(A4a1) censorship, propaganda and anti life indoctrination

Indoctrination ranges from the silly and inconseqeuntial to the absurd, dangerous and potentially fatal and beyond. Both the media and educational institutions have become vehicles of propaganda. Indoctrination is world wide and takes place at the international, national and local levels. The United Nations promotes "population control". China promotes the one child family. Planned Parenthood attempts to influence every nation, every community as well as educational and religious institutions. ******* The people who promote death as a solution to problems appear to have taken the advice of Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's Minister of Propaganda. He said �The effective propagandist must be a master of the art of speech, of writing, of journalism, of the poster and of the leaflet. He must have the gift to use the major methods of influencing public opinion such as the press, film and radio to serve his ideas and goals, above all in an age of advancing technology.� (Source: http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb59.htm) ******* The 2nd article which follows exposes the misrepresentation of pro lifers as violent people and the anti life people as peaceful. The 3rd article, excerpted from a speech by Dr. James Dobson, relates how educational and related structures and organizations are being used to indoctrinate, seduce and corrupt students. The problem is world wide as the 4th of the following articles shows. The links for elementary, secondary and post secondary education at the end of this web page shed some light on the problems and how they are being addressed. ******************************************************************************************************************** ******* As of this date, 07-01-10, this folder contains 13 items. ******* item 1 TEXTBOOK CENSORSHIP ******* item 2 ABORTION ADVOCATES: THE REAL PERPETRATORS OF VIOLENCE ******* item 3 BRINGING UP BOYS by Dr. James Dobson ******* item 4 CHILD SEX BOOK GIVEN OUT AT U.N. SUMMIT ******* item 5 SELLING HOMOSEXUALITY TO AMERICA ******* item 6 "WHEN I GROW UP I CAN MARRY A BOY OR A GIRL!" (SAME SEX "MARRIAGE" AND THE EDUCATION OF CHILDREN) ******* item 7 THE FRAUD OF MULTICULTURALISM ******* item 8 ONLY IN CANADA! BLATANT ANTI-CHRISTIAN BIGOTRY IN B.C EDUCATION SYSTEM ******* item 9 THE CULTURE WAR COMES TO HOLLAND ******* item 10 DECIPHERING 'GAY' WORD-SPEAK AND LANGUAGE OF CONFUSION ******* item 11 PROMOTING HOMOSEXUALITY IN SCHOOLS IS WRONG ******* item 12 THE CORPORATE CURTAIN ******* item 13 PROMOTION OF WITCHCRAFT ******************************************************************************************************************** ******* item 1 TEXTBOOK CENSORSHIP ******* From: "Bill Wagner" ******* Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 09:04:20 -0600 ******* Study reveals textbook self-censorship ******* by Adrian Humphreys, National Post ******* Monday, May 05, 2003 ******* The classic children's story The Little Engine That Could has been banned in some U.S. jurisdictions because the train is male and The Friendly Dolphin rejected because it discriminates against students not living near the sea, according to a major study on education policy. ******* The study found officials who approve classroom materials want references to dinosaurs removed, because they prompt questions about evolution, and owls stricken as they are taboo for Navajo Indians. ******* Ketchup and french fries, bacon and eggs and ice cream and cake are also on the outs because of concerns over healthy eating habits. ******* Even birthday parties have been forbidden because they could upset children who do not get invited to them, says Dr. Diane Ravitch, author of The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn. ******* Dr. Ravitch studied education policy in the United States for three years, tracking policies of state authorities and local school boards, test-writing companies, review committee decisions, as well as in-house correspondence and style guides of publishing houses -- much of which was deemed secret and came to light only through court action. ******* She documents "an elaborate, well-established protocol of beneficent censorship, quietly endorsed and broadly implemented by textbook publishers, testing agencies, states, and the federal government." ******* "Educational materials are now governed by an intricate set of rules to screen out language and topics that might be considered controversial or offensive," she writes. "Some of this censorship is trivia, some is ludicrous, and some is breathtaking in its power to dumb down what children learn in school." ******* Censorship has become so entrenched that reworked titles are making their way into Canadian classrooms, Dr. Ravitch said yesterday. ******* "You will be encountering this if you are using the textbooks developed by any of the major publishers, and yes, Canada would be largely using the same books. The trend is spreading," she said. ******* Publishers are so fearful of their titles being blacklisted by major education authorities they voluntarily remove anything that could conceivably cause offence -- making classrooms an "empire of boredom" for young readers, who are forced to read nothing but "pap," Dr. Ravitch said. ******* Changes made to books and test questions, as documented by Dr. Ravitch, include:- Women are not portrayed as caregivers or as doing housework and men cannot be professionals such as lawyers, doctors or plumbers; ******* - Elderly people must be active and not feeble; ******* - Regional bias is to be stricken -- for instance a story of a mountain climber would discriminate against students who live in flat areas; ******* - Girls cannot be depicted as watching sports, they must be playing them; ******* - Children cannot be portrayed as questioning authority or being in conflict with adults; ******* - Characters must not be orphans, ghosts or animals with negative or dirty associations, such as mice, bugs or scorpions; ******* - Ethnic stereotypes must not be propagated, so people with Irish roots cannot be police officers and a black person cannot be an accomplished athlete. ******* In an interview, Dr. Ravitch -- a professor at New York University, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a former education advisor for both Republican and Democrat presidents -- said the result is harmful to children. ******* "It bores the tears out of them and makes them cynical," she said. "The things around them are far more interesting than what they are finding in the classroom. The books can't portray what the children see before them with their own eyes so they dislike reading. "The first requirement of good writing and good history is accuracy," she said. ******* "The bias and sensitivity reviewers work with assumptions that have the inevitable effect of stripping away everything that is potentially thought-provoking and colorful from the texts that children encounter." ******* The pressure on officials and publishers come from both the left and right of the political spectrum, Dr. Ravitch said. ******* The revision of materials started as a way of rooting out truly offensive material. Then politics entered the fray in earnest: While the left was ripping out material considered insensitive to multiculturalism or gender equality, the right was stripping out material deemed anti-family or pro-sex, she said. ******* The solution, she said, is to remove state and school board control of approved reading lists and trust teachers to select material appropriate for their specific classes. ******* Last month, an elementary workbook was removed from primary schools because it said Inuit people collect welfare and lack the skills to hold permanent jobs and that their traditional way of life was "no longer the right way to live." ******* Parent of pupils at an Iqaluit school complained about the references in Let's Visit Nunavut, a workbook produced by S&S Learning Materials, based in Napanee, Ont. ******* [email protected] ******* � Copyright 2003 National Post ******************************************************************************************************************** ******* item 2 ABORTION ADVOCATES: THE REAL PERPETRATORS OF VIOLENCE ******* Source: Pro-Life Infonet; April 21, 2002 ******* by Rep. John Hostettler ******* [Pro-Life Infonet Note: Congressman John Hostettler represents southwestern Indiana as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives. He is a frequent leader and advocate of pro-life legislation in Washington.] ******* Maybe the writers for the NBC drama "Law and Order" just ran out of plot ideas. Instead of a fresh new storyline, their Jan. 6 episode recycled a tired and reliable media theme: a "pro-lifer" stalking and killing an abortion practitioner. ******* The abortionist, predictably, was portrayed as a family man, caring and gentle with the women who visited his clinic. The pro-lifer was portrayed as a cold and calculated fanatic who prayed with his family before assassinating the kindly abortionist. ******* This theme has taken many forms on the networks, cable, Hollywood and even news programs. Movies like the "Cider House Rules" depict abortionists as saintly heroes, while television programs like "The West Wing," "Felicity," "The Practice," "Gideon's Crossing," "Party of Five," and others show pro-lifers as intolerant and violent. ******* The roles are almost never reversed. Pro-lifers are rarely portrayed as caring people with a legitimate concern about the destruction of pre-born babies. Abortionists are not shown to have any shortcomings, much less possess the capability of harming another human being. But is this an accurate representation of reality? ******* A brief glance at the facts shows it is not. In fact, these portrayals are at odds with what has taken place since the Supreme Court invented a right to take life in the womb 29 years ago. Since 1973, abortion providers and radical abortion supporters have committed more murders and other felonies than can be accurately tallied (not including the tens of millions of murdered babies). The examples are plentiful. ******* On Valentines Day last year, Oklahoma City abortionist John Baxter Hamilton strangled his wife, beat her and slammed her face repeatedly onto a marble floor, killing her. Hardly the actions of someone who is "pro-woman." Dr. Hamilton was convicted and sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole. ******* Another abortionist, Dr. Brian Finkel, owner of the Metro Phoenix Women's Clinic, was indicted in January on charges of molesting 26 patients. That comes on top of 17 counts of sexual abuse and sexual assault brought against Finkel last year. Altogether, more than 100 women, including four former employees, have alleged sexual misconduct by Finkel. ******* In 1999, Pasadena abortionist Kevin Paul Anderson strangled his business partner, Dr. Deepti Gupta, a mother of two young children who was expecting her third, the product of their extramarital affair. After strangling her, Anderson put Gupti's body in her car, poured gasoline on her and pushed the car off a 450-foot cliff. He was convicted of second-degree murder. ******* In a case that parallels the recent "Law and Order" episode - except the roles were reversed - Alabama pro-abortion activist Eileen Orstein Janezic murdered pro-life minister and radio talk show host Jerry Simon. After shooting Simon through a window of his home, she held police at bay with a pistol for six hours while quoting from the "Satanic Bible." ******* Many abortionists have also been convicted of murdering or maiming their patients. In January, jurors awarded $2 million to the 5-year-old son of a woman who died following a 1997 abortion at the Delaware Women's Health Organization clinic. The jury found that Dr. Mohammad Imran was negligent and that his actions led to the death of the 19-year-old woman. ******* In May 2000, California abortionist Dr. Bruce Steir, pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter for the death of a 27-year-old woman. According to the medical examiner, she bled to death after Steir performed a second-trimester abortion on her at A Lady's Choice Clinic. The examiner ruled her death "a result of gross negligence." ******* Another California abortionist, Alicia Ruiz Hanna, was convicted in 1994 of second-degree murder after a 27-year-old mother of four died in her clinic. Two of the woman's children, who sat in the waiting room for hours after she died, saw Hanna trying to stuff their mother's body into the trunk of a car in order to dump her body in Mexico. The judge described Hanna as "callous and self-serving" before sentencing her to 15 years to life in prison. ******* Countless other women have died as the result of abortions, several more have given birth to live babies maimed by abortionists, and one New York City abortionist, Dr. Allan Zarkin, even carved his initials on the abdomen of a woman upon whom he had just performed a Caesarean section. Zarkin was fired for this act, but was later hired at The Choices Women's Medical Center in Long Island, which performs 15,000 abortions a year. ******* Though you rarely hear about it, there are also numerous cases of abortion supporters killing women who didn't make the right "choice." ******* In 1998, a jury found Alfred E. Smith guilty of murder in the death of his ex-girlfriend Deena Moody because she refused to abort their preborn child. Her charred body was found in her burned car near an Amtrak station. ******* In 1997, 38-year old Kevin Robinson murdered 15-year-old Daphne Sulk because he had gotten her pregnant and she refused to get an abortion to cover up his child molestation. Daphne's frozen body was discovered near a Wyoming rest area. ******* In a particularly horrific case, Lavern Ward was upset that his girlfriend, 28-year old Debra Evans, was pregnant with his child and would not get an abortion. So he shot and killed her. Then he stabbed Evan's ten-year-old daughter in the neck and killed her. After hacking the unborn child out of Evan's body, Ward abducted her seven-year old son and stabbed him to death. The only bright spot in this tragedy is that the baby somehow lived. ******* The list goes on and on and on. Yet the national media almost never cover these incidents. Hollywood and network writers and producers will not portray them. Abortion groups will not acknowledge them, much less apologize for or denounce them. ******* The truth is that taxi cab drivers, grocery store workers, service station employees, used car dealers, real estate agents, liquor store employees, police officers, jewelers and hotel personnel are murdered at a rate many, many times higher than abortionists, according to Bureau of Labor statistics. But these murders do not fit into a political agenda, so they are ignored by the abortion-favoring media. ******* The success of a movement that does not enjoy widespread public support often depends on effective propaganda. The pro-abortion movement knows this well and has advanced its cause by repeating myths until they were accepted as fact. Their distortions have turned a violent act into a celebrated "right." ******* No one understands this better than the national abortion provider Planned Parenthood, who hands out annual awards "to the media and entertainment figures who have best advocated abortion during the previous year." Among the winners honored last month: the NBC drama "Law and Order." ********************************************************************************************************************* ******* item 3 BRINGING UP BOYS by Dr. James Dobson ******* Posted: March 19, 2002 1:00 a.m. Eastern Editor's note: The following message is part of a speech given by Dr. James Dobson to approximately 3,500 people at the National Religious Broadcaster's annual convention, several weeks ago in Nashville, Tenn. He was speaking on the topic of his new book, "Bringing Up Boys." Below, we begin at the point where Dr. Dobson had just finished discussing the disintegration of the family and the implications of that issue for boys. We pick up his speech as he begins focusing on the attack on both boys and girls within the culture and why Christians must act to defend them. ******* The world into which children are born now has become a very dangerous place. It's changed tremendously. When you and I were kids � and certainly when I was a child because I'm older than most of you here � the culture reinforced positive values and attempted to help parents raise those kids properly. And now, the culture is at war with parents and it is very, very difficult to try to get these kids through the minefield of adolescence without major concerns. And there is an attack on childhood. There are many people out there � and I don't want to overstate this, but I don't think I can overstate it � there are many people out there today who see in children an opportunity to change the culture. And they hate � for the most part � they hate the Judeo-Christian value system. And children are the vulnerable ones. And if they can get control of children and if they can influence children, they can change the whole culture in one generation. And there is now a tsunami coming our way. It is breathtaking to me what's taking place. I hope you're seeing it. I sit there at my desk in Colorado Springs and I hear it every day and I wonder if you're hearing it. I wonder if anybody else is concerned about it because the children are the ones who are at risk and boys especially are in the bull's eye. They're in the cross-hairs. I can't go back with the time that I have and give you the history of this attack on children. I'll tell you what I want to do. Let's talk about February. Let's go back to February 1st, two weeks and two days. I said this is coming like a tidal wave. What am I talking about? Well, eight days ago, one week and one day ago, the National Education Association announced its policy, that they're disseminating to school districts all over the country, that every child in every school and every classroom in the nation should be taught homosexual � what I would call � propaganda. A child is in school for � public schools � for 13 years and we're going to start in kindergarten. You think that wouldn't happen and can't happen. California's legislature has already mandated that, and, as of September when the kids came back to school, this is what happened. Every classroom of every school of every year is being taught homosexual propaganda. So they're teaching them that bisexuality is normal and that homosexuality and heterosexuality are morally equivalent. And they're teaching them many, many other concepts. They're bringing gays and lesbians into the school to teach them what a normal thing this is and answer their questions. Of course, Christians can't come in and counter that. That's California. That's every school in California. Where in the world are the parents who are holding still for that? Imagine sending your little 5-year-old off to school. He's wet behind the ears. He is, to use the vernacular, "He knows nothing about nothing." He doesn't have the defenses to deal with this. And he carries his little lunch pail and he gets to school. And can you imagine these children, 5-years old, sitting in a circle around the teacher who's telling them about adult perverse behavior? And we're not concerned about that? We shouldn't discuss that? Why are we not talking about that? That's just one aspect of this. By the way, 42 percent of the fourth-grade boys in this entire country can't read, and yet, we're going to teach them that? Well, that was eight days ago that this occurred. On February 4th, 12 days ago, the American Academy of Pediatrics announced that gay and lesbian parents, so-called, can raise children and do raise children as effectively as stable marriages where husbands and wives are committed to each other. This is the American Academy of Pediatrics? February 14th, two nights ago, you may have heard that Secretary of State Colin Powell went on MTV, broadcast internationally, and recommended that kids use condoms. And I'll quote for you. Listen carefully to the words he used: "Forget about taboos." Guess whose taboos are we going to forget about? "Forget about conservative ideas." Guess whose conservative ideas? "With respect to what you should tell young people about, it's lives of young people that are being put at risk by unsafe sex, and therefore, protect yourself." What he didn't tell them is that the Centers for Disease Control, an arm of the federal government, last year issued a report that the press wouldn't report on that said, "Condoms do not protect against syphilis, gonorrhea, human papilloma virus, herpes, and most of the other sexually-transmitted diseases." And yet, here is the secretary of state on MTV, not the secretary of health and human services, the secretary of state making a statement like that. But on and on it goes. The FDA � Food and Drug administration � issued a statement saying that the morning-after pill, that that ought to be distributed to kids without parental knowledge or approval. And two days ago, 60 women's groups and health groups endorsed that position by the FDA. All these things are coming to your school. You don't live in California. You've got kids who go to school in Texas and Oklahoma and the mid-West and the Bible Belt and up in the Northeast (or Canada - RJ). It's coming there, too, because there is a concerted effort to manipulate the minds of kids. Now, what's going on? What's behind this? I'm sure you've heard the debate on stem-cell research. Do you understand what a stem cell is? A stem cell is a cell � in the human being at least � that in the very early stages of development it is undifferentiated. In other words, it's not yet other kinds of tissue, but it can go any direction depending on the environment that it's in. The stem cell, if it's in the brain, develops into a nerve cell or into the substances between the nerves. Or if it's in the heart, it becomes a heart cell, or if it's in the eye, it becomes an eyeball cell. Wherever it is, it takes on the characteristic of the surrounding area. Do you understand that children are the stem cells for the culture? The environment that you put them in is what they grow up to be. And if you can control what they hear, if you could control what they're told, if you have access to their minds � you can make them into just about whatever you want them to be. I saw a video the other day of children in Afghanistan and they were teaching these children how they could slit the throats of Israelis. If you teach that to 6-year-old boys, you will have violent men when they grow up. That's why there is this effort to control the minds of kids. It's what's behind the attack on the Boy Scouts. Wherever children reside, there will be a battle over the control of those kids. The Girls Scouts have already been co-opted and the Boy Scouts have resisted, but that's what's going on there. You may be aware that there is an effort now to lower the age of accountability sexually in the various countries. Here in the United States, it's 16. That's awfully early to be allowing a full-grown man to take advantage of a 16-year-old boy. In Canada, it's 14. In Portugal, it's 14. In the U.K., it's 16. In Spain, it's 12. Is that shocking to you? You see, there is now an effort to kind of demystify incest and the sexual abuse of children. And the American Psychological Association put an incredible article in its bulletin about 18 months ago that said sex between adults and children is not all that bad. It might even be beneficial. Children are in the crosshairs, and there is reason to be concerned about it. We also know, and you know, there is almost a total disregard for the value of human life in some post-modern circles. Dr. Peter Singer is a bioethicist � of all things � at Princeton University. He is a tenured professor. Let me read you what he wrote. "Very often, it is not wrong at all to kill a child once it has left the womb." He said, and watch the words now, "Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person." That is a bioethicist at Princeton University. He was granted tenure after he made these statements. Do you know that it is a $25,000 fine to kill an eagle's egg and there's no law at all against killing a child in the latter stages of development in utero? Have you contemplated actually witnessing a partial-birth abortion? Can you imagine being invited into a women's clinic somewhere near your home � because there's probably one near you � where a 16-year-old girl comes in and she is eight-and-a-half months pregnant? You've been invited to watch the procedure, and the doctor delivers this little baby right to the top of his head. And that baby's about three minutes from delivery and he is brimming with life. He is pink. His little hands and arms and legs are kicking. And the doctor rolls him over and inserts a canula, a tube, into the back of the head without an anesthetic and sucks the brains out of that baby and collapses that head and delivers a dead baby. And it's not illegal to do that? But you cannot kill an eagle's egg. Have we gone absolutely crazy? And yet, the procedure continues. To call that kind of outrage political, is itself an outrage. Audience: (Applause) Dr. Dobson: Thank you. Audience: (Applause) Dr. Dobson: Thank you everyone. Thank you everybody. Thank you everybody. This burns in my heart. You may remember that Barbara Boxer, the senator from California, on the floor of the Senate in debating partial-birth abortion, said that a baby is not a baby until that child is taken home from the hospital. In other words, you can kill that baby in the hospital. This is where we are headed, a complete disregard for human life. Those of you who do feel that the church has no responsibility in the cultural area and you have tended to feel our job is to preach the Gospel and all the rest of these things will kind of fall into place, and you haven't felt it is something that you should devote yourself to because that's something somebody else is called to, let me argue with you for just a moment. Suppose it were 1858 and you were a pastor and you lived in Raleigh, N.C., or Richmond, Va. � somewhere in the South. Would it be satisfactory for you to say about slavery, "Well, I'm not called to deal with that issue. I'm called to minister to the people in my church. Slavery is not something I have to deal with," when you know that men and women are being subjected to involuntary servitude? They can be killed. Their families can be separated. Their children can be taken away and sold like cattle. And you don't say anything? Is your argument tenable under those circumstances? The year is 1963, and Martin Luther King is sitting in a Birmingham jail and he is released. And he goes to a church � yes, a church. And from that church, he comes out into the streets of Birmingham and marches for civil rights. Do you oppose that? Is that a violation of the separation of church and state? What if it were 1943 and you were in Nazi Germany and you knew what Hitler was doing to the Jews and the Poles and the Gypsies and the homosexuals and to many other undesirables? You knew they were being gassed, you knew little children were lined up in the rain naked all day for their chance to go into the gas chambers. Would you say, "We're not political? That's somebody else's problem. I'm not called to address this?" I thank God that Dietrich Bonhoeffer did not give that answer, and he was arrested by the Nazis and he was hanged in 1945, naked and alone because he said, "This is not right." John the Baptist said the same thing to Herod. He said, "It is not lawful for you to have your brother's wife." And it cost him his head. Since when have we become timid about addressing the moral issues of our day? Audience: (Applause) Dr. Dobson: In 1983, I was invited to Washington, D.C., for a banquet that featured Dr. Francis Schaeffer. Thank God for Francis Schaeffer. He saw everything we're going through today. He laid it all out. He said there was a connection between abortion and infanticide and euthanasia. And on this occasion, he was talking to a very small group that was there about the Christian's involvement in the military, and especially when it involved war. And he said, "It really comes down to this." I'll never forget this. I was a young man. I was just beginning to try to understand what was going on in the culture at large. He said, "Suppose you were walking down the right side of a street and coming down the other side of the street is a very cute little 6-year-old girl, and she's skipping along and she's alone and it's night time. And just as you got parallel to her, a big man, a six-foot man, jumped out of the bushes and grabbed her and began assaulting her and abusing her. What is your obligation to that child? Do you have any responsibility?" He said, "I submit that you do. You should cross that street and put your life at risk, if necessary, to save that little girl. That would be your moral responsibility." And he said, "That is what we were doing in World War II. We were trying to save the little girls, the Jews, the Gypsies, the Poles, the others, and to rescue those that were living in tyranny." I submit to you all that there are little girls in our culture. Who are the little girls that we're called to defend? The unborn child? Would Jesus' words, "Inasmuch as you do it unto the least of these, my brethren, you do it unto me," would it apply to that little helpless child who can't even speak for himself? He doesn't have a voice. Can you say, "That's political? I won't get involved. I've got to take care of my church. I'm not going to take care of that. That's not my responsibility. Others are called to that." I don't believe so. How about the newborn? How about that little girl who's left to die on a porcelain table somewhere? What about the elementary school child who's going to be taught about homosexuality and has no one to defend him or her? What about the teenagers that Colin Powell was talking about who are going to be told, "Go ahead and have lots of really good sex, just do it in a safe way"? And more and more we see now that euthanasia is coming and as it is in Holland, involuntary euthanasia may be right around the corner. Do we have a responsibility to those little girls? I think that we do. And this last thing. Dr. John Corts with the Billy Graham organization told a story about himself and it really grabbed me by the throat. He said when he was 16 years of age, he went to a farm with about eight of his little cousins and they couldn't wait to get there. And when they arrived, there was such excitement among all the kids. He was the eldest of them and they couldn't wait to get in the field. They wanted to go pitch hay and they thought it'd be fun to ride on the tractor and they couldn't wait to get out there. But the grandfather wouldn't let them go. He was very reluctant to let them go and they whined and cried and begged and finally, he went to John and he said, "John, you can take those kids to the field, but don't bring them back early. You keep them out there until the end of the day. I'm telling you, I don't want you to bring them in early." And he said, "I will do that, Grandfather," and so, they all got on the hay wagon and the tractor pulled them out to the field and they began working out there. And very, very quickly, the kids got tired and they started complaining. It was hot and it was miserable and they wanted to come back. And he said, "No, Grandfather told me to keep you out here," and they cried and they complained, but they stayed there. And at lunch time, they were really exhausted and most of them were crying. They were very upset and they wanted to come back in. It was very hot. The sun was overhead and the hay was down their backs and it itched and they wanted to come back. And he said, "No, Grandfather told me to keep you here." And about 3:00 in the afternoon, a big storm cloud came over, big black clouds, and the kids got scared. They really wanted to return, but he kept them there. He kept the order of the grandfather. At about 5:00, he said, "All right, it's time to go." He got them all on the hay wagon and they went back to the house. And after they had had their baths and they got something to eat and they rested a little bit, they were all very proud of themselves for what they did. And then, the grandfather told John why he wanted them to stay in the field. He said, "This farm has been successful for one reason. Through the years, we have stayed in the field when we felt like coming in. We've stayed out there and done what we needed to do, and I wanted those kids to have the experience of staying with something through the day." And John made his own application for that, but you can see what it means to me. We're in that situation now. It's tough. It's hard speaking against the tide of public opinion, the media, the entertainment industry, the Congress, the libraries, the professions � all of those forces that are making fun of us. Yes, you're right. You're right. They're calling us "religious right" and "far right" and "religious extremists" and it hurts. I can tell you at Focus on the Family, we've had bloody animal parts brought to the front door. We've had our building spray-painted. We've had lies told about us in Denver and in Colorado Springs. That's not fun. And we've been called "extremists." And the easiest thing to do would be to quit. But God has called us to stay in the field and we will do that as long as we have breath in our bodies. And I beg those of you who are here to do the same. Thank you everybody. ******* SPECIAL OFFER! Dr. Dobson's book, "Bringing Up Boys," which he mentioned at the start, and which this speech was based on, is available now from WorldNetDaily's online store! ******* Dr. James Dobson is America's foremost authority on the family and the founder and president of Focus on the Family, a nonprofit organization that produces his internationally syndicated radio programs, heard daily on more than 5,300 radio facilities, in approximately 100 countries worldwide, by more than 200 million people. ******************************************************************************************************************** ******* item 4 CHILD SEX BOOK GIVEN OUT AT U.N. SUMMIT ******* By George Archibald ******* THE WASHINGTON TIMES ******* NEW YORK - A UNICEF-funded book being passed out at the United Nations Child Summit encourages children to engage in sexual activities with other minors and with homosexuals and animals. Top Stories ******* As the delegations to the summit remain deadlocked on abortion, international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that support the U.S. delegation's anti-abortion stance circulated copies of pages from a UNICEF-funded book given to delegates from Latin America that promotes sexual activity and abortion among teens in their countries. ******* "Reproductive health includes the following components: Counseling on sexuality, pregnancy, methods of contraception, abortion, infertility, infections and diseases," says the Spanish-language book, whose title translates to "Theoretic Elements for Working with Mothers and Pregnant Teens." ******* An accompanying workshop book produced by the U.N. Children's Fund (UNICEF) tells Latin American mothers and teens: "Situations in which you can obtain sexual pleasure: 1. Masturbation. 2. Sexual relations with a partner - whether heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual. 3. A sexual response that is directed toward inanimate objects, animals, minors, non-consenting persons." ******* The book, which was distributed by the Mexican government with U.N. funding, suggests lesbian sex as an acceptable alternative for girls. ******* Sexual relations with a partner: Here we should insist there is no ideal or perfect relations between two or several people," the book says. "The one that gives us the most satisfaction and that which is adopted to our way of being and the style of life we have chosen. This is why we encounter many differences among women. Some women like to have relations with men. And others with another woman." ******* UNICEF spokesman Alfred Ironside acknowledged U.N. funding for the book, but said it was produced by the Mexican government in 1999 and pulled from circulation "when the content was more carefully reviewed." ******* Mr. Ironside said he did not know how many of the books were circulated. "A very small number were produced - fewer than a thousand," he said. "It was pulled out of circulation when the content was more carefully reviewed." ******* "That book was a product of the Mexican government, supported by UNICEF financially as part of UNICEF's support to the Mexican government," Mr. Ironside said. ******* "We do everything we do in full agreement with the governments we support. We do not operate independently," he said. ******* He said the book was "intended as a training manual for people working with adolescent women to prevent teen pregnancy. That publication was a compilation of articles by different contributors and has a very clear disclaimer in the front that the views of the writers do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations." ******* The workshop book is being passed out by anti-abortion NGOs to persuade delegates from the large Latin American bloc of countries called the Rio Group to support the U.S. proposal to remove ambiguous language from the child-summit action document, which has been used in the past by U.N. agencies to promote abortion. ******* Delegations to the U.N. Child Summit remained deadlocked yesterday in closed-door negotiations over abortion and other hot-button issues that have held up final agreement on a U.N. action agenda to protect the world's children. ******* The U.S. delegation, praised by pro-family groups for standing firm to ensure the agenda does not sanction continued U.N. promotion of abortions, was attacked by NGO critics for a second day at an afternoon briefing, NGO members at the meeting said. ******* Douglas Sylva, an official with the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, called the briefing "an NGO feeding frenzy," in which the United States was attacked for its position on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict; arms sales to allies; the Bush administration's support of capital punishment; and U.S. failure to ratify the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. ******* "The fact that the United States is the only country besides Somalia that has not ratified [the] child's rights [convention] is shocking," said Paula Daeppen, director in Zurich for the Federation of American Women's Clubs Overseas. ******* "We're supposed to be a moral leader of the world and child friendly," she said. ******* Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, Texas Democrat, told the meeting she applauded the administration's work to protect children from pornography, exploitation and "child soldiering." But she said she disagreed with the U.S. delegation on some issues. ******* "There needs to be flexibility on life," she said - an apparent reference to the administration's strong anti-abortion stance. A person close to the congresswoman, who asked to remain anonymous, said her remarks were intended to urge "more flexibility on family planning." ******* Abortion is not mentioned directly in the draft child-summit document, but UNICEF, which organized the 187-country special session of the General Assembly, and the U.N. Fund for Population Activities, interpret the ambiguous phrase "reproductive health services" to include abortion. ******* A senior Canadian negotiator told delegates in earlier preparatory meetings that the term includes abortion, prompting the Bush administration to start pushing for the alternate term "reproductive health care." ******* European countries, with the exception of Spain, along with Canada, Japan and New Zealand oppose the U.S. position. Muslim nations and some African countries also support the United States. ******* The Rio Group, whose delegations say their predominantly Catholic populations don't condone abortion, said there is no danger the term "reproductive health services" will be used to promote abortions in Latin America. ********************************************************************************************************************** ******* item 5 SELLING HOMOSEXUALITY TO AMERICA ******* Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 09:00:38 -0500 ******* From: "Linda Harvey" ******* "....After all, it's not very flattering to think of yourself and the people you know as, well, sheep. (Someone has defined public opinion as 'what everyone thinks everyone else thinks.')" ----------------------------------------------------- ******* by Matt Kaufman, Boundless Magazine ******* You generally know an ad campaign when you see it, and you don't take it seriously. You may buy Pepsi, but you don't really believe drinking it makes you cool because Britney Spears pitches it. ******* But you may not recognize an ad campaign so easily when it's not relegated to paid 30-second spots. Or when the product being sold isn't a soft drink, but an idea, or an attitude, or a worldview. ******* Which brings us to a fascinating article in the Regent University Law Review (http://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/lawreview/issues/v14n2.html). In an issue analyzing various aspects of gay activism, one piece is especially noteworthy: "Selling Homosexuality to America" by Paul Rondeau, a longtime sales and marketing consultant for corporate America. Rondeau shows how homosexual activists have pursued a specific marketing campaign aimed at moving America in their direction -- a strategy that's worked precisely because it was both clever and covert. ******* Rondeau's evidence doesn't come just from right-wingers. He quotes people like Tammy Bruce, a lesbian and ex-president of the Los Angeles chapter of the National Organization for Women who these days voices concern that gay activists are squelching other citizens' freedoms. Speaking of the marketing strategy, Bruce notes that "What is pitched is different -- a product brand versus an issue -- but the method is the same. In each case, the critical thing is not to let the public know how it is done." ******* But Rondeau's most compelling evidence comes straight from the people who designed the gay PR campaign: Harvard-trained social scientists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, who in the late '80s issued a call for gay activists to adopt "carefully calculated public relations propaganda." ******* Their strategy came dressed up in marketing jargon: "Desensitize, jam and convert." As it turns out, though, you could use one word to summarize all those others: manipulation. ******* Desensitization, write Kirk and Madsen, means subjecting the public to 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." ******* Again, this doesn't mean conventional advertising. "The main thing is to talk about gayness until the issue becomes thoroughly tiresome," they say. "If you can get [straights] to think homosexuality is just another thing -- meriting no more than a shrug of the shoulders -- then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won." Turn on the TV practically any night, watch the endless stream of gay characters and references, and you'll get the idea. ******* Jamming means, simply, smearing anyone who disagrees with their agenda. "Jam homohatred [i.e., opposition to homosexuality] by linking it to Nazi horror," urge Kirk and Madsen; associate all detractors with images like "Klansmen demanding that gays be slaughtered," "hysterical backwoods preachers," "menacing punks," and a "tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed." ******* Moreover, they add, "Gays can undermine the moral authority of homohating churches over less fervent adherents by portraying [them] as antiquated backwaters, badly out of step ... with the latest findings of psychology. Against the atavistic tug of Old Time Religion, one must set the mightier pull of Science and Public Opinion. ... Such an 'unholy' alliance has already worked well in America against the churches, on such topics as divorce and abortion.... [T]hat alliance can work for gays." ******* Conversion means "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." Here, too, the portrayal of homosexuality on TV fits the mold perfectly. The viewer who's not on board with homosexuality (whom they call "the bigot") is to be "repeatedly exposed to literal picture/label pairs ... of gays ... carefully selected to look either like the bigot and his friends, or like any of his other stereotypes of all the right guys." ******* Kirk and Madsen don't want to stop there, though. They want to "paint gay men and lesbians as superior -- veritable pillars of society." To this end, "famous historical figures are considered especially useful to us;" not only do they bring prestige, they're also "invariably dead as a doornail, hence in no position to deny the truth and sue for libel." (Good thing, too, considering the flimsy evidence that often gets trotted out in these cases. "Gays" and their allies have even claimed biblical figures like Abraham and David for their camp.) ******* Of course, Kirk and Madsen are well aware that there are also plenty of things not to portray. They stress the need to keep quiet about the details of homosexual practices, at least until the public is thoroughly desensitized. "First you get your foot in the door, by being as similar as possible; then, and only then -- when your one little difference [sexual orientation] is finally accepted -- can you start dragging in your other peculiarities, one by one." ******* What "peculiarities?" Well, to take one that's been in the news lately, sex between adults and minors, as advocated by groups like the North American Man-Boy Love Association. "We're not judging you, but others do, and very harshly; please keep a low profile," Kirk and Madsen tell such groups. "You offend the public more than other gays." ******* What else? As Rondeau says, "Pederasts, gender-benders, sado-masochists, and other minorities within the homosexual community with more extreme "peculiarities" would keep a low profile.... Also, common practices such as anal-oral sex, anal sex, fisting and anonymous sex -- that is to say what homosexuals actually do and with how many they do it -- must never be a topic." ******* Beyond reporting on the details of the PR campaign, Rondeau's great service is to show readers that it even exists. "It is not common practice to think of social movements in terms of marketing," he notes. "Perhaps this is because using terms like 'selling' or 'marketing' seems to denigrate noble activities" usually portrayed by their supporters "in terms of grass roots and the will of the people." In reality, however, "homosexual activists envision that a decision is ultimately made without society ever realizing that it has been purposely conditioned to arrive at a conclusion it thinks is its own." ******* That last point is an important one. We all like to think we make up our own minds -- after full consideration of all the issues, with equal time for both sides, etc. We also like to think that public opinion arises spontaneously, more or less organically from ordinary people reacting to their own life experience. After all, it's not very flattering to think of yourself and the people you know as, well, sheep. (Someone has defined public opinion as "what everyone thinks everyone else thinks.") ******* In short, one reason we can be manipulated is that we don't want to know we're being manipulated. Yet when someone blows the lid off the manipulation campaign -- as Rondeau has -- we can hardly miss it. And once we know what's going on, we naturally and rightly resent it. ******* Rondeau's article isn't likely to get much coverage in the standard media outlets, for obvious reason. Nor is it likely to get wide attention among academics, since it ran in the journal of a conservative Christian university. (Academic snobbery can play as big a role as liberal politics.) ******* But the Internet transcends traditional media and academic gatekeepers. If half the people who read this column forward it to a few of their friends, word will get around to an awful lot of folk. Not as many as watch Will & Grace, mind you, but maybe enough to get a real debate going on the merits of homosexuality -- on issues like from where it comes (see ******* http://www.narth.com/docs/pieces.html and ******* http://www.narth.com/menus/born.html), what's wrong with it and how it distorts God's plan (see ******* http://www.boundless.org/2000/regulars/office_hours/a0000240.html and ******* http://www.boundless.org/2000/regulars/office_hours/a0000301.html). ******* A real debate. Somehow I think that's the last thing the Kirks and Madsens of the world want to see. http://www.boundless.org/2001/regulars/kaufman/a0000605.html ******* Boundless Magazine www.Boundless.org ------------------ ******* From Mission America www.missionamerica.com ******* www.Choice4Truth.com ******* www.truthatschool.org ********************************************************************************************************************** ******* item 6 "WHEN I GROW UP I CAN MARRY A BOY OR A GIRL!" ******* Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 20:32:44 -0600 ******* From: "Mission America" ******* In view of the Massachusetts court decision, here is an additional reason to be concerned. We are accustomed to thinking about this issue as one involving the rights of adults, but what we legalize as public policy becomes what we incorporate into the teaching of our children, which shapes their hopes and dreams. ******* Do we want children to "dream" of a future where they might marry someone of the same sex? ******* The article below can also be found on our web site at www.missionamerica.com . --------------------------- SAME SEX "MARRIAGE" AND THE EDUCATION OF CHILDREN ******* A Statement By Mission America ******* The legalization of same sex liaisons as "marriage" in the U.S would drastically alter the nature of what is taught to children in schools, community groups, camps, churches and in the media. ******* Currently, a high-pressure campaign by homosexual activists, supported by the National Education Association, is underway to promote acceptance of homosexuality among children, and a great deal of headway has already been made through the establishment of homosexual clubs, adoption of pro-homosexual school policies, the showcasing of homosexual literature, special occasion speakers, and so-called anti-bias programs. This revolutionary approach has received little mainstream publicity, but is rapidly gaining acceptance in educational circles as the "norm." Recent laws enacted in California have basically mandated pro-homosexual teaching in state schools. ******* There are, however, still some school districts resisting this radical trend. Most Christian and Catholic schools remain positive options for those who want to uphold strong standards for their children. ******* Once legalized as "marriage," however, virtually no obstacle would remain for homosexuality advocates to force all schools, with the support if necessary of the judiciary, to teach every child that homosexual marriage is a viable future option. The stated goal of these activists is to establish such teaching at the elementary school level. ******* Mission America supports the time-honored tradition of marriage as a commitment between one man and one woman. We oppose coercive, deceptive messages communicated to children, as well as same sex "marriage," for the following reasons: ******* 1. No biological cause for homosexual or gender-variant desires or behavior has been found in humans. Claims to the contrary are founded on wishful thinking, not scientific fact.1 There is much evidence that homosexual desire and identity develops, although usually not consciously, out of one's life experiences. Child sexual abuse is frequently a factor. ******* 2. There is growing evidence that bisexual identity and practices are developing as a popular trend among some middle school and high school students as a result of the promotion of homosexual experimentation. The "package" of fluid sexual practices, featuring oral sex, is being sold to kids through many sex education programs and the popular culture.2 This trend has disastrous public health implications. ******* 3. There are thousands of ex-homosexuals whose lives attest to the ability of humans to overcome homosexual desires and practices. This is a choice which should be open to all young people without criticism, prejudice, attempts to withhold this information, or attempts to discredit the life stories of those formerly involved in these lifestyles.3 ******* 4. Homosexuality involves practices that are dangerous and high-risk to the body, which is designed for heterosexual function, so the first priority of adults who really care for youth should be to help them at all costs avoid these behaviors. Some of these unsafe practices are anal sexual intercourse, foreign objects used in sexual intercourse, anal or oral sex with strangers, and promiscuity. Because of such activities, countless health studies have documented that sexually transmitted disease and injury is much higher among homosexuals than in the population at large.4 Since such practices are well-accepted within homosexual circles, it does not make sense to enable or encourage students in homosexual attractions, since they are likely to begin engaging in some or all of these unsafe activities. No method exists, despite the insistence of condom advocates, to effectively "manage" these high risk behaviors. ******* 5. All major world religions and civilizations have historically condemned the practice of homosexuality. Nothing that is now known changes the reasons for that heritage of disapproval. Millions of religious and non-religious taxpaying Americans find homosexuality abhorrent, and do not want it promoted nor condoned in discussions with their children. Finding homosexuality repulsive is a natural human instinct to protect oneself, and is common to most humans, not just a few conservatives. Within the bounds of kindness and civility, students, teachers and parents who find the behavior personally repugnant should continue to have the right to express this opinion. This is not meant to imply support for derogatory labels or insults. ******* 6. The best way to protect students who are drawn to this behavior is give them facts about the risks. Those who believe it is wrong should not be discredited, nor should all disapproval be erroneously associated with violence or labeled as "hate." Because of the community's concern and love for youth, adults should support them if they wish to change homosexual desires and behavior. Any other approach puts children at high risk of disease and even premature death, and we should love our children too much to let that happen. ******* 7. Because of the great risks involved, and our concerns about the welfare of ALL students, every student who reveals homosexual attraction deserves to know that he or she has a choice. This is both humane and sound public health policy. ******* 8. Failure to disclose these facts or attempts to discredit them is the equivalent of educational and medical malpractice. Educational programs that in any way condone or support homosexuality should be stopped immediately in all U.S. schools. ******* 9. Because of the dysfunctional, unhealthy and changeable nature of homosexuality, legitimizing it as "marriage" constitutes irresponsible and reckless public policy that endangers the future of our children and grandchildren. ******* For more information, see www.missionamerica.com . ******* Notes: ******* 1.Among the numerous sources refuting any genetic connection to homosexuality are just a few:"Where did the gay gene go?" ABCNews.com, April 22, 1999, ******* www.abcnews.go.com/sections/living/DailyNews/gaygene990422.html; ******* "The Gay Gene?" by Jeffrey Satinover, MD, ******* www.leaderu.com/jhs/satinover.html . ******* Many sources refuting genetic connections to homosexuality are listed on the web site, Queer By Choice at ******* www.queerbychoice.com/gaygenelinks.html . ******* 2. See web site for teens developed by Planned Parenthood, ******* www.teenwire.com ******* for much discussion of bisexual practices and "fluid" sexuality; the same is on the web site ******* www.gURL.com ******* for teen girls; also on ******* www.teensexuality.org ******* also on ******* www.teenadviceonline.org/archive/ ******* www.scarleteen.com ******* www.sxetc.org ******* The trend toward lesbian advocacy of "fluid" sexuality is examined in an article at ******* www.narth.com/docs/fluid.html ******* 3. See www.pfox.org ******* www.stonewallrevisited.com ******* www.narth.com ******* www.exodusnorthamerica.org ******* Research on the study of 200 former homosexuals is summarized at ******* www.narth.com/docs/evidencefound.html ******* 4. There are many resources on this. A good summary can be found on the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association site at ******* www.glma.org/news/releases/n02071710gaythings.html ******* A very extensive paper listing many studies is "The Health Risks of Gay Sex" at ******* www.corporateresourcecouncil.org/white_papers.html ******* Mail distribution provided by America Family Online ******* www.afo.net ********************************************************************************************************************** ******* item 7 THE FRAUD OF MULTICULTURALISM ******* From: "Robert A Jason" Date: Fri, 12 March 2004 ******* Dear Friends: ******* Before digging into the illuminating article below, please keep in mind the following quotes from famous people below: ******* 1. Malcolm Muggeridge: "WE HAVE EDUCATED OURSELVES INTO IMBECILITY". ******* 2. Vladimir Lenin: "GIVE ME A CHILD FOR THE FIRST 5 YEARS OF HIS LIFE AND HE WILL BE MINE FOREVER" ******* 3. Abraham Lincoln: "THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE SCHOOLROOM IN ONE GENERATION WILL BE THE PHILOSOPHY OF GOVERNANCE IN THE NEXT". ******* By Debbie O'Hara ******* NewsWithViews.com ******* Without a doubt most people in this country would agree that the government schools are failing our children. The government's pat answer to the problem is always a lack of funds, but I hope to convince you that the true problem behind the failure of these schools is far more sinister than that. The real culprit is not a lack of money but the evil programs being advanced under the umbrella of a term called Multiculturalism, better known as diversity. ******* Unfortunately it looks as if most people have bought into the lack of funds argument that the government has set before us. They don't seem to have a problem digging ever deeper into their pockets and taking out their hard-earned cash when they hear that insatiable cry for more dollars. In fact in the recent March 2 election, my home state of California passed some bond measures that will give billions more to local schools. I personally find the money answer very hard to swallow after seeing the 2003 Condition of Education Report put out by the National Center for Education Statistics. ******* In 1991-92 the average annual U.S. cost to educate one child in the government schools was $6,729. By the 1999 -2000 school year the figure, adjusted for inflation, was $8,105. That is an over 20% increase in real dollars in less than 10 years. As we can see, even after spending exorbitant amounts of money on education, many of America's children are still graduating after 13 years of school basically illiterate. How can this be? How can schools be failing with so much money being invested in them? Is it possible that maybe the goals of the parents and the goals of government are not the same? Could it be that in the eyes of government the schools aren't failing at all but are actually reaching their hidden objectives? ******* The government objectives appear to be very light in the area of academics and heavy on brainwashing into what is termed multiculturalism or diversity. Many people probably wonder what could be wrong with that? Our children need to learn about other cultures, don't they? Certainly we should agree that learning about other cultures is important. But those who set the curriculum are not talking about learning the cultures of other peoples of the world like that of India, China, Japan and so forth. Multiculturalism is a euphemism for the myth of diversity. We have campuses full of people who look different but are programmed to think alike. While the multiculturalism being promoted in schools doesn't appear to have a clear definition, we can see a vast array of causes that are advanced under its name - AIDS awareness, homosexuality, radical feminism, sexual harassment, etc. Even teachers at the elementary grades and junior high level have been taught to give a watered-down multicultural curriculum to their students. ******* While we are told that our children are getting a values-free education because all cultures are being treated equally, we know that statement is not true because the traditional values of the West are condemned. The diversity promoting Multiculturalists have eliminated traditional male-female distinctions and tell us that sexual restraints have got to go. Our children are taught that morality is oppressive because it doesn't take into account the "alternative lifestyles" of "minorities". How can an educational system that promotes homosexuality be considered values-free? No major religion condones homosexuality. America's children are being taught values in the name of diversity that many parents spend 18 years trying to make sure that their children don't absorb. ******* A multicultural curriculum puts more emphasis on making students feel good than on academics. The teachers are not interested in facts but only on how their students feel. Teachers would never think of discussing the warlike nature of the Apaches that included ritual torture. In fact if a student was to bring up the truth, he would be considered intolerant. Teaching myth instead of fact is very important in teaching multiculture because if the real history books of non-Western cultures were being read, these other cultures would lose much of their attractiveness. To make sure that the truth is shouted down, Multiculturalism has given us "political correctness". Everybody better watch their speech or they may end up in a lawsuit. Since multiculturalism cannot be supported rationally, speech has to be suppressed to prevent people from challenging its fundamental premises. Neutrality is a pretense because we have really replaced the old values of Western civilization based on Judeo-Christian principles with a new set of values. All cultures are spoken of in a positive light except for Western culture because it believes in transcultural truth and that is the one thing that cannot be tolerated. In rejecting the values of the West, Multiculturalists obviously cannot say that they do not believe in value judgment. ******* Multiculturalism itself has become the new culture. It is a culture of blame instead of individual responsibility where the emphasis is on victims and victimhood. Dysfunction is the new standard and it appears that victims can do no wrong. We had the Menendez brothers who admitted killing their parents, but were not convicted because the jury heard they had been abused. A $2.9 million judgment against McDonalds was awarded to a woman who suffered burns when she spilled a cup of coffee that she was holding between her legs in a moving car. What insanity! ******* Multiculturalism is also a culture of radicalizing differences. Instead of uniting the American people by teaching what it means to be an American we celebrate our "differences". The local government schools in my area promote slogans like "Celebrating our Differences" and "Unity in Diversity", but I don't see unity; I see divisiveness. I thought segregation was supposed to be a bad thing, but you can go to almost any campus in America and you will find students that are celebrating their differences by choosing to segregate themselves into special clubs by race, gender or sexual preference. I hear of harassment going on at the local high school for those who don't wish to join these clubs. ******* Chronic malcontents are also bred by Multiculturalism. There is no pride instilled in these students about being American. Instead their new-found identities are based on their "victim" groups which are in search of oppressors. Oppression is the backbone of their identity; so much like a witch-hunt, oppressors must be found or their status of victimhood, and therefore their identiy, would be lost. Multiculture is causing horrendous dissension between the races, genders and among family members. More often than not the real victims are those who are singled out for reprisal through no fault of their own. These people are not morally flawed - just unlucky. No one is safe from this witch-hunt because there are not really any rules you can teach someone to tell him or her how to not give offense. Every individual acts in unpredictable ways so many people feel it is best to stick with their own group because it is not worth the trouble that you might offend someone of another group. So much for the myth of unity. Instead of the utopia promised under Multiculturalism, I think we have found ourselves back under the Medieval Inquisition. ******* Multiculturalism is a long chain of victimization and revenge that favors only certain sub-groups of people. One example is that of a growing number of American Blacks calling for reparations for slavery. Never mind that there are no American Blacks alive that were ever slaves or American Whites that were slave owners. Truth and justice are not the goal. The goal appears to be gaining preferred dominant status at the expense of others. Only a particular race, gender, sexual preference, etc. that shares the same "politically correct" ideology as the multiculturalist elites gets that special dominant status. How can multiculture possibly be thought superior to the religious tradition of the West that brought forgiveness, redemption and salvation for all classes of people? ******* Multiculturalism has caused the deconstruction of all meaning in a child's education. The West's quest for universal truth has been replaced by the emptiness of Multiculturalism. There is no framework on which our children can decide what is important and what is trivial. Without truth only the latest fads become the basis of instruction. We have a generation of children searching for meaning in what appears to be a meaningless world. Even if they don't believe in the Multicultural garbage they are being taught, they still do not have the basic tools they need to search for truth and meaning in their lives. The most important years of America's brightest children are being wasted. ******* Why are America's children being dumbed down and robbed of a real education? Why are they being taught to vie for victim status and to somehow think someone else owes them a living? Because the true objective of our Multicultural masters that run the government schools is to make good little socialists out of our children. And that is what socialists do - live at the expense of others. The purpose of the multicultural movement is to radically alter our entire culture so as to dumb down our children in order to make a One World Socialist Government acceptable to them. The intent is to wipe away all borders and to destroy nationhood. Their plans are working out well. We can see our current President, George W. Bush, carrying out his border destroying plans; following right along the same path as the last two administrations. And barely a peep from the American people! I hear the same deafening silence when Supreme Court Justices, the likes of Sandra Day O'Connor, talk about the importance of taking international law into consideration when making decisions that affect our country. Good by American Constitution. Good by American liberty. People groups are so angry with each other that they don't realize who the real oppressors are. ******* It is still possible for people to learn the truth, but they will have to do it on their own. The reason that God put parents in charge of their children's education should now be obvious and we need to take that role back. We face a tough battle because we are in the second generation of Multiculturalism. Many parents are as clueless as their children are about what is going on in our schools and in our country as a whole. I didn't have a clue myself until around ten years ago when I learned right along with my own children while homeschooling. ******* There is no doubt in my mind that the future of this country is in the hands of parents who care enough about their children's futures to make whatever sacrifices are necessary in order to give them a proper education. Children need to be taught the truth because their freedom depends on it. Someday their very lives may depend on it. Socialism was responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of hapless victims in the 20th century alone. ******* There is no space for the individual in this new multicultural political order. We need to get back to teaching our children the responsibility they have as individuals before God because the very cornerstone of civilization, as He created it, is based on the concept of the individual, with rights that transcend any particular cultural system. ******* � 2004 Debbie O'Hara - All Rights Reserved ******* Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts ******* Finally, Easy and Affordable Health Insurance -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Debbie O'Hara is a homemaker, wife and mother of eight children. During her business career she held a position in management in the aerospace industry in Southern California. She left the business world to become a full time mother. She is an avid reader, and did the necessary research to provide a comprehensive homeschool curriculum for her children. This led her to closely examine the political direction our country has been following. Debbie and her children are now active in the political process both locally and nationally. ******* Debbie is a contributing writer to www.NewsWithViews.com. ******* E-Mail: [email protected] ********************************************************************************************************************** ******* item 8 ONLY IN CANADA! BLATANT ANTI-CHRISTIAN BIGOTRY IN B.C EDUCATION SYSTEM ******* From: "Robert A Jason" ******* Date: Sat, 24 Apr ******* Dear Friends: ******* I'm getting awfully sick and tired of the blatant persecution of Christians in this country where the elitist authorities of the land relentlessly push their secular religion down our throats. Of course, this being Canada they disguise their blatant hatred under all sorts of pompous, self-righteous, politically-correct language. But we can see through their transparent ploys. ******* Here is the latest example of anti-Christian bigotry in action in Canada. Can you ever imagine the education authorirites telling homeschoolers not to teach about homosexuality or the 'goodness' of abortion or evolution or other cherished secular dogmas? NAH! Don't lose sleep over it. ******* And once again, this breaking story was front page headline in an AMERICAN online newspaper - the good old WND (I trust WND more than any Canadian secular-fundamentalist news source.) Where is the Canadian media (admittedly, this story first appeared in Vancouver Sun)? But will the rest of Canadian media even print this story, leave alone give it the front page treatment of WND? WOE CANADA. Some thing is rotten in the state of Canada. ******* Enough for now. Normally, I'm a gentle, mild-mannered, lovable soul (ha ha) but today I've had it up to here and am ready to blow my stack. ******* <><> ---------------- This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows. To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38192 ******* BRAVE NEW SCHOOLS Homeschoolers barred from religious materials Government issues order after luring parents into district program -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- � 2004 WorldNetDaily.com ******* Homeschooling parents in a Canadian province have been ordered to stop using religious-based materials or other "unofficial" resources when they teach their children at home. ******* Pamela Nagle, a Christian, is one of many angry parents in British Columbia who say they will not abide by the order, according to the Vancouver Sun. ******* "They can't tell me what to do in my own home," said Nagle, whose son is homeschooled but attends a public school one day a week. ******* Nagle told the paper the materials she uses should not matter as long as her son's education meets British Columbia's standards. ******* "I don't like the fact that they believe they know what's best for my child," she said. ******* But Nagle is one of many parents lured into the public school system by a distance-education program, the Sun said. ******* Through the program, she received about $600, Canadian, from the Langley school district in suburban Vancouver, which supplements the hundreds she spends of own money. ******* About 6,800 children are in the program after it started as a pilot project with just 2,200. ******* The parents say they enrolled in distance education after being promised they could continue as their children's primary teacher. ******* The availability of teacher expertise, as well as funds, was the attraction for the parents, while the school district saw benefit from the increased accountability. ******* The children in the program also graduate with a provincial certificate, unlike the estimated 3,000 homeschoolers with no ties to the government's education system. ******* Meanwhile the district receives the same amount of per-student funding for the homeschoolers as it does for regular students, $5,408, Canadian. ******* But many parents now appear set to quit. Anita Kosovic, with two-children in Langley's U-Connect program, said she's finished. ******* "I'm definitely not going back and I don't know anyone who is," she told the Sun. ******* Her family is not religious, she explained, but she does not want to be forced into using the province's approved materials, some of which she says are awful. ******* "I don't think anyone should be able to tell me what I can do in my own home and that's what they're telling us," she told the Vancouver paper. ******* The British Columbia Education Ministry insists the order is merely a "clarification" of the rules it laid out in September 2002, which said distance-education students had to follow the same rules as regular students. ******* "If a district receives full funding for a student, the student is not being home-schooled," the ministry stated. ******* With regard to faith-based resources, it stated: "Districts must ensure that students are not using religious materials or resources as part of the educational program and that parents are not being reimbursed for using religious materials or resources with students." ******* A Langley school district spokesman said the district is concerned about the directive, but Education Ministry spokeswoman Corinna Filion said parents who want religion in education should go to the independent school system. ******* Related offer: ******* HOMESCHOOL SPECIAL - $300 in FREE curriculum for limited time! Get 19 valuable gifts for home educators with subscription to 'The Old Schoolhouse' ********************************************************************************************************************** ******* item 9 THE CULTURE WAR COMES TO HOLLAND - by Pat Buchanan ******* From: "Robert Jason" ******* Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 ******* To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41675 ******* copyright 2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc. ******* By all accounts, Theo van Gogh, 47, the great-great-grandson of the brother of the Dutch master, was a repulsive character. ******* Foul of mouth, given to anti-Semitic outbursts, the film director was described thus by the Wall Street Journal: ******* In writings and speeches he made crude jokes about Jews and riled Moslems with scatological insults. A few months before his murder, he attended a debate called "Happy Chaos" organized by students and a leftist magazine. It descended into rancorous chaos when Mr. van Gogh called a Moslem leader the "prophet's pimp." ******* In August, van Gogh, known as the Michael Moore of Holland, aired on Dutch television a 10-minute English-language film titled, "Submission." The movie, writes the BBC, "caused an uproar." ******* The outcry centered on the stories of four Moslem women who were beaten, raped and forced into marriage, and were asking for Allah's help. It becomes apparent that their chadors and gowns are transparent and their half-naked bodies are visible through their dress. On their bodies are written Koranic verses describing the permitted physical punishments for women who "misbehave." ******* "Submission" was to be the first of three installments. Someone else will have to direct the other two. For as Slate's Ronald Rovers describes in detail, Theo is no longer with us: ******* On the morning of Nov. 2 in a busy street in east Amsterdam, a 26-year-old Dutch Moroccan named Mohammed Bouyeri pulled out a gun and shot ... Theo van Gogh, who was riding a bike to his office. Van Gogh hit the ground and stumbled across the street to a nearby building. He didn't make it. As the Moroccan strode toward him, van Gogh shouted: "We can still talk about it! Don't do it! Don't do it." ******* But the Moroccan didn't stop. He shot him again, slit Van Gogh's throat and stuck a letter to his chest with a knife. He was slaughtered like an animal, witnesses said. "Cut like a tire," said one. ******* As the Journal describes it, the letter fulminated against "infidels" and warned, "Hair-raising screams will be squeezed from the lungs of the non-believers." It ended in: ******* ... a Dutch incantation in the style of an Islamic verse: "I know for sure that you, O America, are going to meet with disaster. I know for sure that you, O Europe, are going to meet with disaster. I know for sure that you, O Netherlands, are going to meet with disaster." ******* What stunned Holland is that Bouyeri was born and educated in that most tolerant of countries, where drugs are done in public and all manner of sex is on sale. Nor was Bouyeri destitute. ******* When police went to arrest his friends, they put up a fight. Mosques have since been torched, churches burned, and Dutch leaders who have denounced Islamic fanatics have been threatened with ritual slaughter and beheadings. Dutch police now believe Holland has a sizable nest of homegrown terrorists among its million Moslems. ******* Welcome to the New Europe. Twenty million Muslims now reside there and are the fastest-growing minority on a continent where the native-born populations of every country save Muslim Albania are failing to reproduce themselves or have begun to die out. ******** Europe faces the dilemma of a post-Christian civilization that has lost all moral certitude � to worship at the altars of diversity and tolerance. As Slate writes: "The Dutch filmmaker believed that insulting people was his right as a free citizen. The Moslem fanatic who slaughtered him didn't agree." ******* How does Holland, how does Europe deal with a militant faith that preaches that to do your own thing means to do God's will and punish insulters of that faith � be they a van Gogh or Salman Rushdie? ******* As Muslims move toward majority status, why should they not use Europe's democratic procedures to establish Islamic law and make theirs the faith of Europe, as Christians did and secularists have now done? ******* To devout Muslims, what Europe offers is godless materialism and hedonism, a life devoid of meaning and purpose, save pleasure and self-indulgence. They prefer to do Allah's bidding in this world to ensure they share his paradise in the next. ******** Undeniably, Islam is rising. And, like all rising faiths, it is intolerant. Disbelieving that all religions are equal � "There is one God, Allah, and Mohammed is his Prophet" � Islam does not believe all faiths should be treated equally. Why should they be? If one has God's revealed truth, why should one tolerate lies that lead to the damnation of the faithful? ******* In its new constitution, the European Union has declared Christianity a dead relic. What Islam is saying � with its militancy, its soaring birth rate, it steady replacement of dying Europeans with young Muslim immigrants � is: "Christianity may be your past, but we are your future." ******* My money's on the true believers. ******* SPECIAL OFFER: Pat Buchanan's book, "The Death of the West," an eye-opening expos� of how immigration invasions are endangering America, is now available at HALF-PRICE from WorldNetDaily's online store! Autographed edition also available! ******* Patrick J. Buchanan was twice a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination and the Reform Party�s candidate in 2000. He is also a founder and editor of the new magazine, The American Conservative. Now a political analyst for MSNBC and a syndicated columnist, he served three presidents in the White House, was a founding panelist of three national television shows, and is the author of seven books. ******************************************************************************************************************** ******* item 10 DECIPHERING 'GAY' WORD-SPEAK AND LANGUAGE OF CONFUSION ******* From: "Robert Jason" ******* Subject: Fw: This is a gem, an invaluable resource, definitely a "keeper", a MUST-READ Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 ******* Dear Friends: ******* Day after tomorrow we will usher in the new year (ho-hum - my 70th on earth!) We must gird ourselves for the coming battles in the ceaseless culture wars. ******* Below is one of the most important weaponry we can use for the fight ahead. It is a gem, an invaluable resource, definitely a "keeper" for future reference, in other words: a MUST-READ. It is a long, insightful, thoughtful essay by a renowned veteran warrior of the culture wars. Please read it slowly, carefully, savoring the thoughts & ideas presented therein, and let it all sink in. Keep it in your files for future reference. ******* Enjoy. <><> ******* DECIPHERING 'GAY' WORD-SPEAK AND LANGUAGE OF CONFUSION ******* By Scott D. Lively, Esq. ******* May 25, 2002 ******* NewsWithViews.com ******* There is no shame in believing a lie until you learn the truth. ******* The success of so-called "gay rights" is an amazing triumph of clever deception over simple logic. When it comes to this issue, otherwise intelligent people routinely fall for arguments that just don't hold up under scrutiny. "Gay" sympathizers aren't necessarily more gullible than other people, they are simply tricked into accepting certain conclusions without first examining the underlying premises. ******* He who defines the terms controls the debate -- and by extension, public opinion. On this issue the terms have been defined (in many cases invented) by the talented sophists of the "gay" movement. ******* Sophistry, it must be noted, is the ancient Greek art of persuasion by subtly false reasoning. The key to overcoming sophistry is to simplify and clarify what the sophists have intentionally made complex and vague. That process begins by defining the terms and concepts being used in the arguments. One quickly discovers that most arguments advocating "gay rights" depend upon hidden false assumptions and deliberately ambiguous terms. It's all smoke and mirrors. ******* Among the most common terms and concepts in the "gay rights" debate are: homosexuality, sexual orientation, heterosexism, diversity, multi-culturalism, inclusiveness, discrimination, homophobia and tolerance. These words and phrases are used by "gay" sophists to frame the question of homosexuality as a civil rights issue. It is a context chosen to favor homosexuals to the extent that they cast themselves as victims and their opponents as oppressors, yet even within this context, "gay" arguments are easily refuted. ******* WHAT IS HOMOSEXUALITY? ******* Some people might be tempted to skip past this section because they think they understand this term. That is the first mistake made by every victim of "gay" sophistry. Failure to clarify the essential terms at the beginning allows one to be trapped by his or her own assumptions. It's like signing a contract to buy a used car without clearly identifying the car. ******* The definition of homosexuality is not as settled as one might think. Until 1986, homosexuality was universally defined as same-gender sexual conduct. By extension, a homosexual was defined as anyone who engages or desires to engage in such conduct. The "gay" movement itself embraced this definition, in which the term "homosexuality" had meaning only in relation to same-gender sexual behavior. ******* After 1986, the "gay" movement began to redefine homosexuality as a normal and immutable condition equivalent to heterosexuality, a state-of-being completely independent of conduct. Under the new definition, "straights" can choose same-gender sexual relations and "gays" can choose opposite-gender relations without any alteration of their true "sexual orientation." ******* Why the change in strategy? ******* 1986 was the year that the United States Supreme Court, in the case of Bowers v. Hardwick, upheld the right of states to criminalize homosexual conduct. The "gay" movement had argued that homosexual sodomy should be viewed by the court as a fundamental privacy right no different than marital sexual relations. The court firmly rejected that argument. ******* The constitutional right of states to regulate homosexual conduct remains the law of the land. ******* Thwarted in its goal to legitimize homosexual conduct as a fundamental right, the "gay" movement turned to the only other basis on which it could claim constitutional protection: minority status as a "suspect class." The Supreme Court recognizes minority status only for those groups which 1) have suffered a history of discrimination, 2) are powerless to help themselves and 3) are defined by immutable characteristics. ******* This is the secret to understanding why the "gay" movement now denies that homosexuality is behavior-based and instead insists that homosexuality is innate and unchangeable. It is not science. It is a legal and political strategy. ******* The problem is that they can't prove it. ******* There exists no truly objective means of determining whether a person is innately homosexual. One cannot take a blood test or DNA test to prove that he or she is "gay." We must depend entirely upon a person's claim that his or her homosexuality is innate. The taint of political self- interest alone makes such evidence wholly untrustworthy. Self-declared homosexuals can't even prove that they really believe that their homosexuality is innate. Instead, they argue that homosexuality must be innate because no one would choose to be "gay" and incur the resulting social stigma. This argument is invalid, since many people choose lifestyles that others condemn. Moreover, there are many homosexuals who freely admit that their lifestyle is a voluntary preference. ******* On the question of choice, it must be noted that all sex but rape is voluntary and thus every sexual act involves a conscious choice. A person's inclination toward a form of sexual conduct may not, for any number of reasons, be consciously chosen, but the mere existence of desire does not justify the act. To accept otherwise would be to validate adultery and pedophilia. Society has the right to require people to suppress harmful desires, even if it is difficult for them to do so. ******* In reality, the "gay" movement does not want a biological cause to be found. If science were to identify a biological cause of homosexuality, that day would begin the "race for the cure." (And a great many purportedly happy homosexual men and women would secretly join that race.) ******* Since the "gay" movement can't prove it, the assertion that homosexuals are "born that way" remains nothing but a hypothesis: one which provides no justification for abandoning long- standing, experience-tested social policies. Remember, society doesn't have to prove that homosexuality is not innate. "Gay" activists are the ones attempting to change things and the burden of proof is theirs. ******* Nevertheless, there is plenty of evidence that homosexuality is not innate. There is a very considerable body of testimony from tens of thousands of men and women who once lived as homosexuals. These ex-"gays" have renounced their former lifestyles and many have become heterosexual in self-identification and desire, while others have stopped at the point of comfort with their own gender and freedom from same-sex desires. The "gay" movement's challenge to former homosexuals to, in essence, prove they aren't still innately "gay" is the height of absurdity since homosexual immutability was never proven in the first place. ******* Why is the question of immutability so important? Because if homosexuality is not innate, it must be acquired. And if it can be acquired, we dare not allow homosexuality to be legitimized to our children. If there remains any shadow of doubt as to the cause of homosexuality, we must err on the side of protecting our children. Indeed we must actively discourage them from viewing homosexuality as safe and normal, when in fact it is demonstrably neither safe nor normal. It bears noting here that normalcy is functioning according to nature or design. Normalcy is not based on popular opinion. ******* In summary, the true definition of homosexuality is same-gender sexual conduct. A homosexual is a person who defines himself or herself by the participation in or desire to participate in such conduct. This definition is both logical and intuitively sound. ******* For the sake of our children and the health of our society, we must not accept the redefinition of these terms. We must force the advocates of the "born that way" argument to admit that they can't prove it, and that since they can't prove it, they must admit the possibility that homosexuality may be acquired. We must never allow a discussion to proceed forward if the immutability of homosexuality is assumed as a premise. We must challenge the premise and force the logical concessions, without allowing the subject to be changed. ******* SEXUAL ORIENTATION ******* "Sexual orientation" is a highly ambiguous term loaded with hidden false assumptions. ******* An "orientation" describes the perspective of a subject toward an object. A sexual orientation therefore describes a person (subject) by the object toward which they are sexually attracted: a homosexual is someone oriented toward someone of the same sex, a bisexual toward both sexes, a pedophile toward children, a sado-masochist toward giving or receiving pain, etc.. ******* By definition, there are an unlimited number of potential sexual orientations. The "gay" movement, however, arbitrarily recognizes only four orientations: heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, and transgendered (i.e. transvestites and transsexuals). Why? Because to recognize other orientations -- pedophilia, for example -- would draw attention to the importance of distinguishing between orientation and conduct, when a major purpose of sexual orientation theory is to legitimize and protect homosexual conduct by obscuring this distinction. ******* This is most clearly seen in anti-discrimination policies that include sexual orientation. Government and corporate policy makers include sexual orientation in anti-discrimination policies in order to protect freedom of thought and speech on the basis of the claim that sexual orientation is nothing more than a state of mind. Americans rightfully cherish the First Amendment right to think and speak freely. The practical effect of such policies, however, is to legitimize and protect any sexual conduct associated with an orientation. For example, under such policies a landlord is expected to rent to homosexuals even if they admit they intend to commit sodomy on the property and this is his sole reason for wanting to deny their application. ******* Why is this distinction between orientation and conduct so important? Because sexual conduct has serious public health consequences which society has both a right and an obligation to regulate. In contrast, there are no public health implications to sexual orientation, properly defined. Even a pedophile's orientation, abhorrent as it may be, is harmless to the public if he never acts upon it. ******* Policy makers could stop this end run around public health considerations by adding one sentence to existing anti-discrimination laws: "This policy shall not be construed to legitimize or protect any sexual conduct deserving of regulation in the public interest." The right to claim a sexual orientation should not automatically grant a license for sexual conduct. ******* Another purpose of sexual orientation theory is to create a context in which homosexuality and heterosexuality hold equal status. The notion of equivalency between homosexuality and heterosexuality is very important to "gay" arguments. For one thing it neutralizes health and safety arguments against the legitimization of homosexuality. ******* For example, it is an uncontested fact that homosexual conduct spreads disease. When reminded of this, "gay" sympathizers say, "Heterosexuals do the same things." This isn't a logical defense of homosexuality per se, since two wrongs don't make a right. However, it is an argument for treating homosexuality equally with heterosexuality if the two were truly equivalent. But they are not. ******* Unlike homosexuality, heterosexuality is immutable. To define heterosexuality as merely sexual conduct between people of compatible genders is to suppress a fundamental truth about what it means to be human. All human beings with the exception of hermaphrodites (people with genital deformities) are born with a reproductive system that is heterosexual by nature. We are either male or female. We have sexual feelings only because of chemical and other processes that are rooted in our procreative heterosexual design. Thus, a male sexual orientation toward a female (or vise versa) is self-evidently normal and natural. By contrast, a male-to-male or female-to- female orientation is self-evidently abnormal and unnatural. For homosexuality to be equivalent to heterosexuality, it would need to be rooted in its own homosexual physiology. ******* In reality, homosexuality is nothing more than same-gender conduct among people who are innately and unchangeably heterosexual. Homosexuality is thus biologically (and to varying degrees morally) equivalent to pedophilia, sado-masochism, bestiality and many other forms of deviant behavior, or behavior that deviates from the normal design-based function of the human being. ******* A second reason for espousing the demise of equivalency is that it allows "gay" activists to exploit the civil rights doctrines which otherwise would not apply. Discrimination, in the civil rights context, means treating equal parties unequally. If homosexuals and heterosexuals are assumed to be equal, then it is unfair to deny homosexuals all of the benefits that heterosexuals enjoy. "Gay" sophists have coined the term "heterosexism" to describe favoritism towards heterosexuals. To grasp the implications of heterosexism, simply think of it as "racism" toward homosexuals. ******* An anti-discrimination policy based upon sexual orientation is always the first step in the homosexual takeover of an organization because it locks in pro-"gay" assumptions. From the adoption of this policy, the organization must accept as fact that homosexuality is immutable, equivalent to heterosexuality, and deserving of special protections without regard to public health considerations. Criticism of these positions, or even failure to affirm them, can be considered violations of the policy. Where such a policy is enacted, adoption of the rest of the homosexual political agenda is virtually inevitable. The conclusions are assured by the premises. ******* The takeover process varies slightly depending on the type of organization, but is predictable and easily recognized. ******* The takeover of local governments begins in the local media (where there is never a shortage of "gay" political activists) with a campaign to raise awareness of discrimination against legitimate minorities. A call then goes out to form a Human Relations Commission to study the problem and develop community-based solutions. The commission is then formed with quasi-governmental authority. The anti-discrimination policy comes next, often without mention of sexual orientation. That is usually added by amendment later. Opposition is usually minimal because no one wants to be perceived as being in favor of discrimination. This is not a baseless fear. Pro-"gay" activists in both the media and the government greet any opposition with widely - publicized accusations of racism and bigotry. ******* Invariably, one duty of the commission is to gather, analyze and report statistics on discrimination in the community. (This is probably where the concept of "hate crimes" originated as a "gay" political strategy). ******* The use of a reporting plan assures the favorable outcomes for homosexuals. First, they gain a measure of legitimacy merely by being listed together with true civil rights minorities (without having to justify their inclusion among those whose status is based on morally neutral criteria such as skin color and ethnicity). Second, the very nature of the reporting process virtually guarantees an increase of discriminatory incidents from one reporting period to the next as people gradually become aware of the system. This appearance of a growing problem bolsters their demands for additional concessions to their agenda. ******* The takeover of a corporation begins with the placement of an activist (usually in-the-closet) homosexual into a hiring position. Other undisclosed "gays" are then hired to fill strategic positions in the company. When the ability to control the process is assured, some of the activists come "out-of-the-closet" and form a "Gay and Lesbian Employees Association." That group then introduces an amendment to the company anti-discrimination policy to include "sexual orientation." ******* Democratically-run organizations (including political parties, labor unions and churches) are targeted based upon their vulnerability to takeover by a unified bloc of voting members. Mass infiltration by activists precedes elections, after which time organizational policy (and bylaws) can be controlled by the new activist leaders, who may or may not disclose that they are "gay." I have heard it said that this was how the Metropolitan Community Church, an entirely homosexual - controlled "religious denomination" started, beginning with the takeover of the original MCC, which was reportedly a genuine but struggling Christian church. The so-called "mainstream" Christian denominations have been particularly targeted, not only because many congregations have seen steeply declining membership in recent decades (i.e. fewer new "members" are needed to gain a voting majority), but because these denominations have vast property holdings and endowment funds which can be used for activist projects. ******* Every takeover is followed by consolidation of "gay" power within the organization, starting with some form of "sensitivity training." Sensitivity training employs proven psychological coercion tactics (i.e. "brainwashing") to indoctrinate members of the organization in pro-"gay" thinking. By the very nature of the manipulative tactics used, few dare to openly dissent. Those who do are duly noted by the control group and if they are considered a real threat, they are marginalized and may in time be forced out. Sensitivity training is usually mandatory for all members of the organization. ******* Once the control group has consolidated power, the organization is plundered for its available resources. These include tangible resources such as money and property, but also intangibles such as advertising and vendor contracts and even community goodwill. Charitable giving, too, is exploited, as gifts and grants are diverted away from previously-favored beneficiaries like the Boy Scouts to "gay"-controlled organizations. While some resources benefit the internal control group (i.e. domestic partnership benefits and employee perks), most are focused strategically outside of the organization to further the "gay" political agenda in the community. ******* All the processes described above are made possible simply by the acceptance of sexual orientation as a theory of human sexuality. ******* In summary, sexual orientation is a term that is used by "gay" activists to deceive both policy makers and the public about the nature of homosexuality. It frames the debate about homosexuality in such a way that the average person is tricked into accepting "gay" presuppositions without challenge. This is even true of those people who continue to oppose the homosexuals' political goals. Once the presuppositions have been accepted, especially when they become "law" in anti-discrimination policies, resistance to rest of the "gay" agenda becomes much more difficult. The only effective strategy is to reject and refute the false assumptions of sexual orientation and re-frame the issues on a truthful foundation. Sexual orientation must be exposed for what it is: a nonsensical theory about sexuality invented by "gay" political strategists to serve their own selfish interests at the expense of the welfare of society as a whole. ******* DIVERSITY ******* Diversity is a code word for the political doctrine of multi-culturalism. By itself it means only "the variety of things," but as used by the homosexual movement "diversity" is a moral statement about the way society ought to be: a harmonious social pluralism in which every culture is honored for its contribution to the whole. Thus feel-good emotionalism is harnessed to obscure deeply flawed reasoning. ******* Multi-culturalism, meaning the equality of cultures in a pluralistic society, is a valid concept if culture is defined by morally neutral criteria. Society should pursue civic equality based upon things like race, ethnic heritage and religion. But cultural practices are not morally neutral. Few of us would agree that the cultures of German nazism, Soviet communism, and Taliban-ruled Afghanistan are the equals of American culture. The "culture" of homosexuality - a way of life rooted in the practice of sodomy - is not equal to the inherited family-based cultures of African - Americans, Asian-Americans or Arab-Americans. ******* The very inclusion of behavioral criteria in the definition of culture invalidates the premise of equality in multi-culturalism. ******* This introduces the companion word to diversity: inclusiveness. Churches and other institutions that have fallen victim to "gay" sophistry openly congratulate themselves for being inclusive. This is the same error in a different form. In both cases there is a failure to define the standard of acceptance by which people are welcomed into the circle of inclusion. With no standard, there can be no objectivity in the process and decisions represent merely the arbitrary will of the person or persons in charge. ******* In summary, the doctrine of multi-culturalism promotes the equality of all diverse cultures in our society under the code-word "diversity." The doctrine's validity depends upon limiting the definition of culture to morally neutral criteria. The inclusion of morally significant sexual behavior in the definition robs multi-culturalism of validity by granting legitimacy to immoral practices. Attempting to fix the problem by excluding some cultures because of their practices (for example cannibalism or slavery) contradicts the premise of equality of cultures. Failure to articulate a standard by which to determine which cultures should be included compounds the problem by vesting arbitrary authority in whomever holds power. ******* The effective response to a champion of "diversity" is to focus on the definition of multiculturalism and to demand to know the standard for inclusion. ******* DISCRIMINATION ******* Discrimination is a word whose political redefinition originated in the civil rights movement. In normal usage, discrimination is synonymous with discernment, but as used in a civil rights context it means irrational bias against a person. "Irrational" is the hidden qualifier in the term that distinguishes appropriate discernment from prejudice. In an enlightened society there can be no rational basis for discrimination on criteria such as race, skin color or ethnicity. However, as with multi-culturalism, the introduction of morally significant criteria changes the analysis of discrimination. Discrimination against harmful conduct is entirely rational, and in many cases necessary. ******* Discrimination is now synonymous with racial prejudice in the public mind. The "gay" movement has exploited this association to legitimize its own claims by adding itself to the list of minorities in anti-discrimination statutes. ******* In summary, discrimination has been useful to "gay" activists because the public is deeply conditioned to associate this term only with prejudice, especially racial prejudice. The solution is to add the prefix "rational" or "irrational" to discrimination whenever one uses the term. At minimum this tactic causes the hearer to consider the significance of the prefix. It also sets the stage for a discussion about the standard for determining what is rational vs. irrational discrimination. ******* HOMOPHOBIA ******* This term is probably the most outrageous invention of the "gay" sophists. In a way, it shouldn't even be considered sophistry, since it lacks any hint of subtlety. In contrast to the cleverness of most other examples listed here, the illogic of homophobia is insultingly blatant. ******* Originally, homophobia was psychiatric jargon invented to describe a person's fear of homosexual inclinations in him or herself. "Gay" activists simply stole the term and redefined it as "hate and/or fear of homosexuals." ******* As a rhetorical weapon, homophobia is unequaled. It serves first to define anyone who opposes the legitimization of homosexuality as a hate-filled bigot. The universal inclusion of all opponents as homophobic is of course not emphasized. Homosexual activists publicly associate this label with violent "gay bashers" and hateful fanatics. When they use the term they want people to think about the killers of Matthew Shepard, but in conventional practice they include every man, woman and child who believes homosexuality is abnormal or wrong. The way to expose this fact is to require the advocates of the "gay" position to state the difference between homophobia and non-homophobic opposition to homosexuality. They will reveal that they accept no opposition to their agenda as legitimate. ******* Secondly, the term defines opposition to homosexuality as a mental illness. "Gay" activists take special delight in this since it was scant decades ago that homosexuality was listed as a mental disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatry (removed by the political maneuvering of homosexual activists in a 1973 vote of the members of the American Psychiatric Association) ******* Thirdly, the term serves as the semantic equivalent of "racist," helping the "gay" movement to further indoctrinate the public with the notion that opposition to homosexuality is equivalent to prejudice against racial minorities. ******* Collectively, these aspects of homophobia serve to intimidate opponents into silence. When any opposition to homosexuality draws the accusation that one is a mentally-ill bigot equivalent to a racist, few people will dare to openly oppose it. Those who do will tend to be defensive, offering the disclaimer that they are not hateful (implicitly validating hatefulness as the general rule). ******* The use of the term is in itself religious discrimination because it implicitly disparages and declares illegitimate the religious teachings of several major world religions. Adoption of the term by government constitutes a prima facie violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits the endorsement or inhibition of religion. ******* In summary, homophobia is a nonsense word invented by "gay" sophists as a rhetorical weapon against its opponents. It lumps together all opponents as mentally-ill "gay bashers" and in doing so declares mainstream religious doctrines to be harmful and illegitimate. The solution is to reject the term homophobia itself as harmful and illegitimate. Its illegitimacy can be exposed by making pro-"gay" advocates define the term and the distinction between homophobia and non- homophobic opposition to homosexuality. ******* TOLERANCE ******* Tolerance means putting up with someone or something you don't like in order to serve the greater good of preserving civility. Tolerance is therefore an essential virtue in a diverse society. In the "gay" lexicon, however, tolerance means unconditional acceptance of homosexuality. ******* Anyone who disapproves of homosexual conduct is labeled intolerant, even those who treat self- defined "gays" with the utmost courtesy and respect. ******* Abuse of language is a dangerous thing. The misuse of the term tolerance is a good example. For every person that gives in to political correctness to avoid being considered intolerant, there is another whose strong disapproval of homosexuality makes him or her willing to be considered intolerant. The latter may even begin to see intolerance as a virtue, since it appears necessary to be intolerant to stop the legitimization of sexual perversion. This fosters a climate in which intolerance against legitimate minorities can be more easily justified. As the "gays" have proved, many people just don't think clearly enough to understand why intolerance of race and intolerance of perversion are different. This confusion serves the racists as easily as it serves the "gays." ******* To reaffirm the true meaning of tolerance in the face of "gay" sophistry, point out that tolerance is relative. Some things deserve absolute tolerance and some things deserve zero tolerance but most fall somewhere in between. For example, our society should have high tolerance for freedom of speech (i.e. the right to say "I'm gay") but low tolerance for harmful behavior (i.e. sodomy). The tolerance a thing deserves is relative to the degree of benefit or harm that it will produce. ******* CONCLUSION ******* The heart of "gay" sophistry is the redefinition of homosexuality as a state-of-being and not a form of sexual behavior. This allows the "gay" movement to define homosexuals as a civil rights minority comparable to African-Americans and other groups whose minority status is based on truly immutable characteristics. In turn, this allows the "gay" movement to inherit and exploit all of the legal, political and social gains of the civil rights movement for its own ends. ******* Sexual orientation theory is the vehicle for "selling" the idea of homosexuality as normal and immutable. It creates a context in which sexuality can be divorced from physiology. Only by making the design and function of the human body irrelevant can "gay" strategists avoid otherwise self-evident truths about homosexuality. ******* All of the terms examined in this article, as applied to homosexuals, depend for their validity upon the theory of sexual orientation, which in turn depends upon the redefinition of homosexuality. ******* In the end, this battle is won by affirming the obvious. The truth about homosexuality is self-evident. Self-evident truths are not taught, they are revealed. Helping people overcome "gay" sophistry does not require teaching them new facts and figures or raising their level of intellectual sophistication. On the contrary, it requires a clearing away of the misinformation that obscures the simple reality of things. ******* Indeed, if you find yourself dependent on studies and statistics to persuade someone of the wrongness of homosexuality and that it should not be legitimized in society, you have already lost the debate. Consider: a person who remains un-persuaded by a reminder of the obvious truth has revealed himself to be an intellectual reprobate for whom facts are ultimately meaningless. Yet if you, by retreating to secondary evidence, grant that obvious truth is insufficient to prove your case, you voluntarily invite a debate context which favors those who are willing to cheat and lie to win. ******* Defeating "gay" arguments, therefore, depends upon asserting the plain truth about homosexuality from the start. If you fail to challenge the presuppositions of the "gay" position, you will forever be at a disadvantage in opposing the many goals of the "gay" agenda. Stand firmly on the truth that homosexuality is an objectively disordered condition deserving of social disapproval because it spreads disease and dysfunction. You will be aggressively attacked for this position, because your opponents know that it is the only position from which you can successfully defeat all of their arguments. You will take less heat for seeking some point of compromise, but you will trade away most of your moral and persuasive authority in the process. ******* If you decline to stand firm on your pro-family presuppositions, the insights provided in this booklet will not be of much value to you. But if you do, they will serve as potent weapons against every form of "gay" sophistry and your courageous stand for truth will be vindicated. ******* APPENDIX A ******* Ten Rules for Debating "Gay" Arguments (As applied in a hypothetical conversation). ******* First. Never leave unchallenged any argument in which sexual orientation theory, homosexual immutability or the equivalency of heterosexuality and homosexuality is assumed (which is just about any discussion you will ever have on this issue). ******* "Gay" Advocate: "Can't you see that denying gays the right to marry is discrimination. Why shouldn't they have the same basic rights as heterosexuals?" ******* You: "I'm a little confused by your argument. Are you saying that you think homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexuality?" ******* Second. Always make the advocates of the "gay" position define the critical terms. ******* "Gay" Advocate: "Of course they are equivalent. One person is no better than another just because of whom they happen to love." ******* You: "I still don't get it. How do you define homosexuality and heterosexuality? It's more than love isn't it?" ******* Third. Stay on track. Sophists will always change the subject to avoid having to admit error. The trick is to stay focused until the term in question is defined. Don't allow yourself to be baited into switching topics. Promise to address new topics after your main question has been answered. (Also, watch out for the "tag team" tactic in which a third party will interrupt your discussion to help your opponent change the subject. Make these parties address your question.) ******* "Gay" Advocate: "Homosexuality is just your sexual orientation. It's the way you're born. Some people are straight. Some are gay. You don't think gay people should be discriminated against just because they have a different orientation, do you?" ******* You: "I'd like to answer that question after we talk about what sexual orientation is, but I'm still not clear on what you mean by homosexuality. How do you know that it's just the way someone is born? ******* Fourth. Don't allow your opponent to place the burden of proof upon you to disprove one of his or her assumptions. The burden of proof is on him or her. ******* "Gay" Advocate. "Everybody knows that. There are lots of studies. Besides, who would choose to be gay when there is so much hatred and homophobia against them?" ******* You: "Lots of people make choices that other people hate. That doesn't prove anything. And all the studies that I have seen have been inconclusive. Can you cite me any study that absolutely proves that gays are born that way?" ******* Fifth. Always steer the discussion to sexual conduct. ******* "Gay" Advocate: "They're out there. But Gay people don't have to prove themselves to deserve basic rights. You don't have to prove your heterosexuality to get your rights do you?" ******* You: "Now we're back where we started on this question of whether homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexuality. You still haven't defined what homosexuality is or what heterosexuality is. Isn't it a question of behavior?" ******* Sixth. Keep the discussion on what can be objectively observed and measured and away from the subjective. Don't be diverted into a discussion of abstractions. ******* "Gay" Advocate: "No, its not about behavior, its about orientation. I already said that. You can be gay and celibate. Being gay is when the person you fall in love with is the same sex as you. Being straight is when you fall in love with someone of the opposite sex. That's it." ******* You: "So where does sex come in. If orientation has nothing to do with sexual behavior, what stops pedophiles from claiming equality with gays and straights? If they never get physical, what does it matter if they fall in love with a child?" ******* Seventh. Use affirmative statements to reclaim the initiative in the discussion. ******* "Gay" Advocate: "Yeah, but pedophilia is illegal." ******* You: "Right. The behavior is illegal, but not the thoughts and feelings. That's why its important to be very clear on the definition of homosexuality and heterosexuality before we decide if they're equal. If we're only talking about thoughts and feelings, then perhaps they are equal, but then so are all the other orientations you can think of. If we compare them by the types of behavior they involve, that's a different story. ******* Pedophile behavior is illegal because it harms children. Homosexual behavior is still illegal in many states because it spreads disease and dysfunction." ******* Eighth. Make the opponent face the flaws in his or her logic. ******* "Gay" Advocate: "Well heterosexuals engage in the same risky behaviors as homosexuals." ******* You: "So would you agree that disapproval of all harmful sexual conduct is reasonable?" ******* Nine. Follow the flaw to its illogical conclusion. ******* "Gay" Advocate: "No, I don't think its anyone's business what two people do in the privacy of their own bedroom." ******* You: "Allow me to summarize what you're saying. Homosexuals and heterosexuals are only different as to the choice of their partner, one is same-sex, the other opposite sex, but that they are equal in that both engage in the same types of sexual conduct. You also believe that society has no right to regulate sexual conduct even if it threatens the public health, but you would make an exception for pedophiles. Is that about right?" ******* Ten. Measure your success by the degree to which you have illuminated the truth for those listening in to your discussion, not by the willingness of your opponent to change his or her mind. ******* "Gay" Advocate: "I'm not going to let you trap me into some homophobic box. Your problem is that you're a bigot." ******* You: "Your problem is that you don't understand that homosexuality is very different than heterosexuality. Heterosexuality describes the way all human beings are designed to function as compatible opposite-sex partners. Homosexuality could only be equivalent if it was rooted in a comparable physiological design. Instead, even when engaging in homosexual acts, a person remains inherently and immutably heterosexual by nature. Sexual orientation is just a theoretical model that lets you pretend that sexuality is a subjective state-of-mind and not an objective physical reality. ******* "That's why marriage is closed to homosexuals. It is an institution designed to protect and strengthen the natural family, which is itself rooted in the procreative heterosexual design we all share." ******* Analysis. The preceding hypothetical conversation is actually a composite of many real discussions between the author and various advocates of the "gay" position. It accurately and honestly portrays the typical comments and attitudes of "gay" defenders. What may be gleaned from this exchange is that one can never truly come to a common understanding with a "gay" sophist, since he or she cares only about winning and not about the truth. Yet there are many people who merely parrot "gay" rhetoric and who are really victims of sophistry, not sophists themselves. These people are persuadable. ******* The only value in arguing with a true sophist is to hone your debate skills. Usually, however, you will have an audience. In that case, take the opportunity to educate your audience and don't be discouraged that your opponent refuses to see reason. ******* When all is said and done, the only real solution to the problems created by "gay" sophistry is to restore a truthful standard in every institution where the sophists now hold sway. That means that we who have learned how to defeat "gay" sophistry must actively compete for influence in those institutions and to persuade others who share our love for the truth to do the same. ******* � Scott Lively - All Rights Reserved -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Lively is uniquely qualified to speak in the defense of the natural family and against homosexuality. A graduate (magna cum laude) of Trinity Law School in Santa Ana, California, Scott Lively holds the degree of Juris Doctor, with special emphasis in Human Rights, as well as a certificate in Human Rights from the International Institute of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France. Now a licensed attorney, Scott is Founder and President of Abiding Truth Ministries and Director of ATM's Pro-Family Law Center. The Pro-Family Law Center is the nation's only legal organization devoted exclusively to opposing the homosexual political agenda. In the summer of 2001, Scott became State Director of the American Family Association of California. An entertaining and highly informative speaker, Scott has been a featured guest on more than 600 radio and television programs including appearances on the Fox News' Hannity and Colmes, the Today Show, CNBC's The Real Story, Family News in Focus, and the American Family Association Radio Network. He has been a featured speaker for numerous conferences and church and community groups in the U.S., Europe and Africa. Scott is the author of numerous books and articles on issues related to the protection of the natural family, including the recently published monograph Why and How to Defeat the "Gay" Movement. His most recent full-length book, Seven Steps to Recruit-Proof Your Child is a favorite of parents' rights groups across the nation, and is used by Focus on the Family in its seminars on this issue. ******* Scott's additional works include The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party, co-authored with Jewish researcher Kevin E. Abrams, which documents the homosexual roots of Nazism and the central role of homosexuals in the Holocaust. Now in its fourth edition and published in four languages, the official release of The Pink Swastika was timed to coincide with Scott's speech to the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) at its annual convention in San Francisco, July 29, 1995. In 1997 Scott published The Poisoned Stream: "Gay" Influence in Human History, Volume One, Germany 1890 - 1945. The Poisoned Stream, Volume One is both a sequel to The Pink Swastika and the first in an anticipated multi-volume series. An enthusiastic born-again Christian, Scott testifies in his presentation of having been an alchoholic and drug addict from the age of 12 until his miraculous deliverance during prayer at age 28, and of his subsequent transformation form transient to accomplished Christian leader. Scott is 44 years old and is married to his wife Anne. Scott and Anne have two sons, Noah, 18, and Samuel, 16, whom they school at home. They live in Citrus Heights, California. ******* Contact Scott Lively via his website at www.abidingtruth.com where you will also find many helpful resources ******************************************************************************************************************** ******* item 11 PROMOTING HOMOSEXUALITY IN SCHOOLS IS WRONG by Susan Martinuk in the National Post, December 31, 2004 ******* From: "Robert Jason" ******* Abraham Lincoln once claimed, "The philosophy of the schoolroom in one generation will be the philosophy of governance in the next." ******* This may explain why two well-known gay activists are seeking profound changes to B.C.'s public school curriculum. They claim the curriculum is discriminatory toward gays, lesbians and the transgendered, and they will be making that argument to a B.C. Human Rights Tribunal this July. ******* This would be a reasonable plan of action if discrimination were apparent -- or even present. But, in this case, the activists admit there is no evidence of discrimination or derogatory comments in the curriculum. Instead, their claim is based on the assumption that systemic discrimination exists because of the "omission and suppression of queer issues" in the curriculum. That is, there is supposedly discrimination because public schools do not promote homosexuality, implicitly conveying the message that heterosexuality is the "preferred" culture. ******* When an assumption of discrimination is deemed the equivalent of discrimination, our society is heading down a dangerous path. But gay activists have employed this assumption before, with some success. The now infamous Surrey School Board decision not to promote books dealing with homosexuality as resources for Kindergarten and Grade 1 students was based on a thought-out conclusion, namely, that homosexuality is not an age-appropriate topic for children who still need naps and playtime. But activists (including the activist leading this present challenge) assumed the decision was based on discrimination, and that claim travelled through the courts until the Supreme Court simply stated that the board might want to reconsider its decision. ******* Similarly, there was an assumption that Trinity Western University, a Christian college in B.C., would somehow produce homophobic teachers who were unfit to teach in the province's schools. There was no evidence to prove the claim, yet the assumption itself led to a legal claim that went to the Supreme Court -- which then ruled there was no such evidence. ******* Just as the present accusation is based on assumptions, so too is the proposed solution -- that B.C.'s curriculum be changed to promote "queer history and historical figures ... positive queer role models ... same-sex marriage and adoption." ******* Assumption one is that it is reasonable for public schools to teach any subject with an emphasis on the sexual practices of individuals. It is the ultimate in revisionist history to define its players by their sexuality and to assume that their sexual proclivities played a major role in determining their acts and contributions to history. (Could it be that former prime minister Brian Mulroney's heterosexual orientation led him to impose the GST?) ******* Apparently it is no longer enough to teach students that all human beings are created equal and are all deserving of the same rights, privileges and respect, and that equality isn't dependent on what people believe or their sexual acts. Teaching the rigid idea that identity is reduced to sexuality will do nothing to build badly-needed bridges of acceptance among those who are different. ****** The second assumption is that same-sex marriage, same-sex families and homosexual acts contribute to the betterment of society for the majority. This remains unproven. ******* Same-sex marriage may be legal (in some places), but it's still an experiment in social engineering and we have yet to fully consider or encounter its many implications. It is not supported by 50%-60% of the population -- and it's likely that many who do support it have some concerns. Same-sex marriage remains highly controversial and there is no historical, legal or social data to suggest that it will enhance the public good. ******* For example, there is no evidence to suggest that children will thrive in homes where there is either no biological dad or biological mom -- and where the basic right and need for either is openly denied. As society has discovered from liberal divorce laws, adoptions and the creation of children with donor sperm, children eventually reach a stage where biological connections matter and are actively sought out. ******* Based on this uncertainty, why would we specifically impose the topics of homosexuality and same-sex marriage on young children -- or allow them to be taught (without debate) as positive ideals for society? ******* A third assumption is that teaching tolerance toward homosexuals must be linked to the outright promotion of homosexuality and homosexual unions. Teaching children tolerance (accepting something you don't like for the good of society) is very different from teaching them they must actively support and promote homosexual practices. The claimant himself admits that he is not advocating neutral curriculum changes; he is deliberately calling for the promotion of homosexuals and their lifestyle. ******* Finally, there is the erroneous assumption that any of the above matters will even be considered when the case goes before B.C.'s Human Rights Tribunal. A curriculum dealing with "homophobia and heterosexism" is already available on the Web sites of the B.C. Teachers Federation and the Gay and Lesbian Educators of B.C. As if to foreshadow the current situation, a note prefacing the curriculum acknowledges the "funding and support" of the B.C. Human Rights Commission. ******* Despite all these assumptions, it's likely safe to expect that the tribunal will rule in favour of a new, pro-gay curriculum. ******* http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/comment/story.html?id=db130c00-3951-4c47-8ef2-b6c53f131d68 ******************************************************************************************************************** ******* item 12 THE CORPORATE CURTAIN A Culture & Family Institute Special Report by Bob Knight http://www.cwfa.org/printerfriendly.asp?id=9808&department=cfi&categoryid=resources ******* From: "Robert A. Jason" ******* Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 ******* The Corporate Curtain - How companies are using "diversity" policies to silence Christians, promote homosexuality ******* America's corporations are under increasing pressure not only to accommodate homosexuality but to celebrate it and to punish employees who object. ******* Over the past two decades, hundreds of companies have adopted varying degrees of homosexual activism in their official policies. As a result, a growing number of Christians have been disciplined or fired for resisting the trend. ******* Elizabeth Birch, former president of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the largest homosexual pressure group, said in 2004 that she was happily surprised that corporations have become "the driving engine" of "gay" activism.1 ******* The HRC Web site's National Corporate Sponsors page has this introduction: ******* The support from corporate America to the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community is directly tied to HRC's overall success.2 Please show your loyalty and support by directing your friends/family to our National Corporate Sponsors, listed below.3 ******* The list includes: Volvo, IBM, Citigroup, Chase Home Finance, Prudential Financial, Mitchell Gold and Bob Williams Furniture, Olivia travel, Hotels.com, American Airlines, Washington Mutual, Showtime, Advocate and Out magazines, Canada Tourism Commission, Nike, Deloitte tax consultants, Replacements, Ltd. ("one of the largest private gay-owned companies in America") and Shell Oil.4 ******* Other companies that consistently promote the homosexual agenda, including "gay"-themed ads and/or support for "gay" political-pressure groups, include Kodak, Subaru, Saab, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, the Hartford Insurance Company, Starbucks, Avis, Ben & Jerry's, virtually every motion picture company, including the Walt Disney Company and Paramount, beer companies Budweiser, Miller, Coors and Molson, and many liquor companies such as Absolut Vodka and Seagram's. ******* Since 2002, HRC has published a Corporate Equity Index, rating companies on their pro-homosexual polices.5 In 2005, with 750 companies surveyed, the number of companies scoring a perfect 100 rose from 56 in 2004 to 101 in 2005, an 80-percent gain. It's important to keep in mind that, although many of these companies are in the Fortune 500, America has more than 5 million companies, most of which do not have pro-homosexual policies. ******* A few years ago, Cracker Barrel, the Tennessee-based family restaurant chain, surprised observers by adding "sexual orientation" to its employee code as it expanded into the liberal Northeast. But it still earns low marks on the Equity Index, scoring only 29. ******* A few surprise additions to the 100-rating club are General Mills cereals, Sears, PepsiCo, Walgreen's, Toyota and Kraft Foods. In fact, Kraft has gone as far as donating $25,000 to the "Gay Games," an Olympic-like athletics competition slated for July 2006 in Chicago.6 ******* According to the HRC report, "[T]he most significant policy gain in 2005 was the addition of 'gender identity or _expression' in corporate non-discrimination policies."7 This means companies are putting cross-dressing, transgenderism and transsexualism on the same level as race and ethnicity. HRC is going a step further, however, and has announced that companies can earn points in 2006 by paying for sex-change-related operations and hormone injections.8 ******* A Revolution Within ******* The corporate embrace of homosexual activism has come with breathtaking speed. ******* Alan Sears and Craig Osten, authors of The Homosexual Agenda, write: Why has corporate America been such an easy target for homosexual activists to push their agenda? One of the main reasons is that the homosexual community has a much higher level of disposable income than most families, and therefore in order to tap that market, many corporations have gone overboard in their willingness to bow to the demands of radical homosexual activists. In addition, homosexual activists, with the aid of the media, have become so adept at demonizing any corporation that does not give in to their agenda that most companies quietly cower at their feet rather than face the public relations wrath of the activists." 9 ******* Homosexual activists who target companies follow a series of steps, increasing their demands. They press for: ******* 1. Official recognition of a homosexual employees group. ******* 2. Adding "sexual orientation" to the company's nondiscrimination code. ******* 3. Including "sexual orientation" in diversity workshops and materials. ******* 4. Inviting homosexual speakers who liken "sexual orientation" to race and ethnicity, and disparage traditional morality as a form of bigotry. ******* 5. Creating health and other traditional spousal benefits for domestic partners. ******* 6. Displaying "gay"-friendly indicators, such as upside-down pink triangles in cubicles and offices that indicate a "safe" space for homosexuals. ******* 7. Recognizing homosexual partners in a fashion identical to married partners, including equal access at company picnics and fitness centers. ******* 8. Creation of "gay pride" days and weeks, with company support. ******* 9. Company floats with corporate logos in "gay pride" parades. ******* 10. Company funding of outside homosexual activist groups, such as the Human Rights Campaign, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. ******* 11. Ending the practice in the office of referring to one's spouse as husband or wife in favor of more "inclusive" terms such as partner or significant other. ******* 12. Having company employees press lawmakers for "gay rights" laws, such as the proposed federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act or federal "hate crime" laws. ******* 13. Punishing employees who object to open displays of homosexuality, such as two women kissing in front of other employees, or the company's support for homosexual activism. ******* Paying the Price for Not Bowing Down to the Idol of 'Diversity' ******* Here are a few examples of how corporate homosexual activism affects employees: ******* · Fired for Writing on His Own Time -- In Northbrook, Illinois, J. Matt Barber, a manager in Allstate's Corporate Security Division, wrote an article10 on December 17, 2004, for a conservative Web site that expressed his Christian views on homosexuality. Following a "customer" complaint by the homosexual pressure group Human Rights Campaign, Barber was called to meet with two human resources officials, who, as he describes it, "slapped down" a printed copy of the column and asked if he had written it. Barber confirmed that he had written the piece on his own time and in his own home. "Here at Allstate we have a very diverse community," he said he was told.11 The human resources assistant vice president told Barber that his column "did not reflect Allstate's view." Clearly Allstate's "diversity" does not tolerate the historic Christian faith perspective and Barber was suspended without pay and immediately escorted off company grounds. ******* Three days later, Barber, who had worked for Allstate for five years, was fired "for writing the article." Now, with help from the Christian Law Association and David Gibbs III, who represented Terri Schiavo's family in the final weeks of her life, Barber is challenging Allstate in federal court. One of the comments in his article that cost him his job was: "Marriage between one man and one woman, and the nuclear family, have forever been cornerstones of civilized society. Regrettably, there are, at present, many with the militant homosexual lobby who wish to take a sledge hammer to those cornerstones." ******* Two weeks before Barber was fired, his wife Sarah delivered their third child following a stressful, high-risk pregnancy. Allstate was notified that Sarah was facing a difficult recovery from her C-section surgery, but the company denied Barber's request to extend the insurance, cutting it immediately. The company also refused to provide him in writing the reason for his termination, Barber said.12 "This is just illustrative of what's happening around the country in corporate America," Barber said. "Allstate has 'diversity' training that is nothing short of homosexual indoctrination. They make it clear that if you don't accept it as normal, you're a homophobic bigot. Talk about creating a hostile work environment."13 ******* · Fired for Posting Bible Verses -- At Hewlett-Packard's Boise, Idaho, location, Richard Peterson had been an employee for almost 21 years when the company began a workplace-diversity campaign with "diversity posters." In response to the homosexual posters placed near his cubicle, Peterson posted Bible verses at his desk dealing with homosexuality. His supervisor removed the verses and ordered him to stop the postings. When Peterson continued to post Scriptures, he was fired for "insubordination." The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed his case and wrote: "An employer need not accommodate an employee's religious beliefs if doing so would result in discrimination against his co-workers or deprive them of contractual or other statutory rights." In other words, the court affirmed the ability of employers to implement "diversity programs" that promote sexual immorality while prohibiting employees from objecting.14 ******* · "Pagan Pride" Yes; Pro-Marriage signs No -- Enoch Lawrence, an employee of the California Department of Social Services, posted Christian signs and verses at his cubicle, including a bumper sticker that said, "Marriage: One Man and One Woman." His supervisor ordered him to remove the materials because they violated a two-year-old department policy "prohibiting sexual harassment and unprofessional conduct." He was told that if he put the materials up in public view, he would be fired for "willful disobedience and insubordination." In the meantime, a "Pagan Pride" festival flier remained posted in the office. Lawrence filed a lawsuit, which is still pending, to reinstate his right to decorate his cubicle and to overturn the department's policy on "workplace _expression."15 ******* · Censored: Photos of "Traditional Families" -- At Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico, Christian employees were told that they could not use the company bulletin board and were forced to remove posters and screen-savers that contained any religious content. Even family pictures were forbidden after homosexuals complained that they found it "offensive" to see photos of traditional families.16 ******* · "Safe Space" for Comment? Not If You're a Christian -- Betty Sabatino, a personal trust administrator for Texas Commerce Bank in San Antonio, attended a Management Orientation Seminar in which she and others were led through the Texas Commerce Policy Manual. Seminar leaders told participants that the term "sexual orientation" would be added to the nondiscrimination policy. Employees were encouraged to ask questions and were told that they were in a "safe zone," meaning that they could ask anything without consequence. Sabatino asked why the company would choose to give special consideration to people based on their sexual behavior. Afterwards, her boss took her aside and admonished her. The bank's Human Resources Department then contacted her for "counseling." Less than a month later, she was fired. The official reason given for her termination? "Loss of confidence with employee."17 ******* · "Observe" Gay Pride or Else -- The American Red Cross Blood Services in San Diego, California, fired an employee, Michael Hartman, for expressing his disagreement with homosexuality. In the latter part of May 2005, the Red Cross sent a mass e-mail to employees reminding everyone that June was Gay and Lesbian Pride Month and employees were encouraged to "observe" the celebration. The e-mail concerned Hartman, a Christian, and he expressed his sentiments to several head administrators. He was immediately reprimanded and told that his e-mail was "not appropriate." Hartman's "inappropriate" e-mail contained the following statements: "I would like to start by stating that I am a Christian not willing to compromise my beliefs to promote the agenda of the homosexual community." He added Bible verses including Galatians 6:718 and Joshua 24:15.19 ******* · After Hartman was reprimanded, Gay and Lesbian Pride posters were placed all over the office. He put together another e-mail, this time expressing his concern to the Southern California region of the Red Cross. In response, he was put on administrative leave from work and called into another meeting with administrators. After declining to meet with the administrators without a form of representation, he received a termination notice two days later. Hartman consulted the Pacific Justice Institute and plans to talk to Christian legal groups like the Alliance Defense Fund, but his legal options may be limited since the Red Cross is a privately funded organization with a "diversity code" that names "sexual orientation" as "a community to be served." According to Hartman, "If the public knew what was going on within the Red Cross, I have no doubt their unselfish support would screech to a halt."20 ******* Conclusion ******* Many of the largest corporations in America have bought into the homosexual agenda and are helping to fashion a future in which Christian, orthodox Jewish and other employees who hold traditional beliefs will face discipline, loss of promotions and even get fired for their beliefs. It's also a future in which Christian-owned companies will lose contracts and face discrimination lawsuits if they act to uphold Christian morality. In California, under a state law, companies that do business with the state government must subsidize homosexual relationships, regardless of the beliefs of the company owners. ******* In the name of "diversity," America is becoming a place in which Christians will find themselves on the wrong side of corporate policies if they cling to their belief that marriage requires one man and one woman, and that homosexuality is outside God's plan for healthy living. ******* Corporate "gay" activism is a Trojan horse for the larger social agenda of destroying America's Judeo-Christian-based foundation and replacing it with an anything-goes, hedonistic society hostile to Biblical morality. ******* Americans should decline to support companies that are helping to create this dangerous system, and should work to roll back these ill-advised policies. ******* Robert Knight is director of the Culture & Family Institute, an affiliate of Concerned Women for America (CWA). Lindsey Douthit, a Baylor University graduate and 2005 CWA intern, assisted with this report. ******* 12/29/2005 ******* End Notes ******* 1. Elizabeth Birch, remarks during a debate with Robert Knight at the University of North Carolina, Greensboro, April 7, 2005. ******* 2. http://www.hrc.org/Content/NavigationMenu/HRC/Get_Involved/HRC_Sponsors/Corporate_Sponsors/ national_Corporate_Sponsors.htm. ******* 3. Ibid. ******* 4. Ibid. ******* 5. http://hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=About_HRC&Template=/ContentManagement/ ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=28841. ******* 6. Peter LaBarbera, "Crain's Chicago Business on Kraft, Harris Bank Sponsoring 'Gay Games,'" Illinois Family Institute, May 22, 2005, at http://www.illinoisfamily.org/informed/contentview.asp?c=25688. ******* 7. Ibid., p. 6. ******* 8. Ibid., p. 13. ******* 9. Alan Sears and Craig Osten, The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today, (Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman & Holman, 2003), pp. 156-157. ******* 10. J. Matt Barber, "Intolerance Will Not Be Tolerated: The Gay Agenda vs. Family Values," The Conservative Voice Web site at http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?storyid=1484. ******* 11. "All Fired-Up Over Essay: Lawsuit Filed Against Allstate After Words Cost Employee His Job," Chicago Tribune, Redeye Edition on Nexis-Lexis, p. 6. ******* 12. Ron Strom, "Allstate Terminates Manager Over Homosexuality Column," WorldNetDaily, June 24, 2005, at http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44961, and telephone interview with J. Matt Barber by Robert Knight on November 16, 2005. ******* 13. Telephone interview with J. Matt Barber, ibid. ******* 14. "Anti-Gay Postings at Work Not Protected," Workforce Management, Crain Communications Inc., March 1, 2004. ******* 15. "Worker Sues California Department Over Cubicle Censorship," The Associated Press State and Local Wire, August 23, 2004. ******* 16. Janet Folger, The Criminalization of Christianity, (Sisters, Oregon: Multnomah Publishers, 2005), p. 10. ******* 17. Robert Knight and Ken Ervin, The Other Side of Tolerance: Victims of Homosexual Activism, Family Research Council, BL020, 1996, p. 8. ******* 18. "Do not be deceived. God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap." (NKJV) ******* 19. "And if it seems evil to you to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." (NKJV) ******* 20. Phone Interview with Michael Hartman by CWA intern Lindsey Douthit, July 29, 2005. ******* Concerned Women for America, 1015 Fifteenth St. N.W., Suite 1100, Washington, D.C. 20005, Phone: (202) 488-7000, Fax: (202) 488-0806, E-mail: [email protected] ******************************************************************************************************** ******* item 13 PROMOTION OF WITCHCRAFT ******* See the following web site for an excellent article on withchcraft and how it is seducing children and how it is infiltrating the Catholic and other churches. For a lot of parents this article could be a real eye opener. ******* http://www.missionamerica.com/witchcraft.php?articlenum=10 ******************************************************************************************************** Read the article "Queering the Schools" at http://www.city-journal.org/html/13_2_queering_the_schools.html

Links to other sites on the Web

(A4a1a) indoctrination of elementary school students (this site)
(A4a1b) indoctrination of secondary school students (this site)
(A4a1c) indoctrination of post secondary school students (this site)
(A4a1d) political indoctrination
(A4a1e) sexual indoctrination
(A4a1f) (A) life and death activities home page (this web site)

The following warning is a prophetic message given to me, Frank Wagner, in November of 1974. ******* LISTEN TO THE CRY OF THE ABORTED CHILDREN. THEIR CRY IS NO. THEIR CRY IS A CRY OF TERROR. HEED THEIR CRY. ******* This prophecy is now being fulfilled. ******* For details about the source, meaning and fulfillment of this prophetic message go to ******* http://ca.geocities.com/fwagner4/index.html ******* email me at *** [email protected] ***