Democrat in Congress Blasts American Parents as ‘Stupid’

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

One Democrat in Congress has labeled America’s parents as “stupid.”

And a prominent expert is warning that might come back to haunt him.

TRENDING: Surprise! Trump or DeSantis in 2024? A new poll has the astonishing answer

The comment came from U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., who perhaps is best known for his relationship with a known Chinese spy.

“Please tell me what I’m missing here. What are we doing next? Putting parents in charge of their surgeries? Clients in charge of their trials? When did we stop trusting experts? This is so stupid,” Swalwell said on social media.

His wild overreaction was in response to a comment from Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., who emphasized his goal of “putting parents back in charge of their kids’ education.”

That was a comment that addressed the leftist agenda being pursued by special interest organizations and teachers’ unions to impose their environmental, racist, transgender, and abortion ideologies on children in public schools – often making such instruction mandatory.

Joe Biden also got involved in the fight, when his Department of Justice singled out parents who protest such indoctrination of their children for investigations.

One commenter explained, “What Swalwell failed to realize, is that patients may not be performing their surgeries, but they do still have a say in what doctors do to them. The same goes for kids in schools— parents may not be the ones who are teaching their kids, however, they can decide what their children learn while in the classroom.”

But it was George Washington University law professor and commentator Jonathan Turley who wrote at Fox News that when Swalwell “mocked the notion of parents making major decisions in the education of their children,” he was establishing the Democrats’ ideology over parental rights.

“Since he asked for assistance, let’s deal with each in turn,” Turley wrote. “American torts have long required consent in medical torts. Indeed, what Swalwell seemed to suggest would be a battery for doctors to make the key decisions over surgical goals or purposes. Indeed, even when doctors secured consent to operate on one ear, it was still considered battery when they decided in the operation to address the other ear in the best interests of the patient. Mohr v. Williams (Minn. 1905).

“Ironically, California has one of the strongest patient-based consent rules. As the California Supreme Court stated in Cobbs v. Grant (1972): ‘Unlimited discretion in the physician is irreconcilable with the basic right of the patient to make the ultimate informed decision regarding the course of treatment to which he knowledgeably consents to be subjected.'”

He explained where Swalwell failed to grasp reality: “While obviously, a patient cannot direct an operation itself, the doctor is expected to explain and secure the consent of the patient in what surgery will attempt and how it will be accomplished. That is precisely what parents are demanding in looking at the subjects and books being taught in school. Moreover, that is precisely the role of school boards, which has historically exercised concurrent authority over the schools with the teachers hired under the school board-approved budgets.”

Turley went even further, noting that Swalwell also failed to grasp the reality of trials.

“Not only must attorneys secure the consent of their clients on what will be argued in the trial, but they can be removed by their clients for failure to adequately represent their interests. It would be malpractice for a lawyer to tell a client, as suggested by Swalwell, that they do not control the major decisions in their own cases.”

He noted, “Of course, the key to informed consent is that parents are given the information needed to secure their consent. School districts have been resisting such disclosures and pushing back on parental opposition to major curriculum or policy decisions.”

And he noted Swalwell’s interpretations “could constitute both medical and legal malpractices.”

Last year there was an attempt to remove Swalwell from the House Intelligence Committee over his relationship with a known Chinese spy.

Swalwell, who was a House manager in both of Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s failed impeachment trials against President Trump, was found to have had a direct connection with a Chinese communist spy at about the time he was named a member of the House Intelligence Committee.

Axios reported the spy, Christine Fang, known as Fang Fang, took part in fundraising activity for Swalwell’s 2014 re-election campaign, according to a Bay Area political operative and a current U.S. intelligence official.

Swalwell’s office, Axios said, was directly aware of the activities, the political operative said. But the operative insisted there was no evidence of illegal contributions.

The report said Fang helped place at least one intern in Swalwell’s office and interacted with the California congressman at multiple events over several years.

When the conflict surfaced, the Communist Party-sponsored state media in China defended Swalwell.

Latest News