Parents In Southern California Demand School Board Declare District a Sanctuary Community For Parental Rights
If illegal immigration can be protected by a sanctuary status then so can parental rights
By Michelle Mears, November 18, 2019 2:15 am
“If there is risk to vaccines, then there must a choice.”
Hundreds of residents in a Southern California community swarmed a school board meeting Thursday night to speak out about the loss of parental rights in schools. Anxious parents, many with children in tow, students, pastors and doctors demanded the Murrieta Unified School District become the first sanctuary city for parental rights in California.
For two hours people waited to speak out on the action item titled, “To consider Proposal by Community Member to Become a Sanctuary School District.” Those in favor of the sanctuary status understood the trustees could not change the laws set by the state. However, their argument is, if illegal immigration can be protected by a sanctuary status then so can parental rights.
Megan and Patrick Hill who live in Murrieta and have a two year old daughter are leaving California in January. They are angry their child‘s full medical exemption for vaccinations was reversed when SB 276 by Sen. Richard Pan (D-Sacramento) was signed into law this year.
“The governor has taken away my incredible healthy, beautiful daughter‘s right to attend school when he signed that bill,” said Megan Hill. “The FDA, the CDC, they all state there is risk to vaccines. If there is risk there must a choice.”
“We are listing our house and escaping California. We are refugees of California we are being kicked out of our home state, away from our family and friends,” said Megan Hill.
Christian Edwards, a parent who lives in Murrieta said, “I came out to support parents who don’t want to be forced to vaccinate their children and to fight back against the schools allowing minors to leave campus to have abortions or hormone therapy.”
“So many rights are being violated,” said Patrick Hill. Vaccines are just one, but there is also the issue of children being allowed to leave the campus as minors to have abortions but they can’t go the school nurse and get an aspirin. There is something backwards about this,” added Hill, who is already job searching in states other than California.
Inside the lobby and in the board meeting room, people who showed up to support the sanctuary status for parental rights held signs that read, “Don’t confuse our kids,” “We know what‘s best,” “Families first, agendas out.”
Dr. Todd Donohoe, who has been actively fighting against forced vaccinations since 2015 when SB 277 was passed, spoke to the trustees. Donohoe also helped organize a recall effort against then State Senator Stone who was a co-author to SB 277. The bill removed religious exemptions for vaccines.
“Children today are getting sometimes more than 51 injections and as many as nine in one day. That is deemed safe and it is not,” said Donohoe. The crowd chanted, “If there is risk there must be choice.”
Another parent spoke to the board members and said, “It is appalling that the gender transition process can begin while kids are in school without parental consent. The normal therapy affects the brain development in children. Happiness is not achieved with sex change and the trans youth have a higher suicide rate. I am angry that the schools can remain silent if kids leave school to have sex procedures instead of letting the parents walk with their children through these major, life changing decisions.”
Parents asked the trustees if they believed parental rights are inalienable.
Pastor Tim Thompson from 412 Church in Murrieta, asked if school board would stand up for parental rights and declare Murrieta as a sanctuary school district.
Hunter Erickson, an 18-year old who attends school in Murrieta said he wanted to denounce the education the tax payers are being forced to pay, “California residents are being forced to pay for a product they believe is evil, being forced to pay for an education they are not receiving. How does this episode of history end,” said Erickson. “The introduction to sexualization in sex education has stripped children of their value and innocence and parents of their rights. We aren’t not supporting the product you want us to pay for.”
A teacher in a neighboring school district, Stephanie Holloway, was the only person who spoke up against the idea of Murrieta becoming a Sanctuary City for parental rights.
“As a teacher and parent, it is important for me to learn about others. Students have the right to learn too, and there are many different perspectives and students have a right to learn in an inclusive environment,” said Holloway. “LGBTQ Students have a right to be safe in their class rooms. I do hope you will see the views here do not represent the entire community.“
“What we are asking is for you to make Murrieta the first sanctuary city in California for parental rights,” said Thompson. “We also want students to be inclusive – we want the same thing. We know the boards hands are tied with the law but let’s untie your hands by declaring Murrieta a sanctuary city to protect our teachers, students and parents.“
“There is no diversity of thought and teaching the gender spectrum violates teachers and students and parents religious rights. This is cultural Marxism,” said Thompson.
Legal counsel for MVUSD told the board that the Sanctuary City Status has no legal authority.
The Education Code states, “the governing board of any school district may initiate and carry on any program, activity or may otherwise act in any manner which is not in conflict with or inconsistent with or preempted by any law and which is not in conflict with the purposes for which school districts are established.”
“The board has to follow existing law which is an important understanding. The state constitution says the board members will have allegiance to the state constitution and the federal constitution,” said the district legal counsel.
The trustees ended the hearing on the action item by denying the district to become a sanctuary city without speaking on the matter. The crowd was angry and started to chant, “See you on the campaign trail,” and “Start looking for new jobs.”
11 thoughts on “Parents In Southern California Demand School Board Declare District a Sanctuary Community For Parental Rights”
A number of years ago I lived and the People’s Republic of Kalifornia and went I saw Bill Clinton and his cronies try to push through Goals 2000 I pulled my daughter out of public school and begin to homeschool her. Was it difficult yes, was it tough yes but it worked because he graduated and went on to become a teacher at a private school in Beverly Hills.
But I could see the writing on the wall and moved out of that state 6 years ago and I don’t regret it one bit.
Don’t want to progress with the rest of us, then opt your kid out of sex ed or homeschool them. You will only be able to control your children for so long…
Homeschool and cost the state $15,000 per year per kid. California’s already just about bankrupt. Just finish them off, it’s a race which is the worst state in the union, them or NY.
Hmm….This is about the state indoctrination of our most impressionable citizens vs. allowing parents to teach them in these areas. At impressionable ages, kids are vulnerable. Who is likely to have these kids’ best interests truly at heart and know their needs individually? Parental “control” at this stage of the game is nature’s design for human flourishing. Once they are out of the nest, they have the frontal lobe executive function capacity to make their own decisions.
When something …ANYTHING … becomes “obligatory”? You are no longer on a “need-to-know” basis. Why? Because, like it or not, you’re getting it. There can NEVER BE any such thing as “informed-consent” without CONSENT: FIRST AND FOREMOST. Consent must come BEFORE awareness, NOT as an afterthought. This is a civil rights issue under public health cover. BOTH sides of this issue stipulated to this back in April 2015 (SB 177). Here is the discussion ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIOuE-8nUfk&t=15s ). There can never ever ever ever ever be any “Compelling State Interest” here because there is no objective end-point to any communicable disease. The implied “end-point” here is nothing but “herd immunity”. This is a circular argument. Theory … whereby the ends justifies the means. In a free and open society with individual Rights, the ends NEVER justifies the means. Period. When do these vaccine mandates end? NEVER. So you can categorically dismiss any talk about “compelling state interest” from the onset. When does the alleged threat of “terrorism” ever end?
There is no way to “unvaccinate” someone once vaccinated. There are NO FACTS here because the (legal) standard is non-existent. TRIAL COURTS = Trier of Fact. NOT school board hearings. NOT congressional or legislative hearings. That is the cover story (appearance of unfettered due process). ALL MEDICAL TESTIMONY in any trial court is OPINION. NOT FACT. The “vaccine court” is NOT a trial court …therefore, NO FACTS are possible. One side and ONLY one side presents their self-serving opinions.
In SB 277, the rationalization for obligatory vaccines rests on the California Constitutional Right to a public education. Okay…fine. BUT ..the remedy is NOT to force vaccination on those without their consent …but rather … California law COMPELS it to provide a public education for those who are vaccinated and those who are not vaccinated. “Separate-but-equal” is not illegal based upon vaccine status. Demand your Rights.
Finally …. the application of Postmodernism & medicine. If you do not stop this now ….the (legal) definition of “healthy” becomes “vaccinated”, such that a clinically-proven, disease-free asymptomatic person is not born “healthy”. The new, Postmodern definition (and soon-to-be legal) will be “healthy = vaccinated”. This is “Twilight Zone” dystonia. This is about POWER. Individual Rights. “Science” is the cover story. For a glimpse of predictive programming …look here —> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Puo82y6MsBQ
The organized PSYOPS in this matter rests with mischaracterizing this as a “scientific” issue. These parents illustrated in the above article are not there to argue “science”. They are there because their Rights are being abolished. So lets look at the organized opposition, shall we? We have … “VAXXED” and “VAXXED II”. Neither of these address the core issue of individual Rights but focus on the corruption of CDC and medical fraud, along with vaccine morbidity and mortality. There is NO FOCUS on Rights. Yet, as my previous post proves, both sides stipulated to the foundation of Rights (in re: Compelling State Interest). Yet, incredibly, there is little or no organized discussion on this topic. Moreover, has any of this “VAXXED” money gone to sponsor legislation to vacate the vaccine court (tribunal) or finance political candidates that will protect their Rights? No. Why? The endless cycle of bickering equates to no resolution. And whose interests does that serve? Well … when we get to “VAXXED XXXIV” in Super Bowl fashion … wake me up. Because if you want to see what life will be like in 5 years time? Take today ..and multiply by 5.