David versus the Bolsheviks: The Battle of Lexington Green in the Year 2005

On April 27th of this year, the heavy hand of Bolshevism clamped down upon David Parker, a Lexington, MA. citizen and father of a six year old son. David was arrested on trumped up charges, handcuffed like a dangerous felon, and led off to jail. His heinous crime? Parker is guilty of being a morally principled man with the courage to request that he and his wife be given advance notification when issues of sexual unnaturalness and perversion (transgenderism, sodomy, and same-sex headed relationships) were going to be discussed in his son's classroom. Said Parker, "certain authorities insist that I agree that my children must be taught that gay relationships and transgender transformation are acceptable and normal. When I firmly, albeit patiently, objected and then finally insisted to be notified when and how my own children were to be exposed to these issues, I was arrested and hauled off to jail." Freedom of conscience has been made a hate-crime in Massachusetts.

Among the communist goals listed on the Congressional Record—Current Communist Goals (pp. A34-A35, Jan. 10, 1963) are these: 17) Get control of the schools…use as transmission belts for socialism, 25) Break down cultural standards of morality, 26) Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as 'normal, natural, healthy."

These goals are affirmed by the Communist Textbook of Psychopolitics. It is written, "Degradation and conquest are companions. In order to be conquered a nation must be degraded. By attacking the character and morals…by bringing about contamination of youth, a general degraded feeling (will facilitate) command of the population."

Lexington Bolshevik commissars are actualizing invidiously evil stratagems devised to effectuate moral decay and collapse within America. In their capacity as school board officials and as teachers, they are spreading propaganda designed to "destroy the home." By "creating continuous juvenile delinquency, forcing upon the state all manner of practices to divorce the child from it (the family) will in the end create the chaos necessary to Communism. Creating a greed for drugs, sexual misbehavior and uncontrolled freedom (will) bring about our alignment." (Communist Textbook of Psychopolitics)

David Parker, a morally principled man, devoted father, and courageous dissident of their evil devices has been stamped: "Enemy of the State."

In a speech before his supporters, Parker stated, "I stand before you banned from attending my son's first day of school…banned from voting, teacher-parent conferences and school committee meetings. The Lexington school administration demands that I ask permission for these rights. What free U.S. citizen must ask for permission to vote, or to be in the presence of his son? The school administration…is attempting to put themselves in the role as parents."

Facing off against Parker and his supporters was a malevolence-fueled rabble gathered together to spit and spew venom. Among the venomous hissing snakes were commissars Helen Cohen, Chairman of the Lexington School Committee; Tom Griffiths, a School Committee member; and Jeanne Kreiger, member of the Lexington Board of Selectmen. Also in attendance were three Marxist 'liberation theology' preachers: Rabbi Howard Jaffe of Temple Isaiah, Rev. Judy Brain, Pastor of Pilgrim Congregational Church, and Rev. Bill Clark, Senior Pastor of the First Unitarian Parish in Lexington. (Article8.org)

Of the venom-spewing rabble, one witness commented, "You could see the look in their eyes, even the kids. It was eerie. They really can't stand us, as if we're polluting their town just by being here." (Article8.org)

In speaking of commissars, Balint Vazsonyi (America's Thirty Years War) observed that, "commissars of 'social justice' demand conformity in our most private thoughts, our innermost sentiments. Conformity—not only to their failed theories, but to their every whim."

"In the predawn light of April 19 (1775), the beating drums and peeling bells summoned between thirty and fifty militiamen to the town green of Lexington. As they lined up in battle formation the distant sound of marching feet and shouted orders alerted them of the Redcoats approach. The British troops approached…rapidly in platoons…a general officer on horseback at their head. The officer came up to within about two rods of the centre of the company…swung his sword, and said, "Lay down your arms, you damned rebels, or you are all dead men. Fire!" Thus began the "confrontation that would launch a nation." (EyeWitnessToHistory.com)

David Parker has been ordered to 'lay down his arms' and surrender. But he, a valiant modern-day Paul Revere, not only cried out the alarm, but courageously fired the first volley, so to speak, when he bravely vowed:

"Let the call go forth from Lexington, across Massachusetts, and throughout the United States to the world - Parents stand your ground!

But if they mean to have a war over parental rights, Battling for the hearts and minds of our children,

And with regard to the Lexington School administration banning a father's will and presence from all schools,

No powers or principalities on this earth or beyond shall separate the Father from his Son!"

David Parker has sounded the battle cry. Now it's time for all good men to unite and join the fight, for as Edmund Burke cautioned, "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."

About the writer: Linda Kimball is a writer and author of numerous published articles and essays on politics, culture, and worldview.

While you are having your "intellectual" discussion, it is not clear what your point is, other than to find fault with those who are outraged that a father would be treated in this manner, for wanting his children to adhere to what has been accepted in the Western Mainstream--with a few exceptional periods--for over three thousand years.

Would you not, at least, agree, that if a school is going to teach children about homosexual couples, they also teach children what many religious--and even many non-religious people--actually believe about such conduct? Certainly to teach children that something is acceptable, when it manifestly is not to a large percentage of intelligent people, is an absolute outrage against family values. Totalitarian States indoctrinate their children in State decreed value systems. Free societies allow parents to pass on their family values.

I disagree with your statement that two men or two women can both be "parents" to a child. A parent means a mother or a father. A child cannot have two mothers or two fathers, either biologically or adoptive. One of the men would or could be a biological father and one woman would be the biological mother, and the other same sex partner would actually be the mother's or father's same sex lover, not a co-father or co-mother.

Sorry, but many states permit same sex adoptions and include both "parents" on the birth certificate. I know of no definition, either legal or etymological that requires two parents to be of opposite sex, notwithstanding those states that so far, do not permit same sex marriages or adoptions. That doesn't mean I agree with it...I don't. But the reality does exist, and the children of same sex unions should not be denied "parents" any more than any one else.

and your accusation that my definition of "parents" means a mother and a father is "restrictive" is illogical, and a straw man to boot

Well, it may be a straw man to you, but not to Merriam Webster.

They are substitutes for the birth mother and father, and are meant to fulfill the same roles in a child's upbringing.

But the reality is that millions are from single parent families and yet the term "parent" doesn't seem to bother you, so why should two care givers to children not be accorded the same definition?

To state that some children have two mothers or two fathers is giving the official stamp of approval to homosexuality and all that that implies.

Yet to state that there are drugs in our schools is not necessarily to give drugs a stamp of approval?

This question is coming from way out in left field. Why would you think that I would want that?

Because such events will presume that the school has given a stamp of approval to the attendance, and should questions be raised in a classroom about it, the teacher would be unable to even respond without notifying Mr. Parker ahead of time and giving him the opportunity to remove his children from the event or classroom. That is the essence of my concerns over Parker....his demands which obviously could not have been met.

Reminds me of a recently banned person who trotted out the canard that people who are opposed to the homosexual agenda want them and I quote "rounded up and shot".

Well sir, you know how to punch the abuse buttom, I'm sure.

Dad on trial over homosexual book [Parent jailed for objecting to school curriculum] http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1489174/posts

Using WND and Article 8 to provide accurate information is akin to Moveon.org using Al Jazerra to educate the masses.

Let's get something straight. I do not approve of gay marriages or adoptions. But the fact is many states do and in the end most will. It's a fact of life. If one with children doesn't like it, moving to Massachusetts was hardly a smart move. But given that, work within the system. Work with the school board. Gets other parents involved, and above all, provide the moral guidance a child needs, which is the responsibility of the parents.

What makes you think that I hit the abuse button on DoraC? And every time I hit abuse the mods do my bidding? Maybe the mods thought that FR was not here to be a sounding board for liberal agenda pet projects.

You stated:

"Let's get something straight. I do not approve of gay marriages or adoptions. But the fact is many states do and in the end most will. It's a fact of life."

Reminds me of what people used to tell women about rape: "It's inevitable, so might as well relax and quit fighting. Maybe even enjoy it."

Evil should be fought even if there's little chance of winning. And since in every state which has had a referendum on "gay" marriage, the proponents of "gay" marriage have been soundly defeated, and most legislatures with a very few exceptions, have passed bills protecting marriage, you're certainly sounding the retreat early and often.

For someone who proclaims himself to be against "gay" marriage, you certainly are an apologist for it. Just because something is legal - such as homosexuals adopting children, doesn't make it right. Abortion is legal, it is still immoral butchery of human beings.

Final note before I go: My Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary circa 1965 before PC revisionism gives this definition for "parent":

"One that begets or brings forth offspring." (From the Latin word that means "to give birth to".)

Two men or two women cannot combinedly give birth to a child, so to call them both "parents" is to approve of the gayspeak of the homosexual agenda.

Gotta run.

I noticed a very few comments like that (VERY few) and they were soundly trounced by other freepers. The vast majority of people who consider themselves conservative and religious believers do not think that. So lumping in every conservative believer in God with those who stated that the hurricane was God's judgement on NO's homosexuals is a very far-fetched accusation.

"Although the loss of lives is deeply saddening, this act of God destroyed a wicked city," stated Repent America director Michael Marcavage. "From 'Girls Gone Wild' to 'Southern Decadence,' New Orleans was a city that had its doors wide open to the public celebration of sin. From the devastation may a city full of righteousness emerge," he continued.

I'm sure all Christian conservatives don't believe that, but many do. And while you apparently don't like the cloak of extremism draped over the entire Christian movement, neither do I care much for all of the liberal, gay, DU references to those who would question the actions of Mr. Parker.

Second, you say that intelligent conservative Christians will criticize Parker. How about conservative intelligent Christians (or any believers in God) criticizing the homosexual indoctrination of children in public schools? It goes far, far beyond fuzzy little books such as "Daddy's Room Mate" and "Heather Has Two Mommies".

Did you not read anything I have said to you? I sent you two good references that cover this topic which I read, because I, unlike many here, do not have direct communication with the Almighty, such that no further knowledge is necessary. He has left me to my own devices, given me the will and wherewithall to learn, but left it at that. Learning is my job, not His.

Ever heard of GLSEN?

Yes, you will find references to it in "The Death of Right and Wrong".

The term obtuseness comes to mind. If you read all of my posts here, you would clearly not have reached that conclusion, but for one possible reason.

To clarify. I did not have any problem with Mr. Parker's desire to be informed when homosexual topics were to be discussed in the classroom. I disagreed with his actions because they were designed not to help his children, but to give himself and his crusade some notoriety. If he had simply wanted what he states, he would have worked through the school board, would have accepted the apparent agreement reached with the school, would have simply provided guidance to his children, and would not have refused the police request that he leave the school after the meeting took place. Further, he would not have remained in jail, refusing bail.

I don't have a problem with that as long as both sides of the argument are presented, and as long as parents are notified of such value discussions. But if you have read this thread, no one else here wants such discussions.

Certainly to teach children that something is acceptable, when it manifestly is not to a large percentage of intelligent people, is an absolute outrage against family values.

You're preaching to the choir. But to make believe such relationships don't even exist and to make taboo such a recognition is purely absurd. We are not talking about teaching homosexual sex, or even delving into the values or non-values of same sex unions, simply to acknowledge their existence. And in any case, getting arrested in Massachusetts over this is far more ludicrous than the use of the book in question, as now the father never will have any right to participate with the school in anything, his children are likely embarrassed beyond description, and the book is still there!

Totalitarian States indoctrinate their children in State decreed value systems. Free societies allow parents to pass on their family values.

Nice words, but all schools discuss all types of topics with values attached. It's not values per se you and the others here are upset over, it's simply the concern over this one issue. I raised 3 children, and kept a close eye on the books used. We had many value discussions, and I don't think any of them suffered terribly as a result of parental guidance, even when it differed from school teaching.

I don't know that you did, or who it was, but you're mentioning it in the context you did reflected a threat of doing so, so I simply said go ahead.

Reminds me of what people used to tell women about rape: "It's inevitable, so might as well relax and quit fighting. Maybe even enjoy it."

I won't help you out here, but that was not a good analogy. I could have come up with a few better ones, and so could you.

For someone who proclaims himself to be against "gay" marriage, you certainly are an apologist for it

No, no apologist, but realistically seeing the world and the country slowly changing to much more of an acceptance of homosexuality as both a cultural and political force. I don't like it, but it will likely be one of those things that ultimately a reading of the 14th Amendment will resolve one way or another.

Just because something is legal - such as homosexuals adopting children, doesn't make it right

Nor have I attached any positive spin to it, just recognized that it exists and will continue to break down our traditional value based barriers against it.

"One that begets or brings forth offspring." (From the Latin word that means "to give birth to".)

Any reason you left out the 2d definition, "A person who brings up and cares for another"?

Two men or two women cannot combinedly give birth to a child, so to call them both "parents" is to approve of the gayspeak of the homosexual agenda.

Again, to require only the birthgiver to be a parent is to deny adoptive parents such a title. Giving birth is not the only acceptable requirement for being designated a parent.

No it most definitely is not a fact of life that acceptance of sodomite marriage is in any way inevitable. And for the umpteenth time, the teachers are most definitely NOT teaching that sodomite marriages exist. They are teaching that sodomite marriages are normal and as valid as heterosexual marriages and that is not acceptable. It's like a course on drugs giving instruction on how to cook crystal meth.

You have bought into the left delusion of inevitability. The belief that whatever prattle occurs among the cultural elite will naturally be the way the country is structured twenty years from now. Really ? Why aren't we all playing frisbie, smoking dope, and reading The Whole Earth Catalog on hippie communes now that the baby boomers are in charge ? Where are free love and open marriage ? Where is disco and EST ? I'll tell you where. The cultural left nutcases retreated to academia and Protestantism Lite from the world of normal people. And now they are trying to retake the culture (and a lot of them entered teaching). It didn't work then and it's not working now.

Gay marriage is running wild in big cities dominated by the cultural left. You know. The places that are losing population (which gives strong indication of the future of this battle). But it is being soundly rejected where normal people are in charge. And face it, even if the Democrats won can you conceive any future Democratic President having the political capital to send federal troops to the Bible Belt to impose sodomite marriage ?

No it most definitely is not a fact of life that acceptance of sodomite marriage is in any way inevitable.

Well, perhaps your crystal ball is clearer than mine, but the advances gays and lesbians have made in terms of culture, schools, the workplace, anti-discrimination legislation and other areas is absolutely astounding. To simplify...they are on a roll right now. I remember when describing someone as a homo was the worst thing you could call him. Today, you would simply be identifying one of society's new "heroes". Same sex benefits are provided by most large companies, and same sex unions seem to be the fall-back position of most states that currently reject same sex marriages. To think that last barrier will last much longer is simply wishful thinking.

Why aren't we all playing frisbie, smoking dope, and reading The Whole Earth Catalog on hippie communes now that the baby boomers are in charge ? Where are free love and open marriage ? Where is disco and EST ? I'll tell you where. The cultural left nutcases retreated to academia and Protestantism Lite from the world of normal people. And now they are trying to retake the culture (and a lot of them entered teaching). It didn't work then and it's not working now.

You are being way too selective in showing trends rather than major cultural events. You cannot compare same sex relationships to disco. Trends come and go, but in the last hundred years our culture has changed both significantly and permanently. Divorce, Interracial dating and marriage, out-of-wedlock children, drugs, a plethora of women's rights, integrated schools, voting and civil rights, just to name a few of the big cultural changes, including all of the gay/lesbian ones mentioned above. So again, it's not too much of a stretch to see more coming down the pike. And if that bothers you, I suggest you read the two books I recommended in another post. That will really get you cranked...even more than I do.

And face it, even if the Democrats won can you conceive any future Democratic President having the political capital to send federal troops to the Bible Belt to impose sodomite marriage ?

I couldn't conceive of sending federal troops in to allow a boy into school, but it happened. Nothing like that will likely happen, unless the judiciary attempts an end run with the 14th Amendment.

Culture has not changed in the least.

Sodomy was always widely tolerated among bohemians and the entertainment industry (where many of them found a home). Now, they are using their bully pulpit to impose bohemian values upon society at large. This is once again media elites using their position to impose their values on the rest of us.

Madison Avenue, for its own reasons, decided around 1970 to side with the cultural left. Advertisers want urban empty nesters. And major corporations tend to be headquartered in areas dominated by the cultural left and reflect the manners and mores of knowledge workers (which do not necessarily reflect the manners and mores of society at large). When the voters were given a chance to decide whether they shared those views last year, every time they resoundingly said no.

The voters said no because they recognize that they are being stampeded into a knowledge worker cultural agenda and they don't like it. What the sodomites and their allies are doing isn't democracy. It is more like the cool clique in high school deciding who to ostracize and what is in to wear.

"Will and Grace" country is exclusively the preserve of secularist knowledge workers, not the rest of us.

And there is no parallel with feminism. Feminism was spawned by ....

1. The divorce revolution and community property created horror stories of 50ish women being suddenly impoverished without any marketable job skills. The only way to prevent that from happenning is always having marketable job skills.

2. The explosion of suburban home prices in the 70s due to white flight from the cities made the two income household a permanent necessity.

Feminism had a firm economic underpinning. Sodomite marriage does not. Indeed, since they spawn new diseases by the hour companies offering generous medical benefits for domestic partners will face a severe financial crisis from the cost of subsidizing a diseased, dangerous, death dealing lifestyle.

Support for sodomite marriage is confined to the major liberal cities (which is obviously all you see). The places that are losing population. So sodomite marriage is obviously an ephemeral trend that creates real tensions within the Democratic party between deeply religious minority voters and upscale secularists.

And by the way, culture has a pendulum. Out of wedlock births are dropping, as is drug use among teenagers. Right now, the pendulum is swinging to the right. Especially in the clean, growing parts of America.

LJ asked: Which in your mind is the greater ill - teaching children that homosexuality is normal and natural a la GLSEN, or behavior such as Mr. Parker's

Considering that the article provided two (Psychopolitics & Communist Goals; Congressional Record)sources which show inconclusively that Marxist-style social engineers are Forcing same-sex behavior upon America in an effort to destroy our civilization & to "create a new human being" I doubt whether Mac, who obviously has not bothered to check those sources, really minds same-sex or that the school admin is acting like Soviet commissars. If he did mind, it would make sense for him to check the sources given. There's no excuse for him not to, expecially as he said he 'carefully' checked other sources (so-called "unbiased") with regards to Parker's actions.

The bottom line is that Mac is horrified & angered that Parker dared to Defy the "tax-payer financed" despotics aka school admin. If Mac had been alive in 1775, he would have been a royalist (King George supporter).

In addition to the questions you asked of Mac, LJ, another needs to be asked: Whose children are they? The commissars of the 'centralized state" or the Biological Parents?

Culture has not changed in the least.

I gave you a list of numerous social changes which have, whether you care for it or not, have dramatically and permanently changed our culture. Most cultures change when freedom of thought is permitted. That partially explains why militant Islam clashes with the West.

When the voters were given a chance to decide whether they shared those views last year, every time they resoundingly said no.

I don't believe I ever said cultural change came easily. Look at integration and women's rights for examples. So it's not surprising to see the voting last year. Too much, too fast always brings a backlash. But most don't seem to mind other forms of legal same sex unions, and I believe you already know how ultimately the courts treated separate but equal.

What the sodomites and their allies are doing isn't democracy. It is more like the cool clique in high school deciding who to ostracize and what is in to wear.

Few significant cultural changes were the result of democracy. And I can tell you, just looking at the military, unfortunately, it is far more than a high school clique.

Madison Avenue, for its own reasons, decided around 1970 to side with the cultural left.

Almost every major change in our society had non governmental supporters well before either the government or the voters agreed.

Feminism had a firm economic underpinning. Sodomite marriage does not.

Well, if you're suggesting that the feminism of the '60s represent the only model for cultural change, you might want to look at all of the other ones mentioned. Each has its own reasons. Each has its own path. Look at the views on homosexuality in the 1950's and look at it today.

Indeed, since they spawn new diseases by the hour companies offering generous medical benefits for domestic partners will face a severe financial crisis from the cost of subsidizing a diseased, dangerous, death dealing lifestyle.

That argument was used (even once by me), but it was quickly pointed out that the domestic partners were not the homosexuals who were transmitting aids, and thus no more likely to generate unusual medical costs than other relationships of two people.

And by the way, culture has a pendulum. Out of wedlock births are dropping, as is drug use among teenagers. Right now, the pendulum is swinging to the right. Especially in the clean, growing parts of America.

I agree, but the acceptance of abortion and out of wedlock births simply does not carry the societal ostracism it once did. It has come to be acceptable, as has many other things we may not necessarily agree with as individuals.

Which in your mind is the greater ill - teaching children that homosexuality is normal and natural a la GLSEN, or behavior such as Mr. Parker's?

You've established a false scenario. That's equivalent to asking those who disagree with the war in Iraq which is worse, terrorism or the war in Iraq. You can, logically disagree with both.

In the case you laid out, I don't have to choose. I can logically and easily disagree with both. I absolutely disagree with teaching of homosexuality (as opposed to its recognition), and I oppose of the way Parker went about fighting it. He was doing this for himself, not his children, just as Michael Newdow challenged the Pledge of Allegiance. It was for him, not his daughter.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.