Wednesday, November 19, 2008

Finally, some sanity in Chicago

Article Date: Nov 19, 2008

Chicago Scraps Plan for Gay High School

Backers of a proposed high school touted as a haven for gay and bullied youth have pulled their proposal, saying they wanted to spend another year to finalize their plans.
Under mounting pressure from ministers and gay activists alike, Social Justice Solidarity High School planners had already changed the school's name and focus to create a school that would be one of the nation's largest to serve any students who have fallen victim to bullying and harassment.
The plan — pulled Tuesday night, hours before a scheduled Wednesday vote on its creation — also was a less explicitly gay version of a plan first presented to Chicago's board of education in October by schools chief Arne Duncan.
The school's intended start date remains fall 2010, planners said.
"The proposal has changed since the Oct. 8 public hearing, and the design team is taking an additional year to finalize the proposal," the design team said in a statement released Tuesday night by Chicago Public Schools.
Chad Weiden, who would be Solidarity High School's principal, did not immediately return a telephone message from The Associated Press.
"We respect the decision of the design team, and we look forward to them resubmitting their proposal in '09," the district said in a statement.
The original plan was for the Social Justice High School: Pride Campus to open in 2010 and eventually serve 600 students, about half of whom were expected to identify as gay. The newer Solidarity plan had the same timeline and enrollment goals, but a different mission.
The initial mission statement to serve "the underserved population of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Questioning youth and their allies" was replaced by one that offers protections for students regardless of "orientation," but doesn't mention sexuality. Instead, the Solidarity school aimed to address "citywide concerns over violence, bullying and harassment."
Students nationwide say sexual orientation and gender identity are two of the top three reasons behind bullying and harassment. Appearance is No. 1, according to the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network.
A 2007 network survey of more than 6,200 middle and high school students found that 86 percent of gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered students experienced harassment in the past year because of their sexual orientation and 60 percent felt unsafe at school.
In the same survey, 33 percent reported skipping a day of school in the past month because they felt unsafe, compared to 4.5 percent of a national sample of secondary school students.
"Harassment is the rule, not the exception, if you're an LGBT student," said Kevin Jennings, founder of the New York City-based Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network.
Chicago's school board had been slated to vote on the Pride Campus proposal in October, but the vote was delayed as school officials and organizers heard from ministers, gay activists and conservatives opposed to segregating gay students.
"If we're going to have a separate high school, let's put the bullies in the high school, not the (gay) kids," said Rick Garcia, political director for the gay rights group Equality Illinois.
The Rev. Wilfredo De Jesus of New Life Covenant Church on Chicago's West Side said ministers' message to Chicago Public Schools was "don't segregate, tolerate."
"The gay community has fought so long to be inclusive and now you're going to isolate them," De Jesus said. "This is not sending the right message."
Other conservative critics argued that gay teens aren't the only ones being bullied and that taxpayer dollars shouldn't be used to provide a one-sided education on such a controversial topic.

Sunday, November 16, 2008

In the Wake of Cultural Revolution

Interview With Author Marguerite Peeters

By Jesús Colina

ROME, JUNE 18, 2008 ( It might be time for society to move beyond values and head directly to Christ, says the director a think tank on globalization.
Marguerite Peeters, the director of the Brussels-based Institute for Intercultural Dialogue Dynamics, is the author of “The Globalization of the Western Cultural Revolution: Key-Concepts, Operational Mechanisms”

Peeters spoke Friday at the two-day Vatican conference on "Politics, a Demanding Form of Charity," which was organized by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. Her talk was titled "The Political Consequences of the Western Cultural Revolution."

In this interview with ZENIT, Peeters discusses postmodernity in the West and her analysis of the role of Christianity in inspiring a new movement of culture.

Q: At the seminar on politics and charity you spoke about the political consequences of the Western cultural revolution. What do you mean by that?

Peeters: There is a direct nexus between the cultural process which, over the centuries, has led the West to renegade and deconstruct the foundations of its own civilization, and the current democratic deficit, breakdown of the social contract, lack of trust in institutions, disconnect between governments and citizens, general malaise and sense of drifting -- the sense that the “demos,” the people, no longer rule, in other words, that we are no longer living in a democracy.

The 2002 doctrinal note of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on “some questions regarding the participation of Catholics in political life” reminded us that “democracy must be based on the true and solid foundation of non-negotiable ethical principles, which are the underpinning of life in society,” and that democracy “succeeds only to the extent that it is based on a correct understanding of the human person.”

When it is not based on those solid foundations, democracy fails. Even if, formally speaking, the facade of democratic institutions is still standing, democracy is now resting on moving sands, and one is uncertain as to who really governs, and whether societies are in fact still governed and governable.

Q: How did we come to this point?

Peeters: The cultural revolution of the West started with the enlightenment, and dramatically accelerated in the course of the last century. When Nietzsche proclaimed the death of God in 1882, he was aware that nihilism would ensue: He promoted the “will to power” as a remedy to despair. But the utopia of his superman theory has now been revealed. The man who had killed God rushed to kill the father, the mother and the spouse.

The feminist revolution sought to liberate the woman from the “slavery of reproduction” (Margaret Sanger). The sexual revolution replaced the spouse with changing partners.

Freud turned the murder of the father, found in Oedipus’ myth, into a major theme of a Western culture already in the throes of apostasy. From then on, fatherhood was culturally associated with repression. Apostasy and anthropological deconstruction, which started with the rejection of the father, had dramatic political consequences.

Marcuse, the intellectual agent of May '68, who like Freud deemed civilization repressive, spoke of the advent of a non-repressive civilization in which our instinctual drives would become political values. When this eventually happened, when Western culture endorsed the free, unrestricted exercise of the libido, then institutions, the law, order and democracy lost both their authority and their legitimacy.

What is now left is horizontal brotherhood, but brothers without a common father are unable to govern themselves, and dysfunctional societies become anarchical and often prepare the ground for dictatorship: It is easy to grab power in a situation of general social and political disorder.

Q: Can the current situation be described as post-democratic?

Peeters: The Western cultural revolution today ushers into a no man's land called, for lack of a better word, postmodernity.

Postmodernity, as the word suggests, is what comes after modernity: after the nation-state, liberal democracy, democratic representation, consent of the governed, government, authority, hierarchy, clear-cut political identity -- left and right, Marxist and capitalist -- the contract of society and the contract of government, human rights, human dignity, “universal values,” institutional power, the primacy of reason, trust in science and so on.

All of these concepts, which we readily recognize, are deeply in crisis. The cultural revolution did not formally abolish modern institutions and values, but it fundamentally destabilized them and surreptitiously reinterpreted their core content, which has become radically ambivalent and can no longer be taken for granted.

In a postmodern system, the enemy is within. Ambivalence is not sustainable; the situation we are in is unhealthy. Let me also say that since postmodernity surfs on the powerful wave of globalization, the bitter fruits of the Western cultural revolution and its ensuing crisis of democracy have already reached the shores of the non-Western world and threaten to globalize both social deconstruction and loss of theological faith.

Q: Does postmodernity have a political platform, apart from deconstruction?

Peeters: The “freedom to choose” of the individual -- to choose even against the design of the creator -- has by now become the cornerstone of a new global ethic. Deconstruction paradoxically becomes systemic and globally normative. It goes without saying that such a perspective is asocial and incoherent, and contributes to further deconstructing the contract of society that binds people together.

The new political system would be a “flexible” process depending on people’s changing choices: It “celebrates” the “diversity” of our choices, whatever they are. The “right to choose” challenges even the need for people to be governed. The “do-it-yourself” mentality rapidly gains ground. But reality tells us that people and societies do need to be governed.

Q: Must we then go back to modernity and its values?

Peeters: Modern Western democracies rested on a system of “values,” eventually proclaimed “universal” in 1948. The historical fact is that modern values did not prove capable of containing the revolutionary process that eventually led to their destruction.

The reason is, in my analysis, that what appeared to be consonant with the social doctrine of the Church was in fact internally infested by the deism, naturalism, rationalism and individualism of the enlightenment. Insofar as “values” are an artificial and abstract construct, accentuating the divorce between faith and reason and faith and life, their breakdown is a providential opportunity for the new evangelization. It is a sign of the times.

Q: How so?

Peeters: People are tired of abstraction and grand theories. The time has come to disentangle the Christian reason from Masonic rationalism, our theological approach to nature from modern naturalism, our Trinitarian faith from the deism of the past.

The grace of our time may be that we are called to move beyond “values” to concrete, operational charity, to practical faith, hope and love, to the theological life, to God’s Trinitarian design.

The cultural and political challenge we are confronted is about the “death of God” and the death of man, about apostasy and the deconstruction of our Trinitarian anthropological structure. Modern “values” will not bring us back to God and to man. Christ himself will: "Duc in Altum" -- we are called to go out into the deep. It is to the Father that we must go back.

Q: Who holds political power under a postmodern regime?

Peeters: At the end of the Cold War, Western governments lacked moral leadership and failed to provide the vision that was needed for the new era. There was a vacuum. A political revolution then took place.

Those who had a vision -- that is, the May '68 generation then at the rudder of global governance, motivated by minority interests -- filled the void. The universal aspirations of humanity were hijacked, and the residues of the Western cultural revolution became global norms.

Power was transferred to “non-state actors,” and “partnership” with nongovernmental organizations, experts, the “private sector,” minorities and lobbies became a political principle. The revolution has led us into unchartered territory that has granted minorities who “participate” political legitimacy by stealth.

The prevailing fuzziness as to who governs us is all the more dangerous than the deconstruction of conscience that has turned the majority of citizens into zombies that are easy to seduce or manipulate.

Q: What did the political revolution achieve?

Peeters: A series of dramatic shifts in the way policy and decisions are now made. Let me name just a few: from government to governance; from hierarchy to equal partnerships; from representation to participation; from majority vote to consensus-building; from institutional power to people-power; from authority to empowerment; from identity to diversity; from formal to informal; from majority power to the power of minorities; from hard to soft; from content to process; from intergovernmental to multistakeholder; from national sovereignty to global governance, and so on.

Each of the shifts has vast implications, which need to be carefully analyzed. The new paradigms do exercise a critical political influence and have been mainstreamed throughout culture everywhere: Even in the remotest African village we hear about good governance.

Do we now live under a regime of coexistence of two parallel political systems -- one legitimate and formal but moribund, and the other informal but effectively governing the world by stealth? The new concepts are very seducing and often appear close to the social doctrine of the Church, but they have been hijacked.

Q: Is everything black and white in the shifts you listed?

Peeters: To date, the relationship between the old and the new, the modern and the postmodern, hasn't been clarified. But it is clear that the advent of governance, according to its current dominant interpretation, has contributed to further weakening the authority of government; that partnerships have contributed to deconstruct legitimate hierarchies; that diversity as a process tends to destabilize the content of identity; that participation often replaces the notion of democratic representation; that decentralization, tied as it is in practice to the implementation of a global agenda shaped, not by local citizens and the people themselves, but by “global experts,” has hijacked subsidiarity.

Discernment is all the more needed as the consequences of the political revolution are major. A new and global secularist ethic seeks to eliminate reality, truth, the good, love from culture and to impose itself on all by stealth, taking advantage of the weak or moribund state of our democratic institutions.

This global ethic places itself above the Gospel and claims to replace it. The global ethic represents an unprecedented violation of the principle of subsidiarity.

Q: Do you discern any positive element in the cultural and political revolution?

Peeters: What would happen if the new culture were de-hijacked, if it were evangelized? Would it not usher into the civilization of love?

Surely, the Holy Spirit is at work in the postmodern culture. Its main paradigms -- consensus, choice, people-centeredness, participation, broad bottom-up involvement, equality, empowerment, enablement, inclusion, diversity, flexibility, dynamism, complexity, holism, access, partnership, decentralization -- are clearly closer to love and the heart than the paradigms of the age of reason.

Under modernity, rationalism subverted love: We thought we could build a global order with the sole power of our reason and of science.

Are Christians not called to serve humanity by inspiring a new movement giving charity the primacy it deserves and reintroducing in the new culture a common search for what is true, real and good?

In the current political context, which reveals the vanity of our projects of institutions and civilizations, Pope Benedict prophetically emphasizes the primacy of charity and invites us, as again recently in Brindisi, to “hope, not as a utopia, but as tenacious confidence in the power of the good.” He called it a hope that is not temporal, but theological, and “founded on the coming of Christ, that ultimately coincides with his person and his mystery of salvation.” The intrinsic authority of truth, the good, love, hope -- the light of the coming Christ, the “light that darkness could not overpower” (John 1, 5) -- shines, and the darkness of our times cannot overpower it.

© Innovative Media, Inc.

Reprinting ZENIT's articles requires written permission from the editor.

Saturday, November 15, 2008

Why "Same-Sex Marriage" Must Never be Allowed

Case in Point: Massachusetts. The Same-Sex Agenda don't really care about marriage at all. This is just a cover for forcing approval of a lifestyle that can never fulfill on the rest of society, and their 'tolerance' is one that if you so much raise a peep against them, you will be slandered so badly that you're branded irreconcilably as a bigot. And guess what? This is happening in Mass. where "same-sex marriage" is not actually legal, but merely permitted.

And if good Christians don't speak up, it will be much worse than just being marginalized.

What same-sex "marriage" has done to Massachusetts

It's far worse than most people realize

October 20, 2008
by Brian Camenker

Anyone who thinks that same-sex “marriage” is a benign eccentricity which won’t affect the average person should consider what it has done in Massachusetts. It’s become a hammer to force the acceptance and normalization of homosexuality on everyone. And this train is moving fast. What has happened so far is only the beginning.

On November 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court announced its Goodridge opinion, ruling that it was unconstitutional not to allow same-sex “marriage.” Six months later, homosexual marriages began to be performed.

The public schools
The homosexual “marriage” onslaught in public schools across the state started soon after the November 2003, court decision.

* At my own children's high school there was a school-wide assembly to celebrate same-sex “marriage” in early December, 2003. It featured an array of speakers, including teachers at the school who announced that they would be “marrying” their same-sex partners and starting families either through adoption or artificial insemination. Literature on same-sex marriage – how it is now a normal part of society – was handed out to the students.

* Within months it was brought into the middle schools. In September, 2004, an 8th-grade teacher in Brookline, MA, told National Public Radio that the marriage ruling had opened up the floodgates for teaching homosexuality. “In my mind, I know that, `OK, this is legal now.' If somebody wants to challenge me, I'll say, `Give me a break. It's legal now,'” she told NPR. She added that she now discusses gay sex with her students as explicitly as she desires. For example, she said she tells the kids that lesbians can have vaginal intercourse using sex toys.

* By the following year it was in elementary school curricula. Kindergartners were given picture books telling them that same-sex couples are just another kind of family, like their own parents. In 2005, when David Parker of Lexington, MA – a parent of a kindergartner – strongly insisted on being notified when teachers were discussing homosexuality or transgenderism with his son, the school had him arrested and put in jail overnight.
* Second graders at the same school were read a book, “King and King”, about two men who have a romance and marry each other, with a picture of them kissing. When parents Rob and Robin Wirthlin complained, they were told that the school had no obligation to notify them or allow them to opt-out their child.

* In 2006 the Parkers and Wirthlins filed a federal Civil Rights lawsuit to force the schools to notify parents and allow them to opt-out their elementary-school children when homosexual-related subjects were taught. The federal judges dismissed the case. The judges ruled that because same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, the school actually had a duty to normalize homosexual relationships to children, and that schools have no obligation to notify parents or let them opt-out their children! Acceptance of homosexuality had become a matter of good citizenship!

* Think about that: Because same-sex marriage is “legal”, a federal judge has ruled that the schools now have a duty to portray homosexual relationships as normal to children, despite what parents think or believe!
* In 2006, in the elementary school where my daughter went to Kindergarten, the parents of a third-grader were forced to take their child out of school because a man undergoing a sex-change operation and cross-dressing was being brought into class to teach the children that there are now “different kinds of families.” School officials told the mother that her complaints to the principal were considered “inappropriate behavior.”

* Libraries have also radically changed. School libraries across the state, from elementary school to high school, now have shelves of books to normalize homosexual behavior and the lifestyle in the minds of kids, some of them quite explicit and even pornographic. Parents complaints are ignored or met with hostility.
* Over the past year, homosexual groups have been using taxpayer money to distribute a large, slick hardcover book celebrating homosexual marriage titled “Courting Equality” into every school library in the state.

* It’s become commonplace in Massachusetts schools for teachers to prominently display photos of their same-sex “spouses” and occasionally bring them to school functions. Both high schools in my own town now have principals who are “married” to their same-sex partners, whom they bring to school and introduce to the students.

* “Gay days” in schools are considered necessary to fight “intolerance” which may exist against same-sex relationships. Hundreds of high schools and even middle schools across the state now hold “gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender appreciation days”. They “celebrate” homosexual marriage and move forward to other behaviors such as cross-dressing and transsexuality. In my own town, a school committee member recently announced that combating “homophobia” is now a top priority.
* Once homosexuality has been normalized, all boundaries will come down. The schools are already moving on to normalizing transgenderism (including cross-dressing and sex changes). The state-funded Commission on Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Youth includes leaders who are transsexuals.

Public health

* The Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Public Health is “married” to another man. In 2007 he told a crowd of kids at a state-sponsored youth event that it’s “wonderful being gay” and he wants to make sure there’s enough HIV testing available for all of them.
* Since homosexual marriage became “legal” the rates of HIV / AIDS have gone up considerably in Massachusetts. This year public funding to deal with HIV/AIDS has risen by $500,000.
* Citing “the right to marry” as one of the “important challenges” in a place where “it’s a great time to be gay”, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health helped produce The Little Black Book, Queer in the 21st Century , a hideous work of obscene pornography which was given to kids at Brookline High School on April 30, 2005. Among other things, it gives “tips” to boys on how to perform oral sex on other males, masturbate other males, and how to “safely” have someone urinate on you for sexual pleasure. It also included a directory of bars in Boston where young men meet for anonymous sex.

Domestic violence

* Given the extreme dysfunctional nature of homosexual relationships, the Massachusetts Legislature has felt the need to spend more money every year to deal with skyrocketing homosexual domestic violence. This year $350,000 was budgeted, up $100,000 from last year.


* All insurance in Massachusetts must now recognize same-sex “married” couples in their coverage. This includes auto insurance, health insurance, life insurance, etc.
* Businesses must recognize same-sex “married” couples in all their benefits, activities, etc., regarding both employees and customers.

* The wedding industry is required serve the homosexual community if requested. Wedding photographers, halls, caterers, etc., must do same-sex marriages or be arrested for discrimination.

* Businesses are often “tested” for tolerance by homosexual activists. Groups of homosexual activists often go into restaurants or bars and publicly kiss and fondle each other to test whether the establishment demonstrates sufficient “equality” ­ now that homosexual marriage is “legal”. In fact, more and more overt displays of homosexual affection are seen in public places across the state to reinforce "marriage equality".

Legal profession

* The Massachusetts Bar Exam now tests lawyers on their knowledge of same-sex "marriage" issues. In 2007, a Boston man, Stephen Dunne, failed the Massachusetts bar exam because he refused to answer the questions in it about homosexual marriage.
* Issues regarding homosexual “families” are now firmly entrenched in the Massachusetts legal system. In many firms, lawyers in Massachusetts practicing family law must now attend seminars on homosexual "marriage". There are also now several homosexual judges overseeing the Massachusetts family courts.

Adoption of children to homosexual “married” couples

* Homosexual “married” couples can now demand to be able to adopt children the same as normal couples. Catholic Charities decided to abandon handling adoptions rather submit to regulations requiring them to allow homosexuals to adopt the children in their care.

* In 2006 the Massachusetts Department of Social Services (DSS) honored two men “married” to each other as their “Parents of the Year”. The men already adopted a baby through DSS (against the wishes of the baby’s birth parents). According to news reports, the day after that adoption was final DSS approached the men about adopting a second child. Homosexuals now appear to be put in line for adopting children ahead of heterosexual parents by state agencies in Massachusetts.

Government mandates

* In 2004, Governor Mitt Romney ordered Justices of the Peace to perform homosexual marriages when requested or be fired. At least one Justice of the Peace decided to resign.
* Also thanks to Gov. Romney, marriage licenses in Massachusetts now have “Party A and Party B” instead of “husband and wife.” Romney did not have a legal requirement to do this; he did it on his own. (See more on this below.)
* Since homosexual relationships are now officially “normal”, the Legislature now gives enormous tax money to homosexual activist groups. In particular, the Massachusetts Commission on Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender Youth is made up of the most radical and militant homosexual groups which target children in the schools. This year they are getting $700,000 of taxpayer money to go into the public schools.

* In 2008 Massachusetts changed the state Medicare laws to include homosexual “married” couples in the coverage.

The public square

* Since gay “marriage”, annual gay pride parades have become more prominent. There are more politicians and corporations participating, and even police organizations take part. And the envelope gets pushed further and further. There is now a profane “Dyke March” through downtown Boston, and recently a “transgender” parade in Northampton that included bare-chested women who have had their breasts surgically removed so they could “become” men. Governor Patrick even marched with his “out lesbian” 17-year old daughter in the 2008 Boston Pride event, right behind a “leather” group brandishing a black & blue flag, whips and chains!

The media

* Boston media, particularly the Boston Globe newspaper, regularly does feature stories and news stories portraying homosexual “married” couples where regular married couples would normally be used. It’s “equal”, they insist, so there must be no difference in the coverage. Also, the newspaper advice columns now deal with homosexual "marriage" issues, and how to properly accept it.

* A growing number of news reporters and TV anchors are openly “married” homosexuals who march in the “gay pride” parades.

Is gay marriage actually legal in Massachusetts?
Like everywhere else in America, the imposition of same-sex marriage on the people of Massachusetts was a combination of radical, arrogant judges and pitifully cowardly politicians.

The Goodridge ruling resulted in a complete cave-in by politicians of both parties on this issue. Same-sex “marriage” is still illegal in Massachusetts. On November 18, 2003 the court merely ruled that it was unconstitutional not to allow it, and gave the Legislature six months to “take such action as it may deem appropriate.” Note that the Massachusetts Constitution strongly denies courts the power to make or change laws, or from ordering the other branches to take any action. The constitution effectively bans “judicial review” – a court changing or nullifying a law. Thus, the court did not order anything to happen; it simply rendered an opinion on that specific case. And the Legislature did nothing. The marriage statutes were never changed. However, against the advice of many, Gov. Romney took it upon himself to alter the state's marriage licenses to say "Party A and Party B" and order officials to perform same-sex "weddings" if asked, though he had no legal obligation to do so. Technically, same-sex marriages are still illegal in Massachusetts.

Nevertheless, we are having to live with it. And furthermore, this abdication of their proper constitutional roles by the Legislature and Governor has caused a domino effect as "copycat" rulings have been issued in California and Connecticut, with other states fearful it will happen there.

In conclusion
Homosexual “marriage” hangs over society like a hammer with the force of law. And it’s only just begun.

It’s pretty clear that the homosexual movement’s obsession with marriage is not because large numbers of them actually want to marry each other. Research shows that homosexual relationships are fundamentally dysfunctional on many levels, and “marriage” as we know it isn’t something they can achieve, or even desire. (In fact, over the last three months, the Sunday Boston Globe’s marriage section hasn’t had any photos of homosexual marriages. In the beginning it was full of them.) This is about putting the legal stamp of approval on homosexuality and imposing it with force throughout the various social and political institutions of a society that would never accept it otherwise.

To the rest of America: You've been forewarned.

Friday, November 14, 2008

An Analogy for Obama's Tax Plan

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing
The fifth would pay $1
The sixth would pay $3
The seventh would pay $7
The eighth would pay $12
The ninth would pay $18
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.

But what about the other six men--the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings)
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings)
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings)
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings)
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings)
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings)

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He
pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.

For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

Thursday, November 13, 2008

Ramping up the Child-Killing and AIDS Spreading Machine

This article just makes me angry. There is no mention of the success rate that Uganda has had in severely reducing AIDS in Africa. Obama clearly wants to expand child-killing in this nation, and now he wants to force abortion on other nations. The policy basically is: if you don't let us in and force abortion on you, we won't give you medicine. People need to wake up to the madness that this man is promoting. It's not good for Americans, and its not good for the world

Condoms Trump Abstinence in Obama Global AIDS Policy

By Jason Gale and John Lauerman
Enlarge Image/Details

Nov. 10 (Bloomberg) -- President-elect Barack Obama will reverse U.S. family-planning and AIDS-prevention strategies that have long linked global funding to anti-abortion and abstinence education, a public-health adviser said.

Public-health policies of President George W. Bush's $45- billion PEPFAR program have brought AIDS drugs to almost 3 million people in poor countries such as Rwanda and Uganda, more than under any other president. Still, requirements that health workers emphasize abstinence from sex and monogamy over condom use have set back sexually transmitted disease prevention and family planning globally, said Susan F. Wood, co-chairman of Obama's advisory committee for women's health.

``We have been going in the wrong direction and we need to turn it around and be promoting prevention and family-planning services and strengthening public health,'' said Wood, a research professor at George Washington University School of Public Health in Washington.

Bush on his first day in office, in January 2001, reinstated the so-called Mexico City Policy -- known to critics as the global gag rule. It bars U.S. family-planning assistance for organizations that use funding from any other source to provide counseling and referral for abortion, lobby to make abortion legal or more available in their country, or perform abortions except in cases of a threat to the woman's life, rape or incest.

Obama ``is committed to looking at all this and changing the policies so that family-planning services -- both in the U.S. and the developing world -- reflect what works, what helps prevent unintended pregnancy, reduce maternal and infant mortality, prevent the spread of disease,'' Wood said.

Gag Rule

Wood resigned as the top U.S. regulator for women's health in 2005 in protest of the Food and Drug Administration's delay in clearing over-the-counter sales of the ``morning after'' emergency contraceptive. Sale of the pill, called Plan B, without a prescription was held up for more than two years, after FDA staff recommended its approval in 2003.

Critics of the FDA have named Wood as among candidates they would like Obama to consider for the agency's next commissioner.

``A lot of the family-planning associations in Africa refused the terms of the gag rule and they lost funding, they lost technical assistance and they lost contraceptives,'' said Wendy Turnbull, a senior policy research analyst with Population Action International in Washington.

On the basis of that policy, Bush halted support for the United Nations Population Fund in 2002, saying it supported ``coercive'' abortion programs in China -- an allegation the New York-based agency has denied. The directive cost the fund more than $200 million in lost funding, said William Ryan, a Bangkok- based spokesman for the agency.

Condom Use

Restrictions on education about condom use have hamstrung effective promotion, and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has had some condom information pulled from its Web Site, said Gill Greer, director general of the International Planned Pregnancy Federation in London.

``The U.S. administration has certainly succeeded in demonizing condoms rather than showing that they can be part of prevention of both unplanned pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections,'' she said in a telephone interview. ``I've always joked that the whole world should vote in the U.S. election because the whole world is so affected.''

Under President Bush, the U.S. has provided more money to fight AIDS than during any other administration. Seven years ago, before the Bush program began with about $15 billion, only about 200,000 people in poor nations got treatment, and few of them were in Africa.

Abstinence Success

The emphasis on abstinence and fidelity ``has been shown to have demonstrable success in Africa,'' said Valerie Huber, executive director of the National Abstinence Education Association in Washington. ``It would be more than unfortunate if that policy was changed.''

Both Republicans and Democrats have indicated support for the focus on abstinence and education that goes along with PEPFAR, which has also been shown to reduce the spread of HIV in countries such as Uganda, Huber said.

``If the president-elect wants to be science-based in foreign sex-education policies, it would be wisest to continue this way because it's shown to be effective,'' she said.

Calls to the office of Mark Dybul, coordinator for the Bush AIDS treatment program, weren't returned.

Prevention Quest

The decision to focus on abstinence was ``naïve and dangerous,'' and neglected prevention techniques with the most science behind them, said Mitchell Warren, executive director of the New York-based AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition.

``Everyone pretty much expects we'll see a return to a true science-based response to HIV under Obama,'' he said in a telephone interview. ``We've seen eight years of a focus on things we know don't work.''

Without a vaccine, AIDS advocates are looking for ways to slow the spread of the HIV virus that currently infects about 33 million people worldwide. Treatment, even with cheaper versions of HIV drugs, is beyond the means of many patients in Africa, where about 24 million infected people live.

The U.S. has played an important role in bringing life- saving treatment to HIV patients who had been unable to get it, said Adel Mahmoud, a former head of Merck & Co. vaccines and professor in the department of molecular biology at Princeton University.

``But when the data says for every person we put on anti- retroviral therapy in Africa there are six new infections and we are doing nothing about it, it's absolutely mind-boggling,'' he said in a telephone interview. ``Prevention is really the solution.''

U.S. Influence

Wood said that, in recent years, the U.S. government has influenced and ``tightly vetted'' international organizations to reflect its own policies.

Obama will bring ``back a sense of balance and perspective and the use of good science and good medicine in these positions, and not just this narrow, political ideology,'' she said.

To contact the reporter on this story: John Lauerman in Boston at; Jason Gale in Singapore at

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

The Indoctrination of a Generation

“Caution little eyes what you see;
Caution little ears what you hear.”

Every once and a while when I go and visit my brother, my sister-in-law sings the above refrain to her kids. As she explains it, whenever she would sing to my nephews and nieces, she was reminding them that they need to be careful of what they watch and listen to. Although they may not understand it when they are young, but what they are exposed to now will effect them as they grow up.

One of the main ways that our youth are affected by the so-called “sexual revolution” (which is more revolting than a revolution) is through the media. A report was released this past week revealing how there is a connection between sexually explicit shows and teen pregnancy. My first reaction to this study was “duh!” Although it has been claimed for years that the connection between movies and sexual deviancy was weak (this is usually claimed by those involved in the peddling of toxic waste), it doesn’t take a genius to realize that when a person is continually exposed to sexually-explicit materials, it’s going to change the way the world is viewed.

To use an analogy, when you want to make some brownies, it’s important that you make them with the best possible ingredients. This means the best eggs, milk, flour, and of course, chocolate brownie mix. And if this is all baked well, then you may be all set for the dentist next week.

Now, let’s imagine if you had mixed all the best possible ingredients together and then proceeded to slip in just a little bit of dog dropping. After it is cooked just right, those brownies may look like they are good for you, but they are going to taste more than a little funny.

Thus when I see various celebrities using their status to promote “lifestyles” that are contrary to the Truth, I suddenly get a bad taste in my mouth.

Take: Lindsay Lohan for example. She recently publically declared her “love” for her girlfriend. I know that she is certainly not the greatest role model, but unfortunately, many young people have no clue that the life she is living will lead not to happiness, but to more misery.

Unfortunately, the media does a spectacular job of painting a rosy picture of same-sex relationships, attempting to cover over the reality that many of those in this lifestyle are truly not happy, but often are wrapped up into drugs, alcohol, and depression. And this isn’t because society doesn’t accept them; it’s because when we misuse our sexuality, we’re going to feel it.

Although the causes of same-sex attraction, there is no doubt that those involved in these types of relationships, knowingly or unknowingly, suffer from an identity crisis. When Ms. Lohan was asked if she thought of herself as a lesbian, she is quoted in the December Issue of Harper’s Bazaar as saying,

"I don't want to classify myself…First of all, you never know what's going to happen -- tomorrow, in a month, a year from now, five years from now. I appreciate people, and it doesn't matter who they are, and I feel blessed to be able to feel comfortable enough with myself that I can say that."
Anyone who knows anything about her previous partying exploits knows that this is girl who has been in tremendous pain and doesn’t have a clue about who she really is. And by entering into a lifestyle that is ultimately demeaning, she will continue to be as lost as ever.
For you see, our sexuality speaks the language of being a total self-gift. If we don’t live our lives in this manner, we are going to be lost. No matter how we try to define our sexuality, if its not the truth, we won’t be satisfied.

Now, I wouldn’t be so concerned if Ms. Lohan wasn’t in the public eye. Yet the homosexual agenda is radically aggressive and they are getting plenty of help from Hollywood. Even your local school may be getting paid a visit from this ideology that is not going to stop until it is accepted as normal (Check out for more info).

This is why it is vitally important that parents are involved in every aspect of what their kids are into. Pay attention to the magazines they are reading, what programs and movies they are watching, and where they are going on the net. And this is especially crucial when they are young.

For remember, just like the food you as a father or mother gives to your kids now will determine how healthy they will be in the future, the kind of education about sexuality that they receive now will affect whether they will be able to love in the right way.

Originally posted at

Sunday, November 09, 2008

Why FOCA must be stopped

I really do hope that the gentleman writing below is dead wrong, but the logic is dead on, given that we are facing a child-killing juggernaut with no restrictions over possibly the next 8 years of an Obama presidency. Especially if the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) is passed, abortion will become unrestricted, millions of children will die, millions of women and men will be incredibly wounded by their poor decision to participate in an abortion, and all of us will begin to feel the economic crunch of not having enough workers to replace the current population. Just ask Europeans, who have been committing demographic suicide.

Pro-life death?
Dr. Paul Kengor - Guest Columnist - 11/6/2008 11:00:00 AMBookmark and Share

Paul KengorThe victory for Barack Obama and the Democratic Party on Tuesday is the death of the pro-life movement as we know it. The pro-life movement has sought to reverse abortion through legislative action and the courts, and made tremendous gains throughout eight years of George W. Bush, just enough to place the nation at a turning point. Unfortunately, it failed to turn the corner, to the close deal, on November 4, 2008, in large part because of the remarkable unpopularity of President Bush. This terrifically pro-life president will now see his pro-life legacy vanish very quickly.

The nation now faces the once unthinkable approval of the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), which Barack Obama says will be the “first thing” he signs as president. FOCA will nationalize abortion, superseding and overturning abortion restrictions in every state. In the words of NARAL Pro-Choice America, the act would “codify Roe v. Wade into law and guarantee a woman’s right to choose in all 50 states.” Or, as the National Organization for Women excitedly proclaims, FOCA would “sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws [and] policies.” In one stroke, this bill, introduced in Congress in April 2007—and co-sponsored by Obama—will wipe out all the fully bipartisan abortion restrictions passed by Democratic and Republican legislatures over the past 35 years.

Obama made that promise in a July 17, 2007 speech to Planned Parenthood, a group that he calls a “safety-net provider.” As Obama made clear in that speech, he views abortion-delivery services as basic government services—services in support of a woman’s “fundamental right” to an abortion. With the huge majority he will enjoy from an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress, President Obama will get what he wants.

Obama’s defenders tried to explain away his votes in Illinois rejecting medical care for newborns who survive abortions. With FOCA, that shouldn’t matter, since it eliminates state restrictions regardless.

President Obama will also likely secure taxpayer funding of abortion, government-provided abortion for women in the military, American money to international abortion groups like the UNFPA, federal funding of embryonic research, repeal of the Hyde Amendment, and much more.

In essence, we’re looking at the strong possibility of unrestricted, taxpayer-funded abortion through the entirety of a mother’s pregnancy. There will be no Republican legislative body that can check this. Such change promised by Obama is unprecedented in presidential history.

All of that will happen before President Obama even begins appointing pro-choice judges. If I may hazard a prediction, I believe Obama will have not only four years to mold the courts but eight years. He’s the first Democrat since LBJ to win over 50 percent of the vote. Not even Bill Clinton did that. Add in the fact that an astoundingly sympathetic media will protect him, that the economy will fully recover by 2012, that Iraq will not be a liability for him, and you have a two-term presidency in the making.

And yet, November 4 was devastating for the pro-life movement beyond the election of Barack Obama. As a brief summary of what happened around the country that day, here’s a cut-and-paste of the headlines distributed the morning after by the pro-life source

  • Obama Captures Win Over John McCain, Expected to Promote Abortions
  • Washington Becomes Second State to Legalize Assisted Suicide in Vote
  • Michigan Voters Approve Proposition 2 to Destroy Human Embryos
  • California Very Narrowly Opposes Third Try for Parental Notification
  • South Dakota Voters Defeat Second Ballot Measure to Ban Abortions
  • Colorado Voters Soundly Defeat Personhood Ballot Measure on Abortion

That says it all. The pro-life movement was battered on Tuesday. The “Culture of Life” was bludgeoned.

This means that the pro-life movement will need to rely not on changing laws—though pro-lifers should still try to do that when they can—but on changing hearts and minds. The strategy has always been to do both, but, now, the latter will need to be the dominant priority.

Tragically, many scared young girls, who otherwise might be stopped from choosing an abortion through parental consent, waiting periods, or any number of additional guidelines, will not face the checks to prompt them to pause for second thought. There are thousands if not millions of post-abortive women in their 40s and 50s who will tell you that they wish to God that there had been some type of restriction that would have given them pause. Without those checks, they chose as they did, and many suffer greatly to this day. There seems little doubt that the abortion rate should rise steadily — after declining consistently in recent years.

This is so utterly dispiriting that many pro-lifers feel helpless. Many may toss in the towel: If this is what America wants, so be it....

But for those still willing to try to help young mothers and their unborn babies, the thrust must now focus on counseling, evangelization, education, on establishing crisis pregnancy centers, on making ultrasound technology more widely available, and generally on one-on-one efforts to convince pregnant girls that they have options.

With the results of November 4, there will likely be another 35 years of Roe v. Wade — plus much, much more. Pro-lifers need to regroup and think hard about how to try to ensure that the next 35 years of legalized abortion in America will not produce another 50 million aborted babies.

Paul Kengor is professor of political science and executive director of the Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. He is author of "The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism" (HarperPerennial, 2007), and "The Judge: William P. Clark, Ronald Reagan's Top Hand" (Ignatius Press, 2007). This column is printed with permission.

Opinions expressed in 'Perspectives' columns published by are the sole responsibility of the article's author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of the staff or management of, or advertisers who support the American Family News Network,, our parent organization or its other affiliates.

Saturday, November 08, 2008

The Disappearing Male

While I've been saying this for a while, it looks like the mainstream media is starting to get closer to the truth: that the amount of contraceptive chemicals that we pour into our water supply is going to have a very deleterious affect on all of us. You see, when women use contraceptive pills, some of them get flushed down the drain. That gets poured into our sewer systems, and although there is an attempt to get it out of our water system, it is the one chemical that those who work at water treatment plants aren't able to remove. Like the fish in the water who are becoming asexual, these chemicals are affecting us, especially men. This is exactly what this article is pointing toward, although I don't think they actually looked at everything that is in the water supply.

This gives credence to one of the theories that I have: The high surge in the same-sex attraction disorder has been because we are literally turning women into men through the chemicals in the environment. And if there aren't men, then the human race is not going to flourish.

But you won't hear this from any "environmentalists," because their agenda is to reduce the world's population to the point of extinction. And that's "sad," because there will be less people to approve of their ideology.

The disappearing male
Studies show rise in birth defects, infertility among men
Sonja Puzic, Windsor Star
Published: Thursday, November 06, 2008

Are males becoming an endangered species?

That's the question scientists and researchers have been pondering since alarming trends in male fertility rates, birth defects and disorders began emerging around the world.

More and more boys are being born with genital defects and are suffering from learning disabilities, autism and Tourette's syndrome, among other disorders.

Male infertility rates are on the rise and the quality of an average man's sperm is declining, according to some studies.

But perhaps the most disconcerting of all trends is the growing gender imbalance in many parts of heavily industrialized nations, where the births of baby boys have been declining for many years.

What many scientists are calling the most important -- and least publicized -- issue surrounding the future of the human race will be highlighted in a CBC documentary that features two Windsor researchers who've studied the phenomenon.

Titled The Disappearing Male and premiering tonight at 9 on CBC-TV, the documentary includes interviews with Jim Brophy and Margaret Keith, adjunct sociology professors at the University of Windsor.

They have been studying the decline in the birth of male children in the Aamjiwnaang First Nation community located next to the infamous Chemical Valley, Canada's largest concentration of petrochemical plants, near Sarnia.

A paper co-authored by Keith and published three years ago in the U.S. journal Environmental Health Perspectives suggests that exposure to various chemicals produced by industrial plants surrounding the Aamjiwnaang reserve land may be skewing the community's sex ratio.

The researchers looked at the community's birth records since 1984 and saw "a dramatic drop in the number of boys being born in the last 10 years, particularly in the five-year period between 1998 and 2003," Brophy said.

Of 132 Aamjiwnaang babies born between 1999 and 2003, only 46 were boys. Typically, about 105 boys are born for every 100 girls in Canada.

High miscarriage rates and a unusually high number of children suffering from asthma were also noted by researchers.

Although the link between pollutants and human reproduction has not been firmly established, there is growing evidence that the birth sex ratio can be altered by exposure to certain chemicals, such as dioxin, PCBs and pesticides. Brophy said studies done in the United States, Japan and Europe seem to support the theory that the so-called endocrine disrupting chemicals have a particular effect on males.

Some of these chemicals are found in commonly used products such as baby bottles and cosmetics. They can also cause miscarriages and a "whole host" of disorders in a male child, Brophy said.

Brophy said soil and water contamination in and around the Aamjiwnaang reserve had been documented before, including in a University of Windsor study that found high levels of PCBs, lead, mercury and various chemicals in the area in the late 1990s. Accidental chemical spills in the area have not been uncommon.
But it wasn't until the Aamjiwnaang birth ratio study was published that the global science community really took notice.

"It triggered ... calls from scientists and researchers from around the world who had been looking at this issue in Europe and the United States," Brophy said. "Aamjiwnaang became almost the poster child."

While Brophy has not seen The Disappearing Male documentary yet, he believes the story of the Aamjiwnaang community will be "the focal point."

He said the documentary also includes interviews with "some of the foremost experts in the world" on environmental effects on reproductive health.

Brophy and Keith have also studied other occupational and environmental exposures to pollutants, including the link between breast cancer and certain types of jobs in the Windsor-Essex region.

© The Windsor Star 2008