from that of "gay"]


 
form relationships?"
To defuse such incendiary issues, the instructions are:
"You might point out the stereotype which equates being gay with sex and note your own discomfort with the question."
Then the speaker is advised to fog the question: "[A]sk how people in the audience would feel if someone asked them for the details of their sex life" and say that "...gay and lesbian sex ...is not any different from imaginative [note the adjective] heterosexual sex...", and "...it is a very frightening experience for some of us... [A]t the same time... this experience is what can make sex between two gay people so wonderful."
On the "S&M" question, it is suggested the issue be defused with "ask[ing] the questioner to define what he/she means by S&M sex" which, of course, compels a classroom description and discussion.
Further, "you might want to present a spectrum of opinion. Some speakers have stated that S&M sex is often an exploration of the power relationship between people..." -- again, the rationale, the legitimization attempt. Speakers should use words such as "fantasies" and "consensual," and bring up the topic of "non-consensual activities"




as "child-abuse, the subjugation of women, and so forth."
With regard to "man/boy love," there is to be no mention of "men raping boys." Instead, "It is important to immediately label the topic as 'intergenerational sex'..."
The suggested propaganda for pedophilia culminates in the statement, "NAMBLA's main purpose is support, not sex, and not rape. NAMBLA may be is singled-out because it is a GAY organization."
The manual goes on to assert that "the vast majority of child molestations occur between heterosexual men and young girls" -- a statement has no statistical backing from any credible source to date.
Homosexual activism's "friends in the media" are not left out of this discussion. They are quoted [it is interesting how political bases, once established, back each other, is it not?] and used recursively. On "forming relationships," the question is to be answered by citing an editorial that appear 18 years ago -- July 9, 1978 --in the New York Times, mentioning a "study" by a "Bell Institute for Sex Research" concluding that "some [homosexual couples and multiples] are considerably happier and better adjusted than heterosexuals as a whole."
The manual concludes its


 
recommended recruitment pitch: "...lesbian and gay relationships reflect an equality and chance of creating mutually satisfying models that are not distinguished in heterosexual couples. The set of prescribed roles for heterosexual men and women often contributes to conflict in straight relationships. In addition, these roles can produce enormous strain particularly for heterosexual women who do not want to live out their lives as a traditionally passive complement to their male spouses, and for heterosexual men who us [sic] the aggressor role placed upon them by society."




See the direction this is going? If you are a taxpayer (and I think Uncle Sam has left none of us untouched), do you truly approve of tax monies being used to promote and subsidize this presentation to your children? Do you not question what this has to do with "...United Against Violence?"
So here we are; when will you become concerned?


Art Barrons is a Physicist and Electrical Engineer, and lives in San Francisco


Want to share your opinion? Electric Nevada's comment page is open!

Back to Electric Nevada's Front Page