Just a casual observation here, but I think you two are saying basically the same thing. Just in different ways. It looks like you both agree it shouldn’t be in the schools. Just for different reasons. Like I said, just observing.

You obviously didn’t get the gist of my article.

First of all, I never said that sex education in itself is a sign of world government – as a matter of fact, I qualified this in paragraph 4. What I did suggest is that government-mandated sex education is another form of big government and this particular subject falls in line with the UN’s agenda for a global govt.

Next, where oh where did I mention anything about abstinence in my article? But, now that you brought it up, how does abstinence “not work”?? There is nothing more effective to prevent pregnancy or the spread of STDs than to not have sex at all. The only people out there who have drawn the conclusion that abstinence is ineffective are the ones who have convinced themselves that it is “unreasonable” to expect kids to not have sex. You may deem it totally normal for kids to engage in sexual activity while another might deem extra-marital sex taboo. Whichever the case, it is not for a governmental institution to make that decision since each case and each person is unique and because it is often a private or even religious matter. The UK wants to mandate this “education” for private school students also. These parents have paid money (sometimes a lot of it) and have counted on these schools to be independent of State mandates. At the very least, the State does this, it should foot the bill for these parents private school costs. Of course, I am not holding my breath and doubt that you are either.

Third, that is how we get a lot of pregnancies out of wedlock and STDs is because children “follow their hearts” (and their unmentionables). What makes you think that a government bureacrat or a state-certified teacher is any more qualified than a particular child’s parent to teach about sex? They have a “broad brush” policy and that has proven to “not work”.

Lastly, your point of view reveals a common double standard. If a school were to teach abstinence (for example) because it differs from your opinion, that is bad and you would rather teach your children yourself. But if the State wants to mandate a sex education program that falls in line with your beliefs, that is ok?

The State shouldn’t be involved with this in any way, shape, or form.

I’m sorry, but its way too far fetched to say that sex education is a sign for a world government. I mean, seriously now.

Over whelming studies and statistics prove that abstinence only teaching does not work. Logically, you should assume that. Maybe we should leave schools out of it all together.

I would be pretty mad if when I have children someday, they were taught that dribble. Sex is a personal choice and when at an appropriate age, should be decided by that person whom chooses to have sex. That is the bottom line. If you want to teach your children that they have to be married someday, then that is your decision. I would rather teach my children to follow their heart and decide when they are ready. If that means that their school won’t teach them how to do it safely, then so be. I guess that will be up to me when the time comes.

You always seem to catch my drift. Even during those rare times when you disagree with me, you still “get” what I am saying. It’s such a relief when I don’t have to repeat myself or explain something over and over again.

Everything you are saying is true. Even with the ICC: it doesn’t matter that it wasn’t conceived yet when the Georgia Guidestones were constructed, the IDEA had been conceived. In 1979 I think the world had 5-something billion people. So, at 500M, that is just shy of 10% of the population remaining. Whatever the number, it is extreme. And there is no other way to reach that goal outside of genocide. This is a sample of what the Establishment wants to happen. Maybe not to the “T”, but really close. And they are working tirelessly to pull it off.

I see the word "Social" and "sustainable" a lot here. And Hitler's own thoughts echoed twice. In the comments; "Over time, with birth control and natural mortality, the numbers of humans could be reduced to a more sustainable number." My question is control by who's rules?? Who are we to say we know EXACTLY how many humans there should be on this planet? Laura you talk about playing god and isn't this doing EXACTLY THAT????? Population numbers fall within "his" domain.

Again, the argument I hear here is "for the greater good" and I ask myself. Whose greater good? Ours or the planets?

For ALL THE TALK about people taking responsibility for their actions it's apparent that the PARENTS don't take responsibility for teaching their kids right from wrong when it comes to sex. And would rather have the school do it instead of having what's perceived as an awkward conversation with their kids. But instead they are victims who can't raise their children to be responsible. Sounds a lot like the kids in this country. Sounds a lot like a South Park episode I know too ..

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6917328.ece

2. Guide reproduction wisely €“ improving fitness and diversity.
I believe Hitler also tried this one two with the Labens Born. You know, the SS.

3. Unite humanity with a living new language.
English is spoken even taught in other countries as Laura points out we are not the only country on earth, but a lot of them speak our language.

4. Rule passion €“ faith €“ tradition €“ and all things with tempered reason.
So who determines what tempered reason is? Me or the Government? If I am left to judge for myself then I am told I am not responsible and make poor judgments (i.e. teen pregnancy). So really they mean government.

5. Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
HAHAHAHA!!! Next.

6. Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
I thought this is what NATO was chartered for? So are we saying that NATO has failed? Does that mean we can stop paying for it?
7. Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
Again HAHAHAHAHAHA!! Next. >wipes laugh tears<

8. Balance personal rights with social duties.
Ah! Now here is the lynch pin. Personal rights with social duties. So I am FORCED to be my brothers keeper? And who EXACTLY decides these "social duties".

9. Prize truth €“ beauty €“ love €“ seeking harmony with the infinite.
Duh! That's what we do already and as Laura loves to point out this leads us to not being "personally responsible" per "their" perception of it. Whom so ever "they" are.

10.Be not a cancer on the earth €“ Leave room for nature €“ Leave room for nature.
Technically we wouldn't be a cancer we would be a virus. However, this doesn't mean we should suffer "for the greater good".

I see the word "Social" and "sustainable" a lot here. And Hitler's own thoughts echoed twice. In the comments; "Over time, with birth control and natural mortality, the numbers of humans could be reduced to a more sustainable number." My question is control by who's rules?? Who are we to say we know EXACTLY how many humans there should be on this planet? Laura you talk about playing god and isn't this doing EXACTLY THAT????? Population numbers fall within "his" domain.

Again, the argument I hear here is "for the greater good" and I ask myself. Whose greater good? Ours or the planets?

For ALL THE TALK about people taking responsibility for their actions it's apparent that the PARENTS don't take responsibility for teaching their kids right from wrong when it comes to sex. And would rather have the school do it instead of having what's perceived as an awkward conversation with their kids. But instead they are victims who can't raise their children to be responsible. Sounds a lot like the kids in this country. Sounds a lot like a South Park episode I know too ..

2. WHERE in the link you gave did it attribute the tablets to ANYONE other than R.C. Christian? How did HE become the shadowy “they”. As I said, I don’t agree with their numbers, but then again that number was arrived at 30 years ago, so it may have seemed like a more realistic number at the time. And it did not say make it 500,000,000 RIGHT NOW, which would take genocide. Over time, with birth control and natural mortality, the numbers of humans could be reduced to a more sustainable number.

As far as the whole human first mentality- we are NOT the only creature on this planet. Nowhere does it say in the Bible “Go ahead and trash the earth. Abuse it, use it up and spit it out, as well as everything else on it. Do with it as you will.” There is a delicate balance on this planet for a reason, whether God created it or it delevoped itself. We are a PART of that balance, not the whole of it. We do not have the right to play God and to tip that balance in our temporary favor, but to our short-sighted long-term harm. We think in decades, generations- the planet and the life on it has existed for EONS. We should exist as PART of nature. Where did it say in the guidestones anything about humanity being the enemy? That is YOUR take on them. If we are the enemy of nature, it is because we made OURSELVES the enemy of nature. We were born as part of nature.

Sex ed- if people want to be left alone to make their own decisions and to do their own thing, then they need to make them and stop ignoring, procrasinating or leaving it for someone else to do. If all parents did their job and there were no large numbers of teen pregnancy or sexual disease, then this wouldn’t be necessary. Society is paying for the poor parenting choices made by some. What are we supposed to do? Let ourselves be dragged down? Are we supposed to go into each person’s home and spy to see if they are doing a good job? Can’t do that, so the only way the problem created by the few can be fairly and diplomatically addressed is by requiring it of all. Again, what is wrong with sex ed as long as there are no moral judgements placed on the information and they simply stick with the facts like they would the biology of any other species?

ICC- There is no mention of anything about the ICC on those tablets, which were completed in 1979. The ICC didn’t exist then. And on the ICC, how, unless they make rules that reflect a concensus, are situations that cross international boundaries to be settled if not by an international court? Is there to be war between nations over everything? Do we have nothing in place, so that multinational corporations and terrorist groups that operate on a global stage and are not subject to the laws of any one country have no accountability to anyone? Look at why the FBI was created. A bunch of gangsters were using the rivalries, egos and non-cooperation of local and state law enforcement against them. Do you think that is not happening now on a global scale? And in an international court, it is only a good court if it follows OUR laws, as if we are the only nation in the world or we have our act so well together that we have the right to dictate to everyone else? Despite what we want to believe, the U.S. is not the only country in the world and we do not have the only way of doing things that works. It may work for us, but not everyone is us.

If you wish to gain an in depth understanding of the ICC, please go to YouTube and enter this:

international criminal court / john birch society

(1) I did not coin the term “10 Commandments of Satan” as can be seen here:

http://cantontruth.blogspot.com/2008/05/blog-post.html

(2) You are extremely hung up on the Liberal/Conservative thingy. Nowhere in my report am I implicating either group of doing anything, right or wrong;

(3) Most of your questions can be answered within the context of the Georgia Guidestones link I provided;

(4) They are not talking about sustaining the present population, they are talking about reducing it approximately 90%. How do you think something like that can be done outside of genocide?

(5) Once again (and again and again and again) they are not talking about recycling and not dumping oil into the ocean, they are talking about worshipping and exalting nature above humanity by making humanity the enemy. If they were truly concerned about ecology, they wouldn’t have gotten rich off of industry, which most of them have.

(6) The “courts” they are talking about are not the just, benevolent kind. They are talking about the International Criminal Court (ICC) which is sinister and hates Americans and can charge us with anything they see fit and could contain us for months or years and never guarantee us a fair trial. You can look at this link to get a general idea but, as usual, Wilkipedia doesn’t give the full story and makes it sound so nice. Believe me, it would be a nightmare.

(7) As I mentioned within the context of this article, there are some parents who don’t have a clue. But please don’t tell me that the State does. That is what they want you to believe: that parents don’t know how to parent but that the State does. It’s a big, fat, hairy lie. They have one goal in mind, and that is total control. And the best way for them to accomplish this is in a subversive manner by making you feel like you need them.

I guess it’s working.