In Southern California, a Riverside County school district has decided to remove the current dictionaries from the classrooms for kindergartners through fifth graders because they include the term "oral sex."  They will be replaced with age-appropriate ones, and district spokeswoman Betti Cadmus told the Press-Enterprise the reasoning behind the decision which is that the current dictionaries are ". . . just not age appropriate."  The dictionaries in question will be used in classrooms for students sixth grade and higher.

The Los Angeles Times online ran a short, inflmmatory article about the district's decision and sought reader feedback.  As expected, the responders equate the changing of the dictionary with a return to book burning and so-called "Puritanical" values.  The readers, the few who are left, bray on about the horrific "censorship" by the (evidently) backwords people of Riverside County.  Of course, these readers are correct; not wanting a seven-year-old to read about oral sex is worthy of hand-wringing, name-calling, and warnings against scary, evil Christians and Republicans.

The Los Angeles Times has been successful in stoking the Left-wing "outrage" over a non-story like this one.

Where was the L.A. Times and its legion of sympathetic, Liberal readers when parents objected to their elementary school children being shown graphic homosexual, "transgender" and transvestite propaganda with mandatory viewing of films such as The Boy In The Bikini? 

Parents who object to such indoctrination are publicly condemned by taxpayer funded "thought police" in schools and our court system. 

On December 1, 2009, a judge in Alameda, California slammed parents as “bigots” for seeking to excuse their elementary-age children from controversial pro-homosexual curriculum.  Instead of upholding the law found in the California Educational Code, he decided to tell these parents, and the court, his view is not only the correct one, but the only one allowed.  Out with the law, out with the First Amendment of the Constitution; in with a judge's feelings.

Pacific Justice Institute chief counsel Kevin Snider argued in Alameda Superior Court on behalf of parents seeking to enforce a provision of the California Education Code that gives parents the right to opt their kids out of health education. Alameda Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch lambasted the parents, repeatedly insinuating that they are bigots and insisting there can be no homosexual indoctrination because people are born that way. The judge equated a view contrary to his own with creationism and then called both false.

The legal battle over Alameda’s so-called "anti-bullying" curriculum, which focuses almost solely on homosexuality, has intensified in recent weeks. Attorneys for the school district grilled parents in depositions about their religious beliefs. Parents were asked numerous questions about church attendance, sermons they had heard against homosexuality, and whether they were aware that the Bible had allegedly been used to defend racism and oppression. The Times and its readers did not rush to defend the privacy and religious freedom of these parents.  On closer examination, such a non-reaction does make sense because the Left believe only their favored groups are allowed privacy (Marxists, "revolutionaries," Obama donors, and anyone wearing a Che shirt) and religious freedom (Muslims --preferably radical-- animists, witch doctors, and New Agers).

Chief Counsel Kevin Snider commented on the hearing:
“We believe that this ruling against parents is inconsistent with the Education Code, and we are looking forward to continuing this battle until opt-out rights are restored on appeal, or the curriculum is changed.” Snider emphasized that the parents who filed suit support comprehensive anti-bullying instruction; however, they oppose the current elementary curriculum that focuses almost exclusively on homosexuality. School records released by Alameda Unified School District show that bullying based on race and gender is far more prevalent in AUSD than sexual orientation harassment. "

Pacific Justice Institute President Brad Dacus stated, “Most parents do not want their first through fifth graders bombarded with pro-homosexual messages at school. If LGBT advocates really want to stop name-calling and bullying, they should start with themselves.”

Children are in greater moral, physical and spiritual danger than any time in our history. Democrats in Congress and the California legislature are trying to force public schools to celebrate such outrages as national "Gay Day" and California's pro-homosexual "Harvey Milk Day."

The Los Angeles Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and MSNBC somehow ignored this freedom-destroying decision by .
a California judge.

The L.A.Times spikes this story, but runs one about a change of dictionaries in a school district in California.  Sadly, such marginalization and distortion is to be expected from the Times. If the facts contradict their Leftist views, then they spike the story, as is the case with these parents not wanting their young kids force-fed homosexuality, transgenderism, and bisexuality. 

In another case of conveniently omitting information contradictory to their lock-step views, the L.A. Times did not reveal who the Chatsworth Metrolink driver was. They spiked the fact that the driver was a homosexual and who it was that the man whose partner died of AIDS was obsessively text messaging (under- age boys) when he killed about 30 innocent people.

Why does the Times insist on protecting certain favored groups (violent illegal aliens, homosexuals) and deriding, mocking and simply distorting facts to destroy those groups it opposes (such a Christians, Conservatives, Conservative-Christians etc.)?  What happened to dispassionate objectivity in journalism?