Latest / Gil I Am / Thomas Sowell...EXPOSES the SATANIST LGBTQ Agenda to OWN Your Children

Transcript

Thomas Sowell...EXPOSES the SATANIST LGBTQ Agenda to OWN Your Children · Gil I Am

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: The Court sided with a group of religious Maryland parents
• 0:04
  Speaker 1: who want the option to keep their elementary age children
• 0:07
  Speaker 1: out of lessons involving books with LGBTQ content. President Trump
• 0:12
  Speaker 1: celebrated this as a win for the Court's conservative majority.
• 0:17
  Speaker 2: It's really a ruling for parents.
• 0:19
  Speaker 3: They lost control of the schools, they lost control of
• 0:22
  Speaker 3: their child, and this is a tremendous victory for parents.
• 0:27
  Speaker 1: We're going to talk to folks on both sides of
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: this issue. Let's bring in Cecilia Wong, the National Legal
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: Director for the American Civil Liberties Union, and Cecilia, the
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: ruling does not remove these books from the shelves. It
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: doesn't stop schools from teaching them. Why do you think
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: this was a bad decision?
• 0:46
  Speaker 2: Well, thanks Jake for having me on. I think today's
• 0:49
  Speaker 2: decision by the Supreme Court is unfortunately a drastic break
• 0:54
  Speaker 2: from decades of precedent and has the potential to sew
• 0:58
  Speaker 2: real chaos in disruption in public schools across America.
• 1:02
  Speaker 3: The most dangerous ideology in America today is the belief
• 1:06
  Speaker 3: that your child belongs to the state. Let that sink in.
• 1:11
  Speaker 3: We are no longer debating whether parents should be able
• 1:14
  Speaker 3: to guide their child's moral development. We are watching in
• 1:18
  Speaker 3: real time as that right is being treated like a
• 1:21
  Speaker 3: political inconvenience. On June twenty seventh, twenty twenty five, the
• 1:26
  Speaker 3: Supreme Court, in a six to three decision in Machmud
• 1:31
  Speaker 3: versus Taylor, did something profoundly unremarkable, and yet it sent
• 1:36
  Speaker 3: shockwaves across the act of as media. What did they do?
• 1:40
  Speaker 3: They said that parents have a constitutional right to opt
• 1:44
  Speaker 3: their children out of LGBTQ themed curriculum in public schools,
• 1:49
  Speaker 3: especially when it directly conflicts with their religious or moral beliefs.
• 1:55
  Speaker 3: You would think that justices had declared open war on
• 1:59
  Speaker 3: democracy see itself, judging by the outrage. But if that
• 2:04
  Speaker 3: decision is controversial in twenty twenty five America, then the
• 2:08
  Speaker 3: problem is not with the Court. The problem is with
• 2:11
  Speaker 3: the moral vision of a society that sees state power
• 2:15
  Speaker 3: as the rightful parent and biological parents as dangerous obstacles
• 2:20
  Speaker 3: to progress. Let me say plainly what too many are
• 2:23
  Speaker 3: afraid to. This battle is not about tolerance. It's about
• 2:28
  Speaker 3: who owns your child's mind, you or the ideological architects
• 2:33
  Speaker 3: of the public education system. Now, historically, the role of
• 2:37
  Speaker 3: the parent has been presumed as primary, not just emotionally
• 2:41
  Speaker 3: or biologically, but legally. This principle is not a modern
• 2:45
  Speaker 3: conservative talking point. It is embedded in the very fabric
• 2:49
  Speaker 3: of American constitutional law as far back as Pierce versus
• 2:54
  Speaker 3: Society of Sisters in nineteen twenty five, the Supreme Court
• 2:58
  Speaker 3: made clear that the child held is not the mere
• 3:01
  Speaker 3: creature of the state. That ruling upheld the right of
• 3:04
  Speaker 3: parents to send their children to religious schools in defiance
• 3:08
  Speaker 3: of Oregon's attempt to outlaw private education altogether. So what
• 3:13
  Speaker 3: are we seeing today a slow momentum rebellion against that
• 3:17
  Speaker 3: foundational idea. When Montgomery County, Maryland eliminated the opt out
• 3:23
  Speaker 3: provision in twenty twenty three, it was in some neutral
• 3:27
  Speaker 3: bureaucratic decision. It was a signal, a declaration that public
• 3:33
  Speaker 3: school curricula were no longer about informing children, but about
• 3:39
  Speaker 3: reorienting them. Morality, values, family roles, and even the meaning
• 3:46
  Speaker 3: of male and female are now decided not by parents,
• 3:52
  Speaker 3: not even by democratically elected school boards in many cases,
• 3:57
  Speaker 3: but by unelected curriculum designers and ideological consultants. That is
• 4:03
  Speaker 3: not education, That is indoctrination, and it is being sold
• 4:07
  Speaker 3: to the American people under the euphemism of inclusivity. But
• 4:12
  Speaker 3: here's the catch. When the left talks about inclusivity, it
• 4:16
  Speaker 3: usually means exclusion of parental authority, exclusion of religious views,
• 4:22
  Speaker 3: and exclusion of dissent. Diversity is champion, except when it
• 4:28
  Speaker 3: is a diversity of values. To understand how we got here,
• 4:32
  Speaker 3: you must first understand the worldview behind it. In my
• 4:36
  Speaker 3: book Inside American Education, I warned that much of what
• 4:40
  Speaker 3: happens in public schools is not a reflection of academic rigor,
• 4:45
  Speaker 3: but the result of ideological capture by elites who view
• 4:49
  Speaker 3: children as blank slates to be molded in the correct image.
• 4:53
  Speaker 3: What is correct, of course, depends on which vision dominates,
• 4:57
  Speaker 3: and for the last several decades, it is the vision vision.
• 5:00
  Speaker 3: I have spent my entire career confronting the vision of
• 5:04
  Speaker 3: the anointed. This vision is built on a few deeply
• 5:07
  Speaker 3: flawed assumptions. First that ordinary people parents in this case,
• 5:12
  Speaker 3: are too unenlightened to know what is best for their children.
• 5:16
  Speaker 3: Second that elites, by virtue of their compassion and credentials,
• 5:22
  Speaker 3: are morally entitled to override the decisions of others, And
• 5:27
  Speaker 3: third that society must be reshaped often forcibly to conform
• 5:33
  Speaker 3: to a preordained vision of social justice, regardless of how
• 5:37
  Speaker 3: many rights are trampled along the way. That is what
• 5:40
  Speaker 3: this fight is about. The Mohammud case was not about
• 5:44
  Speaker 3: banning books. It wasn't even about suppressing LGBTQ identities. It
• 5:49
  Speaker 3: was about a very basic premise that parents have a
• 5:53
  Speaker 3: right not to have their children's consciences hijacked by the government.
• 6:00
  Speaker 3: Justice Alito, writing for the majority, pointed out that the
• 6:03
  Speaker 3: parents assert a sincerely held religious belief that certain teachings
• 6:08
  Speaker 3: violate their faith, and that forcing them to submit their
• 6:12
  Speaker 3: children to that content without recourse or exemption constitutes a
• 6:17
  Speaker 3: substantial burden on their First Amendment rights. That should have
• 6:21
  Speaker 3: been a straightforward point, but listened to the dissenting opinion
• 6:25
  Speaker 3: by Justice Sodo Mayor. She called the opt out option
• 6:29
  Speaker 3: a tool of segregation. In other words, parents exercising moral
• 6:34
  Speaker 3: conscience are now lumped into the same category as racists
• 6:37
  Speaker 3: from the Jim Crow South. This isn't just a disagreement
• 6:41
  Speaker 3: over curriculum. It is a deliberate moral vilification of any
• 6:46
  Speaker 3: viewpoint outside of the ideological status quo. So let's be clear,
• 6:51
  Speaker 3: under this twisted logic. A parent who wants their eight
• 6:55
  Speaker 3: year old to learn about arithmetic without also being taught
• 6:58
  Speaker 3: about non binary pronouns is practicing exclusion and hate. Meanwhile,
• 7:04
  Speaker 3: the school board that eliminates opt out rights is considered
• 7:09
  Speaker 3: progressive and enlightened. This is not about tolerance. This is
• 7:13
  Speaker 3: about control, and the very fact that the Supreme Court
• 7:18
  Speaker 3: had to intervene to defend a century's old constitutional principle
• 7:23
  Speaker 3: tells us just how far we have drifted. We are
• 7:26
  Speaker 3: witnessing the erosion of the American family, not through lawless
• 7:29
  Speaker 3: riots or radical speeches, but through quiet administrative memos, curriculum revisions,
• 7:36
  Speaker 3: and inclusive policies that brick by brick remove parents from
• 7:40
  Speaker 3: the educational process. Architects of this new order don't need
• 7:45
  Speaker 3: to silence dissent directly. They just redefine it as bigotry
• 7:49
  Speaker 3: and push it out of the classroom. If we are
• 7:53
  Speaker 3: serious about preserving liberty, we must start by asking whose
• 7:59
  Speaker 3: value being taught to your children and who gave them
• 8:03
  Speaker 3: the authority, Because once the state assumes moral guardianship over
• 8:08
  Speaker 3: your children, your rights become privileges revocable. It will, and
• 8:12
  Speaker 3: that is not education. That is tyranny with a smiling face.
• 8:17
  Speaker 3: The most effective propaganda is never announced as propaganda. If
• 8:21
  Speaker 3: you want to impose an ideological vision on a population,
• 8:25
  Speaker 3: the easiest way to do it is through the public
• 8:27
  Speaker 3: education system, and the most effective way to make that
• 8:30
  Speaker 3: propaganda stick is to pretend that it's neutral, scientific, or
• 8:34
  Speaker 3: morally superior. That's exactly what's happening right now with the
• 8:37
  Speaker 3: infiltration of radical gender and sexuality ideology into American classrooms.
• 8:44
  Speaker 3: The truth is far more unsettling than most people are
• 8:46
  Speaker 3: willing to admit. LGBTQ curriculum is not being introduced as
• 8:51
  Speaker 3: one among many perspectives. It is being presented as the
• 8:54
  Speaker 3: only morally acceptable worldview, and any attempt to question it
• 8:59
  Speaker 3: is treated as dangerous, hateful, or even violent. This is
• 9:03
  Speaker 3: an education it's a moral monopoly, and the Left is
• 9:08
  Speaker 3: using it to reshape society one child at a time.
• 9:12
  Speaker 3: Let me be very clear. This has nothing to do
• 9:16
  Speaker 3: with whether someone is gay, straight, or otherwise. It has
• 9:19
  Speaker 3: everything to do with whether the government has the right
• 9:22
  Speaker 3: to impose moral values on your children while silencing yours.
• 9:27
  Speaker 3: The Supreme Court's decision on June twenty seventh, twenty twenty
• 9:31
  Speaker 3: five finally confronted that question, the court said no, parents
• 9:36
  Speaker 3: had the right to say this is not what I
• 9:39
  Speaker 3: want my child learning. That's not extremism, that's freedom. But
• 9:43
  Speaker 3: the reaction from the media and activist groups was telling.
• 9:47
  Speaker 3: They didn't argue the legal merits of the case. They
• 9:50
  Speaker 3: didn't even bother pretending this was about academic freedom. Instead,
• 9:54
  Speaker 3: they accused the court of turning back the clock and
• 9:57
  Speaker 3: emboldening bigotry. In other words, if you don't want your
• 10:01
  Speaker 3: seven year old reading about two daddies kissing in a
• 10:03
  Speaker 3: storybook or discussing gender dysphoria in second grade, you are
• 10:08
  Speaker 3: now the problem. You are the threat. But here's the
• 10:13
  Speaker 3: part they don't want to talk about. The curriculum itself
• 10:16
  Speaker 3: is political. Consider what kinds of books were being mandated
• 10:19
  Speaker 3: in Montgomery County's classrooms. Picture Books like Pride Puppy and
• 10:24
  Speaker 3: My Rainbow weren't just about acknowledging the existence of gay
• 10:28
  Speaker 3: or transgender people. They were designed to normalize a particular
• 10:33
  Speaker 3: ideological framework, one that presumes gender is fluid, that sexuality
• 10:39
  Speaker 3: is something children should explore before they even understand long division,
• 10:43
  Speaker 3: and that traditional moral beliefs are relics of bigotry. And
• 10:47
  Speaker 3: how were these books chosen by democratic vote, parental referendum, No,
• 10:52
  Speaker 3: by panels of de ya consultants hired by bureaucrats who
• 10:57
  Speaker 3: answer to no one but each other. Now a contrast
• 11:01
  Speaker 3: that with the reactions when parents ask for books aligned
• 11:03
  Speaker 3: with traditional values. You want your child to read the Bible,
• 11:08
  Speaker 3: that's indoctrination, But drag Queen's Story hour that's diversity. We
• 11:13
  Speaker 3: are not dealing with a neutral system. We are dealing
• 11:16
  Speaker 3: with a system that openly discriminates against Judeo Christian values
• 11:21
  Speaker 3: under the banner of inclusion. This is what I've spent
• 11:24
  Speaker 3: decades warning about. In the Vision of the Anointed, I
• 11:27
  Speaker 3: explain how the anointed, ourself designegated moral betters, impose their
• 11:33
  Speaker 3: vision on the rest of us by redefining language, silencing opposition,
• 11:38
  Speaker 3: and weaponizing institutions to carry out their goals. The public
• 11:42
  Speaker 3: school system is now one of their most powerful weapons.
• 11:46
  Speaker 3: And here's why. The younger the audience, the more defenseless
• 11:50
  Speaker 3: they are. A five year old cannot critically evaluate whether
• 11:54
  Speaker 3: gender is a social construct. An eight year old cannot
• 11:57
  Speaker 3: distinguish between moral instruction and political manipulation. That's precisely why
• 12:04
  Speaker 3: the activists want to start early. They know that if
• 12:08
  Speaker 3: they can embed their worldview before the child even has
• 12:13
  Speaker 3: the mental tools to question it, they will have shape
• 12:17
  Speaker 3: not just a student, but a future voter, a future activist,
• 12:22
  Speaker 3: a future cultural enforcer. This is why opting out is
• 12:27
  Speaker 3: treated not as a parental right, but as a threat,
• 12:33
  Speaker 3: because once one parent says no, others might follow, and
• 12:36
  Speaker 3: if enough parents opt out, the illusion of moral consensus
• 12:39
  Speaker 3: begins to collapse. That's what the anointed fear most exposure.
• 12:44
  Speaker 3: They fear the exposure of their curriculum for what it is,
• 12:48
  Speaker 3: an attempt to transfer moral authority from the family to
• 12:52
  Speaker 3: the state. And yet they continue to pretend that it's
• 12:56
  Speaker 3: all age appropriate, inclusive, and non political. But let me
• 13:00
  Speaker 3: ask a simple question. If these materials are so neutral,
• 13:03
  Speaker 3: why not let parents see them beforehand? Why not offer
• 13:07
  Speaker 3: opt outs? The answer is obvious, because transparency threatens the agenda.
• 13:13
  Speaker 3: They do not want parents involved, They want them out
• 13:15
  Speaker 3: of the way. And let us not forget the language
• 13:18
  Speaker 3: games involved. When schools push these lessons, they don't call
• 13:22
  Speaker 3: it LGBTQ ideology. They call it social emotional learning, or
• 13:26
  Speaker 3: diversity training or identity affirmation. These euphemisms are the camouflage
• 13:30
  Speaker 3: for deeper transformation, the reshaping of childhood through the lens
• 13:35
  Speaker 3: of adult sexual politics. Is it not surprising, then, that
• 13:41
  Speaker 3: the same people who cried foul over Florida's so called
• 13:44
  Speaker 3: don't Say Gay law were outraged when the Supreme Court
• 13:48
  Speaker 3: affirmed the obvious that parents, not bureaucrats, get the final
• 13:53
  Speaker 3: say on what their children are taught about sex, gender,
• 13:57
  Speaker 3: and morality. You see, the left only likes freedom when
• 14:01
  Speaker 3: it results in their own vision winning out When it doesn't,
• 14:05
  Speaker 3: they demand censorship, government mandates, and forced compliance. The irony
• 14:10
  Speaker 3: is that those screaming the loudest about censorship are often
• 14:14
  Speaker 3: the ones most eager to silence anyone who disagrees with them.
• 14:19
  Speaker 3: They claim this is about protecting LGBTQ youth, but what
• 14:24
  Speaker 3: they never address is the growing number of d transitioners,
• 14:28
  Speaker 3: many of whom were fast tracked into radical ideology through
• 14:31
  Speaker 3: school counselors and social education programs. They don't mention the
• 14:36
  Speaker 3: psychological confusion cause when kids are taught that biology is
• 14:40
  Speaker 3: a bigoted concept. They don't talk about how boys are
• 14:44
  Speaker 3: told they can menstruate and girls are told they might
• 14:47
  Speaker 3: be born in the wrong body, all before they even
• 14:50
  Speaker 3: reach puberty. This is in compassion. This is a social experiment,
• 14:56
  Speaker 3: and your children are the test subjects. So let us
• 15:00
  Speaker 3: abandon the myth of neutrality. There is no such thing
• 15:04
  Speaker 3: as a value free education. The only question is whose
• 15:08
  Speaker 3: values are in control? And do you, the parent, have
• 15:12
  Speaker 3: the right to say no when they conflict with yours.
• 15:15
  Speaker 3: If we don't defend that right now, the momentum is
• 15:19
  Speaker 3: already moving in the direction of centralized moral engineering, what
• 15:23
  Speaker 3: you may call soft totalitarianism. It doesn't come with jack
• 15:26
  Speaker 3: boots or gulags. It comes with rainbow flags, lesson plans,
• 15:32
  Speaker 3: and the slow erosion of your ability to resist and
• 15:35
  Speaker 3: make no mistake, silence is not neutrality. It is surrendersssssssssssssssss