"liberal loon" Obama supporters trampling on 1st Amendment rights...again

shagdrum

shagdrum

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
5,900
Reaction score
43
Location
KS
5th Grader Suspended For Anti-Obama Shirt

Last Edited: Tuesday, 23 Sep 2008, 7:51 AM MDT
Created: Monday, 22 Sep 2008, 9:15 PM MDT

AURORA (MyFOXColorado.com) - An 11-year-old in Aurora says his first amendment rights are being trampled after he was suspended for wearing a homemade shirt that reads "Obama is a terrorist's best friend."

The fifth grader at Aurora Frontier K-8 School wore it on a day when students were asked to wear red, white and blue to show their patriotism.

The boy's father Dann Dalton describes himself as a "proud conservative" who has taken part in some controversial anti-abortion protests. Dalton says the school made a major mistake by suspending his son for wearing the shirt.

"It's the public school system," Dalton says. "Let's be honest, it's full of liberal loons."

According the the boy's father, the school district told the student, Daxx Dalton, that he had the choice of changing his shirt, turning his shirt inside out or being suspended.

Daxx chose suspension.

"They're taking away my right of freedom of speech," he says. "If I have the right to wear this shirt I'm going to use it. And if the only way to use it is get suspended, then I'm going to get suspended."

Daxx's dad agrees with him and is encouraging his son to stand his ground. "The facts are his rights were violated. Period."

Aurora Public Schools would not talk about the case but said the district "Respects a student's right to free speech, such as the right to wear specific clothing," but administrators say they review any situation that interrupts the learning environment.

Paperwork submitted by the school district says Daxx Dalton was not suspended for wearing the shirt, but for willful disobedience and defiance.

The boy's father says he intends to pursue a lawsuit against the district.
 
The school district has the right to censor potentially offensive material from it's learning environment.

his willful disobedience was probably related to the fact that he refused to change his shirt. I side with the school, like any logical intelligent human being would.
 
And Children don't have the same sets of rights while on school grounds. They don't have complete freedom of speech. For good reason.

What would have happened if some liberal punks had beaten the snot out of him? Put him in the hospital with concussion and brain swelling? The school was putting the safety of the student first, and eliminated any problem before it could start.
 
I'm not saying it was offensive towards me. It has the ptoential to be offensive because the shirt was not tactful, and meant to offend.

Let's see some substantiation of your claim that the tshirt statement was accurate.
 
And simply because the shirt says the word "terrorist" would fall under a school dress code violation.
 
pektel said:
Let's see some substantiation of your claim that the tshirt statement was accurate.
Click to expand...
Here ya go:

The Obama-Ayers connection: Chicago Annenberg Challenge

posted at 8:11 am on September 23, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Stanley Kurtz tried to force the University of Illinois at Chicago to open its records on a publicly-funded project, and for his journalistic effort got called a “smear merchant” and “character assassin” by Barack Obama and his campaign. They didn’t want reporters snooping through the records of the Chicago Annenberg Project, Obama’s one claim to executive experience — and the years that belie Obama’s characterization of former domestic terrorist William Ayers as nothing more than a neighbor and an acquaintance.

Kurtz discovers a long working relationship between the two on a project designed to spread radical political thought by essentially feeding it to schoolchildren under the guise of educational reform:

CAC translated Mr. Ayers’s radicalism into practice. Instead of funding schools directly, it required schools to affiliate with “external partners,” which actually got the money. Proposals from groups focused on math/science achievement were turned down. Instead CAC disbursed money through various far-left community organizers, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or Acorn).

Mr. Obama once conducted “leadership training” seminars with Acorn, and Acorn members also served as volunteers in Mr. Obama’s early campaigns. External partners like the South Shore African Village Collaborative and the Dual Language Exchange focused more on political consciousness, Afrocentricity and bilingualism than traditional education. CAC’s in-house evaluators comprehensively studied the effects of its grants on the test scores of Chicago public-school students. They found no evidence of educational improvement.

CAC also funded programs designed to promote “leadership” among parents. Ostensibly this was to enable parents to advocate on behalf of their children’s education. In practice, it meant funding Mr. Obama’s alma mater, the Developing Communities Project, to recruit parents to its overall political agenda. CAC records show that board member Arnold Weber was concerned that parents “organized” by community groups might be viewed by school principals “as a political threat.” Mr. Obama arranged meetings with the Collaborative to smooth out Mr. Weber’s objections.

The Daley documents show that Mr. Ayers sat as an ex-officio member of the board Mr. Obama chaired through CAC’s first year. He also served on the board’s governance committee with Mr. Obama, and worked with him to craft CAC bylaws. Mr. Ayers made presentations to board meetings chaired by Mr. Obama. Mr. Ayers spoke for the Collaborative before the board. Likewise, Mr. Obama periodically spoke for the board at meetings of the Collaborative.
Click to expand...

First off, we should note what this isn’t. It’s not a smoking gun revealing criminal activity, and not a precursor to an armed overthrow of American government, although Ayers has done both in his lifetime and still talks approvingly of at least the latter. The program outlined by Kurtz breaks no laws, and Kurtz never claims otherwise.

However, Kurtz’ report provides a very interesting look at the early political life of Barack Obama. He had already entered politics at the time he joined the CAC, and even at that stage had allied himself with ACORN, which has found itself at the center of more than a dozen voter-fraud investigations. Obama also allied himself with Ayers and helped the former Weather Underground fugitive push forward with his plans to radicalize an entire generation of schoolchildren in the area through the CAC. Note well the parallels to community organizing that play out in the activities of the CAC, and recall again how Obama claims that activity as a major qualification for the presidency.

Ayers wanted teachers trained to instruct against “oppression” and to push schoolchildren towards political beliefs Ayers valued — apparently valuing them higher than actual education. Barack Obama agreed, and for several years worked in close partnership with Ayers to implement that educational policy. Even had Ayers never tossed a single bomb, this kind of educational philosophy would likely raise eyebrows with most parents, who desire a real education for their children and not some sort of political indoctrination camp. With the context of Ayers’ violent radicalism, however, it makes the CAC even worse — a breeding ground for future Weathermen, ready to follow Ayers’ lead when the time comes for the revolution that Ayers and his wife (and co-terrorist) Bernardine Dohrn to this day desire.

Barack Obama not only supported this, he helped run this program for several years. What does that say about Obama’s idea of mainstream, as he has repeatedly described Ayers and Dohrn? What does that say about his own politics, his own ideas on education, and what kind of philosophy he brings to American politics?

Update: Steve Diamond notes other, more political aspects of the Obama-Ayers relationship, and says the CAC was part of a campaign to fight Mayor Ruchard Daley and the teachers’ unions for control of the schools:
Ironically, while Kurtz wants to tar Obama with the red paint brush of the 60s “radical” Ayers, an understanding of the real purpose of the CAC indicates a much closer political alliance between Obama and Ayers.

The grant application itself and much of what the CAC was up to emerged in the heated “Chicago School Wars” underway in that city from the late 1980s until the late 1990s. This war was for the control of Chicago’s public schools.
One side in this war was controlled by Mayor Richard M. Daley, Jr., son of the legendary Mayor Daley.

And the other side was led by Ayers and a small group of reformers that had emerged several years earlier in 1988 during a battle to create a new power center in the Chicago schools, the so-called Local School Councils, or LSCs. The LSCs were an effort to rein in the power of unionized teachers, school principals and school administrators, in the wake of an unpopular teachers’ strike in 1987.

This milieu around Ayers also included, as far back as the late 80s, Barack Obama and the Developing Communities Project (DCP) that had hired Obama as its Executive Director in 1985. The DCP was a leading participant in the campaign to establish the LSCs.

Thus, in fact, the “radical” Bill Ayers and his ally Barack Obama, a Democratic political activist and lawyer on the rise in Chicago, were engaged in an anti-union effort to influence the direction and nature of the entire Chicago public school system. It would lead them into a battle with Mayor Daley himself.
Click to expand...
Read the whole post. I have a little skepticism about this, though, since Obama allied himself politically with both the educational unions and Daley during this same period of time. If Obama was at war with Daley and the unions, neither side acted much like it — and Daley has publicly defended William Ayers on more than one occasion.
 
Okay, but where does "terrorist's best friend" come into play here? Maybe "a revolutionary's best friend" but not terrorist.
 
Also when someone is fresh in politics, they tend to be very idealistic and want to change the world. Maybe he was too caught up in those aspects to realize any potential harm, and only saw "good" in the situation.
 
pektel said:
Also when someone is fresh in politics, they tend to be very idealistic and want to change the world. Maybe he was too caught up in those aspects to realize any potential harm, and only saw "good" in the situation.
Click to expand...
Um...no. Obama recently was allowing Ayers to blog on his campaign website.

But it's nice to see how hard you work to excuse his association with a known and unrepentant terrorist. Just keep drinking the Kool-Aid.
 
did ayers use violence ? Terrorist in the purest definition does not mate up to what I read.
 
How hard I work? That was about 10 seconds of speculation. What if's. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with you.
 
pektel said:
did ayers use violence ? Terrorist in the purest definition does not mate up to what I read.
Click to expand...
Wow you're really ignorant of this guy, aren't you?

He and his group bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol, and police stations. On 9/11/01, he said he felt like they didn't do enough.

And there's a pic of him (in this forum) deliberately stomping on the American flag.

So how hard are you going to work defending Obama now?
 
Yes, I'm ignorant of that guy. I only drew my conclusions based on what you had copied and pasted. I have many other hobbies, and politics isn't one of them. I just think it's fun to get you conservatives riled up. :D

Maybe I should start with the reading up on these issues, huh?
 
pektel said:
Yes, I'm ignorant of that guy. I only drew my conclusions based on what you had copied and pasted. I have many other hobbies, and politics isn't one of them. I just think it's fun to get you conservatives riled up. :D

Maybe I should start with the reading up on these issues, huh?
Click to expand...
Nah. Just take my word for it, I won't mislead ya. ;)
 
I'd say that a bomb is violent.

And it has been widely reported---even by the MSM---that those countries that openly support terrorism are highly positive toward Osa--(oops)---Obama. What they want can't possibly be good for us!

It's easier for the school to abrogate the rights of an individual student than to try to control the violent tendencies of the hooligans that might take offense.
KS
 
pektel said:
The school district has the right to censor potentially offensive material from it's learning environment.

his willful disobedience was probably related to the fact that he refused to change his shirt. I side with the school, like any logical intelligent human being would.
Click to expand...

Stick with your first thought pektel dont let yourself get side tracked.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/sep/23/fifth-grader-wore-anti-obama-shirt/

Aurora Public Schools officials said they respect students' free-speech rights but that they also watch for things that might interrupt the learning environment. They said they cannot discuss the specifics of Daxx's case.
Click to expand...
 
The fact of the matter is that this is poltical speech! There is no question that this type of speech is protected by the first amendment.

The school cannot infringe upon that right without due process, which was not given.

Besides, the biggest "disruption" this may cause is in the teacher's breakroom. It will not cause much of a disturbance among 11 year olds. That is a bogus argument. The teachers are really the only ones who may be "offended" by the shirt. How is that going to "interrupt the learning environment", except to maybe provide an alternative to the indocrination of the teacher...
 
Do you really think an 11 year old wore that shirt to proclaim his viewpoints, or do you think the father gave the shirt to his son so his son could proclaim 'Dad's' viewpoints.

I know 11 year olds... as Shag stated the 11 year olds could care less.

Dad is using his kid... I think we all agreed that this is wrong.

Plus, I live west of Aurora, they have a huge gang problem there - they have lots of restrictions about what kids can wear - no gang colors... etc...
 
foxpaws said:
Do you really think an 11 year old wore that shirt to proclaim his viewpoints, or do you think the father gave the shirt to his son so his son could proclaim 'Dad's' viewpoints.

I know 11 year olds... as Shag stated the 11 year olds could care less.

Dad is using his kid... I think we all agreed that this is wrong.

Plus, I live west of Aurora, they have a huge gang problem there - they have lots of restrictions about what kids can wear - no gang colors... etc...
Click to expand...
Argument of intent is no excuse for violating due process.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 242 (members: 0, guests: 242)
Back
Top