Dangers of University Campus Parties Can Have Lifetime Consequences: Party Now, Regret Later

Many University Campus and Frat Parties carry the risks of serial rapes, date rapes, with drugs slipped into many of the drinks, people encouraging young students to drink a lot when they are not used to the effects that alcohol and drugs have on their inhibitions and behavior (particularly underaged students who need to "party", socialize, and drink alcohol so badly that they go to fraternities to find it and end up being raped, beaten, and brutalized). This often happens on college and university campuses, particularly during fraternity "rushes", and more often to those entering freshmen girls who are so enamored with "upper classmen" that they feel "honored" to be invited and taken to frat parties where their "date" becomes one of the serial rapists, and then the university faculty either turns a blind eye to what has happened to them, or lies and says that the police have no jurisdiction over frat houses, or otherwise takes a morally equivalent stance towards what has happened, just when a young student needs strong guidance to report the crime to the police and see that the perpretators are prosecuted and prevented from doing this again to other girls. Many so-called "friends" and peers of raped and beaten girls have pressured the victims to "forget" what has happened to them and not report it because they think it might "ruin" their chances for getting invited to frat parties. Some fraternity members are even threatening victims not to report the criminal rapes and assaults, which include punching them in the faces, drugging them, getting them drunk so that they can be more easily serially raped, sexually abusing them with beer bottles, taunting, pressuring and intimidating new fraternity pledges until they join in on serial rapes as part of their "initiation" to join the fraternity, etc. The girls are covered in their own blood, with clothes ripped off them, bruised and beaten, and emotional wrecks for years to come -- all because they thought the "upperclassman" was so handsome and they thought it was such an honor to be invited by him to a frat party, and then "invited" by him to go "upstairs" to have sex (as some kind of "payback" for inviting the girls to the party), where they push the girls into dark rooms filled with guys who take turns punching, serial raping and taunting each other to abuse the girls with various objects. Please realize that you should not feel beholden to someone for inviting you to a party and should not feel like you have to let them have sex with you as payment for it; sex is an expression of love and caring, and should not be used as "payment" for something! A simple, "Thank you" is enough. You should seriously reconsider your relationship with anyone who tries to convince you that sex is required just because he treated you decently!

Some of the rapists even taunt the girls afterwards with statements such as, "I/we had a really good time (raping, sexually abusing and beating you)!" and drive some of the girls to the brink of suicide... or worse, cause extreme emotional pain and suffering (and future relationship and trust problems) for many years afterwards, and the perpretators still go free.

Search for an article by Rolling Stone about rapes on university campuses; I highly recommend students thinking about going to college and their parents read and discuss it thoroughly, and really understand what they are getting into and the potential consequences of frat parties, and of underage students who who are willing to risk everything in order to find a source of alcohol and a place to "party". Also, search FIRE for "rape problem".

Little Girls Gone Wild: Why Daughters Are Acting Too Sexy, Too Soon
Sexualization of Young Girls - Media Effects on Young Girls
By Rachael Combe

Push-up bras, pedicures, hip-hop dance classes: These are now the social currency of the under-10 set. What happened' And how can we help our girls stay girls for longer' Rachael Combe reports.

It was the high heels that finally got my attention -- my daughter received four pairs for her second birthday, pink plastic ones with rhinestones and feathers. Louisa quickly became disconcertingly expert at walking, running, and kicking soccer balls in them. I couldn't put my finger on why they creeped me out. After all, I loved to play dress-up at her age too. My grandmother was petite, almost child-size, and I spent half my childhood swanning around in her low-cut evening gowns, my cheeks rouged up with her Mary Kay. But then I realized there was a major difference: I played dress-up with my grandma's high heels. Louisa plays dress-up with heels that have been manufactured for and marketed to children -- with their own celebrity style icon in 4-year-old Suri Cruise, who has been known to wear higher heels than I do as an adult.

There's been a lot of noise about little girls acting and dressing way too sexy lately. To be perfectly honest, I wasn't that concerned when Miley Cyrus took her clothes off, or when her then-9-year-old sister, Noah, showed up for a Los Angeles Halloween event dressed in what looked like a Goth hooker outfit. (Those crazy child stars, I said to myself.) I rolled my eyes at the YouTube clip of scantily clad 8- and 9-year-olds in a dance competition, pelvis-thrusting to Beyoncé's "Single Ladies"; it reminded me of the show Toddlers & Tiaras -- disturbing, but very different from the reality of most kids. But then I started hearing reports from my real-life friends. One complained that they only make padded training bras now and that her sixth-grader looked like a Pamela Anderson wannabe. Another called to talk about her 6-year-old's dance-recital costume: fuchsia hotpants with heart appliqués on each buttock. The insanity seems to be trickling down to real girls -- our girls. Take this so-wrong-I-hope-it's-not-right statistic: According to a survey by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy and cosmogirl.com, 22 percent of girls ages 13 to 19 have sent or posted nude or semi-nude pictures of themselves online.

Luckily, Louisa doesn't know how to operate the camera or computer, and I feel pretty certain that I can prevent her from turning into a teen who lists "topless dancer" as one of her career aspirations. Yet the first thing you learn in parenting is that pride comes before a fall (you know, the old "My children will never watch TV/whine/sleep in my bed" thing). So I wondered: When do I start taking action to protect her from our supersexed culture -- and what do I do, short of sending her to a nunnery' I posed the question to educators and moms around the country -- and while I discovered that it all begins much earlier than you'd think, I also learned that there's a lot that parents can and should control.

The terrifying truth: It starts with princesses
My innocent toddler is already a prime marketing target, I learn when I speak to Peggy Orenstein, the author of a new book, Cinderella Ate My Daughter: Dispatches From the Front Lines of the New Girlie-Girl Culture. "It's subtle stuff that puts girls on the road to getting their identity from how they look, which as they get older will be increasingly defined as hot and sexy," she tells me. "And you can see it starting with the Disney princesses." In Orenstein's book she makes the case that girlhood really is different today: more commercialized (companies spent $100 million in advertising to kids in 1983; today they spend almost $17 billion), more girly (nearly everything manufactured for girls -- from birth -- is screamingly, irritatingly, blindingly pink), and increasingly sexualized.

You may balk -- what's sexy about a little girl in a pink princess costume' But sexy, as it turns out, is not the same thing as sexualized. Sexualization is not only imposing sexuality on children before they're ready and viewing girls as sexual objects, but also valuing a girl for her appearance over her other attributes. "Princesses are just a phase," Orenstein writes, but they mark a girl's "first foray into the mainstream culture.... And what was the first thing that culture told her about being a girl' Not that she was competent, strong, creative, or smart but that every little girl wants -- or should want -- to be the Fairest of Them All."

Orenstein builds her case with stats showing that the more a girl is exposed to girly-girl culture, the more vulnerable she is to depression, eating disorders, distorted body image, and risky sexual behavior. She describes one study in which college girls shown just two commercials with stereotyped portrayals of women -- a girl raving about acne medicine and a woman thrilled with a brownie mix -- expressed less interest in math- and science-related careers afterward than girls who hadn't been shown the ads. These days, the average child in America watches an estimated 40,000 ads a year.

"Just as they say marijuana is a gateway drug, all this stuff that's being marketed to little girls is a gateway to sexualization," agrees Rachel Simmons, author of The Curse of the Good Girl: Raising Authentic Girls With Courage and Confidence. Simmons points, for example, to the trend of moms treating preschoolers to manicures. "When you take a girl to a salon at age 4, it equates prettying yourself with closeness to your parent. There's a message there: This is how we spend time," she tells me. "You're training her that buying things is what makes you valuable as a girl."

What begins with Cinderella is followed, once girls hit grade school, by less innocent stuff: TV programs like Hannah Montana and iCarly, which center around eye-rolling, miniskirt-clad girls whose idea of success is being a rock diva or a reality star. Their rapt audience -- most in the 6-to-11-year-old demographic -- follows the shows and the offscreen lives of their stars with wide-eyed curiosity. And then so many of those tween idols -- girls such as Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan, even Miley -- wind up as premature sex symbols, headed for a fall. You can argue it has always been thus (Maureen McCormick has said she traded sex for cocaine shortly after playing Marcia Brady -- Marcia, Marcia, Marcia!), but back then we never heard a peep about it. Now our 24-hour news cycle brings their skimpy outfits and crazy antics straight into our homes, where our kids can get a load of them.

"It's a pattern," Orenstein says. "They go from being role models, doing things like wearing promise rings, doing charity work, and what's the next step' They take their clothes off or head to rehab. The road to female identity is rocky right now, and these stars are traveling it in a writ-large, public way that reflects, in a smaller way, the dilemmas real girls face."

So how do you keep your little girl from becoming that girl, when the line between good femme fun and scary consumerism is so faint?

When to say no... and when to say nothing
It was already too late when Lisa Khakee, a mom of two girls, 4 and 7, realized she might have gone too far. "I've been to the Bibbidi Bobbidi Boutique," she laments, referring to the salon at Disney World where girls are painted with glitter makeup and given hair extensions and manicures. "And I have no one to blame but myself. I'd heard about it from other parents; my girls had no idea what it was." The end result was beauty treatments her kids found mildly amusing at best and painful and itchy at worst. "They had more bobby pins and hair-spray in their hair than I did on my wedding night," says Lisa, whose youngest deconstructed the 'do as soon as they left. In retrospect, she feels foolish for buying her girls a full-on salon experience when they hadn't even thought to want it.

But what happens when they do want it, expressing interest in something you can't stand (like, say, Bratz dolls, those bedroom-eyed plastic playthings that appear to be dressed for a shift at the Hustler Club)' Veteran teachers I spoke with said one of the biggest changes in students over the years is they've grown less and less accustomed to the word no. People are putting their kids in the driver's seat, but, let's face it, kids are crappy drivers. Your daughter may love the sweats with JUICY emblazoned across the butt -- but she also may love eating Pixy Stix for lunch. "We've learned to feel that we can't go up against the culture or the peer group," Orenstein told me. "But I really think you can. Your child wants to know your values."

Yet simply putting your foot down won't work. "When you do say no, you have to treat it as a more complicated issue," says Diane Levin, Ph.D., a professor of education at Wheelock College in Boston and coauthor of So Sexy So Soon. "You can't just say, 'Here's the right answer,' thinking it will sink in." Ask your kids why they like the toy or TV show they're begging for. "It gives you the opportunity to add other voices in their heads besides advertising or their peers."

Jodi Belshe of Overland Park, KS, was appalled when she heard her 10-year-old mindlessly singing Katy Perry's song "California Gurls," warbling lyrics about women wearing "Daisy Dukes, bikinis on top." Jodi resisted the urge to freak out and instead asked her daughter what she thought the song's message was. Her daughter said, "I guess it's about girls showing off their bodies." Jodi wondered aloud if her daughter thought that was a great way to get attention. "I think I'd rather my friends liked me because I was smart or kind," she answered after some thought, to her mother's relief. "Well, that's why I don't want you to listen to that song," Jodi said. "Neither of us agrees with the message."

While it can seem like Katy Perry and her ilk are being beamed directly into kids' brains while they sleep, the culprit I heard cited over and over is television. Some parents take the tactic of watching shows with their kids -- and offering play-by-play commentary. Kimberly Stelting of Olathe, KS, has been known to embarrass her daughters (12, 14, and 16) by giving matter-of-fact information about sexual content slipped into "family" TV shows. "I once had to explain the word douche! And when I was done, my daughter said she wished I hadn't," she reports. "But I just say, 'You wanted to watch the show; now we have to talk about what you saw.'"

For younger kids, some parents have taken it a step further and removed choice from the equation. Ann Friedman of Durango, CO, tried to get her 8-year-old to "stick to PBS, but she'd channel surf and end up watching Hannah Montana and iCarly." Ann started to notice a new attitude from Iris. "She'd put her hand on her hip and say, 'Mom,'" Ann says, making her voice drip with adolescent disgust. "And then I realized that's what those girls do." Now their TV viewing is all done via mom-approved DVD.

Keeping an eye on what they're doing shouldn't stop at the TV screen, either. Karen Mallow of Ancram, NY, told me her 13-year-old likes to try on outfits with her friends and take pictures like fashion models. One afternoon, as Karen perused the shots on her daughter's MacBook, she saw a few way-too-provocative poses one girl had struck on her daughter's bed. "I made her delete them," she says. "I said, 'Once this is on your computer, you could hit the wrong button. If this gets out, you don't know where it'll end up.'"

Point them in the right direction
This can start to sound like a lot of medicine-taking: monitoring every show a child watches, telling a girl over and over how unnatural Barbie's measurements are. And in fact, one tactic advertisers use is to paint parents as big spoilsports. "Companies employ developmental psychologists to craft their message and tell kids, particularly in the preteen years, 'You're in charge, you make it happen, this is your identity,'" says Lyn Mikel Brown, Ed.D., a professor of education at Colby College in Maine and coauthor of Packaging Girlhood. "So when you say, 'No, bad, awful,' kids see it as you taking their fun and their choices away." Which, of course, makes the forbidden fruit that much more alluring.

Mikel Brown recommends trying to change the conversation to a positive one: "Invest the good stuff with a lot of energy and excitement, the way the media invest things with energy and excitement." Lisa Khakee, for example, bought her 7-year-old a set of Little House on the Prairie books, then, when that was a hit, found the DVDs -- and ultimately got her daughter so worked up about prairie life that she dressed as Laura Ingalls Wilder for Halloween, neatly sidestepping the racks of slutty-pirate-girl/jailbait-witch costumes.

Encouraging girls to play sports is another way to get them focused on the strength of their bodies, not just on how they look. "I talk about it with my friends; sports give our daughters a sense of confidence and self-worth," says Laura Hohnhold of Evanston, IL, the mom of a 12-year-old who swims and plays softball.

Sports also create healthy common ground between girls and boys. Educators say they're seeing the end result of the all-blue-for-boys, all-pink-for-girls marketing trends: boys and girls who have a harder time playing together, which ultimately leaves both sexes lagging in academic and social development. Further, there's evidence that kids who play well with the opposite sex grow up to have more positive, long-lasting romantic relationships.

The key is not to sexualize those friendships, Orenstein says. A 5-year-old girl's friend who is a boy is not a boyfriend. Laughing about how cute they are and their impending marriage is a surefire way to embarrass the poor thing and send her running into the safety of making hot-pink sparkle jewelry with her girlfriends.

Her point leads to an important lesson in all of this: As counterintuitive as it may feel, sex is not the enemy. Robyn Silverman, Ph.D., a child development specialist in New Jersey, says we must be careful, in our zeal to shelter our daughters, not to make sex seem bad or scary: "We want girls to grow up and have full, responsible, passionate sexual relationships. That's why sexualization is so detrimental. If they're hurried along before they're ready, they can associate negative feelings with being sexual. The right time is great [and with the right person: someone that they marry and spend the rest of their life with]. But the wrong time really messes with their heads." So what's the right time' It's every parent's judgment call, Silverman says, but it's when a young woman has not only developed physically but also possesses the maturity to understand the message she sends with smoky eyeliner and a tight skirt -- and to handle the reactions they elicit.

Protecting your daughter doesn't mean never talking about sex or never telling her she's beautiful. "It just can't be the only thing you find praise-worthy," says Silverman. "She's smart and interesting and funny -- and she's pretty."

My daughter, Louisa, is beautiful to me, breathtakingly so. It was the first thing I said when she was born, and then I cried because I was so happy to see her. I still feel that way. Every morning, I'm just so delighted to see that little face, those strong, chubby limbs. We call her The Viking because she's so exuberant, so gung ho. The idea of her some day comparing herself to Cinderella, or Barbie, or some simpering teen queen on TV and finding herself lacking -- too fat, too skinny, too loud, nose too big, lips too small -- and trying to compensate with store-bought sexiness breaks my heart. I don't want anyone to take that light out of her heart or out of her eyes. My goal then, I suppose, is to teach her to see herself as I see her, and to love herself as I love her, as someone who already possesses everything she needs.

Follow us: @redbookmag on Twitter | REDBOOK on Facebook
Visit us at Redbook.com

Bullying Leads to Suicide of Young Girl

Parents, please read this!
Warning To Parents: Talk to your kids!
Amanda Todd committed suicide because of pornography, predator, bullying

I wouldn't usually send you an email on Saturday, but I just heard about this story and feel that this is URGENT. If you have children, please sit down with them this weekend and talk about the dangers of our Internet age - pornography, sexting, sexual predators, bullying, etc.

This young girl was coerced into showing her breasts on a webcam - it ruined her life. Here is the tragic story in her words, posted on September 7th. With a heavy heart, we share that she committed suicide on Wednesday.

Please don't think that this cannot happen to your child. Statistics show that even the "good kids" are doing this. ADDRESS THIS ISSUE NOW AND OFTEN WITH YOUR CHILDREN. Use this tragic story to start the conversation. Let us know how the conversation goes. Email us grassroots@pornharms.com.

There are many resources to help you. We have compiled a list here. The tools are here. USE THEM.

Dawn Hawkins

[These tragedies wouldn't happen if parents took their kids back from pubic schools (intentionally misspelled) and taught them morality and religion, and not to base their self-worth upon peer-approval!

Students: if you find yourself in this type of situation, please talk with your parents about homeschooling. www.hslda.org has some excellent information, and there is are different A beka programs, with student and teacher's guides, (and even a DVD-based course) that make it easy to homeschool. Also, learn full-contact boxing / self defense (as opposed to breaking boards and pulling punches in most martial arts classes) in order to build your self esteem. Work on getting your feeling of self-worth from inside yourself, not from peers: their opinions do not accurately reflect your self-worth, but only how well you conform to what they think you should be like (which is usually like they are). They do not like anyone different, and will attack them (herd-mentality). Also, try to look on the bright side, rather than the dark side of everything. Investigate Christianity (which is not Catholicism, a corrupted form of Christianity) as a source of peace and self-worth. Over the years, the elites, along with the liberals in schools, government and media have intentionally indoctrinated each generation into rejecting morals, values and religion, and have done all they could to weaken the family and convince the youth to look to the government for everything (including validation of self-worth). Reject this and learn to accept yourself.]

Enough Is Enough's "Internet Safety 101": http://www.internetsafety101.org/

We feel this is among the BEST tools out there to help parents understand the dangers facing their children and how to address these. If you are a parent, please visit their website and consider getting this program. Click here.

Help continue these efforts!
Tel: (202) 393-7245
Email: grassroots@pornharms.com

Morality In Media, Inc.
1100 G Street NW
Suite 1030
Washington, District of Columbia 20005




The Queer Connection: Freemasonry & "Gay Rights"
"A normal boy won't have any protection against horny homosexuals whether they be students or teachers, and that's no joke... Under the current law, It's not bullying when a homosexual stalks a straight boy for sex. "

Freemasonry's Hidden Homosexual Agenda

"Bullying" is Another Illuminati Psy-op

Being straight no longer normal, students taught

Are you concerned about the number of sexualised images our children are being exposed to in the media, and by the advertising, marketing and clothing industries' Are you concerned about:

* How children are portrayed in advertising - i.e. What they wear, how they're posed'
' The images children are exposed to in their environment - i.e. Billboards, magazines, internet, TV'
' The toys, dolls, gadgets children play with'
' Exposure to adult sexual images that a child is not developmentally ready to absorb'
' Have you felt powerless to make a difference' You are not alone!

There is a groundswell of people all over Australia who are also concerned. This includes experts in the field of child development.

Kids free 2b Kids and Young Media Australia are committed to children developing to their full potential - without exposure to sexualized imagery before they are developmentally ready to process it.

This website (http://www.kf2bk.com/) tells you:

* What we want to do.
' What you can do to make your voice count.
' What the research says.
' What the current regulations are.
' How to make a complaint.
The above website is continually updated. Parent and Educational resources will be available soon.

Affirmative Action and Gay Marriage
Thomas Sowell
Wednesday, November 05, 2008

The politically clever way to get special privileges is to call them "rights"-- especially "equal rights."

Some local election campaigns in various states are using that tactic this year, trying to get special privileges through affirmative action quotas or through demands that the definition of marriage be changed to suit homosexuals.

Equality of rights does not mean equality of results. I can have all the equal treatment in the world on a golf course and I will not finish within shouting distance of Tiger Woods.

When arbitrary numerical "goals" or "quotas" under affirmative action are not met, the burden of proof is put on the employer to prove that he did not discriminate against minorities or women. No burden of proof whatever is put on the advocates of "goals" or "quotas" to show that people would be equally represented in jobs, colleges or anywhere else in the absence of discrimination.

Tons of evidence from countries around the world, and over centuries of history, show that statistical disparities are the rule, not the exception-- even in situations where discrimination is virtually impossible.

Anonymously graded tests do not show the same results from one group to another. In many countries there are minorities who completely outperform members of the majority population, whether in education, in the economy or in sports, even when there is no way that they can discriminate against the majority.

Putting the burden of proof on everybody except yourself is a slick political ploy. The time is long overdue for the voting public to see through it.

Another fraud on the ballot this year is gay "marriage."

Marriage has existed for centuries and, until recent times, it has always meant a union between a man and a woman. Over those centuries, a vast array of laws has grown up, all based on circumstances that arise in unions between a man and a woman.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that law has not been based on logic but on experience. To apply a mountain of laws based specifically on experience with relations between a man and a woman to a different relationship where sex differences are not involved would be like applying the rules of baseball to football.

The argument that current marriage laws "discriminate" against homosexuals confuses discrimination against people with making distinctions among different kinds of behavior.

All laws distinguish among different kinds of behavior. What other purpose does law have?

While people may be treated the same, all their behaviors are not. Laws that forbid bicycles from being ridden on freeways obviously have a different effect on people who have bicycles but no cars.

But this is not discrimination against a person. The cyclist who gets into a car is just as free to drive on the freeway as anybody else.

The question is not whether gays should be permitted to marry. Many gays have already married people of the opposite sex. Conversely, heterosexuals who might want to marry someone of the same sex in order to make some point will be forbidden to do so, just as gays are.

The real issue is whether marriage should be redefined-- and, if for gays, why not for polygamists' Why not for pedophiles?

Despite heavy television advertising in California for "gay marriage," showing blacks being set upon by police dogs during civil right marches, and implying that homosexuals face the same discrimination today, the analogy is completely false.

Blacks had to sit in the back of the bus because they were black. They were doing exactly what white people were doing-- riding a bus. That is what made it racial discrimination.

Marriage is not a right but a set of legal obligations imposed because the government has a vested interest in unions that, among other things, have the potential to produce children, which is to say, the future population of the nation.

Gays were on their strongest ground when they said that what they did was nobody else's business. Now they are asserting a right to other people's approval, which is wholly different.

None of us has a right to other people's approval.

Excerpt from "THE CULTURE WAR 2001-2002" (entire article is on "Obama Changes" page)

E.U. FORCES HOMOSEXUALITY ON ROMANIA. On 20 December '01 the BBC reported that "human rights campaigners in Romania were celebrating their victory in getting a Ceausescu-era law which criminalized homosexual practices scrapped." The law, article 200 of the Romanian penal code, was repealed "under fierce pressure from the European Union." The E.U. made abolishing the statute a precondition for the country's pending membership in the European superstate.

Romania has historically banned homosexual behavior, and public attitudes among Romanians toward sodomy are decidedly negative. In 2000, a nationwide survey found close to 90% of Romanians would not want to live next door to a homosexual.

"We need healthy young people in mind and body, like any civilized country, and we must try to protect them from contamination by such serious sinners," said a spokesman for the Romanian Orthodox Church. When asked about the E.U.'s role in coercing Romania to jettison its anti-homosexual laws, the spokesman replied: "We want to join the European Union, not Sodom and Gomorrah."

"GAY DAYS" AT SANTA ROSA HIGH. Anti-homosexual activist, attorney Scott Lively, gets a glimpse into "the brave new world of sexual diversity in California schools." What is especially worrying is that this kind of degeneracy is not confined to "off-the-wall" California, but is spreading like a cancer throughout  America. Even worse, this metastasizing process is being aided and abetted by U. S. politicians, educators, and, yes, even prominent and not-so-prominent religious leaders. The only hope is that the American people -- who have so far shown themselves to be little more than lemmings -- finally wake up and take back their nation, their culture, and their children.

GRAMSCI AND THE U.S. BODY POLITIC. Who is Antonio Gramsci' You'd better learn!!! Why the interest in Gramsci' This study gives a short bio and a quick glance into the mind of a diabolical genius whose theories are being used to convert America (and the rest of the Western world) into a class warfare arena where the dominant Helleno-Christian culture is methodically being marginalized. Understanding Gramsci, "you will understand the 'peculiar' and 'weird' theories that are in vogue today."

GRAMSCI: A  METHOD TO THE MADNESS. Behind the many maddening attacks on the West's popular Helleno-Christian culture is Italian Communist theoretician Antonio Gramsci's strategy for achieving the total state. Gramsci (1891-1937), described as "...the most significant Marxist thinker since Lenin," diverged from purist Marxist theory by insisting that, given food in his belly and a marginal existence, the average worker would never bestir himself  to revolt. No, said Gramsci, it is through the undermining and domination of their institutions that the masses must be guided into the anthill. Destroy their faith in religion, undermine the educational process, erode the strength of the family, take control of the means of communication, and you will soon reduce individualistic humanity into an amorphous, easy to subjugate, mass of aggressive consumers and docile citizens. Then, and only then, can the process of remaking society into the New World Order of a Marxist/Socialist "paradise" begin. One need not have a degree in Political Science, nor the brains of a genius, to see that his planned "March Through the Institutions," in order to "capture the culture" is working.

GRAMSCI'S GRAND PLAN for gaining "cultural hegemony" over our Helleno-Christian civilization is explained in this article by philosopher, theologian, writer, and researcher, Fr. James Thornton. Antonio Gramsci--"the most significant Marxist thinker since Lenin"-- broke ranks with traditional Marxist theory by stressing that the domination over the institutions of culture is of far greater importance than class or economic considerations. When one looks at the sorry state of our Western Culture, and considers how our once inviolate institutions have fallen into disarray, one can appreciate the diabolical genius of Gramsci's strategy.


"It will be necessary to replace Latin and Greek as the fulcrum of the formative school, and they will be replaced. But it will not be easy to deploy the new subject or subjects in a didactic form which gives equivalent results in terms of education and general personality-formation from early childhood to the threshold of the adult choice of career. For in this period what is learnt, or the greater part of it, must be -- or appear to the pupils to be -- disinterested, i.e. not have immediate or too immediate practical purposes. It must be formative, while being "instructive" -- in other words rich in concrete facts." (No abstracts, you see, just "concrete facts" needed by the consumer-worker drone of the future.) Selections From the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci (SPN). Int'l Publ. 1999. p 39f.

"QUEER SEX" was the title of a school workshop conducted by Massachusetts state health and education employees in March of 2000. The program was part of the annual conference of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network-Boston (GLSEN-Boston). At this event, attended by students as young as 14 and their "teachers," any misconception about how homosexual militants are "simply fighting intolerance" was immediately dispelled. As an example, pederasty was promoted in a video narrated by a 7th-grade girl who unwittingly promoted the lie that man-boy love was an accepted practice among the ancient Greeks. After the video, an adult assured the attendees that "there is nothing wrong with an adult approaching adolescents for sex." (For the truth about Greece, read a short introduction to "Homosexuality in ancient Greece" before linking to the article.) What follows is a small sampling from across America of similar initiatives by homosexual activists pursuing an increasingly open and defiant program to recruit children into their "lifestyle," and who are being aided and abetted by the American Establishment in their goal.

 In the rural Rio Bravo-Greeley Union School District in California, parents of 15 students seeking to transfer their children out of the classroom of a militant "gay" teacher were denied the right to do so by a decree issued by the state. The students complained that the teacher "rubbed" their backs, and placed his arms around them when they would ask questions in class.
 Parents across the U.S. are incensed over the wide-spread showing of a lesbian-produced film titled It's Elementary: Talking about Gay Issues in School. The video, which is being shown to children from 1st grade through middle school, is all about teachers giving pro-homosexual instruction in the classroom.
 According to GLSEN, as of January 2000 more than 600 gay and lesbian student clubs meet regularly in schools throughout America; up from fewer than 100 in 1998. Some school boards tried to withhold their approval for these clubs, but backed down when threatened with law suits. So far, and to our knowledge, only one school board has succeeded in thwarting such activity, but it did so at a high cost to other students: it abandoned all extracurricular clubs rather than yield, but this is the exception.
 Four Portland, Oregon, public school teachers protested in Sept. of 1999 that their school district's "Sexual Diversity Committee" was promoting homosexuality by insisting on books promoting the "gay" lifestyle be used in the classroom, and by rejecting books presenting Christian or other contrary points of view. The teachers charge that they have been aggressively "harassed" ever since.
 A transsexual high school teacher was dismissed for discussing "sex-identity" issues, and for openly and graphically discussing his own sex-change operation in class. He sued and received a $150,000. settlement from the school board.
 In the "Mathematics" section of the Project Organizing Handbook, a widely-circulated teachers' aid, the following "math" story-problem was recommended: "If 10,000 people marched in the Gay Pride March in 1990 and 25,000 in 1992, what was the average increase' The Handbook openly -- and, it seems, without fear of opposition from the pusillanimous denizens of "the home of the brave" -- recommends that teachers insert "The use of gay/lesbian specific situations in explaining mathematical procedures."
 At a 1998 GLSEN-Boston conference, New York kindergarten teacher Jaki Williams said that teaching 5-year-olds about homosexuality is important because children at that age are "just developing their super-ego" and "that's where the saturation process needs to begin." [ Saturation!!' Of 5-year old kids' This is Bejing-style indoctrination, pure and simple.]
 In the January 1999 issue of Young Children, authors B .J. Cahill and R. Theilheimer offer this "politically correct" advice on how teachers should respond to the question from 5-year-old Tommy about whether he can marry his best friend, Sam, when they grow up: "Tommy and Sam can choose to live together when they grow up. There are men who prefer to make a family with another man instead of with a woman. And they love each other just like other families. They can even have a wedding if they want."
In Jacksonville, Florida, parents of high-school students objected to the pornographic and scatological filth called "poetry" written by that blatantly homosexual sodomite, the late and unlamented Allen Ginsberg, being assigned to their children in an English class. In September of 2001 they got the full (and usual) treatment: They were made to feel stupid and uncouth by the diploma-mill hoodlums of the school's English Department, who assured them that what this America-hating, piece of shit had written was worth learning. Ginsberg  loved to brag "I sleep with young boys" at every opportunity given him by the naive and stupidly "open-minded" and "tolerant" Americans his kind are hell-bent on destroying. He was obsessed with his anus, and wrote all about the many uses he'd put it to through the years. He also fantasized in his poetry about having sex with his mother, and wrote about her bowel movements in graphic detail. This man is to literature what the stuff that sticks to the heels of your shoes when you walk through a dog kennel is to your brand new wall-to-wall carpeting. Yet his pornographic scribbling is being taught in high schools and universities throughout America today. Of course, the parents in Florida ultimately had to yield to the "experts" who insisted that Ginsberg  had "greatly influenced the development of modern American poetry," and deserved to be taught to their young.

Although this blurb is zeroed in on what's going on in the schools of America concerning homosexuality, the same nihilistic message of death is being huckstered to the citizens of that once great land by their media, their politicians, and their corporate "captains of commerce and industry." Even the majority of their churches have not been able to withstand the conspiratorial onslaught against the Helleno-Christian values that created America and made her the bastion of liberty and decency she was until not so very long ago. Those who still believe, even at this late date, that all of this is simply the way things are naturally developing are either incredibly naive, or, as we say in Greece, hiding behind their finger.

To give us a hint as to what such people described above have in mind for America's children, take a glance at the revealing vision of the future made by the Boston-based Gay Community News in its February 1987 issue: "We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. ... Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us."

Abstinence Education Is Still a Good Idea
Mona Charen
Wednesday, September 03, 2008

No sooner was Bristol Palin's pregnancy disclosed than many in the liberal commentariat began to beat abstinence education (which Sarah Palin favors) about the head and shoulders. A blogger on the Daily Kos asked, "If Sarah Palin still supports abstinence-only sex education for public schools, after this experience with her daughter, what does that say about her judgment as a policy maker?" Ronnie Polaneczky of the Philadelphia Daily News titled her column "Bristol Palin: Proof that abstinence-only education doesn't work."

Rubbish. The experience of one individual tells us exactly nothing about the wisdom of any public policy. For what it's worth, it seems Ms. Palin may indeed have received traditional (i.e. contraceptive instruction) sex ed in her public school. But in any case, we do not know (and speaking for myself, do not wish to know) anything about the particulars of her pregnancy. It may be that she and her boyfriend used contraceptives diligently and the contraceptives failed. Certainly, this much is undeniable: More girls get pregnant by thoroughly following the recommendations of birth control advocates than do girls who strictly adhere to an abstinence program.

About 20 years ago a Washington Post reporter named Leon Dash made a great contribution to the debate over contraceptives in schools with his book "When Children Want Children." He studied the lives of inner city black families in the District of Columbia. At the time, the conventional wisdom was that many teenagers were having babies because they lacked knowledge of or access to birth control products. Dash interviewed the pregnant girls and they set him straight. They told him (and I paraphrase from memory) "Mr. Dash, we know all about birth control. And we can get them at the supermarket. But we want these babies."

The cheerleaders for contraceptives often overlook that reality in their eagerness to place condoms in the hands of teenagers. They also overlook this sorry fact of life: Teenagers are terrible contraceptors. Though 98 percent of sexually active teens report using at least one method of birth control, 8.4 percent got pregnant in 2000. Fully 25 percent of sexually active teens contract an STD each year. Some of these diseases, like genital herpes and AIDS, are incurable. Others can lead to infertility.

There are other realities that birth control advocates overlook as well. Many teenaged girls do not choose to have sex because their raging hormones overwhelm their good judgment. Many do so because the whole culture, very much including the schools, seems to be pushing them into it. Here is a letter from a reader: "I wish it had been taught or even talked about in my high school ... In 1977 I didn't want to have sex (but) you were considered sort of frigid or not grown up if you didn't go along with what everyone else was doing ... I needed something, anything to point to as a good reason not to (other than my parents) "

According to a recent study by the Kaiser Family Foundation, nearly 30 percent of sexually active teens said they felt pressured into having sex. Ten percent reported having been physically forced to have sex.

There are studies all over the map on the question of whether abstinence-only education works or not. The Best Friends Foundation program boasts impressive statistics over 15 years for keeping teen girls away from sex, drugs, and alcohol. A study using data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health found a strong correlation between abstinence and school success (even controlling for factors like family structure, wealth, and race).

Over the past two decades, as more and more school systems have implemented abstinence programs, the rate of teen pregnancy has declined. The number of high school students who say they are virgins has increased, and the abortion rate has dropped. Is all of this good news due to abstinence-only programs' It's a complex subject and the evidence remains inconclusive. And clearly any school abstinence message is practically drowned out by the vulgar and licentious culture all around us. Still, we may be slowly climbing out of the hole we've dug for ourselves. The last thing we should be doing is declaring abstinence education a failure.

Teen Sex' Please Do! - Planned Parenthood
Matt Barber
Monday, September 01, 2008

Planned Parenthood, the billion dollar corporate abortion mill, has taken indecency to a whole new level and is using your taxpayer dollars to do so.  The organization, which is responsible for the abortion deaths of tens of millions of people, was founded in 1916 by admitted white-supremacist Margret Sanger, with the lofty goal of, as Sanger put it, eliminating 'the ever increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all.?  Lest there be any doubt as to whom, exactly, Sanger was referring to, she also wrote: 'We do not want the word to go out that we (Planned Parenthood) want to exterminate the Negro population.? 

Sorry, Maggie.  Word's out. 

Although Planned Parenthood's primary mission is detestable beyond words and remains unchanged still today, its secondary goal, if left in a vacuum, is not so sinister.  That is, of course, to make lots and lots of money. 

But here's what is sinister.  In order to make lots and lots of money, Planned Parenthood, just like any other 'service provider,' needs lots and lots of customers, and the best way to get those customers is to promote the very behaviors which create them.  Specifically, to manipulate kids -- under the guise of so-called 'comprehensive sex education' -- to engage in promiscuous, casual sex as soon and as often as possible.  It's simple supply and demand.  Planned Parenthood encourages the behaviors which create the demand and then dutifully offers its deadly supply.       

To that end, Planned Parenthood has created a new promotional Web site that targets youth.  It's called 'Take Care Down There' (www.takecaredownthere.org).  It features short, near pornographic 'public service' video vignettes which, among other things, promote casual sex, immodesty, homosexuality and even group sex.

For example, in perfect keeping with its demonstrably racist, loosey-goosey sexual tradition, one of the Planned Parenthood videos depicts what appears to be a teenage African-American male relegated to performing oral sex -- in public -- on a white teenage male.  Another white male (a creepy adult authority figure who seems just a little too interested) walks up and begins giving instructions.  The white teenager then says, 'I didn't even spew.? 

In another vignette, a teenage girl appears to drop her pants -- again in public -- exposing her privates in front of two other girls and the same African-American male.  She then asks them, 'Do you see anything down there' -- referencing potential evidence of sexually transmitted disease.  Of course, based on her cavalier sexual attitude and tart immodesty (or is that immodest tart?) the odds strongly favor the likelihood that she does, in fact, have something 'down there.?  

So why does Planned Parenthood's latest vulgar foray into the corruption of America's youth concern you?  Simple -- you?re paying for it.  Consider the following information compiled by Liberty Counsel: 

Planned Parenthood has been receiving federal funding under the Title X Family Planning Program, enacted in 1970 as Title X of the Public Health Services Act.  Section 1008 of the Act, as amended, stipulates that 'None of the funds appropriated under this title shall be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning,' yet Planned Parenthood is nevertheless receiving funds under this federal program. 

During the 2006-2007 fiscal year, Planned Parenthood received a total of $336.7 million from government grants and contracts (that's your taxpayer dollars).  In 2008, $300 million was given to family planning clinics, under the Title X program.  These funds were used to service over five million people, a third of which received 'care' from a Planned Parenthood clinic. 

On October 27, 2007, a coalition of leaders from dozens of conservative groups, including Liberty Counsel, Concerned Women for America, Focus on the Family, the American Family Association and more, signed a joint letter calling for the defunding of Planned Parenthood, after revelations of the abortion giant's alleged systematic violation of Kansas state law came to light.  Senator David Vitter (R-LA) and Representative Mike Pence (R-IN) have both introduced legislation that would prevent Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers from receiving taxpayer dollars in the future. 

While commenting on Planned Parenthood's latest abuse of taxpayer dollars, Attorney Mathew Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, stated, 'Planned Parenthood has now given the federal government yet another reason to stop funding this racist, eugenic, and immoral organization.

?Why should hardworking Americans pay to support Planned Parenthood's profiteering sex agenda, that encourages teenage sex on the one hand and then profits by aborting the consequences of such promiscuity on the other hand' Planned Parenthood's Web site is offensive and, frankly, shocks the conscience. It is insane that we allow our tax dollars to fund such an irresponsible and destructive organization. We must stop funding Planned Parenthood and we must stop now!?

True, indeed.  Beyond its stated mission to cleanse the world of 'human beings who never should have been born at all,' Planned Parenthood's primary purpose is to promote promiscuity among youth in order to line its pockets, plain and simple.  There's a clear conflict of interest here.  When kids engage in risky sexual behaviors, Planned Parenthood wins.  Why else would it be promoting casual sex, homosexuality and group sex? 

It's like the tobacco industry showing kids how fun and exciting it is to smoke cigarettes, and then telling them, with a wink, 'But always smoke safely.?  We wouldn't allow Joe Camel access to our kids on the taxpayer dime; neither should we give Margret 'The Reaper' Sanger and her Planned Parenthood brood such taxpayer-funded access.

What's behind today's epidemic of teacher-student sex?
By David Kupelian
Wednesday, March 22, 2006

Editor's note: The following article, originally published in the March 2006 edition of Whistleblower magazine, was selected for top honors in the 2006 Amy Foundation Writing Awards program.

It was a bizarre and emotional courtroom scene, but one occurring with disturbing frequency these days. A popular middle school teacher, 43-year-old Pamela Diehl-Moore, had tearfully pleaded guilty to having sex with a child -- a 13-year-old male student who had just completed 7th grade -- and now stood before a Hackensack, N.J., judge awaiting sentencing.

And what would that sentence be' Considering all the intense media coverage of male sexual predators victimizing female children, one might expect a stiff prison term, accompanied by a withering rebuke.

But when New Jersey Superior Court Judge Bruce A. Gaeta opened his mouth, the words that came out did not express criticism of the teacher, nor acknowledge any damage she had done to her victim.

"I really don't see the harm that was done here," the judge proclaimed, "and certainly society doesn't need to be worried. I do not believe she is a sexual predator. It's just something between two people that clicked beyond the teacher-student relationship."

"Clicked"' With a 13-year-old'

"Maybe it was a way for him, once this happened, to satisfy his sexual needs," the judge added. "People mature at different rates." Gee thanks, Judge.

According to court transcripts, Gaeta summed up his shocking judicial leniency this way: "I don't see anything here that shows this young man has been psychologically damaged by her actions. And don't forget, this was mutual consent. Now certainly under the law, he is too young to legally consent, but that's what the law says. Some of the legislators should remember when they were that age. Maybe these ages have to be changed a little bit."

Translation: The 43-year-old teacher didn't really do anything wrong in having sex with a schoolboy, the kid wanted it, statutory rape laws are unrealistic and the age of consent should be lowered.

Oh, the sentence' Five years probation -- no jail time.

In yet another recent court case, U.S. District Judge J. Thomas Marten in Kansas also questioned whether sex with kids was really bad.

"Where is the clear, credible evidence that underage sex is always injurious' If you tell me because it is illegal, I reject that," Marten said, according to the Associated Press.

Although most judges don't publicly sing the praises of statutory rape like these two -- indeed, Judge Gaeta later came under the scrutiny of a judicial fitness review board -- many regular Americans apparently agree with them. A lot of us just don't seem to think there's much of a problem when female teachers have sex with their male students.

"What is the deal lately with hot female teachers seducing their 13- to 16-year-old students?!" asked one blogger expressing the prevalent "what's-the-problem?" attitude: "I think the woman is getting off on the social taboo factor more than anything else. At least, that's what the expert psychologists say. I just wish I had a teacher stupid enough and bored enough in my grade school to make my pubescent dreams come true. If it wasn't illegal and there were no jilted husbands, it's almost a victimless crime."

And Bob Shoop, a Kansas State University education professor and expert witness in 30 court cases involving sexual abuse in schools, summed it up for the Associated Press this way: "I think our society sort of says to the boy: 'Congratulations, that's great. Everybody fantasizes about having a sexual relationship with an older woman.'"

As for the perpetrators themselves, often they just think they're expressing love.

One of the most famous cases of a teacher-student sexual relationship is that of Mary Kay Letourneau, who, unlike Diehl-Moore, served seven years in prison for the statutory rape -- or "child rape" as it is called in Washington -- of a 13-year-old boy at the school where she taught. Four months after her 1997 arrest, Letourneau -- 34 at the time and married with four children -- gave birth to a daughter fathered by the boy, Vili Fualaau. Pleading guilty, she was sentenced to 89 months in prison, but her term was suspended except for six months in jail -- and the requirement that she stay away from Vili after her release.

But no sooner was she let out -- early, for good behavior -- than Letourneau was discovered in a car with Fualaau and re-arrested. Incensed, the judge sent her straight to prison to serve out the rest of her seven-and-a-half year sentence.

While Letourneau was behind bars, however, in March 1998 prison officials discovered that she was pregnant with another child by Fualaau. The next year, she and the boy co-authored a book -- released in France, but not the U.S. -- titled "Un Seul Crime, L'amour" ("Only One Crime, Love") -- for which her attorney reportedly brokered Letourneau a $200,000 advance -- and 2000 saw the release of her movie, "All-American Girl: The Mary Kay Letourneau Story." She was also divorced from her husband Steve.

When Letourneau was finally paroled on Aug. 4, 2004, Fualaau, then 21, successfully petitioned the court to lift its no-contact order and the couple was married May 20, 2005 -- with high-dollar tabloid TV cameras rolling.

The wedding invitations read: "Please join Mary and Vili for their special day. They hope to make this the best wedding experience for you. A luxurious touring bus will whisk you away to their wedding destination. Food and refreshments will be available for your bus ride. Please respect the need for privacy and know that pictures from the wedding will be available for the guests at a later date."

In other words, leave your cameras at home, because we're cashing in on our controversial wedding by selling exclusive video rights for a lot of money.

The 200 to 300 wedding guests reportedly went through identity checks and metal detectors, and signed secrecy and release-of-privacy statements due to the TV videotaping. The couple's two daughters were the flower girls.

"Entertainment Tonight" and "The Insider" had exclusive rights to the wedding, with Seattle's KING 5 News reporting the couple would earn around $750,000 for their wedding footage.

Today the couple, along with their two daughters, reportedly live off the high six-figure paycheck they received for selling their wedding video and reside in a beachfront home in a Seattle suburb.

'Just being rebellious'

Sensational news stories of school teachers like Letourneau preying on students become a little more understandable when you realize the 1960s' sexual revolution has advanced to the point that sex and school seem to go together these days.

In November, the Washington Post interviewed high school students in and around the nation's capital:

Two students were discovered recently having sex in an Anne Arundel County high school gym. Four students at Col. Zadok Magruder High in Rockville were arrested in June after performing sex acts in the school parking lot. A boy and a girl at Springbrook High in Silver Spring were caught "touching inappropriately" in a school bathroom. Last year, three teenage boys at Mount Hebron High in Howard County were arrested after a student accused them of sexually assaulting her in a school restroom, but charges were dropped after the boys said the sex was consensual and the girl recanted.

"Students would have intercourse on the stairwells, locked classrooms, in the locker rooms," said Ihsan Musawwir, 18, a recent graduate of Dunbar Senior High School in the District. "It was embarrassing for me to walk in on it."

Jessica Miller, 19, who graduated in June from T.C. Williams High School in Alexandria, said that for some students there, sex on campus is a popular fantasy -- and sometimes a reality -- particularly in the auditorium.

"It's so big, it's so dark," Miller said. "There's a lot more places to find privacy -- behind the stage and on the catwalk."

But what's the appeal' "Just being rebellious," she said. "Coming back to class and saying, 'Ooh, guess what I just did' I just had sex in the auditorium.' "

Cpl. Michael Rudinski, president of the Maryland Association of School Resource Officers, said teenagers do whatever they think their peers are doing, whether they are or not. "The thing about young people is when they see things in the mass media and they think it's going on, they start doing it."

Worse than Catholic clergy sex scandal'

In today's sexually permissive school environment, just how prevalent is the teacher-student sex problem'

Get ready for a shock. According to a major 2004 study commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education -- the most in-depth investigation to date -- nearly 10 percent of U.S. public school students have been targeted with unwanted sexual attention by school employees.

Titled "Educator Sexual Misconduct: A Synthesis of Existing Literature," the report says the mistreatment of students ranges from sexual comments to rape. In fact, says the study's author Charol Shakeshaft, professor of educational administration at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y., the scope of the school-sex problem appears to far exceed the clergy-abuse scandal that has recently rocked the Roman Catholic Church.

Comparing the incidence of sexual misconduct in schools with the Catholic Church scandal, Shakeshaft notes that a recent study by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops concluded 10,667 young people were sexually mistreated by priests between 1950 and 2002.

In contrast, she extrapolates from a national survey conducted for the American Association of University Women Educational Foundation in 2000 that roughly 290,000 students experienced some sort of physical sexual abuse by a public school employee between 1991 and 2000.

The figures suggest "the physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests," said Shakeshaft, according to Education Week.

Indeed, more than 4.5 million students are subject to sexual misconduct by an employee of a school sometime between kindergarten and 12th grade, says the report.

The National Education Association disputes Shakshaft's conclusion, Education Week said, calling it "a misuse of the data to imply that public schools and the Catholic Church have experienced the same level of abuse cases."

"I take great umbrage at that suggestion," said NEA spokeswoman Kathleen Lyons. "That just seems like someone is reaching conclusions based on half the data that's needed."

Shakeshaft acknowledged many factors could alter the analysis, including undercounting of youth abused by priests, but she argued this provides impetus for better research.

"Educator sexual misconduct is woefully understudied," Shakeshaft says in her report. "We have scant data on incidence and even less on descriptions of predators and targets. There are many questions that call for answers."


Like all sexual predators, says Shakeshaft, "sexual abusers in schools use various strategies to trap students. They lie to them, isolate them, make them feel complicit, and manipulate them into sexual contact. Often teachers target vulnerable or marginal students who are grateful for the attention."

The report draws a clear distinction between true pedophiles -- that is, adults who target pre-pubescent children -- and those who criminally seduce pubescent but underage youngsters. "The abusers of children younger than seventh grade have different patterns than those who abuse older children," she says, making a disturbing but familiar point about pedophiles' modus operandi:

The educators who target elementary school children are often professionally accomplished and even celebrated. Particularly compared to their non-abusing counterparts, they hold a disproportionate number of awards. It is common to find that educators who have been sexually abusing children are also the same educators who display on their walls a community 'Excellence in Teaching' award or a 'Teacher of the Year' certificate. This popularity confounds district officials and community members and prompts them to ignore allegations on the belief that 'outstanding teachers' cannot be abusers. Many educators who abuse work at being recognized as good professionals in order to be able to sexually abuse children. For them, being a good educator is the path to children, especially those who abuse elementary and younger middle school students.
In contrast, she notes:

At the late middle and high school level, educator abusers may or may not be outstanding practitioners. At this level, the initial acts are somewhat less premeditated and planned and more often opportunistic, a result of bad judgment or a misplaced sense of privilege.
Shakeshaft gives a chilling description of the various techniques of "grooming" -- a practice common to virtually all child molesters. Grooming, she explains, is a process whereby --

an abuser selects a student, gives the student attention and rewards, provides the student with support and understanding, all the while slowly increasing the amount of touch or other sexual behavior. The purpose of grooming is to test the child's ability to maintain secrecy, to desensitize the child through progressive sexual behaviors, to provide the child with experiences that are valuable and that the child won't want to lose, to learn information that will discredit the child, and to gain approval from parents.
Grooming allows the abuser to test the student's silence at each step. It also serves to implicate the student, resulting in children believing that they are responsible for their own abuse because 'I never said stop.'

Grooming often takes place in the context of providing a child with extras like additional help learning a musical instrument, advisement on a science project, or opportunities for camping and outdoor activity. These opportunities not only create a special relationship with students, they are also ones for which parents are usually appreciative.

Most sexual molesters work very hard to keep their victims from telling others. This is not as hard for the perpetrator to accomplish as it may seem. For one thing, children who are sexually abused by teachers often don't recognize what is happening as abuse. "In many cases," says the report, "they are told that what is happening is love. Many abusers of children at all ages couch what they are doing to the children as love, both romantic and parental."

Other techniques for keeping children quiet, says Shakeshaft, are "intimidation and threats (if you tell, I'll fail you)," "exploiting the power structure (if you tell, no one will believe you)" and "manipulating the child's affections (if you tell, I'll get in trouble; if you tell, I won't be able to be your friend anymore)." Since kids typically get something out of the relationship -- everything from attention and gifts to physical pleasure and a feeling of belonging -- they can easily be made to feel responsible, something offenders use to their advantage.

But what happens when, despite the powerful manipulation of their minds and feelings by the sexual predator, children actually do go to authorities'

In many cases, says the federally funded report, they are just not believed: "Because of the power differential, the reputation difference between the educator and the child, or the mindset that children are untruthful, many reports by children are ignored or given minimal attention."

Several studies estimate that only about 6 percent of all children report sexual abuse by an adult to someone who can do something about it. Indeed, fear of not being believed is the No. 1 reason kids don't report their sexual victimization at the hands of adults.

Shakeshaft cites the case of one teacher, Kenneth DeLuca, who was convicted of sexually abusing 13 students between the ages of 10 and 18 over a period of 21 years. Although nearly all of the students reported the abuse at the time it was occurring, school officials ignored the accusations. "Overwhelmingly, the girls experienced a disastrous response when they told about DeLuca's behavior," said the report. "Many were disbelieved, some were told to leave schools, parents were allegedly threatened with lawsuits."

Even more shocking, Shakeshaft's report documents that offending teachers have frequently gotten off virtually scot-free even when their sexual misdeed are exposed to school administrators.

In one study of 225 cases of teacher sex abuse in New York, although all the accused had admitted to sexually abusing a student, not one was reported to the police and only 1 percent lost their license to teach.

A 2003 study reports that 159 Washington state coaches were "reprimanded, warned, or let go in the past decade because of sexual misconduct" -- and yet, "at least 98 of them continued coaching or teaching afterward.'

A 2004 study reports that many school districts make confidential agreements with abusers, essentially trading a positive recommendation for a resignation. In one case, a Seattle educator named Luke Markishtum "had two decades of complaints of sex with students and providing alcohol and marijuana to students prior to his arrest for smuggling six tons of marijuana into the state. The district paid Markishtum the remainder of his salary that year, agreed to keep the record secret, and gave him an additional $69,000."
'Lucky day'

Recently, there has been a seeming explosion in a special type of teacher sexual abuse -- female teachers having sex with underage teenage boys, who as a rule are willing participants in the sex.

"Generally the male doesn't feel victimized," said Steven B. Blum, a consulting psychologist to a sex offender program in Nebraska. "A lot of teenage boys would see that as their lucky day," he told the Los Angeles Times.

Lucky day' What about the next day, and the next year and beyond' Experts say sexually victimized boys experience later difficulty in developing age-appropriate relationships and gravitate toward pornography and one-night stands. They are also more likely as adults to suffer depression, anxiety and drug addiction.

The 16-year-old victim of Margaret De Barraicua, a 30-year-old California teacher who pleaded guilty to four counts of statutory rape, did not consider it his "lucky day."

"I'm not the same boy," the boy said in a letter read in court in Sacramento. "At school I became the center of attention. Everyone knew my name." But the boy was so traumatized, his mother wrote in a letter read in court, that "his hair is falling out."

And the father of a Colorado boy molested by Silvia Johnson -- who held drug-alcohol-and-sex parties at her home with teenaged schoolboys to be "cool" -- told the court the 40-year-old woman "took away my best friend, my hunting buddy. I can't have him back now. He is gone."

Many theories and factors are advanced to explain the major upsurge in illegal teacher-student sexual relationships, including:

Two-breadwinner families mean children have more unsupervised time to be preyed upon.

Cell-phone technology, text messaging and e-mail afford opportunities for teachers and students to communicate privately that didn't exist a generation ago.

The explosion of hardcore pornography, especially online, has resulted in the exposure of children to graphic sexual images to a far greater degree than at any time in history.
But overshadowing virtually all explanations for adult-child sex is the simple fact that the perpetrators -- and in the case of female offenders having sex with underage boys, the victims as well -- often don't think there is anything wrong with what they are doing.

Essentially, the rationale is: Consensual sex doesn't kill, injure or rob anyone, so where's the victim' Why is "love" (remember Letourneau's book, "Only One Crime, Love") even a crime at all'

How did we get to the point that so many of us -- including even some of our judges -- just don't see anything wrong with adults having "consensual" sex with children'

To truly answer that question, we're going to have to venture beyond the boundaries of conventional journalism -- beyond the presentation of facts, examples, studies, statistics, theories and comments from experts. Journalism can do an excellent job of describing the symptoms of this problem -- but can never arrive at its cause, or cure.

Are you ready for a ride into new territory'


"You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body." -- C.S. Lewis

In "Prince Caspian," C.S. Lewis's second "Narnia" book (currently being made into a feature film following the roaring success of "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe," set for release in December 2007), the story unfolds in a latter-day, secular time, much like our own today.

In that story's "modern" era, most, though definitely not all, of the people had forgotten about the magic, miracles and mirth that were everpresent during Narnia's golden age, forgotten about the existence of the talking animals, indeed forgotten about Aslan the king himself.

The contemporary elite came to regard the beliefs and loyalties that once had been the very heartbeat of Narnian existence as nothing more than pernicious fables clung to by their ignorant, superstitious ancestors. Even the mention of the sacred things of the past was now forbidden by the murderous usurper, King Miraz, since merely speaking of such powerful truths posed a grave threat to his rule.

That is America today. In what was once the finest and most robust expression of Western Judeo-Christian civilization and the core values underlying it, most of us, too, have forgotten.

Forgotten the founding spiritual and moral values of our nation and culture.

Forgotten the simple, intuitive understanding of right and wrong that we grasped effortlessly when we were innocent children, but which we were later intimidated or seduced into doubting -- and abandoning.

Forgotten the core truth about man's condition -- that he is in reality a "fallen" being, "born in sin," and that his sexual urges must be channeled into marriage.

Freeze. Notice how, for many readers, that last sentence made you wince, if not recoil in horror. "Fallen being"' "Born in sin"' Man, where's this guy coming from' Does he really believe that ancient religious mumbo jumbo'

That, my friends, is exactly the "forgetfulness" of self-evident "truth we all once knew" that I'm talking about.

This basic truth that human beings are fallen and corruptible -- a reality not only spelled out in the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, but also clearly evident from observing everyday life -- this truth about man's condition which is at the very core of our legal system and the very reason for limited government ("Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely") -- is now embarrassing to us.

For most people alive today, this Christian worldview, which animated Christopher Columbus, the Pilgrims and the founding fathers in the profoundest possible way, is just a fairy tale, an embarrassing anachronism, perhaps even "the source of most of humankind's strife and war."

We're living in latter-day Narnia, where we mock and deny the "old truths" that, unknown to us, still form the very substance of everything valuable we possess today.

Very simply, we've forgotten what we as human beings actually are, and why we have been put here on this beautiful blue globe we call earth. We've forgotten that we're here to serve a much higher purpose than just fulfilling our own desires.

We've become like Martians who, arriving on Earth for the first time encounter a Ford Mustang convertible. Not having any idea what it is or its maker's intended use, the Martians mistakenly conclude it must be a hot tub and proceed to fill it with water and bathe in it. And then -- when you come along and tell them they're ruining this valuable car by their misuse of it, they become angry and accuse you of attempting to deny them their rightful pleasure.

What does this have to do with sex' Without the understanding of our spiritual origin and destiny -- of who we are and what purpose our maker intended for us -- we can't possibly understand sex and its intended role in our lives. Instead, all we have driving us are the desires, physical and emotional "needs," cravings and compulsions we find welling up from within us.

Sometimes these desires are normal, the kind of sexual attraction to the opposite gender God ordained, leading to bonding and marriage and children. But for some of us, our sexual cravings are rooted in trauma -- that is, generated from our emotional reactions to the cruelty, confusion and seduction we've experienced along the path of life. Remember, pain causes us to seek the relief of pleasure.

For example, let's take Mary Kay Letourneau's sexual attraction to a 13-year-old boy. What could have caused it'

Do you suppose it could have anything to do with the fact that her husband Steve was a serial cheater' Or that her father, ultraconservative U.S. Congressman John Schmitz, was exposed for having a secret affair with a former student' Do you think a young girl's deep resentment over both a hypocritical and cheating father, and later on, over an angry, cheating, betraying husband, could possibly give rise to a forbidden attraction' An attraction based not only on sex, but also on her being worshiped and idolized by a young, relatively innocent, non-threatening male (after years of betrayal by "adult" males). No doubt all this was intoxicating to Mary Kay. Intoxicating and toxic.

In a world with a little more understanding and real love in it, a person like Mary Kay could perhaps be helped. But in our secular, mechanistic world, there is precious little real understanding of what makes people "tick" and thus not much help for troubled people like this.

Yet, an even more important factor in this sexual-predator epidemic is the fact that "right" and "wrong" just aren't real to most of us any more. Even if Letourneau was attracted sexually to a child, for whatever reasons, it's still wrong to have sex with a 13-year-old. And knowing something is wrong is enough reason not to do it -- even if part of us wants to.

After all, most people have strong drives and urges. Even normal, red-blooded men, loyal to their wives and children, have powerful sexual drives that, if followed down the rabbit hole without regard to right and wrong, could easily turn them into adulterers.

The problem is, having turned our backs on Judeo-Christian morality and the inner conscience that testifies to it, many of us rely on emotional feelings alone to guide our way through life.

So, if childhood problems cause us to grow up feeling uncomfortable as a man (or a woman), instead of looking within for understanding and healing, we undergo barbaric sex-change operations and "hormone therapy" and pretend we're the opposite gender for the rest of our lives.

If we feel badly about having an unintended child growing inside us, instead of looking for a moral and life-affirming solution, we kill the child.

If we feel sexually attracted to the same gender, we convince ourselves this uprush of inner feeling -- rooted in something-gone-wrong in our formative years -- is actually genetic, or God-ordained, or the expression of who we "really" are. And then we spend our lives trying to satisfy these inner cravings in the vain hope of finding completion and ultimate happiness.

Of course, choosing what's moral, principled and self-sacrificial over our selfish or unreasonable feelings -- that is, preferring something noble and higher over something ignoble and lower -- implies there is a God, the source of the higher, as well as evil, the source of the lower.

But according to today's secular, de facto atheistic worldview, there is no good or evil, no heaven or hell. Rather, we're all regarded as just highly evolved animals. But if that's true, there is just no logical reason adults shouldn't be able to have sex with children or whatever else they please.

To illustrate the difference between humans and animals, let me mention that my children raise goats as a hobby. They have a male goat to breed with the various females. Although the buck is just a few months old, it readily mates with the various females -- old, young, big, small, it doesn't matter. They come into heat, and he does his job. Everything's as it should be.

Now, if that is all humans are -- animals -- then we too should all be able to walk around having sex with anyone we want, just like goats. In fact, why can't we go around naked -- like goats' Can you imagine what would happen if we all went to work, school and supermarket stark naked'

Some people, wrongly believing mankind's universal embarrassment over their private parts (yes, "universal" -- even in darkest Africa the natives wear loin-cloths) represents an unhealthy shame toward their own bodies, embrace nudity as a philosophy and lifestyle. But they have misinterpreted the embarrassment and abandoned a core truth, namely: The fact that humans have embarrassment over sex and need to keep themselves covered all the time is not some repressive Victorian hang-up over sex. Rather, it is evidence -- a very important and powerful clue, and one we better interpret correctly -- that our sexual nature somehow is tied in with our -- gasp! -- fallen "animal" nature.

You see, the truth is, we're not just animals, like goats. We have two natures -- an animal nature that eats and procreates, and a spiritual, eternal soul that survives this life.

If we were only animals, then this article would be over and all the concerns expressed earlier about sexual predators would be wrongheaded, the prosecutions unjust, the incarcerations cruel, the stigma undeserved. If we are only animals, there is simply nothing at all wrong with 43-year-old teachers having sex with their 13-year-old students, as long as it is "consensual."

Moreover, if we are just animals, then all consensual sexual activity -- any place, any time, any type -- is fine, just like with my children's goats.

In that case, of course, when we die we just get buried in the ground and that's the end of us. No afterlife, no soul or consciousness surviving the dissolution of our bodies, no ultimate standard of right and wrong, and no ultimate accountability before the Creator for the way we?ve lived our lives. Just a nice meal for worms.

Is that what you believe' Many people do. That's what ex-Beatle John Lennon was preaching in his New Age anthem: "Imagine there's no heaven, It's easy if you try, No hell below us, Above us only sky."

For many, this all-consuming obsession with denying God, Judeo-Christian values and our own immortal souls centers around one thing only. Do you know what it is' Do you know what most of the hostility we see toward Christianity in today's culture is actually based on' It's not because following Jesus Christ means we must love one another, feed the poor or comfort the sick. After all, no one is threatened by those things. Rather, at the root of so much loathing toward Christianity and the Bible is what they have to say about sex.

The Old Testament book of Leviticus, for instance, is full of detailed laws and prohibitions regarding sexuality and sexual behavior. Why is this so' What on earth did sexual behavior have to do with God setting the House of Israel apart from the rest of the pagan world so it could be worthy of His special blessing and destiny'

"Why can't we all just be nice to each other," you might wonder, "and have as much sex as we want, with whomever we want, whenever and however we want, as long as it's consensual' And why can't we call that good, righteous and loving?"

Very simply, how do we know sex outside of marriage -- whether it be adultery or premarital sex or homosexuality or teachers seducing kids -- is wrong, a sin before God and an offense to our fellow human beings'

For one thing, God has provided some major clues for us, the obvious implications of which we somehow manage to ignore -- just like the elephant in the parlor.

For some, the most persuasive clues are in the Bible. Both the Old Testament and the New Testament are unequivocal and total in their condemnation of homosexual sex, of fornication (a term rarely used any more), of adultery. Jesus raises the bar the highest when He says: "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart (Matthew 5:27-28 KJV)."

But the Bible is not the only clue. As I tell my kids, biblical truths are reflected in everyday life. So, stealing and murder and lying aren't wrong just because the Bible says so. Rather, the Bible says stealing and murder and lying are wrong because they are wrong. They were always wrong -- and the Bible testifies to that timeless Truth that predates the Bible itself. (Remember, in Abraham, Isaac and Jacob's time there was no Bible.)

Thus, the wrongness of sexual immorality should also be as self-evident as the wrongness of stealing or murder.

What' You say you can see that stealing, lying and murder are wrong because they result in victims, but you can't see that premarital or homosexual sex is wrong because you can't see the victim'

Let's look at a few more clues.

Here's a stunningly obvious one: Sex has the potential to produce offspring. And since the evidence is irrefutable that children need both a father and a mother, as well as a stable, long-term, loving home life, this one clue alone leads inexorably to the conclusion that sex is meant only for a committed heterosexual marriage.

Another clue: A ghoulish smorgasbord of sexually transmitted diseases -- many incurable, like AIDS, herpes and human papilloma virus (thought to be one of the main causes of cervical cancer), as well as hepatitis, syphilis, Chlamydia, gonorrhea and a host of others -- is a pretty darn good indicator that we weren't meant to have wanton, rampant sex.

Still another clue: Millions of dead babies -- over a million a year just in the U.S. Recent news reports document that in Zimbabwe dead babies clog up the sewers in the capital of Harare, so many are flushed down toilets and dumped in drains. Getting pregnant when we don't want children tempts us to kill our offspring.

Let's stop for a minute and ask: Just how obvious do clues need to be before we figure out the message' Horrible plagues and millions of unwanted babies seem like pretty good indicators that God didn't intend for us to use our bodies the way many of us do. And yet, in our cleverness we find ways to circumvent these divine roadblocks by way of artificial birth control, abortion, alternative sexual acts and so on. But we're still just making an absurd end-run around God and His obvious restrictions on sex.

Another way we know extramarital sex is wrong is simply because it's pure selfishness and self-gratification. In marriage, there is commitment, sacrifice, self-control, personal growth, mutual respect. In non-married sex there is nothing but use -- using the other person in an attempt to fulfill ourselves. Without commitment, there cannot be love. Sorry, the truth hurts.

The Bible admonishes us mortals to choose sides, between life and death, between good and evil. Most often, that choice takes the form of choosing to side with our higher nature against our own lower nature. Satanism and other worldviews based on deception and seduction have always taught the opposite: Side with your lower nature against your higher nature, a conflict Satanists (and yes, they exist) blame on a vengeful, capricious and cruel God ("Why did he create us with all these powerful urges and drives, only to forbid their expression?")

In our culture today -- like latter-day Narnia -- the prevailing mindset is, increasingly, to mock and demonize those who rebuke our growing infatuation with our lower nature.

At the center of this struggle is sex -- one of the greatest mysteries of life. If we never understand sex, we never understand life. For many of us, unfortunately, our understanding has been hijacked by the 1960s cultural and sexual revolution, which was based on lies.

Yes, lies. The sexual revolution glorified the destruction of Judeo-Christian civilization and the morality at its core. Like all revolutions, it seemed sweet at the time. Do you remember'

It seemed so promising, so genuine, so liberating. Boomers will remember 1967's "Summer of Love" in San Francisco's Haight-Ashbury district. A hundred thousand young "flower people" flocked to the West Coast mecca of the hippie revolution. Scott McKenzie sang, "If you're going to San Francisco, Be sure to wear some flowers in your hair. If you're going to San Francisco, You're gonna meet some gentle people there." Free love and expanded consciousness (with the help of marijuana and LSD) would save our nation from the ravages of war and the greedy materialism that led to conflict. It was beautiful, otherworldly -- or so it seemed.

But somehow, just a few short years later, the flowers had faded and Haight-Ashbury was transformed into a scene of crazed, meth-addicted hippies with human degradation and venereal disease and crime everywhere. Already, the toxicity of the '60s revolution was becoming apparent. Today, that cancer has metastasized throughout our culture to the point that children have sex in the school auditorium.

Funny thing about lie-based revolutions. They all turn out bad. Communist revolutions promise freedom and equality, but deliver despotism and misery and death. In the exact same way, the sexual liberation movement, which offered freedom, equality, self-fulfillment and pleasure, has just about destroyed America.

So, where do we go from here' Quo vadis'

If we just go along with whatever compulsions and drives we see rising up in us, and wallow in them, and justify them, and condemn anybody who says otherwise, we're living as animals, not humans.

And believe me, that's not truly living. Unless, of course, you're a goat.

Who's next' Polyandrous pedophiles?
By Tristan Emmanuel
Thursday, October 11, 2007

There's another example of liberal double-dealing in the U.S. presidential campaign. This time, it's on the issue of exposing young children to the "reality" of gay relationships.

There was a Democratic presidential debate in New Hampshire late last month, and Allison King, a reporter for the New England Cable News, asked the candidates if they would be comfortable having second-graders learn about the realities of "gay love."

In case you missed it, her question was phrased like this:

"The issues surrounding gay rights have been hotly debated here in New England. For example, last year some parents of second-graders in Lexington, Massachusetts, were outraged to learn their children's teacher had read a story about same-sex marriage, about a prince who marries another prince.

"Same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts but most of you oppose it. Would you be comfortable having this story read to your children as part of their school curriculum?"

A sentimental question like this, designed to make homosexuality look mainstream and normal, can only get sentimental responses.

Which is exactly what she got.

John Edwards said that as a fair-minded father he really believes that children need "to understand everything about the difficulties that gay and lesbian couples are faced with every day."

Hilary Clinton chimed in about hate, and said the only way to defeat hate is to teach diversity and respect.

Barack Obama was the most resolute, insisting that one of the things he wants "to communicate to [his] children is not to be afraid of people who are different."

Like I said, sentimental responses to an equally sentimental question.

But neither the question nor the answers accurately reflect today's culture, which is why I would have preferred more candor on everyone's part.

First, we need to put this in context. Since the 1960s, not only has the traditional configuration of a one-man one-woman union fallen by the wayside, the numeric configuration of any two people committing to each other until death do us part has as well. In other words, if two people of the opposite sex constitute an antiquated relationship, so does the idea of any two people making a long term commitment to be a couple.

Obviously, everybody knows that heterosexual unions have suffered tremendously from the effects of the so-called sexual revolution. The ideas of free love, free sex and no commitment have had devastating consequences on the idea of monogamy.

Census Canada recently published new figures showing that traditional marriage has been in rapid decline since the mid '90s. Not surprisingly, the mainstream Canadian media took great delight in reporting that statistic. However, the same media didn't report that "gay marriages" were equally in decline, at least since they were legalized in 2003. Considering all the hype we heard before the move to change the law -- hype about "gays wanting to get married" -- it's interesting that the decline in the number of those "marriages" didn't also become headline news in Canada. But it's not surprising.

The point is that the '60s generation talked about free love and no commitment; our post-modern world is living that idea to the hilt. People just don't believe in living in committed monogamous relationships -- and the biggest culprits in that regard are homosexuals.

The basic premise of the second-grader story -- about a prince falling madly in love with another prince, and the two of them dashing off into the sunset to live happily ever after in their little country castle with a white picket fence -- is about as likely a scenario as Hillary Clinton crossing the floor to become a pro-life Republican.

Monogamous homosexual relationships, for the most part, exist only in the world of partisan propaganda, not in empirical reality.

If Ms. King really wanted to be honest with the presidential candidates, and if teaching tolerance, understanding and respect for "diversity" was really at the core of her question, she should have asked it differently.

Maybe something like: "Would you feel comfortable telling second-graders about the love lives of men and boys?"

Because if Edwards thinks that conventional gay couples -- the two-people kind of couples -- are having a tough time of it out there, just imagine how difficult it must be for pedophiles and the kids that love them. Or what about John, Jerry, Frank, Tom and Mike -- their little "household of five"' Aren't polyandrous groups finding it tough out there, too'

And as to Obama's concern about teaching children not to be afraid of different people, why not get into some really "different" stuff' Maybe the love lives of men and their sheep, and women and their horses' Heck, why not necrophilia too, just for good measure'

Now, you and I both know that liberals are going to balk at this; they'll insist that I've taken things too far. But I'm only trying to force some consistency here, some acknowledgement of the reality of where our culture has gone. And if you think this is extreme, just wait. It won't be long before all of these different "orientations" will be screaming for their rights and access to your children, too.

Personally, I'm getting sick and tired of listening to the lamestream media incessantly talk about how the times are changing while repeating, at every opportunity, the lie that homosexual unions are really nothing more than a mirror image of traditionally straight marriages.

Of course, the cynical side of me understands exactly what they're up to with this "gay-friendly literature" in second grade. This isn't about tolerance, love, or understanding at all. It's raw politics. It's about votes. The homosexual lobby in the U.S. has lost the first round of battles to enshrine "gay marriage," but if they get the kids, they'll have the future wrapped up.

Related special offers:
"Whoever Controls the Schools Rules the World"

Father faces trial over school's 'pro-gay' book
Arrested after objecting to kindergartner's reading material

David Parker, parent of kindergartner, stands before Judge Robert McKenna in Concord District Court April 28 after spending the night in jail (Photo: Article 8 Alliance)

A Massachusetts man faces a court trial over a dispute about the teaching of homosexuality in his son's kindergarten class.

David Parker, of Lexington, spent a night in jail and was charged with criminal trespassing after refusing to leave a scheduled meeting with school officials April 27, unless they gave him the option of pulling his child out of certain classes.

Parker says the officials had indicated they would agree to a notification policy then suddenly refused. He insists he has done nothing wrong and is willing to contest the charge rather than plea-bargain.

At a hearing Tuesday, Parker's trial date was set for Sept. 21.

The Lexington School Board contends Parker deliberately set out to be arrested and make national headlines.

Parker's attorney, Jeffrey Denner, rejected that claim as supporters picketed outside the courthouse.

David Parker's son brought home the book 'Who's in a Family' -- in school's 'Diversity Book Bag'

"That is simply untrue. I don't speak for the school, but that is simply untrue," he said. "He was invited to come in, he came in, there was a dialogue going back and forth, there were faxes sent back and forth, from the school to the school committee. His intent was absolutely not to be arrested. His intent was to establish a dialogue to protect his own children and other children as well."

The dispute began last spring when Parker's then-5-year-old son brought home a book to be shared with his parents titled, "Who's in a Family?" The optional reading material, which came in a "Diversity Book Bag," depicted at least two households led by homosexual partners.

"There's a larger issue here locally and nationally and internationally about the role of family and what kind of encroachments government can make into children's and people's lives," Denner told reporters.

The illustrated book, according to the local non-profit group Article 8 Alliance, says, "A family can be made up in many different ways" and includes this text:

"Laura and Kyle live with their two moms, Joyce and Emily, and a poodle named Daisy. It takes all four of them to give Daisy her bath."
Another illustrated page says:

"Robin's family is made up of her dad, Clifford, her dad's partner, Henry, and Robin's cat, Sassy. Clifford and Henry take turns making dinner for their family."
Article 8, an opponent of the state's same-sex marriage law, says the book "uses subtle but powerful emotions to normalize homosexual relationships in the minds of the young children."

A backer of the Lexington School District, Laura Tully, argued, according to WCVB-TV in Boston, "A 5-year-old who is coming to the classroom with two moms deserves to be in a classroom that includes books that show his family."

Denner said he is negotiating with school officials to prevent the trial, but he also indicated that Parker likely will file a civil suit in federal court by this fall against the town of Lexington, the school system and its officials.

Homosexuality in Your Child's School
by Peter Sprigg

Despite decades of activism and media propaganda promoting acceptance and celebration of homosexuality, and numerous political and judicial victories for the pro-homosexual movement, a clear majority of Americans still believe that homosexual behavior is 'morally wrong.' Indoctrinating impressionable school children is an easier way of changing public attitudes toward homosexuality than persuading adults. However, since directly promoting acceptance of homosexuality or of sexual activity by students would be controversial, pro-homosexual activists routinely deny or downplay those aspects of their agenda. Instead, they begin with the school policy proposals that are likely, politically, to win the most agreement. The first issue raised by the advocates of homosexuality is invariably the same' -- safety.?

'safe Schools?

Pro-homosexual activists contend that our schools have large numbers of students who are (or are perceived to be) 'gay,' lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered,  ('GLBT' or 'LGBT' for short) and that such students are frequent victims of verbal or physical harassment or even acts of violence. The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), for example, reports that 90% of the 'LGBT' youth they surveyed in 2005 have experienced at least verbal harassment at school (albeit not always for their sexual orientation). They also point to reports that gay youths are more likely to commit suicide than their straight peers, and claim that this is a result of harassment and discrimination as well. They argue, therefore, that 'LGBT' youth should be singled out for specific protection under school disciplinary codes.

Yet there is evidence that harassment of 'gay' teens may neither be as frequent, as severe, nor as disproportionate, as some pro-homosexual rhetoric would suggest. GLSEN fails to note, for example, that a survey by the American Association of University Women (AAUW) showed that 83% of all girls and 79% of all boys report experiencing physical intimidation or sexual harassment at school.4 Even GLSEN's survey reported that students are more often bullied, called names, or harassed because of 'the way they look or their body size' than because

of their sexual orientation.5 Of the 'gay' teens surveyed by GLSEN, 79% reported that they had not 'been called names, teased, bullied, or hurt at school' in the past year because of their sexual orientation, 6 while 92% had never experienced 'physical assault' for that reason.

Reports of 'gay' teen suicides also appear to have been exaggerated. One study by a pro-homosexual researcher found, 'Gay and lesbian teenagers are only slightly more likely than heterosexual kids to attempt suicide,' according to USA Today. And the author of Suicide in America, Dr. Herbert Hendin, reportedly 'found no evidence that social discrimination was a major factor behind the suicide attempts of the homosexual students he studied.'

No student should ever be the victim of unprovoked violence or be subjected to taunting or the use of vulgar epithets?whether for their sexual orientation or for any other reason. But if all forms of harassment are wrong, then all forms of harassment' without distinction'should be banned.

?Anti-Discrimination' Codes

Pro-homosexual activists also promote policies that forbid 'discrimination' against students or teachers on the basis of 'sexual orientation.?

However, singling out 'sexual orientation' for special protection (along with the usual categories of 'race, color, national origin, sex, and disability?) is illogical. The latter qualities are usually inborn, involuntary, immutable, and innocuous?none of which is true of homosexual behavior, despite the claims of its advocates.

Nevertheless, pro-homosexual activists believe that homosexuals should be permitted not only to teach, but to proclaim their sexual preference openly. One California school district adopted a policy to 'in- sure that gay youth and staff can come out' and that 'teachers can provide positive images of gay people in the classroom . . .?

One of the poster children for 'anti-discrimination' policies is Wendy Weaver, a homosexual teacher from Salem, Utah. She was fired from her position as a school volleyball coach after admitting her lesbianism, but later won reinstatement.

Apparently, the thought that some of the teenage girls on the volleyball team might feel uncomfortable about sharing the locker room with an adult coach who could see them as objects of sexual attraction did not carry sufficient weight.

The supposed 'right' of teachers to be 'out' about their sexual orientation even extends to 'transgendered' staff?and costs taxpayer money?as well. Eastchester High School in New York was treated to the spectacle of a male teacher taking a year off?with pay?for sex-change surgery, and then returning to the same school to teach as a 'woman,' going by the name RandeyMichelle Gordon. (Gordon later went on leave again'supported by state disability benefits). Lily McBeth, a 71- year-old man who recently became a 'woman,' was similarly re-hired as a substitute teacher?by a New Jersey elementary school. One mother said 'she thought McBeth would confuse her sons because McBeth had already taught them when she was male' -- but such concerns were discounted by the school board.

Teacher Training

Activists also lobby for opportunities to present pro-homosexual propaganda to teachers and administrators through mandatory training sessions. Exploring the GLSEN website, however, one finds the principal evils they seek to overcome are not harassment or violence, but 'homophobia' and 'heterosexism.?  'Homophobia' is a term that stigmatizes those with traditional values by implying that they (not homosexuals) are the ones with a mental illness (even though recent research has concluded that 'homophobia' in this clinical sense actually does not exist.)

'Heterosexism' -- the belief 'that heterosexuality and a binary gender structure are the norm' -- is now classified with 'ideological systems that deny, denigrate, and stigmatize people' 16 as something to be 'undone.?

The outline that represents GLSEN's 'basic approach' to school staff training indicates that nothing less than complete 'support' for homosexuality is the goal (the outline includes a specific scale of attitudes and makes clear that 'tolerance' and 'acceptance' are unacceptably weak stances to adopt).17 Its goal is not just to keep homosexual students 'safe,' but 'to elevate the status of LGBT students from a protected class to a valued group' by actively affirming homosexuality, because for GLSEN, 'The pursuit of safety and affirmation are one and the same goal . . .?

?Gay-Straight Alliances?

A more important task for pro-homosexual activists' indoctrinating the children themselves?usually begins with formation of a student club called a 'gay-straight alliance' (GSA). GSA's are often said to promote 'safety' and give gay, 'questioning,' and 'straight ally' youth a forum to 'discuss sexual orientation and gender identity issues.'

However?as with other pro-homosexual school policies?GSA's often take on roles that go far beyond insuring safety and a place to talk. For example, GLSEN's article on '20 Ways Your GSA Can Rock the World!' includes: getting pro-homosexual books in the school library; protesting examples of 'heterosexism' (such as 'gender specific' bathrooms); participating in gay 'pride' marches; and 'outreach to middle schools.' The Massachusetts Department of Education has even given taxpayer money to GSA's to subsidize pro-gay political activism and social events.

Some are concerned that GSA's will encourage young people who are unsure of themselves to experiment sexually or to prematurely identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual. The Boston Globe, for instance, reported on a high school junior named Rachel, who says she had some questions about her sexuality when she joined [her] school's gaystraight alliance . . . A crush on a girlfriend made Rachel 'more and more sure I wasn't completely straight.' Now Rachel, who has a boyfriend, considers herself bisexual. -- . . . I don't think I would have been as comfortable if I hadn't been in the GSA,' she said.22

Student Indoctrination: Special Events

To raise an entire new generation of young people who will have an unquestioning acceptance of prohomosexual dogma, however, requires activities that will reach the entire student body. These usually begin with special assemblies or one-day or one-time events. For example, when a school in Massachusetts celebrated 'To B GLAD Day,' parents were not told that it stood for 'Transgender, Bisexual, Gay and Lesbian Day,' and would feature workshops about 'Life Outside the Gender Norm,' 'Being Gay in the Professional World,' and 'fighting homophobia.'

GLSEN annually promotes a one-day event they call the 'Day of Silence, which they describe as a day when defenders of homosexuality 'take a daylong vow of silence to . . . protest . . . discrimination and harassment.?24 This disruption of the educational process, whereby students who are normally called upon in class refuse to speak and, in some cases, even teachers themselves refuse to give their normal lectures, has been questioned in some school districts,25 but tolerated in others. Another approach has been to ride the coattails of 'multiculturalism' by including 'LGBT History Month' among other 'celebrations of culture and heritage.' Pro-homosexual activists in schools trumpet their claims that 'there are countless . . . artists, philosophers, inventors, even world leaders' who were gay. (One pair of gay activists has pointed out: 'Famous historical figures are . . . in no position to deny [their homosexuality] and sue for libel.?)

In North Carolina, parents were shocked to learn that the North Carolina Governor's School, an elite state-funded summer program attended by their son, had featured a seminar on 'The New Gay Teenager' that encouraged students to question their own sexuality and biblical teaching against homosexuality.29 One of the leaders of the seminar, Susan Wiseman (a 27-year-old high school teacher and lesbian) was later suspended without pay after being accused of sexual misconduct with a 17-year-old student at her school.

Perhaps the most notorious one-day event was GLSEN's annual conference in Massachusetts in 2000?now commonly known as the 'Fistgate' conference. This event, attended by young people at least as young as 14, made it clear that the homosexual agenda in schools is about sex, not just 'safety.' Margot E. Abels, a state employee, opened one workshop by saying, 'We think that sex is central to every single one of us and particularly queer youth.?

In another seminar (described as 'for youth only?) Abels described the sadomasochistic homosexual practice known as 'fisting,' saying, Fisting often gets a bad rap. It usually isn't about the pain, not that we?re putting that down . . . [It's] to put you into an exploratory mode.

Astonishingly, the lessons of the 'Fistgate' scandal seem to have been quickly forgotten. In 2005, GLSEN rented space in Brookline (Mass.) High School for a Saturday conference open to students as young as middle school. Among the materials distributed was a pamphlet, titled Little Black Book V 2.0 Queer in the 21st Century. It included a section on the STD risks of eight different sex acts described in the crudest detail. When the presence of the pamphlet was first reported, Sean Haley of GLSEN declared, 'The allegations are simply lies. . . . No such material . . . [was] ever present.' But a day later, Fenway Community Health admitted that they had 'accidentally' left copies of the pamphlet on their display table.

Less graphic, but perhaps even more startling, are the scattered reports of schools actually promoting special days for students to cross-dress (that is, for boys to dress like girls and girls to dress like boys). Such events, for instance, have been scheduled in Spurger, Texas, in a middle school in Bedford, Massachusetts,36 and in an elementary school in Carrier Mills, Illinois. Protests led to cancellation of the first two events. Although school staff may claim this is just 'something silly for the kids to do,' Peter LaBarbera of the Illinois Family Institute pointed out that 'the last thing we need is for schools to promote more confusion about the sexes and gender roles.'

Student Indoctrination: In Every Classroom

The truly breathtaking sweep of the gay education agenda is described by GLSEN: Educators need to integrate LGBT issues throughout the curriculum -- not just in classes such as health education, but in disciplines such as English, History, Art and Science.

Pro-homosexual activists also try to fill school libraries and required reading lists with books that not only present homosexuals in a positive light, but describe homosexual acts being committed by young people in explicit terms.

One such book, assigned to a high school class in Massachusetts, is written from the perspective of a teenager, who describes 'his friend's first homosexual experience, a kid who got so drunk that he had sex with a dog, and a girl and boy who have sex on a golf course.?

Another book, recommended by California's 'Gay- Straight Alliance Network,' features a section on 'positive first sexual experiences' by 'lesbian and gay young people;' but the encounters described' including one-night stands?would hardly constitute 'positive . . . sexual experiences' in the minds of most American parents.

Unfortunately, It's Elementary Too

Perhaps the most shocking aspect of this activist assault on our schools is that they are determined to bring their pro-homosexual propaganda to the children even in the lowest grades -- beginning in kindergarten.

This agenda is depicted clearly -- and slickly -- in a film for adults called It's Elementary: Talking About Gay Issues in School. It features a schoolwide 'Lesbian and Gay Pride Day,' as well as a 'Gay Pride Assembly.' It highlights the achievements of purported homosexuals 'from Michelangelo to Melissa Etheridge' -- 'leading the young students,' as one critic said, 'to the false assumption that being gay can't be bad because of the good things gay people have done.'

Chasnoff has since produced another film, That's a Family, which encourages schools 'to be inclusive of all kinds of families' (such as 'gay and lesbian- headed households'). This film is presented as protecting the self-esteem of students whose adult caretakers have non-traditional lifestyles. (Of course, similar respect should be granted to children whose parents are alcoholics, drug dealers, or criminals -- but it's not necessary to be affirming of the choices made by the adults in their lives.) Pro-homosexual activists in elementary schools are also using a theatre presentation and book called Cootie Shots.44 While such activists usually express great sensitivity to the harm done by insulting or violent words, they apparently aren't bothered by songs like 'In Mommy's High Heels,' which includes a cross-dressing boy singing:

. . . [L]et them jump and jeer and whirl
They are the swine, I am the pearl. . . .
Let them laugh, let them scream,
They'll all be beheaded when I'm queen.'

As with older youth, the pro-homosexual message is also pushed in a burgeoning crop of books directed at children, ranging literally from A (Amy Asks a Question: Grandma, What's a Lesbian?) to Z (Zack's Story: Growing up with same-sex parents).

Same-Sex 'Marriage' and the Schools

The impact of same-sex 'marriage,' legalized in Massachusetts in 2004 by a court order, has reached the public schools as well. In September 2004, National Public Radio featured an interview with Deb Allen, a lesbian who teaches eighth-grade sex education in Brookline, Mass. Her lessons include descriptions of homosexual sex, given 'thoroughly and explicitly with a chart.' Allen reports she will ask her students, 'Can a woman and a woman have vaginal intercourse, and they will all say no. And I'll say, 'Hold it. Of course, they can. They can use a sex toy.' -- If challenged, Allen says, she will respond, 'Give me a break. It's legal now.'

Pro-Homosexual 'Discrimination'

While pro-homosexual activists are usually the first to complain about alleged instances of 'discrimination,' the truth is that in many cases, it is people who hold more traditional views about homosexuality who become victims of discrimination. For example:

* Debra Loveless of St. Louis was removed by a security guard from a pro-homosexual assembly at her daughter's school.

* A Christian student club at Pioneer High School in Ann Arbor, Michigan was excluded from a panel discussion on 'Religion and Homosexuality,' and a club member's speech to an assembly on 'what diversity means to me' was censored, during the school's 'Diversity Week.'

* In a similar case, school officials at Viroqua High School in Viroqua, Wisconsin chose to cancel a scheduled 'Diversity Day' rather than allow the viewpoints of Christians and former homosexuals to be included.

* In the state of Washington, student Lucas Schrader was denied re-enrollment in a public charter school that he had attended for three years. The reason' His father had 'expressed concerns about the wisdom of having a homosexual teacher assigned to teach sex education to sixth graders.?52

* The parents of a kindergarten student in Lexington, Massachusetts were upset when their son came home from school with a book featuring same-sex couples. When David Parker, the child's father, met with the principal to demand assurances that the school would notify him and allow his child to opt out of discussions of homosexuality in the classroom (as required by state law), he was instead arrested for trespassing and spent a night in jail' -- stripped of my shoes, my belt, my wedding ring, and my parental rights,' as he later put it. Six months later, the criminal charges against Parker were dropped -- but the superintendent continued to bar Parker from all school property.

* Perhaps the most dramatic illustration of discrimination in favor of homosexuality in schools is New York City's creation in 2003 of Harvey Milk High School, a deluxe public school specifically 'to meet the needs of [GLBT] and questioning youth.' Any notion that Harvey Milk High was boosting the life skills of its students was seriously damaged by the arrest of five 'transgendered' students -- boys who posed as female prostitutes, then pretended to be undercover police officers in order to extort money from their customers.

What Can Be Done?

We have seen how an agenda that enters the schools supposedly on the basis of keeping children safe is used in fact to promote the celebration of homosexual behavior and the silencing of any opposition. Is there any way that this relentless onslaught can be stopped?

First, it is important not to lose hope. Although the incidents described in this publication have occurred in all parts of the country and even in conservative communities, the pro-homosexual agenda has by no means been implemented in every school or district. A survey taken by the pro-homosexual group Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) in 2004 found even the most common pro-homosexual policy in schools -- a harassment/ non-discrimination policy that includes 'gay, lesbian or bisexual students' -- in only 41% of the schools surveyed. The most extreme policy advocated by PFLAG'school counseling services offering 'transgender resources' to help boys become girls and vice versa -- was present in only 1% of schools.58

Parents Speaking Out

Just having the courage to speak out can make a difference. Parents Michael and Tonya Hartsell of Wilmington, North Carolina were shocked when their daughter Olivia -- a first-grader -- brought home from her school library the book King and King. It tells the story of a prince in need of a mate who rejects dozens of princesses before finally choosing to 'marry' another prince. After a week of national media attention, Freeman Elementary School agreed to place the book under lock and key and make it available only to teachers and parents.

Some pro-family groups have now begun using special pro-homosexual events as an opportunity to share a dissenting view and truthful information about homosexuality. Several years ago, Mission America, a pro-family group based in Ohio, began responding to GLSEN's 'Day of Silence,' taking advantage of the 'silence' of normally outspoken pro-homosexual activists by declaring the same day a 'Truth Without Interruption Day.' More recently, the Alliance Defense Fund, a pro-family legal advocacy group, has adapted this idea by declaring the day after the 'Day of Silence' to be a 'Day of Truth' (information is available at www. dayoftruth.org).

Opposing 'Gay-Straight Alliances'

Because they realize that it is often the first wedge to insert a pro-homosexual agenda in their schools, many parents and other citizens have tried to block the formation of 'gay-straight alliances.' However, pro-homosexual activists have sometimes defended their right to form such groups by claiming rights under the Equal Access Act -- a federal law that was, ironically, designed primarily to secure the rights of students to form Christian clubs at public schools. The Equal Access Act makes it unlawful for schools to bar student groups from meeting 'on the basis of the religious, political, philosophical, or other content of the speech at such meetings.'

However, if a club that affirms homosexuality is allowed, then students who oppose homosexuality have the same 'equal access' rights. At Eisenhower High School in Lawton, Oklahoma, one parent concerned about the push for a GSA at his son's school responded with a proposal to form an 'exgay' club -- promoting the view that homosexuals can change their sexual orientation. Eventually, the student government itself voted down the idea of forming a GSA.

Another approach has been to bar the formation of all clubs not related to the curriculum. The school district in White County, Georgia adopted this approach. Meanwhile, both houses of the Georgia legislature passed bills early in 2006 that would require parental permission for participation in any school club. This could effectively deter many students from participating, or at least insure that their parents are aware of this activity. A student who founded and heads a GSA in one Georgia high school said, '[I]f [my mom] knew I was running this club, she would take me out.'

When a Texas school district was sued for preventing an off-campus 'gay' youth group from meeting at Lubbock High School, the school successfully invoked certain exceptions to the Equal Access Act. The group's plan to discuss 'safe sex' was deemed 'interference' with the district's 'abstinence-only' sex education curriculum. On its website were links to other sites that a federal judge declared '1) lewd, 2) indecent, and 3) obscene,' and therefore 'detrimental to the physical, mental, and emotional well-being' of students.

Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX) has prepared a useful, ten-step guide on 'How to Respond to a Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA) Club at your school,' which is available on their website at www.pfox.org.

Defining 'Discrimination'

In the Westminster School District in Orange County, California, trustees balked at adopting a policy 'that gives boys who consider themselves girls and girls who regard themselves as boys the right to pursue discrimination complaints.' In response, a state official threatened to withhold state aid that constitutes a significant part of the district's budget. In the end, the board adopted its own definition of 'gender' which the state grudgingly conceded 'technically complies with state law' -- but clarifies that the 'perception of the alleged victim is not relevant to the determination of 'gender.' --

Case Studies:  Boyd County, Kentucky

Those challenging the pro-homosexual agenda in schools, however, should be prepared for a long battle. The experience of several communities across the country makes that clear.

For example, in Boyd County, Kentucky, teachers, parents, and students have been battling the formation of a Gay-Straight Alliance since at least 2002. When threats from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) resulted in approval of a GSA at Boyd County High School, nearly half of the school's students boycotted classes in protest. When the school board attempted to ban all noncurricular clubs, the ACLU went to court, and in February 2004, the board agreed to allow the GSA to meet, and to hold 'anti-harassment workshops' for both staff and students.The people of Boyd County again voted with their feet, with about a third of students not showing up for the training. In February 2006, a federal judge rejected the idea that parents should be allowed to opt their children out of the sessions.

However, the ACLU's victories in court to this point may be hollow ones. By the time they settled their original case in February 2004, attendance at the GSA had dwindled from 19 at its first meeting in November 2002 to just three to five biweekly; by the following November, the group had disbanded altogether and its faculty adviser had transferred to another school.

San Leandro, California

San Leandro, California is another community that has seen years of contention and dueling lawsuits. In 1997, parents sued San Leandro High School English teacher Karl Debro for promoting a 'gay agenda' in class. The lawsuit failed, but district officials reprimanded Debro and limited classroom discussion of 'controversial issues.' Debro responded in 1999 with a lawsuit of his own -- and in August 2002 received a settlement from the school district of over $1 million. The settlement, however, went beyond protecting Debro's 'freedom of speech.' It also required the school board to 'hold staff and student training on diversity and non-discrimination' 'thus imposing a 'gay agenda' on the San Leandro schools, just as Debro had been accused of doing five years earlier.

In January 2006, teachers at San Leandro High School were forced (some against their will) to post posters declaring their classrooms a 'safe space' for homosexual youth. But no posters declare that the classrooms are a 'safe space' for students who are overweight or dress differently, nor for Black, Latino, freshman, disabled, Arab and Asian students' even though a 2002 survey at the school had found that they, too, are often victims of 'harassment.'

"I'll See You in Court"

Unfortunately, going to court may sometimes be the only option for parents or students who object to -- or even want to respond to -- pro-homosexual activism in the schools.

There may be a number of other grounds on which schools could be held legally liable for damages for teaching about homosexuality to children. In addition to parental rights issues, they include:

* Endangering the physical health of a child

* Endangering the mental health of a child

* Contributing to the delinquency of a child

* Unconstitutional restraint of First Amendment rights through restrictive student speech or anti-harassment codes.

More information is available in a publication available from Citizens for Community Values (CCV) of Cincinnati, Ohio entitled The Legal Liability Associated with Homosexuality Education in Public Schools.

The Christian student excluded from a 'Diversity Week' panel on 'Religion and Homosexuality' in an Ann Arbor, Michigan high school won an award of $102,738 in legal fees82 from a federal judge who lamented 'the ironic, and unfortunate, paradox of a public high school celebrating 'diversity' by refusing to permit the presentation to students of an 'unwelcomed' viewpoint on the topic of homosexuality and religion, while actively promoting the competing view.?

Parents have successfully sued regarding prohomosexual curriculum changes as well. In Montgomery County, Maryland, the Board of Education adopted a revised sex education curriculum in November 2004 that included for the first time a detailed -- and highly slanted -- discussion of sexual orientation. When the Board of Education ignored citizen protests, PFOX and the local Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum (CRC) went to court and won a Temporary Restraining Order to block the curriculum's implementation. The judge found that it violated the Constitution's ban on the 'establishment of religion' by, for example, juxtaposing the portrait 'of an intolerant and Biblically misguided Baptist Church against other, preferred Churches.' He also found that it violated freedom of speech by presenting only the view 'that homosexuality is a natural and morally correct lifestyle.?


Kevin Jennings, Executive Director of GLSEN, has suggested that criticism of the homosexual agenda in schools rests on 'the myth that homosexuals recruit children.?

But in at least one sense, pro-homosexual activists in our schools do indeed 'recruit children.' What they seek to do is 'recruit children' -- 100% of our children, 'gay' or straight -- as soldiers in their war against truth, common sense, and traditional moral values. That's one recruitment drive that has no place on the campuses of America's public schools.

Winning the Homosexuality Debate -- in the Public Arena
The Rev. F. Earle Fox, D. Phil.

I. Restoring Sexual Sanity

A. Incompetence, Dishonesty & a Fool's Errand

Does clarity matter in dialogue, debate, or discussion' If the key issue being debated has never been clearly defined, there can never be anything but confusion and a field tilted to favor darkness and manipulation.

Why, then, has there never been clarity on the specific matter for which homosexual advocates seek approval -- homosexual behavior?

Clarity always favors truth, and truth always supports love and compassion. We have neither truth nor love and compassion because we have no clarity, only evasion, on the behavior issue. So the public has given itself a fool's errand by allowing discussion to be "managed" so no honest closure can happen.

B. The 'Pansexual' Path

America is thus treading the path of the Episcopal Church, the primrose path into pansexualism, with homosexual activists riding point. Pansexualism is the "Alfred Kinsey" belief that all forms of sexual behavior are morally equivalent -- adultery, incest, pederasty, etc. It is all a matter of personal choice, there are no moral distinctions between sexual practices.

Homosexuality is thus only one branch on the pansexual tree, a tree with branches for every possible sexual practice, a tree natural to the secular/pagan Godless world of the Fall. With no relation to the Living God, there is nothing in the world to tell anyone otherwise -- neither by moral standard nor by the Image of God in which we are made, male and female.

The quest to legitimize sexual promiscuity never had an ounce of intellectual integrity, yet it has been the underground engine driving western culture since the late 19th century. It hit the streets in the 1960's -- the so-called 'sex revolution?. And then the homosexual revolution in 1969 with the Stonewall riots in New York.

Today we face the astonishing situation that although few Americans support the homosexual agenda (polls tell us that nearly 70% of Americans oppose it), yet all sides assume that the legal mandating of homosexual marriage is inevitable. Homosexualists have created the illusion of an inevitable juggernaut.

How can homosexual activists, representing less than 3% of the population sway the whole nation' They can do so only with the help of the much larger pansexual group of persons who desire their sexual freedom -- whatever the brand, and by support from some of the most highly skilled psychologists and marketing experts in the world. America is being brainwashed.

C. Behavior - the Achilles Heel

Some blame outlaw, runaway judges who legislate at will. But the primary fault is not with the courts, homosexual activists, or their pansexual sympathizers. Homosexual marriage is as 'inevitable' only as the timidity of those who object -- who fail to confront the single vulnerable issue, the Achilles' heel of homosexualism, i.e., homosexual behavior.

Homosexual activists have successfully framed the debate as a matter of civil rights, privacy, and victimhood. The population has been so sidetracked and anesthetized that the people of America will rarely confront them with either the facts or the consequences of their behavior.

Homosexualists cannot afford public discussion of the behavior because it is so outlandish and selfdestructive. And those who oppose them have been typically too prudish, timid, or ignorant to do so. In the over three decades since the Stonewall riots ignited the homosexual revolt, no political, religious, or educational leader has stood up to lead a sustained, honest public discussion of homosexual behavior.

That is betrayal of the public, and especially of homosexual persons themselves -- who most of all need honest public discussion. Truth alone sets people free.

The homosexual activist effort to quell such discussion has been astonishingly successful -- with the result that conservatives are buying a "pig in a poke' -- an unexamined pig and a public policy time-bomb. That requires remarkable revisionist 'salesmanship' (read 'brainwashing'). And remarkable apathy, ignorance, and naiveté among their gullible conservative victims.

The Episcopal Church has fallen to homosexual forces because conservative leadership was either unwilling to address, or incapable of addressing, homosexual behavior. America need not go down the same path.

Their bizarre behavior is the only issue homosexual advocates cannot talk around. They can talk around Scripture, the law of God, undermining marriage, 'traditional values', the constitution, or any other conservative issue. But they have to shut down discussion of behavior because the public would not consider their behavior moral, healthy, or mainstream America -- if the public knew what it was.

D. Clearing the 'PR' Fog

The public intuitively knows something is terribly wrong. But Americans have allowed themselves to be kept sufficiently in a fog so that most persons (uncomfortably) believe that homosexual behavior is essentially benign and harmless -- just a little affectionate hugging and kissing.

The public has been kept in a fog of misinformation by an enormously successful 'PR" program, picturing homosexual persons as victims, and anyone who disagrees as 'homophobic', 'mean spirited', and denying their civil rights, so the public is pathologically hesitant to challenge homosexual behavior publicly -- but it can - must - and will be done. Despite the juggernaut illusion, the homosexual agenda is a very, very vulnerable 'house of cards'. Below is a logical, simple, commonsense strategy for getting homosexual behavior on the table, forcing a candid but graceful public discussion of behavior which will pull the house down.

It is to be hoped that you, dear reader, will pray for guidance as to whether you are called to get equipped to make a public statement -- via one-onone discussion, letters to the editor, testimony at board of education meetings, at political rallies and committee meetings, or through other ways of your own creative devising. If we do not address the behavior issue both gracefully and candidly, with clinical, not street, language, we can plan on losing the sexuality war.

If we lose, pastors can plan on hate-crime laws shutting down their preaching on homosexuality -- leaving the choice of fighting in court, compliance, or jail. Pastors must train their people, first in their personal spiritual life, secondly in their understanding of being made in the image of God, male and female, and thirdly, how to make a difference in the public arena, especially with educators and legislators.

Time is short. We are passing on to our children and grandchildren a battle which will cost them far more to win than it will cost us to fight here and now.

The material below will provide a head start in forming a small group who can work together to support each other so that homosexual advocates will begin to understand that whenever they get up to speak, they will have to defend homosexual behavior in public.

II. 5 Questions

The stage can be set by a gentle invitation to an honest, mutually respectful discussion using the following 2-liner: You and I are on opposite sides of this issue, but if the evidence should show that God approves and that homosexual behavior is healthy, then I will stand with you. On the other hand, if the evidence should show that God does not approve, or that homosexual behavior is not healthy, would you be willing to reconsider your position' You make yourself vulnerable to the evidence, which invites the other side to do likewise.

Reason and righteousness are fundamental to both Biblical religion and the American democratic republic. The Church is society's conscience, the State its referee. The following five questions will lead, with moral and intellectual integrity, to a reliable conclusion to the question: Should civil or ecclesiastical government approve the homosexual legislative agenda?

Yes or No' And why?

Whatever else homosexuality might be, it is at least a behavior. We are forbidden to judge persons (which God alone can do), but we are required to judge behavior (every law, divine or civil, is a commandment to judge behavior -- our own first, and, when appropriate, that of others).

1. Homosexuality is a behavior.

What behavior, precisely, are we being asked to approve' We do not want to buy a pig in a poke. What are the behaviors and approximate percentages of homosexual persons who engage in these behaviors?

Advocates of homosexuality seldom volunteer to explain their sexual behavior. Rather, they deliberately hide their behavior from public discussion (see After the Ball, by Marshall Kirk & Hunter Madsen, two primary homosexualist strategists, who recommend this deceit). Truthful policy-makers must learn on their own to explain the behavior -- publicly.

Studies from both sides focus on the same behaviors with reasonably similar figures on what percentages of homosexual persons engage in them. There is little debate about the general picture of the sadly misnamed "gay" lifestyle.

The following figures are taken from one of the largest (850 pp.) studies on this subject, 'The Gay Report" (1979), by two homosexual researchers, Karla Jay and Allen Young. The pair are stunningly candid.

Around 99% of homosexual males engage in oral sex; 91% engage in anal sex; 82% engage in "rimming", touching the anus of one's partner with one's tongue and inserting the tongue into the anus; 22% engage in "fisting", inserting one's fist into the rectum of the partner; 23% engage in "golden showers", urinating on each other; 4% engage in "scat", the eating of feces, and in "mud rolling", rolling on the floor where feces have been deposited.

The promiscuity is enormous. A New England Journal of Medicine study indicates that the average active homosexual male ingests the fecal material of 23 different men each year (largely from rimming), and that the sexual partners average nearly 100. Homosexual persons on average fellated 106 different men per year, swallowed 50 of their seminal ejaculations, and had 72 penile penetrations of the anus.

[These practices are being taught in Massachusetts and other public schools -- criminal sexual abuse of minors. See "Fistgate" at ]http://www.parentsrightscoalition.org/]

2. What are the medical, psychological, and sociological consequences of homosexual behavior, and of defending such behavior' Put very briefly...

Medical consequences are so devastating that the average practicing homosexual person loses from 30% to 40% of his/her lifespan, typically not living beyond 50 in a culture where we Winning the Homosexuality Debate -- in the Public Arena The Rev. F. Earle Fox, D. Phil. average well into our 70's.

Sexually transmitted diseases (STD's) commonly gotten from homosexual behavior include gonorrhea, syphilis, hepatitis A and B, anal cancer, amoebic "gay" bowel disease, and herpes. Over 50% of American HIV/AIDS cases are contracted by practicing homosexual persons -- less than 3% of the population. The Red Cross will not accept blood from anyone who has had same-sex sex, even once, since 1977. Joel Beltz writes in World Magazine, 'Here is a whole category of people in our culture today unable to perform a basic function of human society -- to share their blood with their fellow human beings.?

Homosexual behavior is lethal. Nearly 1,000,000 Americans have been infected with HIV -- and 400,000 have died -- of a behavior-caused, and thus preventable, disease, because those in the medical watchtowers have remained silent as this enemy of social order entered the gates and seized the levers of power. There is no excuse for the abysmal ignorance of the public, nor for the cowardice of medical and spiritual professionals in sounding the warning.

Psychologically, evidence shows homosexuality to be compulsive and addictive. When warned that continuing such behavior would mean a high death rate, homosexual persons typically respond that such a request is an attack on their identity and personhood, not on their behavior. "Homosexuality is who I am, not what I do!!" Continued justification and practice of self-destructive behavior, even when warned, is evidence of a compulsive and addictive pattern.

The social consequences of the homosexual agenda include deconstruction of marriage and of sexual morality, and criminalization of honest discussion through "hate-crime" laws.

Marriage between a man and a woman is the foundation of family. The family is the building block of society. God, not the State, created the family when He created the human race in His image, male and female. The State only recognizes, not creates, marriage. Where there is no legal proscription of homosexuality, there is then no legal barrier to same-sex marriage, nor, soon, to any of the other "pan-sexual" arrangements, all of which corrode social order.

Anti-discrimination based on "sexual orientation" opens the pansexual door to pedophilia, pederasty, adultery, bestiality, polygamy, and others. Pederasty and pedophilia are largely subsets of homosexuality. Supporters of pansexuality are already bringing cases to court, based on the recent Supreme Court decision striking down sodomy laws in Texas. Homosexual behavior makes no more sense than playing in the toilet.

3. Is homosexuality (1) a genuine inborn identity, (2) a choice, or (3) a compulsive, often lethal, addiction?

Prior to the 1990's, no researchers on either side of the fence said either that homosexuality was genetic, inborn, or otherwise "hardwired", or that one could not change one's orientation. Alfred Kinsey, John Money, Masters and Johnson, all pansexual proponents, said that persons could change, and that it was their own business. It was difficult, but possible.

Not until the 1990's did activists discover the 'PR' value of getting people to believe that their condition was "genetic" or "biologically determined". Several studies during the early and middle '90's were alleged to prove such. The claim was false. Not one of those studies has survived scientific peer review, and few, if any, researchers today will support that claim.

There is no evidence to support the "identity" claim, there is only their subjective declaration. Even some homosexual groups are now admitting the "inborn" case to have failed.

The prodigious promiscuity in disease-causing behavior, coupled with denial of lethal dangers, provides incontestable evidence that the homosexual orientation is a compulsive and addictive condition -- with practitioners looking for self-justification in a pseudo-identity.

4. Given the answers to #1-3 above: Would a loving person (God, or a compassionate legislator) approve homosexual behavior, or reject and forbid it' Would such behavior be consistent or inconsistent for persons made -- male and female -- in the image of a loving and reasonable God?

"Agape" love is serving the good of another. "Eros" love is attraction-love, signifying need or dependency, (from a legitimate child's need-love of a parent -- to the illegitimate "love" of an addiction). Agape love is always based on truth. Love not based on objective truth is no love at all. It is betrayal. True love seeks the welfare of the beloved, not emotional bondage. Love speaks hard truth even when it causes pain, and will not allow a person caught in bondage to define the diagnosis. A loving response does not condemn persons, but candidly assesses behavior. A loving person condemns the sin precisely so that the sinner will not be condemned, neither by God nor by the behavior itself. Tough love.

The homosexual agenda is about public policy, i.e., the coercive force of law. All law, without exception, is based on someone's moral code, someone's understanding of right and wrong.

American law is based on the Judeo-Christian revelation of the will of God, who designs laws for human benefit and prosperity. (Read Original Intent, by David Barton.) The highest law of God is agape love, that we serve God and one another.

Given the evidence above, love is precisely what would impel God, or any other legislator, to say "No" to homosexual behavior.

5. Given the answer to #4: What should the public do (personal action, law enforcement, in the Church) about this situation?

How might Church and State go about implementing a "no" response to homosexual claims with both truth and compassion?

Honest public policy would conjoin truth, righteousness, and love. It would call an addiction an addiction, and then assist those seeking help. Honest policy would insist on candid discussion of health issues (i.e., honest science) with appropriate public health measures. It would stop the subversion of public health policy which betrays those very persons badly in need of honest discussion, trapped in an addiction.

Civil government faithful to its constituents will stop activists from subverting discussion of behavior or its impact on public health and welfare.

Two issues must be considered.

A. Non-Discrimination Laws: The freedom of religious communities to conduct affairs, such as hiring, and of individuals to conduct their home life according to their own moral standards must be protected. Homosexual activists are aiming at coercing employment and housing policy to enforce their pseudo-nondiscrimination, a situation already true in Canada, Europe, and in parts of America.

Churches and para-church organizations would be forced to hire persons who violate the spiritual and moral base of the group. Owners of homes and apartments would be forced to share their own space with persons of a contrary moral and/or spiritual view -- as has already happened in Madison, Wisconsin.

Valid inclusiveness does not validate immoral behavior. It requires valid discrimination to make sense. Every law discriminates -- that is the purpose of laws. The proper basis for discrimination is the moral judgement of the people under God, through elected legislators.

B. Hate-Crime Laws: The proper object of law is behavior, not attitude or belief. Hate-crime laws regulate feelings and attitudes to gain subversively an end they cannot attain in open discussion.

They are used to shut down the very public discussion of homosexual behavior necessary to rational public policy, and thus violate the proper inclusiveness and pluralism necessary to a democratic republic. Honest inclusiveness or pluralism does not say that every view is right, but rather that every view is welcome in the public discussion to be tested to find out whether it is the right one for the circumstances. Views are plural, truth is singular.

A loving church would offer the gifts of salvation: repentance, forgiveness, with restoration of innocence and reason for existence. It would hold persons accountable for good behavior, offer prayer, help in finding resources for overcoming self-destructive patterns, and provide companionship along the way. The church would offer resources for spiritual and emotional healing, and for discipleship into mature man- and womanhood. And finally, the church would stand firmly for rational public policy which would assist in these compassionate aims.

Ergo, the Question: Should either civil or ecclesiastical government approve the homosexual legislative agenda?

III. Strategy

How do we discuss the truth gracefully?

1. Always remain calm and caring toward the persons you talk with. We fight not against flesh and blood, but against principalities....

2. Effective resistance at public hearings requires at least a small group, not soloists (who are too easily diverted). When the first speaker is shut down or sidetracked, a second, third, and fourth speaker should be ready to bring the diverted subject (homosexual behavior and its consequences) back into focus, picking up where the previous speaker left off.

3. One-on-one, ask questions first, do not directly challenge with the list of behaviors unless necessary. Ask the other side to explain homosexual behavior. If they cannot or will not, politely hand them the list of behaviors printed out, or read it, and ask whether this is what they understand to be typical homosexual behavior. Draw them out. Keep asking for clarity of their position. Clarity always favors truth. With a group, at a microphone, one has to be more directive.

4. Ask calmly and seriously, "Which of these homosexual behaviors do you think God (or the State) ought to bless?"

5. They will try to divert from the behavior issue to "love". Always return to questions 1 and 2 until the "pig" is clearly out of the poke (Scottish for bag. Use the phrase, "pig in a poke" a lot. It will catch the public imagination.)

6. Note that love is not an issue between us. The issue is the meaning of love, and whether homosexual behavior is indeed loving behavior.

7. If they disagree with the behavior list, ask them to provide more accurate information. Be gentle but firm about their producing specific, documented evidence. Note that the above list comes from researchers on "their side".

8. Ask, "If what I am saying were to turn out to be the case, would that make any difference to you?" Or, "If your view was shown to be wrong, would you want to know?" (I.e., test to see if you are in an honest conversation.) Repeat the 2-liner above.

9. Affirm your concern for him as a person, and that it is public policy related to behavior which concerns you.

10. Agree, if possible, to meet again. Shake hands. Keep friendly.

11. We will have lost if they can shut us down or motivate us to ill will. We will have won if we speak the truth in love. We do not need to change anyone's mind. That is the task of the Holy Spirit. So relax. The point is not whether they believe what you say, but whether you do. [For examples on using this strategy, visit http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/22Sx/PnSx/HSx/00HoSx.htm

Permission is given to copy this article in toto. A *.pdf or *.htm version can be found at: http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/22Sx/PnSx/HSx/Strtgy1pg.htm] ---

Quote from CRAFTING BI/HOMOSEXUAL YOUTH by Judith A. Reisman (Please see http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/regent.pdf for entire article):

"The press can both stimulate public opinion and miseducate it . . . . The press has become the greatest power within the Western countries, more powerful than the legislature, the executive, and judiciary. One would then like to ask: By what law has it been elected and to whom is it responsible." -- Aleksander Solzhenitsyn

"ToBeGlad Day" at School by Bob Unruh

Administrators at North Newton High School in Newton, Mass., have held a seminar for students that explained how to know they are homosexual, but banned parents from attending.

"It's absolutely insane," parent Brian Camenker, who also is chief of the Mass Resistance organization, said. "I met with the principal. She told me no parents are allowed. She said only by invitation. I asked, 'Can I be invited.' She said, 'No.'"

The event, called "ToBeGlad Day," was the school's "Transgender Bisexual Gay Lesbian Awareness Day," and students were given a pamphlet that explains what it means to be "gay," tells students how they are supposed to know if they are "gay," and responds to the question, "Will I ever have sex?"

News of the event comes just a day after WND reported on a case at Deerfield High School in Deerfield, Ill., where school officials ordered their 14-year-old freshman class into a "gay" indoctrination seminar, after having them sign a confidentiality agreement promising not to tell their parents.

"This is very, very scary stuff," Camenker said. "The pamphlet also lists places kids can go to meet homosexuals. How would something like this affect a kid who might be going through a confused and vulnerable time in his life' Well -- the school isn't interested in what YOU think."

The Newton principal, Jennifer Price, didn't return a message WND left seeking a comment on the event.

But Camenker said it supports his argument for the state's Parents Rights Bill, S2063, which would toughen the state's parental notification requirements, an issue he's urging state lawmakers to act on as soon as possible.

He said the information about the brochure, a copy of which is available at the Mass Resistance Website, already has been e-mailed to each member of the Massachusetts Legislature.

"We've gotten a reaction from representatives who have gotten calls," he said. "At least one is angry at us for the vehemence of the call [the representative got from a constituent]. I explained I didn't tell people to be rude."

"But if this is going on in public schools, you can't be surprised [if people are upset]," he said.

"It's absolutely insane."

He said some of the topics of the seminar, as reported by the student newspaper, included: "It's natural to be gay," "Nature vs. Nurture," and "Fabulous Gay History."

That report from the student publication, he said, was the only way for parents to get information about what is going on, since they were banned on orders of the principal from attending.

"The first step in coming out is to tell yourself that you are gay and say, 'That's OK,'" the brochure tells students. "Later you may want to tell someone else -- someone you trust to be understanding and sympathetic?"

Certainly not one of those homophobic religious people, however. "I had to reject a lot of negative heterosexual and religious programming that made me feel lousy about myself as a gay person," said a testimony from "Bill, age 18."

The school also promised help there. "Many faculty members have joined Bridges, a faculty/student group devoted to eliminating homophobia and making our school a more accepting place," it said.

"No matter what people say, you are normal," said a testimony from "Nathan, age 19." "God created you, and you were made in this image. If you are non-religious, you were born and you have a purpose, and being gay is only part of it."

The school's information also included some very practical advice. "Do not shoot up drugs' Avoid anal intercourse' Use condoms whenever you engage in anal or oral sex (or vaginal sex if you have sex with women)?."

But of course, "Sex should only happen between mature individuals who care about each other. You will know when the time is right." The brochure was written with the help of the Boston Alliance of Gay and Lesbian Youth and produced by The Campaign to End Homophobia.

A second brochure included 16 pages of Website addresses, telephone numbers and other information through which students can reach "gay" organizations, law firms, advocacy groups, support clubs and others.

It was made available through the National Youth Advocacy Coalition, which calls itself a "social justice organization that advocates for and with young people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or questioning?"

"It is very scary," Camenker said.

He also said coming on the heels of the David Parker court case, this is what parents in Massachusetts should expect from their public schools.

In that case, U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf dismissed a civil rights lawsuit brought by Parker and ordered that it is reasonable, indeed there is an obligation, for public schools to teach young children to accept and endorse homosexuality.

The lawsuit was brought by parents of children in the Lexington, Mass., Estabrook Elementary School alleging the school violated state law and civil rights by indoctrinating their children about a lifestyle they, as Christians, teach is immoral.

Camenker's group called the ruling "every parent's nightmare."

"In the ruling, Wolf makes the absurd claim that normalizing homosexuality to young children is 'reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy.' According to Wolf, this means teaching 'diversity' which includes 'differences in sexual orientation.'

"In addition, Wolf makes the odious statement that the Parkers' only options are (1) send their kids to a private school, (2) home-school their kids, or (3) elect a majority of people to the School Committee who agree with them. Can you imagine a federal judge in the Civil Rights era telling blacks the same thing -- that if they can't be served at a lunch counter they should just start their own restaurant, or elect a city council to pass laws that reflect the U.S. Constitution?" the organization said.

Lawyers for the families said they already had planned an appeal of the judge's opinion.

Wolf concluded that even allowing Christians to withdraw their children from classes or portions of classes where their religious beliefs were being violated wasn't a reasonable expectation.

"An exodus from class when issues of homosexuality or same-sex marriage are to be discussed could send the message that gays, lesbians, and the children of same-sex parents are inferior and, therefore, have a damaging effect on those students," he opined.

Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues for Concerned Women for America, called the Deerfield case unbelievable.

"It's not enough that students at Deerfield High are being exposed to improper and offensive material relative to unhealthy and high-risk homosexual behavior, but they've essentially been told by teachers to lie to their parents about it," he said.

The situation, according to district Supt. George Fornero, was partly "a mistake." He said the confidentiality agreement wasn't right, and the district would be honest with parents in the future.

Freshmen required to undergo homosexual indoctrination
Mandatory 'diversity seminar' at university where profs 'banned' 'Marketing of Evil'

With last week's stunning revelations that the entire faculty of a Midwestern university campus voted without dissent to investigate a Christian librarian for "sexual harassment" simply because he recommended the bestselling book "The Marketing of Evil," many are asking why not a single faculty member stood up for the librarian.

The question is especially compelling in light of the decision reported Wednesday that the entire faculty had essentially overstepped their own written policies and had wrongly accused the librarian.

The lock-step faculty support for the two openly homosexual professors who led the charge against the librarian might have something to do with the fact that freshmen at the small Mansfield campus of Ohio State University are required, during their first quarter, to undergo what the university calls a "diversity seminar." But critics say the type of "tolerance re-education" OSU mandates uses tactics reminiscent of those of Chinese communist revolutionary leader Mao Tse-Tung.

Battle over the freshmen

As WND first reported, Scott Savage, a devout Quaker, is head of Reference and Instructional Services at the Bromfield Library on Ohio State University's Mansfield campus. As a member of the university's First Year Reading Experience Committee, Savage had suggested four books be considered as required reading for incoming freshmen: "The Marketing of Evil" by David Kupelian, "The Professors" by David Horowitz, "Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis" by Bat Ye'or, and "It Takes a Family" by Sen. Rick Santorum. Savage made the recommendations after other committee members had suggested a series of books with a left-wing perspective, by authors such as Jimmy Carter and Maria Shriver.

However, three professors -- two of them openly homosexual -- filed a complaint of discrimination and harassment, contending Kupelian's book was "hate literature" which "threatened" them and made them feel "unsafe" on campus. After a 21-0 faculty vote (with 9 abstentions) on March 13, the school's Office of Human Resources put Savage under "investigation." The full-faculty vote was rescinded two days later for legal reasons, and the three offended professors filed the harassment complaint.

The three professors behind the complaint against Savage are Hannibal Hamlin, Norman Jones and J.F. Buckley. Jones teaches courses in lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender literature, and Buckley has written "The Social Critic: The Rise of Queer Performance Within the Demise of Transcendentalism" as well as "articles on sexual orientation in Hemingway and Melville."

In a March 9 e-mail to the faculty regarding Savage's suggestion of "The Marketing of Evil" as required freshman reading, Buckley wrote: "' I am not shocked, only deeply saddened -- and THREATENED -- that such mindless folks are on this great campus. -- You have made me fearful and uneasy being a gay man on this campus. I am, in fact, notifying the OSU-M campus, and Ohio State University in general, that I no longer feel safe doing my job. I am being harassed."

Stepping up to defend Savage has been the Arizona-based public-interest law firm, the Alliance Defense Fund.

Despite a "Cease and Desist" letter the Alliance Defense Fund sent to OSU Mansfield officials in Savage's defense March 28, the investigation went forward, with the university insisting it takes "any allegation of sexual harassment seriously."

Finally, since WorldNetDaily, Sean Hannity, MSNBC, Fox News' Brit Hume, the New York Post, Human Events, and dozens of bloggers brought the case to national attention, Ohio State University has reversed course and notified Savage the charges had been dropped.

Why no dissenters'

For many, the most disconcerting part of the case is that no faculty members dissented from what eventually was ruled to be an unfair allegation brought by two "gay" professors.

"The fact that there are one or two unhinged professors out there -- that's not news," said David French, the lead ADF attorney defending Savage. "But the fact that by a 21-0 vote, with 9 abstentions, the faculty would classify a book recommendation as sexual harassment -- that show's there's an illness that has infected the academy."

What some, like French, might call an "illness" is, to others, just a high degree of "tolerance" for differences. Yet, notes French, the only "difference" not tolerated on campus is the belief that there is anything wrong with homosexuality. Indeed, on many campuses across the nation, opposing homosexuality on moral grounds is considered every bit as hateful and intolerable as being a racist, anti-Semitic member of the Ku Klux Klan.

As OSU-Mansfield Professor Hannibal Hamlin said in a March 9 e-mail to Savage, copied to the faculty: "Re Kupelian's book, would you advocate a book that was racist or antisemitic [sic], or are you arguing that homosexuals are not in the same category and that homophobia is not therefore a matter of discrimination but of rational argument?"

Freshman diversity education

Students at OSU-Mansfield are required to take a "diversity seminar" soon after they begin their freshman year.

To prepare for the seminar, students are invited to search online a "dictionary of terms related to diversity," to "Test your knowledge of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender (GLBT)" and to "Take a test at Project Implicit's website."

"Even though we believe we see and treat people as equals, hidden biases may still influence our perceptions and actions," explains the OSU website. "Psychologists at Harvard, the University of Virginia and the University of Washington created 'Project Implicit' to develop Hidden Bias Tests. After taking a test, read Tolerance.org's tutorial to learn more about stereotypes and prejudice and the societal effects of bias."

One current freshman, whose name is being withheld for privacy reasons, attended OSU-Mansfield's mandatory diversity seminar last fall. After he told his father about it, the father sat in as an observer for a subsequent seminar session.

"It is required that incoming freshman must attend a diversity seminar," he told WND, "where the homosexual lifestyle is celebrated, and the students are put on a 'guilt trip' for having negative feelings and/or moral judgments about the behavior of these people."

The two- to three-hour seminar, he explained, included "some group-type exercises, where they tried to say you can't judge a person by looking at them." Four facilitators conducted the group exercises, he said, asking the students questions like, "Who do you think I am?" "Am I married?" "What kind of car do I drive"' and "Do I have children?"

At the very end of the seminar, the facilitators revealed for the first time that three out of four were homosexual. The message, said the OSU student's father, was "We're not bad people."

Other exercises consisted of pairing off the youths and "asking them what someone did to you to make you feel bad at some time in your life, playing on psychology," he said.

"At the end of the meeting, everyone stands in a circle and they ask questions of the group. If it's true, you step out. Other students stepped out, trying to get you to accept this nonsense in a public setting."

According to a report in World magazine by Lynn Vincent, such "diversity seminars" are very common on college campuses today.

"Freshman orientation used to be about teaching new students how to find their classes, the cafeteria, and the campus bookstore," said the report. "But today, left-liberal 'diversity' trainers have found in orientation programs a ready-made crop of captive and impressionable audiences ripe for reeducation on issues of sex, race, and gender. The basic messages: People of color are victims; whites are their tormentors. Homosexuality is normal; abhorring the behavior is bigotry."

Using the Milwaukee School of Engineering, or MSOE, as an example, the 2002 World report identifies the "exercise" the OSU dad described. It's called "Across the Line" or "Crossing the Line," "a diversity-awareness exercise that has also been used at Stanford University and Loyola University of Chicago," says the report:

Groups of about 25 students line up shoulder-to-shoulder along a line on the floor. A facilitator then reads a series of about 50 statements. Every student who feels a statement is true of him or her is supposed to step "across the line," leaving the group behind. Statements start off mildly enough: "You are from a large city or town." Then they get personal:
"You have participated in racial, sexual, or cultural jokes."

"You are pro-choice."

"You would feel comfortable entering into a relationship with a person of a different race."

"You feel comfortable around persons with a gay, lesbian, or bisexual orientation."

While such introspection is certainly not inappropriate for college-age students, "Across the Line" forces a public "outing" among strangers. The exercise adds an unsubtle layer of group pressure to an MSOE strategy that might well be described as "divide and conquer." To ensure freshmen are isolated from any friends they might have come to school with, orientation personnel computer-sort them into random groups.

"Sometimes if students are hanging out with two or three friends, they might feel their attitudes are not so readily challenged," MSOE Director of Student Activities Rick Gagliano told World. "This way they're in a different environment, forced to expose themselves to somebody else -- This is done without parents around -- sort of in a 'safer' environment." The strategy is not new: Mao Tse-Tung used it "re-educate" Chinese university students and pry them loose from their parents' political moorings. (Note: A MSOE spokeswoman informs WND that the school "no longer uses that program in its orientation week.")

Marketing evil'

"What Ohio State University has been doing to Scott Savage by attacking him as a sexual harasser -- and to a far lesser degree doing to me by calling 'The Marketing of Evil' 'hate literature' and so on -- is precisely what I write about in my book," says Kupelian.

"It is literally the 'marketing of evil' in action. First they desensitize these youngsters in highly manipulative, emotionally charged re-education sessions. If anybody challenges the pro-gay orthodoxy on campus, they are subjected to merciless 'jamming,' as we see with their threatening the reputation and livelihood of the librarian, Scott Savage. For people who are sufficiently confused, the college experience can bring about a total conversion. I explain these three devastating steps -- Desensitization, Jamming and Conversion -- in detail in chapter one of 'The Marketing of Evil.'"

Released in August, "The Marketing of Evil" has become one of the nation's most talked-about books, widely praised by Dr. Laura, David Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, D. James Kennedy and many others and garnering over 100 five-star reader reviews on Amazon.com. For the past week it has held down the top spot in Amazon's "Current Events" bestseller list.

Gay Activists Training Teachers in Special Curriculum
(For more information, please see Gay Activism in Schools: http://www.narth.com/menus/schools.html)

The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) has begun conducting focus groups with high school teachers of U.S. history. The intent is to introduce a gay-affirming perspective into public-school American History classes. GLSEN seeks to promote appreciation of particular individuals thought to have been gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered in history and politics.

Gay-Affirmative Public School Teachers/Curricula May Influence Brain Maturation In Teens
January 25, 2005

Dr. Sander Breiner, a member of NARTH's Scientific Advisory Committee, recently expanded upon a paper on "Adolescent Homosexuality" he presented at the November, 2004 NARTH conference in Washington, DC. (Dr. Breiner's paper is currently posted on the NARTH web site.)

Sexually questioning youth are vulnerable to the derailment of their normal heterosexuality, Dr. Breiner asserted, when they are urged to consider the possibility of being same-sex attracted.

Dr. Breiner's paper dealt with the current scientific knowledge on the development of the brain during pre-teen and teen years as it relates to hormones and emotional maturity. One of the sources for this paper was a book edited by Dr. Ronald Dahl for the New York Academy of Sciences on Adolescent Neuroscience. Dr. Dahl is at the University of Pittsburgh and has written extensively on adolescent brain development.

Breiner noted that neuroscientists are convinced that the developing brain during the teen years is significantly influenced by external emotional and social factors. Stress factors, nutrition, and exercise can have an effect on the reproductive function that can lead to a suppression of ovarian and testicular functions. According to Breiner, "If the stress is chronic there can be a significant suppression of this reproductive axis."

Gay-Affirming Teachings Can Impact Brain Development
In an interview with NARTH's Editorial Director, Dr. Breiner notes that teens typically face stresses and confusion about their sexuality. Teaching gay-affirming ideas to teens can add to the problems they already face. The child who is taught that he or she may be homosexual can be stressful and may react in the following negative ways: hurt self esteem; poor body image; likelihood of depression; anxiety about how they will function socially; and a delayed response in functioning as a heterosexual, which makes their social skills even more limited. Gay-affirming materials "won't make someone homosexual, but certainly will contribute to problems in their development," said Breiner. "Adolescents have enough problems in establishing gender roles and this will increase these problems."

According to Breiner, this isn't simply a social or psychological threat to children but is a neurological problem as well. Actual brain changes take place. He notes that there is a strong connection between hormonal development and neurotransmitters that send messages for hormonal development. "If the wrong message gets sent, as is likely to occur when external messages are coming from teachers, then the child may experience a delay in proper sexual development."

Dr. Breiner observes that neuroscience studies are clear on this subject yet nothing has appeared yet in the psychiatric or psychological literature to deal with the connection between external gay-affirming messages and brain development.

"I am convinced that gay affirming materials are injurious to children and will add to the psychological problems they already have as a normal part of development," said Breiner. "It is wrong to say that homosexuality is a viable alternative to heterosexuality. If teens are to be protected, they must be given the facts about homosexual behavior, not fantasies from the gay community."

In discussing the development of homosexuality in general, Dr. Breiner observed: "Human homosexuality is a symptom of some unresolved conflicts in a child's development psychologically. It is determined before the age of five, and usually between 1 1/2 to 3 years of age. If the individual has a neurosis, it was organized between ages 3 to 6. If they are of a borderline psychological organization, it was between ages 2 to 3. If they are psychotic, the psychological organization is under 2."

In the conclusion to his paper on "Adolescent Homosexuality," Dr. Breiner observes:

The brain that is developing (pre-puberty to adulthood), particularly in the area that deals with emotional and sexual development, is affected organically by social and physical stress. Homosexual indoctrination (direct or subtle), coercive or seductive can organically affect brain and sexual physiologic development to a modest or minimal degree. It cannot permanently produce homosexuality. However, it can certainly lead to a variety of difficulties commonly including hurt self-esteem, distortions in living, depression, selection of life goals, and other problems. Though the individual may eventually select a heterosexual life position, the preceding years of difficulties in developing and organizing one's life are likely to have more permanent deleterious effects. Therefore, any attitude by society and particularly educators that homosexuality is a reasonable or alternative lifestyle can significantly contribute to psychopathology in this vulnerable age.

Telling kids homosexuality 'innate' challenged
Court asked to overturn curriculum deemed inaccurate, unsafe

A public school district board's decision to teach homosexuality is innate and anal sex is just an alternative will be challenged in court after officials in Maryland refused to address concerns raised by parents.

Officials with the Thomas More Law Center told WND the issues are too important to ignore.

The curriculum, developed in-house by the Montgomery County Board of Education, not only is inaccurate, but it could expose children to life-threatening diseases by failing to provide sufficient warnings about alternative sexual behaviors, according to Edward L. White III, trial counsel with the Law Center who is handling the case.

"This curriculum is full of factual inaccuracies and runs counter to sound educational policy," he said. "It should not be taught in the public school."

White said parents also should be alarmed by the teaching of "sexual variations."

"The students are introduced to anal sex, which has a much higher risk rate of [various] infections," he said. "It's endangering the lives of students."

"It's not the school system that's going to be taking care of them," said White. "It falls on parents, because the school did not do its job."

Several local organizations protested to the local board and then the state education board. They asked that the material at least include a warning about anal sex that was issued by the Office of the Surgeon General and the National Institutes of Health, but their requests were denied.

That leaves the program material, "the result of pressure by homosexual advocacy groups," subject to a legal challenge, the Law Center said.

A notice of appeal already has been filed, and the briefs will follow soon, said the officials from the center. They will be assisted by Maryland attorney John R. Garza, who already is involved in the dispute.

The attorneys will represent Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays and the Family Leader Network.

"I'm impressed with the principled and steadfast opposition by these pro-family groups to this outrageously hedonistic and life-threatening sexuality curriculum," said Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel for the center. "The Law Center will do everything we can to assist them in their fight."

The pro-family groups had raised objections to the material on several issues, including the teaching that homosexuality is "innate," even though that's an unproven theory. They said it also teaches students anal sex is just another option without warning about the increased HIV/AIDS risk, and it labels as "homophobic" children who hold traditional religious or moral beliefs about homosexuality. It also teaches transgenderism is just another "orientation," even though that has been classified as a mental disorder.

The Law Center says its aim is to defend and promote the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation and related activities.

White said the door was left wide open for a challenge.

"One of the issues is that they didn't follow the proper state procedures in passing this curriculum and also that this curriculum runs contrary to what is required through the state code," White said.

"The most stunning thing [is] there is no great outcry about these programs. People just kind of accept it and move along. They don't have to," White said. "Their children should be the most important thing."

WND earlier reported that the Maryland Board of Education had rejected an appeal regarding the curriculum, and Regina Griggs, executive director of PFOX, said the lessons would leave sound education doctrine "turned on its head."

"The MBOE has taken the preposterous position that questioning children can now be taught that they are 'born that way' until science proves otherwise 'with a preponderance of evidence,'" she said.

"Millions of dollars and three decades of research have failed to prove that homosexuality is innate or that change is not possible," said Griggs.

Montgomery County parents have been battling their local school board over the addition of the promotional lessons for homosexuality since 2004, when they won a delay in the courts after the school board announced plans to impose the curriculum.

The state board admitted there would be differing viewpoints on the description of homosexuality as innate, but that didn't matter in its decision-making process.

The new lessons are intended for eighth-graders, and will focus on "respecting" differences. They adopt the language and points of emphasis employed by promoters of homosexuality.

Tenth-graders will be taught about making announcements that they are homosexual and how to use a condom.

WND has documented a number of earlier cases in which educators have promoted a homosexual lifestyle to children.

WND reported California Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell, under whose supervision hundreds of thousands of children are being educated, has used his state position and taxpayer-funded stationery to praise a "gay" pride event used in the past to expose children to sexually explicit activities.

That drew vehement objections from several educators, including Priscilla Schreiber, the president of the Grossmont Unified High School District governing board.

"I am outraged that a person in this high-ranking elected position would advocate an event where diversity is not just being celebrated but where pornography and indecent exposure is being perpetrated on the young and innocent children of our communities," she said.

WND also covered the issue when officials in Boulder, Colo., held a seminar for students in which they were told to "have sex," including same-sex experiences, and "take drugs."

Another school event promoted homosexuality to students while banning parents, and at still another, WND reported school officials ordered their 14-year-old freshman class into a "gay" indoctrination seminar after having them sign a confidentiality agreement promising not to tell their parents.

District gags 14-year-olds after 'gay' indoctrination
'Confidentiality' promise requires students 'not to tell their parents'
By Bob Unruh

Deerfield, Ill., High School, where officials required students to attend a "gay" indoctrination seminar

Officials at Deerfield High School in Deerfield, Ill., have ordered their 14-year-old freshman class into a "gay" indoctrination seminar, after having them sign a confidentiality agreement promising not to tell their parents.

"This is unbelievable," said Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues for Concerned Women for America. "It's not enough that students at Deerfield High are being exposed to improper and offensive material relative to unhealthy and high-risk homosexual behavior, but they've essentially been told by teachers to lie to their parents about it."

In what CWA called a "shocking and brazen act of government abuse of parental rights," the school's officials required the 14-year-olds to attend a "Gay Straight Alliance Network" panel discussion led by "gay" and "lesbian" upperclassmen during a "freshman advisory" class which "secretively featured inappropriate discussions of a sexual nature in promotion of high-risk homosexual behaviors."

"This goes to the heart of the homosexual agenda," Barber said. "The professional propagandists in the 'gay-rights' lobby know the method all too well. If you can maintain control of undeveloped and impressionable youth and spoon-feed them misinformation, lies and half-truths about dangerous, disordered and extremely risky behaviors, then you can control the future and ensure that those behaviors are not only fully accepted, but celebrated."

He said not only is forcing students to be exposed to the pro-homosexual propaganda bad enough, but then school officials further required that students sign the "confidentiality agreement" through which they promised not to tell anyone -- including their own parents -- about the seminar.

Barber said that also aligns with the goals of the disinformation campaign being run by those in the pro-homosexual camp. "That's what homosexual activists from GSA are attempting to do, and that's what DHS is clearly up to as well."

The situation, according to district Supt. George Fornero, was partly "a mistake."

He told CWA, the nation's largest public policy women's organization, that requiring children to sign the confidentiality agreement wasn't right and the district would be honest with parents in the future about such seminars. But CWA noted that even after the district was caught, parents still were being told they were not welcome to be at the "freshman advisory" and they were not allowed to have access to materials used in compiling the activist curriculum.

Barber noted the damage being done is significant.

"Until DHS and other government schools across the country are made to stop promoting the homosexual agenda, kids will continue to be exposed to -- and encouraged to participate in -- a lifestyle that places them at high risk for life-threatening disease, depression and spiritual despair," he said.

It's not the first situation where WND has reported on schools teaching homosexuality to children.

In Massachusetts after a school repeatedly advocated for the homosexual lifestyle to students in elementary grades, several parents sued, only to have the federal judge order the "gay" agenda taught to the Christians.

The conclusion from U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf found that it is reasonable, indeed there is an obligation, for public schools to teach young children to accept and endorse homosexuality.

Wolf essentially adopted the reasoning in a brief submitted by a number of homosexual-advocacy groups, who said "the rights of religious freedom and parental control over the upbringing of children -- would undermine teaching and learning?"

David and Tonia Parker and Joseph and Robin Wirthlin, who have children of school age in Lexington, Mass., brought the lawsuit. They alleged district officials and staff at Estabrook Elementary School violated state law and civil rights by indoctrinating their children about a lifestyle they, as Christians, teach is immoral.

"Wolf's ruling is every parent's nightmare. It goes to extraordinary lengths to legitimize and reinforce the 'right' (and even the duty) of schools to normalize homosexual behavior to even the youngest of children," said a statement from the pro-family group Mass Resistance.

An appeal of that decision is pending.

The judge concluded that even allowing Christians to withdraw their children from classes or portions of classes where their religious beliefs were being violated wasn't a reasonable expectation.

"An exodus from class when issues of homosexuality or same-sex marriage are to be discussed could send the message that gays, lesbians, and the children of same-sex parents are inferior and, therefore, have a damaging effect on those students," he opined.

"Under the Constitution public schools are entitled to teach anything that is reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy," the judge wrote. "Diversity is a hallmark of our nation. It is increasingly evident that our diversity includes differences in sexual orientation."

And, he said, since history "includes instances of -- official discrimination against gays and lesbians -- it is reasonable for public educators to teach elementary school students -- different sexual orientations."

If they disagree, "the Parkers and Wirthlins may send their children to a private school '[or] may also educate their children at home," the judge said.

Putting strategies to work: the homosexual propaganda campaign in America's media
Read below: The powerful, sophisticated psychological techniques that the homosexual movement has used to manipulate the public in the media.

If you think that the radical changes in the minds of Americans -- and in your own mind -- about homosexuality in the last decade are an accident, you must read the section below.  From the 1989 book, "After the Ball - How America will conquer its fear and hatred of Gays in the 90s" (Penguin Books) which  immediately became a beacon for the then-emerging homosexual movement.

Building on the basic strategies outlined in Marshall Kirk's groundbreaking 1987 article, "The Overhauling of Straight America", this book puts forth the very sophisticated psychological persuasion and propaganda mass media techniques that we've all seen and been affected by over the years -- but never understood what was happening.

Kirk is a researcher in neuropsychiatry. The book describes his co-author Hunter Madsen as having received a doctorate in Politics from Harvard in 1985 and an expert on public persuasion tactics and social marketing, who has designed commercial advertising on Madison Avenue and served as a consultant to gay media campaigns across the country, and appears frequently on national media as an advocate for gay rights.

A founding work of the modern homosexual movement,  this book covers a wide discussion of tactics and observations relating to the homosexual movement. But the overall main psychological strategies are well summarized in a ten-page section (pp. 147-157) titled "Pushing the right buttons: halting, derailing, or reversing the 'engine of prejudice'".  Reprinted below, this is the meat of the book which has been re-used and referred to by the homosexual movement countless times.

Of particular note is their tactical device throughout the book of referring to religious dissenters and other critics of homosexual behavior as "bigots." Their language is purposfully crude to enhance that idea. Much like the "big lie" theory developed in the 1920s and 1930s by the Nazis, the constant repetition of this eventually has the desired psychological effect on masses of people.

As you read this, keep in mind that it was written in 1989 -- and look around to see how far the homosexual movement has gotten using these techniques.

From "After the Ball - How America will conquer its fear and hatred of Gays in the 90s." - Penguin Books, 1989  pp. 147-157.
by Marshall K. Kirk and Hunter Madsen

In the past, gays have tinkered ineptly with the engine of prejudice. Is it possible to tinker more favorably' We present (in order of increasing vigor and desirability) three general approaches [which are vastly better than what we've tried in the past].

These approaches, once understood, will lead us directly to the principles upon which a viable campaign can be erected.


From the point of view of evolution, prejudice is an alerting signal, warning tribal mammals that a potentially dangerous alien mammal is in the vicinity, and should be fought or fled. Alerting mechanisms respond to novelties in the environment, because novelties represent change from the usual, and are, therefore, potentially important.

One of two things can happen: (1) If the alerting mechanism is very strongly activated, it will produce an unendurable emotional state, forcing the tribal mammal to fight the novelty or flee it. (2) If, however, the novelty is either low-grade, or simply odd without being threatening, the alerting mechanism will be mildly activated, producing an emotional state that, if other environmental circumstances militate against it, will be too weak to motivate any actual behavioral response. In the latter case, the mammal may peer curiously at the novelty for quite some time, but will not do anything about it, or to it.

As a general physio-psychological rule, novelties cease to be novel if they just stick around long enough; they also cease to activate alerting mechanisms. There are excellent evolutionary reasons for this: if the mammal either has no good reason to respond, or is for some reason incapable of doing so, it is actually hindered in its normal activities if its attention continues to be taken up by an irrelevancy. You'll have noted this in your own life: if you hear a protracted, earsplitting mechanical screech, you'll either be so alarmed, or so annoyed, that you'll be forced to take action; if you hear a softer--though, perhaps, nonetheless annoying--sound, like the ticking of a clock, and can't shut it off, you will, eventually, shut it out, and may cease to hear it altogether. Similarly with a rank odor, smelled upon entering a room; if you can't get rid of it, you eventually cease to smell it.

Franz Kafka wrote a delightful fable ("The Animal in the Synagogue") that might almost have had Desensitization in mind. His story--never finished-deals with a peculiar animal, the only one of its kind, which has been living, since time immemorial, in a synagogue. The elders take a dim view of this state of affairs; though quiet, the animal emerges from its nook during services and distracts the women (who sit at the back) from their devotions. Moreover, there is no telling, with so very odd an animal, what its habits might eventually prove to be. Suppose it bites' There is talk of mounting an expedition to catch and kill it. But the synagogue is very large and very old, with a thousand bolt- holes in which the animal might hide, and it is capable of climbing high and running fast. Any such expedition would be difficult, and would run the risk not only of failure, but of damaging irreplaceable artwork. The upshot is that the elders call the whole thing off; and, as the animal never gives anyone the least trouble, they get used to its presence, and eventually cease to think about it at all.

Apply this to the problem of homohatred. If gays present themselves-- or allow themselves to be presented--as overwhelmingly different and threatening, they will put straights on a triple-red alert, driving them to overt acts of political oppression or physical violence. If, however, gays can live alongside straights, visibly but as inoffensively as possible, they will arouse a low-grade alert only, which, though annoying to straights, will eventually diminish for purely physiological reasons. Straights will be desensitized. Put more simply, if you go out of your way to be unendurable, people will try to destroy you; otherwise, they might eventually get used to you. This commonsense axiom should make it clear that living down to the stereotype, a la Gender-Bending, is a very bad idea.

We can extract the following principle for our campaign to desensitize straights to gays and gayness, inundate them in a continuous flood of gay-related advertising, presented in the least offensive fashion possible. If straights can't shut off the shower, they may at least eventually get used to being wet.

Of course, while sheer indifference is, itself, vastly preferable to hatred and threats, we would like to do better than that. We turn next to more difficult, but also more vigorous and rewarding, tactics.


The engine of prejudice can be made to grind to a halt not only by Desensitization, in which it is simply allowed to run out of steam, but also by the more active process of Jamming. As the name implies, Jamming involves the insertion into the engine of a pre-existing, incompatible emotional response, gridlocking its mechanism as thoroughly as though one had sprinkled fine sand into the workings of an old-fashioned pocket watch. Jamming, as an approach, is more active and aggressive than Desensitization; by the same token, it is also more enjoyable and heartening.

Jamming makes use of the rules of Associative Conditioning (the psychological process whereby, when two things are repeatedly juxtaposed, one's feelings about one thing are transferred to the other) and Direct Emotional Modeling (the inborn tendency of human beings to feel what they perceive others to be feeling).

Turning Associative Conditioning and Direct Emotional Modeling against themselves, we Jam by forging a fresh link between, on the one hand, some part of the mechanism, and, on the other, a pre-existing, external, opposed, and therefore incompatible emotional response. Ideally, the bigot subjected to such counterconditioning will ultimately experience two emotional responses to the hated object, opposed and competing. The consequent internal confusion has two effects: first, it is unpleasant-- we can call it 'emotional dissonance,' after Festinger--and will tend to result in an alteration of previous beliefs and feelings so as to resolve the internal conflict. Since the weaker of the clashing emotional associations is the more likely to give way, we can achieve optimal results by linking the prejudicial response to a stronger and more fundamental structure of belief and emotion. (Naturally, in some people this will be impossible, as prejudicial hatred is the strongest ) element in their beliefs, emotions, and motivations. Without resorting to prefrontal lobotomy--ah! sweet dreams!--these people are more or less unsalvageable.) Second, even where an optimal resolution does not occur, the internal dissonance will tend to inhibit overt expression of the prejudicial emotion--which is, in itself, useful and relieving.

The 'incompatible emotional response' is directed primarily against the emotional rewards of prejudicial solidarity. All normal people feel shame when they perceive that they are not thinking, feeling, or acting like one of the pack. And, these days, all but the stupidest and most unregenerate of bigots perceive that prejudice against all other minority groups-e.g., blacks, Jews, Catholics, women, et al.--has long since ceased to be approved, let alone fashionable, and that to express such prejudices, if not to hold them, makes one decidedly not one of the pack. It was permissible, some forty years ago, to tell the vilest ethnic jokes at the average party, and, if the joke was reasonably well told, the joker could expect to receive applause and approval from his or her roistering confreres. (Should you find this hard to believe, read 2500 Jokes for All Occasions, a popular 1942 compilation by Powers Moulton, which will surely stand your hair on end.) With the exception of certain benighted social classes and backward areas of the country, this is quite generally no longer the case.

The trick is to get the bigot into the position of feeling a conflicting twinge of shame, along with his reward, whenever his homohatred surfaces, so that his reward will be diluted or spoiled. This can be accomplished in a variety of ways, all making use of repeated exposure to pictorial images or verbal statements that are incompatible with his self-image as a well-liked person, one who fits in with the rest of the crowd. Thus, propagandistic advertisement can depict homophobic and homohating bigots as crude loudmouths and assholes--people who say not only 'faggot' but 'nigger,' 'kike,' and other shameful epithets--who are 'not Christian.' It can show them being criticized, hated, shunned. It can depict gays experiencing horrific suffering as the direct result of homohatred-suffering of which even most bigots would be ashamed to be the cause. It can, in short, link homohating bigotry with all sorts of attributes the bigot would be ashamed to possess, and with social consequences he would find unpleasant and scary. The attack, therefore, is on self-image and on the pleasure in hating.

When our ads show a bigot--just like the members of the target audience--being criticized, hated, and shunned, we make use of Direct Emotional Modeling as well. Remember, a bigot seeks approval and liking from 'his crowd.' When he sees someone like himself being disapproved of and disliked by ordinary Joes, Direct Emotional Modeling ensures that he will feel just what they feel --and transfer it to himself. This wrinkle effectively elicits shame and doubt, Jamming any pleasure he might normally feel. In a very real sense, every time a bigot sees such a thing, he is un- learning a little bit of the lesson of prejudice taught him by his parents and peers.

Such an approach may seem much too weak to work, yet bear these thoughts in mind: (a) the procedure is exactly that which formed the prejudicial complex to begin with; (b) the majority of casual bigots do not, in fact, see themselves as unpleasant people and would hate to think that others see them as such, let alone that their hatred has caused suffering and death; (c) there has, in fact, been a major turnaround in the acceptability, in this country, of prejudice against other minority groups, due, in our opinion, in no small part to exactly such counterconditioning and linking; and (d) such an approach has actually been used in TV advertisements, most memorably in an antidrinking ad showing a teenage boy drinking at a party, but not meeting with approval: indeed, as he gets more and more drunk, his behavior becomes more and more obnoxious, and he is regarded by the other partiers with disgust; ultimately, his head turns into that of a heehawing jackass. One can readily see how this sort of thing could be adapted to our own purposes.

Note that the bigot need not actually be made to believe that he is such a heinous creature, that others will now despise him, and that he has been the immoral agent of suffering. It would be impossible to make him believe any such thing. Rather, our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof. Just as the bigot became such, without any say in the matter, through repeated infralogical emotional conditioning, his bigotry can be alloyed in exactly the same way, whether he is conscious of the attack or not. Indeed, the more he is distracted by any incidental, even specious, surface arguments, the less conscious he'll be of the true nature of the process--which is all to the good.

In short, Jamming succeeds insofar as it inserts even a slight frisson of doubt and shame into the previously unalloyed, self- righteous pleasure. The approach can be quite useful and effective -- if our message can get the massive exposure upon which all else depends.


Desensitization aims at lowering the intensity of antigay emotional reactions to a level approximating sheer indifference; Jamming attempts to blockade or counteract the rewarding 'pride in prejudice' (peace, Jane Austen!) by attaching to homohatred a pre-existing, and punishing, sense of shame in being a bigot, a horse's ass, and a beater and murderer. Both Desensitization and Jamming, though extremely useful, are mere preludes to our highest --though necessarily very long-range--goal, which is Conversion.

It isn't enough that antigay bigots should become confused about us, or even indifferent to us--we are safest, in the long run, if we can actually make them like us. Conversion aims at just this.

Please don't confuse Conversion with political Subversion. The word 'subversion' has a nasty ring, of which the American people are inordinately afraid--and on their guard against. Yet, ironically, by Conversion we actually mean something far more profoundly threatening to the American Way of Life, without which no truly sweeping social change can occur. We mean conversion of the average American's emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media. We mean 'subverting' the mechanism of prejudice to our own ends--using the very processes that made America hate us to turn their hatred into warm regard--whether they like it or not.

Put briefly, if Desensitization lets the watch run down, and Jamming throws sand in the works, Conversion reverses the spring so that the hands run backward.

Conversion makes use of Associative Conditioning, much as Jamming does--indeed, in practice the two processes overlap-- but far more ambitiously. In Conversion, the bigot, who holds a very negative stereotypic picture, is repeatedly exposed to literal picture/label pairs, in magazines, and on billboards and TV, of gay- explicitly labeled as such!--who not only don't look like his picture of a homosexual, but are carefully selected to look either like the bigot and his friends, or like any one of his other stereotypes of all-right guys-- the kind of people he already likes and ` admires. This image must, of necessity, be carefully tailored to be free of absolutely every element of the widely held stereotypes of how 'faggots' look, dress, and sound. He--or she--must not be too well or fashionably dressed; must not be too handsome--that is, mustn't look like a model--or well groomed. The image must be that of an icon of normality--a good beginning would be to take a long look at Coors beer and Three Musketeers candy commercials. Subsequent ads can branch out from that solid basis to include really adorable, athletic teenagers, kindly grandmothers, avuncular policemen, ad infinitem.

The objection will be raised--and raised, and raised--that we t would 'Uncle Tommify' the gay community; that we are exchanging one false stereotype for another equally false; that our ads are lies; that that is not how all gays actually look; that gays know it, and bigots know it. Yes, of course--we know it, too. But it makes no difference that the ads are lies; not to us, because we're using them to ethically good effect, to counter negative stereotypes that are every bit as much lies, and far more wicked ones; not to bigots, because the ads will have their effect on them whether they believe them or not.

When a bigot is presented with an image of the sort of person of whom he already has a positive stereotype, he experiences an involuntary rush of positive emotion, of good feeling; he's been conditioned to experience it. But, here, the good picture has the bad label--gay! (The ad may say something rather like 'Beauregard Smith--beer drinker, Good Ole Boy, pillar of the community, 100% American, and gay as a mongoose.') The bigot will feel two incompatible emotions: a good response to the picture, a bad response to the label. At worst, the two will cancel one another, and we will have successfully Jammed, as above. At best, Associative Conditioning will, to however small an extent, transfer the positive emotion associated with the picture to the label itself, not immediately replacing the negative response, but definitely weakening it.

You may wonder why the transfer wouldn't proceed in the opposite direction. The reason is simple: pictures are stronger than words and evoke emotional responses more powerfully. The bigot is presented with an actual picture; its label will evoke in his mind his own stereotypic picture, but what he sees in his mind's eye will be weaker than what he actually sees in front of him with the eyes in his face. The more carefully selected the advertised image is to reflect his ideal of the sort of person who just couldn't be gay, the more effective it will be. Moreover, he will, by virtue of logical necessity, see the positive picture in the ad before it can arouse his negative 'picture,' and first impressions have an advantage over second.

In Conversion, we mimic the natural process of stereotype- learning, with the following effect: we take the bigot's good feelings about all- right guys, and attach them to the label 'gay,' either weakening or, eventually, replacing his bad feelings toward the label and the prior stereotype.

Understanding Direct Emotional Modeling, you'll readily foresee its application to Conversion: whereas in Jamming the target is shown a bigot being rejected by his crowd for his prejudice against gays, in Conversion the target is shown his crowd actually associating with gays in good fellowship. Once again, it's very difficult for the average person, who, by nature and training, almost invariably feels what he sees his fellows feeling, not to re-spend in this knee-jerk fashion to a sufficiently calculated advertisement. In a way, most advertisement is founded upon an answer of Yes, definitely! to Mother's sarcastic question: I suppose if all the other kids jumped off a bridge and killed themselves, you would, too?

We've now outlined three major modes by which we can alter the itinerary of the engine of prejudice in our favor. Desensitization lets the engine run out of steam, causing it to halt on the tracks indefinitely. Jamming, in essence, derails it. Conversion-- our ambitious long-range goal--puts the engine into reverse gear and sends it back whence it came.

These modes are abstract--we've only hinted, here and there, at how they can be harnessed and put to work for us in a practical propaganda campaign . . .

Our goal, being high, is also difficult. The bottleneck in reaching it, however, isn't lack of knowledge of the psychological principles . involved, nor lack of efficacy in the methods available; the principles are known, and the methods work. The bottleneck is purely and simply achieving a sufficient scope for the dissemination of our propaganda. Success depends, as always, on flooding the media. And that, in turn, means money, which means man-hours, which means unifying the gay community for a concerted effort. Let's be blunt: those who aren't with us in this effort, either because they have better ways of wasting their time, or because they think we're politically incorrect, are most decidedly against us, against unification, and against the best interests of the gay community as a whole.

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107,  this material is reproduced for non-profit educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

Teaching Children about Homosexuality is in their 'Best Interests' --

According to a press release by Amnesty International, the Lithuanian parliament is currently considering legislation that would ban the 'propagation of homosexuality' to children in schools.

According to the authors of the amendment, 'the propagation of a non-traditional sexual orientation and exposure to information containing positive coverage of homosexual relations may therefore cause negative consequences for the physical, mental and, first and foremost, moral development of minors.' Amnesty International, however, fears that the legislation infringes the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) persons to freedom of assembly and freedom of expression.


The statute before the Lithuanian parliament is similar to an amendment that was passed by the United Kingdom in 1988, but was subsequently repealed in 2003 after the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child opined that the rule was contrary to the best interests of British children.

According to Amnesty International, Lithuania has a legal obligation to act 'in the best interests of the child,' which includes 'respecting the child's right to be free from discrimination, including that based on sexual orientation or gender identity.?


Unfortunately, the issue of teaching homosexuality in schools is not confined to outside the borders of the United States.

In 2005, Massachusetts father David Parker was shocked when his five-year-old son brought a controversial children's book home from school which depicted two households led by homosexual couples. Parker went to the school to speak with school officials, but was arrested and jailed overnight for criminal trespassing. In early 2007, a federal district court judge dismissed Parker's case, concluding that Christians who attend public schools must be taught about homosexuality in order to be 'engaged and productive citizens.?

The issue of homosexuality in schools resurfaced earlier this month, when Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California signed into law S.B. 777, which bans California public school textbooks and activities that would exhibit any bias against homosexuality, bisexuality, transsexuality, and cross-dressing. Teachers and texts are even prohibited from using traditional words like 'mom' and 'dad,' and must substitute them for neutral words like 'caretaker.' The proposal has parents across California up in arms, resulting in a state-wide referendum against the law.


The stories of David Parker and S.B. 777 illustrate the dire threat that state power can pose to the right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children. Without a constitutional amendment to protect parental rights, nothing prevents the government from deciding (as the federal judge in Parker's case did) that the rights of religious freedom and parental control over the upbringing of children 'undermine teaching and learning.' Yet these are precisely the decisions that are made when the central decision-making power over the child is transferred from parents to the state.

The voice of the parent who loves and cares for their child should matter in the child's upbringing and education.

If you are already a petition signer, please consider joining ParentalRights.org and helping us spread the word.


Amnesty International, 'Lithuania must respect, protect and fulfill the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people'

A Letter to the Lithuanian People
Author: Scott Lively
A warning to Lithuania of the goals of homosexual movement, which has just begun to organize there.

I am Dr. Scott Lively, an American attorney and President of Defend the Family International, a human rights NGO. I hold a Doctor of Law and a Doctor of Theology, as well as special credentials in International Human Rights. I am the author of the Riga Declaration on Religious Freedom, Family Values and Human Rights (see www.defendthefamily.com), and an international lecturer on these topics.

I came to Lithuania to warn the Lithuanian people about the threat posed to your society by the global homosexual political movement, which has begun to organize in your nation. At the outset, let me say that I advocate a high tolerance for the people who define themselves by their choice of a homosexual lifestyle, even while I promote a low tolerance for homosexual conduct.

Homosexual activists would have you believe that tolerance for them requires total acceptance and approval of their lifestyle, but that is not obligatory, nor prudent. In fact, discrimination against homosexual behavior is necessary to protect your society from the consequences of 'gay' culture, which always pushes for greater and greater liberalism in sexual attitudes, especially among young people. To see the danger of this we need look no further than Holland, where sexual liberalism promoted by the homosexual movement has led to the creation of a pedophile political party, whose right hold seats in parliament, to advocate for the legalization of adult/child sexual relationships, has been approved by the Dutch courts.

We should not, however, discriminate against persons who define themselves as homosexuals. They should be free to label themselves as they choose, no less so than other groups whose beliefs or goals are disapproved by the majority. Indeed, we can compare homosexuals to their chief adversaries, the radical nationalists. Both groups hate each other, and would like to do away with the other. Neither side is embraced by the majority, but both deserve the right to freedom of their beliefs and to freedom of speech within reasonable limits. The rest of us must be willing to tolerate these difficult neighbors to preserve civility for society as a whole.

The chief danger of the homosexual movement is that it always seeks to take away the freedom of speech from anyone who disapproves of homosexuality. In Canada, where homosexual activism has enjoyed considerable success, there are now so-called Human Rights Tribunals which have the power to punish anyone who publicly opposes homosexuality by making the offender pay a monetary fine. The money is then given to the homosexual who filed the complaint. The most recent incident involved a Catholic member of the City Council of Kamloops, British Columbia. His offence was to call homosexuality 'unnatural.' One wonders if Pope Benedict himself would face arrest in Canada since he has repeatedly affirmed that homosexuality is 'intrinsically disordered.?

Religious opinions are also silenced wherever homosexuals gain the power to do so. We can recall a case from Sweden. On June 29, 2004, Pastor Ake Green was sentenced to one month in jail for showing 'disrespect' against homosexuals in the sermon he delivered in his pulpit in Borgholm. The title of his sermon was 'Are people born with homosexual orientation or is it the result of influence by evil powers' -- Pastor Green was eventually exonerated by the Swedish Supreme Court, but only over the vigorous objection of the 'gay' activists in that nation (would the result have been the same if the judges were 'gay' -- ).

Just this week In Britain, the House of Lords approved a bill to prohibit private Christian schools from teaching their students that homosexuality is wrong.

Could such anti-family fascism ever occur in Lithuania' It already has. On Thursday, March 21st I gave a lecture at the Kaunas Police Academy. I taught about the importance of preserving family values in society and contrasted the effects of marriage-centered sexual morality with the effects of sexual 'freedom' that is promoted by the homosexual movement. During my talk a homosexual instructor from another university stood up and in a loud and angry voice accused me of inciting hatred against homosexuals and tried to stop my lecture. Then at the end of the lecture, when I called for questions from the audience, he came forward and began to speak out against me to the students, calling me a criminal and promising to have me arrested at the airport on my way out of the country. He then went out and filed a false police report against me, claming that I had discriminated against him. (Fortunately, my lecture had been filmed and so the police could see the truth for themselves.)

The homosexual movement has come to Lithuania. There has already been at least one 'gay' strategy conference held at VDU in Kaunas. It included homosexual activists from several countries. From what I have seen they are following the same plan they have used across the world. It begins with promoting the idea that homosexuals are 'born gay' and cannot change (a fact that is proved false by the thousands of ex-homosexuals that now speak out against the 'gay' movement). It advances by casting homosexuals as victims needing a special new law prohibiting discrimination based on 'sexual orientation.' It is this new law that gives the homosexual activists the power to begin silencing and punishing their detractors as they work to implement the rest of their plan.

Many people will be reluctant to accept the idea that the long-held traditional values of their society are threatened by a tiny group of people who act like victims, not conquerors. I didn't think it would happen in my country either. One helpful indicator is found in the way they use the language of victims as a weapon of aggression. The best example is the word 'homophobia.' Homophobia is an American word, in which the active part, 'phobia,' means intense fear at the level of mental disorder. Thus, a 'homophobe' literally means person filled with such fear and hatred of homosexuals that he is mentally unbalanced. One might be able to accept this definition if it was applied only to Nazis and street thugs, but who does it really describe' It describes everyone who disapproves of homosexuality for any reason: me, you, Pope Benedict, anyone who opposes 'gay marriage,' therapists who help homosexuals recover, ex-?gays, and on and on.

The next time you hear a pro-homosexual person use the word homophobia ask them to define the difference between homophobia and legitimate opposition to homosexuality, and you will see. To the homosexual movement there is no legitimate basis for disapproval, and thus everyone who disagrees is a homophobe who must be silenced.

You will also see that homosexual activists are not truly victims but aggressors. They demand tolerance but will not give it. They insist on freedom of speech but deny it to others. And they invent words like homophobia that appear scientific but have no purpose except the psychological manipulation of the public.

The answer to the homosexual challenge is not to censor homosexuals the way they want to silence you, it is to have an open and honest public discussion about family values vs. 'gay' culture and the real meaning of words like tolerance. In the mean time, Lithuanians should remind themselves what it means to be a marriage-centered society with healthy sexual morality. If they are successful in this process, perhaps that can set an example for the rest of Europe -- instead of falling prey to the destructive homosexual plan.

Moderately Unimpressed in Virginia

Creating a virtual monopoly for Planned Parenthood, Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine (D) confirmed yesterday that he is eliminating state matching funds for abstinence education. The decision, which affects nearly 15 nonprofit programs, raises the number of states that have rejected federal abstinence funds to 14. Although Kaine insisted the reasons were largely financial, Virginia's contraceptive-based, pro-adolescent-sex education programs will not be affected. In fact, most of them stand to profit substantially from the lack of competition. The most obvious beneficiary, Planned Parenthood, had lobbied for this change since Kaine's election. "...The governor wants to see us funding programs that are evidence-based," said Delacey Skinner, the governor's communication director. Kaine's office cited the recent study by Mathematica, whose sweeping conclusions about abstinence were based on data from fewer than one percent of the programs. Many are criticizing the timing of the announcement, which was obviously postponed to minimize the political damage to Democrats during last week's elections. The governor's strategy may work in the short term, but leaders like Senator Ken Cuccinelli (R) say the debate is far from over. He and other social conservatives have promised to make reinstating funding for abstinence education a top priority when the legislature convenes in January. Theirs will be a difficult battle in a state now moving toward the Democrats, many of whom--like Gov. Kaine--campaigned as moderates. Unfortunately, Virginians are now getting a true taste of what their definition of "moderate" entails. -- Family Research Council (www.frc.org)

Morals Week Spreads to 20 College Campuses
By Mike S. Adams
Thursday, February 8, 2007

Complaining about the leftist domination on college campuses isn't a worthwhile activity unless one is also willing to take risks in order to do something about it. Thanks to some great students at UNCG, this column provides some good news for those who are sick and tired of hearing about problems on college campuses without hearing about solutions.

Many readers recall the cold February night -- it will be exactly three years ago this week -- when I drove to UNCG to give a speech on how college administrators try to suppress free speech in the name of 'tolerance' and 'diversity.' When I got there I learned that the Office of Student Life refused not only an honorarium for my speech but also money for a hotel room.

Before I prepared to give a speech and then drive back in the middle of the night, I sat down for a serious discussion with the College Republicans who invited me. When I asked the students why OSL refused the funding, they said -- among other things -- that the university had quoted a policy of refusing to fund 'political' groups. (And, wouldn't you know that the CR chapter was the only 'political' group on campus at the time).

The problem with this policy was that the U.S. Supreme Court had stated four years previously that such categorical funding disqualifications were unconstitutional at a public university collecting mandatory fees from students. I learned that those same fees were used to fund a speech by a porn star just 24 hours before my arrival. (Note that they also said I was 'too controversial,' despite my reluctance to talk about anal sex).

And the university -- the one that dislikes 'controversy' - was also using public funds to sponsor a 'Gay Pride Week' with drag queen shows and events geared towards the promotion of the university's official religion of moral relativism. Unsurprisingly, the university refused to let the CR chapter sponsor a 'Morals Week' because, once again, that would give funding to a 'political group.'

When the word got out about UNCG refusing to sponsor a conservative speaker's talk the night after they sponsored a porn star's talk -- devoted almost solely to the topic of 'safe sodomy' - the public was outraged. Some of the highlights of the fun that followed were:

* My appearance on MSNBC to debate the porn star.

* A federal investigation by the Department of Education over funding abuses in the UNC system, which was launched by a U.S. Congressman after learning of the incident.

* An admission by the university that they did, in fact, spend public funds on pornography. At first they lied and said they did not. That was before employees were caught storing mother-and-son incest films on the UNCG website.

But the most important outcome was that the students got angry and got pro bono assistance from attorneys who helped them demand public records on UNCG diversity expenditures. When the university realized they were on the verge of a lawsuit they relented.

And so 'Morals Week' was initiated at UNCG in 2004. The first keynote speaker was Dr. Mike S. Adams who demanded that the university match the porn star's fee of $3000. I had plenty enough money to buy a 30.06 and give two-thirds of the money (after taxes) back to the CR chapter to start a conservative paper.

Many of my readers already know that the first issue of the conservative paper focused on an OSL employee who was a convicted pedophile -- readers remember the OSL as the office that likes to avoid controversy -- helping to schedule student speakers and events. He was fired about 48 hours after the story about his criminal record was published.

When Morals Week 2005 rolled around I gave another speech -- and, needless to say, bought another gun -- to an audience that included a true First Amendment heroine named Allison Jaynes. As a libertarian, she was listening carefully to my speech about government control of free speech and how to fight it. Her target, later that year, would be UNCG's now defunct 'speech zone' policy.

In December of 2005, Allison and her UNCG Libertarian friends bravely and deliberately violated the policy that allowed free speech on just 1% of the Greensboro campus. Holding signs that said 'UNCG Hates Free Speech' they stepped outside the zone and were ticketed by university authorities. In other words, the university responded by saying 'You aren't allowed to say we hate free speech!'

When the backlash against their reprimand became too much to bear in the court of public opinion, UNCG got rid of the policy. Like true revolutionaries the Libertarians asked 'What can we do to piss them off next' -- (I'm not kidding. They actually asked that).

In February of 2006, I would find the answer to that question when I was approached after a speech at Wake Forest University. The UNCG CR President was holding a letter, which was co-signed by the UNCG Libertarian President. They were threatening the university with a lawsuit unless they got rid of a policy, which prevented them from kicking people out of their group for not adhering to certain beliefs.

This idea that a group can discriminate on the basis of beliefs -- yes, even when using public funds -- was inspired by the NAACP practice of removing members of the KKK who, of course, believed in segregation. Apparently, the administration needed a threat of litigation to help them relinquish the KKK perspective on freedom of association.

Shortly after this third major policy victory, Morals Week 2006 was held. But there won't be just one Morals Week in 2007. The College Republicans will be promoting Morals Week on twenty campuses this year. And it is due to nothing more than the sheer persistence and courage of a bunch of kids who refuse to be bullied by academic leftists -- even those who have power over their academic future.

Put simply, Morals Week is spreading across North Carolina with greater speed and permanence than an outbreak of genital herpes. And the liberals are getting nervous because they can't seem to find a cure.

It could never happen in America
By Mike S. Adams
Wednesday, March 21, 2007

Karlo Kraljev (karlo.kraljev@email.t-com.hr) of the European Human Rights Panel is spitting mad. And it's not because his spell-checker is still broken. It's because he thought 'My Apology to the European Human Rights Panel' was a satire. He claims that the article was satire because it claims that another article (?How to Bomb a Gay Bath House?) was satire, which is a claim he still refuses to accept.

I don't know how Karlo Kraljev manages to come off like a victim of anti-gay oppression. After all, the European Parliament appears to have named him Secretary of Satire for the entire continent. And, in the following note, he informs me that I'm about to be banned from Europe altogether:

Mr. Adams we have informed the European Parliament of your activities, and we will ask the Commission to prohibit you from entering the European Union on the grouds [sic] that you are spreading hate, and calling for genocidal extermination of human beings only because of their sexuality. Not long ago our group has successfully fought for the same sanctions to be applied on the Jordanian radical cleric who wanted to murder Americans. We value all human life the same, you do not, and that is why you are a Fascist. You are right that Europe is socialist, and the people of Europe have stong [sic] influence over their government, this is why we assure you -- this process (after two years) will end positively. Sicerely [sic];

European Human Rights Panel

When I first read this letter, it was hard to get over the fact that I would have to spend the summer at Wrightsville Beach watching American girls in bikinis instead of going to Europe to watch French women grow the hair under their armpits. But then a soothing thought entered my mind:

It is great to live in a country that would never grant to any government or government- sponsored entity the right to a) determine what is or is not satire, and to b) impose punishments upon speech it does not understand.

But that soothing thought was short-lived because I made a crucial mistake: I read the student newspaper published by the University of Rhode Island. According to the newspaper, the University of Rhode Island Student Senate denied the appeal of the College Republicans who had been punished for running a controversial 'White Heterosexual American Male' scholarship advertisement. The ad was obviously satire because the scholarship has never actually been granted to anyone. In other words, like a gay unicorn, it does not really exist.

College Republican Chairman Ryan Bilodeau found himself in the rather Orwellian position of debating whether the "White Heterosexual American Male" scholarship violated senate rules prohibiting discrimination. In other words, here in America, he had to try to prove his innocence in the absence of any evidence of actual guilt.

If successful, perhaps Ryan could slowly explain to these college kids that satirical speech is protected by the United States Constitution, which cannot be trumped by the student handbook. This is more evidence that students need to spend more time in high school learning about the constitution and less time putting condoms on bananas.

Matt Yates, the student in charge of handing out the punishments, required that the College Republicans write a letter of apology to be printed in the student newspaper. The CRs were also sentenced to have all club activities approved by a student committee until February 2008.

The senate, with straight faces, actually debated whether the mock scholarship was a) protected free speech or b) trumped by the student by-laws. Then, Yates, showing all of the intellectual sophistication of a European gay rights activist, argued against its status as satire because the CRs never told him it was satire.

Yates stopped short of saying that all satire must come with a pre-approval label saying: WARNING! YOU ARE ABOUT TO READ SATIRE!

From there, the intellectual sophistication of the senate discussion reached new heights. They even discussed whether the CRs were guilty of 'false advertising' for writing the satire.

But Yates stopped short of saying that Jonathan Swift should be exhumed and tried for false advertising. Referring to Swift, Yates said 'He never really ate any American children! The lying bastard!' WARNING: THE PREVIOUS TWO LINES WERE ONLY SATIRE! (The previous warning was approved by the University of Rhode Island Student Body Senate Satire Committee, which may or may not actually exist).

Senator Jesse Whitsitt-Lynch pointed out that the First Amendment does not guarantee a right to commit fraud. Dr. Mike S. Adams responded by saying that a college education does not guarantee that you will not grow up to be a dumb-ass. But a hyphenated name virtually guarantees you will grow up to be a narrow- minded feminist.

Ryan Bilodeau was right when he suggested that the Senate really wanted to force the CRs to state that they are a) racist b) heterosexist c) ethnocentric and d) sexist. That is why the student representatives voted by a two-thirds majority to uphold the punishment originally handed out.

And, now, on the verge of being banned from Europe, I'm looking for a good place to take a vacation and write my third book called 'Redneck Jihad.' It will be full of unidentified satire, so you can bet it won't be written in Rhode Island.

"Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences" describes the allegedly scientific research of Alfred Kinsey and colleagues, which largely shaped modern Western society's beliefs and understanding of the nature of human sexuality.

Today, half a century later, Kinsey's unchallenged conclusions are taught at every level of education -- from elementary school to college -- and quoted in textbooks as undisputed truth.

Incredibly, Kinsey's research involved illegal sexual experimentation on several hundred young children. And his survey was based on a non?representative group of Americans -- including hundreds of sex offenders, prostitutes, prison inmates and exhibitionists. Yet Kinsey's grotesquely fraudulent research has served as the very foundation of modern "sex science," and his claim that one in 10 people are homosexual is central to the gay?rights movement. And now comes the greatest hypocrisy of all -- the pretense of providing safe-sex instructions to children while in reality advancing Kinsey's agenda, including indulgence in high-risk lifestyles and behaviors.

This book reveals:

* How the most famous sex research project in history was fraudulent.
' How official sex education doctrine in the United States is based on that research.
' How Kinsey's data came from pedophiles and sex offenders stimulating children (as young as 2 months) orally and manually for up to 24 hours at a time. This rivals the Nazi experiments described at Nuremberg.
By Judith A. Reisman, PhD.

Running Purity Rings Around MTV
Brent Bozell III
Friday, September 12, 2008

Something mildly miraculous is happening among pop music stars. Several of them, from the Disney-marketed Jonas Brothers to the recent "American Idol" winner Jordin Sparks, are showing some extraordinary courage, having decided to serve as role models for teenage virginity and abstinence.

Newsweek recently described the Jonas Brothers as "so pure they could be carved from a bar of Ivory soap." They are actually brothers, and all three of them -- ages 20, 18 and 15 -- wear a purity ring on their left hand, pledging to remain virgins until marriage. "People say, 'No way, that's impossible'," 18-year-old Joe told the magazine. "Our parents asked if we wanted to, and we said, 'Yeah,' so it's awesome." Their father is an ordained minister.

Eighteen-year-old Sparks told Us magazine last year about her promise ring, which she's worn now for four years. But announcing this publicly doesn't come without a price, and that price is mockery.

The "Best Week Ever" blog on Viacom's VH-1 website featured writer Michelle Collins bragging about losing her own virginity in a druggy haze and sneering that virginity at 17 is too normal to be courageous. "Now, if you're still waxing ho-etic about your unplowed territory at 30 -- and from the inside of your padded cell, of course -- then, maybe, we'll take you seriously."

The ridicule of these young pop stars became much more prominent when MTV broadcast their latest Video Music Awards show on Sept. 7. The awards show host was a mangy-looking British degenerate named Russell Brand, and he mocked the Jonas Brothers for their decision. He noted their promise-ringed fingers and insisted, "I'd take it a little more seriously if they'd wear it on their genitals." Brand joked that this decision was "a little bit ungrateful because they could have sex with any woman they want. That is like Superman deciding not to fly and go everywhere on a bus." Yuk, yuk.

Sparks was appearing as a presenter, and when she stepped to the microphone, she let Brand have it between the eyes. "I just have one thing to say about promise rings. It's not bad to wear a promise ring, because not everybody -- guy or girl -- wants to be a slut," she said. Sparks later gave an interview to Entertainment Weekly. "It's something I feel strongly about," she said. "I wish I would've worded it differently -- that somebody who doesn't wear a promise ring isn't necessarily a slut -- but I can't take it back now. It was a split-second thing, and it came out kind of wrong. Still, I don't regret it."

For their part, the Jonas Brothers were generous in reply, with 15-year-old Nick telling the BBC: "For us, it's cool to see that he recognizes we are gentlemen."

It was expected that MTV's website would promote the controversy to boost Internet traffic. But even they were forced to concede that the sale of promise rings has risen substantially over the summer, well before this dustup. Sales of the rings have apparently soared at the jeweler James Avery, where spokeswoman Sara Hegener said there has been a "huge swell" over the past few months. "There's a lot of buzz with the Jonas Brothers and these purity rings, and I like to think some of it is tied to that," she said. Sales of the company's signature "True Love Waits" ring were up 78 percent in July over last year and up 113 percent in August.

MTV brought on Brand not only to play the scandalous bad boy, but to lob several libertine grenades. Brand also lit into the family of GOP vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin. He suggested the pregnancy of Palin's daughter Bristol was a "P.R. stunt" and then lamented that Bristol's fianc Levi Johnston was being punished for "joyful, unprotected sex" with a trip to the Republican convention. Brand went on, "I think that is the best safe sex message of all time. Use a condom, or become Republican!"

Apparently, that joke was the tame one. Brand told the London Telegraph he wanted to say Palin "was forcing her teenage daughter to have a baby because she is so anti-abortion. But also, as a Republican she is pro-execution so she is going to give her the electric chair for being a little slut."

What is it about parents with traditional values that make the MTV and VH-1 hordes come so unglued' Maybe it's just unacceptable for the feels-good-do-it lobby to have anyone else threaten to redefine for young people what it means to be "cool."

MTV: Where Virgins Go To Die
Ben Shapiro
Wednesday, September 10, 2008

Virginity is hilarious, according to MTV Video Music Awards host Russell Brand. After Brand was done encouraging Americans to vote for Barack Obama because George W. Bush is a "retarded cowboy fellow," he attacked the Jonas Brothers for wearing promise rings, rings intended to demonstrate support for abstinence until marriage.

"I'm beginning to wonder if the Jonas Brothers are quite what they seem," said the freaky-looking, scruffy-haired, tightly-garbed former dope fiend and sex addict. "Because if they were, how come I've got this little ring now?" Brand held up a supposed promise ring. "I mean initially, he was a little reluctant, but eventually he saw it was for the best. And let me tell you, it was an enjoyable and pleasant experience and I wish the rest of the Jonas Brothers the best of luck, because over the course of the evening, I want a collection of these bloody things."

It's always so easy to make fun of teenagers who want to remain abstinent until marriage. They receive the ire of their peers for their scruples. They are pilloried as closet homosexuals, geeks and nerds. It is suggested that they are forfeiting carefree fun in exchange for the drudgery of empty religious standards.

And at the end of the day, those teenagers who do succeed in upholding their standards are, by and large, the happiest people in the world. They don't enter marriage with the baggage of past relationships; they don't get STDs; they don't need abortions or adoptions. They have a lower suicide rate and experience depression less than their peers. They are able to share their first sexual experience with someone they love without fear of abandonment. And they give the greatest gift of all to their spouses -- the gift of their purity, their pre-commitment to the success of their marriage.

It was gratifying, then, when pop star Jordin Sparks, former American Idol winner, stood up to defend abstinence. "I just wanna say, it's not bad to wear a purity ring because not every guy and a girl wants to be a slut, OK?" she said.

Brand was ashamed. He tried to cover that shame with the bravado of the perverse. "'I'd like to take this opportunity to say, no one ever have sex again," he raved. "It's a mad idea. What a way to spend an evening!"

Brand's obscene performance thrilled the critics. "Russell Brand is a bad, bad boy. Thank the punk saints for that!" gushed the Los Angeles Times. "Brand's banter, overflowing with outr political statements juvenile sex jokes and relentless mockery of the well-groomed pop stars surrounding him, was totally, deliriously in the spirit of transgressive rock and roll." "Many commentators," noted Entertainment Weekly, "thought Brand was hilarious and spoke truth to power."

Of course, all of this is utterly predictable. MTV has a tremendous stake in the increased promiscuity of American teenagers -- that promiscuity allows them to purvey their pornography on the airwaves without fear of public backlash. If teenagers were abstinent, parents would surely rebel against MTV's poisonous filth. But by pushing slutty behavior, they inure parents to the inherent risks of degrading material. After all, if Johnny is already having sex, what does it matter whether he watches Britney kiss Madonna on MTV'

It is past time for parents to turn off MTV. Yet MTV continues to thrive. That continued success highlights our current cultural divide. Religious parents have already turned off MTV; secular parents allow their kids to watch it. There's only one problem: Unless religious parents enter into the public debate, they allow the public square to be dominated by filth. They allow the Russell Brands of the world to win. And while the media celebrates, traditional morality crumbles.

How 25 Years of Gay Activism in Hollywood Has Paid Off
Robert Knight
Wednesday, October 08, 2008

If you're noticing your TV screen turning pink, it's not just your imagination.

The new broadcast TV season includes 22 series featuring a total of 35 openly gay characters, according to the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD). GLAAD, which rides herd over all Hollywood scripts dealing with homosexuality, says the number of series with homosexual characters is a record. These series are on ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox and the CW networks. The total figure does not include shows on cable, like The L Word on Showtime, or MTV's all-gay LOGO network.

A new Eye on Culture report from the Culture and Media Institute, "Lavender Propaganda," reveals the depth and breadth of the current media campaign to promote homosexuality to average Americans. But Hollywood became a uniformly pro-gay industry well before Will & Grace or the slew of 2008-9 network shows.

In 1996, the year before Ellen DeGeneres "came out" as a lesbian on Ellen, Los Angeles magazine writer David Ehrenstein boasted in a May cover story, "More than Friends":

"There are openly gay writers on almost every major prime-time situation comedy you can think of â?¦ In short, when it comes to sitcoms, gays rule."

Here is an excerpt from my book The Age of Consent: The Rise of Relativism and the Corruption of Popular Culture about the gay influence on TV:

"Ehrenstein, a professed homosexual, cheerfully admits that gay writers are attempting to influence viewers with a homosexual agenda:

'The gay and lesbian writers of today have been pushing the envelope any chance they get. In fact, they're encouraged to do so. Since current comedies are positively obsessed with the intimate sex lives of straight young singles, who better to write them than members of a minority famed for its sexual candor â?¦ as a result of the influx of gay writers, even the most heterosexual of sitcoms often possess that most elusive of undertones " the "gay sensibility""'Frasier' being a case in point.'

"The 'gay sensibility consists, according to two homosexual writers, of 'a very urban, very educated, ironic, detached, iconoclastic attitude.' Plus, a deliberate overdose of sexuality."

In her 1989 book Target: Primetime: Advocacy Groups and the Struggle over Entertainment Television, Kathryn Montgomery explains why homosexual activists have been particularly effective in Hollywood:

"Gays had one important advantage over other groups. They referred to it as their 'agents in place.' According to gay activists, there were a substantial number of gay people working in the television industry who were not open about their life-style. Some held high-level positions. While unable to promote the gay cause on the inside, they could be very helpful to advocates on the outside, especially by leaking information. These 'agents in place' became one of the linchpins of gay media strategy."

In January 1973, Ron Gold, the New York-based Gay Activist Alliance's Media Director, wrote to all three networks, requesting meetings. Gold, who had been a reporter for Variety, also helped stage a hostile confrontation at ABC that was strikingly similar to the strong-arm tactics employed at the American Psychiatric Association convention in 1971, when gay activists openly threatened psychiatrists who viewed homosexuality as a treatable disorder.

As Montgomery reports:

"Before a meeting had been scheduled with ABC, GAA members were smuggled a script by one of their agents in place. It was for an upcoming episode of Marcus Welby, M.D., entitled 'The Other Martin Loring' and it concerned a married man who asked Dr. Welby to help him with his homosexual tendencies. Welby assured the man that as long as he suppressed his homosexual desires, he would not fail as a husband and father.

"As Gold remembers, GAA leaders 'blew a cork' when they read the script. â?¦.Instead of waiting for an appointment with ABC executives, the activists " with the help of another network insider " 'took over' the network executive offices. Recalls Gold: 'We knew somebody who worked there who gave us a kind of place of the place and we did a little scouting in advance and we managed to sneak into the offices. The confrontation at ABC headquarters was hostile and explosive."

It ended with the arrests of several activists. Montgomery notes that although the program in question still aired, "it did have an impact on later decisionsâ?¦.ABC executives decided to invite gay activist comments on any new scripts dealing with homosexuality. Since gays had their own ways of getting scripts anyway, this approach was even more essential than with other groups."

The other networks soon followed, and the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation now routinely vets all TV scripts dealing with homosexuality to make sure that the public sees only what the activists want. That means, among other things, no programs showing "ex-gays," people who have overcome homosexual temptations, unless it is to mock them.

Montgomery summarizes: "In time, the gay activists gained a reputation within the industry as the most sophisticated and successful advocacy group operating in network television."

The stakes go far beyond television. A September 2008 fundraising mailer from GLAAD proclaims:

"History proves that social change drives legal and political progress. To succeed as a community, we must transform the way millions of Americans feel about us."

With a record number of homosexual characters on television, and only pro-gay story lines, it's not surprising that polls show that Americans are becoming increasingly accepting of homosexuality.

The activists are well on their way toward their goal of recasting traditional sexual morality as a form of bigotry. The next step will be to bring government muscle down on traditionalists " just like they're doing right now in Canada and Europe.

Lavender Propaganda
More Prime Time TV Series Feature Gay Characters than Ever Before
By Colleen Raezler

Hollywood, backed by the news media, is doing its best to "desensitize" Americans to "alternative" sexual preferences. In the new television season, a record 22 series on ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox and CW will feature a total of 35 homosexual, bisexual or transsexual characters. This does not even take into account MTV's all-gay LOGO network or Showtime's The L Word series.

"Desensitization" is one of the principal strategies employed by homosexual activists to advance their political agenda. The idea is to overwhelm the public with images of wholesome homosexual individuals and couples, in order to reduce people's instinctive resistance to homosexuality and overcome the public perception that homosexuality is a distasteful, abnormal lifestyle.

The strategy appears to be working. In a September 28 article, New York Times reporter Mireya Navarro credited Hollywood for increasing cultural acceptance of homosexuality: "Hollywood, with its depictions of cowboy lovers and lesbian neighbors, has done much to make gay men and women part of mainstream American life."

The desensitization strategy was laid out by marketing experts Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen in their book After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 1990s. According to Kirk and Madsen, "In no time, a skillful and clever media campaign could have the gay community looking like the veritable fairy godmother to Western Civilization."

It hasn't taken "no time." More like 10 years. Homosexuality in Hollywood has come a long way since Ellen announced "I'm gay" in 1997, and the networks began to add many homosexual characters to entertainment television.

Over the past few weeks former teen queen Lindsay Lohan announced she was dating Samantha Ronson. American Idol runner-up Clay Aiken proclaimed his homosexuality following the birth of his baby boy. Late in September, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) released its 13th annual "Where We Are on TV" report, which finds that the 2008-2009 television season contains a record number (22) of broadcast TV series that feature homosexual, bisexual or transgendered characters. GLAAD defines three of these as "lead characters," 13 as "supporting characters" and 19 as "recurring characters."

List of shows by network that feature homosexual, bisexual or transgendered characters:

Brothers and Sisters, Sunday, 10:00 PM
Desperate Housewives, Sunday, 9:00 PM
Dirty Sexy Money, Wednesday, 10:00 PM
The Goode Family (animated), not yet scheduled
Grey's Anatomy, Thursday, 9:00 PM
Ugly Betty, Thursday, 8:00 PM

Rules of Engagement, not yet scheduled

The CW
Gossip Girl, Monday, 8:00 PM
Privileged, Tuesday, 9:00 PM

American Dad! (animated), Sunday, 9:30 PM
Bones, Wednesday, 8:00 PM
Do Not Disturb, Wednesday, 9:30 PM
House, Tuesday, 9:00 PM
The Simpsons (animated), Sunday, 8:00 PM
Sit Down, Shut Up (animated), Sunday, 8:30 PM (in 2009)

30 Rock, Thursday, 9:30 PM
ER, Thursday, 10:00 PM
Friday Night Lights, Wednesday, 9:00 PM (airing on DirectTV)
Knight Rider, Wednesday, 8:00 PM
Lipstick Jungle, Wednesday, 10:00 PM
My Name is Earl, Thursday, 8:00 PM
The Office, Thursday, 9:00 PM

The news media response to these revelations has been positive, even celebratory.

In a September 25 story about the growing acceptance of homosexuality in Hollywood, Reuters reporter Jill Serjeant noted the GLAAD study, writing "concerns that openly gay and lesbian actors will be turned down for straight romantic screen roles or as action stars are fading, just as the number of gay characters on TV shows is on the rise."

CBS News Correspondent Michelle Gillen framed "coming out" as a smart career move in a September 25 Early Show segment:

Some celebrities whose stars were fading have gotten a career boost after going public about being gay. Clay Aiken rejoined the cast of Spamalot on Broadway. Lance Bass is on this season's Dancing With the Stars. Neal Patrick Harris, who plays a womanizing man-about-town on How I Met Your Mother, remains a high-profile star since he was outed by celebrity blogger Perez Hilton.

People magazine features Aiken on its cover with the headline, "Yes, I'm Gay." Reporter David Caplan asked Aiken questions such as, "Did you ever feel ashamed or confused about being gay?" and "Why do you think some of your fans are resistant to the idea that you're gay?" Caplan also accepted as fact that people are born homosexual, not questioning Aiken when he said of his son, "I have no idea if he'll be gay or straight. It's not something I'll have anything to do with, or that he'll have anything to do with. It's already probably up inside the code there, you know what I mean?"

ABC's Good Morning America aired a two-part interview with Aiken on September 25 and 26. CMI Senior Writer Kristen Fyfe pointed out that host Diane Sawyer "provid[ed] him an unchallenged platform to promote his lifestyle" and concluded that because "Aiken is an extremely sympathetic and unassuming character?he probably advanced the ball considerably down the liberal 'everybody should be ok with homosexuality' field."

"Advancing the ball" is the goal of GLAAD's television study. Neil Giuliano, president of GLAAD stated during a September 26 segment on CNN, "It's important that the visibility leads to conversation and that those conversations can lead to having influence on our public policy so that gays and lesbians can be treated equally and fairly, within our society."

Alec Baldwin on 'Hate': "They want to ban gay marriage because those people are incapable of having a biological family. That's their only argument. You can ban gay marriage, but if you're going to make it fair, then you have to ban marriage for everybody else who won't produce children. But they just single out groups of people that they hate." -- Actor Alec Baldwin in the March 25, 2008, Advocate on conservative Christians' views of same-sex 'marriage.'

In a September 30 report on CNN.com, homosexual actor Brian Batt, who plays a closeted homosexual on AMC's Mad Men, framed Hollywood as a powerful promoter of the homosexual lifestyle: "There is, I think, a little bit of homophobia. I do believe that through education and seeing good, honest, positive gay role models, it will just educate. I think we are producing generations now of youth that do not judge people; they don't judge people on their race or their religion or their sexuality."

Batt's comments about youth are especially noteworthy, as 14 out of 22 of the television series featuring homosexual, bisexual or transgendered characters are scheduled to air between the hours of 8 and 10 o'clock Eastern Time. Nearly a third of the series are scheduled to air during the 8 o'clock hour, which is also known as the "Family Hour."

Hollywood Geneticist:
"I think you're born gay. There is a spectrum and most people are somewhere in the middle. But I do think it's biological." -- Actress Ricki Lake in the November 6, 2007 Advocate

Peter Sprigg, vice president for policy at the conservative Family Research Council, was one of the few voices allowed to take issue with this propaganda blitz on a national television network. He told CNN on September 26 that, "These characters are placed on television for propaganda purposes, in order to persuade the American public to be more accepting of homosexual conduct. In that sense, the result for society is likely to be negative."

Does this season's uptick in gay characters represent a push by Hollywood to influence voters in Arizona, California and Florida on November 4' Constitutional amendments defending traditional marriage as a union only between one man and one woman are on the ballot in those three states.

The Real Obama Part II
Thomas Sowell
Wednesday, October 08, 2008

A recent Republican campaign ad sarcastically described as Barack Obama's "one accomplishment" his supporting a bill to promote sex education in kindergarten.

During an interview of a Republican spokesman, Tom Brokaw of NBC News replayed that ad and asked if that was something serious to be discussed in a presidential election campaign.

It was a variation on an old theme about getting back to "the real issues," just as Brokaw's question was a variation on an increasingly widespread tendency among journalists to become a squad of Obama avengers, instead of reporters.

Does it matter if Barack Obama is for sex education in kindergarten' It matters more than most things that are called "the real issues."

Seemingly unrelated things can give important insights into someone's outlook and character. For example, after the Cold War was over, it came out that one of the things that caught the attention of Soviet leaders early on was President Ronald Reagan's breaking of the air traffic controllers' strike.

Why were the Soviets concerned about a purely domestic American issue like an air traffic controllers' strike' Why was their attention not confined to "the real issues" between the United States and the Soviet Union?

Because one of the biggest and realest of all issues is the outlook and character of the President of the United States.

It would be hard to imagine any of Ronald Reagan's predecessors over the previous several decades-- whether Republicans or Democrats-- who would have broken a nationwide strike instead of caving in to the union's demands.

This told the Soviet leaders what Reagan was made of, even before he got up and walked out of the room during negotiations with Mikhail Gorbachev. That too let the Soviet leaders know that they were not dealing with Jimmy Carter any more.

There is no more real issue today than "Who is the real Barack Obama behind the image?" What does being in favor of sex education in kindergarten tell us about the outlook and character of this largely unknown man who has suddenly appeared on the national scene to claim the highest office in the land?

It gives us an insight into the huge gulf between Senator Obama's election year image and what he has actually been for and against over the preceding decades. It also shows the huge gulf between his values and those of most other Americans.

Many Americans would consider sex education for kindergartners to be absurd but there is more to it than that.

What is called "sex education," whether for kindergartners or older children, is not education about biology but indoctrination in values that go against the traditional values that children learn in their families and in their communities.

Obviously, the earlier this indoctrination begins, the better its chances of overriding traditional values. The question is not how urgently children in kindergarten need to be taught about sex but how important it is for indoctrinators to get an early start.

The arrogance of third parties, who take it upon themselves to treat other people's children as a captive audience to brainwash with politically correct notions, while taking no responsibility for the consequences to those children or society, is part of the general vision of the left that pervades our education system.

Sex education for kindergartners is just one of many issues on which Barack Obama has lined up consistently on the side of arrogant elitists of the far left. Senator Obama's words often sound very reasonable and moderate, as well as lofty and inspiring. But everything that he has actually done over the years places him unmistakably with the extreme left elitists.

Sadly, many of those who are enchanted by his rhetoric are unlikely to check out the facts. But nothing is a more real or more important issue than whether what a candidate says is the direct opposite of what he has actually been doing for years.

The old phrase, "a man of high ideals but no principles," is one that applies all too painfully to Barack Obama today. His words expressing lofty ideals may appeal to the gullible but his long history of having no principles makes him a danger of the first magnitude in the White House.

A Knock or a Boost?
Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, September 02, 2008

Since Governor Sarah Palin's daughter is not running for election this year, it is amazing how much the media has suddenly become obsessed with her. Her pregnancy not only made the front page of the New York Times, a printed announcement of her pregnancy stayed at the bottom of the television screen on CNN for what seemed to me to be about an hour or more.

Investigative reporters have obviously been burning a lot of midnight oil, digging deep into the history of Governor Palin's family, for they also found a drunk driving incident involving her husband decades ago-- before they were married.

"The public's right to know" is often invoked by the mainstream media, when what they are really talking about is the media's right to smear those that they disagree with politically.

It is doubtful whether the public is half as obsessed with Sarah Palin's daughter as CNN obviously is. Even before this particular story was hyped, CNN was among those in the media who had become something of a laughingstock for how they had gone overboard in favor of Barack Obama.

Increasingly, over the years, CNN has become less of a news reporting organization and more of a propaganda machine for liberal-left politics. Unfortunately, CNN is not alone.

It was not the newsworthiness of young Bristol Palin's pregnancy that put it on the front page of the New York Times or interminably on the bottom of the screen at CNN. It was an opportunity for them to try to damage the political career of someone they disagreed with politically.

But how much damage is this story likely to do' Only time will tell but it seems doubtful whether a lot of votes will be changed by it. The public does not always echo the media's obsessions.

Conservatives were apparently expected to be shocked but the media's perceptions of conservatives often bear no resemblance to reality. Rush Limbaugh, for example, remained supportive of Governor Palin-- and disgusted with the liberal scandal-mongers.

There is even a positive aspect to this. How many of us could have the history of our lives, and the lives of our whole families-- going back for decades-- picked over with a fine-tooth comb by investigative reporters, backed by the resources of a television network or a major newspaper, and have them come up with nothing worse than this?

There are people who are near and dear to me who have made some very bad mistakes in their lives. Would that disqualify me as a candidate for political office?

It certainly would not if I were running as a liberal Democrat. The media would say, "get over it" and "move on."

On the other hand, it could be the scandal of the century if I were running as a conservative Republican and some third cousin, twice removed, had gotten put behind bars or had died of a drug overdose.

At least one media attack has claimed to have some substance because Governor Palin has been critical of so-called "sex education" in the public schools. Her own daughter's pregnancy is supposed to demonstrate the need for such programs.

That is the vision of the left but what are the facts?

For decades, "sex education" has been sold as a way to reduce teenage pregnancy and venereal disease. But incessant repetition is not a rational argument, whether for "sex education" or for generic "change."

Before propaganda against traditional values regarding sex was introduced into the public school under the label of "sex education" in the 1960s, both teenage pregnancy and venereal disease had been going down for years.

In 1960 the rate of infection for syphilis, for example, was only half of what it had been in 1950.

But teenage pregnancy and venereal disease were pictured as the problems for which "sex education" was the solution. In reality, the long downward trend in both not only ended, but rose dramatically, after new attitudes toward sex were promoted in the schools under the guise of educating students.

"Sex education" is as phony as the scandal-mongering over a young woman who is no candidate for anything.

Homosexuals Having a Field Day with CA Schools
Family Research Council

"It really is what we call a teachable moment," argued Liz Jaroflow, the interim director of a local California charter school. This is how she and other administrators rationalize the decision to take a class of impressionable first graders on a field trip to their teachers' lesbian "wedding." At the suggestion of a parent, Jaroflow herded the five- and six-year-olds onto a bus during school hours last Friday and surprised Erin Carder and Kerri McCoy at City Hall. Now the unorthodox excursion is putting San Francisco's school district at the center of a national debate on counterfeit marriage. When asked what educational value the trip had, Jaroflow pointed to the "historical significance of same-sex marriage" and "civil rights." "...[I]t's not controversial..." she told reporters. "It's certainly an issue I would be willing to put my job on the line for." Whether or not the district will ask her to do so is unclear. According to the Chronicle, Jaroflow did ask for parents' permission, and two families opted out. Across California, however, voters are in disbelief. The trip, a disgraceful abuse of school time, is just a preview of the indoctrination to come if Proposition 8 fails. Ironically, this happened just days after "No on 8" launched ads last week claiming same-sex "marriage" would not be taught in schools, no matter what the outcome on November 4. Not only will it be taught, it's obvious that the lessons are already underway! On the Chronicle's site, editors posted a video of these first-graders celebrating their teachers' big day. View the video for a snapshot of what homosexual "marriage" will mean for children across America. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2008/10/11/MNFG13F1VG.DTL&o=0

Finally, "Straight Talk" From the Homosexual Agenda
Austin Nimocks
Monday, October 20, 2008

We all love and appreciate honesty, and it's finally coming from the most unlikely of sources -- the homosexual agenda. No matter what side of the issues of homosexual behavior you may find yourself supporting, a standing ovation is appropriate.

John Corvino, I salute you.

You see, back in August, my jaw hit the floor when I read a column Corvino wrote that was breathtakingly honest. You see, for many years, the homosexual agenda's intentions, goals, and beliefs have been shrouded in smokescreens of "equality," "benefits," and "fairness." Yet Corvino provided a breath of fresh air, telling us what those who engage in homosexual behavior really want: moral approval.

Of course, many of us have known this all along, but it's nice to finally hear about it from the other side. This groundbreaking concession now provides an opportunity for an honest public discourse on what homosexual advocates are really after. They want your heart and soul. It's not enough to just be tolerant.

Now, I realize that you probably believe that your fair-mindedness is sufficient for any number of circumstances in life, but on this issue, you have been duped. You see, moral approval goes well beyond fairness or tolerance. It requires you to look upon the homosexual behavior of another and say to yourself and others, "That's a good thing." Moral approval means that you plan to teach it to your kids as righteous and true, and not just as something that other people do (and then secretly pray that you never find your kids doing). Moral approval means that you must reject other people, businesses, and persons who do not morally approve of homosexual behavior.

Most of all, moral approval means that you not only permit it in your home, but you embrace it. You applaud TV shows that celebrate it, Web sites that promote it, books that endorse it, and you may even choose to practice it. Moral approval goes to the very essence of our person.

Not convinced that anyone could want something that radical from you' Well, there's no need to accept something just because I say it. Instead, look at the strategy employed by those who promote this agenda -- in the courts. That alone tells you something. Courts are not sought by people who simply want you to tolerate an idea. Courts order people to do things. From just this small sample of court cases, you can see that tolerance or simple access to certain "benefits" is no longer enough. What is desired is court-ordered moral approval:

· In New Jersey, the state launched an investigation of a Christian ministry after it declined to host a civil union ceremony for two women on its property. The women could have held their ceremony anywhere -- and eventually did hold it somewhere else -- but they filed a complaint anyway because they loathed the ministry's lack of moral approval.

· In New Mexico, a same-sex couple filed a "human rights" complaint against a photographer who declined to photograph their "commitment" ceremony. The photographer lost and was ordered to cough up more than $6,600 in attorneys' fees. Before the ruling, the couple hired a different photographer from the myriad of other ones available, but still chose to retaliate against the first photographer for her lack of moral approval.

· In Georgia, a counselor was fired because she referred a woman in a same-sex relationship to another counselor for relationship advice. The second counselor provided service that the woman herself characterized as "exemplary." Yet she still demanded -- and obtained -- the first counselor's termination for her lack of moral approval.

· In California, a woman in a same-sex relationship sued a doctor who declined to artificially inseminate her, claiming discrimination on the basis of "sexual orientation." The woman misrepresented her marital status to the doctor, who has a policy not to perform the procedure on unmarried women regardless of their "orientation." Other doctors successfully performed the procedure, and she has since borne three healthy children, yet the woman continues to demand the first doctor's moral approval in court.

Note that having other options did not satisfy the people involved in the above same-sex relationships. The point to see: they demand moral approval. And some will go to court, have you fired, or otherwise seek your demise to get it. And they don't care if you have to act against your conscience, just so long as you can ease theirs.

Corvino accurately states that "moral truth matters." But there's no longer any guessing about what truth he and those like him are referring to: it's the one they have defined, and you'd better accept it. An abundance of "tolerance" will not suffice.

Understanding the Hookup Culture
Allison Kasic
Monday, October 20, 2008

Now that the school year is in full swing, many parents are probably wondering how their children are adapting to their new educational environment. For those parents with children in college, it can often be hard to get an accurate assessment of campus life. After all, campus life is a lot different from when they went to school, and students are so busy that calling home isn't always their first priority.

Unfortunately, parents have reason to be concerned with the campus culture surrounding sex and relationships. Dating is an institution of the past. It has been replaced by a culture of hookups, or physical encounters without an expectation of a relationship. The hookup culture dominates campus life and many students struggle to find their place in this social structure. Fortunately for parents, a new book may help shed light on the campus social scene, and therefore provide a better understanding of the challenges that their children face at school.

In Hooking Up: Sex, Dating, and Relationships on Campus, sociologist Kathleen Bogle delves right to the heart of campus culture by interviewing students and telling their stories. Unlike other recent books on the hookup culture, Bogle leaves judgment aside in favor of painting a sociological picture of the modern campus climate. Parents are left to form their own opinions about the hookup culture, but Bogle's book is certain to leave them with an accurate understanding of what it is like to be on campus. In that regard, it plays a critical role in understanding the myths and realities of the hookup culture.

For starters, the hookup culture is widespread. As Fogle points out, "Although students have many options about how they conduct themselves within the hookup culture, they cannot change the fact that hooking up is the dominant script on campus." In other words, all students don't participate in the hookup culture, but it is still the primary means for initiating sexual and romantic relationships. It is therefore worthwhile for parents to understand exactly what the hookup culture entails, so that they might help guide their children towards healthy decisions.

Parents need to understand just how dramatic a change the hookup culture represents. The hookup culture is a complete inversion of the traditional dating script:

"College men used to ask women to go on dates with the hope that something sexual, such as necking or petting, might happen at the end of the date. In the hooking-up era, this sexual norm is reversed. College students, following the hookup script, become sexual first and then maybe go on a date someday."

In terms of expectations, it is largely female students that hope a hookup might turn into a relationship. In her study Bogle found that "female students seem considerably more interested than males that hooking up would lead to a relationship or at least something more than a one-time encounter." But since the most likely outcome of any particular hookup encounter is "nothing," described by Bogle to mean "not hearing from the person again unless you coincidentally see him or her at another social event and decide to hook up again," many young women are left disappointed and confused. Almost 50 percent of college students who engaged in sexual intercourse during a hookup said they never saw the person again.

Parents should also know that:

-Alcohol is a major enabler of hookups. The students that Bogle interviewed believe that drinking lowers their inhibitions, thereby making a hookup possible. This finding is backed up by other studies that demonstrate "that alcohol consumption is correlated with the decision to have sexual intercourse as well as engaging in so-called risky sexual behavior, such as having casual sex."

-Friends matter. Bogle found that a student's circle of friends "was a good predictor of how entrenched he or she was in hooking up."

-Students overestimate their peers' level of sexual activity and number of partners. In turn, they judge themselves against these inaccurate standards.

-The hookup culture carries with it a host of health concerns, from binge drinking to STDs to sexual abuse.

In today's fast-paced world, knowing the nature of a problem is half the battle in coming up with a solution. Parents who want an insight into their children's campus life should consider picking up a copy of Hooking Up as a first step to helping their college-age children make their college experience healthy and fulfilling.

A Vote Against Gay Marriage is a Vote FOR Tolerance
Frank Turek
Sunday, October 26, 2008

Twenty years ago, a group of prominent homosexuals got together in Warrentown, Virginia to map out their plan to get homosexuality accepted by the general public. In the book that resulted from their meeting, they revealed a strategy that achieves its effect "without reference to facts, logic or proof . . . the person's beliefs can be altered whether he is conscious of the attack or not."

In other words, their strategy was pure propaganda. That propaganda campaign has many people today believing that denying same-sex marriage involves denying rights to a victimized minority. That belief could not be further from the truth. In fact, let me suggest what the same-sex marriage debate is not about.

     It is not about equality or equal rights.

     It is not about discrimination against a class of people.

     It is not about denying homosexuals the ability to commit to one another.

     It is not about love or private relationships.

     It is not about bigotry or homophobia.

     It is not about sexual orientation or being born a certain way.

     It is not about race or the civil rights struggle.

     It is not about interracial marriage.

     It is not about heterosexuals and divorce.

     It is not about the separation of church and state.

     It is not even about religion.

"But that's all I hear about," you say.

Of course, that's because the propaganda campaign continues to be successful. Those topics are all smokescreens designed to divert you.

In fact, for homosexuals, this debate isn't even about marriage. As data from countries with same-sex marriage show, approximately 96 percent of homosexuals don't get married when they are given the opportunity. And those that do get "married" break up at a much higher rate than heterosexuals.

Since most homosexuals don't want to get married or stay married, then why are homosexual activists so adamant about government recognition of same-sex marriage' Because same-sex marriage will win them what they really want -- validation and normalization. In other words, the activists want same-sex marriage because they understand that government-backed same-sex marriage will validate and normalize homosexuality throughout society.

The key point here is "government-backed." Homosexuals already can "marry" one another privately. There is just no government version of it. Nothing is stopping homosexuals from pledging themselves to one another in private same-sex marriage ceremonies. In fact, it is done all the time -- there is an entire cottage industry for "gay" weddings.

But that's not enough for homosexual activists. What they want is government endorsement for their relationships. They know that such endorsement will make homosexuality and their behavior appear just as normal as heterosexuality. That's why the same-sex marriage movement has more to do with respect than rights.

Greg Koukl puts this very well: "Same-sex marriage is not about civil rights. It is about validation and social respect. It is a radical attempt at civil engineering using government muscle to strong-arm the people into accommodating a lifestyle many find deeply offensive, contrary to nature, socially destructive, and morally repugnant." Same-sex marriage advocate Andrew Sullivan understands this. He writes, "Including homosexuals within marriage would be a means of conferring the highest form of social approval imaginable."

This is the real reason homosexual activists are relentlessly pushing to get the government to endorse same-sex marriage. Most don't want to get "married," but they do want the social approval that same-sex marriage will win them.

Once they get that legal and social approval, no one disagreeing with them will be safe. Schools, businesses, churches, and charities will be bludgeoned with threats and lawsuits until they abandon their convictions and agree to promote what is pleasantly called "diversity." Ironically, the only view allowed by the coming diversity police is the narrow view that you must celebrate homosexuality. No other view will be tolerated.

In fact, this intolerance is already happening and will get worse if same-sex marriage spreads. A federal court recently denied parents the right to know when homosexuality was being discussed in their Massachusetts schools because gay marriage is now legal there. Also in Massachusetts, a Catholic adoption agency was forced to close its doors rather than provide children to homosexual couples as the state now demands. In New Jersey, a Christian ministry was investigated for refusing to conduct a same-sex ceremony. In California, a doctor was sued for refusing to artificially inseminate a lesbian. Several other examples of gay intolerance can be found here, and the unbelievable forced normalization of homosexuality in businesses, schools and charities throughout Massachusetts can be found here. (Click on that link if you really want to see how bad the intolerance can get.)

Moreover, as I've shown in Gay Marriage: Even Liberals Know It's Bad, government-backed same-sex marriage also will hurt our children, our health, our economy and our nation. Thankfully, voters still have the choice to not endorse intolerance and political correctness. The good people of California, Arizona

Sex and the Single Kid
Mona Charen
Tuesday, November 04, 2008

So it's the day before the election that will supposedly sweep away all vestiges of conservatism in American life and what do I find' The Washington Post carries a front-page story about TV contributing to teen pregnancy.

"Teenagers who watch a lot of television featuring flirting, necking, discussion of sex and sex scenes are much more likely than their peers to get pregnant or get a partner pregnant, according to the first study to directly link steamy programming to teen pregnancy."

The study, published in the journal Pediatrics, followed 700 12- to 17-year-olds for three years. Those who viewed the most sex-drenched TV shows were twice as likely as their peers to impregnate someone or get pregnant themselves.

The Post interviewed the usual "experts" for reactions to the research. "We have a highly sexualized culture that glamorizes sex," said Valerie Huber of the National Abstinence Education Association. Well now, there's an understatement!

Look no further than the pages of the Washington Post itself. It features an almost-daily ad on Page Two that touts "Sex for Life" and features imagery of a man and woman with come hither looks. She dangles her bra over his shoulder. Recently, The Post saw fit (as did the New York Times and I'm sure many other "family" newspapers) to publish an obituary for that great cultural icon Jerry Gerard, whose contribution to the world was pornography like "Deep Throat" and "The Devil in Miss Jones." I don't know about you, but I could have let him meet his Maker unheralded. Publishing an obit for a pornographer (remember when that was a dirty word?) is part of the general mainstreaming of pornography. You can order it at most hotels now. And so can your kids if they are in a separate room and you are not very careful. Sometimes the Playboy channel is offered without the necessity to order it by phone. Isn't that grand for the kids who are in the adjoining room to mom and dad'

This sort of thing is not limited to liberal outlets, of course. We have XM radio in our car. The commercials that run on the Fox News channel seem to be about 50 percent for Viagra and other "performance enhancing" drugs. Aside from explicitly Christian and other religious entertainment (which is overly goody two shoes for my taste), inappropriate sexual content is everywhere -- in music and music videos, in magazines (have you been to a supermarket checkout lately?), in video games, in movies, and on television.

Television is our national teacher. American children spend more time in front of the TV screen (an average of four hours daily) than at any other non-school waking activity. The Parents Television Council has reported that in 2005, "Desperate Housewives" was the most popular broadcast TV show among kids aged 9-12. Bill Cosby is so right: It's so easy to use sex and profanity to get a laugh. How much more difficult to strive for genuine wit.

So the kids are utterly bombarded from the youngest ages with sexual messages. And with 54 percent of kids having a TV in their bedroom, most parents are clearly not shielding them. The PTC also reports that "46 (percent) of high school students in the United States have had sexual intercourse. Although sex is common, most sexually active teens (say they) wish they had waited longer to have sex, (suggesting) that sex is occurring before youths are prepared for its consequences. One case of an STD is diagnosed for every 4 sexually active teens."

The same issue of Pediatrics also features an article on the association between violent Internet content and aggressive behavior among teenagers. You guessed it. They found "significantly elevated" odds of violence among those who entertained themselves with violent imagery. The study controlled for factors like alcohol consumption, parental monitoring, and other characteristics. According to the American Psychiatric Association "The debate is over. Over the last three decades, the one overriding finding in research on the mass media is that exposure to media portrayals of violence increases aggressive behavior in children."

So, here we are. For decades the overwhelmingly liberal cultural arbiters in Hollywood and in the music industry have denied that they are having any negative effect at all on children. While degrading our culture and raking in the cash, they've disclaimed all responsibility. Parents can turn it off, they sniff. (Though they are so careful to excise smoking.) The studies accumulate. The sexual invitation that is modern entertainment continues unabated. The violence gets more graphic daily. And the kids get the abortions, and the STDs, and the emergency room visits, and the heartache.

PTC Finds Increase in Harsh Profanity on TV:

PTC Blasts CBS for Nudity on 'Survivor' Premiere:

PTC Take Action:

Affirmative Action and Gay Marriage
Thomas Sowell
Wednesday, November 05, 2008

The politically clever way to get special privileges is to call them "rights"-- especially "equal rights."

Some local election campaigns in various states are using that tactic this year, trying to get special privileges through affirmative action quotas or through demands that the definition of marriage be changed to suit homosexuals.

Equality of rights does not mean equality of results. I can have all the equal treatment in the world on a golf course and I will not finish within shouting distance of Tiger Woods.

When arbitrary numerical "goals" or "quotas" under affirmative action are not met, the burden of proof is put on the employer to prove that he did not discriminate against minorities or women. No burden of proof whatever is put on the advocates of "goals" or "quotas" to show that people would be equally represented in jobs, colleges or anywhere else in the absence of discrimination.

Tons of evidence from countries around the world, and over centuries of history, show that statistical disparities are the rule, not the exception-- even in situations where discrimination is virtually impossible.

Anonymously graded tests do not show the same results from one group to another. In many countries there are minorities who completely outperform members of the majority population, whether in education, in the economy or in sports, even when there is no way that they can discriminate against the majority.

Putting the burden of proof on everybody except yourself is a slick political ploy. The time is long overdue for the voting public to see through it.

Another fraud on the ballot this year is gay "marriage."

Marriage has existed for centuries and, until recent times, it has always meant a union between a man and a woman. Over those centuries, a vast array of laws has grown up, all based on circumstances that arise in unions between a man and a woman.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that law has not been based on logic but on experience. To apply a mountain of laws based specifically on experience with relations between a man and a woman to a different relationship where sex differences are not involved would be like applying the rules of baseball to football.

The argument that current marriage laws "discriminate" against homosexuals confuses discrimination against people with making distinctions among different kinds of behavior.

All laws distinguish among different kinds of behavior. What other purpose does law have?

While people may be treated the same, all their behaviors are not. Laws that forbid bicycles from being ridden on freeways obviously have a different effect on people who have bicycles but no cars.

But this is not discrimination against a person. The cyclist who gets into a car is just as free to drive on the freeway as anybody else.

The question is not whether gays should be permitted to marry. Many gays have already married people of the opposite sex. Conversely, heterosexuals who might want to marry someone of the same sex in order to make some point will be forbidden to do so, just as gays are.

The real issue is whether marriage should be redefined-- and, if for gays, why not for polygamists' Why not for pedophiles?

Despite heavy television advertising in California for "gay marriage," showing blacks being set upon by police dogs during civil right marches, and implying that homosexuals face the same discrimination today, the analogy is completely false.

Blacks had to sit in the back of the bus because they were black. They were doing exactly what white people were doing-- riding a bus. That is what made it racial discrimination.

Marriage is not a right but a set of legal obligations imposed because the government has a vested interest in unions that, among other things, have the potential to produce children, which is to say, the future population of the nation.

Gays were on their strongest ground when they said that what they did was nobody else's business. Now they are asserting a right to other people's approval, which is wholly different.

None of us has a right to other people's approval.

Teen Pregnancy and TV
Brent Bozell III
Wednesday, November 05, 2008

The Washington Post announced an important new study from the respected Rand Corporation on its front page on Nov. 3. Teenagers who watch a lot of television featuring sex talk and sex scenes are much more likely than their peers to get pregnant or get a partner pregnant, according to the first study to directly link television programming to teen pregnancy.

The study was published in Pediatrics, the journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics. It tracked more than 700 12-to-17-year-olds for three years, and found that those who viewed the most sexual content on TV were about twice as likely to be involved in a pregnancy as those who saw the least. About 25 percent of those who watched the most were involved in a pregnancy, compared with about 12 percent of those who watched the least. The researchers took into account other factors such as having only one parent, wanting to have a baby and engaging in other risky behaviors.

"Sexual content on television has doubled in the last few years, especially during the period of our research," said Rand researcher Anita Chandra, author of the study. "Watching this kind of sexual content on television is a powerful factor in increasing the likelihood of a teen pregnancy. We found a strong association."

Unfortunately, like so many nonpartisan researchers, Chandra rushed to insist that she is not moralizing. She suggested the problem wasn't so much that the amount of steamy TV, but that broadcasters fail to include un-sexy notions about the potentially negative consequences of sex, from sexually transmitted diseases to what Barack Obama inartfully called being "punished with a baby." All of this leaves the viewer with a rather rosy and unrealistic view of TV's quick "hook-ups."

The Rand researchers said the study showed there were important findings for broadcasters. "Broadcasters should be encouraged to include more realistic depictions of sex in scripts and to portray consequences such as pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases," they said.

Hollywood's been hearing this for years, and shows no sign of bending. Cigarette makers are forced to put a Surgeon General's warning about the dangers of smoking on every box. Pharmaceutical manufacturers have to list every conceivable side effect of their drugs. (Is there any medicine that doesn't cause possible nausea or headaches or blurry vision?) But television feels no need to offer warnings about its wild and swinging liaisons, because they aren't "selling" anything, therefore there can be no cause-and-effect consequences.

The Rand recommendation to broadcasters is something -- but falls short. What they should have pushed, but couldn't find the nerve to push, is the simple idea that broadcasters should stop promoting adult messages about sex to impressionable children.

The Rand team said parents should consider limiting their children's access to programming with sexual content and spending more time watching programs alongside their children so they can discuss the consequences of sex. That advice is sound, but again, only to a point. Parents ought not to have to devote themselves to discussing with their youngsters that which should be kept from them in order to protect their innocence.

Doctors are even urged to ask teenagers "about their media use," a concept that smacks of political correctness and dilutes the seriousness of the report.

Predictably, the knee-jerk defenders of anything-goes television have tried to dismiss these findings, mocking the idea that TV shows can lead to any kind of behavior. In an online chat at The Washington Post website, one questioner joked, "If I watch a steady TV diet of the three 'CSIs,' 'Law and Order,' 'Life on Mars,' 'Cold Case' and 'NYPD Blue' reruns, will I turn into a police detective?"

To which there's the obvious answer: Rand's researchers in no way tried to prove a drop-dead connection, that television causes pregnancy. They merely suggested the logical, that there is an association -- just as the people who advertise for the Olive Garden hope there's an association that leads more people to eat at their restaurants. Rand also suggested other media -- magazines, the Internet, certainly pop music -- have an effect as well.

Another Post chatterer more sensibly wrote, "Surely if we did a study of adults, we'd find that adults who watch shows about politics were also more politically active." There is no doubt that hormone-exploding teenaged viewers are going to find a sex scene interesting to watch, which is why Hollywood complies by producing so many of them.

Once again, the TV networks and their lobbyists have responded to Rand's research by insisting that no one can prove their deluge of sex scenes has any influence on any of our country's social problems. It is what one professes when he has nothing with which to defend himself.

Castration: The Next TV Frontier
Brent Bozell III
Saturday, September 27, 2008

The temperature has cooled, the leaves are turning colors, and the new fall television season has begun. Enter the mudslide. The Shock and Awe manipulators have been unleashed to air evermore graphic sex and grotesque violence -- and, predictably, a combination of the two. The first "winner" in this race to the bottom was the FX cable channel, another sure bet. On Sept.17, viewers of the appropriately named new series "Sons of Anarchy" were "treated" to a graphic castration scene, complete with hacked-off genitals shown lying in a pool of blood.

Completely tasteless programming is in, and FX bathes in it. The mastermind of all that Rupert Murdoch-backed villainy is an executive named John Landgraf, who pronounces his philosophical approach thusly: "One of our writers used to say, 'Bad men do what good men can only dream about.' There is a sense that what these characters are doing is allowing us to explore, in a safe context, our id and subconscious, what we might do if there were no restraints of society or conscience on us."

Defenders of graphic violence in television or films insist that the power of these images do not corrupt. A person can view these programs without dreaming those dreams or acting upon them. But it's pathetic to argue that Hollywood is somehow performing a public service, taking the violence out of society, so as to "allow us to explore in a safe context" how much we'd like to castrate someone.

No one should attempt to argue that "exploring our id" is a socially constructive crusade instead of a cynical attempt to shock your way to some extra ratings points, at least not without a laugh track attached.

It might be amusing to watch a Hollywood executive try to argue before a minister that allowing someone to fantasize about unleashing his violent subconscious is a path to holiness. Most ministers would reply that someone who constantly dreams about committing violent acts, but never actually does it in real life is not a "good" person. They would see a flaming sinner with a socially helpful amount of cowardice.

Landgraf's brazen attempts to play a moralist suggest a different maxim, one that fits a Hollywood executive: Bad men corrupt good men by bombarding them with entertainment that shocks them so aggressively and consistently that they're programmed to seek out an ever edgier, more graphic "entertainment" experience.

FX's "Sons of Anarchy" is another series about antiheroes, in this case a northern California motorcycle gang and criminal enterprise. Unsurprisingly, the show erupts from a man named Kurt Sutter, a longtime scriptwriter of the gruesome FX crooked-cop series "The Shield." Sutter admitted -- boasted, really -- to the Miami Herald that he's trouble: "My sensibility is really twisted and dark ... Every story pitch that ever got me thrown out of a meeting, I put in 'The Shield.'" Sutter was the source of two of the most notorious scenes in that show, the melting of a drug dealer's face into an electric grill burner, and a police captain being forced to commit an act of oral sex on a gang member at gunpoint, with all its revolting head-bobbing.

Sutter told the Herald's Glenn Garvin that FX executives patiently ask him to consider that not yet everyone shares his "vision," and so he has to move a little slower. "The notes weren't saying, 'don't do it,' but 'we want to honor your vision; now how are we going to photograph it' -- " he recounted. "I lose perspective of people's capacity for watching violence. I just do. . . . I really need somebody to say, 'You can't do that. You don't want to turn people off.'"

In a nutshell, what we're hearing is FX executives who have a lot more sensitivity to the "vision" of a seriously twisted human being than they do to the prospect of a 10-year-old boy finding a terrifying castration scene as he's flipping channels in his home.

As usual, the TV critics are almost as sick as the alleged visionaries of Tinseltown. Associated Press critic Frazier Moore oozed about "Sons" that "FX is adding to its roster of outstanding dramas that showcase fascinating anti-heroes who buck the system, doing some good but leaving plenty of collateral damage. They are shrewd go-getters who, more than anything, keep creating problems for themselves."

Moore doesn't mention the castration scene, but he seems to suggest that it's just another example of "shrewd go-getters" bucking the system.

Once again, the gruesome unfolding of a pervert's mind onto a national television screen underlines the need for the cable industry to provide a system of consumer choice, where parents have some ability to pick and pay for the cable networks they want, and not subsidize the twisted Wizards of Id at networks like FX.

Celebrities Mold The Young
Brent Bozell III
Friday, October 24, 2008

Academics at Washington State University have discovered something that may not be very profound. Celebrities are quite successful in persuading young people to turn out and vote.

The survey found that get-out-the-vote pitches by celebrities in the 2004 election cycle helped create an 11 percent increase in voting by people between the ages of 18 and 24, compared to the 2000 election." It suggests that we can make use of celebrity culture to get students engaged," said Erica Austin, a co-author of the study and dean of the school. "They want to be like celebrities."

Austin's team found that "celebrities have the power to motivate civic engagement regardless of their own grasp of the issues at hand." It's easy to question the political savvy of musicians like P. Diddy or Christina Aguilera. Oprah Winfrey's big primary push for Barack Obama gushed through the news and spilled over at the ballot box, even if her speeches on his behalf vaguely touted him as "The One" and sounded like a goopy New Age chat. He was "an evolved leader" and "we're all here to evolve as human beings."

Austin's team also found that celebrities make their fans more idealistic about the political process: "Appeals based on wishful identification with celebrities can increase young adults' belief that participation can make a difference."

The one twist in this study' Young people don't necessarily vote for the candidate celebrities might endorse, meaning Oprah may have turned out some Hillary voters, or even some Romney or McCain voters.

The Washington State findings mirror a 2004 study by Natalie Wood, an expert on celebrity endorsements in politics at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. "They are not an influence in swaying the vote," Wood said. "Telling me to vote is one thing, but telling me who to vote for is different." Family and friends have a greater influence over actual voting decisions, she says.

If celebrities can move young people not just to buy their music and movies, not just to troll the malls looking for their officially authorized fashion lines, not just to change the slang they use, but to get out of the house or the dorm and vote, then why is it preposterous to suggest that these same celebrities can weaken the magnetism of the moral compass in the young' What a Christina Aguilera or P. Diddy defines as cool on MTV can often take hold overnight in high school hallways and college student unions. If celebrities have the power to push political mountains, then everybody should acknowledge they have an even greater ability to shape the moral landscape in America.

And any politician seeking their assistance for the sake a few votes is enabling -- and advancing -- the culture rot these punks propose.

The Obama campaign released a new video on Oct. 21, in which the rapper known as Jay-Z urged viewers to participate in the process. "I want all my people in Michigan to go out and vote," he said. "I need you to vote Nov. 4," he says, calling this "the most important election that will happen probably in your lifetime."

At a Los Angeles concert on Oct. 16, Jay-Z wowed his audience by dedicating his song "99 Problems" to John McCain and his "homegirl" Sarah Palin, explaining that he was referring to "the one who says, 'You betcha.'" This is the same song that was controversial earlier this year when Obama was running against Hillary, since its signature line is "I got 99 problems, but a [B-word] ain't one." Jay-Z is not a celebrity who usually builds enthusiasm about government, since the song also has an entire verse about being racially profiled by the "mother f-ing law" for "doing 55 in a 54."

Doesn't the concept of a civic-minded gangsta-rapper strike anyone as odd' More to the point: If we are to conclude that a fragment of his message devoted to politics has the power to move thousands to the polls, what does this say about the power of his everyday, every-disc message -- the celebration of the violent gangster culture -- on the young?

Even though many people cite the moral decline of America as a major reason why the country is "moving in the wrong direction," this is another presidential-election season where neither the Republican nor the Democrat has dared to offer any political commentary on the sorry state of our popular culture. No debate moderator has found it worth discussing. But millions of Americans are still looking for someone, somewhere from Hollywood to Washington who actually sees our "entertainment" as a social problem, and our celebrities as worthy of criticism and not lock-step idolatry.

Slim Cinema Pickings
Brent Bozell III
Friday, October 17, 2008

There was a wonderful routine in the Bozell family when I was 11 years old. Every Saturday afternoon my mother would load her undiapered-aged brood, maybe six of us back then, into the station wagon for an outing to the local movie theater. What a delight. John Wayne and the westerns. Dean Jones and anything Disney. "Gone With the Wind," "How the West Was Won," "Doctor Zhivago."

On any given Saturday afternoon, Hollywood laid out the red carpet for families, beckoned us in, serving us popcorn and a soda, inviting us to lose ourselves, for a couple of hours, to the world of wonder and imagination.

But that was 40 years ago, another era. All that sparkle is gone today.

Last Saturday afternoon we were alone, my little boy, Reid, and I, and the idea hit to take my 11-year-old to the movies, our own father-son outing. What to see' I pondered, opening the paper for the theater listings. Here is what Hollywood, circa 2008, has to offer.

First, a gratingly long list of mediocre R-rated movies:

"Blindness" (rated R) -- Completely hopeless film about people catching an infectious disease of blindness and getting rounded up in a mental asylum.

"Quarantine" (R) -- Completely hopeless film about a TV news crew getting trapped in a Centers for Disease Control quarantine of a building where everybody catches a version of rabies and dies. (What is this, a trend?)

"Burn After Reading"(R) -- A dippy personal trainer gets caught up in a government plot, doesn't know what he's doing and gets shot in the face. So much for Brad Pitt.

"Body of Lies" (R) -- Leonardo di Caprio pretends to be a rugged CIA agent, and we're lectured again about the moral rot of American foreign policy manipulators.

"Righteous Kill" (R) -- Serial killer takes out violent felons who've fallen through the cracks of the justice system. Nothing more than a rip-off from that perverted TV show "Dexter."

"Miracle at St. Anna" (R) -- Spike Lee tries to make a war movie without any wacko claims about the federal government blowing up levees in New Orleans.

"How to Lose Friends and Alienate People" (R) -- British satire of celebrity journalism, complete with a pig urinating on a woman at the British version of the Oscars. Ha. Ha.

"Religulous" (rated R) -- Who'd give two nickels to Bill Maher to watch him rant against God?

"Appaloosa" is a Western I might enjoy on my own, but it's an R.

Then there's the PG-13 gunk to consider:

"Flash of Genius" (PG-13) -- Son, let's see a whole movie about the inventor of intermittent windshield wipers. I think I'd skip that even on a rainy day.

"Lakeview Terrace" (PG-13) -- Samuel L. Jackson plays a psychotic next-door-neighbor-slash-cop threatening an interracial couple after he sees them having sex through the window.

" Nights in Rodanthe" (PG-13) -- Richard Gere and Diane Lane in a sappy, adulterous, beachside soap opera. I'd rather gargle Drano than watch that.

"The Duchess" (PG-13) -- a British costume drama about an unhappy arranged marriage. Interest level for an 11-year-old boy' Zero.

"Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist" (PG-13) -- Teenage indie-music nightlife hipster movie. Pass.

"Eagle Eye" (PG-13) -- This action thriller might have appealed to us, until critics suggested you'd need a full-frontal lobotomy to enjoy it.

In the PG category, we were left with "Beverly Hills Chihuahua" (if you're into diamond-clad, talking mini-pooches), "The Express" (a "true" story with a completely fictitious scene of racist epithets at a West Virginia football game in Morgantown in 1959), and "Fireproof," which is an admirable independent Christian movie about a fireman gaining faith and saving his marriage, but that plot is of negative appeal for the average pre-teen boy.

There was almost one -- one -- possibility, "City of Ember," until I read reviews that thoroughly panned it. A movie dominated by "unclear mythology and sci-fi gibberish" just isn't worth an outing.

What in the world is the problem with Hollywood' Is it just incapable of producing a good, healthy, enjoyable movie for youngsters' I'm not asking for something on the level of "The Sound of Music."

But on second thought -- why not' Hollywood has the talent. It has creative geniuses, both as writers and directors. It has extraordinary actors. Don't any of them have children' And if so, aren't they just as perplexed and saddened that this once-great industry can no longer produce magic?

Facebook kids campaign links to 'full frontal nudity'
You won't believe what children have access to via social media

A Facebook page set up to promote homosexuality to school children through the "Day of Silence" organized by the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network - which was founded by President Obama's Office of Safe Schools chief Kevin Jennings - has scrubbed its site of links to pornography after several Web-savvy organizations revealed the offending offerings.

"If a conservative or religious group were as reckless as GLSEN in exposing impressionable children to hard-core perversion and pornography, needless to say they'd be out of business and drummed out of the pro-family movement," LaBarbera told WND.

"It is a testament to how the liberal media protects irresponsible 'gay' activists that GLSEN continues to have a huge influence with educators despite its documented record of corrupting children -- by exposing them directly to the worst excesses of the homosexual-bisexual-transgender movement," he said.

Some of the links on the Facebook page promoting the pro-homosexual "Day of Silence," scheduled for Friday by activist organizations operating in public schools across the nation, linked to homosexual "hookup" websites. Some of those sites contained images of fully nude individuals and personal ads expressing interest in dangerous homosexual practices and various sadistic sex fetishes popular in the homosexual male subculture.

When the organizations started issuing alerts to their constituents, the links disappeared almost immediately, Harvey said.

"It's not at all a surprise. GLSEN has a long history of recommending age-inappropriate and frankly promiscuous homosexual activity at young age for kids," she said. "Then they cover it with a civil rights, social justice and safe school veneer."

Harvey's alert said, "This offensive page linked from the Day of Silence website page, also sponsored by GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, which indeed has a lot to hide.

LaBarbera said "nexgay" is "one of many homosexual male 'dating' sites -- which are not like the typical heterosexual dating sites in that they are filled with vulgar and overtly pornographic references to sex acts." The "nexgay" site offered "unrestricted online dating for gay men" and that "unrestricted" apparently means full nudity, he said.

LaBarbera noted that GLSEN promotes homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality in schools across America.

"One of the main ways it does that is through 'Gay-Straight Alliances,' which are de facto pro-homosexual booster clubs and which now exist in thousands of high schools and colleges across the United States."

Now those organizations are being expanded to middle schools, he noted. For example, a San Francisco school district flier on the issue said, "Each year more and more middle school students are coming out: they and their friends need a safe place to share their experiences and ask questions. In all likelihood, there are also students who have parents or family members who are LGBT."

He also noted the situation represents GLSEN's typical efforts in schools and cited previous incidents in which GLSEN was involved, including the Boston "Fistgate" episode in which teens at a sponsored conference were "guided in a 'how-to' discussion -- about the grotesque and dangerous sexual-sadistic practice of 'fisting.'"

LaBarbera also cited the GLSEN conference in 2000 in which organizers handed out guides for homosexual bathhouses, "gay" bars and homosexual phone lines.

The organization also is famous for recommending a reading list of books for high schoolers that "include many with overtly sexual themes including one (Rainbow Boys) featuring a sexual encounter between a 17-year-old boy and 29-year-old man he met on the Internet," according to LaBarbera.

Obama's Office of Safe Schools czar Kevin Jennings also became the subject of widespread controversy when reports detailed how, as a teacher at a Boston school, Jennings allegedly failed to report to authorities when one of his underage male students confessed he had been seduced by a homosexual man.

In was in the middle of 2009 when WND broke the news of Jennings' federal appointment to oversee "safety" in the nation's public schools after he had boasted of using the same theme to promote homosexuality and other alternative sexual lifestyles to students.

WND reported how Jennings founded the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network, on his influence over a conference for teachers and children that included instruction in various homosexual acts such as "fisting," multiple efforts at the congressional level to have him removed, his responsiveness when a porn publisher asked for his help in writing a book, his financial sponsorship of radical homosexual art and his membership in the sometimes-violent radical Act Up homosexual organization.

The sexually graphic books the Jennings-founded GLSEN recommends for children also have been the subject of reports.

Mass Resistance, a Massachusetts organization that works to counteract the advance of homosexual activism, has investigated Jennings' background and activities and has described how GLSEN has played a key role in plans to "transgenderize" schools in Maine.

At the Washington Times, a series of editorials addressed worries over Jennings' influence on children.

"Teaching children sexual techniques is simply not appropriate. Unfortunately, it is part of a consistent pattern by some homosexual activists to promote underage homosexuality while pretending that their mission is simply to promote tolerance for so-called alternative lifestyles," the newspaper said.

"It is outrageous that someone involved in this scandal is being paid by the taxpayers to serve in a high-powered position at the Education Department, of all places. At some point, [Education Secretary Arne] Duncan, Mr. Jennings, Obama administration spokesmen and the president himself are going to have to start answering questions about all this. Refusing to do so won't make the issue go away."

Read more: Facebook kids campaign links to 'full frontal nudity' http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=286657

The Virtuous Life: Chastity

It’s been interesting to watch this series unfold this week. Though I knew it would be controversial, I wasn’t sure what to expect and how much interest there would actually be in the topic.

Men and Porn: An Introduction
Men and Porn: Why Is the Pull of Porn So Strong?

The Possible Pitfalls of Porn

How to Quit Porn



6 Truths about Pornography - Why Sexually Explicit Material will Destroy You


VIDEO: Why Pornography is so Addicting

Illuminati Use Sex to Degrade Us

Porn is Making Men Impotent

Managing the Male Sex Drive

Illuminati Use Porn to Wage War on Society

Porn, Feminism Result in Heterosexual Breakdown

Is Porn Killing Sex in Japan?

Japan is Dying

Relearning Heterosexual Love

Playboy and the (Homo) Sexual Revolution

America's Media-Driven Descent Into Depravity

How to Quit Mindlessly Surfing the Internet and Actually Get Stuff Done

Pornography and Masturbation

3 Man Killers: Money

3 Man Killers: Power

3 Man Killers: Sex

14 Red Flags to Look Out for in a Relationship

Stop Living for the Approval of Women

If You Are Thinking About Suicide, Read This First



Other articles:

  Site Map