…after reading this
I’ve been engaging in selective non-listening as the brouhaha grows about Kevin Jennings, President Obama’s “Safe Schools Czar.” It’s a defensive reaction, I think. You simply can’t be worried and indignant about everything.
Today, however, I heard “Kevin Jennings” and “NAMBLA” discussed together, with the implication that there is a connection, and I had to give up and pay attention. Oy to the veh, this Obama presidency will wear a feller out.
Not having caught exactly what the deal was with “Jennings” and “NAMBLA,” I went into my online research with the expectation of finding that Jennings had not actually been a member of NAMBLA (the North American Man-Boy Love Association, which promotes pederasty). I believe such individuals are still watched closely by the FBI. Although I am happy to report that my expectation was fulfilled – there’s no evidence Jennings has ever been a member of NAMBLA – it turns out to be true that Jennings praised a long-time supporter of NAMBLA during a conference speech in 1997. It also turns out to be true that this, along with other information, sheds significant and informative light on Mr. Jennings.
Jennings founded the Gay-Lesbian Straight Education Network, GLSEN, in 1990. He has been active ever since in the movement to incorporate instruction about homosexuality in K-12 education. He edited the 1994 book Becoming Visible: A Reader in Gay and Lesbian History for High School and College Students, and wrote the foreword to Q***ring Elementary Education: Advancing the Dialogue About Sexualities and Schooling. As the WorldNet piece reveals (by direct quotation, so be warned), the latter work apparently dispenses with any coy film of outdated prudery, and gets right down to the ins and outs of sexualizing seven-year-olds. It’s obligatory in right-wing commentary to note that Bill Ayers provided a jacket endorsement for this book, so, there it is.
Lori Roman at Regular Folks United has a link-packed piece on this. The Minority Report and Gateway Pundit have also posted useful items. It’s in the context of his long association with the agenda of bringing homosexuality to the K-12 curriculum that Jennings’ laudatory remarks about Harry Hay, a really long-time gay activist, must be viewed. At a GLSEN conference in 1997, Jennings – GLSEN’s founder and leading light – devoted a long paragraph in a speech to praising Harry Hay, whom he described as “one of the people that’s [sic] always inspired me.” The transcript of the speech is here. Harry Hay (see his Wikipedia entry) had a long and checkered history as a gay activist, having founded his first group in 1948. In his later years, as the Wikipedia bio demurely notes, he began to insist on the right of NAMBLA (which advocates felonious sexual assault on minor children) to march in gay pride parades. Lori Roman’s link to the NAMBLA site, meanwhile, shows a list of Hay’s collected writings in explicit support of NAMBLA and “Man-Boy Love.” The exculpatory theme emerging on the left, that Hay wasn’t a member of NAMBLA either, and that Jennings’ praise of him in 1997 was not in the context of NAMBLA’s peculiar portfolio, is inane and properly dismissed. There’s beef in this burger.
Hard as it may be to believe, I wouldn’t even have to know about the indirect NAMBLA thread to find Jennings’ background wholly inappropriate to the Orwellian position of “Safe Schools Czar.” That’s just the reference that persuaded me to pay attention. Jennings’ association with the two books mentioned above does it for me. Some things it is suicidal to be cynical about, and the influences we allow on our children are a whole set of them. It is not OK that there is a political movement dedicated to teaching elementary school children about homosexuality, in defiance of anything their parents or the community at large may prefer. And it is not OK that advocates of a radical political and social agenda are using the schools to reach America’s minor children with it.
If possible, it’s double not-OK that Obama appointed this individual to supervise a federally-administered concept of “safe schools” for the country. Quite obviously, what “safe schools” means in this context is “schools in which straight kids of all kinds, including conservative and religious kids, are required to demonstrate positive affirmation of homosexuality, and in fact are taught to do so from their earliest years, well before they are of an age to understand the complex emotional matter of sex, or think critically about moral issues.” “Safe schools” means “assuming that any failure to positively affirm homosexuality – even just remaining politely silent about it, or avoiding discussion of it – is evidence of a bigotry that may well be criminal, or at least may foster criminal tendencies that must be averted by forced indoctrination.”
Where does Obama find these people? Hannity is right. Jennings needs to go.
The Optimistic Conservative 
Obama Inc.’s HR department really flubbed this one. If there’s one group of Americans with a miniature capacity for acceptance of the gay agenda, it’s the general black community. Probably the smartest thing the Anointed One could do is publicly tramp this guy, but then he’d be alienating a portion of his radical base. Why is it that the leftists have to appeal to every element on the fringes of normal society? Are the votes of the mentally ill that significant in an election?
And where’s the federal obligation to even address this non-problem?
“Where does Obama find these people? Hannity is right. Jennings needs to go.”
A very, very good question and one that needs to be asked, but NOT of Obama.
It needs to be asked rhetorically of the American people…thus it would be a mistake to ‘pluck this weed prematurely from the garden’.
It’s obvious that if not for his Obama appointment as another czar, Jennings extreme radicalism would be of relative unimportance.
But it is exactly his position within the Obama administration that makes his off-the-charts radicalism, potentially the ‘gift that keeps giving’.
BTW, Jenning’s radicalism extends to advocacy of publicly-funded schools, segregated to include only gay and lesbian students.
For that reason, Republican’s should NOT be in a hurry to prematurely push for his resignation.
What an opportunity!
This is political dynamite because it concerns people’s children. Nothing will get people’s attention faster than a threat to their children.
There’s no way for Obama to spin this, Jennings has publicly and repeatedly stated his views, just as many of his most controversial czars have and cumulatively, public viewing of the evidence can be absolutely devastating.
A Political Action Committee could create quite a political firestorm by simply running TV ads with clips of the various, highly controversial czar’s video taped statements… and then asking the rhetorical question; “What, Mr. President is going on? Are these your views? If not, why did you appoint to such important and powerful positions, people so deeply out of step with the mainstream of American opinion?”
Then run the video of Obama stating that we should judge him by the company he keeps…
Because most Americans have no idea of just how radical many of his ‘czar’ appointments are, polls would shortly show his support and job satisfaction ratings plummeting.
That, inevitably translates as lost support on the Hill and a concurrent inability to pass legislation…
After all, “a crises is too important an opportunity to let go to waste”, right?
cm — your question where this comes in as a federal responsibility is, of course, dead on. We seem to have stopped asking that one decades ago, though. The need to get back to a better federalist footing — with Washington staying out of what belongs to the states — is one of the reasons I fear that merely electing more Republicans in 2010 will not set us back on the right path as a nation.
GB — meanwhile, I guess you’ve identified a rewarding theme for the 2010 elections? Obviously that would be the time to flog the Jennings insanity hard, in GOP advertising. I’m not sure things can wait that long, given this guy’s hard-core radicalism. We have zero visibility on what he may be doing right at this very minute, in terms of federal regulation for “safe schools.” The MSM certainly aren’t going to tell us.
JED,
It could be a most rewarding theme for the 2010 elections but I quite agree that we can’t wait that long.
I think we should be hitting this theme hard NOW.
That is why I’m suggesting the use of PAC’s to get the word out, a ‘campaign’ consisting of a series of ads exposing important information being covered up by a complicit media, using them to end-run around an MSM that most certainly will not report any news deemed detrimental to the Obama administration.
The majority of the American public have no idea how radical so many of Obama’s czar are, hell, most people don’t even know there are czars.
PAC TV ads can correct that and create a political firestorm. These radical statements by Obama’s appointed czars are literally incendiary and potentially, ‘political nuclear bombs’.
The Obama administration is walking on extremely thin ice and sufficient exposure will convincingly demonstrate that the “emperor has no clothes’.
In Obama’s insular world, there’s no one to his left that is too extreme for a position in his government. I wonder, when I see situations like the Jennings fiasco, how it is that in this huge country of ours he can’t find progressives who aren’t noxious to decent Americans. Why does this keep happening? Is it simply incompetence in failing to run background checks or does our president really mean to sicken us with moral slobs like Jennings and Jones?
It’s entirely intentional Shane.
For anyone to work in the white house or come in regular contact with the president, the secret service conducts an exhaustingly thorough vetting process. The only people who can override that process are the President, the First Lady and the President’s Chief of Staff.
There is nothing about any of the czar’s that Obama did not know prior to their appointments.
In light of those facts and their expressed radical belief’s, no other conclusion is possible than that he, at the very least, condones those positions.
“Is it simply incompetence in failing to run background checks or does our president really mean to sicken us with moral slobs like Jennings and Jones?”
Shane, I’d say the Obama plans to sicken us (in a manner of speaking) and that it’s not incompetence per se or a simple failure to look at a background check.
In Obama’s world, these people are not repulsive like they are to you and me. I suspect that he doesn’t think that these people will “sicken us,” and tends to believe that they are morally exquisite. This is a result of living his entire adult life surrounded almost entirely by elite far left believers (All his schooling, Chicago politics, friends like Ayers/Wright/etc….). He’s barely had any exposure to conservative viewpoints and certainly isn’t in touch with average Americans and their needs and desires. That he appoints someone like a Van Jones is not, in Obama’s world, an aberration. It’s a logical (and perhaps “mainstream” in Obamaland) appointment. I’m certain that if Obama learned that Van Jones said and supported the things that Glenn Beck exposed to everyone, but that ONLY Obama knew – Van Jones would still have a job.
“BTW, Jenning’s radicalism extends to advocacy of publicly-funded schools, segregated to include only gay and lesbian students.
For that reason, Republican’s should NOT be in a hurry to prematurely push for his resignation.”
Geoffrey, I may disagree with you a little bit here (unless I’m not up to snuff on the facts yet). That Jennings *advocates* segregated gay/straight schools is bad. However, there’s a difference in *advocating* and *enacting* a policy. If he merely advocates it, but does nothing to enact it, then we will likely have this guy around for a lot longer than he should be (like, through the weekend). He should be exposed as much as possible now I think so that hopefully he gets the Van Jones treatment and will do a lot less harm without the “Czar” title in front of his name.
As a side note, at what point did we cross the rubicon and have elites, and now public officials, support the *separation* of minority groups from majority ones? For decades the fury was in that minority groups wanted yet to be attained *inclusion* with the majority groups – where it didn’t already exist. Have I entered Bizzaro World or something?
Stuff and nonsense, geoffrey. There are things about every person that nobody knows.
Repeated attempts to tar somebody with the opinions of the associates of third-tier subordinates simply shows your desperation and bewilderment.
GB — I’d go further and say Obama has barely had exposure to CENTRIST viewpoints, much less “conservative” ones.
I don’t think most Americans care what Jennings prioritizes in his private life. And as you say, it’s not his advocacy of extreme social-experiment positions that horrify others, but his being placed in a position to actually implement the measures he has spoken of, in a federal education bureaucracy with little supervision from Congress.
This isn’t just an anti-conservative development, it’s an anti-centrist development. Even the least politically-aware people naturally and viscerally oppose seeing government used to force moral confrontations on the public, USING THEIR OWN CHILDREN TO DO IT.
That Obama is perfectly willing to appoint officials who advocate this agenda tells me he has no understanding of a good 95% of the American people. Only some of those people are “conservatives,” but all of those people object to radical experimentation on children undertaken by the state.
fuster, I take it that when you say “third-tier” associates you mean people like Jennings and the other czars – and that the “somebody” getting tarred is Pres Obama. Don’t lose sight of the fact that these “third-tier” associates were appointed directly by Obama himself. And they are weilding enough influence that even Senator Feingold is concerned about the power they have.
So while it may be quite true in many circumstances that it’s unfair to “tar” one person with the opinions of others, I think you are being unreasonably dismissive in this case. Obama deserves blame for appointing someone like Jennings.
I’m not sure that I’m being dismissive, Ritchie, as much as I am being suggestive that people such as geoffrey are overstating the responsibility of the appointer for the opinions of an associate of the appointee.
Tell me if you think we should be sickened at the morality of Reagan for having surrounded the White House with convicted (and unconvicted) felons.
Would you expect that Reagan should be criticized for the morality of the not just these people that he appointed but also for the people that they associated with?
I don’t.
I do think that there is a measure of responsibility that Obama bears, but it’s responsibility for the actions of his appointees, not every last person that they know.
fuster, I think we’re talking past each other here. Neither I, nor Geoffrey (nor J.E. for that matter) suggested that Obama should be blamed for the opinions of some person that Jennings may have supported in one capacity or another at some point. I/we are saying that Obama should be blamed for appointing Jennings *himself.* The NAMBLA connection of a Jennings friend was dismissed by J.E. as a non-story and Geoffrey didn’t even mention it.
What I/we are saying is that *Jennings’* beliefs that homosexuality should be required teaching to people that only have one number in their age is close to appalling (not the least because the state should not be in the business of advocating/teaching things that should be only under the purview of private citizens). As is that he wants segregated gay/straight schools.
I’m certain that Geoffrey does not need me to defend him, but I feel obligated in case Geoffrey is elsewhere and won’t see your reply to him.
Ritchie, perhaps we’ll understand each ither more fully if you would point me to something that Jennings has done in the performance of his job that’s been questionable.
Or, if not that, perhaps something that Jennings himself has said any time in the last decade or so that bears upon his function.
fuster, do you disagree that Jennings wants to teach youngsters about homosexuality? If so, then we can delve into that. If not, then I believe that’s enough to oppose his ascendancy to czardom. He’s the Safe School Czar. If he was the Horse Racing Czar, I couldn’t care less about whether he believes in such teachings.
I’m not aware of anything in his job performance as Czar that is particularly egregious. Yet. However, I wouldn’t want something drastic to happen first, and then the rest of the world wakes up to what’s already been done. I don’t want a public school program implemented that should be in the realm of the home or private community.
Ritchie, I don’t exactly know what you mean by saying that Jennings wants to teach kids about homosexuality.
That could mean any of a dozen different things and I would hope that you would clarify.
What I do know for sure is that unless Jennings has himself said or done something illegal or grossly unethical, the people demanded that he be fired seem to be hysterical.
What has this guy done?
J.E., is there a limit to how many times you’re allowed to make your point in the comments of this blog? What’s the penalty for exceeding the limit? I think I’m in the danger zone.
I too think it a bad idea to attempt to try to cover every variant of human sexuality in grammar school, if only because the subject is way beyond the capabilities of most grammar school teachers. Because it is it will necessarily require the hiring of a large contingent of sexuality experts who will drive the curriculum toward including every conceivable variant, etc.
But I also think we sometimes neglect the much more simple argument that nothing beyond readin’, writin’ and ‘rithmetic should be taught in any grammar school that doesn’t already have the large majority of its students up to minimal levels of performance. One of the biggest problems with our schools is that we’ve freighted them with all sorts of extraneous functions.
“J.E., is there a limit to how many times you’re allowed to make your point in the comments of this blog? What’s the penalty for exceeding the limit? I think I’m in the danger zone.”
Yeah, RE, you’d think, on the face of it, that fuster didn’t read the original piece of visit any of the links.
But the only limit here may be your patience.
Sully — good point about the 3 Rs.
Read your stuff and followed your links. The links are all shoddy sht. Read them again. They’re a swamp of third-hand accounts of fourth parties.
Every time that there is an allegation of something in print, there’s a paraphrase instead of a quotation.
And every last thing, at bottom, concerns someone other than Jennings.
Do better.
What you are saying is demonstrably untrue, fuster.
let’s get married.
Stalker.