Parents or babysitters: I know which one I am

Obra Shalom Campo Grande/Flickr

The joy one feels when your child is born is unparalleled in human experience. Holding that small being in your arms. A new person, a part of you brought into the world. A tiny, fragile little human, one who is wholly dependent on you for its life. Nothing in our experience as people really compares to that moment and that experience. Forget money, forget career, forget a sub-two-hour marathon or Everest or becoming a "Million Miler" on your favorite airline.

When you hold your baby in your arms, you're terrified. You're proud and humbled at the same time. You did that! But also, holy crap, what did you do? In that moment, you realize there is nothing you would not do for that child. Nothing you would not give them, nothing you wouldn't sacrifice to protect him or her. For those of you who've not been through it, I can tell you it is life changing. It's life changing every time you go through it, too. First child or fourteenth.

It's an unspoken bond that we share as parents. If you aren't one yet, just believe me. Parents know.

But today, I think we have to be honest and ask ourselves: Are we still parents? Is that still a thing? Are we still parents, or are we babysitters?

As a parent, you get to direct the affairs and decisions for your kids. While still respecting their basic rights as human beings, you help determine the course of their life. What they wear or don't. What they eat. When they sleep. What books they read. What games they play. When they get a bike, when they get their first BB-gun. It's an awesome, terrifying responsibility, every minute of it. What if you screw something up? What if you let them eat too much candy? What if they sit too close to the TV? What if letting them play with your Apple watch results in accidentally sending dozens of pictures of your nose-hairs to your PTA president? (Try explaining that one at your next parent/teacher conference.)

As far as your kid is concerned, you're a bit of a benevolent dictator, at least until they get into their teens and figure out you're mostly full of crap and start to rebel.

As far as your kid is concerned, you're a bit of a benevolent dictator, at least until they get into their teens and figure out you're mostly full of crap and start to rebel. Those are fun days....

So as a parent, you and your spouse run the show. But when you hire a babysitter, they have only a select set of discretionary powers that you delegate to them. They run the set of plays you select for them. Feed them this, put them to bed at 9, and video games only after homework is done. Babysitters, the good ones at least, simply do the list of things you gave them to do, but don't have real authority to engage in life-altering actions for your kids. They are there to tend for a short period, but not to decide who your kids will be, how they will be raised.

Given that paradigm, and where were are today, I think we have to ask ourselves: Are we parents anymore? Can we still call ourselves that? Or are we just babysitters?

Do we get to decide the how and when of our child's development? Should they take Flintstones vitamins or not? Get all their vaccinations or not? Are they ready to learn about the birds and the bees or not? Are they mature enough to have a sleep over, to carry a cell phone, to ride bikes across Main Street to buy a soda at the Dairy Queen?

If those choices aren't yours anymore, if someone else is deciding, are you a parent....or are you a babysitter?

Today, across many modern countries with progressive Democratic policies, we don't necessarily get to decide the course of our child's life and development.

Consider Charlie Guard, the child whom British socialized medicine decided was too expensive to try to treat for a severe disorder, and was left on feeding tubes to die, despite the parents pleas to remove them from the hospital and taken to another country for attempts at treatment. Despite court battles and global press coverage, the Death Panel decided it would set a bad precedent and the parents didn't get to have the choice to attempt other ways to treat their child, even outside the country at zero cost to the Government.

What about in Canada, where it's considered legal child abuse to not address your child with their own preferred gender pronoun, at any age. Child abuse that could result in your child being removed from your home and placed in Government-ordered foster care, with you in jail the same as if you'd beaten your child with a tire iron. The same goes for teaching your children that homosexuality might be a sin in the eyes of God, also a Federal offense that is punishable by potential jail time, even if your religion beliefs indicate it is a sin.

Or in the EU, where parents can be fined if it's determined they are not giving Islam fair and equal coverage to Christianity or Judaism in their own Homeschooling program. No matter your religious traditions or scriptures, if you teach your kids that Moses was a prophet but Mohammed was not, the PC police can show up, take your kids away, because you're engaging in the hate speech of teaching Christian theology as being superior to Muslim theology. In your own home.

Or consider this.

When are you kids ready to learn about sex? Where babies come from...believe me, they start asking about it way before they're really ready to know much detail...whoever invented the Stork story was a genius, believe me.

But seriously, as parents, we have to decide that. When and how to have that discussion.

Or maybe not. Maybe not anymore. Maybe that ship has sailed. After all, maybe we're not parents anymore at all. Maybe we're just babysitters.

In 2015, advanced Sex Education became required curriculum in Canadian public schools, including primary and secondary schools, for Kindergarten through 12th grade students.

Announcing the controversial program, Education Minister Sebastian Proulx (pronounced "Proo") indicated the program would include what he termed "age-appropriate" instruction on LGBTQ and Gender-expression issues, sexual orientation, sexual assault as well as traditional sex education topics such as preventing STDs.

Although Mr Proulx acknowledged some parents and teachers may be opposed to the new compulsory content, he said the instruction was necessary. "I know it is not an easy subject. I know the questions are sensitive. But we have to respond as a society to a societal issue."

The new program was developed in a collaboration with sexologists as well as public and private organizations, including Planned Parenthood of Canada, according to CNS News Service.

When asked if parents who objected to the content would be allowed to opt-out of the new sex education program, Mr Proulx indicated such waivers would be allowed only in exceptional cases, such as if a student had been the prior victim of sexual abuse. No exemptions would be allowed for moral or religious beliefs.

During the 4 years this program was in place, the following examples of lessons, required by law in public schools, were shared by Canadian students or parents on Social Media:

  • In Quebec, children as young as 10 years old were taught that a person's gender does not necessarily correspond to their sex at birth.
  • In Montreal, kindergartners aged 6 were split into small groups and given dolls to enable them to play "house", including same-sex parent couples and gender-neutral couples where parents didn't identify as Mom or Dad, but rather "Parent 1 and Parent 2".
  • 12 & 13 year old students were given a writing exercise based on the following question "How would thinking about your personal limits and making a personal plan influence decisions you may choose to make about your sexual activity?" (from page 216 of Canada's Sex Education curriculum guide for teachers) Note the age of consent in Canada is 18, so sex at age 13 would be, by law, statutory rape.
  • In a guest-lecture provided by a nurse from Planned Parenthood, one lesson taught to 8th graders (13-14 year old kids) included a slide titled "Ways to Minimize Risk of Pregnancy". Suggestions included condoms, masturbation, same-sex partners and/or anal intercourse. Abstinence was not one of the suggestions.

Quoting again from the Canadian sex-education curriculum, "Children are expected to demonstrate an understanding of gender identity (e.g. male, female, two-spirited, transgender, transsexual, intersex, etc), gender expression, and sexual orientation (e.g., heterosexual, gay, lesbian, bisexual), and identify factors that can help individuals of all identities & orientations develop positive self-concepts."

Of the 240 page Sex Ed curriculum, two words that appear ZERO times? "love" and "marriage".

A 2012 draft of the Canadian sex-education manual for teachers included the name Ben Levin, Deputy Minister of Education of Canada among the authors. In 2015, Ben Levin plead guilty to multiple counts of child exploitation, production and possession of child pornography and pedophilia. The 2015 Canadian Sex-Education manual for teachers omitted Mr Levin's name from the list of authors.

In the 2018 elections, voters in Ontario elected a Conservative majority to parliament, largely based on a campaign against the radical sex-education program and the sexual activation of their children. Conservatives promised to roll sex education programs back to the previous 1998 standards by this school year.

Canada, sadly, is not unique in this type of initiative:

  • A BBC article from 2017, citing the alleged "success" of the 2015 Canadian Sex Education program, indicated that similar compulsory programs were being rolled out across the UK, replacing the previous programs that had focused on preventing sexually-transmitted diseases.
  • The new UK program, called "Sexual Relationships Education," would focus on teaching children as young as 12 the importance of developing a proper, healthy sexual identity and relationships.
  • The mandatory program includes instruction for students about learning to understand their own bodies, including what feels good and what does not. Quoting from a guide provided to grade 7 teachers, for 12 year old students: "Thinking about your sexual health is complicated...It's also about your sexual orientation and gender-identity, your understanding of your own body, including what gives you pleasure, and the emotional implications of sexual intimacy and sexual relationships."

But don't worry Canada, don't worry United Kingdom, we're not far behind. As of 2018, the state of California has also made this type of sexual education mandatory, with no opt-out provisions. Massachusetts has a similar program on it's ballot this fall. So the good old US of A ain't far behind you.

But don't worry Canada, don't worry United Kingdom, we're not far behind.

When the government makes the sexual activation and grooming of 12 year old children State policy, using the threat of fines or jail time for parents who may choose to not have their children instructed on how to develop sexual relationships, your rights as a parent are simply gone. When the state is teaching 5 and 6 year olds how to identify and spell vagina, vulva, anus and penis instead of cat, dog, mom, dad, your rights as a parent are gone. When the State is requiring 1st grade teachers to read My Princess Boy, which teaches "Dyson loves pink, sparkly things. Sometimes he wears dresses. Sometimes he wears jeans. He likes to wear is princess tiara, even when climbing trees. He's a Princess Boy."...when that is required reading for 7 and 8 year olds, but Huck Finn, Catcher in the Rye and The Jungle Book are all banned, your rights as a Parent are gone.

Schools in Canada & the UK have become nothing more than sexual training centers, grooming children as young as 5 and 6 years old for sexually active lives, gender fluidity, and bisexuality. In the name of remaking the world into a politically correct safe space for every possible gender identity, every sexual behavior and proclivity, they've made it the government's business to hyper-sexualize children, normalizing ultra-rare behaviors such as gender-disphoria. They are teaching young children to develop a "plan" around sexual activity and figuring out what they find to be sexually pleasurable...these lessons happen when these kids are pre-teen!

Proponents of such radical ideas claim that "children are going to become sexual active anyway" and "kids are exposed to so much online these days", that the government must step in and provide instruction. "It's a Societal problem."

I can tell you that for sure, 100%, it is a societal problem. We have a problem in our society when we believe that, by LAW, 10 and 12 year old kids need to learn about same sex partners and anal intercourse as a means to not get pregnant.

The problem isn't that kids are more likely to be exposed to pornography than the last generation was, or that they are more likely to be bullied if they are gay. We have solutions for those kinds of problems. Parents doing their job is the solution, the same as it has always been. The problem is that we have somehow come to believe that the only way to solve any perceived ill in the world is for governments to act.

Could churches and religions help provide a framework for understanding relationships, self-worth, sexuality and love? No! Ghosts in the sky aren't real! They can't help us.

Could parents determine the right way and right time to discuss sexual feelings and urges with their kids? No, parents messages will vary and discussing these things with parents can make children feel uncomfortable, only in the scientific-based classroom setting can children freely discover express their sexuality!

If in your state, province, country or local school district, you don't have a choice about sending your kids into a classroom where teachers are required to teach this type of content to your kids, don't even pretend you still have rights as a parent. Are you that delusional? Have we fallen that far, that we believe it is somehow our duty as citizens to let our children be psychologically and philosophically molded by government stooges into sexually active, gender and sex-orientation fluid "agents of change?"

If you think you still have rights as a parent, you must think that the sum total of your rights orients around paying taxes and dropping your kids off on time. That's not parenting. That's babysitting! Babysitting they are asking you to pay them for.

As for me? I'm with Mr Shapiro on this one. Beto, don't show up at my door demanding my kids learn about developing a sexual plan at age 12. If you do, we're going to have a serious disagreement. And we're a 2nd Amendment household, OK? As Ben said, i"t is never radical or outrageous to defend our fundamental rights."

Don't be a babysitter. That can't be who we are. Be a parent. Do your job! We can't surrender this ground. This must be unassailable, sacrosanct territory. Beto, you stay out of my house, my home school and out of my kid's lives. You're not welcome here.

I'm a parent. This is my job, my wife's job. We may hire the occasional babysitter. But we're parents. No others need apply.

UPDATE: Here's how the conversation went on radio.

LGBTQ IN CHURCHES AND SCHOOLS: Beto VS Ben Shapiro & How Parents Are Losing Their Rights www.youtube.com


President Donald Trump's performance at last night's final presidential debate was "brilliant" and "the best he's ever done," Glenn Beck said on the radio program Friday.

Glenn described the moments he thought President Trump came across as "sincere," "kind," and "well-informed," as well as Joe Biden's biggest downfalls for of the night — from his big statement on wanting to eliminate the oil industry to his unsurprising gaffes as the debate neared the end. But, the question remains: was Trump's "brilliant performance" enough to win the election?

Watch the video be low to get Glenn's take on the final debate before the November 3 election:


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

This is a moment "Cynical Theories" author James Lindsay probably hoped would never come. The liberal mathematician and host of the "New Discourses Podcast" recently came out as "unhappily" voting Republican, including for President Donald Trump, because the Democratic Party is now being controlled by a far-left movement that seeks to destroy our country and the U.S. Constitution.

He joined Glenn Beck on the radio program Thursday to explain why this election isn't "Trump versus Biden." It's Trump versus a "movement that wants to tear apart American society at its very foundation." Lindsay warned that if it isn't stopped, the left can toss out our rights by rewriting the Constitution — or abolishing it altogether.

"A lot of people don't understand what's happening with the election we have right now," he said. "They think it's a choice between Donald Trump and Joe Biden. And at the surface level, of course, it is. We're voting for each candidate to be duly put into the office of president. But that's not what we really have going on. We have, in Donald Trump, a man who's going to govern as we've all seen — the way he feels like he's going to govern. And we have in Joe Biden, a man captured by a movement that wants to tear apart the American society at its very foundation."

Lindsay noted the popular leftist narratives that call to "abolish anything they don't like," which now includes the U.S. Constitution. He added that "this is the movement that is controlling the Democratic Party."

"It is my belief, that there has been a largely effective kind of silent coup of the Democratic Party, that's turned it completely under the control of this movement. And that's what we're going to be electing with Joe Biden. So I can't do it," he said.

Watch the video below for more details:

Tonight at 9 p.m. ET, 8 p.m. CT, Glenn Beck goes straight to the source of the biggest story in the country with Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who takes us directly into Hunter Biden's alleged laptop.

Despite Big Tech's attempts to squash this story, there should be a mad scramble in the media to get to the bottom of major corruption allegations, but they're willfully ignoring it. However, this is not just a story about Hunter Biden. This is all about Joe Biden. It's a story Glenn has been investigating for over a year that traces back to Ukraine and China. It goes directly to the root of corruption within our political system: How politicians use their family members to enrich the entire clan and sell out their country. While the media looks the other way, Glenn asks Mayor Giuliani to show us the evidence. Giuliani details the chain of possession of the laptop and reveals news that he only had possession of the laptop days before the New York Post story broke. He says, "I reported this the day after I saw it."

He also drops a major bombshell on the show and says Big Tech doesn't want you to see evidence that "establishes with texts, documents, contracts" that "Joe Biden was a 10% partner with a Chinese communist … and there are witnesses that will come forward and testify to it."

Big Tech censorship is out of control. So to watch tonight's explosive episode of Glenn TV, you must be a BlazeTV subscriber. Because Big Tech is doing whatever it can to limit free speech, we're offering our most important discount on BlazeTV ever. Use promo code GLENN to get $30 off a one-year subscription, so you'll have 24/7 access to news and entertainment completely free of biased "fact-checks" and censorship.

Watch a preview of the show below:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

The Senate Judiciary Committee was set to vote on subpoenas to compel Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to testify on alleged censorship and bias across their platforms. But that all changed when Republican committee members "expressed reservation about the maneuver," Politico reports.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who chairs Judiciary's Subcommittee on the Constitution, was definitely not one of the committee members with cold feet. On the radio program Tuesday, he told Glenn Beck that he's fighting "vociferously" to ensure Dorsey and others testify before the November 3rd election.

"Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg are both going to testify. They're are going to testify in person. They're going to testify before Election Day. That's what I think should happen," Cruz said. "That's what I'm fighting vociferously to happen. Right now, the companies are negotiating with the chairman's office to discuss terms to come voluntarily. I don't give a damn whether they come voluntarily or under subpoena. They need to testify in person and answer questions for the American people about why they are trying to steal this election, to suppress the free speech, and to censor the press."

The subpoenas would require Big Tech leaders to testify on the alleged "suppression and/or censorship" of two consecutive blockbuster stories from the New York Post. The first story was about emails that allegedly came from Hunter Biden's computer which are currently being investigated by the FBI, and the second was based on additional emails that allegedly showed communist China directly offering millions of dollars to then-Vice President Joe Biden.

"Big Tech stepped in, and they've done something they've never done before," Cruz explained. "We know that Big Tech has been censoring individual conservatives, trying to suppress conservative speech. But the step they took here is, they blocked if any individual user tried to share either of the New York Post stories, [they] were blocked ... Sharing a news story, from a major media outlet is part of democracy, part of free speech. And not only that, they blocked the New York Post itself. Right now, today, the New York Post is not being allowed to post its own damn stories on corruption. This is ridiculous. It's a threshold that's never been crossed before, of Silicon Valley oligarchs declaring the authority to determine what the press is allowed to report, and who is allowed to see it."

Watch the video below to catch more of the conversation:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.