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 Rightswww.youtube.com


'Lord, we are SORRY it has taken us this long': BlazeTV hosts react to historic Roe v. Wade decision

Photo by Yasin Ozturk/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

The Supreme Court of the United States officially overturned Roe V. Wade, and the debate over abortion rights has been given back to the states. On this historic day, BlazeTV hosts celebrate the Supreme Court's incredible decision and take a look at some of the insane reactions as the left comes completely undone.

Jason Whitlock: Today will forever stand as a pivotal moment in our nation’s history

The Supreme Court of the United States overturned Roe v. Wade. The decision and the reaction to it have already revealed a lot about our people and politics. Pro-life groups celebrate, pro-choice groups call for “a night of rage,” and Nancy Pelosi just seems completely confused by the United States Constitution.

Glenn Beck reacts LIVE to Roe v. Wade ruling: 'Lord, we are SORRY it has taken us this long'

I never thought that in my lifetime, I would see Roe v. Wade be overturned. But today, that day has come. The Supreme Court has voted 6 to 3 to return decisions about abortion to the states. But this fight isn't over. We are about to see good versus evil side by side. Many states will stand with the unborn. But others will become abortion mills. It's your turn to choose now, America!

Allie Beth Stuckey: 'Praise God, Roe v. Wade is overturned!'

I don't know about you, but I just had the most euphoric feelings. It almost seems too good to be true. I didn't think there was any way that this would actually happen, especially with all the backlash, intimidation, and violence toward the Supreme Court justices. And yet, here we are. Roe v. Wade has been overturned. This is an amazing day!

Dave Rubin: Big disagreement on what happens next now that Roe v. Wade is overturned

Dave Rubin, Libby Emmons, Jeffrey A. Tucker, and David Reaboi debate what will happen in the wake of the Supreme Court’s breaking decision on Roe v. Wade. Now that abortion rights have been pushed back to the states, will there be a summer of massive riots or not? Will the Roe v. Wade ruling make America’s political polarization significantly worse?

Stu Burguiere: Here are the reasons SCOTUS overturned Roe v. Wade

I never thought this would happen. I never thought I would see this day. I just never ever ever ever never ever believed that Roe v. Wade would actually be overturned. I really didn't. But let's take a look at the reasons this day has finally come ...

The Rick & Bubba Show: 'This is history! Unfortunately we're 60 million lives too late'

We were live on the air when news broke of the Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Today, the Supreme Court of the United States overturned its controversial 1973 Roe v. Wadeopinion, concluding that there is no constitutional right to an abortion.

"The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives," the syllabus of the decision reads.

As expected, the leftist outrage erupted instantaneously, fueled largely by the misinformed idea that overturning Roe v. Wade means abortion will be banned nationwide. But, as stated in the above-mentioned Supreme Court syllabus, the authority has actually been returned to individual states and their duly elected lawmakers.

One such misinformed leftist, Parkland shooting survivor Cameron Kasky, was infuriated that those awful Supreme Court justices "just voted to kill women." So he took to Twitter to urge people to go to the homes of said Supreme Court justices to "let them know how you feel."

"Go to the home of every Supreme Court justice who just voted to kill women. Let them know how you feel," Kasky tweeted.

The backlash was immediate:

Kasky decided to delete his original tweet because he is apparently "sick of republicans talking to [him]." But, unfortunately for Kasky, the internet is indeed forever:

Speaking from the White House, President Joe Biden dutifully helped spread the misinformation about the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, and took the opportunity to prompt voters to elect more Democrats in November so that Congress can write abortion protections into law. Did the president just let slip the real reason Congress hasn't made any effort to start writing such laws in the nearly two months since Justice Samuel Alito's draft opinion was "leaked" in early May?

Watch Glenn Beck and producer Stu Burguere discuss how Biden's speech reveals that Democrats are absolutely terrified of the upcoming midterm elections. Can't watch? Download the podcast here.

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.

CNN reporter tries to 'ambush' GOP candidate Kari Lake, IMMEDIATELY regrets it

Image source: (left) Video screenshot/ (Right) Mario Tama/Getty Images

CNN senior national reporter Kyung Lah thought she'd caught Republican Arizona gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake off guard when she asked for an impromptu interview outside an event, but ended up sorely regretting her decision.

Lake, a former Fox news anchor, shook hands with Lah as she approached and immediately pointed out that the CNN reporter wasn't wearing a mask any more, a barbed reference to a contentious interview in October 2021, in which Lah smeared the GOP candidate as a “rising star of the right-wing and proud spreader of lies." Lah asked if Lake had “a minute to chat.”

“I’ll do an interview," Lake answered, "as long as it airs on CNN+. Does that still exist? I didn’t think so, because the people don’t like what you guys are peddling, which is propaganda. Thank you.”

Lake then walked into the event, leaving Lah utterly speechless.

It looks like Lake gained quite a few fans on Twitter:

Kari Lake has been a longtime friend to "The Glenn Beck Program." She joined Glenn last August to tell Glenn why she left the corrupt world of media, what prompted her to enter "the even more corrupt world of politics," and how she plans to make a big difference in her battleground state of Arizona.

Watch the video clip below to catch the conversation. Can't watch? Download the podcast here.

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.

Hunter's Biden's latest BIZARRE scandal reveals how red-flag laws REALLY work

Photo by Demetrius Freeman/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Even if red-flag laws weren't unconstitutional (which they are), they've never been about your safety. They're about your submission, argued Glenn Beck on the radio program. Think of it this way: If red flag laws became the law of the land, do you think President Joe Biden’s son Hunter would lose his guns or face charges for violating the gun laws we already have?

You may have heard that he once "lost" a gun in a dumpster by a school. But there's a whole lot more to the bizarre tale. Newly revealed texts from Hunter's abandoned laptop detail the strange drama that unfolded when Hallie Biden, Hunter's sister-in-law-turned-lover, threw his handgun into a dumpster near a Delaware school in October 2018. The gun was found and turned in to police, but like so many of the Biden family scandals, the chaos created a sandstorm that conveniently helped cover Hunter's tracks. Only tidbits of information have emerged, the most significant of which is that the gun in question was purchased by Hunter illegally and, of course, no charges were filed as a result.

Glenn broke down the details of the most recently revealed Hunter Biden scandal, noting in particular that no charges or arrests were ever made as a result.

"If you voted for Joe Biden and you believe in all of these red-flag laws, then why isn't Hunter Biden in jail today?" Glenn asked.

"You and I both know that the ramifications of Hunter Biden's activities and his tragic saga go well beyond Hunter Biden, because they are teaching people a lesson. We are moving towards a society that has a ruling class that lives above their own edicts. They tell us they know better. They tell us that our neighbors and even some of us are dangerous, while ignoring the dangers in their own lives or in their own families ... We saw it during COVID-19 and we will see it again with gun regulations, 'The rules are for thee and not for me.' This is why Americans cannot give an inch, not one inch of our liberty away on the grounds of the government's good faith. They have no good faith left. They have violated every single principle of liberty and they've done it in a name of they know better," he said.

"Don't be fooled," Glenn added. "Just as we saw during COVID-19, just as we saw with the Patriot Act that is now being horribly abused by the people in power that swore they'd never abuse it, red-flags are not about your safety. Period. They are about your submission."

Watch the video clip below to catch the conversation. Can't watch? Download the podcast here.

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.